Sitting of 15 February 1994

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

    Training
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of spending by industry on training in each of the last five years.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): We estimate that British employers spend about £20,000 million a year on training. The last recorded figure in 1987 was £18,000 million.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the major contributing factors to our rapid recovery from recession in advance of all the other European Community countries is that British industry has continued to maintain its investment in training?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the many satisfactory features of the CBI survey last week was that 84 per cent. of firms in the United Kingdom intend to increase or maintain their spending on training. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—those firms will benefit most from that investment in training as we continue through recovery into growth in the longer term.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are no large apprenticeship schools in aerospace, steel and textiles, although, in his ministerial capacity, he may remember the existence of such schools. What action is he taking specifically to ensure the provision of apprenticeship schools? We have too many press releases from the right hon. Gentleman and not enough action.
    Mr. Hunt: All that I will say is that the hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer used his Budget statement on 30 November 1992 to announce that we shall be introducing a modern apprenticeship scheme, which will be available for school leavers next year. In the Department of Employment budget, the Chancellor has allocated more than £1 billion for training credits and the new modern apprenticeship scheme. I hope that industry will respond by coming forward, especially this year, with trail-blazing apprenticeship schemes that will ensure that we have the most relevant structures in place for those modern apprenticeships next year.
    Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the training and enterprise councils in helping women who want to get back to work by providing child
    790
    care facilities? Can he comment on the Threshold scheme in Northampton, which he visited last week, which is an example of partnership between the public sector, the private sector and training and enterprise councils to promote this sort of work?
    Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I pay tribute to more than 1,200 top business and community leaders who serve on 82 training and enterprise councils and who do a tremendous amount of work on equal opportunities. My hon. Friend is right to earmark them. The child care initiative, launched by my predecessor and involving expenditure of more than £40 million over the period, gives training and enterprise councils opportunity to come forward with some imaginative and innovative schemes. The scheme that I saw in Northampton is extremely impressive and is founded, as my hon. Friend said, on positive partnership.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What will shift the Secretary of State from his mood of complacency? Between 1990 and 1992, more than 1 million skilled workers were put out of work, nearly 500,000 semi-skilled workers lost their jobs, the number of people trained in industry dropped by 300,000 and the Secretary of State tells us that that is a success. This is not the Opposition talking the country down—it is the Government doing the country down.
    Mr. Hunt: I am sorry that the Opposition are continuing to talk the country down. We have an impressive record on competitiveness. In manufacturing, where there has been a decline in employment since the 1960s, 4 million workers now produce more than 7 million produced 15 years ago. That is a tribute to the British work force. The hon. Gentleman must not forget that we have 1.4 million more people in work in the United Kingdom than we had 10 years ago. Let him start talking up our achievements, rather than pointing to an agenda to which the Labour party has already signed up. That agenda would destroy millions of jobs through statutory works councils, a statutory minimum wage and a statutory compulsory working week. That is a recipe for disaster.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the levels of employment in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) France.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The UK has 69 per cent. of the working age population in work and rising; Germany has 65 per cent. and falling; and France 60 per cent. and now also falling.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply and for the encouraging figures that he has given to the House. They clearly underline the fact that the UK economy is in much better shape when compared with the economies of our principal European competitors.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why we have come out of recession so well is the fact that we do not have a social contract? Does he agree that the absence of a social contract certainly has not damaged rates of take-home pay?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The absence of the social chapter in Britain accounts, in part,

    791
    for the higher levels of employment and they have also been helped by the reforms that we carried out in the 1980s. The figures speak for themselves, as do the people who speak for industry. For example, Black and Decker announced its intention to bring its operations fully into Britain out of Germany. A company spokesman said:
    "Anyone familiar with the situation in Germany will grasp that, because of the costs, it has become very difficult to do business there."
    If Opposition Members had their way, it would be very difficult to do business here.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister answer a question about something that concerns business men in the county of Cumbria? The tax increases in this year's Budget will be introduced on 1 April. Does the Minister believe that the increases have implications for the United Kingdom economy? Will the increases lead to further unemployment and will they increase unemployment in my part of the UK?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's proposals to reduce the burden of national insurance contributions will have a beneficial effect on employment and on businesses. The hon. Gentleman clearly says what he thinks, but if Opposition Members are arguing that higher public expenditure and higher taxation will have an impact on employment, they are right. That is why the Government resist the proposals that come from Opposition Members to add to public expenditure every day of the week.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that jobs are built in an economy through having successful businesses, such as Chartham Papermill, where one of our hon. Friends will be opening a new plant shortly? That firm has won national and regional awards for quality, training and exports during the past three years. Is not that the way to build jobs, and not through bureaucratic regulations?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Regulation and bureaucracy are the enemies of employment and that is why the Prime Minister has ensured that every Government Department is looking to reduce the burden of regulations and bureaucracy. At the forthcoming European elections, the Government will be arguing for less bureaucracy and regulation and not more, which destroys jobs.

    US-UK Summit
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what matters he intends to raise at the summit with the United States Government which might assist employment prospects in Britain.
    Mr. David Hunt: This is a job summit and I intend to talk about jobs.
    Mr. Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for being brief, although he passed on no information of any worth. There are 543,000 fewer people in employment in Britain than there were a year ago and 451,000 fewer people in employment than in 1979. Surely it is time to talk to the United States about how it succeeds by having a minimum wage in most states and giving people trade union rights which we deny to employees of the same firms in this country.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman said that I gave no information, but I said that I intended to talk about jobs at the forthcoming summit. In Britain we believe that three things are important: first, a stable economic framework; secondly, a flexible labour market; and, thirdly, the removal of barriers to enterprise. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a great deal to learn from the United States, but not in the way that he suggests. It is a fact that over the economic cycle of OECD between 1979 and 1989, the United States saw growth of 26 per cent., which created 18.5 million jobs in that free enterprise economy. The European Community saw growth of output of 23.7 per cent., but that gave rise not to 18 million but only to 6 million additional jobs. The lesson for Europe is to go further down the route that I have suggested of deregulation, reducing bureaucracy and creating a stable economic framework, rather than going down the route that the hon. Gentleman advocated in his question. The way ahead lies with more free enterprise.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the United States, which has the most rapid growth of technology and productivity, there are no government training schemes of any kind? Does not that make nonsense of the Opposition's repeated claims that Government training schemes are the way forward?
    Mr. Hunt: What I will say to my right hon. Friend is that when I recently visited the United States I found that the private industry councils, on which our training and enterprise councils were based, had provided the valuable lesson, to which he referred, that we must ensure that the private sector is fully involved in decisions on training. The figure that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), combined with the more than £2 billion that my Department spends on training, forms an effective public-private sector partnership.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the summit that in 14 years of this Government we have seen unemployment treble to 3 million, that 3 million full-time employees have been replaced by 3 million part-time and self-employed workers, and that we have the worst trained and educated labour force of any country that will attend the summit? Will he also ask the Americans how they have created 18 million jobs—as he claimed—with a minimum wage provision? Will he make clear how much Britain is paying in family credit support to maintain low pay—wages subsidised by the taxpayer?
    Mr. Hunt: Still the hon. Gentleman talks down Britain. He must think seriously before he starts to decry the achievements of this nation. I have given one. We have almost 1.4 million more people in work now than we had 10 years ago. That is a signal achievement. The lesson that we learn from the United States is not to go down the route that the hon. Gentleman and his party advocate in signing up to a socialist manifesto for the European elections. He proposes statutory works councils, a statutory minimum wage and a compulsory working week. Those are the last things that one would find in the United States. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman dropped those proposals, which would cost millions of jobs.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: At the summit, will my right hon. Friend inquire about the progress in the employment of disabled people and the advantages to the American

    793
    economy in consequence of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Does he accept that in the United States of America—the land of free enterprise—it was concluded that voluntary arrangements would never sufficiently overcome discrimination against disabled people in respect of employment? Will he respond positively to the view of the Employers Forum on Disability and the Law Society, as well as the 311 hon. Members who have signed early-day motion 2, that the time has come for legislation to ban discrimination against disabled people in respect of employment in Britain?
    Mr. Hunt: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this subject. I hope that Britain can achieve more through greater opportunities for disabled people to gain access into work. As my hon. Friend knows, we have suggested proposals. We are presently considering the position following the representations that were made to us after the new access to work scheme was announced. I hope to make an announcement on that shortly. I do not think that compulsion is the route which we should follow. I believe that we must give increasing opportunities to disabled people to get into work.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the variety of initiatives to combat unemployment in areas of industrial decline.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Examples include the introduction of new integrated regional offices and the creation of a single regeneration budget from 1 April this year.
    Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that where local authorities, local chambers of commerce, trades councils and his own Department are already working well with good small initiatives, imposing on them English Estates, TECs and British Coal Enterprise Ltd. will do precisely what he does not advocate—make bureaucracy mushroom? Will he undertake to evaluate those initiatives to see whether they really work, or whether they are just providing jobs for the boys?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is extremely important that the various agencies work together to ensure effective action with minimum bureaucracy. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been anxious to ensure that that happens in his constituency, where he is dealing with the problems of high unemployment and the fallout from the closure of pits. If he has any specific measures that he would like us to look at, I should be happy to consider them.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that although employment prospects in Amber Valley were devastated by pit closures, mainly in the 1970s, the area now has one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe—certainly lower than Germany? The reason for that is mainly due to the success of new manufacturing businesses. Does not that illustrate that the best way to create sustainable jobs in the long term is not by subsidising unsustainable old industries, but by allowing better conditions for enterprise and better labour relations, which in themselves attract new jobs to the area?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree entirely. The way to secure future prosperity is by embracing change, not resisting it, and doing that, as my hon. Friend says, by using our skills to best effect and competitively in a global marketplace. Were we to embrace the policies of the Opposition in the European Community, we would shut the door to the jobs that will come from that inward investment. Because we have opted out of the social chapter, we have the opportunity that comes from being, if I may quote President Delors,
    "a paradise for inward investment".
    Mr. Barron: Can I bring the Minister back to the real world in relation to regeneration? The Government are about to announce a £3.75 million English Estates project for Templeborough in Rotherham, which I support. It is estimated that the project will create 175 jobs. Last year, 2,939 coal, engineering and steel jobs were lost in Rotherham and, in November, 260 jobs were lost at Templeborough steel plant. Only last week, 75 jobs were lost at Brinsworth strip mill. The loss of 400 jobs is being negotiated in United Engineering Steels in Sheffield and Rotherham. The regeneration project is a flea on a dog's back compared with the number of jobs that are being lost in that area. When will the Government meet those job needs, instead of proposing these developments, where less than 20 per cent. of jobs are replaced through regeneration?
    Mr. Forsyth: We shall start making progress when Opposition Members realise that jobs come from companies being competitive and from private enterprise being able to sell goods and services competitively. Opposition Members believe that the state can provide employment. Conservative Members believe that Government agencies can assist the market to operate effectively. Real jobs will come from free enterprise, which Opposition Members stand against.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that in the economically declining fishing port of Brixham, in south Devon—the second-largest fishing port in the west country—the Employment Service agency wants to construct a new building on a prime site in the centre of the town to house both the paying out and job creation offices? It is prepared to pay over the odds, with Government money, and to push out private enterprise which wants to build on that site. Is not job creation and training a better use of public money than buying a prime site?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am very much aware of the case that my hon. Friend mentioned because he has written to me about it and I have looked into the circumstances. I understand that the Employment Service has made no final decision on the site. I shall be happy to respond to my hon. Friend, once I have had a chance to discuss the matter further with the chief executive of the Employment Service, who is responsible for the decision.
    The principle of integrating the work of the jobcentre and the payment of benefits on one site is a good one, which is for the convenience of people who use job centres and which—as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is indicating from a sedentary position—was supported by the Public Accounts Committee. It makes sense to proceed on a value-for-money basis with that policy, but I shall consider with interest the example in my hon. Friend's constituency.

    South East London TEC
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the level of support to the South East London training and enterprise council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): There is no such training and enterprise council as the South East London TEC. If the hon. Member is referring to her TEC—South Thames—the Department's regional director is negotiating the level of resources for 1994–95 with that and other London TECs.
    Ms Hoey: I thank the Minister for her reply. Some of us in south London will still call it the South East London TEC, no matter what the Minister wants to call it.
    The Minister will be aware that South Thames TEC is the first to become involved in kids club networks and that the setting up of the first after-school club for kids in Vauxhall is one of the useful things that have happened in my constituency. Will she welcome that initiative and ensure that South Thames TEC can put money into that scheme to enable the club to continue and will she allow the increase in after-school child care to continue, so that the many unemployed women in my constituency and in south London have an opportunity to get back to training and to work?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, of course, I welcome the initiative and I have visited that club, as I think the hon. Lady will know. I am pleased to congratulate all those concerned in setting it up. We have made it clear that those TECs that were piloting the out-of-school child care initiative will continue to be funded, as will all other TECs, from 1994–95. Although I cannot pre-empt the TECs' judgment and take a view on that scheme, I can say that funding to TECs for that purpose will continue.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recognise that Surrey TEC is just up the river from South Thames TEC and that it is doing an excellent job with local industry in reskilling people, especially younger people? That partnership with industry depends not merely on what the Government do, but on what industry does to help people to get back to work, given the new challenges presented by the need for people of a higher calibre—especially school leavers. Does she welcome Surrey TEC's initiative?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I have pleasure in welcoming Surrey TEC's initiative and similar initiatives at other TECs. I am delighted to welcome the various initiatives that result from partnerships between industry and Government and, in particular, "Investors in People", which encourages training and skilling on a lifelong basis.
    I have pleasure in confirming that that is not confined to the private sector and that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service today became the first nationwide civil service body to receive the full award of Investors in People.

    GCHQ
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he intends to meet representatives of trade unions to discuss the position of the ban on union membership at GCHQ.
    Mr. David Hunt: The Prime Minister and I had such a meeting on 20 December.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that the campaign against the ban on union membership at GCHQ is as strong as ever and that it will continue until victory is secured? There was no justification for it in the first place. Is the Secretary of State not bothered by the fact that the International Labour Organisation has expressed much concern about the continuing ban and that, as the Government are unwilling to compromise in any way, the ILO may well decide to issue a formal rebuke or reprimand? If that happens, it will be the first ever case of a western Government being so reprimanded.
    Mr. Hunt: There are a number of points in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Let me say, first, that we did exactly what the ILO requested us to do: we had discussions with the civil service unions to see whether a solution could be found. No one ever imagined for a moment that it would be easy to secure a solution capable of satisfying both sides. So far as the Government are concerned, the dialogue remains open. I am confident that we have nothing to fear from an examination by the ILO of our industrial relations policies. We believe that we can demonstrate that those policies comply with all the ILO conventions that we have ratified.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the former director of GCHQ, Sir Brian Tovey, has stated that during the imposition of martial law in Warsaw and during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan about 10,000 working days cover was lost at GCHQ? Will he confirm that that is a perfectly good reason for the ban on external interference by trade unions in the activities of GCHQ? Can he assure the House that the existing staff association works perfectly well and that there is no reason whatever for interference by an external trade union?
    Mr. Hunt: I can confirm what my hon. Friend has said—that, between 1979 and 1981, 10,000 working days were lost at GCHQ. We just cannot run the risk that anything like that will ever happen again. My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, we suggested that the staff federation should be affiliated to the Council of Civil Service Unions to enable people who belong to the federation to have access to the facilities that are available to unions affiliated to CCSU. Sadly, the civil service unions did not feel able to accept that proposal.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not true that, according to reports in the Financial Times, the Government are currently planning to withdraw the United Kingdom from the ILO, precisely because the ILO has censured this country—a sanction which is normally applied to countries like Haiti and North Korea? Are not the British Government becoming isolated, not only in Europe but throughout the world, for their anti-worker and anti-union policies?
    Mr. Hunt: There is no truth in the assertion that Ministers intend to withdraw from the ILO or to seek an opportunity to do so. Despite criticism from the Trades Union Congress, we believe that our policies comply with all the ILO conventions that we have ratified. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, our overriding objective is to ensure the maintenance of continuous operations at GCHQ, which is vital to the protection of national security. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the

    797
    Government are ready to discuss any further proposals that the unions may wish to put forward, provided that they are consistent with our overriding objective of safeguarding national security.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of their irresponsible behaviour in disrupting the vital work of GCHQ in the 1980s, the trade unions have only themselves to blame for the ban?
    Mr. Hunt: I could not agree more. It is important to ensure that GCHQ staff are not subject to potential conflicts of interest. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister and I listened for some considerable time to the points put forward by the trade unions to see whether or not that overriding national objective could be maintained, but we were not convinced that the trade unions could overcome those potential conflicts of interest. It ill behoves the Opposition to try and put a different gloss on the fact that, thanks to our legislation, we have put harmony in place of strife. We are not prepared to allow the Opposition to put that major achievement at risk.

    Banking and Financial Services
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of jobs which have been lost in banking and financial services in London over the past four years.
    Miss Widdecombe: Figures from the labour force survey show that in the banking, finance and insurance business services in greater London the number in employment has risen by 7,000 since 1989.
    Mr. Raynsford: What message has the Minister for the 505 employees of Barclays bank in London whose new year began with a redundancy notice at the very moment when the bank's new chief executive was having his pay doubled to £737,000 a year? What comment has the Minister about that example of corporate ethics or does she believe, like the Prime Minister, that it is no matter for her?
    Miss Widdecombe: What is a matter for the hon. Gentleman is giving his constituents hope, which he appears completely unable to do. The House will note that the phraseology of the hon. Gentleman's original question was how many jobs have been lost. Jobs have risen and he did not even have the grace to welcome that. Perhaps he would like to tell his constituents that, with London's share of world trade in financial services increasing to 27 per cent. the financial services sector earned the United Kingdom £4.3 billion and that the employees to whom he refers work in an industry which, even if it is redistributing employment, is nevertheless growing. Why does he not give encouragement to Britain's performance in the financial services sector? Why do not the whole lot of them start encouraging things?
    Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that employment in London and the south-east has risen by more than 200 in the 10 years since March 1983? Will she confirm that some of the 150,000 places in the new apprenticeship scheme will be available in London?
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, I have pleasure in confirming that. I also have pleasure in confirming that another good sign for young people, apart from the creation of modern apprenticeships, is that the number waiting more than eight
    798
    weeks for a youth training place has declined from more than 3,000 to just over 300. There are now a large number of TECs with no young people waiting. Modern apprenticeships will help that process even further. Why are modern apprenticeships not being welcomed? [Interruption.] I take it that hon. Members are cheering the Government. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that Barclays bank has declared 7,000 redundancies and National Westminster bank has announced 4,000, yet we still have to wait ages at the queue at the bank? Why is that?
    Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do a competitiveness survey and go somewhere else for his queue. Although there have been job losses in the banking industry in the past year, there have been strongly offsetting rises in insurance and business services. It is generally good news in the financial sector. The hon. Gentleman might pass on that message to those in the queue and to the cashiers.

    Labour Costs
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has on non-wage labour costs in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Italy.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Non-wage costs never get into the employees' wage packets, but do make it more expensive for employers to provide a job. On average, for every £100 of wages an employer in Britain must pay £20 extra, in Germany £30 and in France and Italy £40.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that those lower non-wage labour costs are part of the reason for our success in attracting inward investment? Does he also agree that the imposition of the social chapter—which both Opposition parties would like to force on this country—would not only destroy our competitive advantage, but, more important, destroy jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree. Lower non-wage costs are not only a reason for the attraction of inward investment to Britain but—along with our general economic policy—the reason for the fact that in real terms workers in Britain enjoy some of the best take-home pay packets in Europe.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Given the favourable non-wage labour costs to which the Minister has just referred, how does he justify the enormous discrepancy between the average wage in England and Wales and wages in areas such as south Wales and Northumberland, where average weekly earnings are up to £65 less than the overall average? Why are the Government not tackling such huge wage differentials?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am amazed that the hon. and learned Gentleman should ask that question. If he had his way and we signed up to the social chapter, the extra costs would have to be met out of those pay packets, and there would be even less for people to take in wages. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not complain about low pay when, like the rest of his party, he wants to add to the costs of employment.
    Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree with Klaus Kratzenberg, a supervisor with Black and Decker in Limburg, Germany? When asked why he thought that Black and Decker was closing its German plant and moving it to Spennymoor in County Durham, he replied:
    "It is simple. Industry must be flexible—the social chapter isn't."
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by Black and Decker. I must tell Opposition Members that when companies such as Mercedes are starting to source outside Germany, and when Volkswagen, Peugeot and others are beginning to look outside Europe, alarm bells should be ringing in the minds of hon. Members who are genuinely concerned about jobs. There is no doubt that the social chapter is driving people out of work; the longer that Opposition Members adhere to it, the greater will be the possibility that people in Europe will embrace policies that will make their countries less competitive and less able to provide employment.
    Mr. Prescott: In view of his many visits to America, will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Secretary of State's earlier statement that America had no minimum wage legislation?
    Mr. Forsyth: I think that if the hon. Gentleman checks the record he will find that my right hon. Friend said that America did not have a national statutory minimum wage. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the international comparisons to be made. He will know that the European country that has embraced his policy of a statutory minimum wage is Spain—where the unemployment level is twice the European average, and twice the level in this country.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In recognising the crucial importance of Britain's lower non-wage costs compared with the rest of Europe, is my hon. Friend aware that Lemmerz, a German wheel maker, has transferred all its heavy wheel-making operations to my constituency for precisely that reason? Is he also aware that carpet companies in my constituency are now going to Germany to buy up its now-redundant carpet-making machinery precisely because German companies cannot compete under the regime that has been imposed on them?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving yet another example of the way in which the social chapter has exported jobs out of the Eleven into Britain. That is good news for Britain, so long as we ensure that we never ever sign up to the social chapter and its job-destroying characteristics.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many modern apprenticeships will be available in 1994–95; and in which industries they will be concentrated.
    Mr. David Hunt: A full range of modern apprenticeships will be offered to 16 and 17-year-olds in September 1995. Some prototypes will start later in the year.
    Mr. Clapham: I note that the Minister does not give the number of apprenticeships and there is a possible reason for that. He will be aware that in the final year of the Labour Government there were 150,000 apprenticeships in
    800
    manufacturing alone, while in manufacturing in 1991 there were only 51,000. Clearly, the Minister's response is inefficient and inadequate and a more positive stance is required. Will the Minister give mature entrants—the people who have been thrown on the scrap heap over the past 15 years—the opportunity to join the apprenticeship scheme? Has he had discussions with British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to allow miners who have been made redundant to join the new apprenticeship scheme so that they can learn new skills to help them get new jobs?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman knows that the new, modern apprenticeship scheme that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 30 November is designed to encourage more young people to train up to national vocational qualification level 3 and to encourage even more young people to train to even higher levels. Of course, during the year we shall be considering prototypes which will enable those young people to reach that high level of qualification.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some of the national training and education targets directly relate to the points that he has raised. The important priority for the Government is to ensure not only that we have young people training to an even higher level, but that through programmes such as Investors in People we shall encourage every member of the work force, and primarily those who are currently unemployed, to train to even higher levels of qualification.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Moscow for a series of meetings, including meetings with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Lord President of the Council noticed the response of Mr. Reynolds in Dail Eireann when Miss Mary Harney asked what representations had been made to the United States over the Gerry Adams visit? His response is that we do not get involved in trying to tell foreign Administrations what decisions to make. Will the Lord President press the Prime Minister to exercise the same restraint with the United Kingdom, especially Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the issue of the visa was a decision for the United States authorities, although our own advice, as the House knows, was clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that we believe it to be right and in the interests of all people in Northern Ireland that the British and Irish Governments should work closely together. As he knows, the talks process brings together the two Governments and the main constitutional parties who will work together to find an accommodation. I believe that that is right.
    Mr. Day: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the appearance of Gerry Adams on "Walden" proved beyond

    801
    any doubt that whatever Sinn Fein says, it has rejected the Downing street declaration? Would he join me in urging Sinn Fein to reconsider its position and would he also agree and confirm to the House that the Government will never do what Mr. Adams requests—become a persuader of the people of Northern Ireland to join an united Ireland? Does he recognise that many Conservative Members remain committed to the Union of Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend has on many occasions made clear the position of the British Government on the question of persuasion. Of course, I suspect—in fact, I know—that everybody in the House would urge Sinn Fein to consider seriously a positive response to the joint declaration.
    Mrs. Beckett: As Ministers are still proclaiming that "back to basics" is the lodestar guiding Government policy while the Prime Minister is dodging all questions about it, does that not show yet again that "back to basics" is making the Government a laughing stock?
    Mr. Newton: I do not know whether I am sorry to have to say that the right hon. Lady is a bit out of date. My right hon. Friend has today given a clear explanation of the "back to basics" theme and has once again made it clear that it is especially important in such spheres as standards in education, law and order and the provision of public services, and it applies also to the range of our increasingly successful economic and business policies.
    Mrs. Beckett: I notice once again that the Lord President's list, and presumably the Prime Minister's, does not include standards in telling the truth about tax. Why are the Government refusing to come clean about the size of the further tax increases that British families will face in 1995?
    Mr. Newton: What I and my right hon. Friend will continue to emphasise is the contribution that our tax policies are making to the economic strength and improved standards of living in this country.
    Mrs. Beckett: As the Lord President must be aware, my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary has tabled questions about the extra taxes that people will pay in 1995, but no answers are being provided. The Government must have the figures—we know that the Government have the figures—and the people of Britain will have to pay the extra tax, so why do the Government not have the guts to tell people how much they will have to pay?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. and hon. Friends have answered many questions and will continue to answer the questions that the right hon. Lady's colleagues ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer this one."]—but what we want to know from the right hon. Lady is when the Labour party will come clean about its public spending policies which will put up taxes.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue yesterday told the Public Accounts Committee that some £550 million of unclaimed tax remains to be picked up by taxpayers who have been affected by changes in the tax regime in the past couple of years whereby, for example, women are now assessed independently? Is he further aware that that
    802
    amounts to about £880,000 per parliamentary constituency? Will the Government do everything possible to ensure that the Inland Revenue makes that fact known to every taxpayer?
    Mr. Newton: The Government and, I am sure, the Inland Revenue are always anxious to ensure that taxpayers are properly informed of their rights and receive their correct entitlement. I am sure that every effort will be made to achieve what my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: As the real value of pensions has been falling for many years, following the breaking of the link with earnings, the value of pensions in the United Kingdom is out of line with virtually every other comparable European country, the compensation package for value added tax will not compensate pensioners in full as was promised, and we have had extremely cold weather for the past week, will the Government now introduce a special heating allowance for pensioners?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman must have a rather curious source for his statistics, because the truth is that not only have the Government protected the real value of the state retirement pension but the combination of our policies on social security and pensions and in the economic world have led to a position in which pensioners' average real incomes have risen by more than 40 per cent. since the Government took office.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the nonsensical advice given by Liberty to truanting schoolchildren that they should defy police and is it not typical that the Labour party tends to support them?
    Mr. Newton: I would certainly join my hon. Friend in condemning the advice which has been reported in the papers today. The Government's efforts to improve the campaign against truancy and to succeed in getting errant pupils back to school—which is where they should be—is, and should be, widely supported. For Liberty to oppose it in the way it does shows that it does not remotely understand the best interests of our children or our schools.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Leader of the House therefore express his concern that at the end of the March, when the Tory party conference comes to Plymouth, 135 children will miss one and a half days' schooling because of that conference?
    Mr. Newton: I do not suppose that they will be playing truant.
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the recent annual survey of grant-maintained schools, which shows that since becoming grant maintained the schools have been able to recruit more teachers, improve their results and offer better facilities to their pupils? Does he not therefore find it extraordinary that the Labour and Liberal parties remain committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, and that in local government they are waging a relentless campaign of hostility against GM schools, as typified by the behaviour of Essex county council?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right that the latest survey confirms the benefit of grant-maintained status. Those schools are achieving improved academic results, better staying-on rates and lower pupil-teacher ratios. They are popular with parents and it is no surprise that well over 1,000 schools have voted in favour of such status. As to my hon. Friend's worries about Essex—his constituency borders mine—he will be as pleased as I am to know that in Essex there are now 63 secondary and 55 primary schools operating with grant-maintained status. That represents 60 per cent. of secondary schools and 17 per cent. of primary schools. In spite of the endeavours to which he refers on the part of Essex county council, the latest school to decide to hold a ballot on such status is The Notley high school, Braintree.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: When my constituents complain about high fuel bills and watch the bosses of privatised utilities coining money, am Ito say to them that so far as the Prime Minister is concerned it is nothing to do with him?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's question appears to be founded on a rather curious premise. Electricity prices have decreased by 6 per cent. in real terms in the past two financial years. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know another interesting statistic, I can tell him that, in 1979, the electricity companies—then nationalised—lost the equivalent at today's prices of £465 million. In 1992–93, they paid £420 million to the Exchequer in corporation tax.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of American, French and British planes to bomb the hills around Sarajevo may not necessarily produce lasting peace in Bosnia? Does he further agree that if the idea is to achieve a demilitarised zone, policed effectively, around Sarajevo, the best chances of so doing are by ensuring that Russian soldiers in United Nations uniform, in integrated units with British and French forces, help in the policing of that zone?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows well that the purpose of what has been said and what is being considered in relation to air strikes is to bring about the cessation of the
    804
    type of bombardment that has taken place in Sarajevo. I think that everyone will want that effort to be successfully completed.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will announce today, by means of a written answer, an increase of 50p in the prescription charge? Why will there be no oral statement in the House? Is it because, having taxed the disabled and the divorced, the Government are afraid to face the music and announce that they are to increase tax on the sick?
    Mr. Newton: First, I confirm that an announcement will be made today. Secondly, I confirm that it is not usual for such announcements to be made by way of oral statement. Thirdly, 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now free of charge, compared with 60 per cent. in 1979. Fourthly, prescription charges will raise nearly £300 million in the forthcoming year. Fifthly, that amount will pay for more than 200,000 cataract operations or more than 70,000 hip operations. Sixthly, will the hon. Gentleman tell me where he would find the money?
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report from 3i—Investors in Industry—which surveyed 500 of the companies in which it invests? The confidence of those businesses is higher now than it has been since the 3i started the survey in 1988. Is that not further evidence that the Government have the right policies for British business and the British people?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right. The survey shows that firms in both the north and south of the country report greater improvement than in the previous survey and that they have become more optimistic about their prospects. British business is now increasingly confident about the economy and about the Government's policies for business.

    Points of Order
    3.31 pm
    Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling on the fact that the Secretary of State for Health has declined to make a statement to the House on the 50p increase in prescription charges. The Leader of the House effectively made a statement in Prime Minister's Question Time on the same issue and misled the House into believing that the Government were applying the money to patient care rather than to make up for their political incompetence. Is not it a disgrace that the Government should duck the opportunity to make a clear statement on the increase, which is the 16th increase since they promised in 1979 that they would not increase prescription charges?
    Madam Speaker: Ministers always determine whether they answer by means of a written reply or come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement. That is something over which I, as Speaker, have no control.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seriously concerned that a Minister has misled the House and I seek your general guidance. Last night on the "World in Action" programme, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the Minister for Health, categorically denied that there was a two-tier system, saying that he had no evidence that such a system was developing in the NHS. The Minister has made the same statement to the House. The programme went on to produce evidence that a two-tier system exists. It showed, for example, that radiotherapy patients were treated, not on the basis of need, but on the ability to pay through GP fundholding. Has the Minister said whether he intends to make a statement to the House to acknowledge that the two-tier system exists and to admit that he has misled the House?
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady would not expect me to comment on something that was on television last night and which I did not even see. It is up to the Minister to decide whether he wishes to come to the House to make a statement. It is not a point of order for me.
    Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that it has never been the practice to have oral statements in the House on prescription charges, either under the Conservative Government or the previous Labour Government, who were always deeply embarrassed by increasing prescription charges?
    Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report tomorrow he will see that the Leader of House has dealt with that matter.
    Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are, of course, aware of the severe weather affecting most of the country. In view of the agonising difficulties faced by so many elderly people on low incomes, is there any way that the House can this week ask the Minister to make a statement on whether cold weather payments can be made and all the red tape regulations removed? Those payments are not made unless there are seven days of freezing weather. The welfare of the old should have priority.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks me for procedural advice across the Floor of the House which he knows that I do not give.
    Ms Liz Lynne: Further to the original point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the press to hear about the proposed rise in prescription charges before the House? Would it not have been better if the Secretary of State had come and made a statement so that we could have questioned her on the subject?
    Madam Speaker: I dealt with that matter earlier. I believe that the answer to the question was available at precisely 3.30 pm today.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have received a fax of a letter sent to the leader of Liverpool city council, Councillor Harry Rimmer, by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield
    806
    (Sir N. Fowler) in which he invites him to join the organisation, Team 1000. He has been invited to attend functions and briefings at Westminster at which Cabinet Members, Ministers and Members of Parliament will be present. Is it in order for Ministers of the Crown to abuse their office by inviting people here for party fund-raising purposes?
    Madam Speaker: The fax was sent by a Back-Bench Member of the House, not a Minister. I receive all sorts of mail shots inviting me to all manner of functions, all of which find their way into the waste paper basket.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At Question Time today, the Leader of House said that the Prime Minister had made a further statement on the "back to basics" policy. We are told that that theme has permeated the whole of Government policy since the Prime Minister's speech to the party conference last October. Therefore, is it not time that the Prime Minister was asked not to give statements to correspondents and at press conferences, but to make a statement to the House about that policy? He should, at the very least, place a copy of his speech and his thinking on the "back to basics" policy in the Library.
    Madam Speaker: The Prime Minister is normally here a couple of times a week to answer questions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch my eye soon so that he can put his question to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that a major announcement in connection with rail privatisation is being made at this moment by way of a written answer and a press conference. The statement will reveal a huge increase in access charges for railway operators and, ultimately, huge increases in costs for taxpayers and passengers. The announcement has been delayed by almost a year; the firm of Coopers and Lybrand has been paid £1.6 million to come up with the access-charging fiasco. Surely, the House is as entitled as the press to a full statement of Government intentions so that—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I ruled on that matter in answer to an earlier point of order. It is for Ministers to determine whether they make announcements by means of written answers or through oral statements. It is something over which I have no control. I have already made a ruling on that.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there some form of sanction that the Chair can take against hon. Members who persistently raise bogus points of order?
    Madam Speaker: It is a very good question, but I fear not. It is up to individual hon. Members to exercise restraint and to use the procedures of the House properly and correctly, not abuse them.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand what you say about Ministers determining whether they make announcements by means of an oral statement or a written answer, but surely the Speaker has the power, if he or she so determines, to summon a Minister, especially if there is pressure in Parliament to require a Minister to make a statement here. That must be right; otherwise how could

    807
    Speaker Lenthall have told the King that the Speaker could be instructed only by Parliament? Surely Ministers are inferior, not superior, to Parliament and to the Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, the Speaker of the House has no authority whatever to demand that Ministers come here to make statements. It is for Ministers themselves to decide whether they do that, and the Speaker has no authority in so determining.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We understand that the Tory Whips are busily arranging marriages for certain Conservative Members. If such marriages were arranged, would it be in order for them to be performed in St. Stephen's Crypt?
    Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me—and on that note we pass on to the presentation of Bills.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    REFERENDUM (SCOTLAND)
    Mrs. Ray Michie, supported by Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Sir Russell Johnston, Sir David Steel and Mr. Menzies Campbell, presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum, for all persons eligible to vote, on Scotland's future constitutional status: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
    MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT)
    Mr Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. David Clelland, Mr. John Garrett and Mr. Neil Gerrard, presented a Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1949: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Representation of the People (Amendment)
3.40 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend and improve methods of electoral registration and to allow disabled people to gain access to polling stations.
My Bill falls into two parts, one of which deals with the need for a full franchise. It is sometimes mistakenly believed that we already have a full franchise in this country, but whereas in the past legislation was enacted to extend the franchise, in recent years we have let the methods used for registration slip considerably, and we can no longer claim to have a full franchise.
The second part of my Bill is intended to provide access for disabled people and others to polling stations. Even if we achieve the objective of a full franchise, it will not work for disabled peopel if they do not have full access to polling stations. Their only option would be to use postal or proxy votes, so they would not be able to exercise the franchise in the same way as able-bodied people. So full rights for disabled people are among the measures in the Bill.
What is wrong with current methods of electoral registrations? Millions of people entitled to be included are missing from the electoral register. The problem is probably greatest among those known as "attainers", who, at the age of 18, qualify for registration for the first time in their lives. The percentage of attainers qualifying has fallen year by year, especially since the introduction of the poll tax, and that has not been rectified by the removal of that tax.
Official figures reveal that only 95 per cent. of the people eligible to be registered in England and Wales appear on the electoral registers. In Greater London, only 88·4 per cent. appear. Even those figures are artificially inflated, because people who have died and not been removed from the register are included. Also included are people who have emigrated or moved to other parts of the country, and it is unreasonable to expect that they will all use postal or proxy voting facilities.
There is also a great deal of double counting. Some hon. Members may appear on two electoral registers, one in London and one in another area in which they reside, normally in their constituencies. Many people are merely carried over from previous registers without any serious canvassing taking place to find out whether they should be on the register or someone else should be put in their place.
We also have a mobile disenchanted society in which people get on their bikes and move around from bed-sitter to bed-sitter with growing elements of homelessness, and there are serious problems with registration. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys estimates that 3.4 million people in England and Wales are missing from electoral registers—probably 4 million people in the United Kingdom and 1 million in Greater London.
The method that we use for registration is outdated. The qualifying date for registration is 10 October and the registers come into operation on 16 February. Registers will come into operation tomorrow. Registers last for one year, so the information is 16 months old by the time they are finished. The Hansard Society says that the information on an average register is likely to be 16 per cent. out by the end of its life.
810
My Bill seeks to tackle that serious problem by introducing a rolling register to allow for the addition and deletion of names as people move. It will provide extra authority and resources for electoral returning officers so that housing movement information, details of registered deaths, information from statutory undertakings, exchanges of information from other electoral returning officers and regular canvassing can take place. That will be subject to strict confidentiality rules so that the information is used only for electoral returning purposes.
Registers will roll until elections are announced. When an election is announced, the closing date will be the date of the announcement of the election and polling cards will immediately be issued, with massive publicity so that people who do not receive cards will know that they are riot on a register and will still have time to qualify to get on a register within a week before the election takes place. After an election, the registers will continue to roll. Annual registration will still be required, but that will be more of a check on the existing state of the rolling register, and extra information may be supplied on which the electoral returning officer can act.
Access to polling stations will require accessibility audits to be undertaken by electoral returning officers and full consultation with relevant voluntary organisations representing disabled people—bodies such as Links and the Spastics Society, which produced a substantial report at the last election to illustrate the problems. Designated polling stations will be established in which various characteristics such as wheelchair access and unaided wheelchair access will be required, although the problem of accessibility is for more people than only those in wheelchairs.
Many people who are not registered as disabled and who are merely old and infirm should have the opportunity to exercise their franchise readily and easily. Initially, designated accessible polling stations will need to cover about 50 per cent. of a constituency and people will be allowed access to a designated station if their own station has not qualified at that time. However, the aim will be 100 per cent. designated polling stations with full access.
The key to the Bill is how the Secretary of State for the Home Department will respond to it, because it is a re-run of the private Member's Bill that I introduced last year. At that time, the Minister said that he accepted the principle of seeking to achieve full registration, but felt that the measure was premature. It was premature in that the Home Office was investigating a number of matters concerning electoral registration and electoral provision arising from experience gained at the general election. It was beginning to be accepted that the poll tax had a serious impact on the electoral register, although there were many other elements that provided great difficulty.
We now must ask whether the Bill has begun to be acceptable to the Home Office. It would be nice if the Minister of State, Home Office, who is on the Government Front Bench, could indicate as I proceed through the measure that the time is now right for the proposal. My previous Bill was not voted against on Second Reading, but merely failed to overcome the hurdle of a closure motion. It was carried by 78 votes to nil, but that was not sufficient to ensure a closure so that the measure could move to Committee.
My proposal might not be appropriate if there were to be an alternative Government Bill to deal with such

811
matters. I am pleased to say that, when I read out the list of sponsors, it will show the names of hon. Members from all parties in Britain who are true democrats.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Trimble, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Alton and Mr. Bill Michie.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to extend and improve methods of electoral registration and to allow disabled people to gain access to polling stations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

Representation of the People
[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 9882/93, relating to the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament, and the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation, HC48—vii of Session 1993–94.]
3.51 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.
I shall deal first with the two constituencies orders which established new boundaries for European parliamentary constituencies. The orders give effect to the recommendations contained in the reports of the European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee for England and the similar committee for Wales. The committees were set up under the provisions of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993 to carry out the task of determining the European parliamentary constituencies into which England and Wales should initially be divided to give effect to the increase that section 1 of the Act made to the number of constituencies.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I ask the Minister a straightforward question? There is a suggestion that France may not promulgate the additional seats that were agreed as part of the Maastricht negotiations. If that were so, and the House passed the orders today, would new primary legislation be required to reinstate the old boundaries?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman said that he would ask a straight question, to which I shall give a straight answer—no, it would not.
I will return to my line of explanation, and I remind the House of the background to the matter. Agreement was reached at the European Council in Edinburgh in December 1992 that the European Parliament should be enlarged by allocating additional seats to some member states. The primary reason for that was the large increase in the population of Germany, arising out of the reunification of that country. Eighteen extra seats have been allocated to Germany to take account of the increased electorate there. The United Kingdom received six extra seats under the agreement. Five of those have been allocated to England and one to Wales. The Government believe that that is the fairest distribution on an arithmetical basis.
Mr. William Cash: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, although the German Government made it clear in the run-up to the negotiations about the increase in the number of seats that they did not want the additional

813
seats, subsequently, for reasons that have never been fully explained, we found that Germany had an additional 18? Can my hon. Friend explain how that came about?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the ins and outs of the negotiations. Suffice it to say that the negotiations provided for extra seats for Germany, on account of the additional population that accrued to Germany from the reunification of East and West Germany. At the same time, the opportunity was taken to allot extra seats to some other countries, reflecting more closely the differences in population sizes of the various countries that make up the Community.
The two special committees to which I referred were set up in July 1993. They followed, as far as possible in the time available, the practices and procedures of the permanent parliamentary Boundary Commissions. Indeed, of the six members of the committees, five were members of the parliamentary Boundary Commissions, and they were appointed to the committees after consultation with the Opposition parties.
The committees had to work to a very tight timetable. They published provisional recommendations last September, and allowed one month for representations and counter-proposals to be made. Copies of all the counter-proposals and representations were then placed on local deposit in council offices, and a further period was allowed for representations to be made about them.
The committees made their final recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend just before Christmas. In making those recommendations, they made it clear that they took into account the representations made and the views expressed to them, while complying with the statutory requirement that they should aim to recommend European parliamentary constituencies with as nearly as possible equal electorates. Although I recognise that they may not have pleased everyone—an aim which I think that the House will agree would be impossible to achieve—I believe that they have carried out their task in an objective and impartial way. The orders give effect, without modification, to their recommendations and I hope that the House will approve them.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for interrupting, but I wanted clarification of the previous point. I did not quite understand the answer given to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). If the French do not proceed, as they have said that they will not, what will happen to the status of our constituencies? Will we have the constituencies as they were before the additional six seats were created, or will we continue with the additional seats?
Mr. Lloyd: We are empowered by the orders to set up the new constituencies. They will not come into effect to enable the elections to be held in them until all the countries of the EC have agreed to the changes that are necessary to accommodate the new numbers of seats that countries will have. The 1993 Act has a commencement power within it. The commencement power will not be put into effect by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary until he knows that the other countries have accommodated themselves to the new arrangements. If they do not, the commencement will not take place, and we shall continue on the existing boundaries.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lloyd: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
It would create massive inconvenience if commencement did not take place. I see no real reason why the states that have yet to ratify should not do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) wanted to intervene with a further thought on the matter, so I give
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am curious to know whether the commencement order can be taken right up to the tape—say, the day before the elections? What will the time limit be on that?
Mr. Lloyd: Yes, it could. It will be for the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary how far to take it. He would have to balance the likelihood of other countries ratifying and the inconvenience of those taking part in the election here if uncertainty remains to the end, and perhaps have to revert to the current constituencies.
I hope and expect that these matters will be settled in the next few weeks. My right hon. and learned Friend will become increasingly concerned if there is no conclusion by mid-April. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House may want to animadvert on when the last date should be. No last date has been set into the legislation; it provides only that, when ratification is required, the elections on the new constituency boundaries may, from the first day of the following month, take place under the new European rules. That means that a decision for an election in June will be needed by 1 May. It would be difficult after that.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As my right hon. Friend is well aware, this is causing considerable concern among the small percentage of the population in Southend-on-Sea who are interested in European elections, because, instead of our being linked with Chelmsford, as we are at present, it is proposed that we shall be linked with Thurrock. My constituents would like to know what President Mitterrand wants. What price will we have to pay the French before they agree to this? We really do not know.
Mr. Lloyd: That question would be better directed towards the French, or possibly my colleagues in the Foreign Office. My understanding is that the French assembly has approved ratification, but the French Government are declining to append the appropriate signatures to it until agreement on the Parliamentary building at Strasbourg is completed. My hon. Friend, in true parliamentary form, asked a question to which he already feels he pretty well knows the answer. I suspect that my answer squares with what he knows already.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Following on directly from that point, will the Minister say whether the British Government support the attitude of the French Government? At the time of the Edinburgh summit, the British Government were wholly in favour of the agreement to require the European Parliament to meet in Brussels and Strasbourg. Therefore, I assume that an identity of interest exists between the British and the French Government on that question, because the French Government are maintaining their oppositioin to the six

815
extra seats, simply because they want a new building constructed in Strasbourg. Do the Government support that position?
Mr. Lloyd: The British Government would like to see a resolution of these matters. Our precise position and attitude, and the assistance that we can give in reaching a conclusion, are much more matters for Ministers at the Foreign Office rather than myself. The hon. Gentleman invites me to tread in areas that do not belong to me and do not belong to the orders that are before us. They are not really relevant to whether we approve the orders.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not there a precedent for all this muddle—an opt-out clause?
Mr. Lloyd: There is, indeed, a precedent for the current situation: when the Labour Government were last in power in 1978, we had to set up the European constituencies. We had a limited time in which to do that. All the countries of Europe had to agree to bring forward the same kind of agreement and put it into effect at the same time.
Mr. Michael Spicer: I am becoming increasingly intrigued and want to ask my right hon. Friend a question to which I do not know the answer. I thought that I heard him say that some discretion was involved and that, if the French do not go ahead, the British Government will have some discretion. I thought that it was automatic that if the French do not ratify we shall not be able to ratify.
Mr. Lloyd: The original question was whether we would have to pass new primary legislation to revert to our present Euro-constituencies if the French do not go ahead. I said that we would not, because the Home Secretary would not put the commencement date into effect until he was certain that all member countries were on the start line, that the new constituencies could come into effect properly and that the MEPs could be elected.

I said that the Home Secretary would have some discretion when he imposed the commencement date. He would not merely bear in mind what is happening in Community countries and when they are commencing their changes, but would also consider the amount of time that we, the political parties and their candidates would need to run an efficient election campaign here.
Obviously, we do not want to be in two minds until the last day and we would not do that. There is, however, quite some time for discretion, but we would have to make a judgment as the time got shorter. I suspect that the time for a judgment would come in April.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend will remember that, in part II of the Maastricht treaty, entitled "Citizenship of the Union", article 8b states not only that citizens of the Union are given certain powers but that they
"shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby."
It continues:
Every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State."
It also states that the right "shall"—not may—
"be exercised … before 31 December 1994 by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after
816
consulting the European Parliament; these arrangements may provide for derogation where warranted by problems specific to a Member State."
My right hon. Friend is saying that some solution may need to be found to deal with the problem of the intransigent French. Apparently, the treaty lays down a requirement, which cannot be abrogated by any member state, and which can be enforced only by reference to the European Court of Justice.
In the light of the deep-seated concern of the French about Strasbourg and the European Parliament building, and the knowledge that that has such importance to the comity of voting and representation in the Community and the European elections, do the Government intend, by some means or another, to ensure that that matter is brought before the court so that it can be sorted out?
Mr. Lloyd: If I have followed my hon. Friend, I think that he is confusing two things. He began by mentioning the right of citizens in other member countries to vote in a country where they are not a citizen; we shall come to that when we discuss the regulations. However, that right does not enable anyone to take legal proceedings against France or the French Government for not ratifying the arrangements that would lead to the election of six additional Members of the European Parliament in this country and six more in France. Those matters are quite separate.
The purpose of the regulations to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) alluded is to extend to citizens of other member states of the European Union who are resident here the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament.
Our legislation on elections restricts the right to vote and to be a candidate to British and other Commonwealth citizens and to citizens of the Irish Republic. The treaty on European union signed at Maastricht, however, gave voting and candidacy rights to citizens of the Union who live in a member state without being a national of that state. Article 8b.2 related to elections to the European Parliament, which is the subject of the draft regulations. The regulations extend those electoral rights to citizens of the other member states of the European Union who are resident here, by making a number of technical amendments to existing legislation.
The overall aim of the draft regulations is, therefore, very simple. But the regulations themselves are somewhat long and complex—as those who have tried to read them will have noticed. The reason for the length and complexity is that our electoral legislation rightly goes into often minute details of prescription and practice. That level of prescription is valuable in safeguarding electoral procedures from ambiguity, but it means that even simple changes require complicated amendments to many legislative minutiae. That accounts for the complexity of the document before the House.
The general principle of article 8b.2 of the Maastricht treaty is that non-national residents in a member state should be treated, for electoral purposes, in the same way as the nationals of that state. The draft regulations seek to achieve that equality of treatment in practice, and we are not introducing of our own accord any requirements on citizens of other member states that we do not impose on our own citizens.
To register to vote, for example, a Union citizen must have been resident in Great Britain on the qualifying date of 10 October, or 15 September for Northern Ireland, in

817
exactly the same way as British or other Commonwealth citizens. Citizens of other member states who wish to be candidates at the election to the European Parliament must also conform to the same nomination procedures as candidates have hitherto.
However, we are placing one or two small differences of procedure on Union citizens. These stem directly from the provisions of the EC directive implementing article 8b.2 of the treaty.
In mentioning the directive, I pause briefly to apologise to the House for the fact that the document was not made available at the draft stage. An unfortunate combination of human error and several failures of communication meant that the Select Committee was deprived of the opportunity to consider the directive at its draft stage. I have noted the Select Committee's report, which has been placed in the Vote Office in the usual way, and I acknowledge that the Government did not meet their scrutiny obligations with regard to this document in the normal way. I can only repeat here the apologies that have been made outside the House.
As I have said, the draft regulations impose on Union citizens a few minor differences from the procedures that we require of our own citizens. The main difference from our normal arrangements is that Union citizens will have to apply to register to vote and will have to do so to their local electoral registration officer by 29 March. We shall not be placing on electoral registration officers a duty to seek out non-British or non-Irish citizens for registration.
A further small difference is that we shall be requiring intending voters and candidates to supply information about their electoral rights in their home member states. Member states will be exchanging information on non-national electors and candidates, on the basis of the information provided, with the aim of preventing double voting or candidacy, and to enforce concurrently disqualifications imposed by a home member state. That requirement stems from the directive to apply the provisions of the treaty and is designed to meet the concerns of some other member states.
As I have said, the regulations seem complex, but they merely effect a simple extension of rights to vote and to candidacy, in conformity with our treaty obligations. I hope that the House will approve them.
4.13 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I am glad that, at last—after some further delay—hon. Members have an opportunity to discuss the important matter of the boundaries on which the European elections of 9 June will be fought and the extension of the vote to European Community citizens in the United Kingdom for those elections.
The European project goes on. For many of the newer generations in the House it is no longer an article of faith but a part of the political landscape that has to be dealt with on merit. It is all the more ludicrous, therefore, that the Conservatives' internal divisions over Maastricht have led to a situation in which, in certain constituencies, candidates in the ever more important European elections are only now being selected—just 14 weeks before the election. Given the size of the European constituencies, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for candidates to be widely known and for an informed choice to be made.
818
As we argued throughout the proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the Conservatives are entirely responsible for the fact that the process of drawing up the new European boundaries had to be compressed into such a short time. They are also responsible for the fact that the boundaries were drawn up not by the independent Boundary Commission, but by the new European Parliamentary Constituency Committee.
It took from the Edinburgh summit in December 1992, when the current Prime Minister first announced the Government's intention to legislate on the issue, until 30 June 1993 before the European Parliament Elections Bill was given its First Reading. We all know that the reason for this inordinate six-month delay was that the Government could not be sure of carrying a vote on anything European in the face of hostility from its Maastricht rebels—those whom the Prime Minister famously dubbed the illegitimate ones.
I understand that even at this late stage the review could be overturned by the refusal of France to agree the new allocation of seats. We have already had an exchange suggesting that whatever we decide today might be overturned completely by the inability of the French to ratify their part of the arrangement. The Minister referred to that as a massive inconvenience. If we have to resort to fighting the elections using the old boundaries—with all the problems that that will create for the selection of candidates—it will be one of the greatest understatements ever, even in the House.
Opposition Members will seek to press the Minister still further on the latest developments in France and on what influence we can exert to ensure that, if we pass the orders today, they will become the basis of the European elections.
When the Bill was in Committee, the Opposition believed, as we do today, that, had the Government been more efficient in the organisation of their parliamentary business, there would have been sufficient time for proper public inquiries. We now that the organisation of business is not the Government's strong point at the moment. Whether it is being run ragged by their own rebels or clumsily breaking down the usual channels, our non-co-operation policy seems merely an extension of the one that has been working so effectively within the Conservative party under the present Prime Minister.
Amidst all that confusion, it is important that the procedures used in the parliamentary review should never be deployed as a precedent for future boundary revisions for Strasbourg or Westminster. We must be clear that it must be the exception and not the rule. If people are to have confidence in our democratic system, they need to be sure that the electoral boundaries on which our system operates are beyond reproach.
When the Bill last came before the House, I stated that I did not believe that the Home Secretary intended to fiddle the boundaries. Some felt that I was being generous to the Home Secretary, but in his case we should be prepared to understand a little more and condemn a little less. It was always our contention that not only should justice be done, but that it should be seen to be done by the due process of public inquiry.
We have enjoyed the public inquiry process for more than 50 years, and it would be most helpful if the Minister could tell the House that the Conservatives do not intend to sidestep the public inquiry on any future boundary proposals, European or otherwise.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: In any boundary changes we would like the full panoply of inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the timetable was short and we had to follow the model that had been provided by the last Labour Government in 1978 which had similarly to timetable the legislation, took a similarly short time for the reviews and where the normal inquiries had to be dispensed with.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Government wasted a year.
Mr. Lloyd: One could look back to 1978 and say retrospectively that the process could have been started considerably earlier. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it was not practicable to launch an inquiry while the European Communities (Amendment) Bill was winding its way through the House—although the processes were started before the governing legislation was on the statute book. I understand why Opposition Members wish to make their party points, especially those who were not in the House in 1978. That does not, however, apply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who knows very well that a similar machinery was used then—as fairly, honestly and impartially as time allowed.
Mr. Allen: I am more concerned about future possibilities—not least the possibility that, if we fight the next European election on the first-past-the-post system, further boundary changes will be needed in the near future as a consequence of the proposals of the parliamentary Boundary Commission.
I hope that the Minister will assure the House that this was a one-off decision caused by time constraints. I shall deal with the reasons for those constraints later. It is sad that the party political considerations to which the Minister alluded—the difficulties experienced by the Conservative party in relation to the Maastricht Bill—caused United Kingdom boundary procedures to be tampered with. We are currently seeing a welcome expansion of democratic forms elsewhere in the world—for instance, in eastern and central Europe, and in South Africa; at the same time, we are witnessing the erosion of such forms in the United Kingdom. We—people in the country and, indeed, the House of Commons—are capable of deep complacency at a time when we should be ever vigilant about our democracy and the precious forms that it takes. An example is the public inquiry stage of the Boundary Commission procedures.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair to Conservative Members in regard to their attitudes to Maastricht. As a Euro-enthusiast, does he accept that an opinion poll published by the European Commission three weeks ago showed that the Labour party's tepid support for Maastricht was wholly out of line with the views of the average Labour voter? It clearly demonstrated that the majority of people in Britain were opposed not only to Maastricht but to the notion that the European Community was a good idea at all.
Mr. Allen: I feel rather like a stranger walking in on a Maastricht annual reunion dinner. I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman over the details of the Maastricht Bill, but I must tell him that the false divide between Euro-sceptics and Euro-fanatics does not appeal to a number of people—perhaps including some Conservative Members, who may be prepared to admit it.
820
The new generation of Members of Parliament—on both sides of the House, I suspect—consider that we are now in Europe; we need to make the best of it and treat Europe on its merits, rather than reliving the battles of the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The public inquiry process is no mere decoration; it has an important function. During the previous round of European parliamentary proposals, there were 10 European boundary inquiries, five of which overturned provisional recommendations because people's views were listened to in public. In Committee, on the Floor of the House, the Home Secretary admitted that a public inquiry stage would have added seven weeks to the boundary process. That could easily have been accommodated if the Bill had been introduced seven weeks earlier. The problem was not the extra seven weeks but the wasted 32 weeks between the Edinburgh summit and the introduction of the Bill. That delay was caused entirely by party political factors—Conservative splits over Europe in general and Maastricht in particular.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman may not know, but perhaps the Home Office will be able to say how many EC nationals are presently registered to vote in the forthcoming election.
Mr. Allen: At the moment no nationals are registered. I shall return to that point, but I understand that, potentially, some 400,000 people could register.
The Labour party looks forward with confidence to the 1994 European elections, within whatever boundaries they take place. At the European elections in 1989, Labour took 45 seats to the Conservative's 32 seats. Labour Members are looking forward to the elections in June when the Conservative party, riddled with divisions and disagreements, will suffer further losses and Labour, we hope, will make further gains.
We all know that there is a fundamental divide in the Conservative party which no amount of packaging can camouflage. The packaging in the previous elections was not as good as it could have been. Perhaps the Conservative party will make a more serious effort in the European elections, given that a potential influence on the outcome of the next leadership contest lies in the balance.
In Europe, the Conservative MEPs are led by Sir Christopher Prout, who is the vice-president of the European People's party.
Mr. Cash: The vice-chairman.
Mr. Derek Enright: He is the vice-president.
Mr. Allen: A debate may take place on whether he is the vice-chairman or the vice-president, but my information, until it is corrected, is that he is the vice-president of the European People's party. The Conservatives have a rather ambivalent relationship with the European People's party. They sit with it in the European Parliament. They speak on the European People's party membership of committees—the only way in which they can find a voice in committees—and they take their share of the European People's party funding. There seems to be a close relationship between the European People's party and the Conservative party, if only on that circumstantial basis.
The European People's party manifesto calls for a single currency, a central bank, the incorporation of the

821
social chapter, a common immigration policy and a constitution for the whole of Europe, all of which have been greeted by Conservative Members with great acclaim as concepts obviously close to their hearts. I wonder whether it will bear much relationship to the manifesto which is finally produced by the Conservative party before the next European election.
Mr. Keith Mans: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would not like to finish his speech before mentioning the relationship between the Labour party and the socialist parties in Europe and its own manifesto.
Mr. Allen: I certainly would not dream of finishing my speech without a substantial mention of that close relationship, of which we are proud to tell people. It is a close relationship—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, may I say that it would be of advantage to the debate if he returned to the subject of boundaries.
Mr. Allen: I shall resist the temptation to follow Conservative Members in what could have been an interesting line of debate.
Mr. Cash: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that on 9 February, only a few days ago, the European Parliament, through its rapporteur, Mr. Fernand Herman of the Christian Democrats group, together with socialist MEPs, endorsed a constitution which contains even worse things than the European People's party manifesto? Are the hon. Gentleman and his party to repudiate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My recent remarks apply to the hon. Gentleman as they do to the Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Allen: The bad news for the hon. Gentleman is that Mr. Herman is, in fact, a member of the European People's party—[Interruption.] With great respect, the hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Herman was a Christian Democrat. He is a member of the European People's party, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take up that point with his Conservative colleagues who have close connections with the European People's party, as I made clear earlier.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whereas all the Conservatives voted against the Herman report, the socialists voted for it?
Mr. Allen: I am grateful for that information.
It is important that I make clear the Labour party's position in respect of the article of the treaty of Rome which calls for uniform electoral procedures to be established for elections to the European Parliament.
Hon. Members will recall that the matter was raised during a debate on an amendment during the Committee stage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill of 1993. We argued then that it was not feasible for an entirely new electoral system to be set up for the European elections in June 1994 and that it was silly to apply a different system for the additional six seats from that applying for the other 81. However, we also made it clear that as part of Labour's wider democratic agenda we would view sympathetically the notion of a plurality of electoral
822
systems, which might include legislating for a regional list system of proportional representation for future European elections.
During a debate in the House on 7 July, I said:
"The Plant commission, established by the Labour party to look into electoral systems, proposed, as one of its many recommendations, a system of proportional representation—the regional list system—for the European Parliament. Its report said:
'Such a system could be used by an incoming Labour Government for the 1999 elections at the earliest.'
That report was sent to our national executive committee. On 19 May the leader of the Labour party stated:
'The Committee concludes that different elected bodies can be chosen by different electoral systems. That is a view which I share and I support the proposals made both for a reformed Second Chamber and the European Parliament. The proposal on the European Parliament sensibly recommends consistency of voting for the one election that we share with other members of the European Community.'"—[Official Report, 7 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 401–02.]
The strong sympathy expressed at the time of the last debate on those matters was approved overwhelmingly by the Labour party conference last October. I state that for the record lest there be any misunderstanding of our position on the voting system. It also highlights the fact that the Government are yet again lagging behind even right-wing and Christian Democrat parties in Europe and are utterly isolated in their unwillingness to contemplate electoral change of any kind.
The European parliamentary constituency committees have now made their recommendations. We have a number of specific disagreements about the way in which boundaries have been drawn. In addition, hon. Members will remember that we called strongly for an additional Scottish seat. Nevertheless, we are generally satisfied that the English and Welsh constituency committees have done a thorough job and, on behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to those who served on them and discharged their responsibilities with great professionalism in circumstances made unnecessarily difficult by ministerial dithering and delay.
We live in dark days for democracy, days of Executive decree, 'Henry VIII' clauses and Bills being passed without proper parliamentary debate. I suppose that in that context we should be grateful that Ministers have not used their power to modify the recommendations of the boundary committees. It is a sad day when the House is grateful for not being abused, but it is just about all that we have to be thankful for until this wretched system is altered root and branch.
I deal now with the regulations that cover the enfranchisement of EC citizens resident in the United Kingdom. We welcome the change which allows EC citizens resident in the United Kingdom to vote in European elections. The regulations, which will give effect to the European Council directive of 6 December, will of course alter the long-standing position whereby only British and Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland are entitled to vote in European parliamentary elections. It is a sensible and a desirable change which is welcomed by Opposition Members. I understand—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—that the order relating to local government elections and European community citizens will be before the House by the end of 1994.
The Opposition believe that extension of the franchise to EC citizens who are resident in Britain is a clear affirmation of our practical commitment to greater

823
European co-operation and rights that apply to all European citizens. Consequently, we have been greatly worried by the Government's delay in bringing forward the legislation, which was adopted in draft on 23 June 1993 and became a Council directive on 6 December 1993.
It is indicative of the Government's approach to all matters European that every obligation under the Maastricht treaty appears to be discharged grudgingly and after unnecessary delay. Often the wheels appear to grind exceeding slow, especially where democratic change is concerned. It was in 1977 that the European Parliament first passed a resolution on voting rights in European elections. I hope that many of the pioneers of that time feel a sense of satisfaction this evening that the Bill and the orders are going through. It may interest them to know that in the past few months the European Parliament has agreed to press for a Bill of Rights for the citizens of Europe and for a written constitution for Europe. Who knows how quickly that may come to fruition?
The principles underlying that change are relatively straightforward. As the Minister has already said, article 8 of the treaty on European Union, passed last year, entitled "Citizenship of the Union", guarantees the right to move and reside freely in the territory of member states.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is it not also true that the European Union or Community—whatever one likes to call it—also intends to introduce a compulsory identity card in the form of a smart card, carrying details of the citizen's health, but on which there will be ample room to put all types of other information?
Mr. Allen: There are no proposals in draft directive form or before the House on that matter, as far as I know. If that were proposed, Opposition Members would object to it strenuously.
Article 8b(2) provides that citizens of the union
"shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament".
At present, there are considerable disparities between the way in which the right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate are treated in various member states. On the right to vote, for example, the United Kingdom grants that right to all United Kingdom citizens who have been out of the country for less than 20 years, while Germany extends voting rights to all German nationals residing in another member country of the Council of Europe and those who have lived in a non-member country for less than 10 years.
Certain member states—Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal—grant such voting rights only to those expatriate nationals who are living in another EC member state. There are also differences between the states on the ability of people to stand as candidates. The order that we are debating this evening will ensure that there is greater harmonisation in respect of elections to the European Parliament.
Mr. Christopher Gill: When the hon. Gentleman became a Member of the House, it seemed to me that he challenged the establishment, and many of us welcomed that; it seemed to be a breath of fresh air. Now it seems that he has become entirely institutionalised. Can he explain that to the House?
Mr. Allen: Absolutely. I plead guilty. The hon. Member has found me out. I am totally institutionalised, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will see the truth of that if and when the Jopling report is debated in the House.
The proposals also include additional checks on nationality to prevent multiple candidature and voting. Community voters living outside their home country will be required to meet the same qualifying rules of residence as any other national in that state. That is a reasonable principle, which we support. Regulation 4, rightly, creates an offence of standing as a candidate in more than one member state at the same election.
It is also right that there should be, in new rule 8(5), a declaration on the part of prospective EC candidates that contains details of nationality, address and last constituency in the home member state and evidence that the individual is not standing as a candidate in another member state. We also support the element of flexibility in the new arrangements whereby Community citizens have the option of voting in their country of residence or in their home country via a postal ballot.
While there is much to support, we need to draw attention to the Conservative's half-heartedness in one particular area, registration of voters. We note that the transitional arrangements that apply to the United Kingdom should enable the electoral registers to include as many EC citizens as possible. Regulation 8 authorises electoral registration officers to register relevant citizens of the union as European parliamentary electors. Regulation 9 requires the officer to publish a register of relevant citizens of the union entitled to vote. However, delay has meant that the ordinary electoral register is already published, so regulation 18 substitutes the publication date of 9 May for the European Community citizens register. Applications must therefore be in nine weeks from now at the very latest; in other words, by 22 April.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to establish that the Government have been extraordinarily dilatory, that there has been massive delay and that there are problems for electoral registration officers; but the regulations depend upon the directive. The directive was agreed and promulgated in December 1993. We have been two months in producing this very complicated set of regulations. That is not slow; it is moving with considerable speed.
Mr. Allen: The directive was promulgated when the Minister said, but it was hardly a bolt out of the blue. It had been around for some considerable time before that, and that excuse hardly applies to the delay in establishing the European parliamentary constituency committees. As the Minister knows well, it was merely a matter of seven weeks, the excuse being that had they had another seven weeks they could have had the public inquiry stage. In reality, there was plenty of time to do this in good order and without the present confusion over the candidatures and the existing European boundaries.
On the registration of electors, if we now have less than nine weeks from this evening for a possible 400,000 people to seek registration, it is essential that the Minister and the Department engage in a serious advertising campaign to ensure that people can exercise their rights. I should like the Minister, in his later remarks, to expand on what, if any,

825
measures the Government intend to take to publicise EC voting rights for those 400,000 or so European citizens of voting age resident in this country.
Needless to say, other European countries are taking the job more seriously. There is an advertisement, for example, in a recent issue of The Guardian, and if my Dutch were a little better, I would quote it into the record, but I am afraid that it does not make very much sense to me. I understand, however, that, literally translated, it says that Dutch citizens in this country should contact their ambassador at 38 Hyde Park Gate and ask for the relevant forms in order to register for the election and vote in the United Kingdom. Our friends in the Binnenhof seem to have taken that a little more seriously than the Home Office has.
Similar exercises are being undertaken by other Governments, and there is a tremendous contrast between what they have done and what our own Government have done. No publicity whatsoever has appeared yet, and once again I offer the Minister the chance to tell us later in the debate how the Government are prepared to exert themselves on this matter and whether they want people to register. It is not clear whether this is part of some idea of the Government that people should not register, and the Minister needs to make this clear so that people outside hear the message. Nine and a half million people did not vote even in the last general election.
May I therefore ask the Minister, on another matter, to agree to the proposal that the right to a postal vote should be highly publicised in the RPF 9A form in the newspapers well before the closing date of 20 May, not least because many people will be away on holiday in the summer and some may well be involved in the D-Day celebrations.
It is self-evident that the Government are utterly unconcerned to carry out an obligation to which they are bound by a treaty freely entered into. The Minister must tell us how he squares this inactivity with regulation 9(3), which obliges registration officers to
"take reasonable steps to obtain information"
about who should be eligible to appear on the electoral roll.
The Government should declare a willingness this evening to put some energy or resources into maxirnising electoral turn-out among EC voters. The importance of ensuring a high turn-out among EC nationals surely warrants something more than the complacency and drift that has come to characterise the Government's whole policy towards the European Community.
Tonight the Conservatives have gone through the motions. Law and treaty demanded that boundaries be redrawn and EC citizens be given the vote. These statutory instruments fulfil that bare minimum, and it will be left to others to do the job well.
4.46 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: I must confess that it is a matter of some indifference to me how many Members we are to elect to the European Parliament. If 81 is to be the new magic number, so be it, although I suppose that one must make a passing reference to the information which has come out in another place and been publicised this weekend in the press that, at almost £1 million a slug, Members of the European Parliament do not come cheap. I suppose that one should make allowances for the fact that they have three parliamentary buildings, they have to go on trips and they have to pay German rates for their bureaucracy, so there are exceptional factors and I would not want to make too much of that.
826
What I really want to put before the House is the question of what those Members of the European Parliament will do when they get there, and hence their cost-effectiveness.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In this very short debate it may be advantageous to draw to the attention of the House the scope of the debate. It is confined to the desirability of the proposed boundaries for European parliamentary constituencies and the introduction of changes to the franchise and qualifications of representatives for use in parliamentary elections in the manner specified. If hon. Members will keep to that in the debate, it will be of great advantage to the House. It is a short debate and going outside its main scope leaves less time for other hon. Members to speak.
Mr. Spicer: I accept that ruling entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the point that I want to make—I assure you that I intend to speak only very briefly—is that, if we are trying to assess the correctness of the numbers for which we are going to vote and the boundaries associated with those numbers, it is perfectly fair to ask, as they go off from us, what they are going off into. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not plan to speak for more than two minutes and I hope that that will allow me to make a very brief point on this, because otherwise it is almost impossible—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not allowing anything outside the scope of the debate.
Mr. Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for us to discuss the cost-effectiveness of Members of the European Parliament and the costs associated with them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The simple answer to that is no, it is not in order.
Mr. Spicer: If we are not now to discuss the costs associated with electing a greater number of Members of the European Parliament and the boundaries associated with it, I have nothing further to say.
4.49 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I suspect that the brevity of the speech of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) will be welcomed if only because a number of us were not sure how much time would be available for our speeches after those of the Front-Bench spokesmen.
I advance two specific arguments: the first relates to the overall boundary review and the second involves my county. If the proposals for electoral reform in the European Union had been adopted, today's debate would not be taking place and boundaries would not be a relevant issue. A common electoral system would mean that the citizens of the European Community could be properly represented. It is unacceptable in any democratic institution for a region to be represented in an unfair and undemocratic way which distorts the Parliament. Under paragraph 3 of article 138 of the treaty, a common electoral system is required.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your previous

827
ruling, is it in order to discuss different voting systems? Are we not discussing those eligible to vote and the parliamentary constituencies?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave the matter for the Chair to decide.
Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) pays attention, he will appreciate that the boundaries are the nub of the issue in terms of the electoral systems. The Commission should have been asked to address the principle of a common electoral system, to which this country is a signatory and towards which it has agreed we should aim. That system should have been introduced long ago, but sadly both Labour and Conservative Governments have preferred to ignore it for their electoral benefit.
The arguments that have been used to block the introduction of a fair electoral system in the United Kingdom Westminster elections should not block the reform of electoral procedure in Europe. The De Gucht proposals, which demand a common electoral system, have been passed by the European Parliament. They rest on the table of the Council of Ministers. It is common knowledge that the Government have shown the greatest reluctance to make any progress. Such reform is necessary.
It is a pity that the Government have not taken the opportunity of the change in the number of seats to bring a measure of proportionality to the British European elections. Even if the Government did not wish to take that opportunity for a full reform leading to a fair voting system, the extra six seats offered them the chance of creating a more proportional system by creating so-called additional member top-up to ensure that under-represented views gained their rightful place in Europe. They could have created a fairer system and avoided the problems such as trying to redraw boundaries at short notice before the European elections and of getting candidates in place. Given that even that partial reform has been rejected, Liberal Democrats cannot be expected to support the proposals.
I also want to deal with a narrower issue—how the proposals affect my county of Cornwall. I may be the only hon. Member to discuss a specific European seat in any detail, but the proposals are important to our region, as we have long argued.
The European Assembly Elections Act 1978 states:
"The electorate of any Assembly constituency in Great Britain shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations."
The relative importance given to the second half of that statement is crucial to the argument for a Cornish seat. There is strong evidence that Cornwall fulfils the requirements of those special geographical considerations.
The committee proposals for a Cornwall and West Plymouth European parliamentary constituency provoked an enormous response from those opposing the link with Plymouth. That has occurred on each occasion that the constituency has been reviewed. The late David Penhaligon argued for a separate constituency in 1978 and I argued for it in Select Committee in 1988.
The sheer weight of numbers of democratically elected organisations in Cornwall was the most important feature of those responses. Those organisations included the
828
county council, all six Cornish district councils, the Cornwall Association of Town and Parish Councils and 48 Cornish town and parish councils. Those councils are run by various political groupings or, more importantly, by independent councillors at parish level.
Those organisations have responded with a united voice and have declared their support for a separate Cornish constituency. I think that all hon. Members will recognise that it is remarkable to achieve such widespread agreement among councillors working at different tiers and in different regions.
The responses are all the more impressive when one considers the short period for consultation on the proposals. The case for a Cornish constituency has also been supported by the business community and leading academics. Peter Fitzgerald, one of the largest manufacturing employers in the county, and chairman of the Cornwall Economic Forum, has emphasised the importance to local business of Cornwall having its own Member of the European Parliament. The Institute of Cornish Studies, the University of Exeter and even Cambridge university advanced strong arguments for a separate Cornwall constituency and many individuals took their views personally to the Commission.
I want to explain why Cornwall is a special case and why so many local people advanced that argument. There are five reasons: first, precedents exist for concessions on the electoral quota; secondly, Cornwall has a separate cultural identity; thirdly, it has a special geographical location; fourthly, it has economic needs; and, fifthly, Plymouth also has relevant concerns.
The criteria for the mean electorate size for a European parliamentary constituency have been used as a justification for ignoring Cornwall's case. Yet concessions that have led to the establishment of constituencies which do not meet the size requirement have been given to other regions because it is accepted that European parliamentary constituencies should be created along the lines of natural communities, with common identities and interests. Cornwall has a strong identity as a separate community. The present arrangement that links Cornwall with west Plymouth does not benefit either area.
Although the English review is being conducted independently from the rest of the United Kingdom, it is relevant to examine the overall picture. Northern Ireland returns a representative for every 384,000 electors and even on the mainland, there are marked variations. I understand that the proposed West Wales seat will have an electorate of only 400,000. The electorate in the Highlands and Islands seat is 310,000.
Cornwall's electorate of 372,000 is higher than that of the Highlands and Islands and virtually the same as that of Northern Ireland and West Wales. There are only 36,000 electors per Member of the European Parliament in Luxembourg and 161,000 in the Republic of Ireland. The size of the constituencyt is not the most material issue. The European Parliament has a wide range of electors per Member and, if Cornwall were to obtain its own seat, its electoral quota would not be extraordinary.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What size are the Devon seats?
Mr. Taylor: A wide range of changes would follow. I accept that a change in Cornwall should not create an

829
over-size Devon seat. We have argued from the first that any change should be part of the review and that Cornwall should not be considered in isolation.
Cornwall has one of the most rapidly growing populations in the country and it is expected that it will not remain much under quota for very long. It is estimated that the population will grow to 500,000 relatively rapidly. The electoral quota argument is not final. Other arguments run counter to the Commission's suggestions and its brief.
Cornwall has a separate identity with its own traditions, history, customs and language. Those attributes are firmly rooted in a Celtic past that bears more relation to Scotland and Wales than to Devon. There would have been objections if regions in Scotland or Wales had been linked with parts of England for the convenience of the review. It seems that Cornwall, which has a distinct and separate identity, continues to be ignored. The European Union recognises that special regard must be paid to areas with strong regional identities. Indeed, the European Parliament's resolution is specific on that point and I believe that the boundary commission has failed to take the opportunity to observe that requirement.
Thirdly, it is disappointing that the committee has ignored the well-defined geographical boundary of Cornwall along the River Tamar. That is still a substantial physical and psychological barrier between Plymouth and Cornwall. The Tamar bridge is the only road vehicle crossing for 23 miles from Rame head northward to Gunnislake bridge. Cornwall is almost an island, with natural boundaries fixed by the coastline and the River Tamar. It is effectively isolated from the rest of the country. That is often forgotten in conversation, when people tend to say, "I was in Bristol at the weekend, in your part of the world," forgetting that Bristol is nearer to London than it is to Cornwall. Indeed, for some Cornish people the distance between their home and Plymouth is longer than the journey from London to Bristol.
My fourth point is probably the single most important reason why Cornwall should be treated as a special case. It is not an emotional reason; it is the fact that there has been a failure to take into account the economic geography of the county. Plymouth and Cornwall have totally different economic identities, so European entanglement between them will be mutually economically detrimental. The economy of Cornwall is still heavily reliant for its income on traditional industries such as fishing, farming, tourism and mining. Plymouth relies mainly on the fact that it is a conurbation with a growing and diversified industrial and commercial base.
The two economies' distinctive and incompatible needs have been recognised in a development that occurred since the committee met. Europe's regional economic development programme has afforded Plymouth objective 2 status, which is targeted at areas fighting industrial decline. Cornwall, on the other hand, has objective 5b status, which is aimed at developing rural areas. That demonstrates the difference between the two. I do not oppose links where they are relevant. I argue for them, encourage them and defend them when I believe that they are important, but I do not believe in links that are irrelevant and unhelpful.
Cornwall is one of the worst black spots in the country for unemployment, poverty and other economic difficulties. It has one of the lowest gross domestic products in Europe. According to the Central Statistical Office's regional figures for Cornwall, the county is so badly off that in 1991 our GDP was only 73 per cent. of the national
830
average. Devon's GDP was 87 per cent. of the national average. The different progress of the two areas is shown by the fact that in 1989 Cornwall's GDP was 75·6 per cent. of the average, so it has fallen comparatively, whereas that of Devon was 85·5 per cent. in 1989 and has since grown. The two areas have been moving in opposite directions. Their economic performance is divergent and they have a different set of problems.
Linking part of Plymouth with Cornwall will create a wholly artificial unit unrelated to geographical, social or economic reality. Indeed, the creation of a split within the city of Plymouth makes that divide even more stark. As Plymouth city council has been keen to point out, it is even clearer that that is not in the interests of Plymouth. Plymouth's interest is as clear as Cornwall's, and its natural links into south Devon provide the basis for a seat in which it could be better represented.
Cornwall needs a voice of its own to argue its case for regional funding to improve its infrastructure, reduce its unemployment and encourage its industry. Funds need to be directed at improving Cornish roads, rail links and other communications.
The Liberal Democrats oppose the basis of the review. We believe that at national level an opportunity has been missed, or perhaps ducked, to encourage the common fair electoral system to which this country is supposedly a signatory. But even if the chance for a fair electoral system has been lost, at least we should have played to what strength there is in a single-Member system and recognised properly the individual communities of the United Kingdom. That chance has been missed, and on that ground I do not believe that the review should take effect.
5.3 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: As the Government and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen want to introduce the measure fulfilling their commitments to the Maastricht treaty, I accept the methodology and precedents that the Government cite. They are indeed appropriate.
However, I must say briefly that the vote is no longer like the generality of the population voting for membership of a golf club in which we have varying degrees of interest. We are now trying to affirm citizenship through the vote, so the way in which we distribute the seats and the affirmation that we give through the vote will not relate to any of the sentiments expressed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Both he and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), ally themselves to an outer reach of lunacy not shared by the general populace outside the House.
I understand that at the previous European election only 31 per cent. of the population could find their way to polling stations, although that may be because they were denied the Liberal Democrat's panacea for everything—proportional representation. There is a profound and deep argument that that system is no more representative and provides no truer a democracy than do single-Member constituencies. That is a legitimate debate and the parroting of proportional representation as the only way forward is inappropriate for serious people trying to discuss the

831
matter. One understands why the Liberal Democrats wish to pursue the idea, but not necessarily why the Labour party wishes to do the same.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Boundaries.
Mr. Shepherd: This has a great deal to do with boundaries, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but the essence of the argument is that the procedure is wholly inappropriate in terms of trying to attest citizenship through an arrangement of six additional boundaries into a union and a political state. That is the profound objection that Conservative Members have long expressed and it reflects the public mood in the country about the elections and the way in which the boundaries are drawn. In conclusion, we now have further evidence of the irrelevance of the House in reflecting and attesting to public opinion.
5.5 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is one of my parliamentary neighbours, but I believe that it is part of grown-up politics to ensure that the political opinion of a nation is adequately represented in the forums of that nation, whether they be this place or the European Parliament. For that reason, I make no bones about the fact that I wish that we were debating a different electoral system.
I did not wish to intervene in the Minister's speech because this is a short debate and I did not want to take up too much time. However, our electoral system, which is unique in Europe, means that our deadline will be different from that of all the other member states. They all use proportional representation with either national lists or large regional lists, so it is easy for them, even literally the day before, as the Minister said, to change the cut-off point. That will not affect the value of anybody's vote in those countries, but that cannot be the case with single-Member constituencies. For us, there will have to be at least 21 days; that is the rock-bottom minimum.
I suspect that the French have us over a barrel, and we shall have to cough up for the enormous expenditure on an extra building in Strasbourg which I believe is not needed—although I do not have the details of that argument.
I sincerely hope that these are the last boundary changes that we shall have to debate. It has been said that we may have to go through the process again, but I hope that we do not. I suspect that the wipe-out of the Conservative party in the European elections on 9 June may make even Conservative Members think that to save their own skins in future they had better start thinking about a fairer electoral system.
Indeed, I am sure that a unified system is on the way, and if we do not take it upon ourselves to act it will be forced on the House by Europe. That will be our own fault because we will have shirked our responsibilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, the Labour party is now firmly committed, both by the voices of the leadership and by the votes and resolutions at our party conference, to a system of proportional representation for the European Parliament.
I hope that when the elections come on 9 June, and people argue about why they are voting for European
832
candidates according to one set of boundaries rather than another, and why there are different rules for European elections—the registration will be different, allowing all kinds of "foreigners" to vote in European elections in this country—we shall be able to say that different arrangements will be made in future.
My second point, which relates wholly to this clutch of 18 articles plus a schedule, which the Minister did not have the time to go through in great detail, explains why I tabled an amendment to provide that the order should not be approved until the citizens of Gibraltar are represented in the European Parliament. I know that my amendment was not selected and I am not complaining about that. Far from it—I would never complain about the Chair. [Interruption.] I do not complain about the Chair and I would not do so. I introduced a Bill on this matter yesterday.
If hon. Members have read the orders, which run to at least 10,000 words, they will see that, by and large, all and sundry—citizens of the European Union—will be able to vote on 9 June. On one or two occasions, the Minister said that all citizens of the Union will be able to vote. However, that is not true. Citizens of the Union who live in south America, the West Indies or the Pacific, and are members of the French colonies, will be able to vote in the European elections. But citizens of the European Union who are members of the only mainland European colony belonging to this country—Gibraltar—will not have a vote. That is not right, fair or democratic.
For years, we have shied away from handling this issue. But the House now has total responsibility for the 30,000 citizens of Gibraltar. That is not the electorate—it is the total population. We continue to deny those citizens a vote, yet they are citizens of the European Union under our legislation, and they are accepted as such by the European Parliament.
It is wrong that the boundaries that we are talking about were not drawn—it could easily have been done—in such a way as to incorporate the 20,000 or so European Union citizens of Gibraltar who do not wish to be part of Spain and who will not be until it has been a democracy for 50 years or more. We could easily have given them a right to vote by absorbing them into one of the English constituencies. I accept completely what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said. It is absolutely right that the cultural and geographical identity of people matters to the European Parliament.
We have a responsibility to the citizens of Gibraltar. If they live in this country on a semi-permanent basis, and if they were here last October, they will have a vote, as will everyone else who is a citizen of the European Union. Peers of the realm who live elsewhere will also have a vote under these and previous regulations, whether or not they are in this country. It is wrong that citizens of France—it is remarkable that the French will be the cause of this whole edifice collapsing if we do not submit to their extra demands—who are living in the colonies in south America, the West Indies, and the Pacific will have a vote in the European elections on 9 June.
We cannot shirk our responsibility to the citizens of Gibraltar. We are denying them that responsibility, and it is time that the House addressed the matter.
5.13 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall say three brief things about the boundaries. Before doing so, I must declare a personal interest. I have put my name forward to be considered as a candidate to stand for the Conservative party in the new constituency of South Essex. It is possible that I may not be selected, for all sorts of reasons. However, if I am selected, it may at least give the people of that lovely part of the world the opportunity of having the referendum that they never had on the Maastricht treaty because of the shameful way in which Labour Members were not willing to allow the people to have their say on that vital issue.
The first issue that I want to put to the Minister is: does this matter? My hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) rightly said that only 31 per cent. of the people bothered to vote, so why are we bothering with new things at all? Logically, we would ask why on earth, because the Germans are getting more seats and East Germany is being added to the Union, Britain should get more seats as well. It is very difficult to explain why we should have extra seats at all.
Another factor that we should bear in mind is that the great majority of people are not only not interested, but are hostile to the whole business. If hon. Members have looked at The European, they may have noticed that 53 per cent.—the highest figure ever—of all the people of Britain are now totally and completely opposed to the whole business of the EC; they do not think that it is a good idea. In that case, why should we have new boundaries?
There is a special interest in south Essex. The people are concerned that while the Government wanted to give aid to south Essex because of its unemployment, unfortunately that was stopped by two Commissioners. Mr. Van Miert and Mr. Millan. The Government requested assisted area status and objective 2 status for south Essex. That was turned down by the two Commissioners simply because we sliced 2 per cent. from the application.
Can the Minister give any more assurance that the orders will come into effect? Has he been in touch with the French Government? It is important that people in, for example, Southend-on-Sea should know where they are going. If the new regulations are passed, they will be part of a new seat. However, if the regulations do not come into effect, they will belong to another seat. As Southend-on-Sea had the lowest recorded percentage voting of any constituency in England at the last European elections, it is important to explain to people whether all this is likely to happen.
People are getting more concerned about the way in which the French Government are disrupting so many worthwhile things for silly reasons. The GATT negotiations were held up for a long time simply because the French wanted even more cash for agriculture—and, of course, they got it. When we are spending £250 million a week on dumping and destroying food, it is silly that we agreed to give more money to the French for agriculture.
Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the GATT negotiations failed in the end because Caribbean bananas were not protected?
Sir Teddy Taylor: It would not be in order for me to go into that, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The
834
filthy protectionism of the common agricultural policy forces up the price of food by £28 a week for the average family in Britain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must insist that we get back to the boundaries. I have insisted on that repeatedly this afternoon and I thought that hon. Members had got the message.
Sir Teddy Taylor: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish that hon. Members would not raise such irrelevant points. The hon. Gentleman's argument; is rubbish. It is bad for the third world and bad for the people of Europe. I shall be glad to give the hon. Gentleman an answer outside the House, but I cannot give it here.
I ask the Minister to tell us what we will have to do on these new boundaries. I understand that the European Parliament has many buildings. It built a great building in Brussels at enormous cost, and it wants a new building in Strasbourg. It is now paying rentals of £24 million a year. Frankly, if we want these new constituencies, including South Essex, it seems that we will have to tell the French that they have lots of money to build lots of new buildings for this ridiculous Parliament. In voting for the new boundaries, we will have to decide what we want to do. Will we simply chuck out these extra six constituencies and tell the French that we will not agree to silly extra expenditure, or will we cave in, as we have done so often?
Hon. Members should bear in mind the cost of caving in to French blackmail. We did it over the GATT negotiations at great expense to the people of this country and Europe, and at great damage to the third world. It seems that if we agree to the new constituencies, we will do it only by having additional buildings which are an utter waste. Honestly, I think that our constituents are distressed about the waste, the fraud and the mismanagement of the EC.
Mr. David Winnick: Of course, the buildings are all related to these orders, which provide that MEPs can be elected in the first place. It is interesting to note that if agreement cannot be reached, as is the position at present, in what is called the European Union over where the Parliament will sit—one would have thought that agreement could easily be reached on that matter—what on earth is the possibility of reaching agreement on much more substantial matters? We are supposed to believe that the European Union is one—that it is all unanimous and the rest of it. There does not seem to be much evidence of that, even on the question of where MEPs will meet.
Sir Teddy Taylor: How right you were, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that I could not go into this matter, because it is out of order. On the other hand, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the basic policies he will see that the flaw of the EC is that it cannot solve problems.
All the new Members of the European Parliament whom we are sending over should bear it in mind that they are going to something where problems cannot be solved. An ideal example is the common agricultural policy, where reform after reform is talked about, but nothing happens.
My final point is that expenditure is at an all-time high, mountains are at an all-time high, and the gap between consumer prices and world prices is the highest ever recorded. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said to me that a sum of £28 a week extra per family—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is testing my patience now. I must insist that he, and hon. Members who make interventions, should stay within the terms of the debate on the boundaries.
Sir Teddy Taylor: How right you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been trying hard to stick to the regulations. Unfortunately, hon. Members can ask a direct question and if one does not answer, it gives the impression that one is ignoring them. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) attends European debates with great regularity, and I will be only too glad to speak to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) to clarify the matters.
My final point is important. Bearing in mind the fact that so few people bother to vote, is there any possibility that, before the regulations come into effect, a little pamphlet can be distributed which says exactly what the additional MEPs—and the existing ones—actually can do? In the progress of democracy, people can sometimes gain the impression that the European Parliament can do things which it cannot. Many people who study it carefully take the view that if it closed down tomorrow, nobody would notice apart from the taxi drivers in Strasbourg.
People ask whether anything can be done by the European Parliament about the export of live cattle—the answer is no. They ask whether the flood of legislation can be stopped—of course not, as it goes through by majority vote in the European Council.
Do we need the order at all? Why should we have extra seats just because Germany is getting more? Are we to cave in to French blackmail again, and what will that cost us? We are to send even more people to Strasbourg, Brussels or anywhere else, and the people of Britain are becoming more worried, concerned and perplexed about the EC. [Interruption.] That is particularly the case in places such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), where they take a special interest in public affairs. They want to know what is going to happen, and whether it would make any difference if there was not a European Parliament at all.
5.23 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I am delighted once again to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in a debate on European matters. I wish him well in his efforts to become a candidate for the forthcoming European elections, and I am looking forward to seeing a copy of the election manifesto on which he will fight those elections. I am also looking forward to seeing how it will be possible for the Conservative party to have a manifesto that both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) will be comfortable with. No doubt that is a matter for the Conservative party.
The great advantage of having a fixed date for the European elections of 9 June—a date well known for a considerable time—should be certainty for the electorate. The electors should know not only the date of the election but the geographical boundary of the constituency in which they live. They should also know the candidates from whom they can choose and the number of MEPs who will represent the United Kingdom. However, even if the House agrees the order, none of those issues will be resolved.
There is a temptation—I regret that the hon. Member for Southend, East succumbed to it—to blame the French, and
836
the French Government, for the present uncertainty. That assertion needs to be examined a little more closely, because the British Government are not without blame in the matter.
The issues affecting the forthcoming elections should have been resolved at the Edinburgh summit during the British presidency in December 1992. It was decided at that summit that Germany would have an extra 18 seats and that France, Italy and the United Kingdom would each have an extra six seats. In addition, however, the Government went along with the French Government's demand that Strasbourg should be recognised as a meeting place for the European Parliament in perpetuity. The British Government agreed to that demand, and that has caused the present difficulties and uncertainties.
The Prime Minister came back from the Edinburgh summit and told the House that he was entirely happy with the negotiations and with the results of the summit. In so doing, he overlooked two crucial aspects of what was decided there. He overlooked the fact that the European Parliament had consistently voted for Brussels as a meeting place. The Parliament was often led by Conservative MEPs on the issue, and they had argued strongly that Brussels should be the single meeting place for the Parliament.
Clearly, there are MEPs who support Strasbourg as a meeting place, but the majority do not; they want to meet in a single city. In so doing, the majority have accepted that there should be a new European Parliament building in Brussels. That building now operates, but on a limited basis. During 1994, it is likely that only eight half-day meetings of the full European Parliament will be in Brussels.
The Prime Minister also overlooked the fact that the existing chamber in Strasbourg is simply not large enough to accommodate the extra MEPs who will be elected. Those extra MEPs will come as a result not so much of the Edinburgh agreement as of the enlargement which is in prospect. That idea has been strongly supported by the Government.
The Government have supported the idea of Strasbourg as a permanent meeting place for the European Parliament. The proposals for the boundary changes are affected by the decisions of the French national assembly and the French Government to make life difficult for the other member states in terms of ratifying the proposals. It is right that we should ask what the Government's position is.
I asked the Minister earlier about this matter, and I appreciate his difficulties. He is a Home Office Minister, rather than a Foreign Office Minister, and I quite understand that he is reluctant to stray too far from his departmental portfolio. The Government agreed that the European Parliament should continue to meet in Strasbourg, but we heard nothing from the Minister as to where the money should come from to make that commitment a reality.
I am sure that every Conservative Member would say that the uncertainty about the present boundaries is the responsibility of the British Government, and they should sort out which boundaries will be in place by 9 June. The reality is that the British Government have gone along with the arrangement of having Strasbourg recognised as a seat of the European Parliament, and they have done so without recognising that there will be a cost.
Conservative Members have consistently criticised the European Parliament for having a number of buildings

837
from which to operate, and they are right to do so. That is not of the making of the European Parliament, which would be delighted to hold meetings in the new building in Brussels. The truth is that the British Government—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but can we hear something about the boundaries?
Mr. Hoon: I will certainly stay in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Even if we pass the proposals tonight, the British electorate will not know in which constituencies they will vote on 9 June. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) gave an illustration by referring to his European constituency. If I may, I will give a similar example in my area. The European constituency of Derbyshire and Ashfield will be divided into three different sections if we pass the order. A series of new constituencies will be created across the east midlands, and the electorate will expect to know who the candidates are. The political parties are selecting the candidates in preparation for the elections. There will be an extra constituency in the east midlands as a result of the order. At some stage, the political parties will have to select new candidates for the six extra seats across the United Kingdom. That is under way. The political parties' processes for choosing candidates are an important part of our democratic process.
The political parties undertake considerable organisation in selecting candidates. I assume that that is the case for the Conservative party. I know that it is for the Labour party. I assume that the same is true for the Liberal Democrats and other parties represented in the House. It will cause astonishing confusion among the electorate if the parties undertake the selection process only to find a few weeks before 9 June that, as a result of the difficulties with the French Government's attitude to the elections, we have to revert to the existing arrangement and the new boundaries cannot be put in place. The Government will seek to blame that on the French.
It is important that the record is set straight about the French Government. The British Government not only went along with the agreement at the time of the Edinburgh summit but positively endorsed the arrangement and urged it on other member states of the European Community. That is a relevant matter, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that other issues relating to the constituencies are of greater concern to right hon. and hon. Members. However, who is to pay for any new building for the European Parliament is a matter that the Government cannot avoid.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. He represents the Home Office, which has no specific responsibility for Europe. Nevertheless, the matter affects the electorate and the House should take note of it.
5.31 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I rise to sum up the debate for the Opposition. We welcome the orders, delayed as they are and besmirched as they are by the usual examples of Government incompetence. The Government failed to send them to the Scrutiny Committee in the proper manner and to allow the usual processes to take place; that is par for the course these days.
I particularly welcome the order relating to Wales because it confers on Wales one additional seat, giving us
838
five altogether. That reflects the rise in the Welsh population in the past 10 years. Wales was underrepresented under the previous distribution of seats. We had only four seats. We shall be slightly over-represented when we have five seats because we cannot have four and a half seats—it has to be one or the other.
As the Welsh population is continuing to grow rapidlly, it is likely that the over-representation will be put right. In percentage terms, the Welsh population is increasing more rapidly than that of England. By the year 2001, when the next review will take place, we shall certainly fully occupy that seat—if I can put it that way—in terms of average size. In the past 10 years, Welsh Euro-constituencies were slightly larger on average than those in England. So we are moving from under representation to slight overrepresentation for a temporary period simply because Wales is regarded as indivisible for the purpose of Euro-elections. That is why we welcome the debate.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Obviously, the integrity of Wales is important to him; otherwise, he would presumably be prepared to accept that part of England could have gone with one of the new seats. Will he deal with the fact that, because the orders for Wales and England are taken separately, it is not possible to apply the quota in the same way in different parts of the United Kingdom? Wales has been given a different quota to that for England, and because Cornwall has been included in England for this purpose we are being unfairly treated while Wales is being generously treated. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that inequality?
Mr. Morgan: Cornwall is a special case. The people of Cornwall are our Celtic cousins. Cornwall is the only non-Anglo-Saxon county in England. As a result, we feel a strong, almost uncle-nephew relationship with Cornwall. The Cornish are certainly not Welsh, but nor are they Anglo-Saxon English. We have a great deal of sympathy with Cornwall. However, we do not think that the ideas that have been floated tonight for a Cornwall and Gibraltar, West seat or some link between Cornwall and the tail end of a Welsh seat are practical. The hon. Gentleman must solve the problem within the confines of Cornwall being regarded as part of England, if not Anglo-Saxon England. It is not a problem with which I can deal.
Wales takes an interest in Europe that most of the Conservative Members who have spoken—in summing up the debate, one has to refer to them—have not been able to show. A definite anti-European theme came through in he speeches of most of the Back-Bench Conservatives who took part in the debate. It is difficult to sum up the debate without some reference to the points that they have made.
Their attitude is in complete contrast to the attitude that we in Wales have to Europe. We are anxious to promote the Wales in Europe theme, because it is important to us. We have built up links with other regions of Europe, including Catalonia, Rhône-Alpes, Lombardy and Baden-Wurttemberg. They are our strong neighbours and they can teach us a lot about industry. Those are the areas with which we want to link up by having the extra seat in the European Parliament.
We have some sympathy with the occasional point that is made by the anti-Europe Conservative Members. There is an excessive proliferation of European bodies. We have the European Parliament, the new Committee of the

839
Regions and the Economic and Social Committee. In the end, something will have to be done to sort out that excessive proliferation.
We welcome the recognition of the fact that the population of Wales is growing. The additional population is not primarily in industrial south Wales, which people think of as the most typically Welsh area. It is in the two counties of Clwyd and Dyfed which are growing more rapidly as a result of the life style there and retirement migration. That is why the additional seat is the Mid and West Wales seat. It has been taken from the four previous seats.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) compared it to parts of Cornwall. The new Welsh constituency has a population of only 401,000. However, it is an extensive seat because the population is much more sparse than in Cornwall. The constituency will stretch from south of Milford Haven to the Llanrwst area, within about 20 miles of the north Wales coast. It will include two whole counties plus one additional sparsely populated area in the county of Gwynedd. It is an awkward constituency, but we look forward to fighting and winning it, to give us five out of five seats, when the new boundaries are accepted.
The third order deals with the registration of overseas voters. In the 1992 election, overseas voters had their first opportunity to participate in Westminster elections. The Conservatives in Wales have taken the principle much further. They do not merely allow overseas voters to participate in Welsh elections; they encourage them to become chairmen of our quangos. We have David Rowe-Beddoe, the chairman of Conservatives Abroad—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to hear anything whatever about quangos. I want to hear something about the boundaries of the European parliamentary constituencies.
Mr. Morgan: We are dealing with three orders. The third order relates not to boundaries but to the registration of overseas voters, to enable them to vote in the European parliamentary elections for United Kingdom constituencies. That is why the position of Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, as the chairman of Conservatives Abroad in Monte Carlo, is relevant.
For the first time, the European Parliament, with the new constituency boundaries, will be able to remedy part of the democratic deficit. European Members of Parliament will have a voice in choosing the chairman of the European Commission—which is a Euro-quango, in a way. I see a parallel which I want to put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are remedying the democratic deficit in the giant Euro-quango in the same way as we would like to remedy the democratic deficit with respect to the proliferation of quangos in Wales.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is all very interesting, but let us now talk about the boundaries of the European parliamentary constituencies.
Mr. Morgan: We have heard a great deal about how the bigger European Parliament needs to be incorporated in a bigger building at a cost of £200 million. The extra European Members of Parliament—we shall have one in Wales—would not have anywhere to sit if they could not go to the building in Strasbourg. The Labour party accepts
840
that, if there is to be a bigger Parliament, the logical consequence must be followed right through. That is unlike the attitude that has been displayed by the Conservatives. They are going to take part in the election, but one is never sure whether they are enthusiastic about it. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that we do not want the additional six seats. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) said that he did not give a damn whether it was 81 or 87. The Labour party thinks it important to have the additional six seats.
I can well imagine that, if the Germans had said that they wanted all the additional seats in the European Parliament, the Conservatives would have complained about the Germans grabbing all the sun beds and European seats. That would have been seen as not right, as well.
The Labour party does not share that hypocritical attitude. Either the Conservatives want to be part of Europe, in which case they should take part in all the boundary changes and the debate tonight in an enthusiastic way—as we are doing—or they do not. They are completely hypocritical about it. We read in The Guardian only last Saturday of the extraordinary visit to the new European Parliament building by members of the Commons-Lords hockey team. The article said:
"Some MPs turned up with young relatives or assistants including a tall blonde in her mid-twenties who was clad in jodphurs"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had quite sufficient about that. Let us get back to the European boundaries.
Mr. Morgan: It was a terribly brief point about being clad in jodphurs, riding boots and hacking jacket.
I have heard about riding roughshod over Europe, but that is ridiculous. Hon. Members who took part in that visit to the European Parliament took public money, yet all they do tonight is criticise its existence. Either they—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying my patience. Please get back to the European boundaries.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have observed that hon. Members on the Front Benches have spoken at incredible length and that you have had to reprimand them—certainly the Opposition—for going away from the subject matter. Do you not believe that it would have been far better to allow some Back Benchers to get into the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no control over the length of speeches, but I am perfectly able to control the debate.
Mr. Morgan: The Labour party believes that the additional six seats are important because the European Parliament elections will be important. We regard it as important to fight the elections on the new boundaries with the minimum of delay, in spite of the delay that was caused by the Government's incompetence. We regard the debate tonight as important to approve the orders. We cannot thus far work out whether the Government will fight the whole campaign on "back to basics" while the European Peoples party will fight it on the basis of some other manifesto—"Vorsprung durch technik". Perhaps the Government will try to merge the two slogans into "Vorsprung durch back to basics".
We do not know whether the Government want to be part of Europe and whether their Back Benchers will be

841
willing to co-operate with the EPP. They take the money from the EPP but do not want to participate with it in its manifesto. The Labour party has an agreement in fighting the 87 seats. Certainly in terms of Wales, we will win all five of the seats.
5.42 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends have not been able to speak, as I would have liked to hear them.
I will use the few minutes that are left to me to comment on some of the points that have been raised. I shall start with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I was grateful for his tribute to the members of the two boundary committees. They did an excellent job. They did it—as he implied slightly less generously to the Government—in a considerably shorter time than they and we would have liked, but they did it well and fairly.
In organising the new seats, we have taken about the same time as the Labour Government took in 1978. Although I said that earlier, it is worth repeating for the record. Exactly the same pressures were on us as were on them. The timetable for the constituency changes and the problems that we are facing are nothing to do with any action in the compass of the British Government, but because France has yet to ratify. One hopes that it will.
The regulations about candidates and voters from EEC countries are complicated. The directive of December 1993 contained details that we were neither expecting nor looking for, so there was a great deal of new work to take on board. The hon. Gentleman wondered whether we would ever have a truncated view again. We certainly will not under the 1993 legislation, because that was one off, as careful reading of it will show.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) hoped that there would be no more reviews of European boundaries. He was talking about proportional representation. We shall certainly have one new review of Euro constituency boundaries. As soon as the parliamentary boundaries are completed there will have to be a new review of all the European seats. Full inquiries on that will be held in the normal way.
Mr. Allen: If the French do not ratify the proposals, which now appears likely, how late can the Minister leave it before he informs people that they must fight the European elections on the old boundaries, not the new?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept that the French are unlikely to ratify—rather the contrary. That remains finally for them and not for me. I think that the final time comes some time in April; otherwise, there would be—I use the term again—massive inconvenience for those fighting the elections here.
Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to repudiate the comments made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who said that we will not have an alien voting system inflicted on this country by the institutions of the European Community? I reiterate what my right hon. Friend said in a meeting last year:
"I do not see that uniformity means adopting a system of proportional representation, and I have yet to see a good case as to the merits of the different states adopting the same procedure."
Will we continue to veto any proposals that do not match our culture in this country?
Mr. Lloyd: What my hon. Friend has just read out is certainly my view. We will of course engage in any discussions on this subject that come up in the Council of Ministers. But it would take a lot to convince me and my colleagues that any other form of election would be an improvement on first past the post.
Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lloyd: I will not give way, because I have only about four minutes left and I want to make a couple of other points. If there is any time left, the hon. Gentleman shall have it.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said that he was not looking to proportional representation for these elections. He was absolutely right. I hope that he will invest his thoughts in that piece of good sense when we come back to these questions later.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was unable to make all of his points, as I would have been interested to hear them.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) talked about PR. He thought that, if there was proportional representation for this election, it would save time. It most certainly would not. We would have to decide on the system and who drew up the list. Would it be a United Kingdom list or a regional list? Or would it be one of the separate countries that make up the United Kingdom? There is a huge amount of discussion to be had there. It is not a missed chance at all.
The hon. Gentleman wanted a separate seat for Cornwall. Many other counties would like a conterminous seat—I know that Norfolk would—but the rule is that constituencies should have, as far as possible, equal numbers of electors.
The committees were able to take in special geographical considerations, but those do not apply to Cornwall. The problem with Cornwall having a seat of its own is that its population is too small. No brief was given to the committee. All the criteria that it should have taken into account were included in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Highlands and Islands. That is a different matter, because the geographical considerations that do not apply to Cornwall apply in their case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) also spoke about PR. I have mentioned that, so he will excuse me if I do not go over his remarks.
I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Perry Barr said about Gibraltar. I cannot deal with that matter in this debate. I am afraid that a decision was taken within the Community which was made part of the European Community Act on direct elections of 1976 and there is no way that we can change it without the agreement of all the other members of the Community. I know that my colleagues at the Foreign Office are extremely concerned about that matter, sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman said and certainly sympathise with the feelings of the citizens of Gibraltar.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked whether all this mattered. In the sense of whether it matters if there are 651 Members of this House rather than 640 or 655, no it does not. However, the change reflects rather more accurately than the previous arrangements the various sizes of electorates in European countries, and that is the logic and sense behind it.

843
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East also aked whether I had been in tough with the French Government. I am flattered that he should think that I might help be doing so, but that matter lies with the Foreign Office and I am not able to intervene.
My hon. Friend also wanted to know what the job of a Member of the European Parliament entails. He is applying for a Euro-seat, and I wish him the best of luck. When he has been there a little while. Perhaps he will come here with all the authority of a MEP and tell us the answer to his question
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) referred to the positioning of the European Parliament and to where it should meet. There are three sites. The British Government regret the inconvenience and expense and would like a sensible resolution, but they knwothat matter will be resolved only through unanimity—as the hon. Gentleman knows—and they do not expect that in the near future, although they will work for it.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) replied for the Opposition. I am glad that he is pleased that Wales for an extra seat—
It being two hours after the commercemnt of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Order [11 February].
The House divided:Ayes 368, Noes 71.

Division No. 124]

[5.51 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brazier, Julian

Aitken, Jonathan

Bright, Graham

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Allen, Graham

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Amess, David

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Budgen, Nicholas

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, James

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Butcher, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Butler, Peter

Ashby, David

Butterfill, John

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Aspinwall, Jack

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Atkins, Robert

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Carrington, Matthew

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Cash, William

Baldry, Tony

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Churchill, Mr

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clappison, James

Barron, Kevin

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Bates, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Coe, Sebastian

Battle, John

Colvin, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Congdon, David

Benton, Joe

Conway, Derek

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bermingham, Gerald

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Betts, Clive

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cormack, Patrick

Blair, Tony

Couchman, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cran, James

Booth, Hartley

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Boswell, Tim

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

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

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bowden, Andrew

Darling, Alistair

Bowis, John

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Boyes, Roland

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brandreth, Gyles

Davis, David (Boothfeny)

844

Day, Stephen

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

Dicks, Terry

Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

Dorrell, Stephen

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Dover, Den

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Dowd, Jim

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Duncan, Alan

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Dunn, Bob

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Hunter, Andrew

Dykes, Hugh

Hutton, John

Eggar, Tim

Illsley, Eric

Elletson, Harold

Jack, Michael

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Enright, Derek

Janner, Greville

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Jenkin, Bernard

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Jessel, Toby

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Evennett, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Faber, David

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Fabricant, Michael

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Fatchett, Derek

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Key, Robert

Fishburn, Dudley

Kilfedder, Sir James

Flynn, Paul

Kilfoyle, Peter

Forman, Nigel

King, Rt Hon Tom

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Forth, Eric

Kirkhope, Timothy

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Knapman, Roger

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

French, Douglas

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

Fry, Sir Peter

Knox, Sir David

Fyfe, Maria

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Gale, Roger

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Gallie, Phil

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Gardiner, Sir George

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Garrett, John

Legg, Barry

Gill, Christopher

Leigh, Edward

Gillan, Cheryl

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Lidington, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Lightbown, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Gorst, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Lord, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Luff, Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCartney, Ian

Grocott, Bruce

McFall, John

Grylls, Sir Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

MacKay, Andrew

Gunnell, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hague, William

Maclean, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

McWilliam, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Madel, Sir David

Hannam, Sir John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hanson, David

Malone, Gerald

Harris, David

Mans, Keith

Haselhurst, Alan

Marek, Dr John

Hawkins, Nick

Marland, Paul

Hawksley, Warren

Marlow, Tony

Hayes, Jerry

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Heald, Oliver

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Mates, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Hicks, Robert

Meale, Alan

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Michael, Alun

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mills, Iain

Hinchliffe, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hoon, Geoffrey

Monro, Sir Hector

Horam, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Morgan, Rhodri

845

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Moss, Malcolm

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mudie, George

Spring, Richard

Mullin, Chris

Sproat, Iain

Murphy, Paul

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Needham, Richard

Steen, Anthony

Nelson, Anthony

Stephen, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stern, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stewart, Allan

Nicholls, Patrick

Stott, Roger

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Streeter, Gary

Norris, Steve

Sumberg, David

O'Hara, Edward

Sweeney, Walter

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Sykes, John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Page, Richard

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Paice, James

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Parry, Robert

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Patchett, Terry

Temple-Morris, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Thomason, Roy

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Pawsey, James

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Pendry, Tom

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Pickles, Eric

Thurnham, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

Powell, William (Corby)

Tracey, Richard

Quin, Ms Joyce

Trend, Michael

Radice, Giles

Trimble, David

Rathbone, Tim

Trotter, Neville

Raynsford, Nick

Turner, Dennis

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Richards, Rod

Viggers, Peter

Riddick, Graham

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Walden, George

Robathan, Andrew

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Waller, Gary

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Ward, John

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Waterson, Nigel

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Watts, John

Rooker, Jeff

Wells, Bowen

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Whitney, Ray

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Whittingdale, John

Sackville, Tom

Wicks, Malcolm

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sedgemore, Brian

Willetts, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wilshire, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wolfson, Mark

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Worthington, Tony

Shersby, Michael

Yeo.Tim

Sims, Roger

Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Soames, Nicholas

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

Speed, Sir Keith

NOES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Alton, David

Cryer, Bob

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cummings, John

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Barnes, Harry

Davidson, Ian

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Dixon, Don

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Callaghan, Jim

Etherington, Bill

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Gordon, Mildred

Clapham, Michael

Graham, Thomas

Cohen, Harry

Harvey, Nick

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

846

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Parry, Robert

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Rendel, David

Kirkwood, Archy

Rooney, Terry

Leighton, Ron

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lewis, Terry

Simpson, Alan

Litherland, Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Livingstone, Ken

Soley, Clive

Loyden, Eddie

Steinberg, Gerry

Lynne, Ms Liz

Wallace, James

McAllion, John

Welsh, Andrew

McKelvey, William

Wigley, Dafydd

Maclennan, Robert

Winnick, David

Madden, Max

Wise, Audrey

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Wray, Jimmy

Mahon, Alice

Wright, Dr Tony

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Paul Tyler.

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Olner, William

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other motions.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
The House divided: Ayes 365, Noes 28.

Division No. 125]

[6.06 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brandreth, Gyles

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Brazier, Julian

Aitken, Jonathan

Bright, Graham

Alexander, Richard

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Allen, Graham

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Amess, David

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, James

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Butcher, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Butler, Peter

Ashby, David

Butterfill, John

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Aspinwall, Jack

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Atkins, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Carrington, Matthew

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Churchill, Mr

Baldry, Tony

Clappison, James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Bates, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Coe, Sebastian

Beggs, Roy

Colvin, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Congdon, David

Benton, Joe

Conway, Derek

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Betts, Clive

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Blackburn, DrJohnG.

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Blair, Tony

Cormack, Patrick

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Corston, Ms Jean

Booth, Hartley

Couchman, James

Boswell, Tim

Cousins, Jim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Cox, Tom

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Cran, James

Bowden, Andrew

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Bowis, John

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

Boyes, Roland

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Darling, Alistair

847

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Horam, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Day, Stephen

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

Dicks, Terry

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Dover, Den

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Dowd, Jim

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Duncan, Alan

Hunter, Andrew

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Illsley, Eric

Dykes, Hugh

Jack, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Elletson, Harold

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Jenkin, Bernard

Enright, Derek

Jessel, Toby

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Evennett, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Faber, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Fabricant, Michael

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Fatchett, Derek

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Fishburn, Dudley

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Flynn, Paul

Key, Robert

Forman, Nigel

Kilfedder, Sir James

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Forth, Eric

King, Rt Hon Tom

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Fraser, John

Knapman, Roger

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

French, Douglas

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Fry, Sir Peter

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

Fyfe, Maria

Knox, Sir David

Gale, Roger

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Gallie, Phil

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Gardiner, Sir George

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Garnier, Edward

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Garrett, John

Legg, Barry

Gill, Christopher

Leigh, Edward

Gillan, Cheryl

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Lidington, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Lightbown, David

Gordon, Mildred

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Gorst, John

Lord, Michael

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Luff, Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

McCartney, Ian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Macdonald, Calum

Grocott, Bruce

McFall, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gunnell, John

MacKay, Andrew

Hague, William

McKelvey, William

Hall, Mike

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Maclean, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Madel, Sir David

Hannam, Sir John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hanson, David

Malone, Gerald

Hargreaves, Andrew

Mans, Keith

Harris, David

Marek, Dr John

Haselhurst, Alan

Marland, Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Marlow, Tony

Hawksley, Warren

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Hayes, Jerry

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Heald, Oliver

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Martlew, Eric

Hendry, Charles

Mates, Michael

Hicks, Robert

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Meale, Alan

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Merchant, Piers

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Michael, Alun

Hinchliffe, David

Milburn, Alan

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Mills, Iain

848

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Speed, Sir Keith

Moate, Sir Roger

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Monro, Sir Hector

Spink, Dr Robert

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Spring, Richard

Morgan, Rhodri

Sproat, Iain

Morley, Elliot

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Moss, Malcolm

Steen, Anthony

Murphy, Paul

Stephen, Michael

Needham, Richard

Stern, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Allan

Neubert, Sir Michael

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Streeter, Gary

Nicholls, Patrick

Sumberg, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sweeney, Walter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Sykes, John

Norris, Steve

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Ottaway, Richard

Temple-Morris, Peter

Page, Richard

Thomason, Roy

Paice, James

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Patchett, Terry

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Patnick, Irvine

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Pawsey, James

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

Pickles, Eric

Tracey, Richard

Porter, David (Waveney)

Trend, Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Trimble, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Trotter, Neville

Quin, Ms Joyce

Turner, Dennis

Rathbone, Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Raynsford, Nick

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Viggers, Peter

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Richards, Rod

Walden, George

Riddick, Graham

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Waller, Gary

Robathan, Andrew

Ward, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Waterson, Nigel

Robinson, Marie (Somerton)

Watts, John

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Wells, Bowen

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Rooker, Jeff

Whitney, Ray

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Whittingdale, John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wicks, Malcolm

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Sackville, Tom

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Wigley, Dafydd

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Willetts, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wilshire, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wolfson, Mark

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wright, Dr Tony

Shersby, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Sims, Roger

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Soames, Nicholas

NOES

Barnes, Harry

Livingstone, Ken

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Loyden, Eddie

Clapham, Michael

McAllion, John

Connarty, Michael

Mahon, Alice

Cummings, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Dalyell, Tam

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Davidson, Ian

Olner, William

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Parry, Robert

Dixon, Don

Redmond, Martin

Etherington, Bill

Rooney, Terry

Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Simpson, Alan

Lewis, Terry

Skinner, Dennis

849

Steinberg, Gerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Wise, Audrey

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Andrew Bennett

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 45.

Division No. 126]

[6.18 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Conway, Derek

Aitken, Jonathan

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Allen, Graham

Cormack, Patrick

Alton, David

Couchman, James

Amess, David

Cousins, Jim

Arbuthnot, James

Cox, Tom

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Ashby, David

Dalyell, Tam

Ashton, Joe

Darling, Alistair

Aspinwall, Jack

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Atkins, Robert

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Day, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Baldry, Tony

Dicks, Terry

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dorrell, Stephen

Bates, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Batiste, Spencer

Dover, Den

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Dowd, Jim

Bell, Stuart

Duncan, Alan

Bellingham, Henry

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bendall, Vivian

Dunn, Bob

Benton, Joe

Durant, Sir Anthony

Beresford, Sir Paul

Dykes, Hugh

Betts, Clive

Eggar, Tim

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Elletson, Harold

Blair, Tony

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Enright, Derek

Booth, Hartley

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Boswell, Tim

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bowden, Andrew

Evennett, David

Bowis, John

Faber, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fabricant, Michael

Brandreth, Gyles

Fatchett, Derek

Brazier, Julian

Fishbum, Dudley

Bright, Graham

Flynn, Paul

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forman, Nigel

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Forth, Eric

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Burns, Simon

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Burt, Alistair

French, Douglas

Butcher, John

Fry, Sir Peter

Butler, Peter

Fyfe, Maria

Butterfill, John

Gale, Roger

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gallie, Phil

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gardiner, Sir George

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Garnier, Edward

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garrett, John

Carrington, Matthew

Gillan, Cheryl

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Clappison, James

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Gorst, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Coe, Sebastian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Congdon, David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

850

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Lightbown, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Grocott, Bruce

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Lord, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Luff, Peter

Gunnell, John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hague, William

Lynne, Ms Liz

Hall, Mike

McAvoy, Thomas

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Macdonald, Calum

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

McFall, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Hannam, Sir John

MacKay, Andrew

Hanson, David

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hargreaves, Andrew

Maclean, David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Maclennan, Robert

Harris, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

McMaster, Gordon

Hawkins, Nick

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Hawksley, Warren

Madel, Sir David

Hayes, Jerry

Maitland, Lady Olga

Heald, Oliver

Malone, Gerald

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Mans, Keith

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Marek, Dr John

Hendry, Charles

Mariand, Paul

Hicks, Robert

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Martlew, Eric

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mates, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Merchant, Piers

Hoon, Geoffrey

Michael, Alun

Horam, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Milburn, Alan

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Moate, Sir Roger

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Monro, Sir Hector

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Morgan, Rhodri

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Moss, Malcolm

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Needham, Richard

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Nelson, Anthony

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hutton, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Illsley, Eric

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Jack, Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Norris, Steve

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Jenkin, Bernard

Oppenheim, Phillip

Jessel, Toby

Ottaway, Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Page, Richard

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Paice, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Patnick, Irvine

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Pawsey, James

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Pickles, Eric

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Porter, David (Waveney)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Key, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

Khabra, Piara S.

Purchase, Ken

Kilfedder, Sir James

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rathbone, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Raynsford, Nick

Kirkhope, Timothy

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Kirkwood, Archy

Rendel, David

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Richards, Rod

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

Riddick, Graham

Knox, Sir David

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Robathan, Andrew

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Legg, Barry

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Leigh, Edward

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Rooker, Jeff

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Lidington, David

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

851

Ryder, Rf Hon Richard

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sackville, Tom

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

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Tracey, Richard

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trend, Michael

Sedgemore, Brian

Trotter, Neville

Shaw, David (Dover)

Turner, Dennis

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shersby, Michael

Tyler, Paul

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walden, George

Soames, Nicholas

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Speed, Sir Keith

Wallace, James

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Ward, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spring, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Sproat, Iain

Watts, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wells, Bowen

Steen, Anthony

Welsh, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Stern, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Allan

Whittingdale, John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wicks, Malcolm

Streeter, Gary

Widdecombe, Ann

Sumberg, David

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sweeney, Walter

Wigley, Dafydd

Sykes, John

Willetts, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wolfson, Mark

Temple-Morris, Peter

Worthington, Tony

Thomason, Roy

Yeo, Tim

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

Thurnham, Peter

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

McKelvey, William

Barnes, Harry

Mahon, Alice

Beggs, Roy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Caborn, Richard

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Clapham, Michael

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Connarty, Michael

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Cummings, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Mullin, Chris

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Olner, William

Davidson, Ian

Parry, Robert

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Patchett, Terry

Dixon, Don

Redmond, Martin

Etherington, Bill

Rooney, Terry

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Simpson, Alan

Gordon, Mildred

Skinner, Dennis

Graham, Thomas

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Trimble, David

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Winnick, David

Leighton, Ron

Wray, Jimmy

Lewis, Terry

Litheriand, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Livingstone, Ken

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Financial Services
6.31 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I beg to move,
That the draft Auditors (Financial Services Act 1986) Rules 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Accountants (Banking Act 1987) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
That the draft Building Societies (Auditors) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
That the draft Auditors (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
Mr. Nelson: The House will recall that Sir Thomas Bingham's report on his inquiry into the supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International was published in October 1992. It concerned perhaps the largest fraud in the history of banking. When BCCI collapsed in 1991, it left behind it a trail of deception and criminality on an epic scale. Sir Thomas Bingham drew some clear lessons from his inquiry and set out a list of recommendations. When he introduced the report in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) made it clear that he accepted them all and that the Government were committed to carrying them out.
In a subsequent debate on the report on 6 November 1992, I spelled out in some detail how the Government intended to fulfil that commitment. One of the regulations before the House represents the culmination of our actions to give effect to one of Sir Thomas's recommendations—that the existing right, in section 47 of the Banking Act 1987, for auditors to report relevant information to the Bank of England should become a statutory duty.
As hon. Members will recall, Sir Thomas was persuaded to that view by, in part, a conclusion of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service which stated:
"although the existing permissive nature of Section 47 has worked well … it seems desirable to tighten the wording of the Act so that there can be no doubt, either from the point of view of the auditor, his client or the regulator, as to an auditor's duty to report."
In announcing the Government's intention, I also made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames had decided that a similar duty should be introduced for auditors of building societies and financial service companies and that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would want the approach extended to the auditors of insurance companies—hence the four statutory instruments before us.
In his speech in that debate, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) welcomed the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of Sir Thomas and the Select Committee recommendations and agreed that it was
"important … that the statutory duty of auditors ought to be clear so that"—
to use the hon. Gentleman's colourful phrase—
"if whistles are to be blown they are blown without doubt"—[Official Report, 6 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 541.]

853
Since that debate, the Government have taken the decision to introduce the duty into a fifth regulated sector—friendly societies—and a negative resolution order, under the Friendly Societies Act 1992, is also currently before the House.
There are a number of reasons for taking action across that wide front. First, and most important, the relevant provisions in the various Acts are similar and if we are to bolster the arrangements for banks, we should do the same for the other sectors entrusted with the public's investments, or with insuring their daily risks. It would be difficult for me or for any other Minister to have to defend leaving things unchanged in those other areas if the effect of having done so were subsequently to lead to a case of fraud in an investment firm, building society or insurance company, which the existence of the duty would have helped to prevent.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is good to see that the Government are at last acknowledging the justice of the amendments and doing exactly what was proposed in Committees on Bills such as the Building Societies Bill and the Banking Bill when they were discussed in the 1980s. However, Sir Thomas Bingham also said:
"Determination of the correct relationship between client, auditor and supervisor raises an issue of policy more appropriate for decision by Parliament than by the Bank and the accounting profession".
In view of that clear recommendation that Parliament should decide those matters, why has the Minister left regulation of that duty to the Auditing Practices Board—a non-statutory body?
Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those matters were considered during the passage of those Bills. However, it is also true that in the Bingham report there was a broad acceptance that the present system for the supervision of banks should continue. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has corresponded with me on the subject, that it is the view of the Government that the recognised professional body—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—is best placed to supervise that sector of auditors.
An argument may be mounted against that view and, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman may seek to use the debate to do just that and to say that it should be subject to some direct rule from Whitehall. That is neither the history nor the practice of our professional system, not only for accountants, but for the legal system as well. The system has stood the test of the time.
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a procedure called the joint disciplinary scheme which enables the institute to investigate whether there has been compliance by member firms with the standards promulgated by the Auditing Practices Board. That seems to be the right way forward, but we shall return to those matters if the hon. Gentleman raises them further in the course of the debate.
Having determined the scope of the duty, the Government published a consultation document at the beginning of March. That made it clear that it was not the Government's objective to alter fundamentally the relationship between auditor and client. Nor were we looking to increase the costs of audit. Our objective was the same as Sir Thomas Bingham's—to clarify and strengthen the position of the auditor, not to change it. So the Government held back from imposing a duty on auditors to
854
seek out fraud, malpractice and wrongdoing. That would have meant straying too far from the auditors' traditional role.
The responses that we received to the consultation document were considered carefully and my officials discussed the issues raised with the Auditing Practices Board and with other interested parties in the regulated sectors. Some comments could be dealt with readily by changes to the draft statutory instruments, but others were not so easy to resolve as they raised more fundamental questions. In those cases, my officials were able to explore with the Auditing Practices Board whether issues could be more easily addressed in the statement of auditing standards, which was being developed to accompany the legislation, than in the statutory instruments.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the helpful and co-operative attitude that the Auditing Practices Board displayed in what were often long and complex discussions and to thank it for the clear and helpful statement which it shortly plans to issue to accompany the orders and bring them into practical effect.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the board a new quango or is it a SEFRA—a self-financing regulatory authority—which has powers to issue rules and regulations and to charge for the job that it does?
Mr. Nelson: Although I am not entirely familiar with such jargon, I think that it falls within the latter rather than the former definition. The Auditing Practices Board is riot a body set up by statute, but it is certainly recognised as responsible. Indeed, under tax law and in various other ways its promulgations and the standards that it sets are generally regarded as acceptable. However, such matters are of course kept under review.
One of the difficulties dealt with during the consultation exercise was that neither the term "auditor" nor the phrase
"in his capacity as auditor"
was defined in the banking statutory instrument or in the Banking Act itself. The Government are mindful of the need to clarify who will be placed under a duty by the statutory instruments and in what circumstances the duty will apply.
Although it is ultimately a question for the courts, we take the view that the duty clearly covers any auditor of a bank appointed under United Kingdom company law, which means any auditor of an authorised institution incorporated in the United Kingdom. It also covers auditors of authorised institutions whose place of incorporation is outside the European Community and whose initial authorisation has been granted by another regulator, even though such auditors may be appointed under a foreign law. The Government also believe that the duty applies to United Kingdom accountants acting as agents of the appointed foreign auditors.
As for the circumstances in which an auditor might come under a duty to report, the Banking Act, as well as the Financial Services Act and the Insurance Companies Act, uses the phrase
"in his capacity as auditor".
Again, we have no powers to clarify the phrase in the regulations. If any greater certainty could be given, it could be done only by an unacceptable narrowing of the duty to restrict it to a part of the auditor's responsibilities. We were also concerned that to do so could have potentially wide-ranging implications for the scope of auditors' functions more generally. It may, however, be helpful if I

855
seek to clarify when an individual auditor is operating in his capacity as such and whether a partner in an auditing practice who is not involved in auditing the regulated institutions is nevertheless deemed to be operating in his capacity as auditor.
In our view, it is reasonable to expect an individual who is conducting an audit to consider information relevant to an audit which is obtained in the course of other work for the same client. It seems realistic to expect the auditor to take such information into account in his review of the audit. The person, acting as auditor, also needs to be aware of other non-audit work on his client—for example, tax work—that partners in his firm may be doing and they, in turn, should consider whether any information that may arise from their work is relevant to the conduct of the audit. If it is, they should also consider whether it is relevant to the duty to report to the regulator. The partner carrying out the audit should also, if possible, discuss it with his client.
In the case of information relating to client A which is obtained by the auditor while auditing client B, the auditor should, as a matter of sound practice, usually use the information to make further inquiries for the purpose of the audit of A. These interpretations have been set out more fully in the statement of auditing standards and the professional guidance issued by the Auditing Practices Board that will accompany this legislation. As a matter of courtesy to the House, I have asked for a copy to be placed in the Library.
Once the extensive consultation process was over, the Government circulated amended versions of the draft statutory instruments for a second, more limited, round before setting them in their final form. In producing the drafts, we bore firmly in mind the fact that if this duty on auditors is to be effective, it is vital that auditors can continue to rely on the trust of their clients. We have therefore tried to set the duty at a level which makes it clear to those who seek to commit financial crime that they are more likely to be caught but which does not impose additional reporting burdens on costs on those who conduct their business honestly. That is a most important balance to strike.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to the Minister for his patience. It could be argued, however, that it is no good having a duty to report fraud unless there is also a duty to detect fraud. The Auditing Practices Board's proposals are for passive auditing, but the auditing profession argues that it is difficult to detect fraud. The Local Government Finance Act 1982 places a duty on local authority auditors to search for unlawful acts and report them. If that is good for the local authority goose, why is it not good for the banking gander when so much more money is involved?
Mr. Nelson: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes more than a debating point. He has raised a serious matter that deserves to be considered. It is not our intention that the orders should turn auditors into snoopers or narks. To do so would run the serious risk of undermining the relationship between auditors and their clients and imposing substantial additional cost burdens on auditors, which would have to be borne by companies and, ultimately, by their clients.
In addition, in the example that the hon. Gentleman cited, there must be some difference—I put it no more
856
strongly than that—between public and private money, although I acknowledge that, in certain cases, we are talking about the trusteeship of public deposits and funds. There are difficulties but if we were to adopt the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we should need to introduce primary legislation because orders introduced under the relevant legislation would not suffice. It is a matter to be discussed another day.
Mr. Steen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and making it two-all. He said that the costs of the statutory instrument and of the guidelines, rules, regulations and orders that flow from it will not impact on small businesses, which is the key to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. Has the issue been considered and is the deregulation unit satisfied that additional costs will not be imposed on small enterprises?
Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend, who is a prime champion of small businesses, makes an important point. The answer is yes, it has been considered by those dealing with deregulation. In fact, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who is responsible for deregulation, has sponsored one of the orders that we are debating—that relating to insurance companies. It is our intention that the costs should be negligible or nil and not go beyond what is already required or possible by way of a right to report.
In this case, we are imposing a duty to report but it should not impose any greater costs on auditors. It should, however, bolster the ability of auditors to insist that their client companies are forthcoming and open and, where necessary, enable them to correct problems that might otherwise bring their authorised status into question. That is the crucial point. The order is therefore a welcome enhancement and toughening of the law without imposing additional costs, about which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is rightly worried.
Before I conclude, I should mention that there is a European dimension to the issue. In November 1992, the Vice-President of the EC Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, sketched out some general proposals for Community legislation in response to the BCCI affair. The proposals were subsequently turned into a Commission proposal for a directive, one element of which requires member states to impose a duty on auditors of financial undertakings to report breaches of laws or regulations, or other adverse circumstances, to supervisors.
As the House will know, following discussions in Brussels, political agreement has been reached in the Council on an amended draft directive which, if implemented in its present form, would impose on auditors a slightly wider duty to report than that contained in the regulations that we are debating. However, the proposed European directive has a number of further hurdles to be negotiated before it can be finalised and, even when it is, it is unlikely to be implemented before 1996.
Even though some minor changes may subsequently be necessary in order to conform with the directive, the Government do not want to risk a further period of delay before bringing these necessary measures into effect. In view of the widespread support from both parties for Sir Thomas's recommendations, the Government believe that we should now act promptly to pass the changes into law.
I conclude by expressing my gratitude to the Auditing Practices Board and the many other professional

857
organisations which have been involved in considering the legislation legislation. We believe that the measures will greatly strengthen and clarify the position of the auditor and represent an important step forward in the fight against financial wrongdoing. I commend them to the House.
6.49 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: As the Minister said, the measures impose a new statutory duty on auditors and, as he rightly reminded us, it is something that we welcomed when we held the debate on the Bingham report in Novermber 1992, about 15 months ago. I think that it is fair to say that although we welcomed that recommendation by Sir Thomas Bingham, we did not say that that was all that was required. Although the measures are welcome they are only a start in the battle against fraud and other crimes of dishonesty.
Action was promised, as the Minister said, in October 1992, by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bingham report was published, but I believe that the proposals before us are timid and are the bare minimum that was requested by Sir Thomas Bingham. They hardly live up to the Minister's announcement at the beginning of his speech; indeed, they are being introduced only after much discussion and some opposition from the auditing profession.
Although the Minister, understandably, pays tribute to those people who have spent considerable time and effort in getting the practice notes right and responding to the Government's proposals, it is fair to say that many people—not only people in the auditing industry but people who represent the companies that are audited—have expressed worries. The Minister has mentioned some of those worries—the relationship with clients, for example, bears closer examination. Many people believe that the relationship between client and auditor can be too close and that there ought to be a respectable distance between them. There is a question of professional indemnity, to which I shall return shortly because it might be helpful if the Minister said something about that.
The measures do not pay any attention to a number of matters that are in what I would regard as the public interest. Although the Minister has, rightly. Paid tribute to the involvement of professional organizations in the process, we must never forget that we are here to represent the public interest and not just specific professional interests that may be relevant in each case. Indeed, in the light of what has happened in enforcement during the past two years, the Minister must be aware that the public require higher standards of commercial probity.
The Government should have conducted a proper and wide review of the role and duty of auditors, not only the sector covered by the measures but throughout industry. I understand that various professional organizations in accountancy are doing so, but the Government should also do so, because we are worried about the probity of financial institutions and about the auditing of other commercial concerns.
It seems to me that in this case the public interest has taken second place to the Government's wish to do as little as possible. Yet again, the Minister said in the debate, in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), that if we were to do anything further it would need primary legislation. So what? That is what the House is here for: it is here to
858
introduce primary legislation if we need it, and in my view we need it in this sector. It is high time that the Government recognised that. They should not be afraid to take action simply because primary legislation is required.
The Government have, for example, nothing to say about a central enforcement organization, which should be part and parcel of a proper and focused attack on crimes of dishonesty in financial institutions. The Government have said nothing about the need to end the fiction of self-regulation and to replace it with efficient, effective and cheaper direct regulation.
We need to tackle several questions specifically relating to the measures. The first question is what exactly the auditor's duty is. I notice that the phraseology adopted in each of the four measures is different. It is clear from the regulations relating to insurance and the order relating to building societies that the auditor has to act in his capacity as auditor.
The Minister said that he thought that the proper interpretation in respect of all the measures was fairly wide. If so, why do the measures relating to insurance and building societies specifically say that the auditor must be working in his capacity as auditor, whereas in the measures relating to banks and banking and financial services it may be implicit that the auditor is working in his capacity as auditor but that is not explicitly stated because the phraseology is different?
The Minister went far wider. He seemed to imply that there was not simply a duty on the accountant acting in his capacity as an auditor, but that the accountant would have the same duty if acting as an accountant or tax adviser or in any other capacity. That is to paint a picture of a far wider duty than I had thought. Indeed, people who follow those matters have suggested that that is a wider duty than the secondary legislation provides for.
Obviously, that will be crucial in any court proceedings. Because the court will have to decide whether an auditor was in breach of his or her duty, having regard to what is on the face of the statute. I know, following a fairly recent case in the House of Lords, that the courts are entitled to rely on what Ministers say in debate, but perhaps the Minister would spell out a little more clearly the apparent discrepancy between what he said in his speech and what is in the measures and why the phraseology in the measures relating to banks and banking and financial services differes from that used in those relating to insurance and building societies.
It could be something to do with the regulatory regime. Banks are supervised by the Bank of England and the financial services regime is supervised by the Securities and Investments Board plc. That may be a reason why it is not explicitly stated that the account has to be acting in his capacity as auditor. The Minister should clarify that point because in may be crucial not only to the industry but to the public interest, and the public will want to know the position.
The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants wrote to me recently asking what the position was. Its letter stated:
"Firms of accountants are quite likely to be engaged by the same client to perform services other than the statutory audit"
The letter lists financial planning, and so on. If the Minister is right, a partner or assistant in a firm acting as a tax adviser or financial planner might come across something that, if he were acting as auditor, he would be bound to report. As I understand it, the Minister's position is that the

859
partner or assistant would be bound to refer that matter to the partner responsible for audit, and that partner would be put on notice that he ought to report it to the relevant authority. If that is correct, perhaps the Minister will say so in clear and explicit terms, because it is important.
Increasingly, many firms act in both capacities. Indeed, many of us are aware of the difficulty that now arises for the large firms, in that there are only half a dozen very large accountancy firms that are capable of providing accounting and auditing services. Most were beneficiaries of the Government's largesse in awarding public service contracts to a surprising degree. The Government must, therefore, be well aware of the problem.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The problem is that the centres of accountancy power, the large accountancy firms—I think the big six—are pretty well uncontrolled. They dominate the institutions that are meant to regulate them. When it comes to international affairs, partners do not exchange information with one another. When the Senate inquired into the audit performance of Price Waterhouse, the British partners of Price Waterhouse claimed that they were an entirely separate organisation, that they had no obligation to give information to the Senate and nothing was effectively passed on. An inquiry was therefore conducted there without Price Waterhouse's partners in the United Kingdom co-operating in any way.
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend mentions an interesting point. When I studied the law relating to partnerships, I learned that one of the basic principles was the personal relationship between partners. When one looks at the headed notepaper of the big multinational accountancy firms, sometimes the names of partners cover most of the letter and there is little room left for the message, and one wonders how on earth they speak to one another, or if they even know who the others are or where their offices are. There is not the personal relationship that one might expect to find in the normal concept of a legal firm.
We could leave the point and have a discussion as to whether a partnership is a suitable legal entity under which those people should trade. That raises an important matter, because in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International inquiry it was obvious that parts of Price Waterhouse were not fully aware of what other parts were doing. Worse still, in fairness to Price Waterhouse, some of the regulators in different parts of the world did not know what the other regulators were doing. The only people who knew what was happening were the principals behind BCCI, who exploited that situation.
Obviously, that is a matter for the accountancy profession, but there is also the problem that Price Waterhouse operating in the United States presumably comes within the jurisdiction of the accountancy profession in the United States. That is something to which the Government will have to address themselves. It is already accepted in money laundering, for example, that fraud is an international crime. It would be interesting to hear what steps the Minister proposes to take to look at the problem that was undoubtedly raised in the BCCI report.
Before I leave this particular part of my criticism, and in case the Minister does not accept what I am saying, perhaps I can quote the words of the right hon. Member for
860
Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who, writing before he was President of the Board of Trade, in his book "Where There's a Will" said:
"Accountancy firms ought, I believe, to be debarred from doing any other work for a company for which they act as auditors. In a number of other countries there are laws which circumscribe the auditors in this way to prevent any possible conflict of interest. This discipline should be extended across the publicly quoted private sector."
That was certainly the view of the President of the Board of Trade before he returned to the Cabinet. I am not sure if he has now departed from it, but it is worthy of some weight. I acknowledge that there are problems but, as a general principle, that matter needs to be looked at.
The Minister has said that many of these matters will be dealt with by a statement of practice. He was asked by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) what the status of these people was. To me, it does not matter very much. This is a matter of public interest; it should not be just a matter of professional interest. For those reasons, the Government should take a rather livelier interest than perhaps they do.
The question of the rotation of auditors has often been canvassed. Is it wise to have the same firm of auditors year in, year out? We are all familiar with the last item at an annual general meeting, a motion to propose the re-election of the auditors. I can understand the question of expense, but there is also the question of transparency and efficiency. Firms ought to look at audit as a useful discipline. It is not a matter of snoopers or narks, as the Minister said. Audit is an essential function to provide for the efficiency of a firm as well as for the protection of the public.
To whom is the duty of care owed? As I understand it, the present law is clear: the auditors owe a duty of care to the shareholders collectively, not to individual shareholders or to what are called stakeholders—employees, for example. Nor do they have a general duty as regards the public interest. That aspect needs examination. If the Government were prepared to embark on a review of auditing generally, there would be some useful point in pursuing that further.
Bingham examined that point at paragraph 3.39 in his report. It is interesting that he had a long paragraph discussing those matters and, in the end, did not come to a concluded view, although he acknowledged that there were many people—for example, depositors, shareholders and employees—who might have an interest in a particular company. In paragraph 3.40 he went on to point out that the law, which was then recently established, was that auditors owed a duty of care to their client company and to the whole body of shareholders but not to individual shareholders and not to non-shareholding depositors. He was talking in the context of a bank.
The Government need to look at that matter. Given the nature of multinational companies or even publicly quoted or private companies in this country, where there is a public interest not just in efficiency but in probity, it is time that we looked at the role of auditors to see whether they should have a wider duty. We do not have a concluded view on the matter, but we need to look at it.
There is also substantial merit in the point put in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby on the duty of auditors. He drew attention to the fact that, under the Local Government Finance Act 1982, auditors have a far wider duty than is proposed in the measures before us because the duty is to detect fraud. To

861
my mind, that is not a question of being a snooper, a nark or even a policeman. It is interesting to see the words used in section 15 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The auditor is under a duty, among other things, to see
"that the accounts are prepared in accordance with regulations made under"
the Act, to see that "proper practices" are followed and to see
"that the body whose accounts are being audited has made proper arrangements for securing enconomy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources."
That, particularly the last point, is something at which the audit committees which are established in most efficient companies want to look.
I come back to the point that audit ought to be regarded as something that assists a company in being efficient as well as being a mechanism for detecting fraud. The Government do not appear to be examining that point. They seem to be saying that it is entirely a matter for the profession. I should have thought that it was in the Government's interest to promote efficiency and it is certainly in their interest to maintain the public interest with regard to fraud or other wrong-doing. If there was a proper inquiry, that matter ought to be examined.
I note that reference is made in the measures to information that may be of material significance. It would be interesting to know how the Minister proposes to define material significance. Who will issue guidance on this point? Will it be the professional associations? Will the Government turn their mind to that? What does it mean?
For instance, if an auditor were looking at the Maxwell accounts, what would be a matter of material significance? Would it be materially significant that just about everyone to whom one spoke at the time thought that Maxwell was a crook, although, interstingly, that was not apparently the view of the regulators directly responsible for those matters? Even before Maxwell was exposed for the crook that he was, many people knew it from his conduct. The Department of Trade and Industry itself had said that he was a manifestly unsuitable person to be in charge of a company. Is that an example of what might be information of material significance? It would be helpful if the Government would say something about that.
There is another matter of broader significance. Although the measures cover certain financial institutions, they do not cover others. They do not cover Lloyd's of London, as far as I can see. I had half-expected to see the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) in his place to pursue his campaign—apparently, he is unable to be here—and to see others who sit on the Government Benches and who lost large sums of money at Lloyd's. They might have had something to say about it.
It seems odd that Lloyd's is not covered. No doubt the Minister will say that primary legislation is needed. I am sure that the Government would move heaven and earth not to introduce another Lloyd's Bill because of the problems that that would cause. But I wish that the Minister would tell us why Lloyd's is not covered and why, in particular, non-United Kingdom banks with branches in this country are not covered either. I may be wrong about that, but perhaps the Minister will address himself specifically to that point, and also to pension schemes. They may be covered by other legislation, but they are matters of some concern.
The Government have already accepted, with the introduction of provisions on money laundering in the
862
Criminal Justice Act 1993, that there are far wider interests and implications than there have ever been before. The Government need to do a little more to show that they are aware of the international implications and of the sheer scale of what we are dealing with.
I touched on indemnity earlier. Perhaps the Minister will specifically address that point. I note that section 109 of the Financial Services Act 1986 explicitly provides an indemnity. What is the position with regard to auditors in this case? What is the indemnity? I assume that if they can bring themselves within the terms of the measures they will be indemnified. But if they can bring themselves only within the words used by the Minister, will they be protected?
I am thinking of the case of, say, a young accountant advising on financial management who finds something odd and perhaps reports it direct to the authorities. Will he be covered or will he have to go through some procedure to bring himself under that protection? That is important because, if the suspicion turns out to have been reasonable but not to bear further examination, an accountant could find himself in great pecuniary and professional difficulty. The Minister needs to look at that matter.
There are two substantial points that the House ought to address. I have mentioned the first again and again in debates such as this: the lack of a central enforcement agency. It has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions by reputable bodies such as the stock exchange that, because of the multiplicity of regulations, the complex nature of the legislation and the comparatively large number of regulatory or supervisory bodies, and because there are so many differences and standards, there is a need for a central enforcement body to bring together whatever evidence is available so that these matters may be prosecuted, if I may use that general term.
Mr. Steen: That is a mistaken view. The hon. Gentleman is probably right to believe that, because of the proliferation of rules and regulations, another quango or organisation is needed. That may not have an effect, but Conservative Members are saying, although not loudly enough, that we must reduce the number of rules and regulations, so avoiding the need for another organisation. we do not want another organisation to be set up as a result of rules and regulations; we want to reduce the number of rules and regulations
Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to some extent. As he knows, we would scrap the self-regulatory system and make the Securities and Investments Board responsible for the regulation of industry. In time, we would merge the SIB with a banking regulatory organisation, which answers one of his arguments. The SIB could also be responsible for the enforcement of such matters—an extra quango would not be needed.
The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the financial fraud information network which consists of a group of regulators and about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an announcement. It would be far better to have a streamlined regulatory system that would be much cheaper and more efficient. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman seems to agree. Perhaps he will try to persuade his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that primary legislation is needed.
Mr. Steen: I am working on it.
Mr. Darling: I am glad to hear it.
I am not sure that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the best way to solve the problem is to have fewer regulations. I agree with the general thrust of what he might mean—it would help if the regulatory system concentrated on promoting higher professional standards and placed less emphasis on rules and regulations. To deal with fraud, as we are, there must be regulations and primary legislation. I am not the only who says that: the stock exchange and the SIB believe that we need a single enforcement organisation to consider such matters. Perhaps the Minister accepts that, but the Government should do so, too.
There is a feeling that, without such an organisation, many people who defraud the system or commit other crimes can exploit the different rules and regulations because they know that they will never be caught and there will be little chance of prosecution. They know that, even if they are prosecuted, the chances of conviction are remote. The judicial system shows that, even if they are convicted, the worst that they can expect is a few hours mowing the grass in front of an old folks' home or perhaps a few months in a country residence, albeit one owned by Her Majesty. The Government need to consider that issue, which goes hand in hand with the need to overhaul the regulatory system. Although I have often mentioned that subject before, I have no hesitation in doing so again.
There is a feeling abroad in the country that an audit certificate is rather like an MOT certificate: it is good for the minute when it is granted, but useless thereafter. That feeling must be dispelled. It is for those reasons that the Government need to turn their attention a little more to the issues that I have raised.
I refer the Minister to the Bank of England's memorandum, which was included in the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. Page 185 of that report, which was published on 8 December last year, draws attention to the European directives to which the Minister referred. I understand that the proposal has run into difficulty, but I urge the Minister to press the Commission to get a move on, because the problem affects not only this country but Europe, particularly the European Union, and the rest of the world.
The problem needs international action. We in this country had a bitter experience with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Not only did it give a knock to the regulatory system, but—as I hardly need remind hon. Members—thousands of people lost all that they had. Many of those people believe that the House has not taken their concerns seriously. The Minister must give an assurance that the Government are willing to pursue the matter, even if it means introducing primary legislation.
I read in the newspapers today that there has been criticism of the fact that these measures are being taken on the Floor of the House, but they are serious matters and should be discussed here. Perhaps the debate will not be as lively and controversial as the one that we arranged to have on insider dealing, but it is important because auditing not only provides assistance to companies but reassures the public, who need great reassurance that the financial services industry and industry generally are being properly looked after. Although we support the measures, we have no hesitation in ensuring that they are debated properly and are not simply passed on the nod.
7.14 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have kindly called me, I shall try to make the debate a little more lively, although I am not sure that I shall be controversial. Last week I made a speech about the significance of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I said:
"The Bill is so important because it is the first major attempt by the Government to slay the red tape dragon. The maxim that man learns nothing from history is often proved true, but the Bill shows the Government learning from history. Throughout the ages Governments have repealed legislation. There is nothing new about repealing legislation. It is repealed either because it has proved unworkable or because it has simply outlived its shelf life.
In the new world in which we live, legislation has grown like Topsy and thus requires more drastic pruning. Those in the House who are gardeners know that shrubs grow irregularly. To keep trees and shrubs in prime condition, pruning is essential."
I continued:
"In 1989 there were five times more pages of legislation than in 1979. Brussels churned out five volumes of legislation before we joined the European Community. It now churns out 37 volumes each year. However, the cause is not simply too many Eurocrats in Brussels. Directives from the Commission are often sensible and come to Britain suggesting a simple way of dealing with the problem. Once the directive hits Whitehall, bevies of officials are stirred into action, taking time and effort to interpret and rewrite the directive."—[Official Report, 8 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 191–92.]
Throughout my speech last week, whenever I said anything about deregulation, I won approval from the Front-Bench team and approving nods, winks and cries of "Hear, hear" from my colleagues. The President of the Board of Trade made a stirring speech, stating that the 440 proposals that resulted from the booklet "Cutting Red Tape" were either being implemented or under active consideration. He talked about the explanatory guide to the Bill and the new security committees that might be set up in each House. He spoke about the business task forces that had made more than 600 recommendations.
I thought that the debate heralded a new age in which over-zealous officialdom would be a thing of the past and Whitehall mandarins would be sat on, especially those who over-interpreted general directives from Brussels. I am told that Conservative Members have been jostling for position to win a place on the Standing Committee which is about to start consideration of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to cut rules and regulations and to reduce the number of statutory instruments, which in 1992 reached the record level of 3,359. Today we are debating banks—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman treating us to a re-run of the speech he made recently? It would be more appropriate if we were to discuss the orders. If he does not do so, there will be a bit of pruning from the Chair.
Mr. Steen: There will be no need for any pruning from the Chair. I just mentioned the word "banks" when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, rose to your feet. I assure you that pruning would not be in order. We are debating banks and banking regulations, building society orders, auditors' regulations and financial services rules. I did not mention those matters in the speech that I made last week, which was so warmly received by the House.
My colleagues are rushing upstairs with great enthusiasm and diving into the Committee Room anxious to start work on curbing the ever-growing number of rules

865
and regulations. While they merrily start to do so upstairs, we downstairs pass more regulations, which we say we do not want.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: In his pursuit of deregulation, is the hon. Gentleman in favour of scrapping all regulations and controls on fraud, and all attempts to stop it? Will his deregulation be a fraudsters' fun day?
Mr. Steen: That is the problem. There is always a good reason for passing every regulation that the House passes. If it is anything to do with safety, hygiene, security or fraud there will always, rightly, be a pressure group or an interest group to push for the regulation. I do not for a moment suggest that some rules and regulations are not needed. The trouble is that there is always an excuse, and usually a good reason, for all the rules and regulations passed by the House. That is the problem that the Government face.
Clearly the Treasury, too, faced that problem when it produced the statutory instruments before us. No one can disagree with the idea that fraud must be stamped out. I simply say that unfortunately, while we have a deregulation Bill in Committee going ahead at full speed with dozens of clauses and new rules to try to reduce the number of regulations, here we are on the Floor of the House passing—perhaps for good reasons—more rules and regulations. So tonight there will be four more sets of rules.
I believe that in every Department a Minister has been especially appointed to keep an eye on deregulation. The Minister said that the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible for deregulation has considered the statutory instruments, but is there a Minister in the Treasury responsible for deregulation, or is the Treasury above deregulation? I had the impression that every Department would have a deregulation Minister, and it would be useful to know who the deregulation Minister in the Treasury is.
Unless we are careful, deregulation could become simply another layer of bureaucracy, with a whole new subculture of civil servants being consulted on whether something should be deregulated, gloriously oblivious of what is going on next door. There could be a huge sub-structure, and deregulation would be the new in thing. There would be a new quango, a new self-financing regulatory body—a SEFRA—with a Minister and a lot of civil servants. We have already seen the deregulation unit. I am worried that we may all be being hoodwinked into believing that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is opening a new chapter in our legislative history, when deregulation may be no more than a weasel word, describing one thing while something else is really happening.
I am sure that the Minister has a good reason why the four statutory instruments are necessary, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that reason. However, I have sat on an immense number of Committees on statutory instruments, and hon. Members always say that the new rules are greatly needed. They usually say that because they want to leave in three or four minutes; 10.30 arrives, and by 10.35 they have all gone.
The deregulation Bill may not affect the number of statutory instruments going through the House, but I believe that the City would still continue without the statutory instruments, and the country would still be a able to go on if we had not passed the regulations. Will those
866
four statutory instruments really help to run the country more effectively? We are imposing duties on auditors and regulators in the Securities and Investments Board, another quango. Do we need all that?
The insurance regulations have a compliance cost assessment. Have the other statutory instruments had an assessment, too? Apparently the consultees found it difficult to assess the extent of any additional costs arising from the regulations. First there was a regulation, then there was a compliance cost assessment, and employed people were consulted on whether the statutory instrument would cost more. I wonder how much that cost. It could all become a dangerous industry, which could get out of hand.
We seem to live in gobbledegook land. We seem to be able to argue vigorously and passionately about anything and then, on reflection, to argue equally passionately that we did not really need the rule or regulation in the first place. As a nation we are now obsessed to the point of paralysis with rules and regulations. It is surprising that one can move without some rule impinging on one's freedom, so concerned is the state about issues of welfare, hygiene, security and safety.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten my previous warning. We are not discussing all manner of rules and regulations. We have four statutory instruments before us, and he must address himself to those.
Mr. Steen: I hear what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those four regulations stand in the framework of the whole Government policy towards rules and regulations. One may try, but one cannot separate them from all the other rules and regulations that we are passing all over the place.
I am questioning the wisdom of introducing more rules and regulations, but every time that I try to raise the issue, whether in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, the Chairman, Speaker or Deputy Speaker, understandably, says that I am going beyond the rules arid regulations under consideration. The result is that one can never challenge the general principle. Every time that one tries to do so one is picked up—that is a symptom of the disease facing the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason why he should not tear the four statutory instruments to pieces, if that is what he wishes—but that is what he must do. He must not deal with all the others.
Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my own way, although not as clearly as some hon. Members, that is what I was doing. I was pointing out that the statutory instruments before us are better than most, although perhaps we could have done without them.
I was about to give an example of what I am talking about, but perhaps I shall tell the House about it on another occasion, because I should prefer not to be prevented from telling you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the most vivid story illustrating what I am talking about—and clearly this is not the right time and place. In fact, I am never sure what is the right time, but it certainly does not appear to be now.
With reference to the statutory instruments before us, I have already asked the Minister about the drain on the private sector every time that a rule or regulation is passed. It was reassuring to learn that the rules and regulations

867
before us would not impact upon private enterprise. It would be bad news for the country if we were to witness another fight between the private sector and the state. I hope that in the "rules and regulations industry v. the public" story we shall not see a repeat of the final fight between Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes, never knowing who wins in the end.
I intended to make a short speech, and I shall return to the subject from time to time, because it is a perennial annual problem. Every time that the Minister introduces a rule or regulation we understand that it is extremely useful. How can one say that regulations on fraud are not useful? However, the culture of our country seems to have been besieged by rules and regulations, and I am surprised that anyone can make a profit or do business, with all the weight of officialdom and all the rules and regulations that prevent anything from getting off the ground.
That is my message, and I am sure that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has heard it. I apologise if I have laboured the point, but I shall continue my argument until we cease to pass more rules and regulations which all the legislation that comes before the House is designed to repeal, and we do not need fresh legislation but simply repeal what we introduced before because it was not helpful to the prosperity of this country.
7.27 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), with his re-run of the speech that he made last week on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, except to note that now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is issuing his former speeches as a video, it is a bit cheap to come and repeat one's former speeches in the Chamber, rather than publishing them for public consumption.
There are appropriate places in which the hon. Gentleman could repeat speeches such as the one that he has just made, but unfortunately the Government are closing most of them down and sending the inhabitants out into the community. The hon. Gentleman's speech was not relevant to the subject with which we are dealing.
Talking of re-runs, I feel as if I am involved in a series of re-runs with the Minister. In a series of Standing Committees in the 1980s, such as those on the Building Societies Act 1986, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987, he spoke in favour of more effective regulation, and sought the votes of Opposition Members for the kind of policies he is introducing today. Then he spoke in favour, but now—regrettably, because he is well informed on such subjects, and made a powerful and effective contribution to those Committees—we find ourselves on opposite sides.
As we are on opposite sides, I must say that what the Minister is introducing now is too little and far too late. It is inadequate. Indeed, it creates the impression that the Government are in favour of fraud, because they are doing too little. These rules are too little to stop fraud. Are the fraudsters the only people in society who will vote for the Tories at the next election? The reputation of the City of London is going down all the time because of the squalid
868
frauds that are being perpetrated, and the Government are lagging behind in providing an effective regulatory framework to deal with them.
These rules are not the way to regulate on a major issue. We have not had an inquiry. The rules are not based on a thorough inquiry into the way in which audits of financial institutions are conducted. There has not been a thorough inquiry into what happened in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International case. We cannot regulate without a thorough inquiry, yet rules have been introduced without inquiry. The rules will not fit into any framework of stronger structures to back the proposals before us.
We have a confused and overlapping structure. The hon. Member for South Hams may be interested in how confused the structure is and how it can be simplified by agreeing with the proposals put forward by Labour Members. As there are so many overlapping authorities, it is not clear who is responsible for enforcement and compliance.
The regulatory area that we are dealing with today consists of the Bank of England, the Securities and Investments Board and the 24 organisations—the siblings—under it, the Building Societies Commission, the Serious Fraud Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the stock exchange, Inland Revenue and five recognised supervisory bodies that deal with auditors. It is chaos. No one knows who is responsible for what. In that chaos, we get overlapping decisions and conflicting regulations. Everyone tries to insure themselves by regulating too much. The situation drastically needs simplification.
There are no proposals to make the framework more effective and back up the simple proposals before us. All we have is the Government tweaking the regulations from time to time, as they are doing here. We cannot rely, as the Government are doing in these rules, on auditors to be effective and the only police force of financial institutions. Auditors cannot be relied on as a guarantee of public interest and propriety as a counter against fraud because their powers, their role, their functions and the way in which they carry on their business are inadequate to deal with fraud.
Mr. Steen: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is too much bureaucracy, which will prevent anyone from acting because it is all overlapping and, presumably, it is paid out of the public purse. An enormous number of public officials are preventing a clear, direct executive arm. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?
Mr. Mitchell: I am saying that there are too many overlapping institutions; self-regulation has not worked, and has no adequate and firm base on which to work; and we can be effective against fraud only by replacing self-regulation with an independent, statutorily based regulator who has the power to strike hard, rather than obfuscating everything with the plethora of regulations in the financial sector.
We cannot rely on auditors to be the effective police force that will be required under these rules. We do not even have an effective definition of whom the auditors are responsible to. What the Government are proposing is the bare minimum. As it is so minimal, we must ask whether they are serious about dealing with the sort of fraud that has lead to this attempt to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

869
Effectively, we know little about what went wrong with BCCI and especially the audit of it, because, in this country, we have not had an inquiry into what went wrong. That case is the justification for these rules. We do not know exactly what happened because the Government have not seen fit to institute an inquiry. We need the information.
When there was a banking crisis in the early 1970s, the last Labour Government instituted a series of inquiries. There were inquiries into London and Counties and London and Capital. The information from those inquiries was published. We knew what went wrong, so we knew how to deal with it. In this instance, there is nothing.
Lord Justice Bingham specifically said that he was not pursuing the matter of audits because it was not his responsibility. The Government should have repaired that omission by pursuing the matter and inquiring into what went wrong. Ministers say that the Serious Fraud Office is looking into the matter. However, that has not precluded inquiries into other cases such as London United Investments and Maxwell. There should be an inquiry into the audits of BCCI so that we know exactly what went wrong.
During debate on the Companies Bill in 1989, the Minister argued that for any system to be effective, there had to be a distance between the regulators and the regulated. However, the only people who have inquired into BCCI, is the Mafia regulating the Mafia. It is auditors trying to regulate auditors. There is not that distance which the Minister asked for in the Committee on which we both sat in 1989.
The only inquiry into BCCI has been the American one. That was handicapped because the British partners of Price Waterhouse did not pass either to that inquiry or to the American partners of Price Waterhouse their information on what had gone wrong. Therefore, the inquiry was inadequate; but it is the only one. What that inquiry found was appalling. The report states:
"BCCI's accountants failed to protect BCCI's innocent depositors and creditors from the consequences of poor practices at the bank of which the auditors were aware for years."
That is a crashing indictment of the auditors
"BCCI provided loans and financial benefits to some of its auditors … Those benefits included loans to two Price Waterhouse partnerships in the Caribbean. In addition, there are serious questions concerning the acceptance of payments and possibly housing from BCCI or its affiliates by Price Waterhouse partners in the Grand Caymans, and possible acceptance of sexual favors"—
the report is more interesting than the book written by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), although it does not have as much sex—
"provided by BCCI officials to certain persons affiliated with the firm."
That is an appalling situation. BCCI's books were certified by the auditors as a true and fair record from 31 December 1987 forward. That meant that people had confidence in BCCI. We are told that the auditors gave certificates as a true and fair view and, therefore, encouraged people to invest, yet before 1989 Price Waterhouse knew of gross irregularities in BCCI's handling of loans, especially to CCAH which was the holding company of First American Bank shares. All that was known to the auditors, but they did not spill the beans. Why have we not had an inquiry to reveal what happened in BCCI so that we can base proper and effective regulations on that inquiry?
870
The Government feel that they can rely on audit firms to protect the interests of shareholders, creditors and other stock holders. That reliance, which is strengthened by the rules before us, has always proved inadequate because poor auditing practices are always covered up. There is no way for anyone to know how good or bad an audit is as long as the company survives. We have not developed the proper institutional framework to regulate auditors effectively arid make them accountable. In debates on the Building Societies Bill and the Financial Services Bill, Labour Members proposed much stronger provisions on the detection of fraud.
These rules have been introduced much too late because the Government are continuing to rely on an industry and a framework which have a history of failure. They cannot rely on the auditors, who are, effectively, a replacement for regulations.
In the United States, state inspectors quite rightly visit and monitor banks. That is the only effective way in which we can know what is going on. There should be such a requirement in Britain instead of our relying—as we do by the statutory instruments—on the auditors themselves.
I mentioned earlier that Price Waterhouse partners in this country would not give evidence or provide information to Price Waterhouse partners in the United States. The Government can only deal with that by effective regulation of auditing, and by an effective independent regulator. A banking commission is needed to take those functions away from the Bank of England, which performed so poorly and was shown to have done so by the Bingham report.
My preference is for a securities and exchange commission, as in the United States. That would be an independent commission, with a banking commission and an accountancy commission under it. That would provide an effective framework of independent regulators to whom auditors could report when they found fraud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that the gaps in regulations do not cover Lloyd's, pension schemes and funds, or banks that are not domiciled in the United States. I have pointed out to the Minister that unless there is a duty to detect fraud as well as to report it, it is doubtful whether auditors could perform their functions.
The Local Government Finance Act 1982 imposes both duties, and the audit industry was in favour of that at the time. The industry saw that it would be able to get its fingers into local authority audits, and so was prepared to accept it then. The industry is only now balking at the proposition, and saying that it is horrendous and it cannot do it.
The firms are advertising fraud detection services all the time. KPMG Peat Marwick advertises that

"investigating financial frauds, and rectifying and recovering from them, requires specialised accounting skills. KPMG Forensic Accounting offers: experience of the techniques of fraudsters and the procedures they may have followed; awareness of the indicators of possible irregularities; the resources needed for a fast and accurate investigation; experience of the quality of evidence required to support a successful case, and the expertise to assemble and present that evidence … we can assist in tracing funds and unravelling the most complex international cases".
The firm can provide all that for a fee. Why cannot the firm do it as a compulsory and necessary part of the service? The Minister may claim that it would be more expensive.

871
If a proper audit is done, it cannot be more expensive as it is the effective way to detect fraud. That needs to be a requirement which is imposed on the industry.
I have pointed out that, at present, auditors are not effectively regulated, Lord Justice Bingham said that the
"relationship between client, auditor and supervisor raises an issue of policy more appropriate for decision by parliament"
than by the accounting profession. However, that is subject to control by the Auditing Practices Board, which is not a statutory body. We have already been told that the board will impose passive requirements on auditors in this very difficult area. Passive requirements are just not adequate for the detection of fraud.
The board's draft standard states:
"the duty to make a report direct to a regulator does not impose upon auditors a duty to carry out specific work".
It does not have to do specific work, and it has been told not to do anything. That is ludicrous. Unless the board does the work, it cannot make the report. The standard adds:
"no auditing procedures in addition to those carried out in the normal course of auditing the financial statements … are carried out …auditors are not responsible for reporting on a regulated entity's overall compliance with rules with which it is required to comply nor are they required to conduct their work in such a way that there is reasonable certainty that they will discover breaches."
The board is not actually required to go out and look for things—it will just sit there, be passive, and it will all come pouring in.
Fraud does not work that way. A fraudster will not rush in saying "Here's the evidence, Mr. Auditor!" It is all well concealed, and unless the auditor has an obligation to hunt fraud down—become the "white hunter" of the British economy—fraud will not be detected. A passive approach to audit, such as the Audit Practices Board is recommending, is simply a recipe for further disasters and further audit failings.
The Government should surely have clarified the responsibility of auditors. Whom are they responsible to and to whom do they owe a duty of care? It is no good saying that they can report fraud to the regulator. Auditors should be responsible also to shareholders and to everyone involved in a company. In fact, they are not, and they have responsibility to no one except the directors who appoint them. The company's shareholders are given little information, and the choice of auditors is firmly in the hands of the directors. The depositors, consumers and employees have no say in the appointment of auditors.
Recent legal cases such as Caparo, Al Saudi Banque and Berg Son and Co. Ltd. have shown that auditors do not owe a duty of care to individual shareholders, potential investors or current or potential creditors, even though that information is supposed to be there to help markets understand what is happening to that company.
The Government have given no indication that they want to reverse those judgments, but they should do so. There should be a specific responsibility attached to auditors to give them a duty of care, so that information is spread more widely and the shareholders and stakeholders know what is going on, as well as the bank or financial institution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central quoted the President of the Board of Trade's book "Where There's a Will"—there's a corpse. The President stated that there should not be a conflict of interest and that
872
accountancy firms should not do other work. That should be a paramount objective of the financial institutions, because DTI inquiries have indicated that work is less adequate when it relies on a man
"checking either his own figures or those of a colleague."
The DTI report on Burnholme and Forder was critical of audit reports in that context.
None of the auditors who have been criticised by DTI reports over the years has been disbarred from practice. What kind of sanction is that to make auditors do their jobs properly? We need an effective, independent regulator, not the Mafia regulating the Mafia and saying, "It was quite understandable—we'll let you off this time." That is what happens now with the Institute of Chartered Accountants as a recognised supervisory body.
We must have effective control and discipline of auditors. In a written reply to me, the Secretary of State said:
"there has been no occasion where criticism of a company's auditors by my Department's inspectors in reports published since June 1979 has led to an audit partner being excluded from membership of a professional accountancy body".—[Official Report, 26 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 25.]
He added in another written reply to me:
"no auditor criticised in an inspector's report has been debarred from auditing as a result of information in that report."—[Official Report, 22 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 341.]
The Government have never initiated any criminal proceedings against auditors criticised in DTI report, so there are no effective sanctions. For all those reasons, the instruments are inadequate—they are too little, too late.
The Opposition cannot vote against them, although the hon. Member for South Hams seemed inclinded to vote against them. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had the courage of his convictions. The Opposition are far more responsible that than. Voting against the measures might give an indication that we were as much in favour of fraud as Conservative Members are. We are not in favour of fraud, and we welcome any progress in its detection. That progress includes measures that we asked for when the relevant legislation was passed. For that reason, we must welcome the instruments, but they are just not good enough.
7.48 pm
Mr. John Greenway: The last half hour has shown that the quality of debate in the House remains extremely high. Even on an issue which, on the face of it, looks as dry as dust, some hon. Members will pick an argument when there should not be much of one.
I cannot say that I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said. He implied early in his speech that most of the City of London was collapsing into a sea of sleaze and other goings on which are extremely to be regretted. We should remind him that all four measures follow the recommendations of the Bingham inquiry into what happened at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which was not a British bank but an international bank based overseas. I think that I am right in saying—my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that BCCI was the first difficulty that we had experienced for a long time.
I want to explore what role an auditor should play in the insurance and financial services industry in looking at particular firms. I have several interests, of which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is aware. The one that is relevant to tonight's debate is that I am an

873
elected member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. The way in which we regulate insurance brokers is laid down by statute. It demonstrates the benefit of a statutory requirement for audit and for proper oversight of how the regulator reacts to what the auditor may say.
I greatly welcome the four measures, which are some of the most beneficial things to come out of the BCCI disaster. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I have debated the matter on many occasions. We usually do so on television, not on the Floor of the House and, therefore, not for quite so long. He said that what went wrong with BCCI was that Price Waterhouse knew that there was fraud but did not say so. Lord Justice Bingham pointed out that there was a clear conflict of interest between the interest of the client, for whom the auditor worked, and the public interest. He said that some amendment to the Banking Act 1987 was needed to clarify that, and that is precisely what the measures provide.
No one can seriously criticise the Government when they have not only come up with the regulations to deal with the problem, but have gone further and applied them to financial services, building societies and insurance companies, just to be absolutely sure. I am not a chartered accountant. I am an insurance broker. I am not aware of all the rules and regulations that affect accountants and the way in which audits are carried out. However, I was surprised to hear during the debate that the problem with BCCI was the conflict of interest. Fraud was known and was not declared. The regulations should make that considerably more clear.
I have sat through the debate because I wished to make one particular point. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central called for stronger regulation. I expected that. We had the argument the other week about whether we should have statutory regulation or make the self-regulation system for the financial services industry work. I believe that we should try to make the existing arrangements work. We are fast approaching a key point in that process.
I understand that on Thursday the Securities and Investments Board will consider the proposed Personal Investment Authority prospectus. Within a week or so we shall all be able to read it. The key question tonight is what regulatory framework the PIA should place on inter-mediaries, life assurance companies, pension funds and financial advisers in general, to ensure that the public interest is protected.
We heard earlier about the Levitt case. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to community service punishment, so I think that he had that case in mind. What should we do to ensure that malpractice and fraud are picked up quickly? The order relating to financial services certainly helps because it places on the auditor the obligation to report any malpractice and potential fraud that he may see immediately to the regulator. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, there will be quite an argument when we see the prospectus. I have not had the privilege of seeing it, although I have had the opportunity to discuss its contents with the chairman and the chief executive of the PIA.
It is important that we do not have too many regulations. That is why I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said. We must not regulate to the point at which firms simply go out of business and give up because it is too expensive and
874
burdensome to operate. We need to get the balance right between the amount and cost of regulation and making it effective.
I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind to what extent the Government should support the PIA prospectus and what should be done. We want a specific requirement not that firms must have this much or that much capital and so on, but that there is a regular audit trail and an annual look is taken at the figures and accounts of all the intermediaries and the firms with which difficulties have occurred in the past.
As I have told my hon. Friend the Minister before on the Floor of the House, that is what the Insurance Brokers Registration Council is required to do for all insurance broking firms. That is what Parliament required in the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977. It is not an onerous requirement on firms, nor is it excessively expensive. So it would meet any cost compliance test that the Department of Trade and Industry might wish to insist on. It would ensure that a proper look was taken each year at the finances of each firm and, if things were wrong, that they were reported immediately.
That is the lesson of BCCI. When things are not all that they should be, they must be dealt with and reported quickly. The orders go a long way to helping to ensure that. For that reason, the House should warmly welcome them.
7.56 pm
Mr. Nelson: This has been a curiously old-fashioned debate in some ways, with hon. Members on one side of the House calling for more regulation and hon. Members on the other side calling for less. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) eloquently called for less regulation again this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) takes a close interest in and is well informed on matters of financial regulation. I am grateful to him for the welcome that he gave to the measures. He is right that we have gone beyond what was strictly called for by Bingham. We have extended it to other sectors of the financial services industry. That is all to the good. Therefore, I reject roundly the accusation of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that the orders are timid. They are what was called for by the Treasury Select Committee. They are what was proposed by Bingham and we have introduced them here tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale will have ark early opportunity to consider the Personal Investment Authority prospectus, which is being published. I take: seriously his point about adequate monitoring procedures, and the need for an audit trail. A central criterion for the effectiveness of self-regulating organisations is the: methodical nature of their monitoring. I hope that all concerned will consider the matter carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams made an amusing but perceptive speech about the growth of deregulation. Some would say that deregulation is the fastest growing part of bureaucracy in Whitehall. There have been calls to deregulate the deregulators. My hon. Friend is right to say that Parkinson's theory can be extended and that deregulation can acquire a life and momentum of its own. The underlying purpose of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and stripping away the red tape that hinders enterprise and good governance in Britian is

875
one to which the Government are very committed. We intend to promulgate that doctrine throughout all areas and it is being taken forward in legislation.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said there was a case for a wider inquiry into the auditing of companies. That was not specifically called for by Bingham, although I acknowledge that such a case can be made. We should be extremely careful before extending that, as was proposed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, beyond the direct responsibility to the members or owners of the company. It must be right for auditors to audit and regulators to regulate. It does not help the argument for there to be an overlap in responsibilities and in some way turn auditors into snoopers and narks and make one's regulators more supine. I do not think that there is a case for a widened inquiry into the auditing of companies.
It was said that there was a case for extending the duty of care of auditors beyond members, but again Bingham did not find that necessary as a result of his inquiry into BCCI. I was asked what "material significance" meant. That is set out in the guidelines in the statement on auditing standards. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked about Lloyd's. He is quite right that it is not covered by the measures, but it is a condition of the appointment of auditors into syndicates that they shall report. They have a duty to report where those circumstances arise.
I do not have time to deal with the other points, but if I have missed anything in particular, I will write to the hon. Members concerned. The whole import of these measures is to ensure that they look at the criteria of authorisation. They are concerned with the authorisation of firms that take public deposits and investments. When that is brought into question, and when there is evidence to suggest that those criteria are not being adequately met, it must be right to impose a non-costly duty on the auditors to bring that about. That is what the measures do and they are an extremely welcome addition to the stable of measures of regulation. They will improve depositor protection materially.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 February].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Auditors (Financial Services Act 1986) Rules 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary to dispose of the other motions to be decided at that hour.
Resolved,
That the draft Accountants (Banking Act 1987) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Building Societies (Auditors) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 15th December be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Auditors (Insurance Companies Act 1982) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.—[Mr. Nelson.]

Local Government Finance (Wales)
8.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move,

That the Local Government Finance (Amendment) Report (Wales) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 169), which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it may be convenient to consider the following motion:
That the Local Government Finance (Amendment) Report (Wales) 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 168), which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
Mr. Redwood: The report sets out my decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1994–95.
The Second report puts right a mistake in the description of the basis for distributing the distributable amount for 1993–94 which was approved on 8 February 1993. I can assure the House that the amendment in this document does not affect the money that authorities should receive.
I announced my provisional settlement proposals to the House on 30 November last. I have given careful consideration to the representations that I have received on the level of the settlement and the views of the local authority associations in coming to my final decisions. I believe that my provisional proposals remain appropriate.
I propose to set total standard spending for 1994–95 at £2,704.8 million. That includes a sum of £86 million for care in the community—an increase of 4·2 per cent., or more than £100 million extra cash compared with 1993–94.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State said that the figures in the reports were in a sense provisional at the end of last year, but that he feels that nothing has happened to change his view. Will he tell us what impact he believes the pay settlements will have on the spending that he has allowed local authorities? It seems to me that there must be a cut in staff and services if they are to keep within the sums of money that he made available at the time when he was not aware of the settlements.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for posing the central question. I hope that during my remarks I will satisfy the House, if not all Labour Members, that the settlement proposals are fair and will mean that good quality services can be delivered by councils throughout Wales, and that they offer enough money to avoid sacking essential staff. They certainly offer enough money to avoid sacking any teacher who is needed in the classroom. I do not want to see that happen. I trust that hon. Members do not, too. It is up to local authorities. I believe that the extra grant—the extra spending permission—means that a good quality education can be delivered to children in Wales without it in any way being jeopardised by the proposals. I shall illustrate later the fact that local government has considerable flexibility to spend wisely and well. It has resources at its disposal to do a good job.
Mr. Nick Ainger: When the Secretary of State made his provisional announcement on the total standard spending assessment for Wales, was he aware that

877
the various salary review bodies would be making a recommendation that was almost twice the current rate of inflation?
Mr. Redwood: I did not know the exact amount of the recommendation, but I assumed that some pay increase was likely. I have made an increase in grant, which I am just about to explain to the House, and which will go some way to meeting the requirements of local authorities. They have other assets and resources. I will illustrate them later.
I propose to provide £2,419·2 million in central Government support towards this spending, an increase of 3·3 per cent. on 1993–94. Opposition Members will see that that is a good rate of increase compared with the current rate of inflation. The support package will comprise £1,740·1 million in revenue support grant, £464 million in distributable non-domestic rates and £215·1 million in other revenue grants. More than £89 in every £100 of Welsh local authority expenditure on revenue account will be funded by central Government support. That generous level means that Welsh council tax payers benefit from substantially lowered levels of tax than their English counterparts. Welsh taxpayers should continue to benefit from relatively low levels of tax next year, assuming sensible budgeting decisions.
The revenue settlement is matched by the substantial local government capital settlement for 1994–95 which I announced on 30 November. This totals £503 million in capital grants and credit approvals, a 4 per cent. increase on 1993–94. It means welcome permissions to improve capital stock in housing, education and other crucial local government service areas.
The Welsh non-domestic rate poundage—or business rate—for 1994–95 will increase by 1·8 per cent. in line with inflation to 44·8 p. That modest increase, coupled with the transitional arrangements announced in the Budget, will be of considerable benefit to business. About 20,000 business ratepayers who faced the largest increases following the 1990 revaluation will benefit by £5·3 million from the transitional changes.
This is a decent settlement for local government in Wales. It gives local authorities an additional £100 million to spend when the low level of inflation is helping them to keep down the cost of providing their services. The £86 million that I am providing for care in the community is an increase of almost £50 million on 1993–94 and will enable local authorities to build on the introduction of the service in 1993–94. Since the 1990–91 settlement, revenue resources for local authorities have increased by almost £530 million, or 27 per cent.
My provisional settlement proposals were met by some criticism that they could lead to substantial increases in council tax levels. Increases as high as 15 per cent. were suggested. Most local authorities have yet to set their budgets, but I am glad to report to the House that press reports indicate a far more modest level of increase.
Clwyd council council and Cardiff city council are reported to be proposing a reduction in their council taxes. South Glamorgan county council and the Vale of Glamorgan borough council are reported to be planning increases limited to 3 per cent. or below. That shows that it can be done and I hope that other councils will look after the interests of their taxpayers.
878
On 14 December, I announced my provisional capping criteria. I will give careful consideration to local authority budgets and make my capping decisions in the light of all the information available to me when I have received it.
May I commend Welsh billing authorities for their better than expected performance in collecting the council tax? They estimate an overall surplus on collection funds of £17·6 million as at 31 March 1994, which translates into an average £18 reduction in council tax for a band D dwelling, which could be passed on to taxpayers in their 1994–95 bills or allows the council more flexibility in its general finance planning.
Local councillors have considerable flexibility in their budgeting. The sums of money that I am describing are large. Revenue and capital spending combined of more than £3,000 million is many times the amount spent by quangos in Wales, outside the health service, arid represents a large share of my total budget for Wales. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members are not suggesting that I should cut spending on health—that is a vital service, which I thought they also supported.
Flexibility is increased by the payment of rate support grant and distributable non-domestic rates as a block grant. It is for local authorities to decide how to spend the money that they are given, in line with their priorities and with local needs. Councils can raise income through fees and charges; they have balances which they can choose to spend or retain; and they have assets which they use for service provision or sell to raise capital. They have large administrations, which they should always be looking to make more effective. In education, there are surplus places to be removed, there is energy to be used more efficiently and there are ancillary services to be contracted out, if that can provide better value for money for local taxpayers.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. No doubt he is aware of the serious problems facing the South Wales constabulary and its funding by local authorities. Is there any hope that he and the Home Office Minister responsible might get around the table with the police and local authorities to sort out the problems? People are seriously worried about the growing crime problem and the lack of policemen on the beat. I hope that he will agree to that request, which I have made on behalf of many of my constituents and many people in other constituencies.
Mr. Redwood: I am about to come to the subject of the South Wales police, but I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales are always willing to discuss with local government matters relating to local government finance, and have done so during the months leading up to the settlement. My hon. and right hon. Friends at the Home Office are always willing to discuss police matters, if they are important and warrant a ministerial meeting. There was such a meeting recently, and a Home Office Minister discussed that very issue.
The last thing I want is for local authorities to skimp on the police. The budget problems of the South Wales police have been much in the news. Recently published Audit Commission profiles show that the South Wales constabulary's expenditure per head of population is above average for comparable forces and that more police are on

879
duty there than in similar forces. I trust that local authorities and the police authorities will make sensible decisions about future services.
Most of the issues that have been raised tonight are for the police authority, and I hope that it will get on with its job. Where necessary, police stations should be kept open and enough policemen should be made available for beat duties and detection work.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Wherever blame lies as regards the South Wales constabulary, surely it would be madness to merge the Gwent and South Wales forces at this unfortunate time. Gwent has a very good record and we want it to stay like that.
Mr. Redwood: I will ensure that the Home Office sees a transcript of this debate, and I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The last thing that I want is for local authorities—
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Home Office planned to allow £7 million extra for the police budget in Wales whereas local government has chosen to allow only £2·2 million is a disgrace and reflects very badly on the running of the police authority and the chairmanship of the committee involved?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. The allocation of budgets is a matter for the local authority, and that issue is a matter for public debate in the council chamber.
Mr. Alun Michael: In that case, can the Secretary of State explain why in England we can get a straight answer from the Secretary of State for the Environment and the figures for standard spending assessments for the past five years, this year and next, but we cannot get the same information for Wales from either the Home Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Gentleman knows, standard spending assessment calculations for England are carried out on a slightly different basis from those for Wales, which we set out in the report. Local authorities should have the maximum flexibility to make their own decisions. It is therefore a matter for local debate whether the community values its police service enough and whether that service needs more money to do a good job or the authority should take a look at how it is being run.
Mr. Michael: I take it that that is an implicit criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, because he and the Home Secretary—who has responsibility—can produce figures for England. The right hon. Gentleman cannot produce them for Wales. Why? Surely it is because he is not providing the money to Welsh local authorities.
Mr. Redwood: That was a fatuous remark. I have already answered the underlying question. Local authorities should have the maximum discretion and should be answerable for their decisions to local electors, who want good police and education services. The money is there for authorities to do it if that is their wish.
Alongside skimping on the police, the last thing I want is for local authorities to reduce the number of teachers if they are needed to teach pupils. I am delighted to report
880
that education standards in Wales have been rising during the past few years, following the introduction of the national curriculum and our other reforms. As I said recently, we have much further to go and more progress to make. That is very much at the top of my agenda and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
Local authorities in Wales reduced the level of rent arrears by more than 10 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1992–93, but more progress must be made. Since 1987, the number of vacant local authority dwellings has also decreased. Those are the cuts that I want—cuts in the number of empty houses, in rent arrears and in tax arrears, so that the money is there to spend on the services that people want.
I am pleased to report that care in the community has in general been introduced successfully. It is a good example of a major service being given to local government so that local rather than national democracy can determine the details of its future. How that flies in the face of Opposition criticisms that we always take important decisions away from local government. Care in the community will be one of the fastest growing services in the public sector during the decade to come, and we have entrusted it to local government.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: By defining community care—by that I mean social care as opposed to health care—in a certain way, the Secretary of State might be seeking to increase the proportion of our vulnerable population who are pushed into the means-tested category. He must be careful that he does not end up by defining health care in one way and social care in another and thus denying health care its proper role. That can clearly be seen from the fact that elderly people are being discharged into the community—as he knows because he has heard it from me before—without the necessary facilities for the disabled. His Department has decided to put the disabled facilities grant in the basic credit allowance, where it must compete against other local authority priorities. Why does he not put it back into the special credit allowance?
Mr. Redwood: Opposition Members speak with forked tongues. They say that they want local government to be more responsible and more trusted and to have more freedom, and when I provide that freedom, they complain that I am not telling local government what to do. I do not intend to lay down every detail. I too happen to believe that the disabled should be a high priority. The money is available, and in my settlement for next year I have explicitly recognised the needs of the disabled by providing a substantial increase. I hope that local government will respond by doing the decent thing. I want elderly people to be looked after well. If they can be cared for at home, well and good, but the necessary facilities must be available.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, during the current winter, an increasing number of homes for the elderly, particularly nursing homes in the private sector—in referring to the private sector, I make no value judgment—are experiencing difficulty in filling beds as a result of the policy that is being pursued in this field? Does he realise that in some cases only half of the beds in a home are occupied and that therefore people are vulnerable because they are uncertain as to whether their home—their only home—will remain

881
in existence? May we have an assurance that there will be coherent planning to ensure that the transition to care in the community will not make anyone vulnerable in this way?
Mr. Redwood: That is exactly what the authorities are asked to ensure. Of course, they must have sensible plans so that beds and facilities are always available for those who need them. In a way, the fact that more elderly people are now being looked after in their own homes is an indication of the success of the concept of care in the community. We have arrested the very rapid growth in the number of permanent residential places that we saw before the policy was introduced.
As we now see, local authorities, despite some gloomy warnings, have, in general, managed well in the first year of their responsibilities. They have examined thousands of cases, and many people have been helped to make decisions about their own future. Many are able to continue living, as they wish, in their own homes. This has meant a fall in the demand for residential care, which was increasing rapidly in previous years. It is the duty of the relevant authorities to plan future provision so that everything will work smoothly for those most in need.
I trust that local authorities will respond positively to this settlement. I believe in good local government. I believe that councils have an important role to play. I am disturbed if I learn of cases of alleged impropriety or irregularity in their financial performance or in their accounting. I trust that all parties in the Hosue will unite not only in believing in local government but also in agreeing that local government should set and maintain the highest possible standards of conduct when spending the very substantial sums of money that parliament votes to it.
This is a large settlement. It is a good settlement in an era of low inflation. It gives local government in Wales the money that it needs to provide high-quality services and to get on with the job. It need not lead to high tax increases or to the redundancy of crucial workers. Well run councils will flourish as a result of this settlement, and I offer them every encouragement to do so. I commend the settlement to the House.
8.23 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: We have just seen a new model Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box and talked about conciliation. He said that he had taken into account the views of local authorities put to him since he met them last year. He may have taken authorities' views into account, but he did not accept any of their observations. He commended Labour-controlled local authorities for their council tax and rent collection rates. He actually praised democratic local government for its value and compared it with his own quango state. He really is a new model Secretary of State, but his reality is quite different from his rhetoric.
The reality is that this is a poor settlement for local government in Wales. It has been roundly condemned, not least by the county councils, which, as the largest employers in Wales, will have to face the considerable burden imposed on them by the Government's acceptance of the public sector review body's recommendations without the additional cash to meet the awards.
This settlement represents a further step along the road that we have been travelling since 1979. The financing of local government is again circumscribed. Local government's ability to respond to the needs of the community it
882
serves as it and its electors deem appropriate is being curtailed yet again, and local government is losing its independence to central Government. The centralising tendency of which this settlement is a further representation is one of the most pernicious and corrosive characteristics of the modern Conservative party.
It will not be lost on anyone who is concerned with the application of the settlement that, despite the Secretary of State's earlier remarks, as the democratically controlled public sector represented by local government faces further cuts, the undemocratic sector represented by the 111 Welsh quangos has seen budget increases. In the case of the major bodies—the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Welsh Development Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation—the figure is more than 8 per cent. Given the succession of scandals and the aura of sleaze hanging over the Secretary of State's quango sector, I do not think anyone will deny that, in terms of value for money and financial probity, direct democratic control is a far better watchdog than the financial control systems of the Welsh Office.
The total standard spending of £2,705 million is £105 million above the settlement for the current financial year. The Secretary of State has argued that this is an increase of nearly 4 per cent. In the strictest sense, it is an increase of nearly 4 per cent., but that statistic itself is absolutely meaningless. In the current financial year, budgets—what authorities will have spent on delivering services, not on what the Welsh Office considers that they should spend—amounted to £2,688 million. Against that, next year's settlement, which we are debating tonight, represents an increase of only 0·6 per cent.
Even that is not itself a true reflection of reality. As the Secretary of State indicated, the current settlement includes provision for community care to the tune of £86 million. That is some £40 million below the Assembly of Welsh Counties' assessment of what is required to meet the needs of the community. In any event, it is not available for general spending. If that figure is removed from the spending total, the current increase is only 2·3 per cent. above the settlement for 1993–94 and, being £28 million or 1 per cent. below the current year's budgets, represents a real terms reduction of 4 per cent.
That is a measure of the cuts that the Government wish to force on local government this year. In any circumstances it would be difficult enough, but this year Welsh local government has to suffer the cumulative burden of previous years' cuts. It has also to struggle with the social and economic consequences of the recession foisted on the country by central Government, and it is expected this year to meet the costs of an unwanted, costly and unsatisfactory reorganisation of local government.
Predictably, while the Government with one hand are distorting their expenditure and creating unnecessary expense, with the other hand they are reducing the discretion available to county councils to raise their own resources. The capping limits, unfair and arbitrary as they are, are again imposing a straitjacket. All Welsh counties, for instance, are limited to a budget increase of 1·75 per cent. over 1993–94, as are the cities of Cardiff and Swansea and the borough of Newport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) pointed out, this cap of 1·75 per cent. is at the root of the funding problems of the South Wales police authority area.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulties of the South Wales police authority are at least partly due to the authority's belief that it would underspend in the current year and the fact that its calculations were out by about £2 million? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is at least a factor?
Mr. Davies: Coming from the party that controls the Welsh Office and has £208 million unaccounted for last year, it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to lecture anyone. There have been cumulative expenditure problems in the South Wales police authority going back to 1988. Since then, the authority has faced underfunding of £38 million and experienced enormous difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the South Wales police authority committee, its officers and its chief constable have visited Parliament to put their cases to hon. Members representing the South Wales police authority area and to Earl Ferrers, the Minister responsible for the police. They certainly have not encountered any criticism from the Government. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is some criticism to be made, I suggest that he takes a leaf out of the Secretary of State's book and refers the matter so that it can be properly audited. He will then see that no blame whatsoever can be attached to the members or the officers of the police authority.
Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the district auditor has suggested that there is a total lack of accountability or any proper financial control in the police authority? As the shadow spokesman for Wales, is he unaware of that?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman might well have seen a copy of the provisional report. That report was made on the same basis as the one presented to Westminster city council, which referred not to a difficulty of £2 million created as a direct result of Government underfunding of the police authority, but to the expropriation of millions of pounds to line the pockets and further the political interests of his party. However, I did not notice the hon. Gentleman's vociferous condemnation of Westminster city council or any other Tory-controlled councils.
If there is any evidence of financial mismanagement in the policy authority, it has to be properly investigated; it has to be the subject of a proper report by the district auditor. If the district auditor finds any wrongdoing, wilful neglect or unacceptable maladministration, I shall certainly join the Secretary of State in condemning it.
I have the advantage of being condemning such maladministration, whether it applies in the democratic sector or the quango sector. Unfortunately, despite the corruption, mismanagement and fraud for which the Secretary of State is personally responsible in the quango sector, we have heard not one word of condemnation either from him or from his colleagues.
Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman has brought the case of Westminster city council into the debate, no doubt for comparison. Is not the difference between those issues that Westminster city council implemented a highly successful policy that resulted in political benefit to the party which introduced it, whereas in this case there was clearly no benefit, and the policy was disastrous for policing in south Wales?
Mr. Davies: I note the look of intense embarrassment on the faces of the Secretary of State, his Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Minister of State. The hon. Gentleman would do well to read the Official Report of tonight's debate. I am sure that he will want to reflect carefully on the justification that he has just made of corruption in local government.
Mr. Redwood: I wish to make it crystal clear to the hon. Gentleman, as I thought I had in the past, that of course I condemn fraud, wherever it is discovered and proven. That applies to my own staff and to outside bodies as well as to elected local government bodies. It must be condemned and rooted out if there is suspicion of it and it can be proven. Now that the hon. Gentleman has performed his mirrors vanishing trick with the extra billions, does he agree with two simple points—that there will be 3·3 per cent. more money available next year in central Government support, and that the RSG alone is up £71 million? Where is he spiriting it all away?
Mr. Davies: Nothing is being spirited away. The Secretary of State has raised two points and I shall deal with them both. First, he is anxious to ensure that corruption in public life is rooted out. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman at his word. I put it to him, however, that there is abundant evidence that the part of public life where corruption, sleaze and fraud flourish is that for which he is responsible. The democratic sector in Wales—the local authority sector—shows no such evidence of corruption, sleaze and fraud. If the Secretary of State wishes to root out the endemic corruption in Welsh public life, he should ensure that the 40 per cent. of his expenditure currently accounted for by quangos is brought under direct democratic control. That is how to ensure that corruption no longer exists.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am replying to the Secretary of State. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only recently arrived in the Chamber; he is what we might call a sioni-come-lately. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have dealt with sioni coed coch.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman translate that into English for the benefit of the Chair?
Mr. Davies: I am afraid that I cannot. If I were to do that, you would rule me out of order Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we all know to whom I am referring.
Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to a vanishing act. It is not a vanishing act. The most valuable comparison is between this year's standard spending assessment and last year's budget. The Secretary of State continues to compare this year's standard spending assessment with last year's standard spending assessment. The SSA last year bore no relationship whatsoever to the democratically expressed needs of Welsh local authorities. That is the heart of the difference between us. I see that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has regained his composure, so I happily give way to him.
Mr. Richards: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that the central Government

885
contribution to local government expenditure is underfunded. Will he tell us by how much he believes it is underfunded, and how much more the Government ought to be contributing towards local government expenditure?
Mr. Davies: The heart of the problem is that, since 1979, the Government's policies have led to economic failure.
Mr. Richards: Answer the question.
Mr. Davies: It is a direct answer to the question. Since 1979, there has been a succession of economic failures. The Government have increased the tax burden on the British public and cut on local authority expenditure. Had we had a Labour Government for the past 15 years, we would not be in the state we are in now. That is the only answer that the hon. Gentleman will get.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but he must understand that I shall repeat the answer that I have just given him, so there is not much point in repeating that question.
Welsh local government is underfunded. Had we had a Labour Government since 1979, we would not have experienced the disastrous economic performance, nor the increased tax burden, nor would we have the waste, fraud and corruption of the quango state. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. If he asks the same question again, I will merely refer him to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Richards: Thankfully, we have not had a Labour Government since 1979. The question was quite specific. We were talking about the revenue support grant for 1994–95. By how much would the hon. Gentleman recommend that the Government should increase their contribution to local government?
Mr. Davies: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago, as I said I would. He might find it more fruitful to represent his own local authority, whose director of finance is clearly dissatisfied with the amount of representation that he receives from his Member of Parliament. In a letter dated 10 February, he wrote to me:
"The final local government revenue settlement for 1994–95 has resulted in a position where the Borough Council's draft budget for the new year is some £200,000 greater than the council tax limitation capping figure set by the Secretary of State."
That has obviously created substantial budgeting problems for the authority. The hon. Gentleman would do his constituents a better service by making his representations directly to the Secretary of State, thus ensuring adequate funding for his local authority.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Richards: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has quoted a communication that he says came from a constituent of
886
mine, but he did not relay it to me. Is it in order for him to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in such circumstances?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order for any such reference to be made; if a particular matter is to be raised, however, it is courteous to inform the hon. Member involved.
Mr. Davies: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask you to reflect on that ruling. I certainly did not know that I was to be subjected to a barrage of interruptions from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have made his own judgment on what material to use; he will have noted which hon. Members were present, and I assume that he made his judgment on that basis. My ruling stands.
Mr. Davies: I do not dispute your ruling for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we find ourselves in bizarre circumstances: it appears that I should have anticipated the precise nature of the interventions of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. I suppose, however, that that was rather predictable, and that I should have known better.
Let me return to what I was saying about the increase in aggregate external finance. It is 1 per cent. lower than the increase in total standard spending, and there will be an increase in the percentage raised by local taxation. We must welcome the principle, which would enhance democracy and extend freedom of choice at local level; if that principle is to be acceptable in practice, however, we need a central Government who both honour the role of local government and are themselves a Government of sound finance.
Unfortunately, the present Government meet neither criterion. The 2·5 per cent. VAT surcharge to pay for the poll tax fiasco is still with us, and from April this year the average family in Wales will pay an extra £14 per month in income tax, insurance charges and indirect tax. Moreover, if this financial settlement is approved tonight, it may mean a 10 per cent. increase in the average Welsh council tax—a rise from £328 in the current financial year to £360 in 1994–95. Perversely, if all authorities spend to their capping limits, the increase may be even higher, bringing the average council tax bill to £377.
The impact of the settlement on revenue expenditure will be both direct and severe. I shall give specific examples shortly; but, before I do so, I wish to comment on the capital programme, which gives the clearest possible demonstration of the Government's unwillingness to respond to the proven ability of local councils to be partners in the enterprise of economic development.
In cash terms, over £13 million has been cut from the capital expenditure plans, with programmes such as housing, environmental services and roads bearing the brunt. Most significant, more than £70 million has been cut from capital programmes under local authority control to allow supplementary credit approvals under Welsh Office control for European regional development fund schemes.
As a result of those policies, projects throughout Wales have now been approved for European regional development fund funding, but have been shelved because of insufficient credit approval. What attitudes prevail in the Welsh Office to allow such a waste of both additional resources and local opportunities? Alyn and Deeside has

887
had to shelve nearly £1 million of infrastructure work; Brecknock has had to shelve a tourism venture; Meirionnydd has had to abandon £650,000 worth of seafront and townscape works. All those projects could have been financed with the aid of European moneys, but for Welsh Office policy.
The five urban counties—the three Glamorgans, Clwyd and Gwent—all report the loss of millions of pounds of available grant. I hope that the present Secretary of State will set aside his Europhobia, and ensure that Wales maximises its benefits from the European Union.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I will, because I mentioned the hon. Gentleman's local authority. Let me point out, however, that I have been very generous in giving way, and I want to allow others to speak.
Mr. Evans: I accept that the hon. Gentleman allowed me to intervene earlier, and I thank him for his courtesy for giving way now.
The hon. Gentleman specifically said that a tourist project in my constituency had been deferred. I know of a significant number of tourist projects that are being undertaken by Brecknock borough council in the current financial year; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give details of the project that is not proceeding.
Mr. Davies: I will, but, if I may, I will convey them via my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I have the information in my files, but I want to proceed with my speech. My hon. Friend the member for Torfaen will reply in winding up—if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Let me refer specifically to two services which illustrate just how damaging are the policies reflected in the revenue support grant settlement. The Secretary of State would have us believe that he is concerned about educational standards; no doubt we shall debate that at some length in the near future. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had any relevant experience, or whether his children attend a state school, but I know, from my experience and that of my constituents, just how difficult it is to strive for high standards in decrepit buildings with not enough resources, too few teachers and inadequate LEA support. That is what exists throughout much of Wales nowadays, and that is the situation that the settlement will perpetuate.
In the most cynical move of all, the Government have accepted the recommendations of their review bodies on public sector pay, and then left the cash-strapped LEAs to face the consequences. Let me put it in the words of the financial adviser to the AWC, Steve Dunster:
"All of the Counties are now wrestling with the problem of the pay award for school teachers of 2·9 per cent. The Government is not pretending that adequate funds have been provided, but rather that the additional costs must be met from efficiency savings and improvements in productivity. Frankly it is impossible to apply that sort of policy to a small primary school with a handful of teachers. West Glamorgan is struggling to find a contribution to schools budgets for the pay award of 2 per cent., leaving the schools to find the balance from their reserves if they have any. I would expect this to be a common experience across Wales—the first reaction of my colleague County Treasurers is that some shortfall will arise everywhere".
888
Put simply, that means that LEAs will have to cut other parts of their education budgets to meet the cost of the pay awards independently calculated and approved by Government.
The problem of cuts is of precisely the same order as last year's. In our debate 12 months ago, I forecast that that settlement would mean the loss of 2,500 local authority jobs; that estimate proved correct. Two thousand of those 2,500 jobs were lost from the education sector alone. The pattern will be repeated next year as a result of this settlement.
In Dyfed, cuts across the board have been overshadowed by the ending of discretionary grants. Talented young people wishing to develop skills in areas such as the arts, or those wishing to further their studies to improve their chances of employment, will be denied the opportunity by the squeeze that central Government have imposed on local finances.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, under local management of schools, the Audit Commission report "Adding Up the Sums" informs governing bodies that they should consider carefully when it comes to giving teachers their annual increases? They must often choose to employ young, untrained, inexperienced teachers and get rid of experienced teachers, which will lead to a radical decline to educational standards.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has reminded me of the comment by Baroness Blatch, who I believe has some authority in such matters. She said that she was of the view that governing bodies and parents would be happy to see increased class sizes so that the teachers' pay bill could be met. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm that that is now the view of the Government. I am more than happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to confirm that the Education Minister who speaks for the Government in another place is speaking for him.
Mr. Richards rose—
Mr. Redwood: I have made my position clear on that matter. I want high-quality education and I think that the money is there to achieve it. Of course I do not intend to gainsay what my colleagues say.
Mr. Davies: The last comment was significant. The Secretary of State does not gainsay what his colleague says. Let us put on the record clearly that his colleague said that she believed that governing bodies and parents would be happy to see increased class sizes so that the teachers' pay bill could be met. We have that as official Government policy.
Mr. Richards rose—
Mr. Davies: I must proceed. I have given way.
Discretionary grants are also the main casualty of a £1·3 million cut in education spending in South Glamorgan and a £2·5 million cut in Gwent. Gwynedd faces a cut between £2 million and £3 million, redundancies are expected in Powys, and almost £5 million will be cut from education alone in Clwyd, with at least 200 teaching jobs at risk. My own county of Mid Glamorgan, the poorest and most deprived of any in England and Wales by any criteria, has to face cuts totalling £15 million, of which education has to take its share of the brunt.
Mr. Richards rose—
Mr. Davies: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
My second illustration concerns the ability of Welsh local authorities to contribute to effective levels of policing. Every Opposition Member will testify to the sense of bitterness and bewilderment felt across whole communities whose collective experience tells them that policing levels have fallen below the minimum that can be regarded as adequate. Senior police officers and chief constables are being forced to speak out and to testify publicly that the services are inadequately funded by central Government and that they are unable to provide the level of funding which they, in their professional judgment, deem necessary.
The failure of the Government's economic and social policies has led to an increase in crime of 125 per cent. since they took office and to an increase of nearly 50 per cent. since 1989. Whole communities feel threatened. City centres are unsafe and elderly people cower in their homes. The response of the Government, the party that once prided itself on being the party of law and order, has been to cut, through the settlement, the resources available to police authorities.
In the South Wales police authority, on the basis of existing budgets, the chief constable is facing the prospect of closing 40 police stations. That is from a financial position of, at the end of the current financial year, being 220 officers below strength. The basic problem is that the county authorities are constrained to a 1·75 per cent. increase in overall spending by the capping procedures. That increase does not even meet the additional costs of previous pension increases.
Despite all the representations to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary, the Government have remained intransigent and have refused to make adequate resources available to the police. Presumably, they are content to read headlines such as that in the Western Mail on 2 February 1994:
"Police 'volunteers' save crisis-hit force".
The article says:
"Police are working for nothing to stop criminals overtaking the crisis-hit South Wales force.
Officers are patrolling the streets knowing they will not be paid for their 'goodwill' overtime …
Barry, Townhill in Swansea, Llanedeym and Ely in Cardiff, Merthyr and Aberdare are among the places where police men and women are 'volunteering' to maintain the service.
One officer, who asked not to be named, said, 'it's happening all the time'.
Some admit being motivated by fears about the consequences to their own families if they clocked off on time".
It is patently clear from the Secretary of State's speech that the Government have no regard for the independence of local government and are indifferent to the damage being done to vital public services as a result of the cuts that they are enforcing. Like so much else to which the Government have turned their hand, their policies are heading for failure. Their central economic policy has failed and the British people are having to pay the price through the heaviest ever tax burden and through cuts in public services. The Government clearly care nothing for the principles of democratic accountability, but they will eventually have to face the electorate. They will then pay the price for their arrogance. The sooner that opportunity arises, the better.
8.56 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the Opposition spokesman, seemed to blame defects in policing in Wales on failures by the Government to provide sufficient budgetary resources. I should like to put that in the context of some figures that I have obtained from the Home Office, to which I wrote seeking reassurance on that point. I understand that expenditure on the police service in England and Wales has risen from £1,100 million in 1978–79 to an estimated £5,862 million in 1992–93. That represents an increase in real terms of 83 per cent. since our Government came to office.
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the success of the Government is an increase in crime of more than 124 per cent. and that the reality of the spending on the police is that there has been an increase of only some 7 to 8 per cent. in the number of policemen and women on the streets? Is he proud of that?
Mr. Sweeney: What I am proud of is that the pay and conditions of the police have been tremendously improved while the Conservative Government have been in office. I am also pleased that absolute numbers, not only of police, but of civilians have been considerably increased over that period.
If one considers south Wales alone, one sees that at the end of October 1993, South Wales police had 3,159 police officers and 1,171 civilian staff. That represents an increase in actual strength of 515–214 police officers and 301 civilians—since May 1979.
My understanding is that there are two prime causes for the present financial situation affecting the South Wales police. The first is inadequate accounting arrangements by the South Wales police authority. The force budget for 1993–94 was set on the assumption that there would be an underspend for the previous year of something over El million. In fact, there was an overspend of well over £500,000. Moreover, the force was not told of that outcome until July last year.
I understand that the chief constable asked for a budget of £139·8 million for the present financial year in order to meet the expected demands on the force. That would have meant an increase of 8 per cent. on the previous year. The budget approved by the police authority provides an increase of only 1·6 per cent. Provision from central Government for police expenditure for the present financial year has increased by well over 5 per cent.
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he has arrived at the conclusion that the increase for police purposes is 5 per cent? He said that he had received an answer from the Home Office, but the Home Secretary has refused to tell the House about Welsh local police authorities. The hon. Gentleman has produced a figure out of thin air and it cannot have come from the Home Office. Where does it come from? If the hon. Gentleman is basing this argument on the figure for England and Wales, be should know that only 1·75 per cent. of additional expenditure is allowed for by the Secretary of State for Wales. He should come clean.
Mr. Sweeney: If the hon. Gentleman is a little more patient, he will learn where the figures come from.
Overall provision for Wales for local authority funding of policing has been increased by 5·6 per cent. over last

891
year. Provision for central Government specific grant, which meets 51 per cent. of police expenditure, has more than matched that figure. In other words, the police authority has given its force an increase of 2·2 million for the present year and central Government provision would have provided for an increase of some £7 million—only £1 million less than the chief constable asked for.
I submit that these are matters for the South Wales police authority to put right. It is the duty of the police authority to ensure that its police force receives an adequate budget, and it is regrettable that the budget provided by the South Wales policy authority to the force is insufficient to meet the demands being made on it.
The chief constable is tackling the problems by reducing overtime, cutting transport costs and adjusting recruitment. I deplore the fact that it has been necessary to take such drastic action, but we need to place the blame where it clearly lies—with the police authority and the three county councils that comprise its membership. It is their fault that there has been underfunding and a lack of budgetary control.
The problems have arisen partly because the police took on civilians, which was an approved policy. The intention was that civilians would be recruited and their salaries paid from the moneys saved by the reduction in the number of police which would be achieved through retirement. Unfortunately, it appears that the civilians were taken on, but the officers nearing retirement have not left the force, so the books have not been balanced.
Another problem is that the payment of overtime seems not to have been properly recorded. That matter needs to be examined and the South Wales police authority must get a grip on the situation to achieve proper value for money. All the elected representatives on the three county councils involved need to recognise the importance that the public attach to effective levels of policing.
9.2 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: I begin by taking up the point on which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) surprisingly left the debate. It involves the relative merits of the Government's settlement for the South Wales police authority and the ability of the county council to finance it.
Even if the Home Office had provided double the amount that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the capping criterion—the 1·75 per cent.—used for local authority expenditure means that the only way in which the council could provide the 5·5 per cent. would be to cut other aspects of their budget. They would have to sack more teachers or people involved in administration. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan should have waited for a response to the issues that he raised, but he has now deserted the debate, presumably because he knew that he did not have a leg to stand on.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: In all fairness, I should point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan is a member of the Standing Committee that is debating the Coal Industry Bill and which resumed at 9 pm.
Mr. Griffiths: All I can say is that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan should have had the courtesy to tell us that he would not be able to stay for the rest of the debate.
892
It is a pity that he did not stay, because there is the fundamental flaw in his argument that, whatever amount in excess of 1·75 per cent. might have been made available—I emphasise "might"—the county councils in the South Wales police authority region were always left with the difficulty of the capping criteria. If they put more money into the police force budget, they would have to cut other parts of their budget, and that cannot be gainsaid.
That is why police stations, such as those in Porthcawl and Kenfig Hill and Pyle in my constituency, will be no base from which the police can operate. In fact, all that I will have in my constituency is the major police station in Bridgend town. Elsewhere, there will be no police presence in those very important police stations.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Does he recognise that many of us in many parts of Wales may feel that our police authorities should have additional resources? It is well known that I have visited the Home Office many times, arguing for more resources for Dyfed-Powys police. The key thing, however, is that, whatever budget is set, it is the responsibility of a police authority to operate within the budget. The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The South Wales police authority has demonstrably not lived within its budget.
Mr. Griffiths: The key point to be made is that, whatever amount has been given to the South Wales police authority theoretically through Home Office funding, as a result of the 1·75 per cent. capping criteria on the county council the only way in which it could have made that amount of extra funding available to the South Wales police force would have been to cut other services. As a result of the way in which the Government have pressed and pressed upon local authority finance for years, there is no longer any fat to cut, and the muscle and bone are now being attacked. That can be demonstrated throughout Wales.
I shall draw attention to one special crisis point—I hesitate to say "bone of contention" in that context—of funding in my constituency, concerning the A4229 link from the M4 near South Cornelly down to Porthcawl, where that A road is nothing more than a country lane for a few miles. It passes a few houses called Jubilee gardens where, virtually every week, there is an accident involving motor vehicles, and every week cars plough into the front gardens of those properties. Fortunately, of late there have been no serious accidents to people, but there have been in the past.
Yet, as a result of the way in which the capping criteria work—the limitations on the spending of the county council—funding from the European Community that could be made avilable to upgrade and improve that road and remove a serious hazard to the public has had to be repeatedly postponed. The residents of Jubilee gardens—barely 20 of them—have laboured long and hard to present a petition to Mid Glamorgan county council, which is the responsible authority, but they have charged me with the duty of giving a photocopy of it to the Secretary of State for Wales. Fewer than 20 people have gathered together a petition of more than 10,000 names, demanding the improvement of that road.
Having mentioned Porthcawl, I will conclude on this point. I believe that the Secretary of State was enjoying himself in Porthcawl this very day, where I have no doubt

893
many Conservative councillors in the area bent his ear about obtaining a change to the local authority boundaries for the unitary authorities. Money is being spent on those changes where there are three communities, Ewenny, in St. Brides Major and Wick, where more than 80 per cent. of the people who returned ballot papers from the Electoral Reform Society said that they wanted to stay with Bridgend. Indeed, there is one street there of which, one side is Bridgend and the other side could become the Vale of Glamorgan.
The Secretary of State had time to go to Porthcawl today but he has no time to come with me and meet the people in these communities so that he can see, first, what a foolish stand he is taking on this issue and, secondly, a great opportunity for money to be saved if he were only to leave the map as it is. Even at this late stage, I appeal to him to save money and let these communities stay with Bridgend.
9.9 pm
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The report needs to be seen in the context of the financial situation that the Government and the country face.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Ignore it.
Mr. Evans: We cannot ignore, as we hear from the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position, the fact that there was a £50 billion deficit in the national finances, and we addressed that issue in the Budget. Subsequently, we have heard complaints from the Opposition about tax rises. Tax rises are inevitable if we are to address the deficit. Labour Members lack all credibility if they suggest to the House or to the country that if they were in government they could avoid this situation; presumably, if they are opposed to dealing with he deficit, they would be in favour of carrying on with it and thereafter adding to it all the costs of the various promises that they have made to local government and to their friends in various lobby groups.
I call these things "promises" because we now know, do we not, that they do not count as pledges unless they are declared in the House itself? That is the context of the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has had to make concerning local government finance in the current year.
In spite of these difficulties, Opposition Members seek to quote from reports by treasurers of various local authorities in Wales. [Interruption.] I cannot hear all these sedentary interventions. I cannot deal with them all. If any hon. Member cares to make one on his feet, I should be more than happy to give way.
Mr. Martyn Jones: The hon. Member mentioned promises about tax. Perhaps he would explain why his Government have made promises about tax which they have now broken.
Mr. Evans: I do not recognise that the Government made any promise in relation to tax, other than maintaining that we are a party that believes in low taxation and that we will always maintain significantly lower levels of taxation than Opposition Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Evans: I should like to return to the kernel of the debate, which is the quotation that we heard from the treasurer of a district council in Clwyd, North-West. No
894
doubt the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was delighted to receive the letter from the treasurer of that council. I should like to quote from a letter written to me by the treasurer of Radnorshire district council:
"The Government and the Secretary of State for Wales could take much pride in this year's settlement. With a 3 per cent. increase in SSA the average Welsh District can increase spending by nearly double inflation."
Mr. Ron Davies rose—
Mr. Evans: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he will know, as I know, that Radnorshire and Newport were the only authorities to suffer reductions in the SSA. On behalf of Radnorshire, I have been making my concern about that plain.
Furthermore, the treasurer says that, when the overall settlement for Wales was announced, it was better than people in Radnorshire had been warned to expect. But the way in which the formula works in order to split spending between the various authorities in Wales means that it has worked substantially to the disadvantage of Radnorshire district council.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows, because I have raised the matter with him in correspondence, that I am concerned about the difficulties of rural local authorities. Local authorities in the rural parts of Wales have presented their case for a long time. We all recognise that they face additional costs in the delivery of local government services primarily because of the sparsity of population. We had always understood that the formula recognised the difficulties that such local authorities face. I have considered the documents that have been provided.
Mr. Ron Davies: For the sake of the completeness of the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the letter to which he referred was dated 13 January? In a letter to me dated 13 January, the treasurer of Radnorshire district council states:
"I enclose herewith copies of letters which I have sent to the Welsh Office and also to Mr. Jonathan Evans, M.P. for Brecon and Radnor.
You will see from these letters that the Council is not at all satisfied with either the Revenue Settlement or the Capital Settlement for the 1994/95."
Mr. Evans: The letter from which I quoted directly was dated 24 December 1993. It made it clear that the specific problem was that Radnorshire district council and Newport district council, which lies in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) faced a reduction in their standard spending assessment. That presented them with particular difficulties.
There are three reasons for the problems. I have mentioned that a sparsity factor should be built into the formula to meet the difficulties faced by some rural local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that the European regional development fund grants, which were given to Radnorshire district council in 1992–93, had a disproportionate effect on its SSA. They affected the composition of the formula for working out the council's SSA in the current financial year and that is likely to cause a problem next year.
I have received from my right hon. Friend an explanation of those difficulties, but he will be aware that Radnorshire district council has always spent at or below its SSA and has charged at or below standard levels. It has not been a profligate authority. It serves a small population, and the difficulties it faces are not caused, as the Labour

895
party would claim, by the fact that the overall settlement for Wales is inadequate. The representations that I have received show that that is far from the truth. The council's difficulties are caused by the way in which the settlement has impinged on it and on the authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newport, East.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for Caerphilly informed the House that my local authority, Brecknock borough council, would not proceed with a project. You may recall my surprise when I learnt that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my challenge to the hon. Member to give some details. I was aware that, during the past financial year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved the new Brecon leisure centre, a major project in my constituency. I was also pleased that only some months ago he provided a further £100,000 towards the centre's grandstand facilities around the athletics track. You can understand my surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I heard the Labour Front-Bench team suggest that the leisure centre project, or another project, would not proceed.
During the debate, I was challenged by Opposition Members for having disappeared briefly from the Chamber. I confess that I did leave the Chamber; I spoke to the chief executive of Brecknock borough council, Mr. Doylend, to check the information that the hon. Member for Caerphilly gave the House an hour or so ago. Mr. Doylend has told me that the council is pleased with the settlement as it affects itself. The borough council does not experience the same disadvantages from the working of the formula as Radnorshire does, so Mr. Doylend is perfectly happy for me to report to the House that it is pleased with the settlement.
Mr. Doylend also informed me that in the current financial year there will be an increase of 3 per cent. in the local council tax. He spoke to the treasurer of Brecknock borough council only this afternoon, and he knows of no project whatever within the council's area that is to be cancelled as a result of the settlement, yet the House was told of one only an hour or so ago by the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
When I challenged the hon. Gentleman he said that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) would give us some details of the project. In view of my conversation with the chief executive, which took place only a few minutes ago, I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is now in a position to give us some details about the project that he claimed was to be cancelled.
Mr. Ron Davies: I am happy to confirm that that was precisely the information given to me by the Council of Welsh Districts. I shall give the hon. Gentleman full sight of the information at the end of the debate; it appeared in a list of projects that had fallen foul of the rules on the European regional development fund, and I assure him that it was given to me in good faith.
Mr. Evans: In the circumstances, may I say with equal courtesy that I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation for the erroneous information that he put before the House. The briefing from the Labour-controlled Council of Welsh Districts is demonstrably inaccurate yet again. With respect, I offer the hon. Gentleman the suggestion that if in future he wants to inform the House about projects that are to be cancelled, he might speak to the chief executives or
896
to members of the councils, rather than to the Council of Welsh Districts, which provides so much of the briefing that he conveys to us from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Redwood: I confirm that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in putting the case for Radnorshire. However, is he aware that, although Radnorshire does not benefit from the formula this year, it has benefited considerably in the past, for reasons that include its rural nature? The total SSA in 1991–92 was £2·493 million, in 1992–93 it was £2·971 million and in 1993–94 it was £3.281 million. That is one of the biggest rates of increase. I hope that it has been of benefit to Radnorshire, and I am glad that Brecknock is happy with this year's settlement.
Mr. Evans: I am very much aware of the point that my right hon. Friend makes, and I recognise the fact that those settlements were welcomed in previous years. However, the fact remains that Radnorshire district council has on-going programmes, and they must be funded during the coming financial year. Clear difficulties have been caused to the district council, although it has not joined in the misleading of public opinion that we hear from so many Opposition Members. What I have said during the debate shows that the settlement for Welsh local authorities in general has been welcome, but for Radnorshire in this specific year it has caused great difficulties.
I draw my remarks to a close by saying that this is a difficult financial time. The settlement announced by the Secretary of State is better than could have been expected, and the speeches that we have heard from Opposition Members have been as erroneous as the briefing that many of them received from the Council of Welsh Districts.
9.24 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I do not want to enter into the argument between the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and the Labour Front Bench. However, the hon. Gentleman made two statements which, frankly, cannot go unchallenged. The first was the amazing proposition that, because the Government have a public sector deficit of £50 billion, Opposition parties must somehow tailor their policies as a result. It is an amazing proposition that our policies should be coloured because the Government have created this massive deficit.
The second statement that must be challenged is that the hon. Gentleman was not aware that the Tories made any statements at the last election that the Government would not raise taxes. The reality is that they made statements time and again that the Government had no intention whatever of imposing value added tax on fuel. I remember the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, telling the House that the Government had no plans to impose VAT on fuel. However, that is what happened in last year's Budget.
The hon. Gentleman must accept that we are not constrained by the difficulties that the Government face because we have the opportunity to tell them what sort of settlement local authorities should receive and the level and range of services that they should provide.
The Secretary of State told us that he believed in good government. The test of whether he means what he says will be if, first, local authorities are given proper resources for the range of services that they provide and, secondly and just as importantly, if local authorities are given the freedom to deliver those services. For the past 10 years or

897
more, local authorities have had their powers stripped one by one in the sort of salami-slicing approach of taking a bit year after year. Clearly, if powers are taken from local authorities, they will not be able to provide the range of services that one normally associates with them.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) told us about the difficulties that many education authorities now face and I shall mention one or two of them. Following the transfer of higher and further education to the new quangos set up by the Welsh Office, and the transfer of some responsibility from education authorities to schools, local authorities are no longer able to provide the range of services that they provided 10 years ago. The difficulty is that schools are in the invidious position of having to choose to cut teacher numbers and increase the size of classes, or cut extra-curricular activities which have provided children in Wales with the breadth of education that was provided when we were at school. By that I mean provision of music, art and drama.
How many generations of young people from rural parts of Wales and the valleys of south Wales have made it in the international arena because local authorities were able to provide those services? Why are young people no longer able to participate in such activities unless they belong to middle-class families or families which can pay for the services? It is a shame that we are letting our young people down in this way. I would like local authorities and schools to be given the freedom, the opportunity and the resources to ensure that they can give this generation the opportunities that we had. Our parents fought to give us that opportunity, but I fear that our generation is letting down our children.
My final point relates to the resourcing of police authorities. We have heard a great deal about the difficulties of the South Wales police authority. I would not like the debate to go by without mentioning also the difficulties faced by the North Wales police authority. Year after year, the authority has asked the Home Office to provide the resources that would enable it to increase the numbers of personnel, and year after year it has been turned down.
Last year, the authority was given no increases. The difficulties which may be peculiar to the South Wales police should not cloud the fact that police authorities all over Wales are having problems. I hope that the Government recognise the need properly to resource police authorities in Wales.
We have heard about the massive increase in crime rates in rural Wales—rates that were unheard of a generation ago. It is essential that the police are given the resources necessary to allow them to carry out their task properly. We need to have more policemen on the beat, walking the streets and making sure that the elderly are safe in their homes. The police understand that they need more money to be made available, not only through the Home Office, but through the county councils.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will my hon. Friend add to his list the fundamental importance of the forensic science service? Unless the police have the resources to buy those services, they will be unable to undertake proper criminal investigations. There will be insufficient cash for the evidence collected to be made available to the Crown Prosecution Service, if a prosecution is necessary.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that his intervention will have been heard by the Government.
It is right that criminals should be dealt with properly and that we should have a range of sentences in our courts, it is equally necessary for the police to have proper resources to do their job. I hope that the Welsh Office now understands the crisis facing local authorities on a range of issues. Even if the Government were unable to address that crisis in this year's settlement, it will not be forgotten next year.
9.33 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: I am glad to acknowledge the support of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) regarding the financial difficulties of Newport borough—directly, of course, as a result of the decisions of this Administration. It was most magnanimous of the hon. Gentleman.
We all recognise that local government is highly complex and no one can deny that fact. For a Government intent on curbing local government activity at every turn, that complexity is a godsend. Tonight was no exception, of course. We had the usual juggling act from the Secretary of State, when he gave us the "now you see it, now you don't" act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that we live in an age of quangos; there are 111 of them. They are a blot on the landscape and many people feel that the sooner they are got rid of, the better. Those bodies are accountable only to the Secretary of State and they are invariably filled with Tory placemen. I am sad to say that there have been increasing examples of corruption in high places. By comparison, local government in Wales has been of a high order. In England, there have been minor difficulties in Lambeth, but they have been dwarfed into insignificance by what has happened in Tory-controlled Westminster. Our local government in Wales has been first class by comparison.
The democratic nature of local government needs encouraging, not throttling. The simple fact of the Welsh rate support grant settlement is that the council tax payer will pay at least an extra 10 per cent. That is several times the level of inflation. What is more, the 10 per cent. increase imposed on the council tax payer is in addition to all the other increases announced in the previous two Budgets. I shall briefly list but a few: VAT on domestic fuel will increase to 8 per cent. from 1 April, with more to come the following year; petrol tax is up; vehicle excise duty is up; national insurance contributions are up. Many more examples could be cited. Where are families to get the money to pay the additional council tax and other taxes?
I have been informed that in Newport borough, standard spending, instead of increasing by 2·3 per cent. as it should, has fallen by 0·5 per cent. The Government are shifting more of the burden on to taxpayers. In Newport, male unemployment is between 13 and 14 per cent. There is a need for economic regeneration. Yet our local authority is denied resources. Newport could provide jobs not only for the town itself but for so many of the areas in the valleys.
On housing, so much more could be done to house the homeless, let alone put construction workers back to do the work that they have been trained to do. Instead, many of them are languishing in the dole queue. Local government

899
should be allowed to spend receipts from the sale of council houses. That could do a great deal to regenerate the economy of Wales and elsewhere. Local authorities have had to cope with much new legislation, including the Children Act 1989 and legislation on community care, the national curriculum and mental health services. In respect of those items, the settlement is harsh.
In conclusion, local government in Wales needs a better deal, but it is not likely to get one from the Conservative Government. They are a millstone round the neck of local government and of Wales in general. The sooner they are ousted the better. We need a Labour Administration who will create a democratically elected assembly for Wales.
9.37 pm
Mr. Rod Richards: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) stopped me and asked me whether I could please tell him the Welsh word for "idea". So I told him. The Welsh word for "idea" is "syniad". I said, "But surely what you want to know is the Welsh for no idea—`dim syniad'." What we heard from the hon. Gentleman this evening was absolutely no idea about the financing of local government. He said time and again that local government in Wales was underfunded. He said that the police were underfunded. He said that education was underfunded. Yet when he was challenged to be precise about by how much the police were underfunded, he could not say. When he was challenged to say by how much education was underfunded, he could not say.
I challenge the hon. Gentleman, through his spokesman who will reply to the debate for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that he was unhappy with the settlement for teachers' pay. Will the hon. Member for Torfaen tell the House what he believes would be a fair settlement for teachers' pay in 1994–95? He must think that the people of Wales are naive if he thinks that his party would not spend more on local government, because his party proposes a Welsh assembly to oversee local government in Wales costing £1 million a day. Will he commit himself to £1 million a day?
The hon. Member for Torfaen said that education has been underfunded. It has been underfunded by Clwyd education authority in my constituency. I refer him to Llandrillo college of further education, on which Clwyd education authority has not spent a bean in 15 years. thanks to the Conservative Government, the college is about to receive its first tranche—£1·6 million—of a £6 million investment this year.
Mr. Wyn Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman recall what it cost Wales when the Conservative Government of the day last reformed local government? Will he tell us how much extra money the proposed reform will cost?
Mr. Richards: I am more than happy to answer that question. It will cost less than the proposals of the Labour party, which wishes to add an assembly to the cost of the reform of local Government in Wales.
Mr. Donald Anderson: on this, the hon. Gentleman has said boldly that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech.
9.41 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I must apologise to the House for my absence during the early part of the debate, particularly to the Secretary of State. I have been following the Government's advice and getting "back to basics". I spent much of this evening with my own wife, but unfortunately underestimated the time at which the debate would start.
I will not detain the House long, but I want to tell the House something of what is happening in Powys in so far as it affects my constituency in Montgomeryshire. I hope that we shall hear a good deal more of the name Montgomeryshire in the years to come, despite the current ill intentions of the Secretary of State.
There are certain things with which we can possibly live. If highways are not repaired—the Government insists on failing to provide the money to repair them—I suppose that we can live with a few broken roads. We in Montgomeryshire are becoming used to broken roads. I have often raised problems relating to country roads with the county surveyor. I have letter after letter saying that Powys county council, which is not profligate—I do not think that it has ever been so accused—does not have the money to repair them.
Let us turn to other issues, such as social services and care in the community. We cannot afford to live with broken people. In some cases in Montgomeryshire, people are being forced to go "into the community". But they are sent not into their own community or to where their nearest and dearest are—if they have any surviving relations—but to the most convenient pigeonhole which falls within the Government's policy. That leads to broken people. I do not consider that an acceptable way of dealing with local government requirements.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State has asked the chairmen of social services committees or directors of social services about funding for care in the community, but if he does they will tell him and his hon. Friends on the Front Bench that it simply is not enough to meet the task. I take no issue with the task, as resettling patients in the community is entirely desirable, but I take issue with the failure to provide the wherewithal for that task. Nor can we afford broken futures.
Education provision in the county of Powys will be frozen in real terms for the forthcoming financial year. Powys will only achieve that freeze by cutting other services, such as the opportunity for adults, especially the elderly, to enjoy their share of knowledge. The mobile library service in Montgomeryshire, which is something of a lifeline to many pensioners who live in remote villages, is being cut to save the miserable sum of £25,000. Powys county council does not want to cut it, but feels that it has no choice. It is a disgrace that we should have reached the stage where, because of the Government's local government finance policy, the mobile library service has to be cut. Pensioners will not be able to obtain books because there is no public transport for them to get to libraries in Welshpool, Newtown or the other towns in my constituency.
What about education? The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) mentioned some of the effects of what are, in

901
real terms, cuts in education. He mentioned music teaching. I am not so concerned about the cases he cited of international musicians of great stature who have come from rural Wales. Such people are likely to appear in any event, as great natural talent shows itself.
I am more concerned about the majority who are amateur musicians—there are probably many in the House—who sing in choirs, play the piano for their own enjoyment or play in small amateur orchestras. There are thousands of them and they form the basis for musical enjoyment in this country. They will not be able to become musicians because many schools are not able to buy music tuition for young people, which is so essential as a base on which to build their future enjoyment of music.
The other day, I received a letter from parents at one school in my constituency, which revealed that they are being forced to buy music tuition at a very high price—if they can buy it at all—from a commercial organisation, whereas only a few years ago such tuition was free [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) who is sitting behind the Secretary of State and is not a Welsh Member of Parliament, would show a little less exasperation and amusement. Local government finance cuts matter in Wales. They may not matter to him, but they matter to us. Another aspect of education—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Gentleman would keep quiet.
Wales has produced its share of good artists, who learned art at school. Art teaching is not a luxury, but should be a part of every child's education. That provision, too, has been cut in Powys as a result of the Government's local government finance policies.
Teaching through the medium of Welsh is a core area of education that is facing privatisation in Montgomeryshire. Montgomeryshire—indeed, Powys—is the only county in Wales that does not have a Welsh-medium secondary school. Welsh teaching is provided in some schools in my constituency and it is done very well, but some parents reasonably wish to send their children to a Welsh-medium school. Plans for such a school have been prepared time and again. An entire school—or at least part of one—has been proposed, but the possibility has probably been put back for yet another year because of the Government's policies. Why is it that, in respect of all subjects and at all levels, children should suffer and possibly face broken futures as a result of the Government's policies?
The issue that causes most concern in education is class size. There is no doubt that the increase in teachers' pay will not be met in Powys this year without a significant increase in the size of classes. Powys county council, acting on what it believed, on the basis of Government policy, to be the likely outcome, made an allowance of 1 per cent. to cover the increase in teachers' salaries for the forthcoming year. The council got it wrong, and the result is that class sizes will increase.
Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
Mr. Carlile: The Secretary of State shakes his head. I do not know what magic the right hon. Gentleman can conjure up to ensure that class sizes will not increase if there is not enough money to meet the teachers' pay increase.
Mr. Redwood: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had had the courtesy to be present for the entire debate, he would realise that exactly those points were covered
902
extensively in some lively exchanges between Opposition Members and myself. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read the record of the debate so that he may understand the position that his constituents will face next year.
Mr. Carlile: I shall read the record with great interest. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman did not begin to attempt to answer my question. If he can show Powys county council how to avoid cuts in the numbers of teachers and increased class sizes I shall certainly write to him in proper apology, as I hope he would expect me to do.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I represent the other half of Powys—the major proportion of Powys; a bigger proportion than is represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former director of education, Mr. Robert Bevan—now a member of the Powys authority—has come up with the very proposition that the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward: that there will be teacher redundancies.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will be reassured to hear that I spoke to the chairman of the education committee about this on Saturday and was informed that he hopes that it will be possible to make an arrangement whereby the matter can be dealt with without teacher redundancies. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome that statement from the chairman of the education committee.
Mr. Carlile: We have all this hoping that arrangements can be made; but the fact is that Councillor Robert Bevan, the immediate past director of education for Powys, made it quite clear, from his great fund of experience and his knowledge of the education system in the county, what will happen. I put it to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who represents what he describes as the other half of Powys—a description which may give rise to some interest in debates on another piece of legislation—that what Mr. Bevan said is what will happen.
The basic point that I wish to make is that, once again, we are witnessing cuts in local government services in rural Wales. Powys county council is not to blame—neither its members nor its officers. The public do not understand what the Government are up to when they see, in particular, every aspect of their children's education being hammered by the policies of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Month after month, people feel that Wales is being ruled more and more from London, and that is not acceptable.
9.53 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I should like to raise the question of the specific effect on Clwyd of the inadequate revenue support grant provision. Before doing so, however, I remind the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) that the Welsh for "promise" is "addewyd". The Government promised that they would not raise taxes or increase VAT, but they did just that. We face real cuts in services in Clwyd—indeed, throughout Wales—as a result of the Government's policies over the past 15 years. Significantly, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West mentioned that fact that for 15 years—precisely the Conservatives' period in office—Llandrillo college in Clwyd had not received any money for repairs.

903
We learnt from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that there is a real-terms cut in revenue support grant provision throughout Wales. Despite the flannel from the Government, that applies to Clwyd. Excluding community care provision, Clwyd will receive only 1.66 per cent. more than last year. Admittedly, inflation is low, but the figure is below inflation and hides the necessity for extra provision to meet the needs of new legislation such as the Children Act 1989, and measures relating to the national curriculum and mental health.
Central Government have agreed to wage rises but have not funded them, having said previously that they would not agree to any pay increases for teachers. Those increases now have to be funded out of already inadequate budgets. Even the additional community care money for 1994–95 is estimated by the Association of Welsh Councils to be £40 million below requirements.
Total standard spending is up by 4 per cent., but the aggregate external finance, including revenue support grant, non-domestic rates and specific grants, has increased by only 3·2 per cent. The gearing means that council tax payers in Clwyd face an increase of 11·8 per cent., or £20, on band D. The specific grants for the police and the courts have increased by 5·1 per cent. but that reduces the amount available for other services such as education. To add insult to injury, the Secretary of State assesses council tax at £233 for counties and £53 for districts, based on 100 per cent. collection, which is clearly unrealistic. A 5 per cent. loss on collection means another £15 on band D. Those factors affect all counties, but Clwyd has particular problems.
The standard spending formula for Clwyd is based on composite social indicators, including some features which do not exist in Clwyd, but mask its real needs. Although the sparsity of population provision which applies to large areas of Clwyd is some compensation, it is not sufficient, so Clwyd suffers lack of provision for sparsity population and for social deprivation indicators.
Despite that, Clwyd is the lowest spender in Wales. Last year it received £30 per head below the average for Wales. The grant we are debating tonight will mean £24 per head below the average this year. By pure coincidence, £24 per head in Clwyd represents £10 million in funding for Clwyd—exactly the amount that will have to be cut from education and other services this year. It will mean huge class size increases and redundancies among teachers. The councils do not want to do that. They have already had to charge for mentally handicapped day centres.
I realise that we are reaching the end of the debate, so I shall make just one further point on capping. If the Secretary of State will not put right the underfunding of education and social services in Clwyd, why does he not allow council tax payers to take the decision?
Mr. Wardell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a simple solution to the problem—the market, of course? They are giving schools the opportunity to increase pupil numbers by poaching children from neighbouring schools. They are setting one school against another. That is the formula that the Government want to put in place to solve the problem.
Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a recipe for chaos in the education service throughout Wales.
904
If the council tax payers of Clwyd were told that they could avoid charges for day centres for the mentally handicapped and cuts in the number of teachers and that they would have adequate discretionary grants if they were prepared to pay only £14 a year per head more in grant, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of people in Clwyd would accept that. After all, that is only the equivalent of a Mars bar a week for every person in Clwyd, which is peanuts compared with the cuts and their effects on the pupils in our schools.
9.59 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I remind the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) that the councillor to whom he referred, Robert Bevan, was one of the many directors of education in Wales who resigned because they could no longer stomach the cuts introduced by the Government. Mr. Bevan did so in his early fifties.
In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), let me issue the bold challenge presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies): will he tell us the precise amount by which provision should have been increased? Do I recall his saying that he believed that Clwyd county council's local education authority had underfunded its own provision? Of course, he will be unable to specify the precise amount.
Mr. Richards: I am more than happy to reply. During the past three years, all the education authorities in Wales have underfunded schools by £33 million in terms of capital provision.
Mr. Anderson: I wonder from what hat the hon. Gentleman pulled that figure. He said earlier that the Government had not resiled from any election promises about taxation; let me remind him that, in an Orwellian manner, the Government no longer describe themselves as the party of low taxation, preferring to style themselves as the party of lowest possible taxation.
The Under-Secretary of State must recognise that this is another example of the Government's centralisation tendency. That tendency can be seen in every sector of local government—with, I concede, the exception of community care—at a time when the quangocracy is increasing enormously and the accompanying sleaze is increasing as well. Although the Secretary of State is trying to civilise at the edges, the beast that he and his colleagues have created is growing.
The essence of the problem lies in the Conservative party's awareness that it can never achieve power in Wales through normal democratic means; it must create quangos to form a sort of authority through which it can work, bypassing the local authorities, whose power is being increasingly eroded and diminishing the morale of local councillors.
We have already heard about the effect of the settlement on public sector pay increases and local authorities' difficulty in accommodating the teachers' 2·9 per cent. pay increase—and other expected increases—in their budgets. Something will have to give, and what will give is other necessary services.
The Government assume that local authorities will be able to collect 100 per cent. of the council tax. That contrasts with the collection rate of taxes in direct Government control. The income tax collection rate, for

905
example, is about 98 per cent.; the VAT collection rate is about 97 per cent.; and the BBC estimates that the television licence collection rate is 10 per cent. lower than it should be, while the Home Office accepts that it is 7.5 per cent. to 8 per cent. lower than the desired figure. Yet the Government boldly assume that local authorities can do what they cannot.
There have also been effects on council tax bills. The Government's contribution to spending in my city of Swansea, for example, is limited to an increase of only £60,000, or 0·2 per cent., on the previous year. When compared with the provision for the standard spending assessment and the gearing effect, it means an increase in the council tax of 15·3 per cent. in the city of Swansea. In that sector, the Government are trying to throw the blame for their own policy failure on to local authorities and, as a result, forcing them to put up the council tax.
My hon. Friends have already made forceful points about the effects of the elimination of discretionary grants on music, the arts and so on. It is clear that the position now is worse than ever. What earlier generations of school children were able to take for granted is no longer available because there is a clear deterioration in the provision in the education sector. In addition to music and the arts, we should consider the lack of discretionary grants for those who wish to become lawyers. The withdrawal of those grants will certainly mean that, in future, our solicitors and barristers will come only from those families who are able to pay for the training. I believe that that is socially wrong, and it derives directly from the policies of the Government.
10.5 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: As always, the debate on the rate support grant settlement for Wales has been interesting, informed and, on occasions, quite exciting. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) talked about the lack of knowledge or experience of Opposition Members in local government finance. I calculated that among all the Labour Members who have spoken in the debate, there were over 50 years of experience of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and I were chairmen of the finance committees of our local authorities. So I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have some knowledge and experience of what has occurred under both Governments over the past two decades.
My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the backcloth of the reform of Welsh local government. The House will consider that in a few weeks; it is currently being dealt with in another place. When we see cuts in county and district council budgets that are a direct result of the 4 per cent. reduction in the settlement, we must contrast them with the £100 to £200 million that the people of Wales will have to pay to reform local government. There is no enthusiasm for that among people in the Principality.
The Secretary of State said in his press release that the settlement
"gives local authorities adequate resources to maintain services."
The vast majority of local authorities of all political persuasions in Wales do not agree with him. No more did they agree in July 1979 when the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), said:
906
"We will sweep away tiresome and excessive control over local government. They do not need, they do not want, the fussy supervision of detail that now exists."
Over the past 15 years, almost 150 Acts have taken away the powers and responsibilities of local authorities, and Wales is now the most centralised and the least democratic part of the European Union.
My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) all said that, in their respective areas, the system of standard spending assessments had broken down. The formula on which the SSAs are based has also broken down. The Audit Commission said exactly the same thing when it stated that SSAs were used for capping, not for grant distribution. The Select Committee on the Environment recently said that the SSA formula was oversimplified and based on outdated information and did not take into account long-term unemployment and chronic ill health, both of which are extremely important factors in Wales.
What happened last year? We had the spectacle of the Secretary of State for Wales standing at the Dispatch Box wanting to cap Aberconwy council, of all councils. It is a small authority which has hardly been regarded as profligate and has nothing to hide. Capping is not only unfair but undermines democracy and does not work. Experts from the London School of Economics tell us that capping has led to higher spending because councils spend to their capping limit.
In June 1993, when he was quite new to his present responsibilities, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"I believe that we have a good system".
He said that he was
"proud to inherit the Welsh model."—[Official Report, 23 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 418.]
I have to tell him that the Welsh model existed until about a year ago. Successive Secretaries of State for Wales—the former right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt)—said that they would not publish the criteria for capping. Since the right hon. Member for Wokingham has been Secretary of State for Wales, we have had slavishly to follow the English example on capping.
Some hon. Members have asked whether the Council of Welsh Districts is good at providing briefing information. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will join the council in congratulating the Secretary of State on overcoming the wild variations in SSAs about which it complained for a number of years. I suppose that the council is right in some aspects of its briefing.
Eighty per cent. of districts will still have problems in setting their budgets and gearing is still a great problem: a 2·1 per cent. increase in spending will mean an increase of 11·3 per cent. in the council tax in Wales. Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned the impact on district councils. Homelessness in Wales has increased in the past 12 months by 10 per cent., but, despite what the Secretary of State said, the capital available to local authorities to spend on housing has been cut by £10 million. That is why the district councils say that the settlement is inadequate for the provision of public sector housing.
Reference has also been made to taxes. Conservative Members said that it was important that taxes were increased in order to help the economy. Taxes are certainly going up in Wales, even though the Government are supposed to be anti-tax. For example, the cost of rent rebates will now have to be borne wholly by the local

907
authorities, which will mean a significant increase in council house rents in the next financial year. At the same time, the Secretary of State has told Welsh housing associations that they face a cut of 9 per cent. in their grant. They now have the lowest grant since their inception in Wales.
The chairman of Tai Cymru has written to tell housing associations that he does not want rents to be increased, but how can it be avoided when the grant has been cut by 9 per cent? Ultimately, the cuts mean that the Government and the Secretary of State are unaware of how important it is to have a viable public rented sector in the Principality in order to do something about the 80,000 people who are on council house waiting lists in north and south Wales.
The biggest blow has been to the county councils. We heard about the impact of cuts on county councils from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East, for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Clwyd, South-West and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Mid Glamorgan will have to make cuts of £15 million which, by any standard or measurement of deprivation, will mean cuts in public services. Gwynedd has to cut between £2 million and £3 million; South Glamorgan is cutting nearly £1 million off social services and £500,000 off highways; and in Gwent, the 1·6 per cent. increase must cover pay, inflation and capital development.
The worst effect on counties, as many of my hon. Friends have said, is the impact on the police service and on education. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend spoke about the importance of considering the formulae for the police. The Home Office has already said that, for every police authority in England and Wales, it expects a 5·5 per cent. increase in expenditure to maintain the forces of law and order in England and Wales. How can police authorities increase their expenditure to that extent when the Secretary of State for Wales is saying that county councils can increase spending by only 1·75 per cent? It is impossible for those figures to match; as a result, there will be a reduction in the services provided by our police authorities throughout the Principality.
In education, we shall find that there is insufficient money to pay for the 2·9 per cent teachers' pay award. It will mean that that award will be paid for with other teachers' jobs, with larger classes and a reduced education service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West rightly spoke about Clwyd. A cut of £6 million to £7 million has to be made in the education service for north-east Wales. Cuts are taking place in South Glamorgan, Gwent and Dyfed. As the chairman of the local education authorities' employing body recently said:
"The real problem for local education authorities is the crippling financial limits imposed by this Government",
and nowhere is that truer than in Wales.
The Welsh Office claims that the average council tax will be about £280. All its claims that we have heard in the Chamber in rate support grant debates over the years have proved to be wrong. We believe that the council tax is much more likely to reach about £350. Part of the reason for that is that local government has had to grapple with a system of finance that has changed more dramatically in seven years than it has done in seven centuries. Another part of the reason is that councillors in Wales are still genuinely attempting to preserve our schools, to safeguard
908
our communities, to maintain law and order, to house the homeless and to improve the quality of life of the people whom we represent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said that our councils have experienced constant underfunding of vital services for 15 years. The cumulative effect of all that is affecting and endangering the fabric of Welsh society.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman keeps speaking about underfunding, and he mentioned South Glamorgan county council. Will he therefore explain to the House how the chairman of South Glamorgan county council can put advertisements, with large photographs of himself, costing £500 a time, in the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo, wishing the readers a happy new year and a happy Christmas?
Mr. Murphy: The good people of South Glamorgan need to have some good will in their lives around Christmas time and I think that that is the only good news they have. Last year, for example, they had to cut their music departments, they had to cut their outdoor pursuits departments and they had to witness the spectable of their discretionary grant system being cut altogether. I could describe a litany of problems that South Glamorgan and other councils have had.
Mr. Sweeney rose—
Mr. Murphy: I will not give way.
If the hon. Gentleman can find only that example of what he would regard as reckless council spending, I am sorry for him. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East, for Caerphilly, for Newport, East and others have pointed to the real problems of government in Wales, not what the hon. Gentleman has just been talking about. They mentioned the shame of the fact that we have to witness democratically elected Welsh councils being starved of funds year after year, while unaccountable and appointed quangos are responsible for nearly £2·5 billion in the Principality.
Worse, some of those organisations fritter away thousands of pounds—much more than the cost of the so-called photograph that the hon. Gentleman spoke about. Let him read the report of the Public Accounts Committee to see what it has revealed of the squandering of public funds—Welsh money—by those quangos in the past few months alone. They get little more than a mild rebuke from the Secretary of State.
What happens to our local authorities? They have to face the most savage capping restrictions and the inevitable suspicion that goes with them. Is it any wonder that the people of Wales now regard our system of government as potentially rotten and distinctly unwholesome? For that reason alone, I urge the House to vote down these measures.
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): It would be desirable if I could come to the Dispatch Box now and say that we have had a good, constructive and worthwhile debate this evening. I noticed that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) began his lengthy summing-up by referring to what I think he would want to describe as the wealth of

909
local government experience on the Opposition Benches. But did that contribute to ordered, constructive debate? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No.
All we have had from the Opposition Benches tonight is a bunch of uncosted wish lists. Possibly one of the lengthiest came from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The one point on which I would find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is in his description of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery as a Johnny-comelately. Perhaps he has just rushed in from the robing room, as described in the Western Mail yesterday. He had a list that managed to cover practically every service of local government.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) referred to education services, and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) to forensic services. We have had a parade of hon. Members wanting to give the impression that they supported the police, that they wanted to support more money for the South Wales police authority: the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), for Caerphilly, for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), for Torfaen and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
I welcomed the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who referred to the reality of the budget of the South Wales police authority. I understand that the authority is studying a report by the district auditor on its financial arrangements. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made clear, police funding is a matter for the police authority and its constituent local authorities, and I see that the South Wales police are already taking the steps that they see fit to resolve the budget problem.
The wish lists carried on. The hon. Member for Bridgend brought in the need to spend on roads in Porthcawl. He seemed especially stunned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pursuing him into Porthcawl today, but he felt the need to mention it in Hansard tonight. An equally lengthy list came from the hon. Member for Caerphilly. He was concerned about pay increases. That was matched by a number of hon. Gentlemen who alluded to the teachers' pay settlement. They referred to the cost of the settlement, but at no time have I heard any of them say that the teachers' pay increase was justified. I wonder why some of them are here as representatives of teachers' unions.
Surprisingly, the hon. Member for Caerphilly volunteered one figure among the almost total lack of costings that we have been given tonight. He quoted the county councils as saying that they wanted to spend another £40 million on care in the community. Generally, the hon. Gentleman in his lament about insufficient money for local government was also concerned about the alleged loss of independence for local government.
Interestingly, in that the hon. Gentleman was echoed by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who made a plea for more power for Welsh councils. That is odd coming from the party that we would all identify as the devolutionary party, Plaid Cymru. He would effectively take powers away from the people and give them back to councils instead. He would take the power away from parents to have more influence and control over what happens in their schools.
910
Presumably, he would take power away from council tenants so that they would have less control over housing, and the control would be given back to local authorities.
I can at least acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who echoed the fact that community care was yet another example of the practical devolution that we have introduced, giving opportunities to local government to take that forward.
Perhaps the nutshell of today's debate was supplied by the contribution by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). He wanted more spending here and more spending there, with more spending on housing, but he preceded these comments by voicing his regret at extra taxation. The hon. Member for Caerphilly presented us with the same dichotomy. He wanted more spending but was not, so he said, in favour of more taxation.

I think that all hon. Members will have noticed that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, he received no answer from him about costings and how the extra expenditure would be met by the Labour party. On local government spending, as with every other sort of spending, the Labour party will not come clean, just as it did not come clean at the last general election. The Labour party is already showing that it will not come clean at the next general election.
Perhaps most worrying to many of us were the wild, sweeping statements of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It was incredible that he appeared to equate the South Wales police authority with Westminster city council. Members of the Labour party rushed to judge Westminster city council, and the hon. Member gave the clearest impression that he applies the same judgment to members of the South Wales police authority. What confidence can any Labour member of that authority have in the man who is supposed to be Labour's shadow Secretary of State for Wales?
The hon. Member for Caerphilly made allegations about the endemic corruption in public life in Wales, and once more alluded to sleaze. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder—sleaze must be in the eye of the sleazy. People such as the hon. Gentleman should realise the damage that they do and the way that they demoralise all those working in public service in Wales. It is true that there have been some failings in public service in Wales, none of which should be ignored. Such failings should be pursued as firmly as possible. The firmest line has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Above all, when maintaining a proper balance, one cannot ignore the wilful damage that such people do to Wales. There are many fine people in public service in Wales who do fine work, but the Labour party smears them all with the same brush.
In his opening speech my right hon. Friend emphasised the Government's commitment to local government, and the facts speak for themselves. Even at a time of necessary restraint in public expenditure, the settlement proposals before the House increase the resources available to local government by more than £100 million or 4·2 per cent.—well ahead of inflation. Since 1990–91, the level of revenue resources has increased by 27 per cent.—if the functional changes are taken into account, the increase is well over 30 per cent. The amount of money that we are making available for care in the community will more than double.
Local authorities must budget within their means and those of the taxpayers they serve. Local government is not

911
being singled out—it is the duty of all organisations that spend taxpayers' money to exercise prudence and restraint in their spending. That is vital if we are to maintain the momentum of economic recovery and build for the future.
I have confidence in the ability and willingness of local government in Wales to act responsibly. It is to be hoped that even the Labour councils will take forward the settlement with far more confidence than has been displayed among the Opposition tonight. I am sure that local government in Wales will do so.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 269.

Division No. 127]

[10.28 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Aitken, Jonathan

Coe, Sebastian

Alexander, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Congdon, David

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Conway, Derek

Amess, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Ancram, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arbuthnot, James

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cormack, Patrick

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Couchman, James

Ashby, David

Cran, James

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Day, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Baldry, Tony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Dicks, Terry

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dorrell, Stephen

Bates, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Batiste, Spencer

Dover, Den

Beggs, Roy

Duncan, Alan

Bellingham, Henry

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Beresford, Sir Paul

Dunn, Bob

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Durant, Sir Anthony

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dykes, Hugh

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Eggar, Tim

Booth, Hartley

Elletson, Harold

Boswell, Tim

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bowden, Andrew

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bowis, John

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evennett, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Faber, David

Brazier, Julian

Fabricant, Michael

Bright, Graham

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fishburn, Dudley

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Forman, Nigel

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Forth, Eric

Budgen, Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Burns, Simon

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Burt, Alistair

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Butcher, John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Butler, Peter

French, Douglas

Butterfill, John

Fry, Sir Peter

Carlisle, John (Luton Norm)

Gale, Roger

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gallie, Phil

Carrington, Matthew

Gardiner, Sir George

Carttiss, Michael

Garnier, Edward

Cash, William

Gill, Christopher

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gillan, Cheryl

Chapman, Sydney

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Churchill, Mr

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Clappison, James

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gorst, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

912

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Moate, Sir Roger

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Monro, Sir Hector

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Grylls, Sir Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Needham, Richard

Hague, William

Nelson, Anthony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Nicholls, Patrick

Hannam, Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Harris, David

Norris, Steve

Haselhurst, Alan

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hawkins, Nick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hawksley, Warren

Ottaway, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Page, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Paice, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patnick, Irvine

Hendry, Charles

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hicks, Robert

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Pawsey, James

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Pickles, Eric

Horam, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Rathbone, Tim

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

Richards, Rod

Hunter, Andrew

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jessel, Toby

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Key, Robert

Sackville, Tom

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

Shersby, Michael

Knox, Sir David

Sims, Roger

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Soames, Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Speed, Sir Keith

Leigh, Edward

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lidington, David

Spring, Richard

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sproat, Iain

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lord, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Luff, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stephen, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stem, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stewart, Allan

Maclean, David

Streeter, Gary

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sumberg, David

Madel, Sir David

Sweeney, Walter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sykes, John

Malone, Gerald

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thomason, Roy

Mates, Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Merchant, Piers

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mills, Iain

Thurnham, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

913

Tracey, Richard

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Trend, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Trotter, Neville

Whittingdale, John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Widdecombe, Ann

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Viggers, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Willetts, David

Walden, George

Wilshire, David

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Wolfson, Mark

Waller, Gary

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Waterson, Nigel

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Timothy Wood.

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Dafis, Cynog

Ainger, Nick

Dalyell, Tam

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Darling, Alistair

Allen, Graham

Davidson, Ian

Alton, David

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Armstrong, Hilary

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

Ashton, Joe

Dewar, Donald

Austin-Walker, John

Dixon, Don

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dobson, Frank

Barnes, Harry

Donohoe, Brian H.

Barron, Kevin

Dowd, Jim

Battle, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bayley, Hugh

Eagle, Ms Angela

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Eastham, Ken

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Enright, Derek

Bell, Stuart

Etherington, Bill

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Fatchett, Derek

Benton, Joe

Faulds, Andrew

Bermingham, Gerald

Fisher, Mark

Berry, Dr. Roger

Flynn, Paul

Betts, Clive

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Blunkett, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Boateng, Paul

Foulkes, George

Boyes, Roland

Fraser, John

Bradley, Keith

Fyfe, Maria

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Galbraith, Sam

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Galloway, George

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

Gapes, Mike

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Garrett, John

Burden, Richard

George, Bruce

Byers, Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

Caborn, Richard

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Callaghan, Jim

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gordon, Mildred

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Graham, Thomas

Caravan, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Cann, Jamie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grocott, Bruce

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hain, Peter

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hall, Mike

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hanson, David

Clelland, David

Hardy, Peter

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Harman, Ms Harriet

Coffey, Ann

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Doug

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Heppell, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Corbett, Robin

Hinchliffe, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoey, Kate

Corston, Ms Jean

Home Robertson, John

Cousins, Jim

Hood, Jimmy

Cox, Tom

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cryer, Bob

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cummings, John

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hoyle, Doug

914

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Patchett, Terry

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Pendry, Tom

Hutton, John

Pickthall, Colin

Illsley, Eric

Pike, Peter L.

Ingram, Adam

Pope, Greg

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jamieson, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prescott, John

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Radice, Giles

Jowell, Tessa

Randall, Stuart

Keen, Alan

Raynsford, Nick

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Reid, Dr John

Khabra, Piara S.

Rendel, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Kirkwood, Archy

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Leighton, Ron

Rogers, Allan

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rooker, Jeff

Lewis, Terry

Rooney, Terry

Litheriand, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ruddock, Joan

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

Lynne, Ms Liz

Sheerman, Barry

McAllion, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McAvoy, Thomas

Short, Clare

McCartney, Ian

Simpson, Alan

Macdonald, Calum

Skinner, Dennis

McFall, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McKelvey, William

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

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McLeish, Henry

Snape, Peter

McMaster, Gordon

Soley, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Spellar, John

Madden, Max

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Steinberg, Gerry

Mahon, Alice

Stevenson, George

Mandelson, Peter

Stott, Roger

Marek, Dr John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Straw, Jack

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Martlew, Eric

Turner, Dennis

Maxton, John

Vaz, Keith

Meacher, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Meale, Alan

Walley, Joan

Michael, Alun

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wareing, Robert N

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Watson, Mike

Milburn, Alan

Welsh, Andrew

Miller, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Wigley, Dafydd

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Morgan, Rhodri

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Mortey, Elliot

Wilson, Brian

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Winnick, David

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wise, Audrey

Mudie, George

Worthington, Tony

Mullin, Chris

Wray, Jimmy

Murphy, Paul

Wright, Dr Tony

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Young, David (Bolton SE)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Tellers for the Noes:

O'Hara, Edward

Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Jack Thompson.

Olner, William

O'Neill, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Amendment) Report (Wales) 1993–94 (House of Commons Paper No. 169), which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
Motion made, and Question put,?
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 168), which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 178.

Division No. 128]

[10.43 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Day, Stephen

Aitken, Jonathan

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Alexander, Richard

Dorrell, Stephen

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Dover, Den

Amess, David

Duncan, Alan

Ancram, Michael

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Arbuthnot, James

Dunn, Bob

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dykes, Hugh

Ashby, David

Eggar, Tim

Aspinwall, Jack

Elletson, Harold

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Baldry, Tony

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evennett, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Faber, David

Bates, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Beggs, Roy

Fishburn, Dudley

Bellingham, Henry

Forman, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forth, Eric

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Booth, Hartley

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gallie, Phil

Bowden, Andrew

Gardiner, Sir George

Bowis, John

Garnier, Edward

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Brandreth, Gyles

Gillan, Cheryl

Brazier, Julian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gorst, John

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burns, Simon

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Burt, Alistair

Grylls, Sir Michael

Butcher, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Butler, Peter

Hague, William

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carrington, Matthew

Hannam, Sir John

Carttiss, Michael

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cash, William

Harris, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Haselhurst, Alan

Churchill, Mr

Hawkins, Nick

Clappison, James

Hayes, Jerry

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heald, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Coe, Sebastian

Hicks, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Congdon, David

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Conway, Derek

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Horam, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cran, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jenkin, Bernard

916

Jessel, Toby

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sackville, Tom

King, Rt Hon Tom

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knox, Sir David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shersby, Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sims, Roger

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Legg, Barry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Leigh, Edward

Soames, Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Speed, Sir Keith

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lidington, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lightbown, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spring, Richard

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Sproat, Iain

Luff, Peter

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Maclean, David

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Madel, Sir David

Streeter, Gary

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sumberg, David

Malone, Gerald

Sweeney, Walter

Mans, Keith

Sykes, John

Marland, Paul

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mates, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thomason, Roy

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mills, Iain

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Thumham, Peter

Moate, Sir Roger

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Monro, Sir Hector

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

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tracey, Richard

Needham, Richard

Trend, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Trotter, Neville

Neubert, Sir Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholls, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Walden, George

Norris, Steve

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Walter, Gary

Oppenheim, Phillip

Ward, John

Ottaway, Richard

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Page, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Paice, James

Watts, John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Wells, Bowen

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Pawsey, James

Whitney, Ray

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wilkinson, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Willetts, David

Rathbone, Tim

Wilshire, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wolfson, Mark

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wood, Timothy

Richards, Rod

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Riddick, Graham

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

917

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Hall, Mike

Adams, Mrs Irene

Hanson, David

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Hardy, Peter

Alton, David

Harman, Ms Harriet

Armstrong, Hilary

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Austin-Walker, John

Hinchliffe, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Home Robertson, John

Barnes, Harry

Hood, Jimmy

Battle, John

Hoon, Geoffrey

Bayley, Hugh

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Hoyle, Doug

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Benton, Joe

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Betts, Clive

Hutton, John

Blunkett, David

Illsley, Eric

Boyes, Roland

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Bradley, Keith

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

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

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Burden, Richard

Jowell, Tessa

Byers, Stephen

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Caborn, Richard

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Callaghan, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Kirkwood, Archy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Leighton, Ron

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Litherland, Robert

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Loyden, Eddie

Canavan, Dennis

Lynne, Ms Liz

Cann, Jamie

McAllion, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

McAvoy, Thomas

Chisholm, Malcolm

McCartney, Ian

Clapham, Michael

Macdonald, Calum

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

McFall, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

McMaster, Gordon

Clelland, David

McWilliam, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Madden, Max

Coffey, Ann

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Connarty, Michael

Mahon, Alice

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Mandelson, Peter

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Corston, Ms Jean

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Cox, Tom

Martlew, Eric

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Maxton, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Meale, Alan

Dafis, Cynog

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dalyell, Tam

Milburn, Alan

Darling, Alistair

Miller, Andrew

Davidson, Ian

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

Mudie, George

Dewar, Donald

Mullin, Chris

Dixon, Don

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Dobson, Frank

Olner, William

Dowd, Jim

O'Neill, Martin

Eagle, Ms Angela

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Eastham, Ken

Patchett, Terry

Enright, Derek

Pickthall, Colin

Etherington, Bill

Pike, Peter L.

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Pope, Greg

Fatchett, Derek

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Faulds, Andrew

Prescott, John

Fisher, Mark

Primarolo, Dawn

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Purchase, Ken

Foster, Don (Bath)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Foulkes, George

Raynsford, Nick

Fyfe, Maria

Redmond, Martin

Galloway, George

Reid, Dr John

Gerrard, Neil

Rendel, David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Godsiff, Roger

Rooney, Terry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Salmond, Alex

Gordon, Mildred

Sedgemore, Brian

Graham, Thomas

Short, Clare

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Simpson, Alan

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Skinner, Dennis

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Gunnell, John

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

918

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wareing, Robert N

Snape, Peter

Watson, Mike

Spearing, Nigel

Welsh, Andrew

Spellar, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Wilson, Brian

Steinberg, Gerry

Wise, Audrey

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wray, Jimmy

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Turner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Terry Lewis.

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Question accordingly agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 21 February, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Conway.]

Michael Lennon
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10.56 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I wish to introduce a short debate on the case of Mr. Michael Lennon, the nephew of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Clair Palmer.
Michael Lennon, who is in his late twenties, is a Jamaican citizen in full-time employment and lives in Jamaica with his two children. Mrs. Palmer invited Michael to stay with her and her husband and family in Bradford for Christmas and the new year. She arranged for him to come on a special Air UK charter flight, which offered seats about £150 cheaper than those on scheduled or regular charter flights. The flight—ULE 966–arrived at Gatwick on 21 December four hours late.
We now know that, on landing, it was sent by immigration to stand 21, which has a closed lounge. Immigration officers boarded the plane. British and European Communities passport holders were allowed to leave the aircraft. Jamaican passport holders were not allowed to leave for some hours. Anxious relatives and friends waiting were told that the delay was due to a baggage handling dispute. Eventually, Jamaican passport holders were taken off the plane in small groups.
Large numbers of officials were on duty at Gatwick that day–114 immigration officers, 93 Customs and Excise officers and 15 police officers. Each passenger was interviewed. Some were interviewed a second time after a long delay—in some cases, lasting hours. One woman, four months pregnant with a visa issued by the British high commission in Jamaica entitling her to settle in Britain, waited 11 hours to be interviewed and admitted.
Michael Lennon was interviewed. He was also strip-searched, as were two other passengers, including one woman. No illegal substances were found on anybody. Indeed, no illegal substance was found on any passenger on four Caribbean flights that arrived at Gatwick on 21 December. A small quantity of herbal cannabis was found by police on one person when he was placed in a police cell late on 21 December.
Michael Lennon, together with other passengers from his flight, including 14 children under 16, were refused entry to Britain. Four of those children were travelling unaccompanied.

919
Several requests that I made over the next three days for Michael Lennon to be granted temporary admission so that he could go back to Jamaica on a booked return flight on 17 January were rejected. I spent hours on the telephone with Home Office officials, immigration officers and other officials. I was told that temporary admission was refused because officials could not be confident that Mr. Lennon would abide by the terms of any temporary admission. Their only evidence was that he was carrying a letter which suggested that he, rather than his aunt, had suggested the holiday and that he knew a young woman who had gone to Gatwick to meet him.
Who suggested the holiday seems to me to be wholly irrelevant. The young woman vigorously denied ever having met Michael Lennon, still less having any relationship with him. She had to take a photograph of Mr. Lennon to Gatwick to enable her to identify him. She was there to meet him only because Mrs. Palmer, a close friend of the young woman's deceased mother, was too ill to travel by road from Bradford to Gatwick.
I was told that Michael Lennon and another 26 Jamaican citizens refused entry would be returned to Jamaica in early January. The Home Office, desperately concerned that passengers refused entry might use solicitors to obtain applications for judicial review, bundled them out of Britain in extreme secrecy on Christmas night. Television cameras and reporters were prevented from witnessing the special charter which included 10 Group 4 staff at a cost of £126,000.
Flight ULE 966 was targeted. It was met by an unusually large number of officials. Special arrangements were made for interviewing the passengers and an unusually large number of passengers were refused entry, detained and deported.
A week before that flight, another charter flight, BA 1262/KT 310 from Jamaica to Gatwick, arriving on 16 December received the same special treatment; 38 passengers were refused entry, 33 of whom were deported.
The Air UK charter was warned to expect the same special treatment. In a bid to avoid such problems, contact was made with the immigration service at senior level at Gatwick airport. An offer was made to take two immigration officers to Jamaica without cost to check on passengers. The offer was refused by the immigration service, again at senior level. Other discussions were inconclusive. Eventually, immigration at Gatwick was supplied with a passenger list for the Air UK flight several hours before th plane landed. It is believed that the delay in the plane landing was due to passengers being checked against the Home Office computer records.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions of which I gave him notice. First, what were the ages of the unaccompanied children who arrived at Gatwick on flight ULE 966 who were removed from the United Kingdom to Jamaica? Secondly, did Ministers authorise the refusal of the offer to take British immigration officers to Jamaica to pre-check the travel documents of passengers before they boarded the flight? Thirdly, did Ministers authorise the unorthodox procedure whereby passenger lists on flight ULE 966 were checked on the computer before the flight arrived at Gatwick? What procedures are used at Gatwick
920
and other points of entry to count and check visitors leaving the United Kingdom at or before the expiry of their leave to enter?
Did Ministers authorise any agencies at Gatwick, including the immigration service, to give the media information about Jamaican citizens leaving the United Kingdom; about Jamaican citizens, given temporary admission to the United Kingdom, failing to leave the United Kingdom or absconding; and about Jamaican citizens given leave to enter the United Kingdom for up to six months? What was the total cost of removing, detaining and escorting Jamaican citizens who arrived on flights BA 1262/KT 310 and ULE 966? Is there a dispute between the Home Office and the carrier, agent or tour operators over the defraying of all or part of the total costs, and what are the costs currently outstanding?
Why were so many passengers refused entry to Britain? The Minister and Home Office officials constantly told the media that it was because some had tried to enter Britain before, either to live here or to visit. In fact, only 10 passengers came into that category; four of those were allowed to enter the United Kingdom for up to six months. Leaks to the media suggested that many of the passengers were "yardies", violent criminals or drug dealers. I was assured that Mr. Lennon had no criminal convictions in Jamaica, or links with any known criminals here.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) dated 12 January, the Minister said that all the passengers on flight ULE 966 who were refused entry were refused for immigration reasons; there was no substantive evidence that any of them were known criminals.
The whole incident attracted massive public attention and considerable media coverage. The Guardian and The Times published extremely critical editorials; more surprising was an editorial that appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 28 December. Under the heading "Race relations fiasco", it thundered:
"Immigration regulations were tightened this year in the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Act. Those like ourselves who supported a measure designed to cut down the abuse of refugee status will be alarmed to see it being used to inflict inconvenience, humiliation or worse on foreign citizens lawfully visiting friends and family in Britain for Christmas. The signals this sends out are all the wrong ones—that people of Jamaican origin living in Britain are suspect, that the abuse of their rights is acceptable, and that officialdom may single them out for unfair treatment with impunity (would white American tourists have been subjected to such a battery of indignities as this?)."
I believe that this was indeed a race relations fiasco: that is extremely clear from all the evidence that has been provided. I have asked more than 50 parliamentary questions about the incident, but obtaining information has been like drawing teeth. It is clear that this was a fiasco, and that it was targeted.
If immigration officers who planned the special operation to receive flight ULE 966 over days did not seek Ministers' approval, why are those officers still in place? If Ministers did approve the operation, why have they so far not seen fit to utter a word of apology to anyone—still less to consider their own positions?
That incident damaged relations between the British Afro-Caribbean community and the authorities. It undoubtedly gravely damaged the reputation of Britain as a tourist centre. The message being sent out to many black and Asian people is that they are not welcome in the country. The message to black and Asian people living in the country was that they were not entitled to have their

921
relatives or friends visit them for a brief holiday. Undoubtedly, it also gravely damaged the perception of our immigration policy as firm and fair, which the Minister does not lose any opportunity to state.
I hope that the Minister will give a full and clear explanation of why so many of those passengers were refused entry to Britain, were detained and were deported. He has even refused in his answers to parliamentary questions to name the passengers concerned. The explanations that we have received have been extremely misleading and certainly do not give any clear or concise reason why those people were refused entry. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us for the first time why so many of those passengers were refused entry and why they were deported back to Jamaica on Christmas day.
11.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on his success in securing the debate. I know that he has tried repeatedly over the past several weeks to obtain an Adjournment debate and I am glad that his persistence has been rewarded. I shall seek in the next few minutes to answer the questions of which he gave me notice. There are one or two other points to which I shall turn straight away.
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate on reflection, visas are not required from Jamaica. I am sure that he was referring to prior entry clearance. All the police at Gatwick were on standard security duties at the airport. No police were there in connection with that flight specifically. The hon. Gentleman also referred to judicial review. He will be aware that although an application for judicial review has to be lodged in Britain, it can, of course, be pursued from outside the country.
Michael Lennon arrived, as the hon. Gentleman said, on charter flight ULE 966 at Gatwick on 21 December and was refused entry. It is right to make it clear from the outset that flight ULE 966 was not one of the regular scheduled flights at Gatwick, which are normally handled without any difficulty. I made that point to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) when I wrote to him on 12 January, a matter to which the hon. Member for Bradford, West referred. I wrote in some detail about what happened on that occasion. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, so it is probably unnecessary for me to cover that ground again.
None the less, there are a few points which I ought to make. The hon. Gentleman has asked specific questions, to which I shall try to respond. There has been speculation that the flight has been targeted, as the hon. Gentlman has mentioned time and again, because all those on board were in some way under suspicion. That was not the case. Arrangements were made to deal with the flights separately from the main immigration control, but that does not mean that some kind of special operation was mounted because those on board were somehow under mass suspicion.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Why?
Mr. Wardle: I shall seek to expand on that point. In that case, the immigration service had advance information, including information from the carrier and the charter company, which led it to believe that more passengers would require a detailed interview than would be the case with a regular scheduled flight.
922
The airline approached the immigration service about the flight a few days before its arrival and inquired whether there might be problems in clearing the 300 or so expected passengers. It asked whether arrangements could be made to clear the flight in Kingston. It was informed that that would not be possible. There are no standing arrangements for the immigration service to operate controls overseas. Even if such an arrangement had been thought desirable, it would not have been possible to conclude the necessary agreement with the Jamaican authorities in the short time available.
The proposal was not practicable in the circumstances. The decision was not authorised by Ministers and did not need such authorisation. The hon. Gentleman was incorrect in referring to the check of the passenger manifest on flight ULE 966 as unorthodox. Such checks are sometimes carried out and they do not require ministerial authority.
There were 326 passengers on board flight ULE 966. Information from the airline as well as from the tour operator several days before the flight's arrival revealed that tickets had been on sale at heavily discounted prices. A similar charter flight operated by another company had arrived at Gatwick on 15 December. It had been handled in the usual way without any advance preparation. About 100 passengers had required a full interview and more than 30 had been refused entry.
An additional factor is that Gatwick is usually very busy in the week leading up to Christmas. In case a similar number of passengers to that on the previous flight needed further examination, it seemed a sensible precaution to set aside a separate area in order not to delay other arriving passengers. Arrangements were therefore made for the disembarkation and reception of passengers from flight ULE 966 so that, if the need arose, a potentially large number of interviews could be conducted quickly and in an orderly way.
The arrangements included the provision of a gate lounge in which passengers could sit while awaiting an interview and the provision of additional immigration officers. Neither Mr. Lennon nor any of the other 300 or so people who were on flight ULE 966 came under suspicion just because they were arriving on that flight. That is not the way in which we operate immigration control.
People seeking entry must, of course, satisfy the immigration officer that they qualify for entry under the immigration rules. These provide that a passenger seeking entry as a visitor, including one coming to stay with relatives or friends, will be admitted if he satisfies the immigration officer that he is genuinely seeking entry for the period of the visit as stated by him and that for that period he will maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants, or will, with any dependants, be maintained and accommodated adequately by relatives or friends without working or having recourse to public funds, and can meet the cost of the return or onward journey. In all cases, entry will be refused if the immigration officer is not so satisfied.
Each person is interviewed individually and the decision whether to grant entry is taken on the individual facts and merits of the case. Entry can be refused only on the authority of a chief immigration officer or inspector. Passengers on this particular flight were dealt with under precisely those criteria and procedures. The result was that a high proportion of them were questioned in detail and 68 have been refused entry, mostly because they did not satisfy the immigration officers that they were genuine

923
visitors. Mr. Lennon was one such passenger. A few were refused entry because they sought settlement without the necessary clearance.
Four children who arrived on flight ULE 966 were returned unaccompanied. Two were aged 11, one 12 and one 16. In each case, their family in the United Kingdom were informed of the removal directions which enabled reception arrangements to be made in Jamaica.
As reported in column 872 of Hansard, I explained on 3 February that detention costs were still being calculated. That is still the case. Discussions are taking place between the Home Office and the carrier about the costs of removal and the extent of the carrier's liability under schedule 2(8) to the Immigration Act 1971.
No Ministers or officials authorised any agency at Gatwick to give the media information about Jamaican citizens leaving or failing to leave the United Kingdom. Information was given by the Home Office press office in response to inquiries. With the exception of the channel ports, embarkation controls operate at all air and sea ports.
The facts of Mr. Lennon's case are that he sought entry as a visitor until 17 January 1994 in order to visit his aunt, Mrs. Palmer, who, I understand, is a constituent of the hon. Member for Bradford, West. Mr. Lennon had no funds of his own but had a ticket booked for the return leg of the charter flight on 17 January. He said that the ticket had been brought for him by his aunt whom he had not seen for many years.
Mr. Lennon described himself as a carpenter but said that he had been unable to find any steady carpentry work. For that reason, he worked as a casual farm labourer, earning the equivalent of about £25 a week. He lived with his girl friend and their two children. He said that he knew no one here apart from Mrs. Palmer, although he was aware that he had an uncle in this country whose whereabouts were unknown to him. As it happened, Mrs. Palmer was not able to go to Gatwick to meet her nephew—I understand that she was ill—but a Ms Edwards went on her behalf. She was described by Mrs. Palmer as a friend of the family who knew Mr. Lennon, whom she had met in Jamaica about year earlier while she was there on a visit.
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall, from his contact with my private office at the time, that Mr. Lennon's aunt had also said that she had invited him at his suggestion, whereas Mr. Lennon had said that his aunt had invited him on her own initiative.
In reaching the decision, the immigration officer assessed Mr. Lennon's application carefully in the light of all the information and, looking at all the circumstances, was not satisfied that Mr. Lennon intended to stay only for a visit for four weeks. The decision to refuse entry was taken after reference to a chief immigration officer.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the decision was reviewed again following his representations. The immigration service considered that they did not contain any new information that would justify reversing the decision already taken. There was no other reason for that decision. There was no underlying suspicion of Mr. Lennon having been involved in any criminal activity.
There has been some general speculation in the media about "criminal elements" on the flight. I can confirm,
924
therefore, that none of the people who were refused entry were refused because of their personal undesirability on account of criminal activity.
The hon. Gentleman has referred also to Mr. Lennon having been personally searched. I understand that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise searched Mr. Lennon but did not find any illegal substance on him. That search was not at the request of the immigration service, which has powers to search for documents only.
Mr. Lennon was detained until his return to Jamaica on 25 December. Detention powers are not used lightly. A passenger who is refused entry will be detained only where an immigration officer is not satisfied that the person concerned will comply with the terms or conditions attached to any temporary admission. Where someone is detained, removal is arranged as quickly as possible to keep detention to a minimum.
The immigration service was not satisfied, in Mr. Lennon's case, that he would comply with any conditions. The uncertainty about the strength of his connection with Mrs. Palmer was a relevant factor in that. The decision was also reviewed in the light of the hon. Gentleman's request for Mr. Lennon's release, but it was felt that detention should be maintained. The hon. Gentleman will also know that I reviewed the case myself and could find no exceptional or compelling circumstances which would have justified my intervention.
I have set out in some detail the individual circumstances of Mr. Lennon's case. I should, however, like to make it clear that neither that case nor the cases of the other people who were refused entry from that flight should be taken as a signal of any change in the Government's policy. We remain committed to firm but fair immigration control. Genuine visitors are always welcome, and will continue to be welcomed. Those people who do not satisfy the immigration officer that they will leave at the end of their stay will be refused entry. That is a long-established principle.
We have estimated that about 100 visitors who might have been expected to leave on the return leg did not do so. We have, of course, made it quite plain that those people accepted as visitors from the incoming flight but who do not leave on the return leg are not necessarily here unlawfully. People can, and do, change their mind about the time that they will stay. Many will no doubt leave on other flights. It must be said, however, that, given the indications recorded on arrival that so many intended to leave on 17 January, fewer people than might have been expected to do so actually left on the return flight.
Of those people refused entry, 57 have left. Out of 10 people who are still here, seven are here unlawfully. The cases of the three others, all children, are being reviewed. One other passenger from the flight absconded before interview and is therefore also considered to be here unlawfully.
None of that is a precursor to the introduction of a visa regime for citizens of Jamaica. Naturally, we encourage people to apply for entry clearance before they set out so that their eligibility for admission can be determined in advance, but we have no plans to introduce compulsory visas for Jamaican nationals. The European Commission has tabled proposals for a common visa list under the treaty of European Union, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is for discussion among the 12 member states. At present, it would require unanimous agreement in order to take effect. From 1996, a qualified majority vote will suffice.

925
Most people, including Jamaican citizens, pass through our controls quickly after only a brief interview and, as I have said, scheduled flights from Jamaica are normally cleared without any difficulty or delay. About 26,000 Jamaicans came here in 1992, but about 400 only were denied entry and returned.
We have discussed the events of December with representative bodies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have met the West Indian Standing Conference, as has the director (ports) of the immigration service. I have also received a delegation, led by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), representative of the community; a member of the Jamaican high commission was there, too. The director has also discussed the events with a group drawn from the Caribbean Churches. The British high commission in Kingston has had discussions with the Jamaican Government and has met representatives of the travel companies involved in the flight.
926
More generally, the immigration service has developed good contacts with interested groups representing the Caribbean community in this country, including the Caribbean high commissions. That has led to visits to ports to observe our immigration controls at first hand. I believe that such contacts are well worth while in improving relations and dispelling misconceptions. They also provide access to named individual managers within the immigration service with whom any problems arising in particular cases can be discussed. I am most grateful to the high commissions which regularly send representatives to address immigration officer training courses.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, West can feel rather more assured in the light of what I have said this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are two executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Lord Chancellor's Department: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. The Lord Chancellor makes the appointments of both the chair and members of each of them.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, for each of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no statutory right to attend the board or committee meetings, or to inspect the minutes, of any of the Lord Chancellor's Department's non-departmental public bodies. However, as far as the tribunals are concerned, it is open to the public to attend the hearings.

  The following bodies are required by statute to produce annual reports which are laid before Parliament:

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board

  Legal Aid Board

  Council on Tribunals

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee

  Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI)

  Transport Tribunal

  >Law Commission

  The first four of these bodies include their accounts in their reports; the others do not produce accounts. In addition:
  —the annual report of the Advisory Council on Public Records is included in the annual report of the Keeper of Public Records which is required by statute to be laid before Parliament; and
  —the Judicial Studies Board produces periodic reports which are published by HMSO, but no accounts.

  The remaining bodies produce neither reports nor accounts.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".
  656
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has two executive non-departmental public bodies: the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and the Legal Aid Board.

  Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board

  £ million

  1990–91

  0·290

  1991–92

  0·349

  1992–93

  0·231

  The figure for 1990–91 was the cost of setting up the board, which has been inactive since March 1992. The costs in 1992–93 relate to on-going costs and the scaling down of its operations. No provision was made for its financing after 31 March 1993.

  Legal Aid Board Gross public expenditure

  £ million

  1990–91

  634

  1991–92

  886

  1992–93

  1,117

  1993–-94

  11,328

  1994–95

  11,592

  1995–96

  11,808

  1 estimated outturn.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The membership of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board at 31 January 1994 is as follows:

  Members

  Alan Brakefield Esq

  Ms Tamara Goriely

  Alan Mills Esq

  Ms Katharine Mortimer

  Mrs. June P. O'Dell OBE

  There is currently a vacancy for the post of chairman.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Council on Public Records.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The membership of the Advisory Council on Public Records as at 31 January 1994 is as follows:

  Chairman

  Sir Thomas Bingham, the right honourable Master of the Rolls

  Members

  Professor Bernard Alford

  Sir John Blelloch

  Dr. Alan Borg

  Mrs. Lynne J. Brindley

  Alexander Charles Carlile Esq. MP

  Professor Richard Chapman

  Terence Anthony Gordon Davis Esq. MP

  Professor Richard Barrie Dobson

  Miss Andrea Duncan

  Victor Gray Esq

  Mrs. Lynette Lithgow

  Professor Shula Marks

  David Sumberg Esq. MP

  David Vaisey Esq. FSA

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Legal Aid Board.
  657
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: The present members of the Legal Aid Board are John Pitts, chairman, Martin Acland, Diana Beale, Valerie Boakes, Fred Collins, Peter Jones, Kate Markus, Steve Orchard, Penelope Pearce, George Pulman QC, David Sinker, John Smith and Andrew Thomas.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the General Commissioners of Income Tax.

  Mr. John Taylor
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The latest figures available show that there are 3,948 general commissioners in England and Wales. If the hon. Member wishes me to give the names of general commissioners on particular divisions I shall be pleased to do so.

  Stubbings v. Webb
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will now consider amending section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980, in light of the House of Lords decision in the case of Stubbings v. Webb; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The matter is presently under consideration.

  Financial Services Tribunal
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who are the members currently appointed to the Financial Services Tribunal.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Current appointments to the panel of the Financial Services Tribunal:

  Chairmen

  Mr. J. M. Bowers

  Mr. D. Campbell

  Mr. P. E. Heim

  Mr. E. C. Woods

  Mr. A. Gordon

  Mr. J. E. Drummond Young

  Members

  Mr. K. A. Blundell

  Mr. W. M. Carson

  Mr. P. G. Green

  Mr. G. C. Grover

  Mr. J. L. Kirkpatrick

  Mr. A. F. Lamb

  Mr. H. G. Littlefair

  Sir James McKinnon

  Mr. A. W. Mallinson

  Mr. W. O'Farrell

  Mr. J. B. Page

  Mr. R. C. Ritchie

  Mr. R. P. Wilkinson

  Mr. G. Willetts

  Mr. P. D. Williams

  Mr. H. Woods

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Batons
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when all police areas will have access to expandable batons.
  658
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Chief officers may equip their officers with any of the expandable batons currently undergoing trials, although the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is required in the case of the Metropolitan police.

  Fraud Sentences
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the result of the review to determine whether unduly lenient sentences in cases of serious and complex fraud should be referrable to the Court of Appeal.

  Mr. Maclean
  I hope shortly to make an announcement about the scope of the Attorney-General's power to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what considerations he takes into account when deciding whether an asylum seeker should be detained;

  (2) what is his policy on keeping asylum seekers in detention where relatives are prepared to offer sureties.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The policy is to use the powers of detention under the Immigration Act 1971 only where there is no alternative and where there are good grounds for believing that the person concerned will not comply with any conditions attached to his release. All relevant factors are taken into account, including the person's previous immigration history, the existence of any connections with the United Kingdom, the likelihood and time scale of removal and any compassionate circumstances, including the person's medical condition.

  Any application to an immigration officer to grant release on bail in accordance with paragraph 29 of schedule 2 of the 1971 Act is considered on its merits taking into account all relevant factors, including the willingness of relatives to offer sureties. A similar approach is taken in deciding whether or not to oppose an application for bail to the independent immigration appellate authorities or to the courts.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost in the last year available for keeping asylum seekers in detention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information does not identify separately those detention costs which relate to asylum seekers.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently detained in prisons(a) in the west midlands and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 10 February, 46 men who had claimed asylum at some stage were detained in the west midlands area, all at Birmingham prison. The number detained in prisons nationally was 278.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to announce section 11 funding for the current financial year for the London borough of Wandsworth;
  659
  (2) what has been the total financial funding under section 11 that has been made to the London borough of Wandsworth in the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Section 11 grant is currently paid on the basis of an authority's actual expenditure. Grant payable in relation to expenditure by the London borough of Wandsworth in the first two quarters of the current financial year amounted to £921,859.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of teachers employed in schools in the Tooting constituency of the London borough of Wandsworth whose salaries are paid in full or part from section 11 funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Some 48·6 full-time equivalent teaching posts approved for funding under section 11 are currently allocated to schools identified as being in the Tooting constituency. This figure does not include posts in central teams which provide a service to schools throughout the borough, but does include posts in grant-maintained schools which have opted out of local authority projects.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on section 11 funding for schools within the Greater London area for the coming financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education was consulted about national changes to the levels and the methodology of the grant.

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to retain the right to choose trial by jury in all cases where election is currently possible.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are still considering the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice on this matter.

  Ritual Abuse
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the result of the survey carried out into the nature and extent of ritual abuse in Britain by Jean La Fontaine and the Obscene Publications Department of Scotland Yard; and if the result will be made public.

  Mr. Maclean
  The results of research carried out by the Obscene Publications Branch of the Metropolitan police are not yet ready for publication. It will be for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to decide what information he wishes to make public, as it will be for the Department of Health to decide in the case of the separate research study by Professor la Fontaine.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the members currently appointed to the Parole Board.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Membership of the Parole Board is set out in its annual report which is placed in the Library 660
  of the House. As there have been changes since the report was last published, I will arrange for an up-to-date list of the membership to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the local review committees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are more than 2,000 members of local review committees in England and Wales. The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chairman of the Commission is the Speaker of the House of Commons. The deputy chairman is the hon. Sir Malcolm Pill. The members are Mr. Murray McLaggan JP DL MA and Mr. Peter Davey CBE.

  Prisons
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of cells at each prison in England and Wales and the number of prisoners presently held.

  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 Mr. A. J. Butler to Mr. Stephen Byers, dared 15 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 the number of cells in prisons in England and Wales and the number of prisoners presently held.Accommodation for prisoners consists of cells, double cells, cubicles and rooms or dormitories. Most prisons consist of more than one type of accommodation. The latest date for which a breakdown of these types of accommodation is available is 31 March 1993. The numbers for the separate parts of each establishment are listed in Apprendix 1 to the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for April 1992—March 1993, Volume Two, which is available both in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office. The list is followed by definitions of each of the types of accommodation.The attached table gives the total number of prisoners held at each establishment on 4 February 1994.

  Establishment population on 4 February 1994

  Establishment

  Population

  Acklington

  616

  Albany

  328

  Aldington

  98

  Ashwell

  385

  Askham Grange

  101

  Aylesbury

  226

  Bedford

  266

  Belmarsh

  719

  Birmingham

  754

  Blakenhurst

  633

  Blantyre House

  93

  Blundeston

  391

  Brinsford

  454

  Bristol

  444

  661

  Establishment

  Population

  Brixton

  593

  Brockhill

  132

  Bullingdon

  617

  Bullwood Hall

  107

  Camp Hill

  383

  Canterbury

  238

  Cardiff

  423

  Castington

  286

  Channings Wood

  559

  Chelmsford

  318

  Coldingley

  263

  Cookham Wood

  117

  Dartmoor

  517

  Deerbolt

  359

  Dorchester

  195

  Dover

  242

  Down view

  275

  Drake Hall

  187

  Durham

  527

  East Sutton Park

  72

  Elmley

  613

  Erlestoke

  197

  Everthorpe

  224

  Exeter

  409

  Featherstone

  593

  Feltham

  752

  Finnamore Wood

  58

  Ford

  373

  Frankland

  402

  Full Sutton

  539

  Garth

  511

  Gartree

  265

  Glen Parva

  767

  Gloucester

  242

  Grendon

  158

  Guys Marsh

  137

  Haslar

  142

  Hatfield

  176

  Haverigg

  374

  Hewell Grange

  163

  High Down

  533

  Highpoint

  614

  Hindley

  271

  Hollesley Bay

  290

  Holloway

  496

  Holme House

  631

  Hull

  419

  Huntercombe

  216

  Kingston

  128

  Kirkham

  575

  Kirklevington

  65

  Lancaster

  253

  Lancaster Farms

  362

  Latchmere House

  137

  Leeds

  1,148

  Leicester

  325

  Lewes

  354

  Leyhill

  401

  Lincoln

  604

  Lindholme

  548

  Littlehey

  522

  Liverpool

  1,337

  Long Lartin

  345

  Low Newton

  259

  Maidstone

  462

  Manchester

  346

  Moorland

  608

  Morton Hall

  174

  The Mount

  463

  New Hall

  162

  North Sea Camp

  185

  Northallerton

  155

  Norwich

  455

  Nottingham

  214

  Onley

  407

  Parkhurst

  226

  Pentonville

  678

  Portland

  342

  662

  Establishment

  Population

  Prescoed

  86

  Preston

  537

  Pucklechurch

  60

  Ranby

  340

  Reading

  151

  Risley

  693

  Rochester

  229

  Rudgate

  259

  Send

  111

  Shepton Mallet

  182

  Shrewsbury

  295

  Spring Hill

  200

  Stafford

  519

  Standford Hill

  273

  Stocken

  391

  Stoke Heath

  275

  Styal

  202

  Sudbury

  437

  Swaleside

  506

  Swansea

  269

  Swinfen Hall

  181

  Thorn Cross

  155

  Thorp Arch

  165

  Usk

  120

  The Verne

  524

  Wakefield

  644

  Wandsworth

  834

  Wayland

  545

  Wellingborough

  309

  Werrington

  110

  Wetherby

  147

  Whatton

  212

  Whitemoor

  482

  Winchester

  346

  The Wolds

  325

  Woodhill

  510

  Wormwood Scrubs

  858

  Wymott

  181

  Police Inquiries (Press Leaks)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the manner in which details of police inquiry are released to the media; if he will take steps to ensure that, in the case of death, no such details are released until the next of kin are officially informed; if he will issue new guidelines to Association of Chief Police Officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has established an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the divulging of information to the media in the tragic case my hon. Friend may have in mind. We shall consider in the light of the report of that inquiry if there are matters which should be pursued centrally.

  Official Secrets Act 1989
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the numbers of(a) cases brought and (b) prosecutions leading to convictions under the Official Secrets Act 1989 from 1 March 1990 to 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 February 1994]: Information held centrally shows that there were two prosecutions in 1991, both of which resulted in convictions. There was also a further prosecution in 1992 where the defendant was committed for trial. Data for 1993 are not yet available.
  663

  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the current year's review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and how observations from interested persons or organisations should be submitted for consideration.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply 8 December 1993, column 276]: I have now received a report from Mr. J. J. Rowe, QC and I have placed copies in the Library.

  Criminal Justice Act 1993
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to implement the remaining provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to my reply of 3 December 1993, column 786]: The following new provisions to combat money laundering are being brought into force today by means of commencement order No. 4: sections 16 to 17, 29 to 31, 33, 47, 49 and 74, together with section 79 to the extent necessary to bring into force consequential amendments, repeals and revocations in schedules 5 and 6.

  An announcement about implementation of the remaining sections of the Act will be made in due course.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General what advice the Treasury solicitors offered to potential Government witnesses in the Lorrain Osman case.

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor was instructed by the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to act for them in connection with civil proceedings in the High Court in London brought by Lorrain Osman for writs of habeas corpus and for judicial review. The Treasury Solicitor assisted with the preparation and filing of affidavit evidence in these and related interlocutory proceedings. The advice given in this connection is protected by legal professional privilege.

  The Treasury Solicitor was not involved in, and did not advise in connection with, the criminal proceedings brought in Hong Kong.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Internal Mail
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 859, if he will request the Serjeant at Arms, in his review of the Members' internal mail service, to consider how hon. Members may mail all their colleagues without the expense of using franked envelopes.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Yes.

  Photocopying Facilities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will arrange for a small photocopying facility to be in or near the Table Office.
  664
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall arrange for this matter to be considered by the Administration Committee.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by the Privy Council Office(a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office has conducted no such campaigns in the current financial year, and none are planned for 1994–95.

  Parliamentary Broadcasting Signals
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Broadcasting Committee's mid-term review of the performance by CCT Productions of its contract to provide the parliamentary broadcasting signals.

  Mr. Newton
  The contract between Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd.—PARBUL—and CCT Productions for the generation of the parliamentary broadcasting signals provides for a mid-term review of the financial and editorial aspects of the contract. The halfway point of the five-year contract fell at the end of 1993 and the Broadcasting Committee accordingly commissioned a series of reports on CCT's performance to date. In view of the generally satisfactory nature of these reports the Committee concluded that the present arrangements appeared to be working well and that no changes were called for at this stage. I have arranged for copies of the reports—from CCT, PARBUL, the Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting, the House of Lords Broadcasting Committee, and the Assistant Serjeant at Arms—to be placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Safer Sex Advice
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much has been spent to date by the Health Education Authority on the safer sex advice integrated media campaign;

  (2) what instructions have been issued by her Department to the Health Education Authority regarding the future of the safer sex advice integrated media campaign; and what were the reasons for those instructions.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since assuming responsibility for the HIV/AIDS/safer sex campaigns from the Department of Health, the Health Education Authority has been allocated the following sums for the purpose:

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  4·470

  1988–89

  8·500

  1989–90

  10·700

  1990–91

  8·500

  665

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  9·500

  1992–93

  9·775

  1993–94

  9·756

  The Health Education Council has a continuing general remit to develop programmes to deliver advice on safer sex through mass media and targeted campaigns. There is an agreed procedure for consulting United Kingdom Health Ministers about advertising material, which the HEA has followed with recent proposals. No specific instructions have been given about future campaigns.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average waiting time for initial assessment in accident and emergency departments in 1992–93; and what proportion of people attending accident and emergency departments had to wait(a) five minutes or more, (b) 15 minutes or more and (c) 30 minutes or more;

  (2) what proportion of NHS outpatients were given specific appointment times in 1992–93; and what proportion were seen within 30 minutes of their appointment time.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about average waiting times for initial assessment in accident and emergency departments is not available centrally. As at 31 March 1993, 74 per cent.—estimates based on samples—of patients were assessed within five minutes of arriving in an accident and emergency department.

  From 1 April 1992 all patients should have a specific out-patient appointment time. As at 31 March 1993 73 per cent.—estimates based on samples—of patients were seen within 30 minutes of their out-patient appointment time.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 888, what actual examples she has of ways in which savings by general practitioner fundholders have been used for the benefit of patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fundholders are spending their savings in a number of ways—for example, reducing waiting times; and bringing more services into the practices. The rules governing how savings should be spent are in the National Health Service (Fundholding Practices) Regulations 1993, copies of which are in the Library.

  Fulwood House Site
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the staff reduction at the Trent regional health authority Fulwood house site in the last two years; what space has been made available as a consequence; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, the chairman, for details.

  Audiologists
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for permanent audiologists in the London health service; how many permanent 666
  audiologists are employed in the London health service; how many agency audiologists are employed in the London health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There were 140 whole-time equivalent staff working in audiology in London, as of 30 September 1992. Information on the number of vacancies is not available centrally.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department first and last received representations from the British Medical Association for a ban on tobacco promotion as a major means of reducing smoking and if she will estimate the reduction in smoking(a) during that period and (b) from the peak to the present day.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Secretary to the Council of the British Medical Association, BMA, wrote to the Department of Health in May 1964, indicating the council's support for a general decrease in advertisements for tobacco products beginning with a ban on all television advertisements. The most recent occasion on which the BMA made a formal representation to the Government for a ban on tobacco advertising was 24 September 1993.

  According to the estimates of the Tobacco Advisory Council—now the Tobacco Manufacturers Association—69 per cent. of men and 41 per cent. of women in Great Britain smoked cigarettes, pipes or cigars in 1964. The 1992 general household survey showed that 36 per cent. of men and 28 per cent. of women now smoke cigarettes, pipes or cigars. The two sources of data are not strictly comparable.

  The Tobacco Advisory Council's estimates of smoking prevalence go back to 1948. The highest prevalence of smoking among men, 82 per cent., occurred in the first year of the series, 1948. The highest prevalence among women, 44 per cent., occurred first in 1957 and most recently in 1974.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding injection pens and special needles for diabetics in relation to prescription charges; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make injection pens and special needles available free on prescription for diabetics; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Disposable insulin injection pens are already available on national health service prescription. People with diabetes mellitus, except where treatment is by diet alone, are exempt from prescription charges. Reusable injection pens and their needles are not available on general practitioner prescription and there are currently no plans to make them available in this way. These pens, however, may be provided free of charge from hospitals if the consultant in charge of a patient's treatment thinks this is appropriate.
  667

  Dentistry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental patients have been deregistered in each family health services authority since July 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is contained in the table. Over the period 1 July 1992 to 4 February 1994 dentists notified their family health services authorities of 632,242 patient deregistrations. Over the shorter period of 1 July 1992 to 30 November 1994 there was a net increase in patient registrations of 1·890 million.

  Number of patients deregistered since July 1992, by family health services authority

  England

  Family health service authority

  Number of patients deregistered

  England

  631,242

  Cleveland

  2,569

  Cumbria

  13,118

  Durham

  344

  Northumberland

  2,650

  Gateshead

  717

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  North Tyneside

  1

  South Tyneside

  11

  Sunderland

  —

  Humberside

  10,473

  North Yorkshire

  9,463

  Bradford

  —

  Calderdale

  843

  Kirklees

  678

  Leeds

  8,363

  Wakefield

  837

  Derbyshire

  19,084

  Leicestershire

  11,577

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  4,798

  Barnsley

  —

  Doncaster

  23

  Rotherham

  44

  Sheffield

  1,203

  Cambridgeshire

  5,128

  Norfolk

  28,775

  Suffolk

  6,767

  Bedfordshire

  1,317

  Hertfordshire

  6,957

  Barnet

  4,862

  Brent and Harrow

  1,499

  Eating, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  35

  Hillingdon

  —

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  2,288

  Essex

  14,852

  Barking and Havering

  3,825

  Camden and Islington

  296

  City and East London

  481

  Enfield and Haringey

  981

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  2,202

  East Sussex

  14,785

  Kent

  54,316

  Greenwich and Bexley

  4,305

  Bromley

  13,161

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  446

  Surrey

  26,573

  West Sussex

  35,157

  Croydon

  1,866

  Kingston and Richmond

  962

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1,742

  Dorset

  22,544

  Hampshire

  24,058

  Wiltshire

  11,463

  Isle of Wight

  3,594

  Berkshire

  25,772

  Buckinghamshire

  18,818

  Northamptonshire

  3,075

  Oxfordshire

  25,407

  668

  Family health service authority

  Number of patients deregistered

  Avon

  15,236

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  14,548

  Devon

  27,076

  Gloucestershire

  49,521

  Somerset

  3,706

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,575

  Shropshire

  655

  Staffordshire

  7,457

  Warwickshire

  9,676

  Birmingham

  2,178

  Coventry

  1,540

  Dudley

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  Solihull

  2,505

  Walsall

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  Cheshire

  6,402

  Liverpool

  422

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  14

  Sefton

  590

  Wirral

  604

  Lancashire

  24,530

  Bolton

  631

  Bury

  675

  Manchester

  298

  Oldham

  —

  Rochdale

  1,904

  Salford

  151

  Stockport

  1,256

  Tameside

  742

  Trafford

  245

  Wigan

  —

  Cornwall Health
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will pay the legal costs of the Cornwall Health non-executive directors currently facing charges of libel.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This matter is currently being considered by Sir Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the national health service management executive.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase current NHS charges and the value of optical vouchers; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall lay before the House regulations providing for increases in charges and spectacle voucher values in the national health service in England and Wales. These changes will take effect on 1 April 1994. The prescription charge will increase by 50p, from £4·25 to £4·75 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed. The overall value of optical vouchers will be increased by an average of 4 per cent.

  The new prescription charge is still significantly less than the average total cost of a single prescription item to the NHS. Extensive exemption arrangements and charge remission under the NHS low income scheme ensure that no one need be deterred from getting necessary treatment or medication for financial reasons. The rates for prescription prepayment certificates will rise in line with the increase in prescription charges.

  A prescription charge is now paid on around only one item in five dispensed by community pharmacists and

  669
  appliance contractors. This compares with about two items in five when the Government took office. In 1992–93, the family health service drugs bill was over £2·6 billion.

  Income from prescription charges in 1994–95 will raise about £292 million in much-needed revenue for the national health service. This money is sufficient to provide, for example, 71,000 hip replacement operations or 46,000 coronary artery bypass grafts or 221,000 cataract removals.

  Charges for fabric supports supplied through the hospital service will increase by 50p. Charges for elastic stockings and tights, and wigs supplied through the hospital service, will also be increased by a similar percentage to the rise in the prescription charge.

  The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 1994 will increase from £250 to £275.

  I am pleased to announce that from 1 April 1994, the overall value of optical vouchers will increase by an average of 4 per cent. However, the most commonly used vouchers, constituting over 85 per cent. of the total, will be increased by 4·5 per cent. and, as a result, the majority of beneficiaries will find themselves better off.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will lay regulations to increase charges and spectacle voucher sales in Scotland by the same amounts. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland. Details of the revised charges and voucher values have been placed in the Library.

  Low Income Scheme
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if she has concluded her review of the administration of the NHS low-income scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As part of the Government's commitment to ensuring ready access to financial help with national health service charges for those who need it, the NHS low income scheme provides help with prescription and other charges for many thousands of people on low incomes who are not exempt or otherwise automatically entitled to full charge remission through receipt of income support or family credit. We have recently reviewed the scheme.

  In addition to making number of operational improvements, we have considered a large number of options arising from the review. We have concluded that the present arrangements for administering the low income scheme are satisfactory, and we have not identified any options for immediate change within what can be afforded.

  Existing arrangements will be extended from 1 April 1995 to provide automatic charge remission for recipients of disability working allowance. This is in line with the announcement made on 1 December 1993 at column 1039 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  The review of forms presently being carried out will continue to ensure that they are as easy to understand and use as possible. We are also examining the potential for computerisation.
  670

  Blind People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding was made available for regional associations for the blind in each year since 1985; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has made available to the regional associations for the blind the following levels of funding:

  South Regional Association for the Blind

  North Regional Association for the Blind

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  1984–85

  65,090

  42,634

  107,724

  1985–86

  74,746

  53,738

  128,484

  1986–87

  72,389

  52,206

  124,595

  1987–88

  75,905

  52,007

  127,912

  1988–89

  106,702

  53,169

  159,871

  1989–90

  107,381

  62,097

  169,478

  1990–91

  127,577

  67,619

  195,196

  1991–92

  132,084

  71,768

  203,852

  1992–93

  145,000

  69,391

  214,391

  1993–94

  143,079

  84,100

  227,179

  From April 1994, under the visual impairment sub-programme of the training support programme TSP, the Department will be making £250,000 available to local authorities to spend specifically on the training of such workers.

  Photorefractive Keratectomy
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which London hospitals provide excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy to national health service patients; what is the size of the waiting lists for each of the hospitals for this treatment; what is the average monthly rate of operations for each of the hospitals; what is the cost per operation for each of the hospitals; and what is the total cost of treating a patient under this programme for each of the hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The treatment of myopia by excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy is still experimental and being evaluated. We are aware that this procedure is undergoing clinical trials in two London hospitals—St. Thomas's and Moorfields eye hospital.

  West Yorkshire Health Authority
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline the budget which has been allocated for the West Yorkshire health authority for 1994–95; what the comparable figure was for 1993–94; what this increase represents in cash and percentage terms; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations are made to regional health authorities and it is they who allocate to district health authorities.

  West Yorkshire's health authority's allocations for resident population in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (£000's)

  (£000's)

  214,026

  225,279

  671
  This represents a cash increase of £11·253 million and a percentage increase of 5·26 per cent.

  Additional sums for specific purposes may be added during the financial year.

  NHS Purchasing Authorities
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that NHS purchasing authorities involve the general public in their purchasing decisions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service management executive document "Local Voices" and the priorities and planning guidelines for 1994–95—EL(93)54—identified the steps that authorities need to take to ensure that they involve the general public in their purchasing decisions. I wrote last month to all district health authorities emphasising the importance that the Government attach to responsiveness to the views and needs of local people.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of employees in each district health authority area were engaged in(a) management posts, (b) clerical and administration posts and (c) nursing and midwifery posts in each of the past five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 17 December 1993]: The information for 1988, 1989 and 1990 will be placed in the Library. Information for later years is not centrally available. The increase in general and senior managers should be treated with caution. Much of the increase arises from reclassification of existing staff, including many senior nurses, as managers.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health services authorities have been unable to provide emergency dental services in each month since July 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 1I February 1994]: The available information is shown in the table.

  General dental practitioners have an obligation under their terms of service to provide emergency cover to their registered patients. They may also offer emergency treatment to non-registered patients. Family health services authorities make arrangements for those patients who are not registered. All FHSAs report that they are able to help patients contacting them to obtain national health service dental treatment.

  Total number of family health services authorities which were unable to provide emergency dental services in each week since July 19921 England

  Week ending

  Family health service authorities

  3 July 1992

  13

  10 July 1992

  7

  17 July 1992

  8

  24 July 1992

  7

  31 July 1992

  8

  7 August 1992

  8

  14 August 1992

  7

  672

  Week ending

  Family health service authorities

  21 August 1992

  7

  28 August 1992

  8

  4 September 1992

  8

  11 September 1992

  8

  18 September 1992

  8

  25 September 1992

  8

  2 October 1992

  8

  9 October 1992

  8

  16 October 1992

  8

  23 October 1992

  8

  30 October 1992

  8

  6 November 1992

  8

  13 November 1992

  7

  20 November 1992

  7

  27 November 1992

  7

  4 December 1992

  6

  11 December 1992

  6

  18 December 1992

  6

  25 December 1992

  —

  1 January 1993

  —

  8 January 1993

  6

  15 January 1993

  6

  22 January 1993

  6

  29 January 1993

  6

  5 February 1993

  6

  12 February 1993

  6

  19 February 1993

  6

  26 February 1993

  4

  5 March 1993

  7

  12 March 1993

  5

  19 March 1993

  5

  26 March 1993

  6

  2 April 1993

  6

  9 April 1993

  5

  16 April 1993

  5

  23 April 1993

  7

  30 April 1993

  5

  7 May 1993

  6

  14 May 1993

  6

  21 May 1993

  5

  28 May 1993

  6

  4 June 1993

  7

  11 June 1993

  6

  18 June 1993

  5

  25 June 1993

  5

  2 July 1993

  6

  9 July 1993

  5

  16 July 1993

  5

  23 July 1993

  5

  30 July 1993

  6

  6 August 1993

  5

  13 August 1993

  6

  20 August 1993

  6

  27 August 1993

  6

  3 September 1993

  5

  10 September 1993

  5

  17 September 1993

  5

  24 September 1993

  5

  1 October 1993

  5

  8 October 1993

  5

  15 October 1993

  5

  22 October 1993

  8

  29 October 1993

  7

  5 November 1993

  8

  12 November 1993

  6

  19 November 1993

  5

  26 November 1993

  6

  3 December 1993

  6

  10 December 1993

  6

  17 December 1993

  5

  24 December 1993

  —

  31 December 1993

  —

  7 January 1994

  6

  14 January 1994

  6

  21 January 1994

  7

  673

  Week ending

  Family health service authorities

  28 January 1994

  5

  4 February 1994

  6

  1 Data were not collected during the Christmas and new year periods.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) who are the members currently appointed to the board of the British Tourist Authority;

  (2) who are the members currently appointed to the English tourist board.

  Mr. Sproat
  Adele Biss is joint chairman of the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Other members appointed to the tourists boards are as follows:

  British Tourist Authority

  Hon. Rocco Forte

  Ivor T. Manley CB

  John H. J. Lewis

  Gordon Dunlop CBE

  The Development of Tourism Act 1969 confers membership of the British Tourist Authority on the chairmen of the Scottish and Wales tourist boards, currently Ian D. Grant CBE and Tony Lewis respectively. The chairman of the Northern Ireland tourist board also attends meetings by invitation. The current post holder is Hon. Hugh O'Neill. Appointments to these tourist boards are made by the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

  English Tourist Board

  John F. Jarvis CBE

  John Poppleton

  John Lee

  Sir Basil Feldman

  Geoffrey Thompson

  Eve Pollard

  In accordance with the Development of Tourism Act 1969, when members are appointed or reappointed to the boards of the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board, statements are placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the South Bank theatre board.

  Mr. Brooke
  The present members of the South Bank theatre board are:

  The Lady Soames DBE

  Mr. Anthony Everitt (Secretary-General, Arts Council of Great Britain)

  Mr. Vaughan Rees (Department of National Heritage).

  The post of chairman is currently vacant.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the British museum.

  Mr. Sproat
  The members of the board of trustees of the British museum are:674

  Sir David Attenborough, CVO CBE FRS

  Nicholas Barber Esq.

  Professor Gillian Beer, FBA

  Professor Rosemary J. Cramp, CBE FSA

  Lord Egremont, DL

  Sir C. Matthew Farrer, KCVO

  HRH The Duke of Gloucester, GCVO

  Graham Greene Esq., CBE

  Professor Edward T. Hall, CBE DPhil FPhys FSA FBA

  Charles E. A. Hambro Esq.

  Sir Peter John Harrop, CB

  Allen Jones Esq., RA

  Simon Lindley Keswick Esq.

  Professor Peter E. Lasko, CBE FSA FBA

  The Hon. Mrs. Anna-Maria Marten, OBE DL

  Sir John Morgan, KCMG

  Sir Clause A. Moser, KCB CBE FBA

  Right Hon. Sir Timothy Raison

  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, FBA FSA

  Professor Guenter H. Treitel, DCL FBA QC

  Lord Weinstock, BSc FSS

  Lord Windlesham PC CVO (Chairman)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 24 January,Official Report, columns 32–33.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is the present value of the television licence fee concession for people registered as blind, adjusted for inflation since it was set at £1·25;

  (2) how many people who are registered as blind obtain the television licence fee concession of £1·25.

  Mr. Brooke
  The £1·25 concession for registered blind people, if adjusted for inflation since 1971, would be worth £8·92 today. I understand that, in the year ended 31 March 1993, 40,731 registered blind people received the concession.

EDUCATION

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much the Department for Education has spent on the operation of the assisted places scheme in each year since 1981; how many pupils have been covered by the scheme since 1981; and if there was any overspend on the budget allocated in each of these years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the following table for each year up to 1992–93, the latest year for which complete figures are available. Expenditure exceed the original budget estimate in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Year

  Total cost £ million

  Total number of assisted pupils

  1981–82

  3·0

  4,185

  1982–83

  8·7

  8,616

  1983–84

  15·0

  13,102

  1984–85

  22·2

  17,386

  1985–86

  29·6

  21,412

  1986–87

  37·9

  24,478

  675

  Year

  Total cost £ million

  Total number of assisted pupils

  1987–88

  46·0

  26,899

  1988–89

  50·9

  27,083

  1989–90

  56·5

  27,008

  1990–91

  63·4

  26,740

  1991–92

  75·7

  27,641

  1992–93

  192·8

  28,674

  1 Includes £4·9 million brought forward from financial vear 1993–94.

  Note: The figures are for England only.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many formal assessments are currently being undertaken by Barnsley local education authority and what length of time each stage of the assessment has taken so far together, indicating whether that time exceeds the current legislative maximum time for each stage.

  Mr. Forth
  The Barnsley LEA has told my officials that it is currently undertaking 337 formal assessments. Information about the length of time taken for each stage of assessment is not availble centrally. There is at present no statutory maximum time for making a formal assessment. However, subject to Parliament's approval, regulations made under the 1993 Education Act will set statutory time limits for the making of assessments and statements, with effect from autumn this year.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many appeals have been submitted to his Department from within Barnsley local education authority since 1981; and what length of time each has been with his Department indicating when that time exceeds the current legislative maximum time for such appeals.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1981, the Department has received a total of 28 appeals under the 1981 Act and related complaints under the 1994 Act from within Barnsley LEA. A breakdown of this figure for each year since 1981, and information about the length of time taken to resolve each appeal or complaint, could be made available only at disproportionate cost. There is no statutory maximum time for resolving appeals under the 1981 Act. The Department is currently consulting upon draft regulations and rules of procedure which will, subject to Parliament's approval, govern the operation of the new special educational needs tribunal, to be established under the Education Act 1993. The tribunal will set time targets for the various stages of an appeal. These will be set out in the tribunal's guide for parents. Performance will be assessed in the tribunal's annual report.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many children have been (i) statemented and (ii) formally assessed by Barnsley local education authority in each year since 1981, whose special need is as a result of diagnosis of dyslexia;

  (2) how many appeals from Barnsley local education authority relating to dyslexia are being dealt with by his Department;

  (3) how many appeals are currently with his Department in respect of children who have been statemented by Barnsley local education authority; how many statements
  676
  have been issued; and how many children have been made the subject of formal assessment by Barnsley local education authority for each year since 1981.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is currently dealing with eight appeals in respect of children with special educational needs from Barnsley local education authority—LEA. All concern children with specific learning difficulties, and four of these appeals are in respect of children who have been made the subject of a statement.

  Information on the number of formal assessments and statements made by Barnsley LEA, for each year since 1981, is shown in the table. Information for the 1993 calendar year is still being collated, and is not yet available.

  Statements of special educational needs: Barnsley LEA

  Year1

  Children for whom a statement was made for the first time

  Children assessed for whom no tatement was issued

  Total

  1981

  45

  2—

  45

  1982

  45

  2—

  45

  1983

  12

  2—

  12

  1984

  74

  2—

  74

  1985

  60

  2—

  60

  1986

  68

  2—

  68

  1987

  44

  2—

  44

  1988

  34

  5

  39

  1989

  45

  10

  55

  1990

  95

  7

  102

  1991

  122

  7

  129

  1992

  173

  10

  183

  1 Calendar year

  2 Information not collected

  Information on pupils who have been made the subject of a formal assessment or a statement is not categorised by disability.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he proposes to take as a consequence of the late payment of tuition fees by local education authorities to universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations place local education authorities—LEAs—in England and Wales under a statutory duty to pay most tuition fees in three instalments on specified dates or within one month of the receipt by the LEA of a valid request for payment, whichever is the later. My right hon. Friend wrote last September to the chairmen of all LEAs to remind them of the problems caused by the late payment of fees. My Department is pursuing complaints about late payments against a number of LEAs, including complaints made by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the provision of initial and in-service education for teachers in environmental education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  "Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan" and "Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy"
  677
  include suggestions for action by schools and institutions in support of environment education. My right hon. Friend's policies in respect of the initial and in-service education of teachers were set out in my reply of 16 December 1993, column 772.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much it costs his Department annually to publicise and administer the operation of the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  Publicity for the scheme is undertaken chiefly by schools themselves and organisations such as the Independent Schools Information Service—ISIS. The Department produces each year a brief guide for parents and a list of schools participating in the scheme at a cost in 1993–94 of £3,200. The scheme is administered by some eight staff whose direct staff costs are some £134,000 per annum.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what safeguards are used by his Department to ensure that schools covered by the assisted places scheme meet recognised educational standards.

  Mr. Forth
  All 295 schools participating in the scheme satisfy stringent criteria relating to high academic achievement. They must offer a broad and balanced curriculum and must be able to demonstrate and maintain high academic standards. The Department monitors these standards through its annual examination results survey.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement indicating the level of fees charged by the institutions in England covered by the assisted places scheme in the current academic year.

  Mr. Forth
  Tuition fees charged by participating schools vary considerably and are dependent to a large degree on the type of institution and its location. In the current academic year 1993–94, the average fee charged is about £4,100 per year. The highest fee charged is £9,348 per year in respect of sixth-formers and the lowest fee charged is £2,283 per year.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment his Department has made of the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  The scheme is a success and more popular with parents than ever. Virtually all new places on offer each year are being taken up with a significant proportion going to those children from families with incomes below the threshold, currently £9,225 per year, for full fee remission. To ensure that participating schools carry out assessments of income correctly, the Department also issues regular comprehensive guidance and carries out random audit surveys of income assessments. These surveys, together with the statistical information collected, show that schools are indeed administering the scheme properly and targeting the pupils for whom the scheme is intended.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools in England that have pupils under the assisted places scheme for the current academic year; how many pupils are supported at each institution; and how much it has cost his Department to provide this support.
  678
  Mr. Forth
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. The estimated cost to the Department for the current academic year 1993–94 is £97·5 million.

SCOTLAND

  Freight and Passenger Traffic
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the volume of freight traffic by(a) road and (b) rail between (i) Glasgow and Aberdeen, (ii) Aberdeen and Glasgow, (iii) Edinburgh and Aberdeen, (iv) Aberdeen and Edinburgh, (v) Glasgow and Inverness, (vi) Inverness and Glasgow, (vii) Edinburgh and Inverness and (viii) Inverness and Edinburgh in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the total number of passengers travelling by (a) road and (b) rail between (i) Glasgow and Aberdeen, (ii) Aberdeen and Glasgow, (iii) Edinburgh and Aberdeen, (iv) Aberdeen and Edinburgh, (v) Glasgow and Inverness, (vi) Inverness and Glasgow, (vii) Edinburgh and Inverness and (viii) Inverness and Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

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

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 December 1993,Official Report, columns 689–90.

  Roads
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his projected spending on roads in 1993–94 in(a) Scotland and (b) Grampian.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The projected spending on trunk roads and motorways in 1993–94 for Scotland and Grampian is as follows:

  £ million

  Scotland

  240·2

  Grampian

  9·3

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: In June last year I addressed the annual conference of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations which represents housing co-operatives, and

  679
  I expect to meet representatives of the federation soon to discuss a number of issues of concern to the housing association and co-operative movement. The Government continue to be committed to the support of housing co-operatives, through their substantial funding of Scottish Homes, which is responsible for the development and funding of housing associations and co-operatives. The hon. Member may wish to consult Scottish Homes direct about the criteria it applies when determining financial assistance to housing co-operatives.

  Johnstone
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he, or any of his ministerial team, last made an official visit to the town of Johnstone; when he next plans to make a ministerial visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: I have not myself nor have any of my ministerial colleagues made an official visit to the town of Johnstone. There are at present no plans to make such a visit.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary questions have not received a substantive answer by his Department due to disproportionate cost in each of the last five years; and if he will list those which could now be answered due to the effectiveness of computerisation.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: The information requested is shown:

  Year

  1PQs answered in full/part with disproportionate cost Number

  PQs that can now be answered due to effective computerisation Number

  1989

  7

  3

  1990

  14

  9

  1991

  20

  6

  1992

  8

  1

  1993

  11

  4

  1Source: POLIS.

  Geese
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between officials of his Department and representatives of Scottish Natural Heritage regarding the impact on agriculture throughout Scotland of wintering barnacle geese and Greenland white-fronted geese; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: Officials from both the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department and the Environment Department are in regular contact with Scottish Natural Heritage on this matter. Their most recent meeting was on 26 January 1994.

  Trains (Glasgow)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a list of all correspondence between his Department and(a) Strathclyde passenger transport
  680
  executive and (b) Lombard Tricity Finance regarding operational leasing for new trains in the Glasgow commuter network area; what assessment he has made of the implications of local government organisation for the immediate future of such operational leasing deals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a list of all meetings held by Ministers or officials in his Department with Ministers or officials in any other Government Departments regarding operational leasing for new trains in the Glasgow commuter network area, giving (a) the dates of each meeting, (b) full list of those attending and (c) the outcome of each meeting; whether any further such meetings are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: There have been no exchanges of correspondence between the Scottish Office and (a) Strathclyde passenger transport executive and (b) Lombard North Central about the Strathclyde rolling stock leasing deal. I wrote to Councillor Waugh, chairman of Strathclyde regional council's roads and transportation committee, on 17 December 1993 saying that I saw nothing in our proposals for local government reform to prevent this deal proceeding.

  My officials and I have attended meetings in November and December 1993 with Department of Transport Ministers and officials, and representatives of Strathclyde region and Strathclyde passenger transport executive. These meetings discussed a range of issues including the leasing deal and concluded that the issue was primarily a matter for the local authority to resolve. A further meeting is planned for later this month at which representatives of Lombard North Central will be present.

  Local Government
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out his intentions for the future of the public analyst, agricultural analyst and regional chemist services under the proposed local government reorganisation in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: Each local authority requires a public analyst service for both statutory and non-statutory functions and under current arrangements this service is provided by four laboratories based in Strathclyde, Lothian, Tayside and Grampian regions. The remaining regions, districts and islands councils use the services of these laboratories. This arrangement illustrates the very effective co-operation which can exist between authorities, which I would expect to continue and develop under the proposed new single-tier structure.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has made to the document on "Local Government Reform and Planning", sent to him by Professor Brian Parnell of Stirling and the university of Strathclyde.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend has not yet received this document.
  681

  Aberdeenshire Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what venues he has in mind outside the city of Aberdeen as headquarters of the proposed new Aberdeenshire council.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: The location of headquarters for the new Aberdeenshire council will be for the council itself to determine in the light of local circumstances.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has, and what resources have been allocated, within the overseas aid budget, for the implementation of commitments made by Her Majesty's Government at the 1990 world summit for children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We remain committed to the goals for promoting child survival, development, and protection adopted by the 1990 World Summit for Children. The Government will continue to pursue these aims within their overall objective of reducing poverty and promoting sustainable economic and social development.

  The overseas aid budget contains no specific allocation for children. However, in the financial year 1992–93, for example, over £180 million, or more than 31 per cent. of that part of our bilateral aid which can be allocated by sector, was spent in the social sectors which are particularly likely to benefit children. We also contribute to a wide range of multilateral organisations, including UNICEF, which play an important role in helping to achieve the goals of the world summit for children.

  A copy of Command No. 1984 entitled "Report on the United Kingdom Implementation of the Goals agreed by the World Summit on Children", of July 1992 was placed in the Library of the House.

  Jordan
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 71–2, which United Kingdom water company is involved in a possible professional link with the water authority of Jordan; which United Kingdom company carried out the study and what was the value of the contract; and whether this study was funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No United Kingdom water company has yet been invited to form the possible professional link. Thames Water carried out the study at a cost of £67,959. It was not funded from the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 71–72, which United Kingdom company is providing advice to the Jordan Industrial Consortium Engineering Company; what is its precise brief and what are the key functions of the Jordan Industrial Consortium Engineering Company.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1989–90, Price Waterhouse advised the Jordan Industrial Consortium Engineering 682
  Company on the methodology for conducting the economic and financial feasibility studies, and Environmental Resources Ltd. assisted with the preparation of an environmental impact study, in respect of the Dead sea chemicals project. The Jordan Industrial Consortium Engineering Company was founded in 1986 to develop the skills of Jordanian engineers and create a local consulting and engineering company.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 71–72, which United Kingdom company carried out the study of possible contamination of groundwater in the Amman Zarka basin, what was the value of the contract; and whether this study was funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The study was undertaken by British Geological Survey at a cost of £15,374. It was not funded from the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 71–72, which United Kingdom company carried out the study of the aquifer at Qa Disi; what was the value of the contract; and whether this study was funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Qa Disi study is being carried out by Haiste International. The value of the contract is £1,325,190. The study is not being funded from the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 71–72, which United Kingdom company carried out the feasibility study into centralising the water authority of Jordan's maintenance facilities on a single site; what was the value of the contract; and whether this study was funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The feasibility study was carried out by the Crown Agents at a cost of £124,256. It was not funded from the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 71, which United Kingdom company carried out the study into pollution at the King Talal dam; what was the value of the contract; and whether this study was funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  The study was carried out by Thames Water International with the Natural Resources Institute at a cost of £16,259. It was not funded from the aid and trade provision.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 67, regarding general balance of payments support provided by the Overseas Development Administration to Nigeria, when the commitments and the disbursements were made over the last five years; and what was the amount involved in each case.
  683
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is set out in the table:

  Size of commitment

  Date of commitment

  Date(s) of disbursement

  £43·6 million

  8 May 1989

  During financial year 1989–90

  £10 million

  8 May 1989

  During financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91

  £6 million

  6 September 1989

  During financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91

  £20 million

  1 October 1990

  During financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92

  £6·5 million

  1 October 1990

  During financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92

  British Virgin Islands
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the purpose of each Overseas Development Administration-funded project or post in the British Virgin Islands in each of the past five years; and what was the cost to the Overseas Development Administration of each project or post.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A list of project funded by the ODA in British Virgin Islands, BVI, over the period 1988–89 to 1992–93 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The project cost figures include the cost of posts where these are also funded. The present average annual cost of an ODA-funded post in BVI, salary and allowances' is £70,000.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the professional discipline, (b) the duties and responsibilities and (c) the cost to the Overseas Development Administration, including the cost of offices and support staff, of each of the technical co-operation officers funded by his Department to work in the British Virgin Islands; and if he will place a copy of the job description and a letter of appointment of each of those officers in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are nine technical co-operation officers serving in the British Virgin Islands—BVI. Their disciplines cover financial services and taxation—three posts—engineering—two posts—police—two posts—Customs and Excise—one post—and computer development—one post.

  The cost of offices and support staff are met by the BVI Government. The cost to the Overseas Development Administrtion of each officer depends on individual personal circumstances, but the average cost including accommodation and air fares is approximately £70,000 per annum.

  We are unable to make publicly available the individual letters of appointment for each officer, but a note containing the terms of reference for each post has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Caribbean Islands
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much financial assistance is available to the territories of Guadeloupe and Martinique from the European Community under Lomé IV; and how much financial assistance is available to Belize, Dominica and Jamaica.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No financial assistance is available to Guadeloupe and Martinique under Lomé IV; financial assistance is available to Belize, Dominica and Jamaica as follows:684

  National indicative programme (1990–95)

  Million ecu

  Belize

  9

  Dominica

  6·5

  Jamaica

  46

  Belize, Dominica and Jamaica are also eligible for structural adjustment support, export earnings stabilisation—STABEX—support for the mining sector—SYSMIN—emergency and refugee assistance and loans from the European investment bank.

  Thailand
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which water projects the Overseas Development Administration has funded in Thailand over the last five years; which companies have won those contracts; what was the value of those contracts; and which of those projects were funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following water projects have been supported with bilateral aid for Thailand over the last five years:

  Dam Panel for the Royal Irrigation Department. Company:
  Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners. Value: £0·2 million.

  Sukhothai Groundwater Project (Phase 2). Company:
  Howard Humphreys and Partners. Value: £3·2 million—all but some £50,000 was spent prior to 1989.

  Provincial Waterworks Training Project. Companies: Thames Water PLC, North West Water PLC and Applied Research and Project Management Services. Value: £400,000.

  Production of a training video programme. Company: Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford. Value: £45,000.

  Two projects were jointly funded with non-governmental organisations at a total cost of £325,000. In addition, two other small water projects were funded al a total cost of £7,300. No companies were involved with these four projects as they were small, mainly village-based, schemes undertaken by local communities.

  None of the projects mentioned was funded under the aid and trade provision.

  Banana Producers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to offer support to Belize to implement a scheme of diversification for banana producers.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  The ODA's aid programme to Belize is already focused on agricultural development, but there are no plans for specific aid to banana producers. Funds for development of the banana industry in African,
  685
  Caribbean and Pacific countries have already been approved in the EC budget for 1994, to which the United Kingdom contributes. We are working with the European Commission to define how these can best be spent.

  Balkans Customs Corridor
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Commission's initiative, under the PHARE programme, for a Balkan customs corridor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no current plans under the PHARE programme for a Balkan customs corridor. PHARE is currently helping a number of countries neighbouring Serbia and Montenegro to improve their transport infrastructure and customs administration, with special emphasis on relieving bottlenecks at border crossings. Any proposals for a customs corridor would need to be consistent with the UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro.

  Some £43 million was committed to PHARE regional transport and customs programmes during 1992 and 1993. Around £25 million of this has been allocated specifically to assist border crossings. The United Kingdom's contribution to the PHARE programme is around 16 per cent.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Link steering group.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current membership of the Link steering group is as follows:

  Dr. J. Parnaby—Chairman

  Professor W. D. P. Steward FRS FRSE

  Dr. R. C. Whelan

  Dr. G. Robinson

  Professor T. L. Blundell FRS

  Dr. Peter Bunyan

  Dr. G. Pope FEng

  Professor J. S. Mason

  Sir John Cadogan CBE FRS

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for each of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Cabinet Office, the Office of Public Service and Science and the other Departments for which I am responsible are:

  Executive Bodies

  Agriculture and Food Research Council

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Medical Research Council

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  686
  Advisory Bodies

  Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Advisory Committee on Human Genome Research

  Council for Science and Technology

  Citizen's Charter Panel of Advisers

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Link Steering Group

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  Security Commission

  The public does not have a statutory right to attend meetings of any of these bodies, or to see minutes of meetings where they are produced.

  There is a statutory requirement for research council annual reports and annual accounts to be laid before Parliament, under the provisions of schedule 1 of the Science and Technology Act 1965. They are published documents, and are freely available to the public.

  The advisory bodies do not in general produce annual reports or accounts.

  Exceptions are:

  Council for Science and Technology
  Information generated by the council will normally be made openly available, as stated in the White Paper "Realising our Potential".

  Citizens Charter Panel of Advisers
  The accounts of the panel of advisers are included in the accounts of the citizens charter unit, which are published in the OPSS annual report.

  Civil Service Appeal Board
  The CSAB publishes an annual report and transcripts of hearings are available to appellants, their representatives and departments.

  Link Steering Group
  The LSG produces reports but not on an annual basis. Its first report was published in February 1992.

  Security Commission
  Reports of the commission are, so far as it is consistent with the requirements of national security, made public.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department are the Agricultural and Food Research Council, AFRC, the Economic and Social Research Council, ESRC, the Medical Research Council, MRC, the Natural Environment Research Council, NERC and the Science and Engineering Research Council, SERC. With effect from 1 April the AFRC and the SERC will cease to exist and three new bodies will come into being, namely the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, BBSRC, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, EPSRC, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, PPARC. The activities of the AFRC and SERC will be transferred to new and existing research councils.
  687
  Details of gross expenditure financed by grants in aid are as follows:

  £ million at 1992–93 prices

  11990–91

  11991–92

  11992–93

  21993–94

  31994–95

  AFRC

  98·5

  100·6

  105·4

  107·5

  —

  BBSRC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  160·7

  EPSRC

  —

  —

  —

  0·4

  339·0

  ESRC

  40·4

  40·0

  45·9

  51·5

  56·0

  MRC

  205·0

  210·7

  227·7

  257·0

  250·7

  NERC

  149·3

  127·3

  129·7

  135·6

  144·7

  PPARC

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  172·2

  SERC

  489·4

  473·9

  523·0

  564·6

  —

  1Source: Appropriation accounts, modified by appropriate GDP deflator.

  2Source: Supply Estimates 1993–94, modified by appropriate GDP deflator.

  3Source: Allocations of the Science Budget 1993–94 as announced to the House on 2 February 1994, modified by appropriate GDP deflator.

  Allocations for 1995–96 to the research councils have not yet been announced.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am responsible for the appointment of the chairmen and all members of the Economic and Social Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council. I am also responsible for the appointment of the chairman and 14 of 20 members of the Agricultural and Food Research Council—AFRC. Of the remaining six members of the AFRC, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food appoints four and the Secretary of State for Scotland appoints two.

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. David Davis
  Budgeted and actual expenditure by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on internal and overseas travel and subsistence for official purposes in 1992–93 after the 11 April 1992, and in 1993–94, was as set out in the table:

  Budgeted provision

  Actual expenditure

  Internal(£)

  Overseas1(£)

  Internal(£)

  Overseas1(£)

  1992–93

  1,600

  1,000

  5,700

  16,600

  1993–942

  5,600

  27,300

  4,600

  25,100

  1 Includes, where appropriate, the costs of officials from the Chancellor's private office travelling with the Chancellor.

  2 Budgeted expenditure covers the full financial year 1993–94; actual expenditure covers the period April to December 1993.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those departments of state that currently publish details of responses received to consultation exercises.
  688
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The code of practice on Government information commits Government Departments to publishing relevant facts and analysis underlying major policy proposals and decisions and this will include the details of consultation responses. It is already usual practice for comments to be sought in consultation exercises on the understanding that they can be made publicly available unless respondents have requested that their remarks be treated as confidential.

  The code does not require provision of the responses themselves, although this will often be the most straightforward way of providing the information. Indeed, I will soon be placing responses to the "Open Government" White Paper in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Market Testing
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what advice has been provided by the Government Actuary on the viability and comparability of the pension schemes of private contractors seeking to secure contracts in market testing exercises; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what has been the impact on the volume of market testing exercises of the decision to require contractors to offer a pension scheme comparable to Crown employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A number of Departments have sought advice from the Government Actuary's Department on pensions arrangements offered by private sector bidders in market testing exercises. The details of this advice vary from case to case and have not been recorded centrally.

  The purpose in seeking such advice is to assess the value of the pensions package, having taken into account any compensating changes in the value of other terms and conditions. This is necessary, because, as my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Solicitor-General, explained in 1990 to the Standing Committee on the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, rights and obligations relating to civil servants' pension benefits, while not protected by the acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, are protected by United Kingdom employment law. In the case of a person transferred under TUPE the transferor and the transferee must so arrange things that the pension rights enjoyed by staff after the transfer are broadly comparable with those enjoyed by staff before. Contractors are therefore asked to provide pensions arrangements of comparable value as otherwise employees

  689
  must be compensated for any detrimental change, either directly, or through offsetting changes in the value of other terms and conditions, such as pay.

  I have no evidence that the advice on pensions arrangements has had any impact on the volume of market testing exercises.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Government will publish the second annual report on the citizens charter; and what were the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cannock and Bumtwood (Dr. Wright) on 10 February 1994,Official Report, columns 486–87.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the United Kingdom are currently unemployed but are receiving(a) income support, (b) invalidity allowance, (c) attendance allowance or (d) other social security benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of people in Great Britain who are registered as unemployed and also receiving income support is 2,003,000. Available information about other social security benefits received by this group can be found in "Income Support Statistics, Quarterly Enquiry, February 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on other benefits received by individuals registered as unemployed but who are not receiving income support is available only for those receiving unemployment benefit. Such information as is available is in the table. Invalidity benefit is not payable to people who are registered as unemployed.

  Unemployment Benefit claimants receiving other benefits

  Date

  Benefit

  Unemployed claimants

  May 1992

  Housing Benefit

  156,000

  May 1992

  Community Charge Benefit

  322,000

  June 1993

  Family Credit

  16,000

  August 1993

  Disability Working Allowance

  24

  August 1993

  Unemployment Benefit

  532,000

  Notes:

  1. All figures are for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest thousand except Disability Working Allowance which is an exact figure.

  2. Benefit recipients may be in receipt of more than one benefit.

  3. Disability Working Allowance and Family Credit figures relate to residual entitlement from claims made prior to unemployment.

  4. Housing Benefit figure includes 49,000 cases receiving Income Support. Community Charge Benefit figure includes 116,000 cases receiving Income Support.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of working age adults claiming income support or unemployment, sickness or invalidity benefits as their main source of income for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the numbers whose main source of income is derived from income support or unemployment benefit,690
  sickness benefit or invalidity benefit. Estimated average numbers of people receiving income support with and without other benefits can be found in table 7 of "Departmental Report, The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96" (Cm 2213), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on the number of recipients of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and invalidity benefit is in the table.

  Thousands

  Unemployment Benefit

  Sickness Benefit

  Invalidity Benefit

  1989

  378

  108

  952

  1990

  299

  103

  1,003

  1991

  555

  109

  1,068

  1992

  669

  138

  1,175

  1993

  659

  1—

  1—

  1 Figures not available.

  Notes:

  1. Working adults defined as males aged 16 to 64, females 16 to 59.

  2. Recipients may be receiving more than one benefit.

  Disablement Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will lose the right to claim short-term incapacity benefit by virtue of the changes in contribution conditions; and what estimate he has made of the annual savings resulting from each change.

  Mr. Scott
  The contribution conditions for short-term incapacity benefit will be the same as those which currently apply to sickness benefit, but the exemption from satisfying these conditions in industrial injury and disease cases will not be carried forward. This change will affect around 3,000 claims a year, producing net savings of under £5 million in 1995–96; and around £5 million in 1996–97.

  Note: Estimates expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, rounded to the nearest £5 million, and net of offsetting changes in income related benefit expenditure.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated savings to his Department arising from each clause of the Social Security (Incapacity For Work) Bill.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated savings are in the table. Clauses 1 and 2 have been grouped because it is not feasible to apportion the savings further. The total savings shown differ from those specified in the explanatory and financial memorandum in two ways:savings that arise from extending the qualifying period for the disability premium paid with income-related benefits to 52 weeks are excluded. This will be given effect in regulations and not the Bill;
  the savings in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum were given in cash terms.

  Clause

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 £ million

  1 and 2

  -145

  -325

  3

  n.a.

  n.a.

  4

  -160

  -475

  5

  -50

  -180

  6

  n.a.

  n.a.

  7

  Negligible

  Negligible

  8

  n.a.

  n.a.

  9

  +5

  +5

  10

  n.a.

  n.a.

  11

  -25

  -90

  691
  Note:

  Estimates are expressed in constant 1993–94 prices and are rounded to the nearest £5 million. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people found incapable of work under the new incapacity test would be excluded from receiving incapacity benefit by other changes included in the Social Security (Incapacity For Work) Bill; and how much each category of change is expected to save.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that as a result of the proposed upper age limits for incapacity benefit some 50,000 people in 1995–96, and 150,000 in 1996–97, will receive retirement pension instead of incapacity benefit. The estimated effect on benefit expenditure is negligible, as sickness benefit and invalidity benefit currently paid to people over pension age is based on their retirement pension entitlement. The exemption from the sickness benefit contribution conditions for people suffering from industrial injury or disease will not apply to incapacity benefit. This change will affect around 3,000 claims a year, producing net savings of under £5 million in 1995–96; and around £5 million in 1996–97.

  Notes: Estimates expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, rounded to the nearest £5 million, and net of offsetting changes in income related benefit expenditure.

  Take-up Rates
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the percentage take-up rate of social security benefits in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Burt
  For most of the main contributory benefits—for example, retirement pension, widows' benefits and unemployment benefit—and child benefit, take-up is thought to be close to 100 per cent.

  Information on the take-up of income-related benefits can be found in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-up in 1987" published July 1991 and "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-up in 1989" published January 1993, copies of which are in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the specific information requested about the Child Support Agency on 5 November,Official Report, column 580, is largely unavailable, with particular reference to a breakdown of applications by region and of assessments by applicant type.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand that the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost because information on the performance of the Child Support Agency comes from computer-generated figures summarising work at the agency's six computer centres on a monthly basis, supported by clerical counts.

  Where requests are made for data not produced either by the computer, or by existing clerical counts, the cost of arranging for collection of the information must be considered. In the case of the chief executive's reply of 5 November 1993, which was subsequently amended in her reply dated 23 November, figures were not available on the number of child applicants in Scotland, nor in the breakdown of assessments by applicant type. To provide these figures would, in both cases, have necessitated the
  692
  individual investigation of a large number of cases, either in an individual centre in the case of the numbers of child applicants in Scotland or in all six centres in the case of the breakdown of assessments by type.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made by the Child Support Agency to assess and collect maintenance on behalf of a parent who is resident in, and whose child or children is or are resident in, the United Kingdom from an absent parent who is resident abroad.

  Mr. Burt
  The jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency does not extend beyond the United Kingdom. The Lord Chancellor's Department administers reciprocal enforcement agreements with many foreign countries. These provisions allow for the enforcement of British court orders abroad and for the enforcement of foreign orders in Britain. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost to public funds of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimate of the cost of the Child Support Agency for 1993–94 is £117 million.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the power of the Child Support Agency with regard to the division of any assets of divorcing partners after 1996.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans. Division of assets will remain a matter for the courts.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what saving of public money is expected to be achieved by the Child Support Agency in the first 12 months of its operation.

  Mr. Burt
  Benefit savings were originally estimated at £530 million. The actual amount will be lower, but it is not possible to provide an accurate revised figure, since the full impact of the recent policy changes is not yet known.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total projected expenditure on income support claims towards the cost of residential or nursing home care inclusive of cases that have been and will be handled by local authorities under the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 for(a) the current financial year, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimates are:

  (a) £2,500 million

  (b) £2,280 million, and

  (c) £2,180 million.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.
  693
  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.

  DSS Headquarters 1993–94 campaigns and promotions

  Objective

  Mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness

  1. Council Tax Benefit

  Continuation of campaign which began in 1992–93, to maximise awareness of Council Tax Benefit

  Telephone and coupon response for leaflets

  2. Child Support—Changes in Regulations

  To inform public of planned changes in child support maintenance regulations

  Telephone and written response

  3. Pension Law Review Committee

  Publicise the report of the Pension Law Review Committee (Goode Report)

  Telephone response

  4. Personal Pension

  Potential personal pension holders exercising informed choice

  Telephone and coupon response

  5. Disability awareness

  Make information available to general public and to disabled people about antidiscriminatory practices, obstacles and opportunities

  Telephone and coupon response

  6. State Pension Age

  Make information available on proposed legislative changes concerning State Retirement Pension age

  Take up response of leaflets

  7. Working with benefits

  Make information available to unemployed people with families about Family Credit and other in-work benefits

  Awareness of TV advertising. Telephone response for Benefit News on a daily and weekly basis. Interview respondents to see if they conform to desired profile

  8. Family Credit

  Provide information to Child Benefit recipients on their eligibility for Family Credit

  Telephone and written response

  To provide advisers and intermediaries with up-to-date information on Family Credit

  Medium to long-term take-up of benefit, maintenance of high awareness levels

  9. Disability Working Allowance

  To make disabled jobseekers aware of the help Disability Working Allowance could provide in facilitating their transition into work

  Telephone response. Interview respondents to see if they conform to desired profile

  Benefits Agency 1993–94 campaigns and promotions

  Objective

  Evaluation mechanisms

  1. Prescribed Industrial Injuries Disease 12—Bronchitis and/or Emphysema in Coal Workers

  To inform all coal workers who have worked underground for 20 years or more, and who suffer from bronchitis and/or emphysema, that they may now be able to claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and to give them information and access to the claiming procedure

  Coupon response on adverts, coupon coding to assess cost effectiveness of individual titles and qualitative research of the advert with the target group

  2. Severe Cold Weather Payments

  To inform people on Income Support who are disabled, retired or who have children that a period of cold weather has been forecast and that they will receive extra benefit for heating

  Monitored calls on the Winter Warmth Line which is referred to on the advert

  3. Year of the Elderly

  To raise awareness of the benefits available to elderly people through the promotion of our new leaflet Help after Retirement

  Monitored request for the leaflet and the campaign pack

  Contributions Agency 1993–94 campaigns and promotions

  Objectives

  Mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness

  1. Phone Book Advertising

  To publicise local Contributions Agency offices to general public

  Customer satisfaction survey

  2. Mailing to employers

  To inform employers of changes in legislation

  Customer satisfaction survey

  3. Mailing to Class 2 and Class 3 contributors

  Inform people paying by stamp card of new system of paying by quarterly billing and of direct debit

  Return of stamp cards, and increase in payments by direct debit

  4. Exhibitions

  To promote the work of Contributions Agency to employers and key advisers

  Customer satisfaction survey

  694 695

  Child Support Agency 1993–94 campaigns and promotions

  Objective

  Mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness

  Introduction of Child Support Agency

  Continuation of the campaign which began in 1992–93 to introduce the Child Support Agency

  Telephone and coupon response plus attitudinal research

  1994–95 campaigns and promotions

  Plans for promotion work in 1994–95 for DSS headquarters and the agencies have not yet been confirmed.

  Incapacity for Work
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consultations are taking place with the British Medical Association on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests for each category of functional limitation as proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (2) what consultations are taking place with the Manic Depression Fellowship on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (3) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of Nursing on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (4) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of General Practitioners on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests for each category of functional limitation as proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (5) what consultations are taking place with the British Medical Association on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (6) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of Physicians on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests for each category of functional limitation as proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (7) what consultations are taking place with the Scottish Schizophrenic Fellowship on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (8) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the
  696
  Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (9) what consultations are taking place with the Department of Health on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests for each category of functional limitation as proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (10) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of Surgeons on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests for each category of functional limitation as proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (11) what consultations are taking place with the Institute of Psychiatry on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (12) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of General Practitioners on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (13) what consultations are taking place with the Department of Health on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (14) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of Physicians on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (15) what consultations are taking place with the Institute of Phychiatry on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests for each category of functional limitation as proposed in the "Consultation of the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;

  (16) what consultations are taking place with the Royal College of Nursing on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests for each category of functional limitation as proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work;
  697
  (17) what consultations are taking place with the Manic Depression Fellowship (Scotland) on the development, field testing and evaluation of the objective medical tests in relation to the mental health impairment score proposed in the "Consultation on the Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit"—annex 1—for use in the assessment of capacity for work.

  Mr. Scott
  Discussions about the proposed new medical incapacity test have been held with the joint consultants committee and with representatives of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of "Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Surgeons and the British Medical Association. Officials have also discussed the test with officials in the Department of Health. The consultation document on the proposed test is freely available and over 4,700 copies have been distributed. A panel of 80 experts has been formed to help us construct the incapacity scales to be used in the test. The members of the panel have been asked to give their individual expert opinions, not to act as representatives of any particular organisation. Separate and additional discussions are being held about the mental health impairment score with experts in psychiatry, psychology and occupational medicine who are members of the panel.

  National Insurance
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will seek to bring the present eight-hour part-time employment penalty rule for national insurance

  Estimated administration costs of benefits:

  1988–89 (£ million)

  1989–90 (£ million)

  1990–91 (£ million)

  1991–92 (£ million)

  Child Benefit and One Parent Benefit1

  105

  111

  107

  118

  Income Support

  1,114

  1,180

  1,348

  1,373

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit1

  154

  182

  208

  275

  Family Credit

  24

  30

  146

  133

  Social Fund

  n/a

  n/a

  132

  163

  Note:

  1 Includes increased capital investment for information technology and publicity costs.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to undertake research into any correlation between the levels of sickness claims and the proportion of full-time employees working over 46 hours per week in England.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department each year since 1988, both in current prices and at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Current prices

  1993–94

  £ million

  prices £ million

  1988–89

  49·5

  65·2

  1989–90

  43·3

  53·4

  1990–91

  83·2

  94·9

  698
  contributions into line with the present 16-hour penalty rule applying to benefits and with the future limits he is proposing.

  Mr. Hague
  National insurance contributions are normally credited to individuals in respect of complete weeks of qualifying unemployment. As a concession, employment of up to eight hours a week may be disregarded for this purpose. The extent of the concession is currently under review.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claiming family credit do not pay tax.

  Mr. Burt
  Two hundred and four thousand people who receive family credit do not pay tax.

  Source: Five per cent. sample of Family Credit recipients as at 31 July 1993.

  Benefits (Administration Costs)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 26 January,Official Report, columns 266–67, what have been the administrative costs of each of the benefits for each of the last four years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Year

  Current prices

  1993–94

  £ million

  prices £ million

  1991–92

  69·7

  74·7

  1992–93

  100·9

  104·2

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, c. 215, how many applicants for assistance from the independent living fund were turned down on the grounds that the value of the applicant's existing package totalled £500 or more; and how many of such applicants subsequently went into residential care.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the independent living (1993) fund that the information requested is not available.
  699

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) the annual accounts.

  Mr. Hague
  There is no statutory right for members of the public to attend meetings or inspect the minutes of any of those bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  An annual report is published by the chief adjudication officer and by the disability living allowance advisory board. Reports are also published periodically by the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. Otherwise none of the bodies listed is required to produce annual reports or accounts.

  Students
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the aims, scope and nature of the consultations taking place between his Department and the Department for Education regarding full-time students who temporarily suspend their studies yet under the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 are precluded from claiming income support or housing benefit even though they are not attending an institution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Most full-time students are not eligible for income support or housing benefit because support is provided through the student support system. Those with mandatory awards who temporarily suspend their studies because of illness will not have their awards reduced for the first 28 days' absence, but beyond that the amount and duration of payments is at the discretion of the local education authority. When students are absent with the leave of their college for some other reasons, the amount and duration of payments is at the authorities' discretion from the start of their absence. Full-time students who suspend their studies because of ill-health for more than 28 weeks, and supply supporting medical evidence, are eligible to claim income support and housing benefit by virtue of having become one of the prescribed vulnerable groups. Our discussions with the Department for Education are about the extent and circumstances in which temporary suspension of studies occurs.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there were against invalidity benefit being removed in Fife in 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gordon Brown, dated 14 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about appeals against the removal of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) in Fife in 1993.
  The information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because Benefit Agency District boundaries do not
  700
  correspond exactly with county or borough boundaries. Whilst the majority of Fife is dealt with by the Agency's Fife District, a small area of North Fife is dealt with by Dundee District Office (DO). However, because Dundee DO deals with a large area other than Fife, statistics for Dundee DO would include many people not living within Fife. I have therefore provided statistics for Fife District only.
  The statistics have been obtained from the District's own record of appeals.

  Fife District

  Number

  Kirkaldy District Office

  27

  Cowdenbeath Benefits Office

  75

  Dunfermline Benefits Office

  45

  Leven Benefits Office

  58

  Total

  205

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Indonesia (Visit)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 6–7, regarding his visit to Indonesia, if he will name the Indonesian and expatriate business people whom he met; indicating what advantages to Britain will ensue; and whether the British-funded railway project which he visited was funded from the Overseas Development Administration funds.

  Mr. Nelson
  In addition to meetings with the President of Indonesia, senior Ministers and the Governor of the Bank of Indonesia, the Chancellor of the Exchequer met:

  Cigading railway project—Ministry of Communication and PERUMKA representatives; BRI and Davy hosts.
  PT Peni—Dr. J. M. Hay, President Director; Mr. Gregory Kosasie, Vice-President Director; Mr. Kevin Dunne, Associate President, British Petroleum companies in Indonesia.
  Indonesia British Association—Lunch given for 55 guests from the banking, business and financial sectors hosted by Mr. R. M. Hajiwibowo, Chairman, Indonesia British Association.

  World Bank—Mr. Nicholas Hope (Director) Indonesia and his staff.
  Lippo Bank—Mr. Markus Parmadi, President, Director and senior colleagues.

  The Chancellor also gave a reception for 150 senior Indonesian and British business people, and there were 95 guests at a dinner given by the ambassador.

  The visit enabled my right hon. and learned Friend to raise the profile of the United Kingdom in Indonesian Government and business circles. This will help to improve investment and trade relations, and has provided valuable support for the efforts of the embassy to promote British business. It also provided the British business men who accompanied the Chancellor with access to key Indonesian decision makers which they might otherwise have found difficult to achieve.

  The Cigading to Serpong railway project is being supported from an aid and trade provision.
  701

  VAT on Fuel
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made as to the effect of the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel on residents of sheltered housing units with communal facilities.

  Sir John Cope
  No such estimate has been made. In cases where supplies of electricity or gas or unmetered by the landlord to individual tenants there will normally be no separate VAT charge since the VAT liability of the fuel will follow that of the accommodation. However, since in many cases the landlord will be unable to recover the VAT charged by the gas/electricity companies there is likely to be a commensurate increase in sheltered housing fees. Most tenants in such units will be eligible for the extra financial assistance being made available by the Government to help meet increased costs resulting from this VAT charge.

  Spending on health and education (Per cent, of general government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds)

  11993–94

  21994–95

  Health

  Education

  Health

  Education

  Central Government

  12·7

  3·2

  12·8

  3·5

  Local Authorities

  2·5

  8·6

  N/a

  N/a

  General Government

  15·2

  11·8

  N/a

  N/a

  1 Latest estimates.

  2Plans.

  VAT-registered Businesses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, columns 777–80, if he will provide a comparable table showing the stock of VAT registered businesses at January 1991 and December 1993 by Customs area.

  Sir John Cope
  Numbers of VAT-registered traders are available only for calendar quarters. Those for quarters ended December 1990 and December 1993 were as follows:

  Total number of registered traders at

  Collection

  December 1990

  December 1993

  Belfast

  53,886

  54,684

  Birmingham

  122,255

  112,776

  Dover

  55,294

  47,515

  East Anglia

  71,755

  79,986

  East Midlands

  96,938

  90,118

  Edinburgh

  62,970

  62,427

  Glasgow

  61,213

  58,046

  Leeds

  94,593

  88,741

  Liverpool

  92,493

  84,314

  London Central

  38,423

  37,432

  London North and West

  86,513

  76,994

  London Port

  55,388

  46,343

  London South

  109,917

  99,078

  Manchester

  90,042

  83,460

  Northampton

  121,350

  98,129

  Northern England

  76,335

  71,295

  Southampton

  89,255

  78,890

  South Wales and Borders

  110,756

  102,963

  South West England

  121,718

  109,339

  Thames Valley

  131,872

  125,313

  TOTAL

  1,742,966

  1,607,843

  702

  Draft Budget
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish a draft Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Health and Education Spending
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of public expenditure during (1) 1993–94 and (2) 1994–95 will be spent on(a) health and (b) education.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information is in the table. Local authorities have not yet announced their detailed spending plans for 1994–95.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of individuals who have transferred their assets from one life insurance policy to another provided by a different company.

  Mr. Nelson
  Records of such transfers are not kept by the Treasury.

  Forward: Civil Service Catering
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish the terms of the sale of Forward: Civil Service Catering.

  Mr. Nelson
  Forward has been sold to the Sutcliffe Catering Group Ltd. for £4·6 million. The transfer of the business took place on 14 February. The staff of Forward have transferred to Sutcliffe on their existing terms and conditions in accordance with the TUPE regulations.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide data for the period 1978–79 to 1994–95, showing(a) the size of the work force in employment, (b) the number of individuals in the employed work force paying income tax and the resulting percentage of the employed work force paying income tax and (c) the number of individuals in the employed work force paying national insurance and the resulting percentage of the employed work force paying national insurance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The table gives the available information for the size of the work force in employment at a particular point in each year, the numbers paying income tax for the year and those paying national insurance contributions at any point during the year. The figures in columns (b) and (c) are therefore not directly comparable with the estimates in (a).
  703

  Workforce in employment1

  Individuals with some income from employment or self-employment liable to income tax2

  (B) divided by (A) expressed as a percentage

  Individuals with some income from employment or self-employment paying national insurance contributions2

  (C) divided by (A) expressed as a percentage

  thousands (A)

  thousands (B)

  thousands (C)

  1978–79

  24,765

  24,100

  97

  25,500

  103

  1979–80

  n/a

  23,900

  n/a

  25,800

  n/a

  1980–81

  24,153

  22,900

  95

  25,000

  104

  1981–82

  n/a

  22,400

  n/a

  24,100

  n/a

  1982–83

  23,490

  22,000

  94

  23,600

  100

  1983–84

  23,939

  21,700

  91

  23,400

  98

  1984–85

  24,282

  21,200

  87

  23,500

  97

  1985–86

  24,389

  21,400

  88

  23,900

  98

  1986–87

  24,806

  21,400

  86

  24,200

  98

  1987–88

  25,660

  21,900

  85

  24,600

  96

  1988–89

  26,558

  22,700

  85

  25,300

  95

  1989–90

  26,783

  22,600

  84

  25,600

  96

  1990–91

  26,207

  23,000

  88

  25,500

  97

  1991–92

  25,671

  22,600

  88

  24,300

  95

  1992–933

  25,381

  322,000

  87

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Estimates are derived from the Labour Force Survey and relate to Spring of each year.

  2 Estimates are of the numbers liable to income tax or national insurance contributions in the year.

  3 Provisional.

  Top Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the number of top rate taxpayers in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95

  Total number of taxpayers

  Number of higher rate taxpayers

  Higher rate taxpayers as a percentage of total taxpayers

  (Thousands)

  (Thousands)

  (Per cent.)

  1992–93

  25,100

  1,800

  7

  1993–94

  25,100

  1,900

  8

  1994–95

  25,400

  2,300

  9

  Change in higher rate taxpers between

  1992–93 and 1994–95

  (Thousands)

  (Percent.)

  500

  28

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an announcement about the details of value-added tax concessions and rebates for amateur sports clubs.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 11 February 1994]: Customs and Excise have issued an information paper setting out details of the scope of the proposed VAT exemption for sporting services supplied by non-profit making clubs and including a draft of the relevant Treasury order. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce arrangements to ensure that members of appointed public bodies and authorities may be subject to surcharge and disqualification or other similar 704
  giving estimates where necessary (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a percentage of the total number of income taxpayers and also the change as between 1992–93 and 1994–95, (i) in absolute terms and (ii) as a percentage change.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]The information requested is as follows:

  sanctions in respect of any wilful misconduct in the expenditure of public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: Public bodies are already able to apply disciplinary sanctions, including seeking prosecutions where appropriate. The Government have no plans to seek new powers for surcharging or disqualification. The Government are considering whether the approach recommended in the Cadbury Committee's report on financial aspects of corporate governance could be adapted to meet the needs of public bodies.

  European Investment Bank
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present borrowing limits of the European Investment Bank; what sum has been borrowed to date; and if he will make a statement outlining the manner in which the bank raises its borrowing.
  705
  Mr. Nelson
  [pursuant to his answer, 17 December 1993, column 977]: The total figure given for the European Investment Bank's subscribed capital was 57·6 million ecu, while the limit on the banks total outstanding lending was given as 144 million ecu. These figures are incorrect, and should have read 57·6 billion ecu and 144 billion ecu respectively.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Members of the European Parliament
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what telephone calls are allowed free to Members of the European Parliament(a) within the EU and (b) within the rest of the world; whether Members of the European Parliament's travel allowances are calculated at first class rate even when such a service is not available; and whether the constituency travel allowance for Members of the European Parliament is calculated on the basis of actual mileage incurred.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Members of the European Parliament receive a general expenditure allowance of 2,732 ECU—£2,131—per month to cover office management costs including telephone calls.

  Members of the European Parliament receive a flat-rate travel allowance of 0·73 ECU—57p—per kilometre for the first 800 km and 0·37 ECU—29p—for each additional kilometre for travel within the Community to attend official meetings. Members are reimbursed the actual cost of the return air fare by the most direct route for travel outside the EC to attend official meetings, and receive a travel allowance of up to 3,000 ECU—£2,340—per annum for travel on official business other than to attend official meetings.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the allowances payable to Members of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Parliament's allowances for Members are as follows:

  Subsistence
  Subsistence allowance of 199 ECU, approximately £155, per day for attending official meetings within the European Community plus the cost of overnight accommodation, etc. for attending official meetings outside the Community.

  Travel
  Flat rate travel allowance of 0·73 ECU—57p—per kilometre for the first 800 km and 0·37 ECU—29p—for each additional kilometre of travel within the Community to attend official meetings. Reimbursement of the return air fare by the most direct route for travel outside the EC to attend official meetings. Travel allowance of up to 3,000 ECU—£2,340—per annum for travel on official business other than to attend official meetings.

  Office and Secretarial Assistance
  Secretarial Assistance Allowance of up to 7,468 ECU—£5,826—per month. General Expenditure Allowance of 2,732 ECU—£2,131—per month for office management costs, telephone, postage and travel within member states. Halved in respect of Members who, for no valid reason, have failed to attend at least half the number of plenary sittings.

  Data Processing
  Data Processing allowance of up to 1,000 ECU—£780—per annum for purchase or rent of equipment.
  706

  Malaysia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held with the Government of Malaysia on the question of arms sales during the visits of(a) the Minister of State, the former right hon. Member for Wallasey in August 1987, (b) the Secretary of State in April 1988, (c) the Minister of State, the Lord Glenarthur, in November 1988, (d) the Secretary of State in October 1989, (e) the Minister of State, the Lord Brabazon, in January 1990, (f) the Minister of State, the former hon. Member for Warwickshire, North, in February 1990, (g) the Minister of State, the Lord Caithness, in April 1991, (h) the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), in September 1991, (i) the Minister of State, the Lord Caithness, in September 1991, (j) the Secretary of State in July 1992 and (k) the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), in April 1993.

  Mr. Goodlad
  During their visits to Malaysia, FCO Ministers regularly discuss a wide range of issues, including trade, education, defence, regional, aid, economic and security matters.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held with the Government of Malaysia on the question of aid during the visits of(a) the Minister of State, the former right hon. Member for Wallasey in August 1987, (b) the Secretary of State in April 1988, (c) the Minister of State, the Lord Glenarthur, in November 1988, (d) the Secretary of State in October 1989, (e) the Minister of State, the Lord Brabazon, in January 1990, (f) the Minister of State, the former hon. Member for Warwickshire, North, in February 1990, (g) the Minister of State, the Lord Caithness, in April 1991, (h) the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), in September 1991, (i) the Minister of State, the Lord Caithness, in September 1991, (j) the Secretary of State in July 1992 and (k) the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), in April 1993.

  Mr. Goodlad
  During their visits to Malaysia, FCO Ministers regularly discuss a wide range of issues, including trade, education, defence, regional, aid, economic and security matters.

  UN World Summit on Social Development
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to set up a United Kingdom national committee to prepare for the United Nations world summit on social development to be held in Copenhagan in March 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The first preparatory committees for the world summit for social development took place in New York from 31 January to 11 February. Her Majesty's Government were represented by officials from London and New York. We have no plans at present to establish a national committee.

  UN (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for marking the 50th anniversary of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.
  707
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Plans for marking the 50th anniversary of the United Nations are still in their early stages. Under the auspices of the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a national committee has been set up to co-ordinate the national programme of events. The president is the right hon. the Lord Howe of Aberavon, QC. Commemorative events are envisaged on the three key dates: 26 June 1995—the anniversary of the signing of the United Nations charter—24 October 1995—the anniversary of the Charter coming into force—and 10 January 1996, the anniversary of the first session of the General Assembly.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Guatemalan Government on the abuse of street children.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made clear to the Guatemalan authorities the concern felt in this country about street children and the importance of upholding human rights, especially the rights of children.

  Bosnia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has to suggest that Serbian forces and Croatian forces have been fighting in Bosnia during the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Reports from various sources suggest that both regular Croatian army forces are active in Bosnia. Both Croatia and Serbia also appear to have given material support to their respective allies in Bosnia through the provision of equipment and by recruiting personnel. The European Union and the United Nations have made clear on a number of occasions the unacceptability of outside intervention in Bosnia. Serbia is already subject to wide-ranging economic sanctions. The European Union has put Croatia on notice of possible measures against it, if its involvement continues.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 122, on arms sales to Indonesia, whether the principle that sovereign states have a right to defend themselves applies equally to Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Article 51 of the UN charter recognises the right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the United Nations Security Council has taken measures necessary to monitor international peace and security. United Nations Security Council resolution 713 imposed a mandatory arms embargo on all the former Yugoslav republics. We share the view of the United Nations, the co-chairmen and the majority of members of the Security Council that to lift the arms embargo at this stage would be a mistake.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the military situation and condition of the civilian population in and around Mostar in Bosnia-Herzegovina; whether this was discussed at the NATO 708
  meeting on 8 February; and if the possibility of air-strikes against either Croat or Muslim forces in the area has been contemplated.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Eastern Mostar is a Bosnian Muslim enclave, which has come under continuous shelling by the Bosnian Croats. The humanitarian situation remains of profound concern. Aid convoys are getting through under escort from the Spanish battalion of UNPROFOR. After a long delay a mobile hospital donated by the South Africans was recently delivered.

  Mostar was not discussed specifically at the NATO meeting on 8 February. But the NATO decisions of last August, reaffirmed at the 10–11 January summit, stated the alliance's readiness to conduct air strikes, with the approval of the UN Secretary-General, to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo and other areas. The situation in Mostar is under constant review.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation took place with the Ukraine, and other non-NATO states, before the decision of NATO on 9 February to contemplate air strikes against Bosnian-Serb forces was taken; and whether such forces will be under NATO orders should such air strikes take place.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No consultation took place with Ukraine immediately before the 9 February NATO decision. However, the action contemplated is consistent with the existing UN mandate. The UN Secretary-General or his delegated representative must authorise the first use of air power, and UNPROFOR commanders must be closely consulted.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what were the contents of the UNPROFOR report concerning the artillery attack on the Sarajevo market on Saturday 5 February; what were the contents of subsequent reports on the incident; and what progress has been made to establish responsibility for the incident;

  (2) whether the site or sites from which the artillery attack on Sarajevo market took place on Saturday 5 February was one which had previously been inspected by or monitored by United Nations observers; what was the position of the nearest United Nations observer team at the time of the incident; and what report was filed by observers on the ground.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Secretary-General has informed the Security Council that the massacre at Sarajevo market on 5 February resulted from the detonation of a single 120 mm mortar shell, and not an artillery attack. The site from which the mortar was fired has not been determined. UNPROFOR has been able to establish only a broad area straddling the line of confrontation.

  Reports by United Nations military observers are not made available outside the UNPROFOR military chain of command. We do not have available information on the day-to-day deployments of United Nations military observers.

  The special representative of the Secretary-General, Yasushi Akashi, announced on 11 February that he has decided to establish an investigative team to look into the details of the tragic incident. The five-member team will consist of military officers from UNPROFOR with

  709
  appropriate technical expertise. The team will be led by the UNPROFOR force engineer, Colonel Gauthier of Canada, and include officers from France, Spain, Pakistan and Russia. The investigative team will report its findings to the special representative as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has in respect of the present situation in the area in and around Bihac in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he is able to assess the state of relations between the Bosnian Muslim authorities there and(a) the Bosnian Government of President Izetbegovic, (b) the Bosnian Serbs and (c) the Bosnian Croats.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We remain concerned about the security situation in the Bihac pocket. It is clear from recent reports that intra-Muslim tension remains high, and that the Bosnian Serbs have resumed artillery attacks on Bosnian Muslim forces. We have seen nothing to suggest that there is any fighting involving the Bosnian Croats in this area.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any of the warring factions in Bosnia-Herzegovina have proposed any investigating commission being set up to establish responsibility for the artillery attack on the Sarajevo market on Saturday 5 February; and what offers of co-operation in such an investigation have been made by(a) the Bosnian Serbs and (b) the Bosnian Muslims.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Secretary General's special representative, Mr. Akashi, has now announced the establishment of such a commission. This will require the full co-operation of both the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Government.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support any Russian request for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to debate the continuing conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Security Council discussed the situation in Bosnia on 14 February.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what precautions were discussed at the NATO meeting on 8 February to ensure that Bosnian-Muslim forces do not enter demilitarised zones vacated by the Bosnian-Serb army; if the use of force to prevent this from happening was agreed; and what action would be taken in the event of Bosnian-Serbs repelling such advances by force.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The aim of the NATO decision of 9 February was to enforce, together with UNPROFOR, an end to the bombardment of Sarajevo. To this end, the alliance called on the Bosnian Government to place heavy weapons, located within the exclusion zone 20 km around Sarajevo, under United Nations control. NATO did not, however, demand full demilitarisation of the city. UNPROFOR monitors have been positioned at all key and sensitive points within both Muslim and Serb-held areas, and the ceasefire negotiated by UNPROFOR has been generally respected so far.
  710
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of each report from UNPROFOR on the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Copies of the reports of the United Nations Secretary-General to the Security Council on the situation in the former Yugoslavia pursuant to Security Council resolutions are already placed in the Library of the House. The United Nations Secretary-General's reports take into account the views of his special representative who is head of mission for UNPROFOR.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Bosnian-Muslim forces have been put on notice of air strikes against their positions in the event of any use of artillery by Muslim forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The NATO decision of 9 February applies to all parties involved in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Any heavy weapons identified by the United Nations as attacking civilians in Sarajevo, or, if within 20 km of the centre of Sarajevo, not under UN control by midnight on 20 February, will be subject to air strikes. We welcome the assurances given by the Bosnian Prime Minister, Mr Silajdzic, that his Government are ready to comply with the NATO decision.

  British Virgin Islands
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the real gross domestic product per capita in the British Virgin Islands in 1990 in US dollars.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The gross domestic product per capita of the British Virgin Islands in 1990 was $9,500. The Caribbean development bank estimate GDP per capita in 1992 to be $10,479 per capita.

  Armenia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the President of Armenia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  President Ter-Petrossian of Armenia visited the United Kingdom as a guest of the Government from 8 to 11 February. My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs called on him on 8 February for talks which touched on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, economic reform, Russia and the CIS. In addition, during his visit President Ter-Petrossian had an audience of Her Majesty the Queen, lunch and talks with my right honourable Friend the Prime Minister and meetings with other members of the Government.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Appointments to non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department are made as follows:
  711
  COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE:

  (a) Chairman and vice-chairman: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (b) Board members

  (i) All Commonwealth high commissioners in London (ex-officio)

  (ii) Representatives of educational, Commonwealth, commercial and industrial interests—appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (iii) Representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Department for Education and the Scottish Office Education Department—appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (iv) Commonwealth Secretary-General—co-opted by the board.

  COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION

  (a) Chairman: Appointed by heads of commonwealth Governments

  (b) Members of board: All high commissioners of member Commonwealth countries in London (ex-officio)

  WILTON PARK ACADEMIC COUNCIL

  (a) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (b) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  WILTON PARK DEPARTMENTAL BOARD

  (a) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (b) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  ANGLO-IRISH ENCOUNTER

  (a) British Co-chairman: the Prime Minister

  (b) Secretary: the chairman

  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY

  (a) The board

  (b) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIP COMMISSION

  (a) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (b) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE APPEAL BOARD

  (a) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (b) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  THE BRITISH COUNCIL

  (a) Elected by the Board of the Council with the previous approval of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (b) The Secretary of State may nominate two board members. With these exceptions all board members are elected by the board from persons proposed in writing by two board members

  THE GREAT BRITAIN-CHINA CENTRE

  (a) Elected by the executive committee. His or her proposed election to be approved by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  (b) The following have the right to nominate one person each to the executive committee: the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Education and the Director General of the British Council. Other members are elected by the executive committee of whom not less than five must be MPs

  THE BRITAIN-RUSSIA CENTRE

  (a) Elected by the members of the council.

  (b) Elected by the members of the council, of whom not less than 10 and not more than 20 must be MPs.

  BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

  (a) Elected by the governing body. His or her proposed election requires the approval of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  (b) The following have the right to nominate one person each to the governing body: the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Education and the Director General of the British Council. Other members are elected by the Government Council of whom not less than five must be MPs.

  MARHALL AID COMMEMORATION COMMISSION
  712
  (a) and (b) The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is responsible for making all appointments.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for each of the non-departmental bodies sponsored by his Department, whether the public has a statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings and to inspect(a) minutes of meetings, (b) the annual reports and (c) and annual accounts.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested is as follows:

  THE BRITISH COUNCIL

  The public has no statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings.

  (a) No.

  (b) and (c) The council is required to lodge basic information about itself with the Charities Commission to whom it sends its annual report and accounts.

  THE GREAT BRITAIN-CHINA CENTRE

  No statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) Yes

  (c) Yes

  THE CHINA-RUSSIA CENTRE

  No statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) Yes

  (c) Yes

  BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

  No statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) Yes

  (c) Yes

  MARSHALL AID COMMEMORATION COMMISSION

  No statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings

  (a) No, but those over 30 years old are available at the Public Record Office

  (b) and (c) Published by HMSO and available at the Public Records Office

  THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OVERSEAS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH

  No statutory right to attend board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) No

  (c) No

  INDIAN FAMILY PENSION FUNDS BODY OF COMMISSIONERS

  No statutory right to attend board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) No

  (c) No

  OVERSEAS SERVICE PENSIONS SCHEME ADVISORY BOARD

  No statutory right to attend board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) No

  (c) No

  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE APPEALS BOARD

  No statutory right to attend board meetings, there are no committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) There is no annual report

  (c) There is no expenditure

  ANGLO-IRISH ENCOUNTER

  No statutory right to attend board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) No

  (c) No

  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY

  No statutory right to attend all board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  713

  (b) Yes

  (c) Yes

  WILTON PARK ACADEMIC COUNCIL

  No statutory right to attend board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) There are no annual accounts or reports

  (c) There are no annual accounts or reports

  WILTON PARK DEPARTMENTAL BOARD

  No statutory right to attend board or committee meetings

  (a) No

  (b) There are no annual accounts or reports

  (c) There are no annual accounts or reports

  COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIP COMMISSION

  No statutory right to attend meetings

  (a) No

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94 (forecast)

  Britain-Russia Centre

  0·232

  0·208

  10·270

  0·211

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe1

  0·202

  0·206

  20·231

  0·226

  British Council3

  329·000

  301·000

  2292·000

  254·000

  Commonwealth Institutes, London and Edinburgh

  3·046

  2·820

  3·092

  3·558

  Great Britain-China Centre

  0·167

  0·192

  0·210

  0·208

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  0·984

  1·143

  1·271

  1·321

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  0

  0·200

  21·000

  1·937

  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission

  0·04

  0·07

  0·05

  0·05

  Note: Figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not shown. The former are subject to parliamentary approval of the supply estimates. It is too early to predict future years' expenditure on individual non-departmental public bodies.

  1 Includes grants-in-aid and project funding.

  2 Corrected figures: those published in "Public Bodies 1993" were erroneous.

  3 Includes an element for reimbursements by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—Diplomatic Wing/Overseas Development Administration—for agency expenditure, transfers to third parties. This is broken down as follows, in 1992–93 prices:

  £ million

  1990–91

  158

  1991–92

  148

  1992–93

  141

  1993–944

  118

  4 Forecast.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his opposite numbers in the European Union, concerning the democratic accountability of members of the Committee of the Regions to their respective regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the arrangements agreed by all member states in the Maastricht treaty—article 198—members of the Committee of the Regions"shall be completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the general interest of the European Community".
  The committee consists of representatives of regional and local bodies, and each British representative must be an elected member of a local authority, but
  "The members of the Committee may not be bound by any mandatory instructions."
  714

  (b) Yes

  (c) Yes

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Goodlad
  Gross public spending since 1990–91 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, was as follows, in 1992–93 prices:

  Korean Peninsula
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation on the Korean peninsula.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The situation on the Korean peninsula still gives cause for concern. We continue to urge North Korea to reach rapid agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on resumption of nuclear safeguards inspections.

  International Labour Organisation
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to remain in membership of the International Labour Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to withdraw from the International Labour Organisation.
  715

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Loyalist Paramilitaries
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to reassure the nationalist population of Northern Ireland that links between the security forces in Northern Ireland and loyalist paramilitaries do not exist.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Allegations of collusion between members of the security forces in Northern Ireland and loyalist paramilitaries were thoroughly investigated in 1989 by Mr. John Stevens, then deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire. As a result of his investigation, a number of persons were charged with criminal offences and convicted.

  The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Hugh Annesley, published a summary of Mr. Stevens' report in 1990. The report concluded that collusion was neither widespread nor institutionalised.

  The security forces in Northern Ireland carry out their duties in protecting the whole community with absolute impartiality. This is well illustrated by the figures relating to charges for terrorist-type offences. Last year alone 230 persons affiliated to loyalist paramilitary groups were charged with terrorist-type offences. The figure for republican terrorism was 137. This very fact alone should serve to reassure the Catholic community of the impartiality of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

TRANSPORT

  Railtrack
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by Railtrack in producing charges for access to the railway network.

  Mr. MacGregor
  From 1 April, Railtrack will assume responsibility for the provision of railway infrastructure and will need to charge operators for access to the network. Railtrack has produced estimates of access charges for all the train-operating units that will be formed in April and will now be discussing these with local managers. Discussions will also be held with passenger transport executives and others who sponsor passenger services. The charges announced today will establish charges for the first year of Railtrack's operation. any further changes for 1994–95 will be fine tuning only, after consultation with the train operators.

  The charges will reflect the true economic costs of providing rail infrastructure. They will allow Railtrack to recover its capital costs—depreciation and a return on assets—like any other business. Thus, for the first time, charges being made for track will be set in a transparent and commercially realistic manner.

  The access charges are consistent with the provision for railways expenditure already announced in the unified Budget, without any adverse effects on the level of fares,
  716
  services or investment. The franchising director will have sufficient grant to enable the BR train operating units which he supports to pay the new access charges. Special arrangements will apply to enable the PTEs to meet the track charges on the new basis.

  Over the past 12 months, Railtrack has engaged in a detailed exercise to identify the full economic cost of running trains on the rail network. Charges take into account the costs of particular parts of the network. Railtrack's charges have been set at a level that will generate sufficient revenue to ensure that the company can cover all its costs, which include the costs of maintaining and renewing the network, plus the cost of the capital employed in the business—the rate of return. Railtrack will therefore be able to invest in and maintain the railway to meet the demands being placed on it.

  Charges cover two broad elements of cost. First, are direct costs, which are the costs that operators' services impose on Railtrack. They include the cost of wear and tear, day-to-day maintenance and, where appropriate, the cost of the electricity used by electric trains. Where Railtrack is providing a section of track or other infrastructure solely for a particular operator, the full costs of renewing this element will be charged directly to that user. Secondly, there are "common costs", which are the costs that cannot be attributed to individual users—for example sections of track shared by two or more users. These costs are to be recovered from the train operating units and franchisees operating over the lines concerned according to an agreed formula which takes account of a range of factors including revenue from fares.

  Charges to non-franchised operators—principally freight operators—will be subject to commercial negotiation, but must at least cover direct costs.

  In common with other public sector undertakings, Railtrack's assets will be valued on a "modern equivalent asset value" basis, MEAV. The valuation will reflect the existing condition of assets and the cost of continuing to provide capacity broadly equivalent to that provided now.

  The rail regulator will consider and approve all access agreements entered into after 1 April 1994.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to the Landscape advisory committee.

  Mr. Key
  The current members of the committee are listed below:

  Professor David K. C. Jones BSc FRGS—appointed chairman 1993

  Sir Henry E. Aubrey-Fletcher

  Professor Mary Benwell B.A., PH.D., F.C.I.T.

  Dr. John A Bergg BSc phD C.ENG FICE

  Professor Gordon E. Cherry BA DSc (Hon) FRICS

  Mr. Len J. Clark CBE

  Mr. Geoffrey P. Crow BSc DipTE CEng FIHT MICE

  Ms E. Evans AA Dipl (Hons) SADG RIBA TP

  Mr. John V. S. Evans Dip.Arch DipLA RIBA ALI

  Mr. C. Richard Ferens MA (CANTAB) FRICS

  Professor Peter J. Fowler MA PHd FSA FRHistS MIFA

  Mr. Hugh J. R. Geddes MA RIBA MLA (USA)

  Mr. Arthur D. Gill

  Mrs. Janet Jack AA Dipl RIBA TP ALI

  Mrs. Patricia E. Lunn CGLI FRSA

  Ms Wendy M. Lutley MSc Adel (Econ Geol), BSc Lond (Geol)

  Mr. Jim M. McCluskey BSc (CIVIL ENG) MICE MISTRUCT MINT ALI

  Mr. Michael R. Porter OBE DIPLA FLI

  717

  Miss Wendy E. Powell MLA FLI

  Mrs. Valerie Russell BA (Hons)

  Mr. Martin O. Slocock BA

  Mr. Michael E. G. Taylor FCIT

  Mrs. Victoria R. Wakefield

  Mr. Roy W. Winter RIBA ALI DipArch DipLD

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to the Street Works Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Key
  The members of the Street Works Advisory Committee are:

  S. N. Mustow—(Chairman)

  J. L. Aston

  R. F. V. Aylott

  Mrs. M. J. Bloom

  D. G. Clow

  K. J. Crawley

  W. J. Dickens

  Mrs. J. Gaffin

  J. E. Holdsworth

  E. Jamieson

  F. D. J. Johnson

  Mrs. S. May

  D. L. Sabey

  J. P. Smith

  Miss P. A. Steel

  Mrs. J. Venables

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Norris
  The information in respect of the traffic director for London is as follows:

  1992–93 prices (to nearest million)

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  0

  Outturn

  1991–92

  1

  Outturn

  1992–93

  2

  Estimated outturn

  1993–94

  10

  Plans

  1994–95

  10

  Trinity house and the Northern Lighthouse Board are not Exchequer funded. Their operating costs are met from the general lighthouse fund which receives its income from the levy of light dues at United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland ports.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic director for London is a corporation sole and has no board. The director is appointed by my right hon. Friend.

  The chairman of Trinity House Lighthouse Service, THLS, is the deputy master of Trinity House and subject to annual re-election by the court of Trinity House. My right hon. Friend nominates three board members; three board members are elder brethren of Trinity House who are officers of THLS; and there are three non-voting board members who are employees of THLS.

  The chairman of the Northern Lighthouse Board is elected by the board. The board of the Northern Lighthouse
  718
  Board consists of the six sheriffs-principal of Scotland, two Ministers of the Crown—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland—two district council chairmen, the Lords Provost of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, a nominee of the Manx Government, and five members co-opted by the board. My right hon. Friend appoints the member proposed by the Manx Government representative as a constitutional convenience.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the present salary costs for the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency; and if he will give details of special bonus schemes in place for the incumbent and the tenure of appointment for the post holder;

  (2) if he will list the special bonus payments made to the previous chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Key
  The chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency is employed at a salary of £47,900 per annum. In addition, he is eligible for annual performance-related bonuses of up to 15 per cent., which will depend on his meeting or exceeding specific targets. The chief executive was appointed following an open competition on 1 September 1993 for a fixed term until 22 August 1996, which may be extended.

  Driver Safety Document
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the situation regarding the new driver safety consultation document; and what provisional conclusion he has reached.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 9 February 1994,Official Report, columns 270–71.

  Motorway Extensions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the economic and social cost of land safeguarded for possible future extensions to the motorway network.

  Mr. Key
  The purpose of safeguarding is to prevent development which would prove abortive if the scheme goes ahead, thus avoiding waste of resource and cost to the taxpayer. In so far as this in itself imposes economic and social costs, the statutory provisions on blight are aimed at compensating those who are affected.

  Motorway Cleaning
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 97, when the central reservation of the M1 in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire was last cleaned; when it will be cleaned; and what is the programme for cleaning.

  Mr. Key
  In Bedfordshire, the section between junctions 11 and 13 was cleaned during September and October 1993. South of junction 11, the motorway widening works have prevented the normal cleaning operations, but there will be a litter pick on Saturday 12 February and a full clean of the central reserve in the following week.
  719
  In Northamptonshire, daily inspections are carried out and any debris causing a safety hazard to road users is removed straightaway.

  On the short intervening section of M1 in Buckinghamshire, junctions 13 to 15, the drainage channel was last cleaned in December 1993 and scavenging was undertaken on 18 to 21 January 1994.

  The frequency of future cleaning will be in accordance with the code of practice on litter and refuse under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Motorway central reservations are a special case in the code because of the difficulties of access. In practice, the frequency of cleaning is likely to be about twice a year.

  Driving Theory Test
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the timetable for the introduction of the driving theory test; and which bodies will be prevented from bidding for the work associated with administering the test.

  Mr. Key
  The driving theory test will be introduced by 1st July 1996. We intend to contract out the operation of this test, but decisions have not yet been taken about the conditions of tendering for the contract.

  A6(M)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the time scale for completing the planning process and building the A6(M) bypass for Hazel Grove to Birmingham.

  Mr. Key
  Proposed changes to the scheme will require the published draft orders to be withdrawn. We are hoping to re-publish the orders later this year with a view to holding a public inquiry early next year. The time for completion will depend upon the outcome of the inquiry.

  Drinking and Driving
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned in order to assess the extent to which drivers aged 50 years and over have received the message that drinking and driving is not advisable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The reduction in drink driving by different groups of drivers is estimated by analysis of police breath test statistics and data supplied by coroners. This shows that drinking and driving among drivers aged 50 years and over has been falling at much the same rate as for drivers under the age of 50.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department first and last received representations from the British Medical Association for random breath testing as a major means of reducing drunk driving; and if he will estimate the reduction in drink drive deaths(a) during that period and (b) from the peak to the present day.

  Mr. Key
  Records are not available to show the date when the British Medical Association first made a representation to the Department of Transport on random breath testing.

  Estimates are made annually of the number of fatal casualties in accidents where at least one driver exceeded
  720
  the legal alcohol limit. In 1978, the earliest year for which reliable data are available, the number was 1,650 and numbers in each subsequent year have been below this. In 1992, the most recent year available, the provisional estimate is 610, a reduction of 63 per cent. compared with 1978.

  Vehicles (Catalytic Converters)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what is the estimated number of vehicles in the United Kingdom; and what proportion of those vehicles have catalytic converters.

  Mr. Key
  About 25 million vehicles are currently licensed to use United Kingdom roads. Estimates based on industry sources and Department of Transport data on new vehicle registrations indicate roughly 11 per cent., or about 2·75 million vehicles are fitted with catalytic converters. Exact figures are not available.

  Accident Records
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has undertaken into the effectiveness of computerised accident records in improved road safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department keeps computerised records of all road injury accidents recorded by the police. These are extensively used in developing and monitoring road safety policy. These records are enhanced by linking them to coroners' records of road accident fatalities and research is under way to explore the possibility of developing a link with hospital casualty data.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for taking action against untaxed motor vehicles and motor vehicles that have been abandoned and are on the public highway.

  Mr. Key
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, DVLA, administers and enforces the vehicle licensing regime. A pre-requisite to successful enforcement action is a formal sighting of the vehicle on a public road without a valid tax disc. The police and traffic wardens play a vital role in this process. They detect apparently unlicensed vehicles as part of their normal duties and report them to the DVLA for appropriate enforcement action.

  Local authorities, together with the police, have powers under the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 to deal with vehicles that are illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, abandoned or broken down. Their powers do not extend to vehicles simply because they are unlicensed. Where abandoned vehicles are also unlicensed, DVLA works with local authorities in identifying those persons responsible and in bringing them to book.

  Truck Drivers
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport is he will delay the implementation of the EU directive on disbarring insulin-dependent truck drivers until he has analysed the report on the three-year study of the subject currently being carried out by the USA's Federal Highway Administration.
  721
  Mr. Key
  The second EC directive on driver licensing has been agreed and is to be implemented by July 1996. The present advice from the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes is that to allow insulin-treated diabetics to drive large vehicles would constitute an unnecessary risk to road safety. The panel will reconsider this advice in the light of the USA's Federal Highway Administration's report as soon as it becomes available.

  Vehicles (Rear Impact Tests)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what data his Department collects on passenger injuries resulting from impacts to the rear of vehicles;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce rear impact safety tests for vehicles;

  (3) what representations he has received about the safety of rear-facing children's seats in cars.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has two main sources for the collection of accident and injury data—the "STATS 19 Road Accident Report" which forms the basis of the Department's annual publication "Road Accidents Great Britain" and an ongoing co-operative crash injury study sponsored jointly by the Department and certain vehicle manufacturers. Details of injuries resulting from rear impacts are included as a matter of course in both. In addition the Department has recently set up a two-year study to investigate the long-term effect of whiplash injuries.

  The Department is currently carrying out research into the possibility of developing a test procedure to simulate rear-end accidents which offers the prospect of a reduction in casualties.

  We have not received any representations specifically about the safety of rear-facing child seats. Such restraints are the safest way of transporting very young children although their use on the front seat of a vehicle fitted with a passenger air bag is inadvisable.

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

  Mr. Key
  My predecessor made one trip abroad in 1993.

  Place

  Purpose

  Cost

  Amsterdam

  To attend the European Conference of Ministers for Transport

  £341·52

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

  Mr. Norris
  The Minister of State for Aviation and Shipping made the following visits abroad last year:

  Place

  Purpose

  Cost (£)

  Brussels

  To attend EC Transport Council

  567·82

  Dublin

  To attend meeting on shipping developments with Irish Ministers

  254·00

  Brussels

  To attend EC Transport Council

  560·00

  722

  Place

  Purpose

  Cost(£)

  Paris

  To attend Paris air show

  242·10

  Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt

  To visit European airports

  874·30

  Brussels

  To attend EC Transport Council and various aviation visits in Brussels and Maastricht

  434·38

  Hong Kong

  To attend conference on aviation security and various aviation and shipping visits

  3,733·27

  Brussels

  To attend EC Transport Council

  390·28

  Child Accidents
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents children have had on the roads in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Key
  The number of injury road accidents involving children since 1987 are as follows:

  Number

  1987

  40,657

  1988

  41,430

  1989

  43,147

  1990

  43,620

  1991

  39,987

  1992

  39,340

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money his Department has spent on measures designed to prevent road accidents to children for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Key
  Many aspects of our road safety programme contribute to improving child road safety as well as that of other road users. In addition to measures such as cycle training or road safety education directed specifically at children, they also benefit from the construction of safer roads and vehicles and from improved driver behaviour. It is not, therefore, possible to calculate what proportion of the expenditure should be attributed to the prevention of road accidents to children.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the grounds for compassionate compensation due to the channel tunnel rail link; and what arrangements are available for appeals against decisions to refuse such claims.

  Mr. Freeman
  Purchase will be considered by Union Railways for homes that are likely to experience operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation. There needs to be proven financial hardship in buying another property necessitated by a job move beyond commuting distance, medical problems, or family dissolution. There can be other hardship grounds and cases are looked at individually. The scheme is not a statutory requirement and decisions are entirely at the discretion of Union Railways.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce safeguarding arrangements for properties affected by the proposed high-speed channel tunnel rail link.
  723
  Mr. Freeman
  In the next few weeks.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether decisions about safeguarding and compensation for properties affected by the proposed high-speed channel tunnel rail link will be made by Union Railways, or by his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The safeguarding directions will be made by the Secretary of State with the benefit of advice from Union Railways on the land to be included in the safeguarded zone. Union Railways has said that it will accept applications for voluntary purchase of owner-occupied homes within the safeguarded zone. Outside the zone it will consider in cases of hardship the purchase of homes likely to experience operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation.

  Stratford
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of Union Railways to discuss the case for an international station at Stratford.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met representatives of Union Railways to discuss a number of matters related to the channel tunnel rail link on 2 February. At that meeting, I asked Union

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £000

  Per cent.

  £000

  Per cent

  £000

  Per cent

  City of London

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barking

  0

  0·0

  867

  30·9

  399

  35·2

  Barnet

  0

  0·0

  140

  9·5

  175

  6·7

  Bexley

  0

  0·0

  847

  12·5

  1,103

  13·7

  Brent

  0

  0·0

  287

  12·0

  828

  30·2

  Bromley

  212

  3·6

  420

  7·2

  432

  22·8

  Camden

  1,617

  33·1

  1,566

  35·8

  1,139

  28·0

  Croydon

  0

  0·0

  1,480

  22·5

  1,144

  22·7

  Ealing

  0

  0·0

  285

  7·1

  386

  11·8

  Enfield

  0

  0·0

  270

  4·0

  309

  5·6

  Greenwich

  379

  35·6

  510

  26·2

  477

  18·3

  Hackney

  185

  5·9

  385

  13·2

  600

  17·9

  Hammersmith

  0

  0·0

  420

  13·1

  761

  13·8

  Haringey

  255

  6·5

  1,270

  36·3

  1,012

  32·0

  Harrow

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  318

  3·7

  Havering

  0

  0·0

  90

  6·5

  69

  7·9

  Hillingdon

  0

  0·0

  170

  1·3

  278

  5·4

  Hounslow

  0

  0·0

  215

  3·8

  414

  7·4

  Islington

  900

  36·0

  730

  28·1

  935

  29·9

  Kensington

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  142

  12·3

  Kingston

  820

  30·7

  563

  20·3

  472

  13·5

  Lambeth

  145

  17·6

  255

  19·7

  537

  31·1

  Lewisham

  100

  0·8

  50

  0·6

  231

  2·3

  Merton

  250

  11·6

  140

  4·9

  189

  10·9

  Newham

  30

  0·4

  140

  1·4

  204

  1·8

  Redbridge

  0

  0·0

  765

  34·0

  535

  31·7

  Richmond

  41

  4·3

  111

  8·6

  200

  10·3

  Southwark

  0

  0·

  0

  0·

  381

  9·9

  Sutton

  150

  9·4

  170

  6·2

  180

  7·8

  Tower Hamlets

  1,847

  62·4

  6,995

  77·3

  3,440

  64·0

  Waltham Forest

  170

  8·1

  415

  14·4

  251

  10·0

  Wandsworth

  275

  4·8

  503

  8·7

  664

  10·4

  Westminster

  570

  8·9

  480

  8·9

  336

  9·1

  Bolton

  550

  15·1

  1,015

  26·1

  722

  19·6

  Bury

  300

  23·7

  630

  31·7

  688

  30·4

  Manchester

  779

  4·1

  1,330

  4·9

  1,363

  5·5

  Oldham

  200

  1·6

  775

  8·7

  779

  15·2

  Rochdale

  500

  30·8

  315

  15·3

  686

  28·3

  Salford

  970

  23·2

  940

  26·2

  964

  32·7

  Stockport

  222

  5·9

  350

  7·5

  955

  19·8

  Tameside

  431

  15·0

  1,285

  38·4

  938

  48·6

  Trafford

  140

  2·6

  290

  5·5

  251

  2·2

  Wigan

  435

  10·0

  370

  20·6

  536

  37·9

  Knowsley

  456

  3·2

  860

  3·8

  953

  4·9

  724
  Railways to discuss further with the Stratford promoter group the assumptions underlying its case, and to report back to me.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated monthly loss of revenue to Eurotunnel as a result of the delay in operating services.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for Eurotunnel.

  Road Repairs
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of what sums have been allocated in each of the last five years to highway authorities for the repair of principal roads; and what that amount represented as an overall proportion of money allocated to local highway authorities.

  Mr. Key
  As explained in my answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 756, transport supplementary grant and credit approvals were first allocated for structural maintenance of principal roads forming part of the primary route network in 1992–93 and were extended to cover all principal roads in 1993–94. Allocations for structural maintenance, and the proportion they represent of the total resources allocated under the TSG system, are as follows:
  725

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £000

  Per cent.

  £000

  Per cent.

  £000

  Per cent.

  Liverpool

  1,400

  54·2

  1,500

  31·4

  2,200

  36·6

  St. Helens

  95

  0·7

  160

  3·2

  142

  19·7

  Sefton

  378

  25·3

  550

  26·5

  185

  16·5

  Wirral

  190

  4·9

  360

  7·4

  259

  8·4

  Barnsley

  536

  6·3

  565

  11·2

  750

  11·3

  Doncaster

  1,445

  19·1

  1,421

  19·6

  1,129

  18·1

  Rotherham

  219

  5·2

  522

  15·3

  478

  10·0

  Sheffield

  1,000

  4·8

  2,711

  10·1

  2,773

  13·8

  Gateshead

  185

  3·0

  275

  10·4

  300

  22·2

  Newcastle

  541

  12·1

  736

  10·1

  1,300

  14·0

  North Tyneside

  200

  21·5

  840

  49·9

  650

  38·4

  South Tyneside

  93

  7·2

  385

  20·4

  560

  42·5

  Sunderland

  1,044

  16·5

  2,006

  37·9

  1,482

  39·7

  Birmingham

  2,000

  7·2

  4,392

  11·4

  3,196

  8·9

  Coventry

  854

  8·1

  825

  5·9

  406

  2·8

  Dudley

  670

  8·8

  1,400

  13·2

  1,256

  12·8

  Sandwell

  1,555

  28·6

  1,740

  30·4

  1,644

  32·4

  Solihull

  125

  4·9

  120

  3·2

  151

  4·7

  Walsall

  110

  0·6

  770

  3·4

  755

  4·4

  Wolverhampton

  460

  4·8

  880

  4·8

  791

  4·2

  Bradford

  1,000

  18·4

  2,100

  31·4

  1,454

  20·2

  Calderdale

  352

  31·7

  1,277

  44·2

  2,262

  66·3

  Kirklees

  1,795

  35·8

  3,510

  39·3

  2,609

  36·9

  Leeds

  1,000

  9·7

  6,086

  26·8

  3,271

  17·7

  Wakefield

  827

  25·2

  1,686

  39·0

  1,300

  38·0

  Avon

  2,530

  9·3

  2,470

  11·2

  1,660

  8·9

  Bedfordshire

  777

  16·4

  1,210

  15·8

  1,041

  20·7

  Berkshire

  1,370

  11·3

  2,150

  16·9

  1,346

  13·2

  Buckinghamshire

  1,350

  26·1

  2,190

  31·6

  1,412

  43·4

  Cambridgeshire

  1,410

  22·2

  2,555

  24·1

  1,801

  26·8

  Cheshire

  4,480

  19·0

  7,520

  29·0

  5,429

  24·7

  Cleveland

  856

  8·0

  1,940

  12·8

  1,715

  13·5

  Cornwall

  1,490

  12·9

  2,340

  20·0

  2,008

  17·8

  Cumbria

  1,916

  37·9

  2,100

  24·6

  1,426

  28·9

  Derbyshire

  1,592

  26·8

  1,810

  21·6

  1,394

  26·9

  Devon

  2,570

  26·7

  4,040

  30·7

  3,893

  39·2

  Dorset

  400

  5·1

  1,295

  16·4

  926

  15·5

  Durham

  1,106

  10·9

  1,255

  9·5

  1,252

  11·2

  East Sussex

  890

  9·2

  1,963

  18·7

  1,913

  23·2

  Essex

  1,652

  12·0

  2,588

  15·6

  2,949

  15·3

  Gloucestershire

  1,054

  11·4

  1,500

  16·5

  1,409

  17·0

  Hampshire

  1,200

  4·0

  4,985

  11·7

  4,183

  14·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,332

  16·1

  2,030

  38·1

  1,744

  47·8

  Hertfordshire

  500

  3·7

  2,870

  16·0

  1,954

  16·3

  Humberside

  2,342

  13·4

  3,856

  18·3

  3,035

  17·5

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0·0

  600

  18·4

  594

  19·9

  Kent

  4,340

  5·9

  7,879

  10·5

  7,273

  7·7

  Lancashire

  2,004

  6·7

  2,160

  9·8

  3,381

  12·8

  Leicestershire

  2,240

  13·5

  1,915

  15·5

  2,011

  26·5

  Lincolnshire

  1,360

  17·2

  2,027

  18·9

  2,146

  28·9

  Norfolk

  2,616

  16·6

  3,542

  19·0

  2,730

  19·1

  Northamptonshire

  3,431

  29·3

  3,800

  36·1

  2,076

  33·8

  Northumberland

  1,007

  14·8

  2,210

  19·2

  1,998

  25·7

  North Yorkshire

  2,332

  14·2

  4,575

  19·7

  3,752

  24·0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,733

  17·0

  3,530

  27·4

  2,990

  27·9

  Oxfordshire

  1,789

  15·2

  1,833

  15·5

  1,791

  34·7

  Shropshire

  1,109

  13·4

  1,750

  25·2

  1,680

  37·5

  Somerset

  710

  8·2

  1,733

  12·2

  1,390

  13·3

  Staffordshire

  4,000

  46·2

  5,420

  35·7

  4,323

  30·0

  Suffolk

  2,411

  19·3

  3,050

  25·4

  3,075

  32·9

  Surrey

  443

  1·8

  2,712

  8·0

  3,484

  13·4

  Warwickshire

  560

  14·3

  1,050

  19·0

  1,710

  38·0

  West Sussex

  1,375

  16·0

  1,738

  19·3

  1,859

  26·5

  Wiltshire

  0

  0·0

  1,292

  30·0

  1,348

  33·7

  Stansted Airport
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit businesses in Cambridge to discuss the need for transatlantic air services from London Stansted airport.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has no plans at present to visit Cambridge.
  726

  Chemicals (Labelling)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in negotiations relating to acceptance by the EU of the hazchem label; and if he will make a detailed statement.

  Mr. Key
  The European Commission's published proposal—COM(93) 548—for a Council directive to apply the provisions of the European agreement concerning the
  727
  international carriage of dangerous goods by road, ADR, to domestic transport includes a provision which would allow the continued use of existing emergency acton codes for domestic journeys until an internationally agreed code is developed. This would allow the continued use of the hazchem placard in the United Kingdom and the Commission is known to favour this as the basis for a new international code.

  Consideration of the proposed directive has begun under the Greek Presidency. We shall seek to ensure that the proposed derogation is retained in the final agreed text.

  Transatlantic Air Travel
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to conclude the present round of negotiations with the United States of America regarding a new liberalised air service agreement.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the current negotiations with the United States of America on the transatlantic air travel bilateral restrictions started; and when he expects them to be concluded.

  Mr. Norris
  United States Transportation Secretary Pena and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met on 19 April last year and agreed to try to reach a new, more liberal agreement within a year. That is still the time scale we are working to.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the effect on revenue to United Kingdom airlines of granting United States airlines free access to United Kingdom regional airports and the effect on the economies of the regions.

  Mr. Norris
  The CAA has estimated that the revenue loss to United Kingdom airlines of granting United States airlines free access to United Kingdom regional airports is in the region of £23 million per annum. There are benefits to consumers and local economies in the regions although these are difficult to quantify.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what survey has been carried out by his Department or the Civil Aviation Authority on how many passengers per year from the Stansted airport catchment area fly to the United States of America from(a) Stansted and (b) other British airports.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority conducted an origin and destination survey at five London airports—Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted—between January and December 1991. Its findings were published in January 1993 in CAP 610, "Passengers at London Airports in 1991".

  The catchment area of an airport is impossible to define with precision; this is particularly so when a number of airports serve the same locality. Of the 1·3 million passengers using Stansted to make international journeys in 1991, 18 per cent. travelled to or from points in Essex, 8 per cent. Hertfordshire, 23 per cent. East Anglia with the largest proportion, 34 per cent. travelled from or to Greater London. Comparable figures for Gatwick's 16·2 million passengers making international journeys were 4 per cent. Essex, 2 per cent. Hertfordshire, 3 per cent. East Anglia
  728
  and 42 per cent. Greater London. For Heathrow's 25 million passengers making international journeys the figures were 1·8 per cent. Essex, 2·7 per cent. Hertfordshire, 2·4 per cent. East Anglia and 54·9 per cent. Greater London.

  During the London survey period there were no scheduled services to the United States from Stansted. A route to Chicago by American Airlines began in June 1992 but ceased in May 1993 having carried 65,000 passengers. Some 29,000 passengers travelled on charter services between Stansted and Orlando in 1991 and 20,000 in 1992.

  No specific analysis has been carried out on the proportion of passengers from the Stansted Airport catchment area flying to or from the United States.

  British Rail
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has now reflected on the legal opinion quoted by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing during the debate on the Adjournment on 13 January,Official Report, columns 425–29; and if British Rail will revise its leaflet on the subject of compensation for noise and vibration.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to Tonbridge and Mailing borough council for making available a copy of the counsel's opinion.

  The passages quoted from the opinion were concerned with the interpretation of section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Among other issues, that section provides in appropriate circumstances for claims to be payable in respect of compensation for depreciation in the value of properties arising as a consequence of certain railway works. These works fall into two categories: works which have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used—dealt with in subsection (1)(b) of the section—and works in respect of which there has been a change of use—dealt with in subsection (1)(c). Subsection (7) of the section goes on to state that references in the section to a change of use do not include references to the intensification of an existing use.

  Counsel made the point that it follows from these provisions that changes of use which are limited to intensification of the use of existing lines do not give rise to compensation, whereas reconstructions, extensions and other alterations may do so. The Government see no reason to dissent from this interpretation. In the debate, my right hon. Friend sought to suggest that a contrary view had been taken by Ministers in previous debates in Parliament. More specifically, he referred to what I said in the debate on 19 June 1991 about provisions in the 1973 Act not applying if the amount of the traffic on a road or railway were to increase. Those comments need to be read in the context of my statement as a whole. This related to a proposal to introduce a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to pay compensation in cases of injurious affection arising from the intensification of operations by the British Railways Board. I went on to stress the clear distinction between
  "the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works".—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 345–46.]

  As reflected in that statement, I fully recognise that compensation may be payable where existing railway lines are reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have first been used and where it can be shown that

  729
  depreciation has resulted from physical factors, such as noise and vibration, caused by their use. It is for individuals to make claims where they consider that such depreciation has occurred and for the responsible authority, currently British Rail, to address those claims. In the event of a dispute, there is provision for reference to the Lands Tribunal, and the possibility thereafter of appeal to the courts.

  On the question of the British Rail leaflet, the board is studying the issues which have been raised so as to determine whether to amend the leaflet. Department of Transport officials will keep in close touch with BR on this and I will make a further statement on this matter shortly.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date his review of the technical and cost implications of seat belts in coaches and minibuses was announced; what is the timescale for its completion; and if he will publish the full results of this review.

  Mr. Key
  Work began on reviewing the full technical and cost implications of the compulsory fitment of seat belts in minibuses and coaches during November 1993. I expect to receive a report within the next few weeks. I cannot anticipate when decisions will be taken; but we shall be publishing our conclusions.

  European Aviation
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the report on European aviation by the Comité des Sages; and what steps he is taking to ensure the recommendations are implemented by all members of the European Union.

  Mr. Norris
  I warmly welcome the publication of the report of the Commité des Sages and, in particular, its commitment to the implementation of the single market. It offers a useful assessment of the position of European air transport and emphasises a number of key areas where improvements need to be made. Specifically, I endorse whole-heartedly the report's conclusions on reducing Government intervention in airlines' commercial decisions. I also support the report's general views on state aids and have urged the Commission to ensure that these are reflected in the revision of its own guidelines on state aids in this sector. However, there are a number of other recommendations on which the United Kingdom has reservations, including the need for a new European body for air traffic control.

  It will, of course, be for the Commission to take forward implementation of the report's recommendations and put forward proposals to the Council of Ministers where appropriate. I shall, however, be pressing the Commission to take action on the report's key recommendations on the implementation of the single market.

  Malaysian Airways
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what compensation was paid to British Airways for giving up landing rights at Heathrow in favour of Malaysian Airways; what was the Government's role in the negotiations leading to this concession; and from what funds compensation was provided.
  730
  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom has liberal air services arrangements with Malaysia which permit the airlines of either side to operate up to a maximum proportion of the total air services operated by United Kingdom and Malaysia airlines. Following airline discussions in 1989, as commercial agreement was made between British Airways and MAS concerning the operation of a further service by the Malaysian airline. The two Governments then agreed to vary the arrangements to enable that airline to operate the further service. The Government are not privy to the details of the commercial agreement between the two airlines. No public funding formed part of the air services arrangements.

  Vehicle Excise Offences
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by DVLA local office for the last five years how many excise offence reports have been received during the last year; how many have resulted in (i) out of court settlement, or (ii) a successful prosecution; and what were the amounts raised by out of court settlements and prosecutions.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 9 February 1994]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Air Quantity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the second report of the quality of urban air review group on diesel vehicle emissions and urban air quality were printed; at what cost; and to whom they were distributed.

  Mr. Atkins
  Two thousand copies of the second report of the quality of urban air review group on diesel emissions and urban air quality were printed at a cost of £1 1,412. The report has been distributed to:

  the Environment Select Committee,

  the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Chief Environment Health Officers in England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland,

  Industry,

  Environmental Interest Groups,

  Respiratory Health Interest Groups,

  National and motoring press,

  Government Research Institutes,

  Universities,

  and a number of interested individuals.

  Copies were also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he or his officials have had with his counterpart in the Irish Republic over the past year in regard to the quantity and type of toxic waste imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic.

  Mr. Atkins
  My hon. Friend the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside met the Irish Environmental Protection Minister on 15 July last year, when a number of issues were discussed including the Irish Republic's plans for disposing of its hazardous waste.
  731

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for wind farms have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected since 1984.

  Mr. Baldry
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Groundwork Foundation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of spending for 1993–94 of the grant-in-aid given to the Groundwork Foundation, showing how much money was forwarded by the foundation to Groundwork trusts and how much was used by the Groundwork Foundation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Groundwork Foundation's grant allocation for 1993–94 is £5,516,000, of which the foundation expects to pay £3,792,014 in total to Groundwork Trusts. The foundation estimates that it will pay £1,994,318 as contributions towards the running costs of the trusts, £1,472,696 as grants for specific projects and £325,000 towards the purchase of computer systems. In addition, the foundation will spend £205,000 on training costs for the benefit of trust personnel. The foundation estimates that its own staffing and support costs will be £1,518,986.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the staff employed by the Groundwork Foundation in the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 with their annual salaries; and if he will list the dates at which new staff were taken on.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Groundwork Foundation employed 17 staff in 1991–92 and the total cost of salaries was £663,693. In 1992–93 it employed 33 staff and salaries totalled £888,355. I am obtaining the more detailed breakdown the hon. Member has requested and shall write to him.

  Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table indicating the number of jobs created by(a) Teesside urban development corporation and (b) Tyne and Wear urban development corporation in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of gross jobs, direct and indirect, created by the Teesside and Tyne and Wear development corporations is as follows:

  TDC

  TWDC

  1987–88

  N/a

  1,485

  1988–89

  600

  7,670

  1989–90

  2,600

  1387

  1990–91

  2,800

  1,500

  1991–92

  3,000

  4,452

  1992–93

  3,123

  3,814

  1 The 1989–90 figure does not include shipyard and other related job losses.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will supply for each financial year since 1987 the amount of grant aid given by his Department to(a) Teesside urban development corporation and (b) Tyne and Wear urban development corporation.
  732
  Mr. Baldry
  Grant in aid paid to the Teesside and Tyne and Wear urban development corporations is as follows:

  £ million

  TDC

  TWDC

  1987–88

  5·0

  4·0

  1988–89

  20·7

  24·0

  1989–90

  36·0

  35·8

  1990–91

  42·1

  37·8

  1991–92

  56·2

  40·5

  1992–93

  40·3

  44·1

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of private sector investments was attracted by(a) Teesside urban development corporation and (b) Tyne and Wear urban development corporation broken down to show (i) United Kingdom investment and (ii) overseas inward investment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The amount of private secrtor investment in the Tyne and Wear and Teesside urban development corporation areas during the lifetime of the corporations up to 31 December 1993 was as follows:

  £million

  TDC

  TWDC

  United Kingdom investment

  591

  559

  Overseas inward investment

  77

  25

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for asssessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the current financial year my Department has conducted two advertising campaigns with budgeted costs in excess of £10,000. These campaigns are:

  Helping the Earth Begins at Home
  The objective of this campaign was to create a link between domestic energy consumption and global warming, and to reduce energy use. The campaign focused on raising awareness of energy efficiency methods and encouraging energy efficient behaviour among householders.
  Rent to Mortgage
  The objective of the campaign was to inform qualifying tenants of the new rent-to-mortgage scheme.

  The effectiveness of these campaigns was assessed by market research and coupon/telephone responses.

  At the present time the only campaign planned for 1994–95 with a budget exceeding £10,000 is:
  Helping the Earth Begins at Home

  The Department's agencies have not run any advertising campaigns with a budget in excess of £10,000 in the current financial year and there are currently no plans for campaigns in 1994–95.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will itemise the costs of setting up each of the new regional offices under the single regeneration budget.
  733
  Mr. Baldry
  The new Government offices for the regions will come into existence in April and, although detailed arrangements are still being worked out, our intention is that there should be no resultant increase in the cost of central Government.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the senior regional directors who will be running the offices which administer the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 8 February column 145.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are to be employed in each of the new single regeneration budget regional offices.

  Mr. Baldry
  Some 2,752 staff are currently employed in the existing regional offices of the Departments of the Environment, Employment, Trade and Industry and Transport. This figure excludes Department of Transport staff who will transfer to the Highways Agency from 1 April. No final decision on the complement of each new regional office has yet been taken.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the salary of each regional director of the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  Each senior regional director, with the exception of the London appointee, is to be paid at the appropriate personal point on the grade 3 national pay range (currently £51,360–09,599). An announcement about the appointment of a senior regional director for London will be made in due course.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on City Challenge.

  Mr. Baldry
  Thirty-one city challenge partnerships are currently implementing their five-year programmes for regeneration. At the end of the first full year of operation the key achievements of the 11 pacemaker partnerships were:

  3,154 dwellings completed/improved,

  2,712 jobs created/preserved,

  114 hectares of land improved,

  78,254 sq.m of new/improved business and commercial floorspace,

  269 new business start-ups.

  It is estimated that, over the five years, £1,162 million of City Challenge funding will attract private sector investment of £3,100 million.

  Environmental Audits
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify the outstanding problems relating to the details of the EC directive on environmental audits, mentioned in his speech of 7 February,Official Report, column 78.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no problems with the EC regulation on eco-management and audit. We are making good progress in setting up the arrangements to implement 734
  the eco-management and audit scheme in the United Kingdom and aim to have it fully operational by April/May 1995. My right hon. Friend's comments were made in response to a question on the EIA directive (85/337/EEC).

  The Government are committed to the principle of environment impact assessment, but we are concerned about inconsistent application within the Community, as described in the Commission's five-year report on the implementation of the EIA directive. Explanatory memoranda were submitted to the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation on 19 May 1993 and 10 January 1994. The Government will therefore be urging the Commission to concentrate on securing fuller implementation of the directive before introducing substantial new requirements.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will provide details of the contents and date of dispatch of the United Kingdom report to the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will shortly be placing a copy of the report in the Library at the time it is submitted to the United Nations Commission.

  Biodiversity Action Plan
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to ensure that the review of the Countryside Commission and English Nature does not delay the implementation of measures to conserve biodiversity in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government published the first United Kingdom biodiversity action plan on 25 January. The study into bringing together English Nature and the Countryside Commission is being conducted in the light of our commitments to biodiversity and sustainable development, on which we are determined to make early and sustained progress. Bringing together these two bodies will ensure that institutional arrangements assist with the delivery of those objectives. It will be important to ensure that the study does not cause a loss of momentum in carrying forward the policies and programmes of either of the two agencies concerned. It is for that reason that I aim to complete it within six months.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 6, regarding the carbon dioxide emission implications of the latest GATT, if he will publish the outline of the calculations which led to his conclusions.

  Mr. Atkins
  As my hon. Friend the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside indicated in his answer of 11 January at column 6, the interngovernmental panel on climate change will be evaluating projections of world greenhouse gas emissions including the impact of the GATT agreement, for its second assessment report due to be published in 1995.
  735

  Council Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make interest payable on overpayments of council tax where appeals have not been settled within six months.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Shredders
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria used for shredding documents in departmental shredders; and how many documents a day typically are shredded.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no departmental criteria: shredding provides one way of disposing of certain categories of classified documents. Information as to the numbers of documents shredded in a typical day could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the local authority associations to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State expects to meet representatives of the local authority associations before the summer to discuss the local government finance settlement for 1995–96.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that any deregulation proposals concerning the environment and land use will be subject to an environmental assessment as part of the scrutiny procedure.

  Mr. Baldry
  The deregulation initiative is intended to minimise the burden of regulatory controls on business, while nevertheless maintaining necessary environmental standards.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to respond to the fourth report from the Environment Select Committee of 1992–93, on energy efficiency in buildings, HC 648.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today arranged for copies of the Government's response to the environment Select Committee's report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Toxic Emissions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with ReChem about sources of toxic emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had discussions with ReChem about sources of toxic emissions. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) has, and continues to be in regular contact with ReChem regarding the authorisation and operation of its incinerators.
  736

  Banana Producers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will press for the immediate implementation of the aid regime promised as a concomitant arrangement to the change in the banana regime for the Windward Islands, Dominica and Belize.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are funds for assistance in the European Community 1994 Budget, which has already been approved. We are working closely with the Commission to assess how these can best be used to assist the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

PRIME MINISTER

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 414, who will be signing the reply to the chief executive of Manchester Airport plc in regard to liberalising access to regional airports; and if he will place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's private secretary replied on 11 February. It is not my right hon. Friend's normal practice to place copies of such letters in the Library.

  Pan Am 103
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the Government of Malta about the feasibility of staging a trial under Scottish rules of evidence of the two Libyan nationals alleged to have been involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received no such representations.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 February.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Moscow for a series of meetings including meetings with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committees on Telecommunications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The members of the Advisory Committees on Telecommuncations for Scotland (SACOT), Wales (WACOT) and Northern Ireland (NIACT) as at 21 January 1994 are as follows:
  737
  Members of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications as at 21 January 1994

  Mr. William K.Begg, OBE (Chairman)

  Mrs. Joan M. Dickson

  Mr. David A. Gardner

  Mrs. Christine J. Jones

  Mr. Peter Michie

  Mr. John Purvis, CBE

  Dr. Eleanor M. Steiner

  Professor Howard Williams

  Mr. Peter Wilson, JP

  Mr. Edward Young

  Members of the Welsh Advisory Committee Telecommunications as at 21 January 1994

  Professor Michael D. Tedd (Chairman)

  Mr. John Bannon

  Mrs. Pamela J.Blackwell

  Mr. Donald R. Dutton JP

  Mr. Graham S.Hall

  Mr. Gwynfor Jones

  Mr. Dennis T. Jones

  Mr. John Lloyd-Jones

  Mr. Jeffrey C. Maynard

  Mr. Lawrence Murphy

  Professor John J. O'Reilly

  Miss Gwyneth M. Williams

  Members of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee Telecommunications as at 21 January 1994

  Mr. Joseph L. C. Thomson (Chairman)

  Mr. Walter Carruthers OBE

  Mrs. Susan C.Hogg

  Mr. James A. Kerr

  Mr. James O. Mcdonald MBE

  Mr. William J. H. McPherson

  Mr. Gary E. Mills

  Mrs. May Noble

  Mr. John D. Thompson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Post Office UF,us National Council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The members of the Post Office Users National Council as at 21 January 1994 are:

  Mr. Thomas S. Corrigan (Chairman)

  Mr. Frederick C. Bell

  Mr. Eric R. Distin

  Mr. Roger E. Gooding

  Mr. John P. Hackney

  Mr. Gary R. Hepburn

  Mrs. Jacqueline Highe

  Mr. Keith Hitchings

  Mr. Peter J. Middleton

  Mr. David B. Morris

  Councillor Julia E. Price

  Dr. Stephanie Stray

  Mr. Edward T. Vidler

  Mr. Dennis S. Wilson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the persons hearing consumer credit licensing appeals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following is the list of people from which panels are appointed to hear determinations by the Director General of revoking a consumer credit licence or application for a consumer credit licence.

  G. B. L. Brown, BA

  Professor G. Hornsey, LLM

  J. W. Browne

  M. G. Clarke, MA, LLB

  C. Lowson, MBE, MSc

  Professor M. Gaskin

  Dr. R. A. McCreadie, LLB, PhD

  Mrs. H. P. Scott, OBE, JP, BA, LLB

  O. Edwards, MBE, JP

  738

  Dr. B. E. Marsh

  Professor B. W. Harvey MA, LLM

  Professor D. L. Foulkes, JP, BA, LLM

  R. Davies, DPA

  G. G. Hibbert

  J. D. Montgomery, LLB, LCM

  J. M. Bowers, OBE

  P. M. Leonard

  Mrs. L. A. Service, JP, MA

  P. Simmonds

  Professor R. M. Goode, CBE, OBE D. Caruth

  A. W. Bradley

  C J. Messer

  D. W. Hay

  Ms S. K. Ward, BA

  Mrs. J. Stone

  M. R. Bone

  Professor E. J. Griew, MA, LLB

  Professor D. Thompson, LLB, PhD

  D. Pattison

  R. Brazier, JP, LLB

  G. Buckley

  E.D. B. Williams

  Professor J. Farrand, LLB, LLM

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the on National Consumer Council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Details of the membership of the National Consumer Council and each of its Associate Councils, the Scottish and Welsh Consumer Councils, are as follows:

  Members of the National Consumer Council as at 21 January 1994

  Lady Wilcox—Chairman

  Mrs. Ann Scully—Vice Chairman

  Sir Geoffrey Allen

  Mr. Thomas Arculus

  Miss Beata Brookes

  Mr. Antony Burton

  Mrs. Anne Daltrop

  Professor Paul Fairest

  Miss Jennifer Francis

  Mr. David Gilchrist

  Mr. John Hughes

  Mr. Noel Hunter

  Mrs. Deirdre Hutton

  Professor George Jones

  Ms Ruth Lea

  Mrs. Mary McAnally

  Mr. John Mitchell

  Mrs. Jean Varnam

  Members of the Scottish Consumer Council as at 21 January 1994

  Mrs. Deirdre Hutton—Chairman

  Mrs. Margaret Agbemetsi-Sika

  Mrs. Joan Aitken

  Mrs. Gillian Campbell

  Mrs. Kim Donald

  Mr. Peter Edmondson

  Mr. Bernard Forteath

  Mrs. Mary Kidd

  Mr. Thomas O'Malley

  Ms Yvonne Osman

  Mr. Ralph Palmer

  Mrs. Winifred Sherry

  Mr. Gordon Smith

  Members of the Welsh Consumer Council as at 21 January 1994

  Miss Beata Brookes—Chairman

  Mr. Alan Bamish

  Mrs. Nerys Biddulph

  Mr. Ian Edge

  Dr. Arwel Edwards

  Mr. William Evans

  Miss Jane Lloyd Hughes

  739

  Mr. Michael McEvoy

  Mrs. Elinor Patchell

  Mr. Roderick Thurman

  Mr. Roger Warren Evans

  Mrs. Lydia Stephens

  Miss Charlotte Watkins

  Engineering Industry
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he intends to strengthen the United Kingdom's engineering industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The engineering industry in the United Kingdom has a vital part to play in our industrial performance. Its success depends on a partnership between firms and Government. For their part, the Government are delivering low inflation, low interest rates, significantly enhanced help for exporters and a lifting of regulatory burdens. Firms in the sector are taking advantage of this positive climate by winning business both in the United Kingdom and in our overseas markets. Recent successes for the north-west include North West Water, which has just won a very large contract to help upgrade Malaysia's sewage system over the next 25 years, and the Manchester firm Crown House Engineering, which has recently won business in the United Kingdom worth £5 million.

  Motor Vehicle Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the output of motor cars and (b) the balance of trade in total in motor vehicles of (i) France, (ii) Italy, (iii) Germany and (iv) the United Kingdom in (1) 1978 and (2) 1993.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested concerning the output of motor cars is available in "Motor Industry of Great Britain 1993: World Automotive Statistics" (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The balances of trade in motor vehicles are shown in the table and relates to 1992 since 1993 data are not currently available.

  Balance of trade in motor vehicles 1978 and 1992 ($US million, current prices and market exchange rates)

  1978

  1992

  France

  3,590

  192

  Italy

  630

  -11,627

  Germany

  9,994

  21,946

  United Kingdom

  -1,050

  -3,644

  Note: For 1978 Germany refers to the Federal Republic of Germany. Motor Vehicles comprise Standard International Trade Classification 781 (cars), 782 (commercial vehicles) and 783 (miscellaneous vehicles).

  Source: United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics.

  Industry (Foreign Takeovers)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government welcome the takeover of British industry by foreign firms.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government welcome foreign investment in United Kingdom industry. Mergers between United Kingdom and overseas companies can be expected to increase as markets become increasingly international. Historically the number and value of United Kingdom acquisitions abroad has exceeded that of foreign takeovers of United Kingdom companies.
  740

  Common Voltage
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 588, whether, and at what stage in the decision-making process, he opposed or demurred from the proposal to standardise on a common voltage; at what stage he consulted British manufacturers and interested parties; and what proportion of them was opposed to the proposal.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had reservations on the proposal to standardise on a common voltage until considering the returns of the consultation exercise. Consultations with British manufacturers and interested parties were carried out between October and December 1992. Of those who responded fewer than 10 per cent. of the manufacturers were opposed to the proposal and many of the interested parties did not express any firm views.

  Distance Selling
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the EC directive on distance selling is expected to come into force; and whether the Government have accepted the terms of article 11B of that directive.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A European Commission proposal for a Council directive on distance selling is under negotiation in Brussels. It is too early to say when agreement might be reached on this proposal. The proposal does not contain an article 11B.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the laboratories and research establishments of his Department are being reviewed by the efficiency unit of the Office of Public Service and Science which is reporting to Sir Peter Levene; and whether his own consultant's advice on his research establishments will be passed on to this review.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The answer to both questions posed by the hon. Member is yes.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the enterprise agencies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Local enterprise agencies are independent local companies, limited by guarantee. They operate in close partnership with training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce and local authorities to provide local business support services. They are key partners in developing the national network of business links.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department.
  741
  Mr. Eggar
  The responsibility for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to the executive non-departmental public bodies of the DTI as listed in "Public Bodies 1993" is as follows:

  Public Bodies 1993

  British Hallmarking Council

  Lord Strathclyde

  Advisory Committees on Telecommunications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Lord Strathclyde

  Area Transport Users' Consultative Committees

  Lord Strathclyde

  Central Transport Consultative Committee

  Lord Strathclyde

  Domestic coal Consumers' Council

  Lord Strathclyde

  Gas Consumers' Council

  Lord Strathclyde

  London Regional Passengers' Committee

  Lord Strathclyde

  National Consumer Council

  Lord Strathclyde

  Post Office Users' National Council

  Lord Strathclyde

  Post Office Users' Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Lord Strathclyde

  Design Council

  Lord Strathclyde

  English Industrial Estates Corporation

  Mr. Sainsbury

  Hearing Aid Council

  Lord Strathclyde

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  Mr. Hamilton

  National Enterprise Board

  Mr. McLoughlin

  National Research Development Corporation

  Mr. McLoughlin

  Policyholders' Protection Board

  Mr. Hamilton

  The Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  Mr. Needham

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Mr. Eggar

  Objective 2 Status
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations led to the revoking of objective 2 status for the travel-to-work areas of Bassetlaw, Nottingham, covering the Retford and Fairborough areas; and what alternative assistance from Community institutions is available to these areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: From Nottinghamshire, the Government proposed to the Commission that the whole of Retford, Alfreton and Ashfield, Gainsborough, Mansfield and Worksop travel-to work areas should retain their eligibility for objective 2 grants from the European structural funds. In addition, the Government proposed that most of the Nottingham travel-to-work area, some of which had previously been eligible, should be eligible. As a result of the final decision on eligibility, taken by the European Commission on 20 January, only Mansfield and Worksop travel-to-work areas have retained eligibility.

  Within the structural funds, the areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers remain eligible for objective 3 grants. They may also be able to benefit from future community initiatives, although decisions on these have yet to be taken by the Commission.

  European Regional Fund
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instructions have been issued to relevant regional offices of Government to indicate reductions in the population coverage of European objective 5b in their areas when compared to recommendations issued by the European Commission; what is his assessment of the reduction in grant, both for each area and for all affected areas, if the population coverage is reduced by 12 per cent.; and when he expects to make a statement on the reallocation of surplus grant resulting from the reduction in population coverage; and under what provisions of the structural fund regulations this can be achieved.
  742
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: In an announcement of 21 December the European Commission proposed an objective 5b population total for the United Kingdom of 2·816 million. It did not recommend precise areas for designation but invited the Government to define in detail areas within this population total.

  In order to accommodate a small number of additional areas originally proposed by the Government for objective 2, and in order to express the population of all the areas concerned on a different statistical basis requested by the Commission, it was necessary to propose a marginal adjustment to many of the areas originally proposed for objective 5b.

  Since at the time of these adjustments no areas had yet been designated other parts of the hon. Gentleman's question do not arise. The overall population coverage was not reduced and there were no implications for the United Kingdom's financial allocation under objective 5b.

  Hearing Aid Council
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he expects to announce his decision on the future of the Hearing Aid Council; and if he will place all submissions he has received on the future of the Council in the Library.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: The Hearing Aid Council is established under the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. As part of the deregulation initiative we asked over 700 individuals and organisations whether they considered this legislation is still needed in its present form and whether it should be changed. I am considering the responses received, but am not yet able to say when an announcement will be made. The replies to the consultation were made in confidence to the Department.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Co-operation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage more co-operation and partnership within industry and between industry and Government.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement, "Prosperity through Skills", emphasised the importance of key partners working together to secure our economic prosperity.

  Integrated regional offices and the new single regeneration budget will add significantly to co-operation and partnership between industry and Government.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which European Union member states provide parental leave within the terms of the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Where parental leave exists, it predates the coming into effect of the Maastricht treaty.
  743

  Maternity Leave
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to improve the employment rights to time off for maternity and paternity leave.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under provisions introduced by the Government in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act, all women will shortly have a new right to 14 weeks maternity leave, regardless of length of service or hours of work.

  Paternity leave is, like most other terms and conditions of employment, a matter for agreement between employers and employees, without Government intervention.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of part-time workers are women.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In September 1993, 76 per cent. of part-time workers in Great Britain were women.

  Civilian workforce in employment1

  Thousands

  Standard regions

  Male all

  Female full time

  June 1979

  September 1993

  June 1979

  September 1993

  South East

  4,839

  4,342

  2,006

  2,224

  Greater London2

  n/a

  1,932

  —

  1,064

  East Anglia

  481

  498

  178

  218

  South West

  1,032

  1,094

  417

  496

  West Midlands

  1,462

  1,197

  550

  546

  East Midlands

  1,013

  919

  393

  446

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,302

  1,114

  480

  487

  North West

  1,700

  1,402

  719

  661

  North

  802

  645

  314

  284

  Wales

  716

  613

  276

  275

  Scotland

  1,333

  1,193

  597

  610

  Great Britain

  14,677

  13,015

  5,934

  6,246

  1 The civilian work force in employment comprises employees in employment, the self employed and participants on work related government training programmes.

  2 Included in South East.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give his estimate of the number of unemployed young people under 21 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Age and duration figures from the claimant unemployment count are only available in standard age bands. The nearest approximation to the figures requested are for those under 20 years of age. There were 227,208 unemployed claimants aged under 20 in October 1993, 16,720 less than 12 months ago.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the average weekly earnings of (i) full-time males, (ii) full-time females and (iii) part-time females in 1978–79 and in the latest year for which data are available in(a) Great Britain, (b) England, (c) Yorkshire and Humberside and (d) north Yorkshire; and what were (c) and (d) as a percentage of (b) in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested on average weekly earnings can be found in tables 110 and 113 of part E and table 180 of part F of the New Earnings Survey for each of the years requested with the exception
  744
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report on the first six months of the North Norfolk Action pilot scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the first six months, 125 people have taken part in work experience projects of whom 27 have found employment or gone on to further training. During the same period 385 have received help through a series of weekly caseload interviews. Of these, 226 have achieved a positive outcome by gaining a job or joining other employment programmes.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men and how many women, in each standard planning region, were in full-time employment in June 1979 and the latest date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Male full-time employment is not available before 1984. Total male civilian employment and full-time female civilian employment for each of the standard regions is as follows:

  of that for part-time women in North Yorkshire which is provided in the following table. Copies of the reports can be found in the Library.

  Average gross weekly earnings of part-time women in North Yorkshire at April

  £

  1978

  21·9

  1979

  25·5

  1993

  90·7

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he proposes to mitigate the effect of redundancies announced in the north west so far in the current year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the north west region, as elsewhere, the Employment Service and the 14 north-west training and enterprise councils will continue to deliver a
  745
  wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help people find the best and quickest route back to employment.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to create jobs in the west midlands.

  Miss Widecombe
  The Department's aim is to promote a free and flexible labour market to encourage employment in the west midlands region as elsewhere. The Employment Service and 10 west midlands training and enterprise councils deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help people find the best and quickest route to employment.

  Wages
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department makes of wages offered by employers advertising at job centres.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When employers notify vacancies to jobcentres, an assessment is made of the prospects of filling them. Where the wage offered appears to be below the local market rate for the occupation in question, the employer will be advised if this may cause difficulties in filling the post. However, the decision on what wage is offered is left to the employer.

  Working Hours
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate his Department has made of the numbers of workers whose working hours would be reduced by a statutory maximum 48 hour week.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Some 2·4 million workers would be affected. The Government have no intention of introducing any such statutory controls.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding his proposals for a modern apprenticeship.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received many messages of support for modern apprenticeships, from a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what resources have been used by his Department in responding to task force proposals on deregulation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department and the Health and Safety Executive have small deregulation units which have dealt with task force proposals on deregulation in the normal course of their duties, consulting other officials when necessary.

  Unemployment, Buckinghamshire
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department is taking to assist the unemployed in Buckinghamshire.
  746
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has a wide range of employment, training and enterprise measures to help unemployed people including jobclubs, training for work, community action, and jobsearch seminars. These are available in Buckinghamshire, as elsewhere, and are designed to take account of local circumstances to help people find the best and quickest route back to employment.

  Training and Productivity
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the link between training and productivity.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have received no formal representations on this issue.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new initiatives he plans to reduce youth unemployment in Nottinghamshire.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Unemployment among young people in Nottinghamshire is at the lowest level since October 1991. Currently almost 7,000 young people are undertaking training in Nottinghamshire under the youth training scheme. There are a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes available to young people in Nottinghamshire. The Government intend to improve the range of opportunities available to school leavers still further in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere by introducing modern apprenticeships in 1995.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve training facilities and training schemes for older unemployed people; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As I announced at the time of the Budget, the upper age limit for unemployed adults entering training for work will be raised from 59 to 63 from 1 April this year.

  Full Employment, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives he is taking to ensure a return to full employment in London.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 14 December at column 562.

  Manual Workers (Earnings)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing for the latest available date figures for average quarterly earnings of manual workers corresponding to table 3·38 of the 27th edition of "Eurostat Basic Statistics" of the Community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information, showing earnings at October 1991, is contained in the 30th edition of "Eurostat Basic Statistics of the Community". A copy of the publication can be found in the Library.
  747

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration his Department has given to employment structures as a result of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has been aware of developments at all stages of local government reorganisation. Local government staff commissions will be considering the implications of the reorganisation for all existing local government employees.

  Statutory Works Councils
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to establish statutory works councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government support voluntary employee involvement. It will not establish statutory works councils or any other form of compulsion. In the Government's view legislation is not the way to promote effective employee involvement in the United Kingdom. Our voluntary approach has proved most successful. It has allowed companies flexibility to involve employees in ways which suit their particular needs and circumstances. Compulsion would stifle this flexibility. It would add to costs and administrative burdens, reduce competitiveness and jeopardise jobs.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers of people of all ages who are registered unemployed and who have never had a job since leaving school; and if he will give a breakdown of this data on those having left school over a year, over five years and over 10 years ago.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The monthly claimant count is a by-product of the administrative system which handles the payment of unemployment-related benefits. This system does not record the previous employment history of unemployment claimants.

DEFENCE

  Spent Fuel (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reprocessing plant his Department uses to reprocess spent fuel discharged from pressurised water reactors powering Royal Navy submarines; and what facilities he plans to use in the future.

  Mr. Aitken
  Used nuclear fuel from Royal Navy submarines is not reprocessed at present. No reprocessing facilities exist for naval fuel, and we have no plans to establish any.

  UNPROFOR
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give a detailed breakdown of the salary and allowances, including additional United Nations allowances, paid to each rank of British service men serving with UNPROFOR;
  748
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 7 February, Official Report, columns 112–13, if he will set out in detail the information he has received from or concerning all other countries participating in UNPROFOR giving the scale of additional United Nations allowances for their service men in pound sterling terms;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 7 February, Official Report, columns 112–13,if he will set out in detail the nformation he has received from or concerning all other countries participating in the UNPROFOR mission giving the pay scales for their service men in pound sterling terms.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current United Kingdom rates of salary for all ranks up to and including brigadier are set out in appendix 4 to the 22nd report of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay—HMSO Cm 2150—a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The current annual salary of a lieutenant general, who is the only officer above the rank of brigadier serving with UNPROFOR, is £60,600 per year.

  Allowances paid to United Kingdom service personnel serving overseas, including the former Yugoslavia, are largely determined by rank and marital status. Married personnel involuntarily separated for more than 30 days receive a separation allowance of £3·50 per day. In addition, both married and single personnel serving in the former Yugoslavia are exempt from local food and accommodation charges. Single personnel are also exempt from the contribution in lieu of council tax. Although the cost of living in the former Yugoslavia does not justify the payment of a local overseas allowance, personnel posted from areas such as Germany where such payments are made retain a residual allowance in recognition of their continuing financial commitments at their permanent duty station. Married personnel retain 70 per cent. and single personnel 40 per cent. All personnel also receive a telephone allowance of £13·50 per month which is designed to contribute to the cost of one three-minute phone call each week.

  All service personnel, irrespective of rank and nationality, serving under United Nations auspices in the former Yugoslavia receive exactly the same United Nations allowance of $1·28 per day plus a lump sum of $73·50 towards rest and recreation leave. This equates currently to £0·82 per day and £46·90 respectively. Other national contingents serving in the former Yugoslavia do not receive any additional United Nations allowances. It would not be appropriate for me to give details of information provided on a confidential basis concerning the pay arrangements for the contingents of other countries serving in the former Yugoslavia.

  Sarajevo
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel will be stationed in the demilitarised zone around Sarajevo following the handing over of control of heavy artillery; and if he will make it his policy that British troops will fulfil only the role of controlling the heavy weaponry.

  Mr. Hanley
  Deployment of troops on the ground in the former Yugoslavia and their precise roles in fulfilment of the United Nations mandate are a matter for the United Nations. There is already a small RAF detachment of 34 personnel in Sarajevo participating in the British humanitarian airlift operation.
  749

  Office Space
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount of office space owned, leased or rented by his Department and its agencies in London on 1 January in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The amount of office space on the civil estate-common user estate occupied in London by my Department and its agencies on 1 January in each year since 1989 was:

  1 January

  Square metres

  1989

  306,694·80

  1990

  304,716·80

  1991

  308,880·10

  1992

  304,197·80

  1993

  334,461·30

  1994

  323,712·70

  This figure is due to reduce by more than half by 1 January 1997. In addition, the London weather centre occupied 652 sq m of office space in Clerkenwell road from September 1992, following relocation from its previous site in High Holborn.

  Details of office space in the defence estate in London are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Front Line First
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what areas of his Department's business the front line first study is examining; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The defence costs study is examining all aspects of support to the front line. Individual studies have been established to look in detail at the following areas:

  MOD head office—organisation and function

  HQs/service command and top-level budget structure MOD police

  Research and development

  Procurement Executive—projects and practices

  Procurement Executive—organisation and function

  Market-testing programme and contracting out

  Financial management

  Estate and property

  Repairs/spares/storage/distribution and infrastructure

  Naval infrastructure

  Training

  Recruiting/manning

  Medical

  Non-operational information systems and information technology

  Security

  Defence intelligence

  RAF management structure and manning

  Army management structure and manning

  Navy management structure and manning

  Music

  Animals and vets

  Catering/messes

  Chaplaincy services

  MOD fire services

  Terminal air traffic control services

  Legal services

  Travel and subsistence

  Costs of regulations

  Meteorological Office

  Radiological protection policy, advice and audit

  Forms and publications

  750

  Uniforms

  The studies are making good progress. Decision taken as a result of them will be announced in due course.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will update to 1993 the figures given in his answer to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) of 19 June 1989,Official Report, column 61, regarding arms sales to Malaysia.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 11 February 1994]: Detailed information on defence sales covered by the memorandum of understanding signed with Malaysia is confidential to the two Governments, but in the circumstances I can tell the hon. Member that contracts worth in excess of £1 billion were negotiated between 1989 and 1993.

  The Enemy Within
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his definition of the enemy within; what departmental activities are related to this; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: As far as I am aware, this is not a term that has been, or is being used in connection with any specific departmental activity.

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 Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no members currently appointed to the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food. Following completion of its report the board was dissolved on 31 December 1993 pending a review now being undertaken by officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department and the Agricultural and Food Research Council.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Meat and Livestock Commission.

  Mr. Jack
  D. T. Y. Curry, J. Baker, M. Rees, P. S. Redshaw, J. F. Royan, C. Jay, A. R. Manson, Mrs. E. Hodder, Miss B. Bloom, R. Green, C. Smith are currently appointed as members of the Meat and Livestock Commission. The post of chairman is vacant and Mr. Curry is the acting chairman.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Agricultural Training Board.

  Mr. Jack
  Membership of the Agricultural Training Board currently numbers 11 persons, as follows:

  Chairman

  Mr. A. S. Stewart
  751
  Deputy Chairman

  Mr. M. J. Curtis

  Members:

  Mrs. R. Berry

  Mrs. J. Buchanan-Smith

  Dr. J. Harries

  Mr. V. H. Hughes

  Mr. T. Jones

  Mr. N. J. Mallet

  Mr. I. Monkton

  Mr. M. D. Pollard

  Professor P. Thomas

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee.

  Mr. Jack
  The members currently appointed to the Sugar Beet and Education Committee are:

  Mr. J. H. Proctor (chairman)

  Dr. M. J. Armstrong

  Mr. M. F. Askew

  Dr. D. J. Carmichael

  Mr. C. R. A. Carter

  Mr. H. R. Dyas

  Mr. J. H. Hoyles

  Professor R. T. Plumb

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Food from Britain committee.

  Mr. Jack
  The members of the Council of Food from Britain are:

  Mr. Geoffrey John (chairman)

  Mrs. Mary Berry

  Mr. Trefor Campbell

  Mr. Tito Chiandetti

  Mr. Alun Evans

  Mr. Richard George

  Mr. John Irish

  Mr. Howard Mann

  Mr. David Naish

  Mr. Brian Nelson

  Professor Susan Shaw

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman

  Mr. Robert Steven

  Mr. John Whitehead

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department.

  Mr. Jack
  Details of those responsible for making appointments of chairmen and members of executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by this Ministry, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993", are as follows:

  Agricultural Training Board

  Horticultural Development Council

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  All appointments are made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, jointly with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.

  Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales
  chairman and independent members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, jointly with the
  752
  Secretary of State for Wales. Representative members appointed by the National Farmers Union and by the Agricultural and Allied Workers National Trade Group of the Transport and General Workers Union.

  Agricultural Wages Committees (England)
  Chairmen and independent members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Representative members appointed by the National Farmers Union and by the Agricultural and Allied Workers National Trade Group of the Transport and General Workers Union.

  Apple and Pear Research Council
  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company All appointments made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Food From Britain

  Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  All appointments made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, jointly with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Horticulture Research International
  Chairman and six members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Three members appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Regional Flood Defence Committees
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food appoints the Chairman and a number of members to each of the nine executive regional flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority (NRA) in England. In addition, the NRA is responsible for appointing two members to each committee and the local authorities are responsible for appointing the remaining members (one more than the total number of ministerial and NRA appointees on each committee).

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Chairman and 10 members appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. One member appointed by Her Majesty The Queen.

  French Fishermen
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food what will be the cost to United Kingdom public funds and the effect on prices of the proposed additional European Community's support for French fishermen.

  Mr. Jack
  The European Commission's response to the difficulties on the French white fish market has been to introduce minimum import prices for certain species. As these aim to do no more than put a floor in the market at the level of the Community withdrawal price, they should work to reduce Community expenditure on market support.

  Agricultural Expenditure
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate she has made of the legal limit on agricultural spending by the EC in 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  The limit on agricultural spending is laid down in Council decision 88/377 concerning budgetary discipline. The agricultural guideline for 1994 is 36,465 mecu. The monetary reserve is 1,000 mecu.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the legal restrictions on agricultural spending by the EC in 1993; and what was the actual sum expended by the EC in this year.
  753
  Mr. Jack
  The legal restrictions on agricultural spending by the EC in 1993 were contained in Council decision 88/377 concerning budgetary discipline. The level of the agricultural guideline was 36,657 mecu. The monetary reserve was 1,000 mecu. The provisional out-turn of expenditure is 35,095 mecu.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the agricultural policies of the EC are designed to ensure that legal limits of spending are maintained; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Expenditure on the CAP is constrained by the requirements of Council Decision 88/377 concerning budgetary discipline. Article 5 of this decision requires the Commission's price proposals to be consistent with the limits laid down by the agricultural guideline.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many units of livestock have gone through British slaughterhouses in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of cattle, including calves, sheep and pigs slaughtered for meat in the United Kingdom over the period 1985 to 1993 are given in the table. The equivalent number of livestock units slaughtered in each year is also given. This is based on one livestock unit equalling one adult bovine or calf, seven sheep or three pigs.

  Cattle, sheep and pigs slaughtered for meat in the United Kingdom

  Total cattle (including calves) '000 head

  Total sheep '000 head

  Total pigs '000 head

  Total livestock '000 units1

  1985

  4,286

  15,893

  15,305

  11,658

  1986

  3,943

  15,473

  15,609

  11,357

  21987

  4,114

  15,762

  15,807

  11,634

  1988

  3,380

  17,128

  15,784

  11,088

  1989

  3,442

  19,618

  14,514

  11,083

  1990

  3,524

  20,012

  14,203

  11,117

  1991

  3,617

  20,918

  14,457

  11,424

  21992

  3,384

  19,377

  14,508

  10,988

  31993

  2,953

  18,018

  14,739

  10,440

  1One livestock unit=1 adult bovine or calf, or 7 sheep, or 3 pigs.

  21987 and 1992 were 53 week statistical years, the rest were based on 52 weeks.

  3Provisional.

  Numbers of BSE cases confirmed in the United Kingdom by age and month for each month of 1992 and 1993 as at 14 January 1994

  Year

  Age

  Total

  <2

  2–3

  3–4

  4–5

  5–6

  6–7

  7 and over

  Unknown

  January 1992

  0

  3

  252

  1,117

  756

  339

  168

  75

  2,710

  February 1992

  0

  4

  212

  1,102

  741

  312

  162

  61

  2,594

  March 1992

  0

  1

  166

  1,135

  720

  263

  146

  62

  2,493

  April 1992

  0

  2

  144

  1,289

  748

  277

  136

  136

  2,732

  May 1992

  0

  1

  144

  1,572

  966

  368

  154

  90

  3,295

  June 1992

  0

  9

  197

  2,030

  1,191

  408

  175

  88

  4,098

  July 1992

  0

  3

  84

  1,582

  930

  255

  165

  63

  3,082

  August 1992

  0

  3

  139

  1,234

  682

  237

  119

  42

  2,456

  September 1992

  0

  4

  147

  1,471

  832

  323

  177

  92

  3,046

  October 1992

  0

  3

  75

  1,220

  937

  358

  151

  80

  2,824

  November 1992

  0

  2

  231

  1,043

  1,090

  415

  178

  50

  3,009

  December 1992

  1

  4

  173

  836

  1,037

  414

  189

  52

  2,706

  January 1993

  0

  4

  171

  1,151

  1,628

  636

  262

  103

  3,955

  February 1993

  0

  1

  68

  835

  1,590

  691

  270

  104

  3,559

  754

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many cases of BSE were(a) confirmed, (b) reported and (c) slaughtered in the United Kingdom for each month of 1992 and 1993;

  (2) how many cases of BSE were confirmed in the United Kingdom for each month of 1992 and 1993 in cattle that were (a) under two years of age, (b) aged two to three years, (c) aged three to four years, (d) aged four to five years, (e) aged five to six years, (f) aged six to seven years and (g) aged seven or more years;

  (3) how many cases of BSE were confirmed in the United Kingdom for each year from 1985 in cattle that were (a) under two years of age, (b) aged two to three years, (c) aged three to four years, (d) aged four to five years, (e) aged five to six years, (f) aged six to seven years and (g) aged seven or more years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her answer, 17 January 1994, col. 428]: The information is given in the tables.

  Numbers of cases of BSE (a) confirmed, (b) reported and (c) slaughtered in the United Kingdom for each month of 1992 and 1993 as at 14 January 1994

  Month

  Confirmed

  Reported

  Slaughtered

  January 1992

  2,710

  4,143

  3,925

  February 1992

  2,594

  3,629

  3,521

  March 1992

  2,493

  4,074

  3,906

  April 1992

  2,732

  3,868

  3,699

  May 1992

  3,295

  3,124

  2,977

  June 1992

  4,098

  3,264

  3,086

  July 1992

  3,082

  3,303

  3,176

  August 1992

  2,456

  3,552

  3,384

  September 1992

  3,046

  4,069

  3,894

  October 1992

  2,824

  4,254

  4,085

  November 1992

  3,009

  3,971

  3,870

  December 1992

  2,706

  4,019

  3,937

  January 1993

  3,955

  4,237

  4,066

  February 1993

  3,559

  3,997

  3,829

  March 1993

  3,597

  4,429

  4,220

  April 1993

  2,964

  3,689

  3,518

  May 1993

  2,882

  3,256

  3,078

  June 1993

  3,341

  3,147

  2,993

  July 1993

  2,302

  3,420

  3,246

  August 1993

  2,787

  3,352

  3,191

  September 1993

  2,636

  3,658

  3,483

  October 1993

  2,758

  3,408

  3,266

  November 1993

  3,413

  3,654

  3,408

  December 1993

  2,561

  3,304

  1,980

  755

  Year

  Age

  Total

  <2

  2–3

  3–4

  4–5

  5–6

  6–7

  7 and over

  Unknown

  March 1993

  0

  1

  61

  732

  1,757

  684

  265

  97

  3,597

  April 1993

  0

  2

  42

  573

  1,453

  594

  220

  80

  2,964

  May 1993

  1

  1

  85

  642

  1,411

  488

  188

  66

  2,882

  June 1993

  0

  2

  68

  507

  1,798

  647

  212

  107

  3,341

  July 1993

  0

  1

  70

  304

  1,270

  420

  162

  75

  2,302

  August 1993

  0

  2

  164

  706

  1,208

  451

  175

  81

  2,787

  September 1993

  0

  1

  108

  366

  1,323

  544

  202

  92

  2,636

  October 1993

  0

  5

  97

  434

  1,159

  671

  293

  99

  2,758

  November 1993

  0

  1

  158

  614

  1,277

  870

  353

  140

  3,413

  December 1993

  0

  1

  61

  291

  959

  811

  17

  107

  2,247

  This shows the age of cattle by date of confirmation of BSE for the months concerned. It should be noted that the four-year-old group will still include cattle with potential dates of birth before 18 July 1988 when the ruminant feed ban was introduced. Although the table shows a declining number of confirmed cases in the groups less than four years old, and to a degree the four to five-year-old group, it is not a table of age-specific incidence which sorts age groups by age at onset of the disease. Furthermore the 1993 data set is incomplete.

  Numbers of BSE cases confirmed in the United Kingdom by age and year for each year since 1985 as at 14 January 1994

  Year

  Age

  Total

  <2

  2–3

  3–4

  4–5

  5–6

  6–7

  7 and over

  Unknown

  1985ߝJune 19881

  0

  4

  112

  293

  143

  29

  29

  137

  747

  June to December 1988

  0

  6

  237

  502

  337

  92

  52

  92

  1,318

  1989

  1

  47

  747

  2,444

  2,175

  840

  284

  301

  6,839

  1990

  0

  70

  1,664

  4,198

  3,880

  1,831

  697

  589

  12,929

  1991

  0

  81

  4,038

  8,448

  5,482

  2,446

  1,260

  1,027

  22,782

  1992

  1

  39

  1,964

  15,631

  10,630

  3,969

  1,920

  891

  35,045

  1993

  1

  22

  1,153

  7,155

  16,833

  7,507

  2,933

  1,151

  36,755

  1 The disease was not notifiable until June 1988 so these figures cannot be further broken down as specific dates of confirmation are not available. It should be noted that the four year old group will still include cattle with potential dates of birth before 18 July 1988 when the ruminant feed ban was introduced. Although the table shows a declining number of confirmed cases in the groups less than four years old, and to a degree the four to five year old group, it is not a table of age specific incidence which sorts cases by age at onset of the disease. Furthermore the 1993 data set is incomplete. incomplete.

WALES

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to hold discussions with the Wales Confederation of British Industry and other representatives of Welsh industry to promote the need for the concept of sustainability to characterise future industrial developments.

  Mr. Redwood
  The need to involve industry in action to promote sustainable development is fully recognised in the recently published United Kingdom strategy and related reports. It is expected that Wales CBI will be among those to be consulted on the membership and mode of operation of the national round table. Meanwhile copies of the sustainable development strategy have been sent to them and other business interests in Wales.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given to his non-departmental executive bodies to ensure that they take full account of the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development, the United Kingdom programme on climate change, the United Kingdom action plan for biodiversity and the United Kingdom programme for sustainable forestry.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The preparation of the sustainable development strategy, the programme for climate change and the biodiversity action plan involved extensive consultation, which includes the main non-departmental public bodies in Wales. They have been sent copies of 756
  the reports of most relevance to their operations and will be appropriately involved in the follow-up action planned by the Government.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for an advisory panel on sustainable development in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me on 7 February 1994, column 94.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that public and private bodies in Wales play their full part in delivering more sustainable forms of development.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government's plans for involving the public and private sectors in progress towards sustainable development are described in the recently published United Kingdom strategy. This has already been circulated to key Welsh interests; and the Welsh Office will be seeking to ensure that organisations and individuals in Wales play an appropriate part in the follow-up action planned on the strategy, for example, via the round table and citizen's environment initiatives.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further guidance will be given on schools' environmental management practices as indicated in the sustainable development strategy.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As indicated in the United Kingdom strategy on sustainable development, work is in hand to develop a simple environmental audit scheme which schools can carry out themselves to evaluate and improve the environmental impact of their school buildings and grounds.
  757
  The scheme is to cover issues such as energy usage, water economies and landscaping. It is based very much on work done by the Building Research Establishment.

  It is planned to publish this scheme later this year and I hope that as many schools as possible in Wales will participate.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to promote the active participation of people in Wales in sustainable development strategies to reduce the burden placed on the environment by human activities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's plans for promoting the concept of sustainable development among the public are described in the recently published United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development. As part of this, the citizen's environment initiative will extend to Wales.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish guidance to advise schools of good practice in teaching about the care of the environment;

  (2) if he will encourage all schools to appoint a co-ordinator for environmental education;

  (3) what plans he has for schools to have a policy for environmental education guaranteeing provision and continuity between different subject areas of the curriculum;

  (4) what plans he has for providing guidance to schools on delivering environmental education on biodiversity and sustainable development.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Every maintained school is responsible for providing a curriculum which must satisfy the statutory requirements of the national curriculum. Guidance on environmental education as part of the national curriculum has been provided to schools in Wales by the Curriculum Council for Wales. The council has also published an advisory paper and in-service training materials to support schools' delivery of environmental education.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the provision of initial and in-service education for teachers in environmental education.

  Sir Win Roberts
  We have no plans to increase such provision. Schools are free to include reference to the importance of developing pupils' awareness of the environment in the statement of the school's ethos and values included in their prospectuses, if they so wish. Environmental education is addressed through the statutory subjects of the national curriculum: schools themselves are responsible for how environmental education is delivered.

  The Government already provide specific grant to support expenditure on the national curriculum which is
  758
  devolved mainly to schools to spend on books and equipment or training. It is for schools and LEAs to decide what priority to give to particular subject areas and to make detailed plans in the light of their own staff development needs.

  We seek to ensure, through our criteria for the approval of initial teacher training, that courses give a thorough preparation for teaching the national curriculum. The detailed content of courses is a matter for ITT providers and not Government.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to implement the recommendations for environmental education in further and higher education of the report of the Toyne committee.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Toyne report contained a specific recommendation that each further and higher education institution should adopt a policy for the development of environmental education. A copy of the report was sent to all FHE institutions in Wales in February 1993. It is for individual institutions to judge how to take this recommendation forward.

  Agenda 21 Programmes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to hold discussions with local authorities on the drawing up of local agenda 21 programmes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Progress on the local agenda 21 initiative has been, and is being, discussed within the central and local government environment forum, which brings together Environment Ministers and the leaders of the local authority associations. The Welsh Office is also planning to sponsor a seminar on "green" purchasing as part of the local agenda 21 programme.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites exist in Wales licensed for the disposal of low-level nuclear waste; and if he will place in the Library a list of the location of each.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Apart from some very low-level nuclear waste which is incinerated at the Wylfa and Trawsfynydd sites no nuclear waste is disposed of in Wales.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year from 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each of the national health service bodies (Wales) as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:
  759

  Health authority

  Gross expenditure (at 1992–93 prices)

  Projected expenditure 1993–94

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Health authorities

  1,156

  1,271

  1,308

  1,341

  Family health service authorities Wales

  418

  454

  454

  471

  Health promotion authority for Wales

  3

  3

  4

  4

  National health service trusts

  —

  —

  38

  661

  Welsh health common services authority

  33

  35

  50

  54

  Source:

  Health authorities and Pembrokeshire NHS Trust Annual Accounts.

  Notes:

  (i) Gross expenditure relates to actual outturn figures, whereas the figures that appear in Public Bodies 1993 are provisional due to the timing of the publication.

  (ii) Figures in respect of Family Health Service Authorities exclude GP fundholders.

  (iii) Pembrokeshire NHS Trust established 1 April 1992.

  A further 13 NHS Trusts were formally established on 1 April 1993.

  GDP
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current gross domestic product per head by county in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available figures, for 1991, are published in the December 1993 edition of "Economic Trends (CSO)", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mink Farm, Llanybdder
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 190–1, for how long the mink farm at Llanybdder, Dyfed, was allowed to operate pending a decision on the licence application after the mink farm had withdrawn its licence application; and for how long the mink farm had been allowed to operate pending a decision on the licence application.

  Mr. Redwood
  The mink farm ceased to operate at about the same time as the licence application was withdrawn. The farm had been operating for about 11 months pending a decision on the licence application.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of fee is charged by each institution in Wales covered by the assisted places scheme in the current academic year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  School

  APSfee1

  £

  Christ College, Brecon

  5,484

  Howell's, Denbigh

  5,556

  Howell's, Cardiff

  3,309

  Rydal School, Colwyn Bay

  5,531 (preparatory)

  6,396 (senior)

  Penrhos College, Colwyn Bay

  5,280 (mid)

  5,655 (upper)

  Monmouth Boys

  4,419

  Monmouth Girls

  3,594

  3,900 (VI)

  Llandovery College

  4,696 (junior)

  5,129 (mid)

  5,259 (VI)

  1 As at September 1993.

  760
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of state for Wales what safeguards are used by the Welsh Office to ensure that schools covered by the assisted places scheme meet recognised educational standards.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  All schools participating in the assisted places scheme have had to satisfy stringent criteria before being accepted. Ongoing monitoring of standards is carried out by members of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. The Department also collects the examination results of pupils at the individual schools.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment the Welsh Office has made of the assisted places scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Some 700 pupils are currently receiving education at one of the participating schools in Wales whose parents would not otherwise have been able to afford it. Almost all available places for 1993–94 have been taken up and the examination results of APS pupils are consistently good.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schools in Wales which have pupils under the assisted places scheme in the current academic year; how many pupils are supported at each institution; and how much it has cost the Welsh Office to provide this support.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  School

  Number of APS pupils in scheme September 1993

  Expenditure Financial year 1992–93

  £

  Christ College, Brecon

  87

  359,755

  Howell's, Denbigh

  72

  310,222

  Howell's, Cardiff

  165

  399,642

  Rydal School, Colwyn Bay

  46

  228,082

  Penrhos College, Colwyn Bay

  61

  273,711

  Monmouth Boys

  137

  434,415

  Monmouth Girls

  71

  200,728

  Llandovery

  52

  250,671

  Total

  691

  2,457,226

  Estimated expenditure for the financial year 1993–94 is £2,616,000.
  761

  Mostyn Dock
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make an announcement with regard to his decision on the future progress of the planning application at Mostyn dock, Mostyn, Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The procedure to be adopted for the determination of the planning application at Mostyn dock, Clwyd, will be reached as quickly as possible. I will write to the hon. Member when a decision has been made.

  Quangos
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the guidelines that apply to quangos in respect of the participation of board members in the decisions on the 762
  authorisation of foreign travel and participation in overseas conferences by senior management; what representations he has received on this issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The standard guidance to board members of non-departmental public bodies is that they have an overall responsibility for supervising the direction and management of the body and need to ensure that judgments are exercised in the public interest; and that they are guardians of the public interest in the body's activities and in the discharge of its statutory duties. The chief executive is usually the accounting officer responsible for ensuring compliance with policies and rules.

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

Religious Education
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the report by the Chief Inspector of Schools published on 7th December that in primary schools "standards were generally unsatisfactory in Religious Education (RE)" (Pt. II para.4.).
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government take every opportunity to promote good quality religious education in schools. In particular, local authorities in England and Wales are required to review their agreed syllabuses for religious education. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has been asked to develop model RE syllabuses. A new circular has been issued to give guidance to schools on their duty to provide religious education. The Ofsted inspection system will monitor and identify any school failing to do so.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful for that helpful and encouraging reply. Does the noble Baroness agree that many teachers who are not specially trained in the subject do not feel comfortable delivering the RE syllabus? What action is being taken to ensure an adequate supply of suitably trained teachers to deliver that important and sensitive subject?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord is important. It is vital that teachers should feel comfortable with the subject and to that end the grant for education support and training is making money available. Religious education has been added to the number of subjects for which it can be made available to help with improving specialisms in schools and improving co-ordination for religious education in schools.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1993 a survey by the Religious Education Council found that more than half those teaching religious education in secondary schools had no formal qualifications in the subject? Will she accept that the figure, which is lower than for any other national curriculum subject, is bound to affect the quality of RE teaching? Can she give an assurance that the matter will be addressed urgently?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no overall shortage of religious education specialists, either in terms of those recruited to initial teacher training or of those employed in the schools. In the January survey
92
there were only 15 vacancies in the subject in the country overall. It is true, however, that of 13,100 religious education specialists in the country, only half were teaching their own subject. It is not therefore a shortage of specialists; it is a shortage in terms of the importance which both LEAs and schools give to the subject and of the necessity to make sure that specialisms are used in the right place.
Baroness David: My Lords, following up that answer, can the Minister say how many teachers of religious education in primary schools are not qualified in the subject at the moment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the number will be a great many. Primary school teachers are generalists, not specialists. A primary school teacher with only religious education as a specialism would be quite seriously disadvantaged in having to cope with teaching maths, English, science, history, geography, art, music and so on. It is essential that we do more to provide good quality support with teaching materials and advice and to ensure that the grant which I mentioned is made full use of so that specialisms and co-ordination can be much improved in primary schools.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to what extent is the teaching of religion in primary schools confined to the religion to which the child has been accustomed and in which it has been brought up? Would it not be better if the teaching were confined in that way and if the teaching of other religions were postponed until the child was older and in the secondary school?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend the assurance that Christianity, as the main religious tradition of the country, will be taught at every key stage, at Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4, and that knowledge of other religions is also a requirement. Also, model syllabuses have just been released for consultation. There is a real anxiety, which I share with my noble friend, that young children aged between five and 11 are required to cover too many religions. That question will be covered during the consultation period.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this subject is different from all the others? It is not only a matter of training and qualifications but also one of religious commitment. Most teachers nowadays take the view that to try to teach the subject without religious commitment is sheer hypocrisy. That is the problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to make the distinction between learning about religion and teaching for belief. Learning about religion is an educational process which has an importance. What is important is learning about religion as a cultural, historical tradition of the country. It must be for the Churches and families to go further and to instruct to promote belief, if that is what the noble Lord is hinting at.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that subjects are nevertheless best taught by those who have a sympathy for them? In the light of the fact that

93
80 per cent. of school pupils in the primary sector are taught all subjects by the same teacher, will she encourage, so far as the remaining 20 per cent. are concerned, where specialists are employed to teach particular subjects, giving priority in respect of religious education where the teacher has no such sympathy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a number of very good reports encourage primary schools to look at and exploit the specialisms of the teachers on their staff. That would cover people who have a specialism in teaching this subject. Sadly, it is also true that some schools will not allow people who are specialists in the subject and who can speak about it with authority— for example, local vicars, priests and faith healers— to help in a school. Where schools exploit the expertise in the community the school is enriched by it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this area of education is absolutely central to our future as a stable multicultural society? Does she further agree that teachers must have in-depth knowledge of the traditions and faiths with which they deal? Does that not emphasise the absolute importance of the relationship between higher education and teacher training?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a matter of Professor Joad and not Professor Judd on this occasion. It really does depend on what one means by multiculturalism. So long as the integrity of each religion is preserved, then education is very sound in prospect. Sadly, however, it has become a melting pot and, as my noble friends like to refer to it, a mish-mash. I do not believe that it does any more than serve to confuse children if it is done badly. What is absolutely essential is that the integrity of each of the religions is properly preserved when taught.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the view expressed in the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and by my noble friend Lord Elton represent the outlook of most parents who are concerned about having religious education from the start of a school career?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important that whatever is taught to a child between the ages of five and 11 the child is able to benefit from it educationally. If the child is overloaded by being presented with a curriculum that he or she simply cannot manage, then that will create confusion. But it is also important to say that one of the objectives of this whole exercise is to underpin all education both morally and spiritually. I believe that we are doing a great deal to get that right.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend explain the arrangements in the teacher training colleges? How will the teachers who want to teach religion be taught?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are two points. If it is a question of an RE specialist, it will be the family subject. If it is a school teacher who will teach a range of subjects in primary school, one measure that will help is the introduction of the six-subject Bachelor of
94
Education degree. Maths, English and science will be the core three subjects; the other three subjects will be of choice. There is therefore an opportunity for one of those subjects to be religious education, and it will be taught in greater depth to those teachers.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

British Library: St. Pancras Site
2.46 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future development of the vacant St. Pancras site immediately north of the British Library.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government plan to dispose of the land to the north of the St. Pancras site once it is no longer needed for the building project. The British Library is preparing a case for retaining some of the land for further library buildings. We shall, of course, consider the library's proposals carefully when they have been finalised.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer so far as it goes. However, is she aware that three important functions of the British Library— namely, the National Sound Archive, the Photographic Processing Unit and the Conservation Bindery— are in other parts of London and cannot be included in the present building? Would it not make administrative sense if at least part of this site could be reserved specifically for the British Library so that in any future extension those units could be incorporated?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the case for relocating the areas about which my noble friend spoke will be considered when the British Library has completed its investment appraisal for use of the surplus land. Those sections operate satisfactorily from their present locations. Knowing that this Question was coming up, I took the opportunity last Friday to spend an entire morning on the site in the building—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: — and I brought back a pack full of riveting information for your Lordships which I have placed in the Library; that is, the Library in this House, not that library.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the retention of this site is essential for expansion since, after 14 years in construction, the British Library will have room for only 1,200 readers — that is, not many more than Great Russell Street— while the French national library, which has taken only five years to build and will be completed next year, will have room for 3,500 readers? Is it not therefore essential that the new site should be used for an additional reading room?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in the long run it is a question of cost. The reason why our British

95
Library will have fewer places than the French library is that, although it was originally planned to have 3,000 places, further examination, which was undertaken very, very thoroughly, proved that that is really not necessary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I declare an interest in this Question as a user of the British Library. Is the noble Baroness aware that a national library must grow? Will she also bear in mind that none of us is in a great hurry to go through again the expense and dislocation of the relocation of the British Library? Is she therefore aware that if this land is not made available to the Library that might happen rather sooner than we wish?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I answered the first part of the noble Earl's question when I said that it was a question of future cost. We are already spending a great deal of money on the first part of this library and we shall have to examine the future costs very carefully. I put it to the noble Earl that it would be a sad reflection were the field of creative endeavour in which this country has most excelled over the centuries— in other words, literature— to have no single focus for celebration, preservation and active use. It is very important that this library continues. Perhaps I may also remind your Lordships that we are not talking about the library in this Question but about the site at present used by the builders.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most people regard the way in which the national library has been planned and built as a total national disaster and a vast waste of public money?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. I entirely disagree with the noble Lord. Furthermore, as I have already said, today's Question refers to the builders' site and not the library.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if the Government are not prepared to retain the land, perhaps for the future development of what must be regarded as one of the world's greatest libraries, will they at least give a categorical assurance, preferably in this House and now, that the British Library will be given the opportunity to raise funds to purchase the land itself, so that the future development of that library will be possible?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government would be prepared to consider proposals for private funds; but the British Library would also need to prepare a business case showing how it would meet the cost of the building and the ongoing costs.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be better to lease the land for a period of time, perhaps long enough for the anguish felt about the cost of the library as it currently stands to abate and when perhaps more optimistic views could be entertained? The land on which it is sited will not be recoverable once it is sold. It was a unique happening to find 13 acres of land together in the Somerstown site. That will not occur again. The drawing together of the parts of the British Library has largely been achieved by the existing structure. Is my noble friend concerned—
96
indeed I ask her to show some concern about the matter herself— at the remoteness of the newspaper library, which is way up in the rustic, further regions of the Northern Line? Does she agree that the great virtue of the existing site is that it is on the inner circle? Is not the accessibility of the site its greatest virtue?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the present building meets the British Library's key requirements. It is already library policy to operate from the two sites: London and Boston Spa. There is room for expansion at Boston Spa. There is another element, on which your Lordships have not touched, concerning this land. It is why we are being very cautious about our plans for it. The Union Railways has indicated a requirement to lease 2.8 acres of the land for site purposes from 1997 to 2003. But that will depend on the timetable for the construction of the Channel Tunnel link.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the site referred to is not of great market value, in the sense that it is scheduled by the planning authority for use only as an open space or for community housing? Is she also aware of the fact that the National Sound Archive, which is now housed at Exhibition Road in South Kensington, ought to be next door to the Music Library? It has always been the ambition of the library to put it there. Furthermore— I speak from direct knowledge because I negotiated the arrangement— is she aware that, if that site of the National sound Archive at Exhibition Road is sold, under the terms of the agreement that money can be used only to provide similar accommodation elsewhere? In other words, first, the land is cheap, if it is realised, and, secondly, already the British Library has an asset at Exhibition Road which can be used to defray the cost of some of the building. Will those factors please be taken into account?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the last factors mentioned by the noble Lord will be taken into account. The current value of the land is estimated at £ 1.5 million. But at the time of any sale the value would be determined by the most favourable planning consent that could be obtained at the time.

Accident and Emergency Services
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will undertake to improve conditions and standards of care in accident and emergency units.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumlberlege): My Lords, the aim of the Government's policies is to ensure that patients receive high quality accident and emergency services whenever they need them. We are continuing to take action to develop and improve standards and conditions in accident and emergency departments.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that accident and emergency cases which arrive at the hospital have probably been sent there by a doctor and must therefore be treated immediately? Is she aware that there is much concern, particularly in the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and Unison, that emergency and accident cases are put on trolleys in corridors? That situation ought not to be tolerated. Will she at least be prepared to examine what appears to be— I have made some investigations— a somewhat distressing situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we shall certainly undertake to do that. However, I should like to set the situation in context. Over 13 million people attend accident and emergency departments annually. The Government find it absolutely unacceptable for people to wait on trolleys once a decision for admission has been made. But sometimes it is necessary to wait, for observation purposes or for diagnostic treatments which have to take place in the accident and emergency department. It is interesting to see how similar hospitals vary, even within the same vicinity. We believe that a great deal of that is due to poor management.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a danger in looking at accident and emergency departments in isolation from the rest of the hospital? If beds are blocked, for example by geriatric patients, in medical or even surgical wards, will there not be a trickle-down effect, making it impossible for the patients who need to go up to the other wards to get out of the accident and emergency department?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is essential that the hospital should have a good discharge policy and that there are community facilities to support people once they leave the hospital. We know that, with some of the new procedures that are being introduced, that is possible and when a patient comes in for treatment a discharge policy is worked out almost immediately so that the support services can be in place when the time comes for that person to leave.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has the Minister studied the report of the Royal College of Nursing which was published only last month? It shows that in one third of accident and emergency units in hospitals patients have to stay overnight before they are admitted to a ward. Does she accept that that is not a satisfactory situation and that in fact it is worse outside London than it is in London itself, contrary to some views? The average waiting time is five and a half hours. Will she confirm that that is a situation to which she and her colleagues must address their minds?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a very interesting aspect of the review of the Royal College of Nursing was that resources were not the issue. The Royal College itself said that it was management that needed to be tightened up. The survey carried out was a
98
telephone survey. In two of the hospitals that were rung up, it was difficult to find the person who had replied to the survey.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, but does the noble Baroness agree that in that report it was said that a high proportion of the cases were as a result of bed closures, which surely must be linked with resources?
Baroness Cumberlege: I do not accept that, my Lords. One can look at some of the London hospitals — for example, University College Hospital — where 71 beds have been closed. We know that it has one of the best accident and emergency departments in the country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she found it "absolutely unacceptable" for patients to wait in a corridor on a trolley. Did she mean the word "absolutely" literally enough to be prepared to commit additional money to prevent that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear what I meant. I qualified it by saying that of course there are times when patients do have to wait on trolleys for diagnostic, observation and other purposes. But, once admission has been agreed, then that patient should be admitted. That is our policy and that is what we are working towards.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there have been some improvements in the accident and emergency departments since consultants were appointed? And can she say how many accident and emergency departments do not have consultants in charge and leave patients to junior doctors?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We notice that, where consultants are in charge, the difference is very great indeed. I am afraid I do not have the figures but I shall certainly make them available to her. We note also that, where there are hospital discharge managers and where senior nurses are bed managers, the difference is considerable. That is what I am saying in terms of the managing process.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that nearly half of all surgical units are cutting back on operations and one-third are giving priority to patients of GP fundholders? Is she aware also that more than half of the NHS trusts are facing a steep rise in emergency admissions as the GPs fight to obtain beds for their patients? Does the Minister agree with the view therefore that nurses should be given the authority to admit patients to hospital, provided there is a bed, without having to wait for a decision to be made by a doctor?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the question of GP fundholders is not an issue in this case. The patients of GP fundholders have direct access to A&E departments, as does every other patient in the country. Where patients need accident and emergency treatment, they receive it.

Grant-Maintained Schools
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What future plans they have for grant-maintained status for schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we will continue to make sure that parents and governors have the opportunities and information to exercise their right, under the law, to choose grant-maintained status. We are also developing a common funding formula for self-governing schools which is fair both to the schools themselves and to the local education authorities, which is transparent and which offers a reasonable prospect of stability in funding.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the Minister say how much money has been spent on the so-called "cash protection" for grant-maintained schools? Will she confirm that the nearly £ 250,000 being spent on advertising grant-maintained schools is additional to the funds required to carry out the first part of her Answer? Only 1,000 of the 24,000 schools opted out during the five years of the scheme. Does that not suggest that the schools, governors and parents are not convinced of the advantages? In those circumstances, will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that no opt-out will be allowed without a ballot?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is intensively anxious about this policy. If it were as unsuccessful as the noble Lord believes, he would not be exercised about it. Secondly, the noble Lord confuses cash protection with money for providing information to parents. If we take all the money spent since the policy was established in 1988, it still does not amount to 20p per child. As I said in a previous Answer, that would barely buy a pencil for each child. The noble Lord asked four questions and I believe it is traditional to answer two at the Box.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister clarify once and for all whether or not the Government are committed to free choice by parents in this matter? If they are, will they honour that commitment by recognising that the overwhelming majority of parents want lo stay with local authorities and that therefore local authorities should be given all the backing and support possible by the Government to make a success of their role in the future?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we remain absolutely committed to parents being the key determinant as to whether or not a school should go grant maintained. The noble Lord is not in a position to say that the overwhelming number of parents do not support being grant maintained. Until the new Act of Parliament came into being, not all parents were given an opportunity to answer the question. It is now necessary for every governing body to return to that question on an annual basis.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many parents and teachers who have been deeply dissatisfied and disillusioned by local authority schools have set up their own new schools which are providing excellent education and meeting most parental wishes, often with strong spiritual and moral values? Can my noble friend give an assurance that, if those schools wish to take advantage of the new legislation and opt in to grant-maintained status, they will be given every encouragement?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is, absolutely right. There is a new measure in the recent Education Act 1993, and any application will be considered on its merits. We will continue to support that. With regard to local education authorities, the situation is quite depressing. Only two weeks ago I visited a local education authority which had a five-point educational strategy for the authority; one was to oppose at all costs a parent's right to opt out.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as we know, having been told twice by the Minister, the cost of a pencil is 20p. Can she tell us therefore what the overall cost has been and is for cash protection for grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give the precise figure at the Dispatch Box. It is public information and I shall make it available to the noble Lord and place the information in the Library.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that grant-maintained schools have been extremely successful not only in raising academic standards and helping parents, but also in improving the fabric of the buildings? That is something which has been drawn to my attention on many occasions. Does she also agree that many of us regret the fact that many parents find it difficult to exercise their right to vote because there is so much opposition to the opting-out principles from officials at local level?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's second point is absolutely right. It was again quite depressing to see that a Member in the other place, Mr. Don Foster, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, had actually written to every chief education officer about campaigning against the opting-out policy. My noble friend's first point is also correct. All the surveys that have been carried out— one was very recently reported — show that the amount of value for money obtained for every grant-maintained school outstrips that for LEA-maintained schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Government allow the Electoral Reform Society to have the monopoly of balloting parents when they make every other affair a matter for competitive tendering?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give an absolute answer to that question. It would be wrong for me to guess. As far as I know, it has been involved in most of the ballots so far. However, discussion is taking place about whether it alone should

101
be used. We need to be concerned that, whatever organisation is involved in the balloting, it should be seen to be done properly.

Business of the House: Debates,16th February
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Boardman and the Lord Brougham and Vaux set down for 16th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours. — (Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: police areas]:
[Amendments Nos.1 and 2 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No.3:
Page 50, line 24, at end insert:
("British Transport Police
The British Transport Police").
The noble Lord said: I am raising this issue today in order to give the Government the opportunity to tell the Committee what action they propose to take in respect of a serious error which has been made in the rail privatisation legislation. It is an error which will lead to the powers of arrest of the British Transport Police being drastically curtailed.
As from 1st April this year the British Transport Police will only be able to arrest offenders on British Rail property. But most of the property of British Rail will, as from April, be owned by Railtrack. From that date the British Transport Police will not be able to follow alleged offenders to their homes, interview them and, when appropriate, arrest them, for the Department of Transport has inadvertently removed their powers as constables. This will create a truly remarkable situation. A police force of 2,200 officers will at a stroke have its powers removed.
Let me illustrate the seriousness of the forthcoming situation. There are 23 police forces in this country which are smaller than the British Transport Police. The transport police investigate more crimes than 24 other
102
police forces. In 1992–93 they were called upon to investigate 1,237 crimes of violence. I exclude for various reasons those committed on the London Underground. In addition, they had to investigate 388 sexual offences,928 robberies,3,097 burglaries,2,862 cases of fraud and 37,582 cases of theft. Yet as from April, as a result of the Government's own legislation, they will in the overwhelming majority of these cases no longer possess the powers of constable and thus be able to follow through their investigations.
A number of questions arise from this unhappy situation. First, how did this extraordinary mistake come to be made in the first instance by the Department of Transport? I hope that the noble Earl will be able to explain this matter to us. Secondly, what action do the Government propose to take to rectify this situation? I hope that we will be assured in unequivocal terms that government amendments will be introduced to the Bill at the Report stage. Thirdly, assuming that amendments are introduced to rectify these errors, what will happen in the period between April and the day when the Bill receives Royal Assent? Presumably the rest of the police service, overburdened as it is with the investigation of crime, will have to carry the burden caused by the Department of Transport's errors. I should be grateful if the noble Earl was able to answer these questions.
Next, has the Association of Chief Police Officers yet been told that as from April the police will have to take on this burden of work which has been removed from the British Transport Police as the result of an error in a government Bill? If it has been so informed, I should be very grateful if I could be told on what date it was informed. I am sure that the Government will appreciate the indignation that the police will feel, overburdened as they are with work, that they will now have to use their scarce resources to deal with criminal conduct arising on the railways
Lastly, who will pay for this work? The Department of Transport has made a serious error. Can we be assured that police authorities will receive financial compensation for the work that their forces will have to carry out?
There is a further matter which I have drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport in correspondence. I refer to the need to establish a new and representative police authority for the British Transport Police. Given the creation of Railtrack, the constitutional position in respect of the accountability of and support for the British Transport Police is clearly most unsatisfactory. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure us that on this issue too there will be government amendments on Report to deal with this important matter.
The British Transport Police carry out work of high national importance, not least in the area of terrorism. It is essential that the problems I have identified this afternoon are resolved before the Bill leaves the House. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to support briefly but wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is an extraordinary catalogue of errors. One can well understand how errors could have occurred during the somewhat chaotic passage of the Railways Bill, but what cannot be understood and what is quite inexcusable is the fact that no adequate steps have been taken to correct those errors and to ensure the continued existence of the transport police, who have the sole responsibility for policing large public spaces in this country and, as the noble Lord made clear, do it on a considerable scale very effectively. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to make a favourable reply to the arguments raised.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, posed a number of questions. His amendment highlights a difficulty into which we have run. The noble Lord will know that the amendment as it stands will not work because it appears to treat the British Transport Police as an area of England and Wales, which of course would be unsuitable.
No doubt the noble Lord's main purpose in moving the amendment is to explore questions about the powers and jurisdiction of members of the British Transport Police. There appears to be some doubt as to the British Transport Police's position in respect of Railtrack from 1st April. The British Transport Police will continue as a single police force responsible for policing Britain's rail network after 1st April. British Rail is to remain the employer of the British Transport Police for the immediate future. In order to ensure that the British Transport Police will continue to police the whole of the restructured railway, an order amending the British Transport Police Force Scheme 1963 will be laid before Parliament shortly.
The inference behind the noble Lord's amendment is that the British Transport Police will not have full jurisdiction on Railtrack property. I can assure the Committee that that is not the case. The intention of the Railways Act 1993 was that jurisdiction of the British Transport Police should be unaffected. However, we are aware that there may be some doubt now as to the precise extent of the powers which the British Transport Police may have beyond Railtrack property. The British Transport Police may act as constables on and in the vicinity of Railtrack's property. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is urgently considering, in conjunction with British Rail and the British Transport Police, whether the wording represents a problem and, if it does, how best to address it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the Government would bring forward an amendment at Report stage. There is a problem here which my right honourable friend is addressing. The action we take will depend on the outcome of those consultations and discussions. The problem has only recently been identified, arid it is one to which a solution is being sought.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I should like to ask a practical question arising out of this matter. Until an hour or two ago I did not know that this problem had arisen. The date of 1st April has been on the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and of the noble Earl the Minister. I used to represent part of the city of Leeds. Noble Lords will have heard recently of behaviour at Elland Road football ground on the death of Sir Matt Busby. One can only wonder what kind of people we are dealing with. Many of them arrive at the main city station on the day of the match. They come early and they then have to make their way to Elland Road. There are often real problems.
Out in the street I have seen mounted police charging down rather like a scene from the battle of Balaclava Inside the station problems arise and it is nasty to be involved. In those days I often travelled on a Saturday afternoon. As regards this date in April, I can understand that the Minister of Transport is concerned, but unless something is done pretty quickly there will be a lot of people in Leeds worrying about what is going to happen around the station. There is this small group of people, not always from the town or city concerned, who behave in this abysmal way. The British Transport Police have a very good record at stations and on the trains as they move from one part of the country to another. Will that be all right? Will they be able to do that after April or is this problem going to carry on?
Earl Ferrers: I hope that I can allay the disquiet of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. The fact is that the British Transport Police at the moment have control and jurisdiction over all the railway system in, on and in the vicinity of the railway organisation. In other words, they are responsible for what happens on the trains, on the railways and in the stations. They can actually chase after a person outside the station if that is their wish. At the moment that will continue to be the case. The only difficulty is the interpretation of the words and whether or not "in the vicinity of" is more constricting than we anticipate. It is that point which needs to be addressed. I can assure the noble Lord that the British Transport Police will have full jurisdiction on and in the vicinity of the stations, which is the point that the noble Lord is anxious about. That will continue just the same after 1st April as before.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not propose to develop this argument further this afternoon. The noble Earl has said two things. As I understand it, there is some doubt about the situation. According to the British Transport Police there is no doubt about the matter at all. Their powers as constables have been inadvertently removed by the Department of Transport and that is the reality. The second statement made by the noble Earl was that London Transport is urgently examining the situation and, I trust, with the Home Office at the same time. Perhaps I may make this suggestion to the noble Earl — that is, that we discuss this matter between now and Report stage so that it can be clarified. I am sure he will understand that we shall not feel able to ignore this issue in the period between the beginning of the Committee stage today and 'Third Reading. We expect government amendments to be introduced.

105
At the same time I have asked a number of questions which have not been answered. I asked whether members of the Association of Chief Police Officers have been told that they are likely to have to take over many of the responsibilities of the British Transport Police as from 1st April. That question has not been answered. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me an answer, perhaps in correspondence following this discussion, and also the date on which ACPO was informed.
I am sure that the noble Earl will realise the implications for the rest of the British police service; namely, that as from April this year they have to take on a heavy burden of work which is now being carried out by the British Transport Police. We cannot allow this situation of doubt to continue any longer. I shall certainly ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this amendment but, as I am sure the noble Earl will recognise, we shall be coming back to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Police forces and police authorities]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.4:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("2A and 3") and insert ("and 3 (as amended)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I have to apologise to the Committee if its meaning is not immediately clear even to the keen minds which are present in the Chamber. My justification for the amendment is of course the particular clause in the Bill which my amendment seeks to change. I admit that, on the face of it, both are entirely incomprehensible. Wishing to understand what exactly is the law which we now seek to amend does not seem to me to be an elaborate precaution. I sought the help of the Public Bill Office. I was referred to Statutes in Force, the 1979 edition, which is the latest existing in this House. I found that that edition revealed what has happened since to Sections 2 and 3. However, it made no reference to Section 2A. The Notes on Clauses were equally silent on this important matter. I was then zealous to understand. I resorted to Halsbury's Statutes, volume 33; 1993 edition. I studied most carefully pages 675 to 677. There I found an account of what has happened to Sections 2 and 3 and, for the first time, light was shed on Section 2A.
From time to time I have ventured to express some doubt as to whether our legislative procedures were as excellent as I am sure that this House would wish them to be. When I recently suggested in the most mild terms to Her Majesty's Government that they might consider some form of inquiry into our legislative procedures to see whether they were as high class as they should be, I was given a very negative reply, the clear inference of which was that they could not possibly be improved. That is a proposition which is open to doubt.
I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time, but without driving Members of the Committee into a very deep sleep perhaps I may quote one passage from page 675. It is a small section of a footnote which gives an account of the history of the section in the
106
Police Act 1964 with which we are dealing. The Committee will be well aware that we have moved on from the sections of the Police Act and that we are dealing with what has happened to those sections since then. I thought that the Committee might be interested in the sort of guidance which is made available so fortunately to us so that we can have our minds very clearly focused on the issues.
The footnote to which I refer on page 675 reads as follows:
"The words omitted from sub-ss (1), (4), (5), and the whole of sub-s (3), were repealed, and sub-s (6) was substituted, by the Local Government Act 1972, ss 196(1), (2),272(1), Sch 30. The words in square brackets in sub-s (1) and in the first pair of square brackets in sub-s (2) were substituted, and the words omitted from para 2(b) and the whole of para 2(c) (both of which had been inserted by the Local Government Act 1972, s 217, Sch 27, Pt II, para 18) were repealed, by the Local Government Act 1985, ss 37,102, Sch 11, para 1, Sch 17. The words in the second pair of square brackets in sub-s (2) (b) were substituted by the Courts Act 1971, s 53(5)".
It may be a total inadequacy of my dwindling intellectual powers, but I find that extremely difficult to follow. It will be comforting to me at any rate to know that even so eminent an ornament of the present Administration as my noble friend also finds that material a matter for stumbling and that he is not perhaps inclined to give it the crown of lucidity. I do not wish to prolong my remarks too much, but I seriously believe that that is not the way in which our legislative procedures should be carried out.
I have always had very limited sympathy with what is, in my view, rather misdescribed as "industrial action". But there is one instance of industrial action in history with which I feel increasing sympathy. It took place quite a long time ago and is known as the "Secession of the Plebs". There were two occasions on which the workers of Ancient Rome said that they had had enough and withdrew from the city. As far as I recollect, the terms of their return were that somebody should write down the law in comprehensible terms and that a special officer, a Tribune, should be appointed who could, if necessary, explain the law to them. I believe that such an officer is very badly needed in this Committee. I am certainly not that man and would not dream of offering myself for such a ghastly post.
Not for the last time during the passage of this Bill, I feel constrained to offer my very deep sympathy to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He has the very unpleasant duty of explaining and justifying the drafting of this measure. I hope— it would be an unexpected realisation of an ambition but nevertheless "hope springs eternal"— that my noble friend might get up to say that, as a result of these few remarks that I have been tempted to make, some kind of effort will be made to tidy up the processes whereby such stuff is allowed to appear on the pages of the statute book. I recall that when the Charities Bill was in Committee my noble friend who was dealing with that Bill on behalf of the Government was exceedingly helpful. I hope that he will show the same degree of good will today and devote his very considerable energies to persuading those professional obfuscators responsible for this kind of garbage to do better in future. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with his usual wonderful combination of modesty and vehemence, has drawn our attention to the very confused situation that arose after the Police Act 1964 had been in force for some years when the government of the day, of whom we were both supporters, in the 1970s and later tried to modify it in order to make it dovetail with the local government reforms which we supported. I agree with my noble friend that an unsatisfactory situation was created in our legislation. In passing, I should like to say how much I am sure that we all welcome the efforts of my noble friend to get legislation simplified.
I should like to try to comfort my noble friend on the matter that he has raised, if that is possible. By getting rid of Sections 2,2. A and 3 of the Police Act 1964, as they have been amended, and substituting Clause 2 of this Bill, simplification will be achieved so far as the form is concerned. I do not speak of the substance of the matter because so many of us have some doubts about the substance, to which we shall come later. However, it seems to me that we have to get rid of Sections 2,2A and 3 of the Police Act 1964, as amended, and we are clearly doing so in this provision. I think that, as a result, this is an improvement on the law as it at present appears on the statute book.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to intervene in family quarrels, but surely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was making is that there is no Section 2A in force at present. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can find it, we shall be grateful to him.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that the modesty of my noble friend Lord Peyton is overwhelming. He said that he found enormous difficulty in understanding the provisions and referred to how difficult that is when one has "dwindling intellectual powers". My noble friend has the advantage of me there: I have never had any dwindling intellectual powers simply because I never had any intellectual powers in the first place.
I agree with my noble friend that in all cases I find dealing with matters of legislation enormously complex. When my noble friend was kind enough to say that he looked to me for help as being "an ornament" on the Front Bench, I was not quite certain whether that was supposed to be a compliment. I thought that an ornament was something that sat upon a shelf and looked pretty but did not actually do anything. I only hope that I shall be able to do something for my noble friend in trying to persuade him that this is not all that bad.
My noble friend will not be surprised to learn that I believe his amendment to be unnecessary. It is not always easy to get to the bottom of every detail of a Bill which refers to earlier legislation. I am sure that my noble friend will sympathise with me because I do not have the advantage of legal qualifications, which he manages to make up for most adequately.
Legislation is complex. We should do what we can to keep it clear and simple. I agree that one needs a fully up-to-date text of the Police Act 1964 in order to
108
decipher every last dot and comma. I am glad to know that a text is readily available. I agree also that if my noble friend took the simple course of comparing the Bill with the 1964 Act as printed he would have run into trouble. He needs to compare it with the 1964 Act as amended by various statutes. My information is that Halsbury's Statutes contains that information. The volume has recently been fully updated to contain the legislation relating to the police. I was concerned when my noble friend said that when he looked at Halsbury he found that it did not contain the right words. I wonder whether he looked at the "right" version, so to speak — the last version. My information is that that is the correct authority—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: said that the 1979 edition, which is the latest edition of statutes in force, failed to make clear what Section 2A was about. Indeed, there was no mention of it. On the other hard, Halsbury's Statutes does refer to it.
Earl Ferrers: I should have thought that that would satisfy my noble friend. I agree that the position is easier when Bills are consolidated and contained in one consolidated Act. Obviously, I cannot give my noble friend an assurance that that will be done; I hope that in due course it will. My noble friend will then be able to refer to the Act with total simplicity and will be able to find his way through it. The original Acts will be amended as they have been and will be after this Bill has been passed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I realise that I must be satisfied with that explanation. I shall do my best. The simple proposition that I sought to put forward was that when law has been amended it should be possible for those who wish to understand the Government's intentions to find out relatively easily what the law is. I suggest that that is far from easy and that even if one can find a reference it is not easy to understand.
Earl Ferrers: I cannot dissent from my noble friend on either of those propositions.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not have even a vague hope of gaining further progress on this difficult subject and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Perhaps I may remind the Committee that if Amendment No.5 is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No.6.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("a") and insert ("The Secretary of State shall by order establish").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.6 to 8,10 to 22,27,124 and 125. I apologise for the size of the grouping but it was agreed among all concerned that it would be: better for the Committee to have a single debate on the size and composition of police authorities rather than a series of debates on closely related issues. Although the

109
amendments have been grouped together by agreement, they are not all expressing the same point of view. I shall expand the argument in a moment.
Briefly, my Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 provide that the size of a police authority should not be restricted to 16 members but should, by order, be between 16 and 24 members. They also provide that two-thirds of those members should be appointed by local authorities in the area concerned.
Amendments 6,7,12 to 14,16,19 and 21 stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The most significant is Amendment No.21. They too provide for flexibility in the size of police authorities and for their composition to be such as to secure a majority of not less than three local authority members.
Amendments Nos.10,15 and 20 are government amendments. They provide for greater flexibility in the size of police authorities— that is, between 16 and 24 members to be determined by the Secretary of State — and for the Bill's existing proposition that only 50 per cent. of members should be from local authorities. Of the remainder some should be magistrates and some should be appointed by the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos.17,18 and 22 stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. They too provide for flexibility in the size of police authorities and propose that half the members should be from local authorities and the other half should be magistrates.
I hope that that makes the issue clear. When I seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No.5 I shall be seeking agreement only to that amendment and its related amendments, Amendments Nos.8 and 11. If the Committee disagrees with my amendment, or if it is withdrawn, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is put, a decision by the Committee will relate only to the amendments standing in his name. There are before us four alternatives, which we are debating together. The next group of amendments, Amendments Nos.23 to 25 and 28 to 30, are consequential on some of the amendments in this group. If some of the amendments are carried the Committee must consider whether to agree also to amendments in that following group.
So much for the procedures and the outline of the subject for debate. The issues now before the Committee are at least as important as any in the Bill. The Government have made welcome propositions on a number of matters in relation both to the police part and to the magistrates' courts part of the Bill. As regards the police part, the Government, under considerable pressure from their Members and Members on these Benches, have made the welcome concession that the chairmen of police authorities shall no longer be appointed by the Home Secretary but shall be elected from among the members of the police authority. In response to criticisms made on Second Reading, they have also provided that the size of a police authority shall not be limited to 16 members but can, by order of the Secretary of State, be extended to 24 members. We recognise all those concessions, and we are grateful for them.
The trouble is that having agreed to a more flexible approach to the size of the police authorities, and despite many effective speeches from the Conservative Benches on Second Reading, the Government have not taken the opportunity to return to the tripartite system of policing in this country, which was the essential element of the 1964 Act that is, in effect, being replaced. I refer to only one passage from the Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said that the people in question should be genuinely locally appointed.
What is now proposed is that whatever the size of the police authority, there will still be a body of appointees appointed by the Secretary of State. In Amendment No.27, the Government propose a slightly different or more explicit procedure as to how those appointments shall be made. The Government are proposing that they shall be made,
"from a list of persons compiled in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State".
It appears to be claimed, at least in the press, that that somehow provides for appointments to be made at arm's length from the Home Secretary. With that wording I cannot see how that can be the case. If the list of persons is compiled in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State then makes the appointment, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for all stages of the process. We still have a centrally appointed part of the local authority.
I give an example of how that may work in terms of numbers. Let us suppose that there is, as there is in Greater Manchester at present, a political composition of the councils where of the eight local authority members, five are Labour, two are Conservative and one is a Liberal Democrat. Let us also assume that on politically sensitive issues, as is normally the case, the magistrates would not vote. Let us assume further that the Secretary of State's appointees would, as would seem entirely plausible, vote in accordance with the wishes of the Secretary of State and that he is a Conservative. In an area with a substantive Labour majority that would give a Conservative majority on the police authority. There would be the possibility of conflict between the police authority and the local authorities in the area which are jointly responsible with the police authority for many aspects of policing by consent.
I chose an example with a Conservative Secretary of State and a Labour majority. However, I ask Members on all sides of the Committee to consider that that could work the other way round because a Labour Secretary of State could exercise exactly those powers in an area which has a Conservative majority on the local council or councils. I ask the Committee to think of this matter not as a party issue between Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat but rather to consider whether it is right for a Secretary of State of any political persuasion to secure, by appointment to a police authority, political control from the centre of that police authority. That is what the Government's present proposals would still achieve.
It is our view, and the view which finds expression in Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11, that we should return to the tripartite system of policing, which is a partnership

111
between the chief constable, the local authority in the area and the Home Secretary. That tripartite arrangement has worked extremely well for 30 years. There have been minor conflicts in some parts of the country, but nothing to justify the proposed wholesale removal of the partnership
We welcome the Government's proposals as far as they go but we must point out that they leave police authorities in an unstable situation. The police authorities would not be robust to changes of government and would not be responsive to the needs of local people as expressed through their elected members. The Government's proposals are inadequate as a final solution to the issues raised on Second Reading.
I remind the Committee that on Second Reading,35 out of 37 speakers spoke largely against the tenor of the Bill, with various reservations of all kinds. I remind the Committee also that one of the principal anxieties about the police part of the Bill was the removal of the tripartite system and the concentration of power in the hands of the Home Secretary. Our amendments would restore democratic accountability for police authorities and they would remove the proposed concentration of power in the Home Secretary. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Whitelaw: Any discussion of this group of amendments must surely be conducted against the background of the vital Amendment No.31 concerning the chairmen of the police authorities, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I wish to record my gratitude to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for his immediate understanding and recognition of the very strong feelings expressed in all parts of the House during the Second Reading debate.
Amendment No.31 confirms that a chairman of a police authority will be elected by the authority itself instead of being appointed by the Home Secretary, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said. That major change ensures the independence of the authorities and also, crucially, the operational independence of the chief constables. I know that that change will be most welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, in this Committee and also widely throughout the country.
I welcome also two further amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Ferrers which are to be discussed this evening. Amendment No.20 gives the Secretary of State power to increase the number of police authority members above 16 As I said on Second Reading, I believe that some areas will need to have larger authorities because of their size or, indeed, their particular problems, geographical and otherwise.
I welcome too Amendment No.27 which sets out plans for the appointment of members of authorities by the Secretary of State. Those will have the sanction of having to come before Parliament before acceptance. Again, that is extremely important.
Against the background of the proposed Government changes, we must consider the membership of the authority and the appointment of some members. I must make it clear at once that I personally do not regard
112
those decisions as a constitutional question, as most certainly was the appointment of the chairmen. Therefore, I am glad that the idea of appointed or co-opted members as well as magistrates seems now to be fairly widely accepted, if I understand the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
I have reached the same conclusion that as a method of appointment co-opting is right and makes sense. By saying that, I have no criticism of the existing police authorities. My experience as Home Secretary— I must admit, now some 10 years ago— was that, on the whole, they did a very good job. But I accept that the importance of law and order today demands a broad approach and possibly some new ideas.
There are certainly people in our community who feel that they have a special contribution to make in that field and would like to take part, although they are not able to go forward for election to local councils. I know that that is the very strong view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and is also the view of a good many Members in another place and in this Chamber. Therefore, I come down firmly in favour of the principle of appointed members. However, at this stage I must part from Amendment No.11 on the method of their selection for two reasons. First, if we are to seek a broader approach to the problems of law and order, I feel that we need a broader electorate than the existing members of a police authority.
Secondly, I believe that the method of selection that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has proposed in Amendment No.27 is a broader method of selection than that proposed elsewhere. I also believe that it is not so subject to all the other particular points suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that it can be made to work. With the background of proposed amendments and what can be done by Parliament as a result, it is a sensible way of proceeding. I, therefore, conclude that on that point the Bill should stand as it is.
In general, I strongly support my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the plans that he now puts forward for the organisation of police authorities: in tackling the serious problems of law and order which we all face in this country today.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to take the opportunity to refer very briefly to one of my amendments to Clause 2 which reads:
"Page 2, line 18, after the second ('of') insert ('not less than')".
I should like to put those words on the record. They were printed on an earlier sheet but, somehow or other, they have disappeared from the current Marshalled List.
In referring to the amendments tabled in my name, I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to recount in full the arguments with which Members of the Committee are already familiar. Like other noble Lords, I was greatly influenced as regards my opinion of the Bill by the remarks made by no fewer than three former Home Secretaries; namely, my noble friends Lord Whitelaw and Lord Can and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.

113
I believe that it would have been absurd to have imposed upon police authorities a uniform number of 16 without regard either to the size of the area with which they were concerned or the numbers of the population. It is very easy to find examples to show just how absurd that would be. For example, the result for a large area like Devon and Cornwall with 4,000 square miles, now having 30 elected members, but reduced under the Bill to eight, would be absurd. Likewise with Greater Manchester. It has a dense population of 2.6 million. It now has 30 elected members with 35,000 people per member, but it would end up with 324,000 people per member. I also think that that would be absurd.
As regards those who have objected to a body of large numbers and stressed the need to reduce the number to 16, my noble friends on the Front Bench would do very well to give their attention to the possibility of reducing the number of the Cabinet to 16. I shall forbear from making detailed suggestions as to which of those distinguished people should be dispensed with; nevertheless, it might be to everyone's advantage if the Cabinet was reduced to 16. I have personally thought so for a very long time.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to my amendments, and especially to Amendment No.21. I share his view that that is probably the most important of all the amendments with which I am concerned and to which I have put my name. It is unnecessary at this stage to add to my remarks. However, I believe that the overwhelming need here is to strengthen the representation of elected members on police authorities and to turn away from the trend, as I see it, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written into the Bill, of increasing the power of central government.
I am certainly not an unqualified admirer of all our procedures in local government. However, before central government goes further down the road of usurping functions which are now those of local government, it will have to persuade a large number of people that its own performance justifies such a course. For myself, I do not believe that it does.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I believe that a contribution from the Cross-Benches might not be out of place at this stage as the issue that we are discussing (by way of a rather complicated group of amendments) is, as the debate has already shown, one not to be settled just on party lines. Like previous speakers, I greatly welcome the concessions proposed by the Government on the police aspect of the Bill. Nevertheless, given what had already been said in this Chamber and by every body that they consulted, I cannot refrain from commenting that I simply cannot understand why they were surprised at the reaction to their original proposal.
However, welcome though the concessions are, I find them falling short of the ideal in three respects. First, I do not want to repeat what has been so eloquently said about the need for putting the elected local government representatives in a clear majority, but it certainly seems to me that, unless that is done, the whole concept of the triple partnership and all the fine words about local
114
accountability are seriously at risk. To my mind, the case has not been made out— or, indeed, anything like it — for so fundamental a change.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave one illustration of how things might work out in practice. Perhaps I may take a shot at another. Under the Government's proposals, if the other two non-elected elements on the authority combined and then elected one of their number as chairman (perhaps at a meeting when a couple of the local authority representatives could not be present), the local authority members would, in effect, be in a minority. After all, those bodies are precepting authorities. I think it crucial that those who have been elected by their local communities should be in a clear majority. I sympathise with the proposition in that regard set out in Amendment No.21 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Secondly, as regards size, the government amendments still seem to contemplate that 16 should be the norm; but, in practice, I would expect a great many exceptions to be made — for example, where there are a number of constituent authorities as in Greater Manchester, which has a combination of urban areas and large rural areas, or where the authority tends to function through many sub-committees each of which has to be manned, as in Merseyside. I am bound to say that my own view is still that the size, within the limits laid down by statute with a minimum of 16 or 18 and a maximum of 24, would best be determined locally. If we are not going in for a national police force, I still cannot see what it has to do with the Secretary of State, and why the Home Office should be settling the size of 43 or so police authorities. At all events I believe that the views of the local authorities should ordinarily prevail.
It follows from this that I believe the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with his well-known moderation and desire to compromise, has gone rather too far in meeting government intentions. But at all events I go along with his proposal that, if this measure is to be done by order, it would be right that the order should be laid before Parliament to make quite sure that justice has been done.
Thirdly, there is the question of how the minority of non-elected members should be composed. I accept that there is a good case for including magistrates, who have trailed clouds of glory, as it were, from Tudor times when the justice of the peace was local government, and then historically through their membership of the standing joint committees. But I still find it hard to accept— here, with great regret, I differ both from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw— the power of the central government to make at least five appointments to each authority (that is somewhere between 200 or 300 appointments) direct. We have heard various explanations of who these people might be. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, takes some comfort from Amendment No.27, but, looking at that amendment, I am afraid it does not take us far.
The Government say that one of their main aims in all this is to go for greater local accountability. However, these people can hardly claim to know more about the community than the elected representatives, or more, for example, about education and social services

115
activities, which can be relevant to police concerns. There are many local government members, as inquiries have shown, who can claim outside management and financial expertise. I am sorry to say this but my fear is that the reality is that they would be a substantial minority with weighty voting powers who would look to their appointing authority for a lead. In the event of a dispute with the inspector of constabulary, or with the Home Office, where would their loyalties lie, and how independent would the authority remain?
I can put a point rather more crudely than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put it. I realise that the present Government find it inconceivable that one day they will be in opposition, but I wonder whether they would have shown quite the same enthusiasm for this solution if it had been forthcoming from a Labour government. I accept the argument which the noble Viscount put so clearly; namely, that there may be a case for bringing in some outside people, but if this is to be done it seems to me that the police authority itself is the authority best able to judge what particular gaps need to be filled. One of the amendments to which I am speaking contemplates giving power to the authority to co-opt members with experience which might not otherwise be available, for example from among the ethnic minorities. That works for education authorities and it could work here but the needs vary a great deal from locality to locality and are not really suitable for decision in Whitehall, or to be more accurate, Queen Anne's Gate.
I am left in a slight dilemma in that none of the amendments we are discussing is absolutely ideal from my point of view in meeting the three difficulties which I have touched on. The amendment to which I have put my name, Amendment No.11, would be better if it mentioned a minimum number of 18 rather than 16 so as to simplify the arithmetical processes of contemplating a two-thirds majority. Of the amendments which we are discussing I would, if the opinion of the Committee were sought, go along with Amendment No.5 and the two other associated amendments which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has submitted for the consideration of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I begin by welcoming the decision of the Government to drop the provision in the Bill which gave the Secretary of State the power to appoint the chairman of the police authority. It was a wholly objectionable idea and it was rightly opposed by nearly everyone who spoke in the debate. The Government have withdrawn from that position and I welcome that unreservedly. However, a great deal that is objectionable remains in Clause 2 of this Bill.
The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, put it extremely well and extremely persuasively when he spoke on Second Reading on the question not of the chairman but of the five Home Office nominees. He said:
"Is it really wise to replace local authority members with the Home Secretary's nominees? Will the nominees really know
116
more about local policing and more about their areas than the people from local authorities already do? It is extremely doubtful"— [Official Report, 18/1/94; cols.480 and 481.1
The objections to this provision, quite apart from the point identified, rightly, by the noble Viscount on Second Reading, raise, in my view, far wider matters. They raise major constitutional issues. Are we prepared to destroy the tripartite system that has been developed in this country since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 and the Local Government Act: 1888? For, make no mistake about it, Clause 2 of this Bill effectively destroys the careful balance that has been developed over more than a century between chief officers, local police authorities and the Home Secretary. Why is this being done? We have still had no serious explanation from the Government as to why they have brought these proposals forward. Indeed the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has paid a warm tribute to the existing system. I remind the Committee of what he said in our debate on the Government's proposals last year. He said:
"In the 30 years that have passed since the previous police Act became law the old tripartite structure, which consisted of police authorities, chief constables and the Home Secretary, has provided an effective police service which can still truthfully be described as being not only the best in the world but also the envy of the world"— [Official Report, 26/5/93; col.345.]
I believe that view expressed by the noble Earl is widely shared in this country and indeed— this is even more significant— outside this country. As I have indicated in the past, not only is our police service admired but so is our policing structure. Senior police officers from the United States and from our partners in Europe believe that we have succeeded in creating a police service that is politically independent, unlike those in their own countries, where all-powerful politicians, be, they ministers of the interior or mayors, have imposed their will upon the police, often with the most damaging consequences.
That being so, I find it extraordinary that the Government have brought forward this proposal. As has already been pointed out, there has been no independent inquiry, no Royal Commission, no report from a Select Committee of the House of Commons and no pressure from outside Parliament. Indeed, on 19th January the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told me that of the 360 letters which had been received from a wide variety of organisations, representing people of totally different political opinions, following the publication of the White Paper not one supported the Government's proposals in relation to the membership of police authorities. Not one organisation wrote to the Home Secretary indicating support for what the Government have now put before the Committee.
As the Committee is aware, the proposals are opposed by the entire police service of this country. They are opposed by the Police Federation, by the Police Superintendents' Association arid by the Association of Chief Police Officers. They have taken that position not because they are resistant to change but because they believe that the proposals will politicise the British police service. In my opinion they are entirely right to take that view.
Instead of the present arrangements which have served us so well, a politician in London who is for the

117
time being Home Secretary will appoint five members to the police authority — or roughly a third when the membership of the authority is more than 16. He will be able to do that with the police authorities in Norwich, Chelmsford, Newcastle, Penrith, and all the other force areas in England and Wales. What has that to do with the quality of policing in this country? Those political nominees will be accountable not to the local community but to the politician in London, of whatever political persuasion he may be.
During the previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, professed to be wounded by the suggestion that Mr. Howard has the intention of putting political friends into those jobs. Let us assume for a moment that he has no such intention and that no such idea has ever crossed his mind. I fear that that does not even begin to address our anxiety. The assurances that were given on the previous occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in relation to the Home Secretary's attitude, which will no doubt be repeated later this afternoon, will hold good only for as long as Mr. Howard is Home Secretary. His successors, of whatever party, will not be bound by anything the noble Earl may say this afternoon. It is inconceivable that in five or 10 years time a Home Secretary will say, "What did Lord Ferrers say in February 1994? I really musn't do what I thought of doing given the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave certain assurances". He will do whatever he considers on that occasion to be right. The Committee must recognise that.
As we all know perfectly well, future governments, whatever their political persuasion, will be tempted to fill these posts on police authorities with political allies. On every police authority of 16 members there will be five nominees of the politician in London, three Justices of the Peace and eight councillors from different political parties, as required by the legislation. In my view it is right that that should be required by the legislation. The five Home Secretary nominees, with the support of even a minority of, say, three of the councillors, will almost certainly be able to elect the chairman of the authority, who will then have a casting vote in addition to his deliberative vote. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said on many occasions that Justices of the Peace do not become involved in matters of this sort. The Home Secretary of the day— of whatever party — will then have his majority on nearly every police authority in England and Wales.
Do we really want to give a politician in Whitehall such power on the overwhelming majority of police authorities in England and Wales? We should remember the other provisions of the Bill: the national policing objectives, which will be laid down by the Home Secretary of the day; performance related pay for chief officers, to be determined by the police authority; and, most significant of all, fixed-term contracts for chief officers.
Consider the position in relation to the chief officer's operational independence. That independence is the immense strength of our system and our guarantee that all-powerful politicians in Whitehall, and, for that matter, members of police authorities, cannot apply
118
improper pressures on the police. If this clause is allowed to go through unamended there is a serious danger that a future Home Secretary's friends on a police authority could indicate that if a chief officer did not see things as they did, and as the Government of the day saw them, his contract might not be renewed. There is no point in the Government denying that there is such a danger. Pressure of precisely that character has been applied to chief officers of police outside our own shores. That is why so many of them admire our system of carefully designed checks and balances, which has served this nation so well.
In a few minutes the Committee will have to vote on this issue. It is probably one of the most momentous in the history of the British police service. There is a real danger that the passage of this clause unamended will do the most grievous damage to the British police service. That is not simply my view, it is the opinion of every chief officer of police with whom I have discussed the matter.
If this Bill had been introduced by a government of a different political persuasion from the present Government I would have spoken in precisely the same terms as I do today. I believe that in such circumstances the overwhelming majority of this Chamber would have taken precisely the same view. Members of the Committee should have no doubt of the gravity of the decision they will make this evening. As I said at Second Reading, this Chamber is the ultimate guardian of the constitutional liberties of the British people. I hope that the Committee will strike these repugnant provisions from the Bill.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I did not speak at the Second Reading of the Bill because I spoke extremely critically in the debate on the White Paper on 26th May last year. Because I was so critical I should like to commence by joining with my right honourable friend Lord Whitelaw in welcoming the changes which the Home Secretary has now proposed. He inherited the Bill, and it is not always easy to make changes of the radical nature which he has proposed. Ministers often find themselves in grave difficulty these days. If they do not listen they are accused of being autocratic. If they do listen they are accused of making U-turns. Even the Gadarene swine did not have to make a U-turn: a change of direction would have been quite sufficient. I welcome the change of direction which the Home Secretary has made.
The objectives of this Bill are to be commended, but it has been perfectly clear from the outset that we cannot combat crime by antagonising everyone concerned with the enforcement of law and order: the police authorities, the police and the magistrates. I think that the Home Secretary has gone a long way to meet many anxieties, but I hope that he will be willing to go a few steps further. As other speakers have said, it is important that there should be a majority of elected members serving on the police authority, preferably by retaining the two-thirds requirement or at least ensuring, as my noble friend Lord Peyton has suggested, that there is a clear majority. I will go on reiterating the principles

119
enunciated by Professor F. A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom. He is an author much commended by some elements in the Conservative Party. He said:
"You cannot have real, effective democracy without real, effective local self-government".
He made that comment in the light of his experiences in pre-War Germany. Perhaps I may repeat what I suggested in the debate on the White Paper. There is a comparison— perhaps pushed a little far— with the national socialists in Germany who said that a locally-elected mayor like Adenauer does not represent the wishes and interests of the people of Cologne as well as perhaps an appointed businessman by the name of Krupp.
That may be pushing it too far, but there are real dangers in giving a Home Secretary of any party the powers suggested in this Bill. We ought to look at legislation on the basis not that we give powers to a good Minister but that we may be putting powers into the hands of a bad Minister in future years. The point has been made about the importance of having local businessmen. I think it has been established that 38 per cent. of those who now serve on police authorities have business experience. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I do not really appreciate the need for the changes that are suggested in this Bill. I ask the Government to think again and, to use a phrase coined by Sir Winston Churchill, "trust the people".
The police authorities, the local authorities and the magistrates may be thought to be indulging in special pleading, but I assure your Lordships that they are not alone in expressing their anxieties about this Bill and its proposals. As an example, I should like to refer to a letter I have received from Justice, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and which has as its vice-chairman the noble Lord, Lord Archer. It says:
"As an all-party human rights organisation, Justice considers that the composition of police authorities is an important constitutional issue affecting the independence of policing. Although we accept that the Government's recent concessions go some way to meeting the concerns expressed at Second Reading, we believe an additional amendment is crucial. This amendment should ensure that there is a majority of elected members serving on the police authority: either by retaining the present two-thirds requirement or by providing for a simple majority".
It gives two main reasons for that. The first is:
"A majority of elected members simply provides a better form of local democratic accountability".
Secondly, it says:
"It is a necessary counter-balance to other proposals in the Bill and helps to preserve the checks and balances of the tripartite relationship".
I believe that those checks and balances, built up over many years, are essential to the maintenance of true democracy in this country and for those reasons I commend Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 to your Lordships.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I can be quite short about this. The real trouble with these provisions is that they gather more power into the hands of the Home Secretary. Whatever may be said and whatever the intentions are, this is a centralising Bill which strengthens Whitehall and weakens local authorities and
120
local representation. That is the fundamental objection to what is proposed in the Bill. That it is a centralising measure was shown quite clearly by the desire of the Home Secretary to increase his own powers when he announced the intention of appointing the chairman. It was absolute impudence, in my view, to suggest that he should have the power to appoint the chairman. Although congratulations have now been poured upon him for withdrawing from what was an untenable position, I would sooner congratulate your Lordships, all of whom spoke in such a manner that it would have been impossible for the Home Secretary to have carried the measure through.
So this was, and is, gathering still more powers into the hands of the Home Secretary. If I may take the appointment of the independent members, he has certainly separated himself directly from their appointment by having this regional instrument. He said in a Written Answer:
"All applications received will be considered it the first instance by one of six regional short-listing panels. Each regional panel will consist of a professional recruitment consultant and two people independent of government.
I shall select those I wish to appoint as members of police authorities from the short list"— [Official Report, Commons,17/1/94; col.377.]
So he has at least separated himself from that; he has put up at least one barrier. Presumably he will still appoint the regional panels, the professional. recruitment consultant and the two people who themselves will be independent of the Government. He will do that, so he will be directly responsible for selecting the panel which will select the independent members on the short list and recommend them to him. I suppose that that is a barrier of some sort, but it does not strike me as being a very strong one. I would say to noble Lords in all parts of the Committee: all this is part of the continuing destruction of local authorities. It is all part of gathering more power, whatever may be said by the Government about their intentions, into the hands of Whitehall and of Ministers who at the moment will be Conservative but who very shortly, I think, are likely to be Labour. That is an argument that ought to appeal to noble Lords opposite, if nothing else does.
I feel very strongly about this. We all know that democracy does not just consist of electing a national parliament once every five years. We all know that the strength of democracy comprises a web and complex of local institutions and local bodies made up of people serving in different ways, not necessarily elected. That is what comprises democracy and it is that which is being undermined by the measures in this Bill. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I would say to your Lordships that there has been no demand for this locally. So far as I know, there is no requirement that it should happen, except the desire of the Home Secretary to strengthen his influence in these bodies. I am against that and I am therefore against, I regret to say, what the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said. Indeed, I am extremely sorry to see that he has moved in this particular matter, because no case has really been made out for this.

121
Of course some very good people may be added; I do not know, and maybe none of us knows. They will get their expenses and allowances. I do not know what those allowances will be. I would not assume that their independence will necessarily be lessened because of receiving allowances, but it is weakening the powers of local institutions which are an essential part of our democratic society. For that reason I am totally opposed to this. I believe that the House should insist on a majority of local authority members and I believe that these so-called independent members are quite superfluous to requirement. We would be creating another semi-quango. More power is being concentrated in the hands of the Home Secretary and for that reason, although I do not wholly agree with the amendments that have been put down, I shall certainly vote for them all.
Lord Mottistone: Amendments Nos.17,18,22 and 125 are in my name. I do not propose to speak to Amendments Nos.22 and 125 since they are closely related to Government amendments which I wish to discuss separately. Amendments Nos.17 and 18 relate to the theme mentioned by many Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan — the importance of local people being on the new police authorities. I seek to remove the five people— or any people— appointed by the Secretary of State to the authorities. For reasons already explained to the Committee, which I shall not pursue, it seems that everyone is agreed that it is important that local authority representatives should be in the majority. I have to admit that my amendments do not go that far. I am concentrating on putting the magistrates back where they should be.
An interesting point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. At cols.480 and 481 of Hansard of 18th January 1994 my noble friend Lord Whitelaw questioned whether it was appropriate that the Home Secretary should make those appointments. I believe that it is extremely difficult to persuade the right people to do such jobs. Most of the people who wish to give voluntary public service are either local councillors or local magistrates. Not all, it is true, but most of them. Many of the people who would be suitable by anyone's standards, whether locally or centrally, do not volunteer because they may find working with councillors and local officials uncongenial, particularly when, in recent years, local authorities have become much more party political. That is a pity. Alternatively, suitable people do not volunteer because they are too busy running their own businesses.
There are exceptions; those who are neither councillors nor magistrates and who are prepared to do the job. But there are not many in relation to the numbers required for the task. There are many other activities for which they are required. They may be serving as school governors or helping on various health bodies. They do not have the time, and if they had they are probably not suitable. I have experience of people who volunteer for such tasks. Many are not people whom one would like to have sitting on various local
122
bodies. We have to discourage them in one way or another. Therefore, although at this moment I am close to the problem in the smallest county in England, I have had experience also in three other major counties in mainland England and have encountered the same difficulty of finding people who will be councillors or magistrates, let alone take on the other jobs for which the Home Secretary seeks people.
In any case, if we are to have extra people, the best arrangement would be that some of those appointed should have been encouraged to offer their services by the police authority itself. If the police authority were invited to co-opt people to add to its numbers, making sure that the majority remained with the councillors, I do not believe that there would be too much objection. But if it is to be done by way of central allocation in the form mentioned on 17th January in the Written Answer from the Minister to my noble friend Lord Lyell at col. WA 37, to which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred then I am staggered. I have to stop and say that the insolence of the Home Office in writing down job descriptions and personal profiles for people who will function locally staggers me. Anyone wishing to know whether people are right to perform a local duty does not want an official or a management consultant who is eager for a job and the extra money paid by a dumb government department. If such people are to tell us the kind of member who is to serve on police authorities, it will be total insolence. I trust that whatever happens to the Bill, the Written Answer given on 17th January is removed and replaced by something else, if it has to be replaced at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, the Written Answer mentions six regional short-listing panels. With six panels to cover the vast area of England, Wales and the Isle of Wight— because we are separate from the rest — how can the people appointed know what it is like in Cornwall if the region is run from Bristol? How can two people and a management consultant know what is going on and who are the right people to supplement the police authority? It is absurd.
When I had occasion to talk to the Home Secretary, I asked him about that. He said: "We want it to be local. " I said: "You mean local, not regional?" He said: "Yes, local. " I hope that my noble friend who was there will remember that when he decides whether the proposal for regions ever gets a running. I trust that if there is to be any question of names coming forward to be approved locally— I hope not selected— they will come from the local level at which the police authority functions and not from other counties without the area.
I suggest that the best bet to go for is Amendment No.5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his supplementary amendments. I suggest that Amendment No.20 be resisted by the Committee because it states,
"one half of the members shall be members of a relevant council".
I suggest above all that Amendment No.27 be cast into outer darkness.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: In the 18 months I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House, I have often asked myself what are our functions. With the debates we have had on the police Bill, I have learnt what the functions of the House are all about. The speech which has just been made sums up entirely my views on the matter.
My experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is that one is Home Secretary for the Province. Many people in your Lordships' House have had the job, including the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who, I accept, set the tone for the way we all proceeded. On the basis of that experience, I know that one thing we had to do there was to bring democracy back to policing. Everything that I learnt as Home Secretary was that there should be a stop to the growing centralisation and the weakening of police authorities and police forces proposed by the Bill.
One of the questions I ask myself is: whatever their numbers, what are the appointees for? We have had an exposé (if that is the right word) of the method of appointing them, but I ask from my own experience in my own area: where will they come from? What functions will they carry out?
I have been clearing my mind on the role of the chief constable and the police committee. What is certain is that on the basis of a judgment made in 1968, when my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff was Home Secretary, which made it quite clear, no Minister of the Crown can tell a chief constable that he must or must not keep observation on this place or that. I wonder whether that has been carried out to the letter on one or two occasions in the past 10 years. He cannot be told that he must or must not prosecute this man or that; nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility is on him. He is answerable to the law alone.
Whatever else these appointees may think that they will do, they will not be telling the chief constable what to do. Their knowledge of the area may be slight. It may he greater than perhaps we think. But they will not be able to tell the chief constable what to do; and that is the glory of our system. It is against the system in continental Europe; it is against the system that I saw in the occupied West Bank when I went out with the police there last year; and against what I saw in South Africa when a fortnight ago I went out with police there into the shanty towns and other areas. In our experience, the chief constable is independent and subject to the law.
What are these appointees supposed to do? I had a look at the powers of the police authority. They are restricted to financial and administrative responsibilities. One could take that argument further and say that of course the chief constable has to take that into account. It is the financial and administrative side about which I suspect the Home Office is concerned. I believe that it has gone the wrong way about it. I learnt as Home Secretary that as Home Secretary with a police department, with the inspectorate, one has backing. The local police authorities do not. It is time that they had that backing. If we need people with financial and managerial experience, then appoint them to the police
124
committee. Give them a job to do. They are the ones who should advise the chief constable and the police committee as to whether they are spending the right amount of money on computers and using that money properly, not whether they are using them operationally correctly. So let us sweep aside this idea of appointees because the Home Secretary of the day, his predecessor, the Home Office and the inspectorate feel that the police authorities are not doing a proper job. Let us give them the tools to do a proper job.
The other day I was talking to someone in the Police Federation and trying to tease out this idea. That person suggested a sort of Permanent Under-Secretary. That is getting nearer to what is needed. But that role should not be members of the police authority, who should have the role of non-executive directors. I appeal to the Government to think again. This proposal goes clown the wrong road. We do not need appointees appointed by the Home Office. I know how things are done. I understand this new method. There is a list of the great and the good. There will of course be bias one way or the other arising out of the very method by which appointments are made. We do not want that. The appointed members system will be wrong. It will be against the whole trend of policing from 1835, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, spelt out. I appeal to this Committee to reject the method that the Government are putting forward, which is wrong. That is the function of this Chamber.
Lord Renton: In my opinion this is the most important debate that we shall have at this Committee stage. It is for that reason, and also because for four and a half years (which I believe is regarded as a very long time) I was answerable for police affairs with the Home Secretary in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will remember— my experience goes back many years to January 1958, when I became Under-Secretary and he was political adviser to the Police Federation; and I am happy to say that we very rarely disagreed— that I agree with what my noble friend Lord Mottistone said about this matter, and broadly agree with what my noble friend Lord Rippon said. It is of vital importance to the successful operation of the police that they should have the co-operation of the public. They are much more likely to get it if democratically elected representatives of the public are well represented, indeed are in a majority at least on the police authority. Without that, in my opinion, public confidence is not as good as it should be. I also consider that, in view of their experience in the courts, magistrates on the police authorities have a vital part to play.
We have a plethora of amendments on this subject. There is great scope for confusion. I am going to make a suggestion to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He has heard all the views which are critical of the Government's approach. Quite frankly, I would not have thought that he had much hope in the Division Lobby this evening. Therefore I suggest to him that he should give an undertaking on two points: first, that he will consider this matter very fully and in consultation with the Home Secretary between now and Report

125
stage; secondly, that his consultation will extend across this Chamber. In the light of the discussion which we have already had, there is a consensus emerging among Members of the Committee which it would be well worth my noble friend following up.
Having said that by way of what I hope is a generally helpful suggestion, perhaps I may make one or two comments about matters in the government amendments which trouble me. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone about Amendment No.27. It is phrased in a most unusual way. Subsection (1) states that,
"The members of a police authority referred to in section 3A(1) (b) or (1A) (b) of this Act shall be persons appointed by the Secretary of State from a list of persons compiled in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State".
I have never seen a provision like that put forward for legislation before. If noble Lords know the good precedent, let us hear about it, but I have never seen one. Perhaps I am being unfair and there has not been the opportunity, but so far we have had no explanation from the Government as to how it is proposed that that list shall be compiled. However it is compiled it would run contrary to the principles which my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Rippon have already stated, and which have been stated in all parts of the Committee. The Government have a very great difficulty in this matter. As Members of the Committee know, I am a keen and sympathetic supporter of the Government, but on this occasion I think that we are entitled to ask them to think again.
5 p.m.
Lord Knights: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which I believe is fundamental to the future policing of this country. I am sorry that local authorities and police authorities are being separated in the way that Clause 2 proposes. I was brought up in the days of the old police Acts. As an assistant chief constable I served a city watch committee in Birmingham. I was subsequently chief constable of the combined Sheffield and Rotherham police force, which, while it was a joint body, still regarded itself very much as serving the two separate authorities. Finally, I was chief constable in a metropolitan county with a county council and in turn a police committee.
I am quite sure that the police were much more sensitive to the needs and wishes of their local communities after sitting at a meeting— not necessarily a police committee meeting but a county council meeting when the minutes of the police authority were discussed. You certainly knew what they thought about how you were going about your job as chief constable.
But I accept and understand that there are some feelings today that the old system, which dates from the Victorian days, is in need of reform and should be brought up to date. Indeed, the first moves in that direction occurred in 1986 when, as the Committee will recall, the metropolitan counties, or at least their county councils, were abolished and police authorities were
126
created for the same areas as freestanding corporate bodies. They precept on the constituent district councils and receive direct grant from the Government.
The problems encountered in Derbyshire, where the county council reduced the budget approved by the police authority, have been quite eliminated. That is the only reason that I have been able to trace so far for amending the law, as the Bill proposes. Nothing else need to have been done to overcome the current problems which the Home Secretary has faced in the last year or two.
The metropolitan county authorities are composed entirely of councillors representing districts and magistrates. I believe that they have proved to be responsible bodies which have worked well with their chief constables and the local authorities that their members represent and they are proud of the forces that they provide. They differ from the authorities that are now proposed in that the local authority representatives are currently clearly in the majority. I have no doubt that in consequence the authorities see their loyalties lying toward the district councils and the communities that they represent.
In turn, the district councils regard the police forces that they provide as their police. That is an extremely important factor when considering the reduction of crime. There is considerable evidence to show that partnerships between the various departments of local authorities, voluntary agencies and the police, working together, are most likely to curb crime and improve the quality of life in local communities. However, if that is to happen I believe that it is essential for local authorities to feel that they have a real contribution to make in the policing of their areas. Equally, I believe that local communities too must feel that the police are accountable to them if they are to give the positive help that the police need successfully to detect and prosecute the criminals who prey on those communities.
However, I suggest that that is not likely to happen if the police authorities come to be regarded as accountable to Whitehall rather than the town hall. I suggest also that it is a very valuable discipline for the police when deciding policy matters to have to say to themselves, "I wonder what they will think about this at the council house?" Whitehall is much too remote to create that same sensitivity.
I am not persuaded either that the inclusion of nominated members with special skills will add very much to a police authority's decision-making, bearing in mind the experience that is already there, which has been referred to earlier in the debate. Indeed, I wonder whether it will have the time to perform the many tasks that are taken on by police authority members, including lay visiting of police cells and attending national committees, on a number of subjects, or local consultative bodies. There is a whole list of duties and responsibilities which members of police authorities undertake. Certainly, the minimum of one-and-a-half days a month envisaged by the Home Office as all that will be required seems to me to be very wide of the mark.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that it is vital for the elected representatives

127
on the police authority to be clearly seen to be in the driving seat of the committee. I believe that it is a view held by everyone connected with policing at local level. Additionally, the continuation of the tripartite system, with its essential checks and balances on the activities of the three parties involved— that is the real importance arid value of the tripartite system— depends on the local authority being seen to be in the driving seat. Therefore, I support Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Elton: I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the Minister, will feel able to take the advice of my noble friend Lord Renton. I do so for a particular reason, which is not quite his reason.
I do not see the answer that we want within this plethora of amendments. I see two or three narrow misses. The Committee is in danger of getting into the mood of treating the debate as a cavalry charge with a single issue to be decided on a single vote. In fact, we are addressing four questions and three subordinate questions. Only one of them has been resolved so far; namely, whether the chairman of the police authority should be appointed by the Home Secretary or by the authority. I think that we are all happily agreed that it should be by the latter.
The next question is whether the membership of the authority should be as it has traditionally been, or whether it should contain some members recruited from a wider constituency. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and one or two other Members have argued against it, but I believe that on trial the Committee would feel that there should be a wider constituency. That being so, should those recruits be secured by co-option, by appointment or in some other way?
The principle of co-option has been espoused by a number of your Lordships as an extension of the principle of democracy. I call on my experience— not the experience of a year as Minister responsible for the police under my noble friend Lord Whitelaw but my three years' experience as Minister for the Prison Service. In that service in each prison there was a board of prison visitors. I observed that the membership of the prison population was becoming increasingly black but that the membership of the boards of prison visitors was remaining stubbornly white. I made it known that I thought that there should be some way to redress the balance.
The system is, as it were, a supervised co-option. The local board makes a proposal and the Minister does or does not approve it. I had to refuse five successive proposed co-options of white members to an all-white prison board for a prison which was predominantly black in population because it was alleged that there were no suitable black people available. In effect, I had a power of appointment and it was very badly needed. Therefore, I believe that there should be a process by which the Secretary of State can be involved in getting people on to a police authority.
But should those people be in a position at any time to be in a majority or the predominant voice on the authority? Amendment No.11, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has his name, suggests something of that
128
nature but does it by co-option. I do not feel that co-option is satisfactory under these circumstances. The noble Lord has a good number but a bad route; and my noble friend is in a position to propose a good route if he will get the right number. I do not see that in any combination of the amendments. I hope that my noble friend will come back at Report stage with grateful thanks for having found a process which will produce a body of appointed members on the police authorities in a position to influence but not to determine its policy. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that that should be a position subordinate to that of the magistrate.
Lord Tebbit: First, I apologise that I was not able to hear some of the earlier speeches in the debate,. However, it seems to me to be a most interesting discussion. I must confess that I always become slightly uneasy when the great and the good— I suppose that we should collectively cast ourselves in the role of being the great and the good of the establishment— are all of one view. I wonder whether it is necessarily right. I therefore begin to question whether the Committee's enthusiasm for many of the amendments and the attack upon the Government's proposals is necessarily as soundly based as we might think if we listened casually to it all.
Noble Lords: Casually!
Lord Tebbit: If I may say so—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that he has only been here for half of the debate. In those circumstances, as he cannot possibly have heard all the arguments, it is a bit rich for him to call us "casual".
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I mean no offence. But we should be a little careful in accepting this "cavalry charge", as it has been described, too easily. Let me put it this way, and this may please the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. There are moments when this Chamber is in danger of being too conservative. We should accept that the island on which we live is becoming smaller day by day, as it is becoming more urbanised. We should accept that its population is becoming, perhaps with the assistance of a little advice from myself from time to time, rather more mobile than it used to be. And we should all accept, as I am sure we do, that criminals do not have any particular respect for local authority boundaries. Indeed, the existence of the motorway system— despite the M.25— to a great extent encourages mobility of crime and criminals.
We should also reflect upon who it is receives the blame when policing falls below the standards which we all think appropriate. We seldom read in the tabloid press, "Local police force fails". We may frequently read that the Home Secretary failed. We seem to be saying that all the responsibility should be local yet all the blame when things go wrong should go to the Home Secretary.
I have some sympathy for the Home Secretary in these matters. He is not an officer of state for whom I normally have a great deal of sympathy, whoever

129
occupies the position. But on this occasion I do. We tend to forget that we are willing to trust the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who, in recent years, has usually doubled as the Chairman of the Conservative Party— a dubious appointment no doubt in the minds of many Members of your Lordships' Chamber— to appoint the magistrates upon whom we place such responsibility and on whom we shower such great praise. If the post is doubled in the way that it has been in recent years, and as it was in my case, we trust the Chancellor of the Duchy (also the Chairman of the Conservative Party) to maintain the dignitary of the magistracy; to make sure that there is a firm balance among magistrates who are appointed in terms of political views or even those who have no political views, ethnic make-up and things of that kind. Yet now, at a time when our police forces need to move into the present day and prepare themselves for the challenges of the crime and the criminals at the end of this century and into the next century, we have some misgivings about giving the Home Secretary the powers placed in the Bill.
I do not believe that those powers would be abused. I take the view that they would not have been abused by past Home Secretaries such as the late Chuter Ede, or the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Callaghan. They would not be abused today by my right honourable friend Mr. Howard. I doubt that they would be abused by Mr. Blair should he become Home Secretary. We are becoming attached to a slightly artificial argument that somehow or other there is great respect for local authorities which is not extended to the national institutions of government, the Home Office and the Home Secretary. I doubt that that is so. To some extent, in what we are saying and doing we may be feeding the current frenzy which says that nobody in national politics can conceivably be honest, decent or competent in any way whatever; that to be a Member of the House of Commons or a Member of the Government is somehow to carry the mark of Cain. We would be wise to reflect a little longer and to think that the Government are not so far wrong in what they are saying.
Finally, I must say that neither in my public nor private life did I meet anybody who said to me that their attitude towards their local police force had been in any way influenced by the fact that the members of the police authority were or were not democratically elected. That is an absolute fantasy. It is going too far in our denigration of members of local authorities to think that their attitude towards their police force would be in any way changed were some of the members to be appointed from a list which had been drawn up by the Home Secretary. If I may say so, we are becoming slightly over-excited.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Lord sits down, he was saying how splendidly the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy appointed magistrates. I entirely agree. But they appoint them not from a list they construct themselves; they appoint them because the Keepers of the Rolls of the respective counties propose names to them which have been carefully selected by a special and complicated process of examination of
130
people whose names come forward. In my case I find that I ultimately propose only one-third of the people whom I interview for that purpose in my committee. That is quite different from Amendment No.27.
Lord Tebbit: I take my noble friend's point. Nonetheless, there is a degree of understanding of how the process works rather more informally than the manner in which my noble friend put it.
Viscount Tenby: I support Amendments Nos.5,8 and 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As a magistrate, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that most crime is indeed locally based despite the prevalence of bicycles in this upwardly mobile society of ours. As a member of a police authority I welcome the fact that the Government have withdrawn their earlier ill-judged proposal that authority chairmen should be appointed by the Home Secretary and that the size of such authorities should be standardised. But the other main thrust of the Government's proposal remains; namely, the balance and composition of authorities. Those points are of the gravest constitutional importance.
How can it be right that in future authorities should be evenly balanced between elected and non-elected members? As my noble friend Lord Allen pointed out, let us suppose that two elected members are ill, or on holiday, a natural enough assumption taken over the years. Are important decisions to be taken by that authority in such a situation? It seems hard to reconcile that with any concept of local democracy. And what exactly is wrong with the present composition of authorities? I sit on an authority. It is very tiresome at times. It makes mistakes at times— rather like governments. But, at the end of the day, that surely is what democracy is all about, is it not?
I am not against the concept of co-opted members. I believe that they could add a useful dimension to any authority's work. I accept the powerful reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to "a broad approach" and "new ideas" in the fight against crime. But, apart from the obligatory brace of businessmen, they should surely come from representative sections of those communities which the authorities serve. For example, I can see a good case for a local headmaster being a member of the authority to represent educational concerns, or for some representation from, say, significant ethnic groups within the area. Such people can be identified and appointed by the authorities themselves. Their local knowledge will lead to far more suitable selections than those of Whitehall or Whitehall-inspired sources.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Government remain coy about, first, who really is going to pick the appointees for consideration by the Home Secretary. Is it to be the Lord Lieutenant of the county? Is it to be the chairman of the local chamber of commerce? Is it to be a local representative of the CBI? Secondly, and very much wrapped up with the same point, the Government are also coy about the sort of people they are looking for. It really will not do to talk airily about "businessmen and businesswomen" as if emergency pools of super

131
executives exist all over the country ready to plug the numerous gaps left by the incompetence of Noddy, know-nothing councillors and magistrates.
I must confess to doubting whether such a pool of talent exists. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who, in a powerful and commonsense speech, made that point and a number of other ones. I have to say that what I do think exists is the temptation to create posts for friends of the Government, a process which has been going on for far too long. Like my noble friend Lord Allen, I wonder whether Members on the other side would defend the position quite so fiercely if, say, another party were in power. If or when such a time arrives, it will be of little avail for them to run around complaining. They will have sown the seeds of their own dissatisfaction.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is no doubt that throughout the past hour and 40 minutes all of your Lordships have felt a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend Lord Ferrers. My noble friend came to the House with some very welcome concessions and has had to sit ever since listening, with one exception, to speeches deeply and seriously critical of the Bill's proposals from Members of your Lordships' House, mostly with vast experience of the subject matter— former Home Secretaries, a former chief constable and many others.
I rise only to put one point. If my noble friend desires to resist these amendments it seems to me overwhelmingly clear — I may be wrong— that they will be carried against him and will be put into the Bill. The Bill will be very considerably altered and amended— some of your Lordships may think improved. Certainly, it will be drastically altered. I wonder whether my noble friend thinks that that would be helpful from the point of view either of the future progress of the Bill or of the position of the Government. I hope very much therefore that my noble friend will recognise what seems to be the prevailing view in all parts of the House, in all parties and in none, and will indicate that on most of the points of controversy— not necessarily all of them but most of them— the Government are prepared to think again. He may even feel it prudent to defer further consideration of the Committee stage after today's sitting to allow time for discussions between those who hold differing views when his own very considerable powers of conciliation might be used.
My noble friend has a definite choice. He can seek to resist most of the amendments. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be put into the Bill, that the Bill will be drastically altered thereby and that when it goes back to another place no one quite knows what will happen to it. Or he can use his very considerable powers of conciliation by taking a little time for further consideration at any rate of some of the points. I speak as one who, as your Lordships know, is on the whole a fairly loyal supporter of the Government—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged. I see that I carry your Lordships with me. For that very reason I do not like to see the Government going in for
132
a whole series of embarrassing defeats and getting into very grave difficulties with an important Bill. I therefore ask my noble friend, at the last minute if one likes, to consider seriously a conciliatory reply in which he would either accept the amendments, or some of them, with a view to their reconsideration, or ask those who propose them to defer them until another sitting— there are still further sittings ahead— and give him a chance to reflect, without incurring serious Government defeats, on whether further amendments should be made. My own humble advice to him— I tender it with due humility because he is a very experienced Minister — is that he would be very wise, and, I think, serve the interests of the Government of which he is a member, if he adopted the latter course.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: It may be helpful if I make an intervention at this moment. It does not stop my noble friends intervening later. I am deeply appreciative of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in so far as he said that he felt sympathy for me. I think he is the first person who has said that, and I was not aware that anyone else actually felt it. The fact that my noble friend was kind enough to express it was nectar to my soul.
This is a very controversial matter and it is right that it should be. At Second Reading your Lordships explained in no uncertain terms the various matters about which there was anxiety. My right honourable friend took account of them. He agreed that hereafter the appointment of the chairman should not be made by the Home Secretary but by the full authority. I am glad to say that that has met with approval.
There was also great anxiety as regards the appointment of independent members. Apparently that was seen as a way in which my right honourable friend, or of anyone who held the office of Home Secretary, would put in his own placemen. That was a very real anxiety. My right honourable friend has tried to allay that anxiety by saying "All right, we shall have an independent body of people who will undertake the selection. They will offer a short list of candidates to the Home Secretary to appoint".
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, said that this was increasing enormously the powers of the Home Secretary. If someone is to be appointed as an independent member, someone has to do the appointing. It does not matter whether it is the person who prepares the short list, whether it is the Home Secretary himself or the other members of the authority as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would prefer in the light of his amendment. Someone has to do the appointing if there are to be independent members. It is not unreasonable for my right honourable friend to say that the Home Secretary should do that provided he is not seen to be taking an overtly political view. Quite frankly, if there are 41 constabularies throughout the country, excluding the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police, and if, for instance,50 people applied in each case — they may well apply because plenty of people have already done so— one would be talking about a list of about 2,000 people. It would be quite impossible to think that my right honourable friend would know all of

133
them and would carefully select party hacks who might themselves not have applied in any event. He has tried to meet the anxieties expressed at Second Reading.
I admire the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, enormously not only for his views— the extent of my admiration depends on what those views are— but also for the way in which he puts them. He did use some pretty hot language. He said that this measure would destroy the tripartite system. He quoted me as saying that the system was the envy of the world. That is perfectly true. My only complaint about the noble Lord's views is that I do not believe my right honourable friend's proposals will result in the destruction of that system. The noble Lord said that the measure would politicise police forces and that the vote would provide a momentous decision; that the Bill would do grievous damage to policing in this country; and that we should remove the repugnant decisions from the Bill. I thought that that was fairly extravagant language.
What are we actually talking about? We are talking about the tripartite system— the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable. That is a milkmaid's stool, as it were, with three legs, each of which has a certain amount of power. It is a question of adjustment of that power. It is not the usurping of power to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Yet, when things go wrong (and they do) in police forces and in local police authorities, people turn to the Home Secretary and say, "What are you going to do about it?" That occurred to me recently when I had to go on television. The reporter asked, "What is the Home Secretary going to do about it?"
This is a matter for the police authorities. Despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that this was a centralising measure, and the fact that a number of other Members of the Committee have said similar things, my right honourable friend is trying to give to local authorities more power and responsibility and not to keep that responsibility to himself. I realise that some Members of the Committee say that that will not happen.
I now come to another point where I believe there is fairly universal agreement; namely, that, on the whole, smaller organisations work better. A police authority of, for instance,30 or 40 people is not a very handy body of people to work with. If it is smaller it is better. Quite obviously, in curtailing such a body some members would find that they are no longer on the police authority. That causes understandable anxiety and therefore rumpus. On top of that, if it is suggested that there should be some independent people, too, then other elected councillors will find that they are not on the police authority. That also causes problems.
The idea that independent members is a new provision is nonsense. For the past 30 years or so we have had independent people on police authorities by virtue of the magistrates. There is nothing new in that. My right honourable friend and I believe that there is a place for people to contribute to the problems of policing in their locality who, for one reason or another, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, said, have decided
134
not to be on the police authority. It may be that they did not have time or it may not have been their particular bent. Nevertheless, they know and care about their locality and they have a contribution to make. That would improve the police authorities provided that they are not in an overwhelming position, which is the reason why we have suggested that of a police authority of 16 members, eight should be councillors and in the majority; five should be independent and three should be magistrates.
The complaint was made that some people may not be properly represented and that the number should be larger. My right honourable friend has taken that point and said that he agrees that there will be circumstances when the police authority ought to be larger. He said that he would agree to that. If the Committee accepts the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he would set an upper and a lower limit on the size of the police authority. The chances are then that the number will gradually inflate so that it is always the highest number which is obtained.
The point about this is a fairly simple one. I believe that we are agreed in general that police authorities are better if they are smaller. The real point concerning the Committee is whether my right honourable friend is taking too much power— to use an unpleasant word and I believe a wrong one— in the appointment of those who have been selected by a different and independent system. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, slightly mischievously, that, after all, the Home Secretary is going to appoint the appointers and they will make the shortlists for my right honourable friend to make the appointments. Somebody has to appoint the appointers. That will be done by my right honourable friend. However, that does not mean to say that they are in his pocket.
I am in a difficulty over this— Members of the Committee need not really laugh or smile too much. I wish to be helpful. My right honourable friend has made a number of concessions. We have tabled in my name a number of amendments to the Bill in order to try to make those concessions and meet the anxieties which have been expressed. Equally, I do not want to sail into something which is undesirable. I may be completely wrong, but I have enormous faith in my right honourable friend and in my noble friend the Chief Whip. I have even more faith in all my noble friends behind me, whom I know will go in the right direction because they believe that the argument is superb. I would like to see whether there is any way in which we can bridge this divide. I do not know whether that is possible and it may well be that it is not.
My right honourable friend has certain views. As my noble friend Lord Rippon said, it is very difficult to make radical alterations without causing some anxiety somewhere. My right honourable friend is keen to see the alterations which he has proposed take effect because he thinks that they are right and because a great deal of effort has gone into getting them right. Equally, it is important that we should try to see whether there are ways in which we can meet the anxieties of noble Lords. It seems to me that in some respects the gulf is pretty wide. One can meet those anxieties only if noble Lords

135
are good enough to try to meet the divide. I am happy to see whether we can do that. However, I cannot give a guarantee because my right honourable friend may take a different view.
Nevertheless, I am content to see what we can do on Report if your Lordships think that that is suitable. However, if we were to do that, it would mean that the amendments that are now grouped together could not be put to the vote. That provision would have to apply to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in these groups because it would not be fair if I said that I would not move my amendment only for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, then to move his next amendment, mine having gone down the drainpipe. That would not be fair, but I am sure that the noble Lord would not do such a dastardly thing as that— I hope.
I am prepared to see whether we can try to meet at least some of the anxieties. I cannot give any guarantee that we can, but at least we can try. If that were to meet with your Lordships' approval, I would be content to withdraw my amendments on that basis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is clearly a serious contribution to the debate and must be taken seriously. Before responding directly to the invitation from the Minister, I should like to summarise briefly what I think has been the outcome of this debate. Apart from the Minister, we have heard 14 speakers, of whom only the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who was present for only half of the debate, supported the idea that there should not be a local authority majority on the police authority. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was silent on that issue. On the question of whether there should be co-option or appointment of additional members, again only the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton (tacitly because of his amendment) supported appointment rather than co-option.
There were then three noble Lords— the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Elton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter— who urged discretion on the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, specifically preferred appointment to co-option, but he also preferred a local authority majority on the police authority.
Perhaps I may expand briefly. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was silent on the question of the local authority majority but was in favour of appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was in favour of a local authority majority but moved amendments in favour of appointment. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was in favour of co-option and a local authority majority. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. My noble friend Lord Callaghan was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was in favour of a local
136
authority majority and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, was in favour of a local authority majority and co-option.
In those circumstances, it is clear that the thinking that the Minister has offered us must cover those issues. It must be explicit that the questions of the local authority majority and of co-option rather than appointment must be on the agenda for discussion between now and Report stage. I invite the Minister to confirm that that is the position and that the Government will not enter any discussions on those issues with a closed mind.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is being slightly unfair and slightly hard. I said that I would consider what your Lordships have said to see whether there is any way in which we can meet the problem. If the noble Lord is going to say, "You have got to do this, that or the other", I must advise him that we cannot start like that. I am prepared to consider the matters which have been suggested by your Lordships this afternoon to see whether there is a way in which we can meet those points.
I have heard all the arguments about co-opting but I must ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, this: Who is going to do the co-opting? It will be those who are already on the police authorities, so they will do the appointing. The noble Lord objects to my right honourable friend doing the appointing, but under this system members of the local authority can do the appointing and can choose their friends if they like.
I have heard what your Lordships have said and I am prepared to consider it, but I do not want to be put into a corner— nor is it fair of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to try to do that and to say, "In this case, we have to think of this, that or the other point". I have said that I will consider everything.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps may say a few words at this stage. I hope that we shall be able to resolve this matter. On the previous occasion on which we debated this issue, some very wise words were directed to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, about the overwhelming desirability of forming a political consensus on the question of reorganising the police service. That seems to me to be overwhelmingly desirable. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has rightly drawn the attention of the Committee to the clear preponderance of feeling on the issues that we have been debating this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he will consider the matter carefully, taking account of what his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said; namely, that he very much hoped that the Government would take this course of action because he thought that otherwise there was a high likelihood that they would be defeated.
All that I am saying to the noble Earl and, through him, to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is that if this issue is not going to be proceeded with, on the basis of what the noble Earl is now saying, and as, I am sure that they will both realise, many of the other clauses and

137
amendments which follow relate directly to this issue, we shall have to discuss how we proceed. I suggest that there might be discussions between the usual channels because it will be very difficult to debate some of the other amendments until this matter has been cleared out of the way.
Earl Ferrers: I know the noble Lord's views about consensus. When one says that one shall try to take account of the views that have been expressed, that does not mean that any Government will necessarily go down the track of consensus or, in other words, of asking where, between everyone, is the lowest common denominator. I do not think that that would be the right thing to do. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not intend that.
I can only repeat what I have said: we shall consider this matter and how best to take advice, whether from your Lordships or anyone else. Ultimately, the Government may find that it is necessary to come back to Parliament and to say: "These are our views", and to test the water then. If your Lordships say "no", that is a matter that we shall have to take into account. I simply want to see whether there is some way in which we can avoid that.
It has been drawn to my attention that Amendments Nos.23 to 25 and 28 to 30 are not affected by my offer because they relate to making the appointments procedures work for authorities which have more than 16 members. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that what I have suggested is at least an effort to meet the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister accused me of being unfair. I do not think that I was. I was not in any way setting preconditions for the discussions or for what should come out of those discussions. I could not do that. It would be quite wrong to expect the Government to agree to anything of that sort. What I did was to ask the Minister two questions. The first was whether he accepted that the possibility of a local authority majority on the police authority was on the agenda for discussion and whether he accepted that the replacement of appointment by co-option on the police authority was on the agenda for discussion. If he agrees to those two items being on the agenda for discussion, I think that we can make progress.
My other question to him was about the beginning of any process. I asked whether he could confirm that the Government are not inflexibly against change on either of those issues— in other words, is there any point in having discussions? Have the Government made up their minds inflexibly on either of those issues? If the Minister can confirm both of those points, there will be no difficulty in us (or noble Lords from all parties in the Committee) joining the discussions that have been offered.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: In a difficult position the Minister is trying to make an offer that should be seriously considered. However, I wonder how the discussions will be conducted. It is not enough for the Opposition in this Chamber and the Government to have
138
discussions, because other important Members of the Committee have a genuine contribution to make. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whose contributions on Second Reading and today have been notable.
We need a little time to discuss the matter and to see how the body can be composed. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has unique experience in this field, as does the noble Lord, Lord Knights. We must not rush into a decision until we know exactly how the Government intend to continue the discussion. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to comment further tonight, which places us all in a difficulty.
Today's discussions and those which took place on Second Reading have revealed that the people who know most about this subject— and I exclude myself because my experience was 30 years ago— ought to be included in any discussions. I have in mind one overwhelming principle: that it will be bad indeed if the Bill goes through this Chamber with a distinct division on these important matters. They should not be the subject of party divisions. Indeed, today they have not been the subject of party divisions but there has been all-party agreement on many issues. Will the Minister say how he believes that matters can be carried further?
Earl Ferrers: That shows the trouble that one gets into when one tries to be helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that I had put him in a difficulty. For goodness sake, I was trying to be helpful ! He then said that he does not want to be rushed into taking great decisions. Within four minutes of my saying that I will think about the matter the noble Lord asked, "What are you going to do? Are you going to speak to members of the Labour Party or the Opposition? Are you going to talk to people outside the House? Who are you going to talk to?"—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: All we want is not to buy a pig in a poke.
Earl Ferrers: If Members of the Committee are worried about buying a pig in a poke, I suppose that they will have to vote. Then they will know whether they have got a pig in a poke. I am prepared to see whether we can meet any of the objections. That does not mean to say— and I mean this most seriously — that we are going to try to find the common denominator and achieve a consensus. That is not the intention. Governments cannot always do that; they have to make up their minds, bring issues to Parliament, then Parliament must decide. This Chamber may decide one way but the other place may decide another way.
There is, however, an issue with which Members of the Committee are concerned and I wish to see whether we can find a way of dealing with it. If the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will be kind enough to give me a little longer than four minutes in which to work out how it is to be done I shall greatly appreciate that. He said that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has some important points to make, as has my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Yes, and so have all Members of the Committee— that is why we have a Committee stage.

139
One cannot have everyone who participates in a Committee stage, plus a lot of people from outside, coming to discuss the matter.
I offer to see whether I can try to help some Members of the Committee. However, if they think that I am offering a pig in a poke that is up to them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand what was said by my noble friend Lord Callaghan and he was right to pursue the matter. I was asking for something quite different and for something which I believe the Government can agree to without difficulty. I was asking for confirmation that the possibility of a local authority majority on a police authority will be part of the discussions that are to take place. I was asking for confirmation that the choice between co-option and appointment to the police authority will be on the agenda for discussion. I seek that confirmation because without it the discussions will have no point. That is what the debate has been about.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am trying to be helpful to the Minister because I recognise the difficult position in which he finds himself. I hope that he is able to give an affirmative answer to the questions fairly put to him by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It will be difficult to make progress without discussing the issues and trying to resolve them.
We are asking the Minister merely to confirm that issues identified by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can be put on the agenda and, it is hoped, be resolved before the Bill proceeds further.
Earl Ferrers: I am not sure who will receive the great agenda on to which issues will be put. In so far as these matters have been discussed today, I am prepared to consider them. That does not mean to say that at the end of the discussion there will be agreement. I do not want the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord McIntosh, to say, "You said that you would consider it but now you have not budged an inch". The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has confirmed that he is not saying that. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has not yet confirmed that but I am sure he means to do so.
I am prepared to consider the matters. If at the end I say, "I am sorry but the Government remain of this view", that is fine. I do not want anyone to come to me and say that I have been disloyal, disingenuous or anything like that. I am saying, let us discuss these issues and at the end on Report the Government will have to come forward with their views.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. I take it that that is a confirmation that these two issues are the subjects for discussion between now and Report. On that basis, and on the basis that all the amendments in this group, including the government amendments, will not be moved, I am prepared not to move—
Earl Ferrers: Although I made a certain intervention, it would be simpler if all amendments were not moved and those necessary were brought back on Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Government amendments introduce the flexible size, that also means that Amendments Nos.23 to 25 and 26 to 28 should not be moved.
Earl Ferrers: That is so. As the whole lot have been grouped together it would be clearer in everyone's mind if the whole lot were not moved.
Lord Peyton of Yeovill: Before a final decision is reached between the two Front Benches, wish to venture the following observations. First, although this massive group of amendments may have covered the same wide issue of how to make up the police authorities it has made it difficult to discuss important details. Secondly, my noble friend has had the unpleasant experience on Second Reading and today of learning something of the dislike of and deep hostility towards the Bill that exists behind him. I see his difficulty and believe that he has been exceedingly honourable in his remarks. He has made no attempt whatever to mislead the Committee. But I am asking myself where we shall get to. Let us suppose that we have the discussions and go straight back to square one. My noble friend will have no evidence to put to his right honourable friend showing the strength of feeling.
I attach no particular magic to any of the amendments tabled in my name. However, I ask my noble friend to accept that I should not have tabled them unless I believed, first, that they were of importance and, secondly, that the whole issue was of fundamental importance to many of us. I do not know what I should do if an uneasy peace were patched up between the two Front Benches. I do not see my noble friend having given any commitment of value; I do not see that he can. I do not want to ask for the impossible but it would be of assistance to the Government to have a yardstick by which to judge the strength of opinion against them.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I find the idea of an uneasy peace growing between the two Front Benches fascinating and it stimulates my imagination. However, I do not see it becoming a reality. I understand my noble friend's complaints about the grouping of the amendments, but the purpose of grouping them is to make life easier for the Committee. However, it has disadvantages in that it makes it difficult to home in on one set of amendments I understand my noble friend's anxiety, but it has taken two-and-a-quarter hours to have one debate. I cannot: think how long it would have taken had we had six debates.
My noble friend asks how I shall communicate to my right honourable friend what he described as the degree of hostility. My right honourable friend is not deaf; he has a television. He is not blind; he has Hansard. Moreover, he has a Minister of State who is sometimes lost for words, but I believe that he will be able to explain some of the problems to the Secretary of State. I cannot go further than that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Nobody expects the Minister to make a commitment to the outcome of any talks which are to take place between now and Report

141
stage. Indeed, that is obvious from the fact that the offer of those talks has not been made because the Minister is convinced by the argument but because he is convinced by the numbers. He has been convinced by the arguments of his noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Elton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who have advised him that he would lose if he persisted in opposing our amendments. That is the basis on which we shall enter the discussions. The Minister must enter them on the basis that, if he continues to oppose those who have expressed those almost universal views— and I make no apology for the way in which the debate has taken place because it has been entirely satisfactory— he will be defeated on Report, as he would have been defeated today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff: Before we move to the next amendment, it seems to me that we may wish to consider where that decision leaves the Committee.
[Amendments Nos.6 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No.9:
Page 2, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert: ("(2) A police authority established under this section for any area shall be a body corporate to be known—

(a) where the area is in England, by the name of the area with the addition of the words "Police Authority" after the name;

(b) where the area is in Wales, by the name of the area—

(i) with the addition of the words "Police Authority" after the name or (where there is a separate English name) after the English name; or

(ii) with the addition of the words "Awdurdod Heddlu" before the name or (where there is a separate Welsh name) before the Welsh name.").

The noble Lord said: Following the long and difficult debate on the issue of membership of police authorities, I move a very simple amendment which brings the Bill into line with the Welsh Language Act 1993. That was ably piloted through this Chamber by the Minister and, therefore, I am sure that the amendment will be entirely acceptable to the Government. If it is not, I expect to be invited to hold discussions with the Government about the content of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has in mind. However, I remind the noble Lord that it is consistent with the noble Lord's wish to promote the Welsh language that we should resist the amendment. Only last year Parliament passed the Welsh Language Act 1993. The noble Lord will remember that well. I should say as a non-Welshman that so do I. It provides that where a name is conferred by Act of Parliament on any body, office or place, the appropriate Minister may by order confer on the body, office or place an alternative name in Welsh. The noble Lord is chairman of the Welsh Language Board which is charged with promoting the implementation of the Act and I have no doubt that in that auspicious and magnificent capacity, the no ble Lord will chivy the appropriate Minister.
Lord Elis-Thomas: On the basis of that indication, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the next amendment is put, it may be helpful to consider our procedures. We have agreed formally between the two Front Benches that certain amendments, including government amendments will not be moved. There are a number of other amendments in Clauses 2 and 3 and Schedule 2 which are deeply affected by the decisions that have just been taken. The Minister may find it helpful to agree to adjourn our Committee stage for 30 minutes in order that we may consider which subsequent amendments should also be not moved so that we avoid moving other amendments in a spirit of unreality. I make that suggestion to be helpful; otherwise, we may find ourselves putting forward amendments which have no substance because the premise on which they are based— a firm agreement about the composition of a police authority— has not been agreed. I am not fixed on the idea of 30 minutes. It may be better to adjourn during pleasure so that our subsequent debates are on a more sensible footing.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that we could resolve the doubt of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that the noble Lord has been extremely helpful and co-operative in assisting us to get through the business.
The amendments that we have been discussing, and about which my noble friend Lord Ferrers is to have further consultation, are grouped together, starting with Amendment No.5. I should have thought that in any event those amendments should not be moved. Some of them are government amendments. When we reach other amendments, it will be quite easy to see, as we come to them, whether or not they are affected by the earlier undertaking. Some are and most are not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The problem is rather more complicated than that. The Bill as drafted does not express the Government's position. The Government have expressed a desire to move to police authorities of a more flexible size. Because the Government are going to withdraw their amendments, that will not be reflected on the face of the Bill. I am not as able in such matters as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but I am not certain that we shall be able to resolve each issue as it arises and properly debate the subsequent amendments. I respect the noble Lord's intervention but I disagree with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes an extremely sensible suggestion. We should have a short adjournment to sort out these matters and make sure we get them right.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The heading of Clause 3 is "Functions of police authorities". It will clearly be extremely difficult to resolve those issues without knowing the composition of those police authorities. I do not wish to waste time, but these issues are of such major importance that it seems to me that the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is correct. We should perhaps adjourn during pleasure so that we can resolve the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I too wish to be helpful but I wonder whether it is necessary to adjourn. We have decided not to move those amendments which are grouped together. There are amendments tabled to the remainder of the Bill. When we reach amendments which are affected by the fact that we have not moved certain amendments, we need not move them. I do not believe that it is necessary to adjourn our proceedings for half an hour or so. I should have thought that it would become fairly evident as we go along if there are any difficulties attaching to later amendments, although I do not believe that that will happen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, the centrepiece of the Bill is Clause 2. The simple issue which has been identified is the Government's desire to nominate a particular number of members to police authorities. Section 4(1) of Clause 3 states:
"It shall be the duty of every police authority … to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force",
and then follows a number of statutory requirements.
The point that I am trying to make is that we will not know the character of the police authority until the issue identified in the previous debate has been taken into account. A very moderate proposal has been put to the noble Earl. We are asking for a temporary adjournment. Surely he must agree to such a reasonable proposition?
Lord Elton: If my noble friend agrees to that request, I hope that he will take a very limited brief. Members of the Committee would not, I think, wish to remit the matter to unofficial sub-committee, thereby sweeping a whole slice of the Bill away for major consideration. My noble friend Lord Renton is right. In most cases, the proper place to say, "This is so uncertain, we should not be discussing it", is when we reach such a point on the Marshalled List with all Members of the Committee present to agree to and concur in such action.
If my noble friend decides to take a short time to decide the matter— as I expect he will— I hope that he will deal only with the most obvious points in order to save time, rather than getting himself drawn into a debate in which we would all like to take part.
Lord Tordoff: I sought to speak earlier but was firmly and properly put in my place by the noble Earl. I was simply seeking to suggest what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, eventually suggested; namely, that we should take a little time out to consider quietly the position that we have reached. Otherwise, we may continue discussing the matter on the Floor of the Committee for the next half hour. In my view, it would be better to take the matter off the Floor for half an hour and return with a more considered view. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is nodding his head in agreement. Either we spend the next half hour arguing backwards and forwards across the Floor with great misunderstandings creeping in, or we go away and try to resolve the matter through the usual channels.
Earl Ferrers: I must say that today's experience is giving me great apprehensions about ever trying to be helpful to anyone about anything. I thought that I was being helpful, but now Members of the Committee say,
144
"Let's adjourn the Committee to see where we are going". All I suggested was that we should not move certain amendments.
I do not actually share the apprehensions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It seems to me that Clause 4, to which he referred, imposes a duty on every police authority to undertake various functions. I cannot see that that has anything much to do with the amendments that we decided not to move. However, I see that I am not convincing other Members of the Committee.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. If we go on like this, we shall spend half an hour on the Floor of the Committee getting nowhere. Therefore, we might as well settle the matter outside the Chamber. I hope that we shall at least get somewhere. Incidentally, it might be a good self-denying ordinance to say that the amount of time used ought to be taken off our dinner hour. Then, perhaps, we would only take five minutes. However, as Members of the Committee seem to think that the proposed adjournment is the appropriate way to set about the matter, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 6.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.13 to 6.30 p.m.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I now call Amendment No.10 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Baroness Trumpington: It may he for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn again. I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure until 6.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.31 to 6.50 p.m.]
Earl Ferrers: It may be helpful to acquaint the Committee with the position following discussions with the usual channels about the progress of the Bill in view of what happened before we adjourned during pleasure. It has been agreed that we shall not take further amendments to Clauses 2 to 4 and Schedule 2 today but that, when those clauses are considered, the issue will be debated on the basis of whether the clauses should stand part of the Bill. We shall undertake to recommit those clauses and Schedule 2 at the end of the Committee stage proceedings. I hope that that meets with the approval of the Committee and that we shall be able to make progress, starting with Clause 5.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister. I confirm that that is our understanding. We are grateful to him for the flexibility that he has shown. We believe that it will improve the quality of our debate on those clauses.
[Amendments Nos.10 to 22 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: police authorities]:
[Amendments Nos.23 to 54 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Functions of police authorities]:
[Amendments Nos.55 to 71 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Chief constables]:
[Amendments Nos.72 to 74 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Deputy and assistant chief constables]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.75:
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the agreement of").
The noble Lord said: I would not be human if I were able to resist the temptation to comment on what has occurred over the past hour or so. It has surely afforded ample proof that our legislative procedures fall somewhat short of perfection. That is as mildly as I can put it
This is a brief amendment, with which I need not detain the Committee for any length of time. It deals with appointments and promotions to the rank of assistant chief constable. As it stands the Bill states that such appointments:
"shall be made, in accordance with regulations under Part II of this Act, by the police authority after consultation with the chief constable and subject to the approval of the Secretary of State". The amendment proposes that the words "after consultation with" be taken out and replaced by "with the agreement of".
It is very important that this Bill should not undermine the office of chief constable. It would be wrong to ask him to accept a nomination with which he does not agree and with which he is uncomfortable. I very much hope that in their wisdom the Government will accept this very modest amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I should very much like to support the amendment in principle. For the reasons given by my noble friend, it seems to be not only reasonable but essential in order to preserve the status, reputation and standing of chief constables.
Lord Renton: I too should like to support the amendment. I should like to add that the assistant chief constable— although he has been renamed— will remain a deputy, especially when there is only one. For a chief constable to have to put up with an assistant chief constable with whose appointment he does not agree would create an impossible position. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, although my noble friend says that the amendment is simple and obvious, it would alter the arrangement which is contained in the Police Act 1964. Under that Act a police authority consults its chief constable before making an assistant chief constable appointment. The Act requires a police authority to obtain the agreement of a chief constable to such an appointment.
There are important issues here. The first is that the consultative arrangements which are contained in this Bill are taken straight from the Police Act 1964. They are the same. Those arrangements have worked well and in practice have not caused any difficulties. Secondly, the constitutional position places a duty on police authorities to secure the maintenance of an efficient and
146
effective police force in their areas. An essential aspect of discharging that particular duty is the responsibility for choosing the management team. That is the duty of the police authority. The management team consists of the chief and assistant chief constables of the force.
Thirdly, a change from a requirement for a police authority to consult with a chief constable to one requiring it to secure the agreement of the chief constable has the potential to produce a situation in which, if agreement were not reached, it would not be possible to fill the assistant chief constable post. The requirement for agreement runs contrary to what has applied to date, which has operated successfully for the past 30 years. Of course any chief constable will be consulted as to the appointment of an assistant chief constable, and almost certainly will be in agreement. However, the duty to make the appointment lies with the police authority.
Lord Renton: I must confess that I had forgotten the provision in the 1964 Act. My noble friend is right that it reads:
"after consultation with the chief constable",
in the case of the appointment of a deputy. Can my noble friend confirm whether, in practice, if the chief constable says, "No, I will not have that man as my deputy", the Secretary of State does not give his approval? Or have there been cases in which there has been a conflict and somebody with whose appointment he does not agree has been foisted on a chief constable as a deputy?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend asked whether anything of that nature had occurred over the course of the past 30 years. I cannot give him the answer to that question. However, clearly, if a chief constable says adamantly, "I will not have that man working for me", there is a direct conflict between the police authority and the chief constable. Either the police authority says that it will appoint the man, or perhaps it may find the chief constable too difficult. Alternatively, it may be said that, if the chief constable does not want a particular person, one obviously cannot appoint somebody with whom he cannot work.
The principle is that the appointment is the duty of the police authority. In practice, of course, there will be discussion with the chief constable. That is fundamental good management.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am mildly hesitant in expressing a view in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who I suspect knows the answer to this particular question. The impression I have as regards officers of ranks such as these is that normally the Secretary of State— or in reality the Home Office— is consulted about the short list: at least that was so in my day. The police authority then makes a decision and the Home Secretary, having had the composition of the short list agreed on his behalf, accepts the final appointment, the decision of the police authority. The police authority can undoubtedly appoint somebody whom the chief officer does not particularly want: that is its right. But the only guarantee in the situation we are

147
describing is that everybody on the panel of applicants would have had his or her name considered by the Home Office before the names were presented to the police authority. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, will perhaps correct me if I am wrong on that particular point.
Lord Knights: Perhaps I may add just one or two points. Prior to 1964 the position varied as between borough police forces and county police forces. In the boroughs the assistant chief constables were appointed by the watch committee and the chief constable was consulted but his approval was not always necessary. In the counties it was the chief constable's authority to promote up to and including the rank of assistant chief constable, and he then went to the police authority and said, "Will you please appoint this man as my deputy?" As in most cases there was often only one assistant chief constable, they had no alternative but to appoint him as the deputy.
However, from 1964 onwards the position has been the same in all police forces. It was recommended by the Royal Commission of 1962 that all police forces should be the same: that is, that the police authority should appoint a candidate after discussions with the chief constable. I have sat on many occasions listening to a police authority appointing one of my assistants, and the first question it would usually ask after everybody had been seen was, "Who do you want, chief?" You say whom you would find acceptable— it might be one, it might be two— and then it makes its choice as between those particular ones.
As your Lordships will perhaps know, I was in the police service for many years, and I can recall only one occasion when an assistant chief constable was appointed to a borough police force whom the chief constable did not particularly want. That occasion was many years ago.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I feel slightly unhappy about this amendment, but what I find the most compelling argument is that which has just been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, whose experience is so considerable. I was much impressed by what he said, and I accept his argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I rise rather earlier than I anticipated to oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Knights, about the need for the chief constable to be consulted about the appointment of his assistant chief constable. However, the particular point I am addressing in relation to this Question and to Amendment No.76 is the removal of ranks from the police service. Perhaps I may address Clause 5 in particular, which removes the rank of deputy chief constable.
Those of us 'who have had experience of operational policing — and I would pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Knights, as a witness to this— know that some of the
148
more serious things that happen within a police force area such as major disasters, aeroplanes crashing, riots and occasions of that kind, require somebody who can act as the point of the pinnacle of policing. These are very complex occasions to the police, requiring a large deployment of officers. Very often disparate parts of the organisation are involved so that one needs to combine detectives, uniformed police and mounted police, dog handlers and so on. This requires a single focusing and co-ordinating point. ACCs are very often ambitious men who like to run their own empires, and many of us will be familiar with the friction that sometimes occurs between detectives and uniformed officers.
It is very important that at all times a force has a clear head. Without a deputy to the chief constable we shall be left with there being no clear focus for command on serious occasions when the chief constable is absent. That would particularly be the position in the case of this circulating ACC, suggested by this clause, who, if he has to act as a deputy for more than three months at a time, requires the blessing of the Secretary of State.
believe that that is a serious defect in this amendment to the 1964 Act.
At present the deputy chief constable is also the disciplinary officer for the force. As the chief constable is the ultimate appeal authority, it is necessary that serious matters of discipline are dealt with below his level. Currently the deputy chief constable fulfils that function. It is also important in relationships with the police authority, whatever shape that will take, that there is a clear focus for relationships with the chairman of the police authority and for liaising with the authority over serious disciplinary matters regarding complaints, major disasters and major incidents which may occur within a force area. Unless we have a clear focus of that kind, it will be very difficult for the police authority to relate correctly to a police force.
It is also important that it is clear to the ACCs who the senior ACC or the deputy to the chief constable is: otherwise inevitably there will be uneasy relationships within what is frequently a hierarchical organisation. It is for those reasons that I oppose these amendments to the 1964 Act and the elimination of the rank of deputy chief constable.
I should also like to speak to Amendment No.76, which suggests the removal of the ranks of chief superintendent and chief inspector. There are arguments in favour of having fewer levels within the police service, but presently so many things are tied to particular ranks; for instance, public order occasions and operations on the ground. In fact police regulations actually nominate particular ranks, and so to abolish these ranks without considering the functions is really putting the cart before the horse.
At present within the current rank structure there are clear formal differentiations caused by distinctive badges of rank, which are recognised between one force and another. If one arbitrarily were to remove ranks from forces, on joint operations it would be very difficult to tell who was carrying out particular functions. That is one of the ways in which the police service in this country can lend mutual aid and work together on major occasions. If the chief superintendent

149
or chief inspector ranks were arbitrarily removed, it could lead to the creation of an informal rank structure, with the rise of "elder statesmen" within particular ranks and juniors, due perhaps to service within the rank which would not necessarily reflect ability. This loss of clarity could seriously compromise efficiency in situations of operational command.
It is not just a question of wishing to retain the status quo. If there were a proper examination of functions within ranks, and a clear differentiation was made within the police hierarchy, as has been suggested by many in the police service over a period of years, it is possible that ranks could be removed. Chief constables have already acknowledged the need to streamline their forces by reducing the numbers within ranks. Quite drastic cuts have been made in the number of chief superintendents within many forces; but actually to eliminate levels of ranks would, I believe, lead to confusion and difficulties on operational occasions.
Lord Renton: It would be very interesting to know why the Government are dropping the expressions "chief superintendent" and "chief inspector" for the police forces which are to be covered by this Bill. As I understand it, in Northern Ireland and in the Metropolitan Police, those ranks are to be retained. That is for a good reason. When you have a very large police force, whether it covers a large area or a large population, or both, there has to be decentralisation. There are even divisions of the metropolitan force. Chief superintendents are placed at the head of each division and are generally referred to as divisional chief superintendents.
Some of the forces that will be created under the Bill will be large, as we can tell by turning to Schedule 1 to the Bill. I take the counties that I know best: Kent, where I was born; and Cambridgeshire, where I have lived for many years. They are both large counties and a degree of decentralisation is necessary in them. I should have thought that it would be a great advantage to have some superintendents to whom responsibility for a particular part of the area of the police force had been delegated. I would therefore quite like to call him chief superintendent.
I do not feel so strongly about chief inspectors, but the rank of chief inspector has existed in the police force as part of the pyramid of promotion, which is quite important in attracting good men and women into the force. That has been well established for years and I think it would be helpful if my noble friend Lord Ferrers could give us reasons— if they are not purely financial — as to why it is proposed that the rank of chief superintendent and the rank of chief inspector should be dropped.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Knights: I wish to speak first on the Motion that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with the removal of the rank of deputy chief constable. Paragraph 3.52 of the Sheehy Report— the document which led to this move, I believe— states:
"In considering the question of whether two or three ranks are needed above that of superintendent we took particular account of
150
the disciplinary responsibilities of deputy chief constables. In most forces throughout the United Kingdom this rank plays a significant role in discipline matters. We understand that in England and Wales the rank was created, relatively recently, mainly to deal with disciplinary matters in the wake of [the Police and Criminal Evidence Act]. Prior to that, the practice had been to nominate a deputy from amongst the complement of [assistant chief constables] on either a permanent or ad hoc basis for the purposes of delegating particular functions".
I am sorry to have to say that I think that Sheehy was singularly ill-advised, if that is the opinion which the committee came to.
The appointment of deputy chief constable has existed since at least the County Police Act 1839, giving authority to the chief constable to appoint him with the agreement of the police authority. In those days, he was one of the superintendents rather than an assistant chief constable but he was to deputise for the chief constable in his absence. The three-months limit which is referred to in Clause 5 dates from 1839.
The Royal Commission of 1962 recommended that police authorities should appoint the deputy chief constable. But the rank did not come until the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was not necessarily another layer of management, which is what the Sheehy Committee was concerned about. In fact— and I say this again with a certain amount of sadness— the appointment was much more to satisfy the ego of deputy chief constables than ever it was to handle discipline. Discipline had been handled by the officer appointed as deputy chief constable since 1964, when the Royal Commission again recommended that the chief constable should play no part generally in the early stages of discipline matters in order to leave him unbiased when sitting as a disciplinary authority.
The Sheehy Committee went on to say that there was no reason why assistant chief constables could not handle the disciplinary responsibilities of the deputy chief constable. Indeed, they do so now in order to free the deputy to act as the disciplinary authority in lieu of the chief constable in minor matters. If there is to be no deputy chief constable but all assistant chief constables, some regard would have to be paid to that matter because in the large forces, the chief constable cannot handle all the discipline hearings. That is why the position was altered in 1984. In paragraph 3.53 the Sheehy Committee also commented that:
"the designation of … a deputy on an ad hoc basis is a matter to be decided by the chief constable … in the light of local circumstances".
It was on that basis that the committee recommended abolition of the rank of deputy chief constable.
I do not believe that that is a sensible way to proceed. The force needs to know, on a permanent basis, who is in charge when the chief constable is away. What does a chief constable do, if his appointed deputy retires and he has no ACC sufficiently qualified to be appointed by him in his place? The appointment of the replacement assistant chief constable will be a matter for the police authority and the appointee will probably not have the experience and service necessary to be appointed the deputy.
Finally, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is proposed to continue the present practice where an assistant chief constable cannot become a deputy in the

151
force in which he has grown up. That could mean that none is qualified to be appointed the deputy. Who would take over if, under the ad hoc arrangements, no one was in the post of deputy at the time and the chief constable collapsed and died? The police authority could not appoint a deputy, it is a matter for the chief constable and he is not there to do it.
I would not argue personally for the retention of the rank of deputy chief constable, but I believe that the office should Continue with the assistant chief constable holding it, appointed by the police authority, as was the position in 1984. I therefore support the motion that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill.
Turning to the rinks of chief superintendent and chief inspector, I share to a large extent the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. I believe that there is a need in large forces for a rank between superintendent and assistant chief constable. In the force which I know best, the West Midlands, there are some 80 superintendents in post. It may be that that number can be reduced. It may be that, if the chief superintendent's rink is abolished, the number of superintendents may have to be increased. But, whatever may be the case, I believe that 80 is too large a number of people to be accountable directly to six assistant chief constables, particularly as those assistant chief constables are not in line of command positions to the superintendents. Very often, as the name implies, they are assisting the chief constable and probably only one or two at most— one in operations and one in the CID— are in line of command positions.
If we take a big city like Coventry, there will be four groupings of officers commanded by superintendents. I am quite sure that the city authorities in Coventry will not wish to consult with four superintendents, they will wish to consult with one. That is the rank of chief superintendent. I believe that Sheehy recommended the abolition of the rank of chief superintendent because the duties, as he saw them, overlapped very much with the duties of superintendent. That may well be so, but it is more a question of ironing out the responsibilities than of abolishing a rank.
I feel less strongly about the rank of chief inspector. In most cases that could well be handled by using the top points of the inspector's rate of pay (if that is where we finish up) to recognise additional responsibilities that might be held by someone who does some duties which an inspector does not normally carry out. So, while I would certainly support an amendment to retain the rank of chief superintendent, I have some doubts about the rank of chief inspector.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: I too support Amendment No.76. The police being a uniformed, disciplined service, easily recognisable ranks are vitally important. That has been proved over and over again, especially in public order situations. Increasingly we face situations like that. The removal of ranks will have a disastrous effect on operational affairs. Surely it would make more sense if a slimming down operation in some of those ranks were concentrated upon. Indeed, such a process has been in operation for a number of years and has been quite successful. There
152
is perhaps more room for development in that direction than in eliminating the rank altogether. I therefore add my support to the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: There are a number of issues involved here. Speaking for myself, I agree very largely with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Knights. These recommendations basically come from the report of the Sheehy Committee. One of the great disadvantages of the Sheehy Committee is that Mr. Clarke, the then Home Secretary, decided as a matter of policy to have nobody on the committee who had any experience of the police service. That is one of the reasons why so many of the recommendations have been dropped. If there had been people with experience of the police service I would have been rather surprised if some of those recommendations had been made.
Perhaps I may deal with one point of considerable importance which has already been put to the noble Earl. It has been long established Home Office policy that no officer could proceed through the ranks from assistant chief constable to deputy chief constable and to chief constable in the same force. The reason for that was a series of rather unfortunate episodes in the history of the police service. It was thought that one of the principal problems was that people had been spending too much time within a single force and a single community. It was therefore decided that as a matter of policy no officer would be allowed to proceed through those three ranks within the same force. Officers could go out of the force— for instance as an assistant chief constable— then to another force as deputy, and subsequently they might be appointed chief constable of that force. But they could not go through those three ranks. There was a very powerful case for initiating that policy.
The situation will now be different because the rank of deputy chief constable is to be abolished. As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, asked the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, what precisely will now happen? All those among us who have spent some time considering this matter in the past will be extremely anxious to find out what the Government would propose to do were they to get parliamentary authority to abolish the rank of deputy. Quite apart from anything else, it seems to me to be a profound mistake. Here is another case of unreasonable interventionism on the part of the Government.
The noble Earl, Mr. Howard and, before him, Mr. Clarke spent a great deal of time telling us— I am sure they did so with sincerity— that they wanted to give chief officers more authority to run their own organisations. That is a praiseworthy objective. But, having said that, the next thing that they do is to say that the chief constable cannot have a deputy clearly defined, be it the office or the rank. I do not have a strong feeling on the matter, but I believe that it is at least desirable to maintain the position of the 1964 Act, which said that there should be an office of deputy chief constable. As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, rightly said, in the majority of forces the deputy chief constable has been entrusted with responsibility for the discipline of that

153
force. It is a clearly defined responsibility. The great advantage is that the chief constable knows who his deputy is, as do the assistant chief constables. But the idea of not being quite clear who the deputy is in the absence of a chief constable seems to me to be wholly unsatisfactory in a disciplined force. I very much hope that the Government will consider this matter again. Once again, unhappily, they have not accepted the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers on this point. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to look at it again.
It is particularly important to look at this issue again because of the other decisions on rank structure. There is, for instance, to be only one rank between inspector and assistant chief constable. That is an extraordinary jump. I have no passionate feeling about whether the rank of chief inspector should be maintained or the rank of chief superintendent. My own inclination is to believe that the rank of chief superintendent should be maintained.
I shall put to the Committee the sort of problem that will arise if there is a major public order situation in an area where mutual aid between forces is in operation. As the Committee will be aware, there is an arrangement whereby, if there is likely to be a major public disorder, forces from other areas can be brought in to support the force in whose area the demonstration is likely to take place. That is the current situation. Sometimes many hundreds of police officers may be involved. There may be substantial public disorder. With the rank of chief superintendent abolished, as is the purpose of the Government, one may have a very confused situation in which three or four officers of superintendent rank are all there. Who is supposed to be in charge? Who is in command? These are important issues when one is discussing the position of a disciplined force. I find it very unsatisfactory that we are being asked to abolish the rank of chief superintendent without those issues being adequately addressed.
I have expressed my concerns as clearly as I can. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to indicate that the Government are prepared to look at the matter again. As I have said, the critical appointment is without doubt that of deputy chief constable. Secondly, if one of the other two ranks is to be maintained, I believe that the rank of chief superintendent should be maintained. But as I have indicated, I believe that the retention of only one rank between inspector and assistant chief constable, with a proviso that that assistant chief constable might find himself the acting chief constable of a force, is profoundly unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will agree to look at this issue again.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 5, which is the matter upon which the noble Baroness began this debate on clause stand part, replaces Section 6 of the 1964 Act. It does away with the rank of deputy chief constable. But it requires a chief constable to designate one of the assistant chief constables to exercise all the powers and duties of the chief constable in his absence or incapacity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quite rightly said, one wants to know where one is in a
154
disciplined force. In fact, the officers will do so. A person will have been designated to act as chief constable in the absence of the chief.
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to Northern Ireland and said that there the rank of deputy will be maintained, as it will in the Metropolitan Police, where there will be a deputy commissioner. I think the noble Lord will agree that those are both extraneous cases and different ones. The position of the Metropolitan Police is totally different from the rest of the country.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I am afraid that he has misunderstood me. It was in relation to the abolition of the rank of chief constable that I referred to Northern Ireland and to the Metropolitan district. It is in relation to that— because of the need for decentralisation when there is a large authority— that it would be helpful to know from my noble friend why the appointment of chief constable — I mean chief superintendent— is being abolished.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for having corrected himself. I was not certain what he meant about the position of chief constable of Northern Ireland being abolished. Perhaps I can come shortly to the matter of chief superintendent.
The purpose of abolishing the rank of deputy chief constable is to streamline the top management ranks of the service. Clause 5 enables that objective to be achieved while retaining the essential function of any deputy, which after all is to act as the next person in the management chain in place of the person who is not available to discharge his or her responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, said that it was very important that people should know who was the deputy chief constable. In fact, they will. Clause 5 makes it perfectly clear that provision has to be made for one of the assistant chief constables to act for the chief constable in his absence. That safeguards the essential function of a deputy. But there is no requirement for deputising when the chief constable is present. Therefore, in our view, there is not a requirement for a separate rank of deputy chief constable.
Perhaps I can give the probably totally inappropriate analogy of the fact that I happen to be Minister of State at the Home Office, which is an office, and that I also happen to be deputy Leader of the House. I do not operate as Leader of the House unless the Leader is not present. In that respect it is a not dissimilar situation. There will be assistant chief constables, and the chief constable will say, "You are to be the deputy when I am not here."
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not feel that the analogy is a very happy one. When the noble Earl is deputy Leader of the House, he operates in the absence of the Leader of the House. Of course he does. His rank is not about to be abolished. But that is what is proposed with regard to the rank of deputy chief constable.
The noble Earl said that there was no particular anxiety because the chief constable would be able to say, "I want you, Mr. X, during my absence to act for me. " But presumably Mr. Y or Mr. Z may be acting for

155
him on subsequent occasions. In a disciplined force a clearly defined chain of command is needed. Unhappily, one of the problems is that that chain of command is being cut down— I think, unreasonably.
Earl Ferrets: That is a point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that my analogy is not a happy one because I am not being abolished and some deputy chief constables are. It is the rank that is being abolished: the people will remain. So will their responsibilities in acting for the chief constable. If it is said that some people who at the moment are deputy chief constables will no longer be so and that this is bad luck on them and therefore the situation cannot possibly be altered, one is arguing that one can never make an amendment to the Position as it is. I accept that some Members may think differently, but we believe that there is a perfectly reasonable argument for streamlining the force and saying that there is a position for a person to act as a deputy chief constable in the full knowledge that he will act in the capacity of the chief constable when the chief constable is not there, but when he is there he will have the responsibility of an assistant chief constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights and Lord Harris, drew attention to the fact that, quite rightly, at present there cannot be an assistant chief constable, a deputy chief constable and a chief constable all in the same force. If you do away with one of them, it is asked, does that mean that an assistant chief constable cannot be a chief constable? That is a situation that we shall have to examine. Obviously, the removal of one of those ranks makes the position different. I was also asked what would happen if a chief constable died. As I explained, under Clause 5 the amended Section 6(4) of the Police Act states that when he is not there,
"a chief constable shall designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to exercise all the powers and duties of the chief constable".
So, in the unhappy event of a chief constable dying while in post, his deputy should be known.
Amendment No.76 allows police forces to retain the ranks of deputy chief constable, chief superintendent and chief inspector. We felt that the ranks of chief superintendent and chief inspector should be abolished. The purpose of removing those is to enable further streamlining of the management hierarchy by simplifying the structure. That will provide clearer and more direct communications. It will enable those police officers with the greatest ability — which is important— to move more quickly through the ranks. It will also provide chief constables with the opportunity to exchange middle management posts for more police officers on the beat.
The need for streamlining the force's management structures has been accepted for a long time. Indeed, many forces have gone a long way towards reducing the number of middle management posts. But the existing rank structure, which has six separate ranks, from sergeant to assistant chief constable, hinders forces achieving the optimum management restructuring.
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned. He asked why the proposal was necessary and what were he reasons for it Traditionally, although I accept that it
156
is not so in every case, a person may be a sergeant and become an inspector, then a chief inspector and move up to superintendent. Then he becomes a chief superintendent and moves up through that grade. Under the new proposal there will be only two hurdles to overcome. Once a person has finished being a sergeant he becomes an inspector. Thereafter he will be able to move right up the chain. The most able people will move up to the top the most quickly. There will then be a hurdle to jump to reach the office of superintendent. The most efficient will be able to move quickly up the structure until they come to the position of assistant chief constable.
There have been occasions when forces have identified a chief superintendent's post, a superintendent's post or a chief inspector's post. We feel that if the two middle ranking structures are done away with, it will enable the movement of people through those ranks to be quicker and that the best people will get to the top earlier than they would otherwise have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to public order situations. The police have a separate mechanism for designating authority to people in those circumstances. They have gold, silver and bronze insignia. As the noble Lord will know only too well, those are imposed on the rank structure specifically for the purpose of providing for clarity of command in public order situations. Changing the rank structure does not affect that.
I accept that it is difficult for people who are in those posts. When one has risen in a disciplined service to the rank of, say, chief superintendent, one feels an understandable pride at having done so. If that rank does not exist in the future, that person will inevitably feel a degree of regret. However, if one is trying to look at the structure for the future, it is better to have the command simpler and quicker so that there will he a more streamlined structure in the future than there has been in the past. For those reasons we consider the change important.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: First, perhaps I can ask the Minister a question on a point about which I am not clear. Assuming the Bill goes on the statute hook in its present form and the appropriate regulations are made, will the existing chief superintendent have to remove the symbol of rank from his uniform? Will the post of chief superintendent be abolished after he leaves it? It will be helpful if the Minister can tell us that.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and myself, asked a specific question about the current Home Office prohibition — for prohibition it is— which means that nobody can move from the rank of assistant, to deputy, to chief constable. I was concerned to hear the noble Earl reply that the reason for that (let me be quite blunt) related to the integrity of the police service. In answer to the points we made the noble Earl said that the Government were considering the matter; but that is not a very persuasive answer. The Government brought forward the legislation. Given the importance of the issue we are entitled to ask when the Government believe they will be in a position to answer that specific question. Will it be before Report stage, before Third Reading or will this Chamber have to pass the Bill

157
without knowing the answer to that critical question relating to progression through those three ranks? I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will tell me the answer.
Lord Renton: I wish to raise a point following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. On the question of chief superintendents— indeed, it will apply to chief inspectors as well— are they at present paid more because they are chief superintendents and chief inspectors? I understand that they are. It is unthinkable that the Bill can be made retrospective in relation to that. I hope that we shall be given an assurance that that will not happen.
Lord Knights: Perhaps I can pose another question for the Minister. First, I accept that the new Section 6(4) states:
"A chief constable shall after consulting his police authority designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to exercise all the powers and duties of the chief constable … during any absence, incapacity or suspension".
That is quite clear and it would cover the case I mentioned provided that that is regarded as being a permanent full-length appointment and not an ad hoc appointment as the Sheehy committee recommended. But does that mean that a person will be appointed to deputy on a long continuing basis?
Secondly, can the Minister deal with the question of a force such as Warwickshire, which has two assistant chief constables or, using today's parlance, one deputy chief constable and one assistant chief constable? It used to be two, one of them holding the office of deputy. One can easily foresee a situation where the one who is appointed as deputy retires and the one who is the assistant is himself coming up to the point of retirement. They would be in the position of having to appoint two quite new, inexperienced assistant chief constables and the chief constable would be expected to make one of them his deputy straight away, before he had had time to move into his rank or obtain the necessary experience. Today that situation is dealt with by advertising for and appointing to the office of deputy chief constable at a slightly higher rate of pay than the assistant chief constable. That is a much simpler way of dealing with the matter. I welcome the Minister's views on that problem.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I shall deal with the problems outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, first. He asked whether there would be a requirement for a chief constable to appoint an assistant chief constable as his deputy for a long period. The position will be open to the chief constable. He may say, "I am going to be away next week or next month and I want you to be the deputy chief constable". On the other hand, he may wish a person to be a deputy chief constable for a year. It will be up to the chief constable. The important point is that he will have to designate a person at any one time to be the deputy chief constable to act in his position when he, as the chief constable, is not there.
The noble Lord said in regard to Warwickshire that if two assistant chief constables were nearing retirement
158
under the present circumstances they would be able to advertise for a deputy chief constable; whereas under the Bill there would have to be an assistant and someone relatively new appointed as deputy. If two assistant chief constables are approaching retirement it will be up to the chief constable to make provision for that— perhaps by appointing an additional assistant chief constable, or whatever, in order to make allowance for the fact that when the chief constable has to appoint a deputy there is somebody of authority who can take that over. That is the position which will apply now.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that the chief superintendents or chief inspectors were paid more than superintendents or inspectors. That is quite right. It is also right to say that it would be unthinkable for them to be paid less. They will not be paid less. It will merely be their rank which will no longer be a "chief", but will be a "super"; or will no longer be a "chief inspector", but an "inspector".
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what would be the position with regard to rank insignia and whether those concerned would retain that of the present chief superintendent or superintendent. That will be a matter for the chief constable to decide. The noble Lord said also that the position of an officer not being able to hold the rank of an assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable was extremely important because it referred to the propriety of forces. That is true. If one removes one of those linchpins that alters the picture. We are addressing our minds to that. I hope to know the answer by Report stage, but at the moment I can only say that it is being addressed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: The noble Earl said it was up to the chief constable to appoint his deputy and he could appoint him for 12 months or whatever. But on the face of the Bill it says that if the period is for more than three months the appointment can only be made with the consent of the Secretary of State. That is one of the most objectionable points about that section. It implies that we shall have rotating deputy chief constables. To use his analogy that he is Deputy Leader, it is as though the noble Earl was Deputy Leader for three months and then the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was Deputy Leader for three months, and so forth. That is the objectionable part of that section of the Act; that is, it does not provide continuity or a clear position for a deputy of which the other ACCs and members of the force are aware. That is why we object to that section.
In relation to the abolition of the ranks of chief superintendents and chief inspectors, the noble Earl said that that would enable people to rise more quickly to the top. That applies anyhow to the gilded youths who rise rapidly to the top through the special corps and so forth. For most of the force it will mean much greater stagnation. The vast majority of officers will have no prospects and will not have the spear of ambition to lead them to look for further promotion. Therefore, though it may benefit the minority of the brilliant who will eventually become assistant chief constables or chief

159
constables, for the majority of the force it will be demoralising or disheartening, because there will not be those positions open to them further up the tree.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I can intervene to say that the noble Baroness will recognise that they will be able to progress up the pay scales of what are at present the two different ranks. They will be able to progress up those pay scales right to the top and that is quite an incentive.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: But that is a further disagreeable aspect of the suggested amendments because it provides the confusion of people who are paid better than others not in fact having a formal position. One therefore gets a seniority by pay as opposed to a seniority by position.
We are not entirely satisfied by the answers we have had on this occasion and we shall be returning to both these issues at the Report stage of the Bill.
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No.76 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
7.51 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Limit on increase in non-domestic rates for 1994 financial year]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert ("dependent upon the annual employer's contributions payments (as defined by section 158(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992) paid by the non-domestic ratepayer in the previous financial year, so that-—

(a) where the annual contributions payments are £ 30,000 or below, X shall be calculated on a sliding scale such that—

(i) where the annual contributions payments are £ 1,000 or less, X=100–5, and

(ii) where the annual contributions payments are £ 30,000, X=115;

(b)where the annual contributions payments are over £ 30,000, X is—

(i) 120 if tilt hereditament falls within sub-paragraph (3) below, and

(ii) 115 if the hereditament falls within sub-paragraph (4) below. " ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with small businesses. I am delighted to be able to return to the amendment on Report as I have every hope that it will enjoy government support. We argued in Committee that the combination of the move to a uniform business rate with the impact of revaluation had had a major impact on business rates, with more than two-fifths of all companies seeing increases, or if necessary decreases, of 50 per cent. in their bills.
The Government decided— we do not object to it— to phase in those increases in steps of 20 per cent. Of
160
the increase together with inflation for each of five years. But so that it would be cost neutral it also meant that the gainers too saw their business rates fall not overnight but in incremental stages. After they understandably protested at being asked to subsidise firms in more prosperous parts of the country, the Government agreed that the gainers should gain in full but the losers should still enjoy the protection of transitional relief.
So far, so good. But it meant that over three years transitional relief was no longer a self-balancing account, for a reason which I think we all understand and sympathise with but one which has needed heavy public subsidy— almost £ 2 billion of revenue foregone to the Exchequer. By any standards that is a considerable sum, especially when one bears in mind the figures of the Red Book.
Our objections in Committee were not to transitional relief or even to the gainers gaining immediately but the losers being protected. We had two objections. First, the subsidy to protect the losers was offered indiscriminately to all businesses whether they needed it or not. Secondly, the willingness to pick up the need for central funding was not guaranteed on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will move an amendment on that point.
To return to our first point, we objected to a subsidy protecting the losers being offered indiscriminately to all businesses whether or not they needed it. Whatever their profitability they were having money thrown at them by courtesy of the taxpayer. For some, it was clearly necessary; for others, it was useful; for others, it simply added to their profitability. I include here the major utilities, which means in other words that taxpayers are passing on subsidy to well-to-do shareholders.
We have only to remind ourselves of the pre-tax profits of the privatised utilities. British Telecom made profits of nearly £ 2 billion last year; British Gas made profits of more than £ 1 billion; the water companies made profits of £ 150 million to £ 200 million; the electricity companies made profits of £ 100 million to £ 200 million; National Power made profits of £ 580 million; PowerGen made profits of £ 425 million. It is hard to believe that such companies should enjoy the privilege of subsidy— that is, not moving on to their proper rate base, as they would otherwise have done given that level of profitability. Such subsidy is simply adding to the very large profits of already extremely profitable organisations.
In Committee we moved a probing amendment to the effect that transitional relief should be targeted at small businesses — those with under 10 staff— on the grounds that they suffered the worst effects of recession and they had the least margin of profitability with which to face increases in uniform business rates. It was a probing amendment to see whether Ministers accepted that public subsidy should be targeted and that its recipients should be carefully selected according to the circumstances, to quote a phrase. To my pleasure, the Minister was kind enough to agree. He said:
"Yes … depending on the circumstances we are, of course, sympathetic to the principle that public money should be targeted,

161
but we would have to decide the correct procedure, what the targets are and at whom they are aimed".— [Official Report, 8/2/94; col.1520.]
We all agree that public money should be targeted. We have established that principle in relation to this Bill. The question today therefore is a second order question. As the noble Earl quite rightly said in Committee, it is the question of at whom it should be targeted and what are the proper procedures for so doing.
This amendment is a second version of the amendment we moved in Committee. We are still seeking to ensure that transitional relief goes proportionately and preponderantly to small businesses but is calculated now not by the number of employees but by their national insurance bill, which is a useful proxy for the wages of the staff. And because it inevitably focuses on companies with low-paid staff rather than the small but perhaps highly profitable professional businesses, it will make sure that subsidy goes to those who most need it.
In addition, the amendment not only targets subsidy more carefully, as the Minister would wish us to do, but it does a second thing. It suggests that the subsidy of transitional relief should be tapered; that employers paying a national insurance bill of under £ 5,000 a year would face increases of just 2.5 per cent.; that employers paying a bill of under £ 10,000 a year would pay 5 per cent.; that employers paying a bill of under £ 15,000 a year would 7.5 per cent.; and so on; until firms with a national insurance bill of some £ 30,000 or above would pay the full transitional increase and would not enjoy any protection from that increase.
In the forthcoming year business will receive £ 150 million in transitional relief. But instead of all business finding the increment they would have paid cut in half, this amendment would taper it so that the smallest business with the poorest paid employees would get virtually full remission. The large companies with national insurance bills of more than £ 30,000 would get little or no remission but would pay the full increase. It is financially neutral. It is simple to administer, as national insurance figures are already well known to government. The formula is graded and tapered and need present no additional administrative burden to government or to businesses. Above all, it would do what the Minister agreed in Committee was desirable and appropriate. It would target relief on the needy. Because — and this is the most telling point— of the £ 150 million proposed in additional transitional relief, £ 100 million will otherwise be going to plcs, public corporations and privatised utilities— firms which on no scale can be said to need public subsidy, particularly when one takes into account the pressure on public finances in the current year. Two-thirds of the subsidy is going to major businesses whose profits are rising and whose shareholders will enjoy even larger dividends courtesy of the taxpayer. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in this amendment. I see its attraction not only in logical terms, but in terms of making the provision
162
more intelligible to the taxpayer. That is important in every form of taxation. A taxpayer paying tax on a business— in this case business rates— will far better understand and will be far better prepared to accept the fairness of the tax if it is related to the scale of his business. One can think of many businesses which may use relatively small premises— that is the basis for the relief in referring to the particular hereditaments — which are nevertheless large businesses in terms of the number of employees and, one hopes, the profits which are generated.
The noble Baroness has gone through the arguments very clearly and I shall not take up your Lordships' time by repeating them. Perhaps I may ask her a question in summing up as regards paragraph (a) (ii) of the amendment which refers to annual contributions where the payments are £ 30,000. Is that intended to be more than £ 1,000 and less than £ 30,000? I was trying to follow the scale set out in the amendment. If it is not easy to answer that tonight, so be it, but the principle is a very good one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, picks up an extremely important point concerning this particular amendment which seems to me to be an attempt yet again to effect change for the sake of change. It is another amendment which seeks to target transitional relief in a different way from the present arrangements, but for no apparent good reason.
Rates are a tax on property rather than on individual businesses. Our current transitional arrangements target relief on smaller businesses by reference to the value of their property. This value is shown in the local rating list so is readily available to billing authorities.
Before I say a few words specifically about the defects of the amendment, may I remind your Lordships exactly what the transitional arrangements do. First, they target relief only on those businesses which faced the largest increases in their bills after 1990. Secondly, they were deliberately targeted to give small businesses more protection than larger ones. They target small businesses by reference to the value of property. Businesses occupying property with a rateable value of less than £ 15,000 in London or £ 10,000 elsewhere have lower increases in bills than larger properties. Without the provisions of the Bill, those increases would have been 15 per cent. in real terms as opposed to 20 per cent. in real terms for larger property. The bills for businesses occupying small mixed domestic and non-domestic property— that is, composite property— would have increased by only 10 per cent. in real terms.
The Bill will reduce the increases for a third consecutive year. Larger properties will face 10 per cent. increases in real terms and smaller ones 71/2 per cent. increases. Small composite properties will have their increases held in line with inflation. But transitional relief is still being targeted mainly at small businesses, using the simple, readily understood and accessible criterion of rateable values as a determinant of size.

163
With this amendment, it seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, wants to keep the existing rateable value threshold but apply it only to businesses with employers' national insurance contributions of over £ 30,000. Any business paying national insurance contributions of £ 30,000 or less will face increases of between 0.5 per cent. and 15 per cent. determined by reference to some sliding scale. Who sets the sliding scale is left to our imagination for it is certainly not set out in this amendment. Nor is there any provision to make rules which set the scale to apply equally across the country.
But in any case, employers' national insurance contributions are not a good indication of the size of firm. Large mail order firms or hotels, for instance, may employ many part-lime workers for whom, depending on their earnings, no contributions may be made. Such firms would, therefore, have a relatively low contributions bill. Equally, a small firm which may employ very few highly skilled and relatively highly paid workers may have a high contributions bill.
The amendment therefore would link relief for 1994– 95 to national. employers' contributions paid by the ratepayer in 1993– 94. But the contributions totals would not be available from the Inland Revenue's contributions agency until late 1994. To send out the right bills, local authorities would need to be able to gain access to this data. And even so, businesses would not know until towards the end of that year whether or not they were to benefit from the relief. That uncertainty would most certainly not be welcomed. It is not simple to administer.
This amendment is incomplete and it is unnecessary. It would add yet another layer of complexity to what noble Lords opposite have already complained is a complex scheme. For those reasons, I urge your Lordships not to accept it.
Baroness Hollis A Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the question posed to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards the shape of the amendment. Basically, the proposal is that for each £ 1,000 extra of national insurance there should be a reduction in protection of 0.5 per cent. For example, with the employees' national insurance bill coming to £ 1,000, that would mean that only 0.5 per cent. would be paid towards the increase which might otherwise occur. At £ 5,003 it would be 2.5 per cent. and upwards in steps. Therefore the relationship between paragraphs (a) (i) and (ii), and (b) is that at £ 1,000 or so it will be 100.5 and go up in incremental stages until one reaches a ceiling of 115 al £ 30,000. If the wording of the amendment does not indicate that adequately, I apologise. It seemed inappropriate to put down an array of figures. That is the presumption— that is to say, a simple, sliding scale taper.
As to the noble Earl's point, I do not recall complaining that this matter was complex. We did say that we were "phasing in the phasing in", which is another matter. We did not say that the matter was complex, but that it was unfair and an indiscriminate use of the taxpayers' money. Nothing that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has said challenges that at all.
164
He said that this provision would be difficult to administer. The Federation of Small Businesses disagrees with the noble Earl and says that it is very simple to administer. Some of the difficulties may have been underestimated, but it is not a complex issue because national insurance statistics are well known. After all, they are the basis of two other Bills in relation to social insurance and statutory sick pay, with which some of us have been involved recently. This is information which is well established in the public domain.
The noble Earl was right in saying that national insurance bills are not a complete proxy for small firms with low-paid staff, possibly facing hardship. I accept that there is not a complete proxy. The noble Earl used the example of hotels. I am sure he knows the level of wage at which national insurance starts to be paid. If he does not, perhaps I may help to remind him. It is at £ 56 going up to £ 57. Therefore, something like 500,000 people in this country are too poor to pay income tax, but are witnessing their social insurance contributions going up from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. this year. In other words, unlike income tax, the implementation of national insurance comes very low down indeed. A hotel worker would probably have to be working under family credit hours (under 16 hours a week) and if he is taking tips, to be getting less than £ 56 a week. While I take the noble Earl's point, nonetheless it is not a valid one, given the level at which national insurance begins to bite.
That is not the real substantive issue, which is that this is a form of relief which is untargeted. Perhaps we may remind ourselves of the argument. Rates are a property tax. At the last revaluation it was determined that businesses, firms, shops and office premises were due to pay a new figure. That new figure should have been paid from day one. Quite rightly— and we understand the reasons why— because those increases were swingeing in many cases, as well as some of the decreases, the provision was phased in. That meant that firms had been paying less to the Exchequer for a number of years than they would otherwise have done as part of their contribution to aggregate external finance. Therefore it is Exchequer revenue foregone— a subsidy to them and a requirement for the Exchequer to raise that money foregone from other payers; namely, the taxpayer. That is irrefutable. As £ 2 billion is not being levied by the Exchequer on companies, that money has to be made good by the taxpayer in a difficult financial situation in which we are facing cuts in services in other areas of public policy.
That would be acceptable if we believed that those receiving that £ 2 billion subsidy were among the needy. On the contrary, they are among the most profitable, affluent and asset-rich businesses in this country because the Government have helped to make them so. I am talking about companies such as BT and British Gas. When BT's profits are so high that even Oftel is requiring it to reduce its high prices, how can the Minister justify throwing a rate subsidy at such a company? The same applies to the water companies.
The Minister knows that this case is right. The real problem is finding the most effective and economical

165
way of targeting the money. I invite the Minister to comment. Surely he cannot justify major companies such as BT, British Gas and PowerGen, which have huge profits that are spent in giving high and generous dividends to their shareholders, paying less in what is effectively a tax to the Government — the business rate — than they would otherwise, with that money having to be made up by people who are often very poor and at the bottom level of taxation. I invite the noble Earl to respond.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that she never said that the provisions would make the matter more complex, but this particular amendment would certainly make the Bill exceptionally complex. I believe that the Opposition are seeking that a test of hardship should apply to each ratepayer in order to decide the level of transitional relief to which that ratepayer is entitled. But that relief is not set against particular economic or market circumstances. The relief is intended to move ratepayers from their old liabilities to their new ones as painlessly as possible. If one took the argument of the noble Baroness to its ultimate conclusion, one would have to say that the only sure way of targeting relief on the cases of true need would be to invite the billing authorities to scrutinise the accounts of each ratepayer. I think that the noble Baroness would agree that that would require an army of accountants for each local authority area and would certainly be likely to cost more than the relief that would be distributed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, but I realise that as this is not a Committee stage this is not the time or place to pursue the matter. I simply remind the Minister that under the old system of local domestic rates, local authorities could not only introduce transitional arrangements but had the power to offer hardship schemes whereby they could decide to make a judgment on the value of supporting that local company as against the losses forgone. Local authorities still have a power to offer hardship relief, but only at the expense of their own budgets and standard spending assessments and, therefore, of the revenue coming under their external aggregate finance.
In other words, until the UBR, it was a well-established principle that local authorities could offer hardship relief where the circumstances warranted it. In most cases there were only a few bidders for it, but it allowed the authorities to target help where it was most needed. However, as it is clear that we shall not be able to move the Minister tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No.2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
166
("Consultation by Secretary of State
Before making any regulations under section 58 of the 1988 Act in relation to the financial year beginning in 1995 and to subsequent financial years, the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates about the effects of the compilation of new non-domestic rating lists. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment asks the Secretary of State to put a requirement for consultation on the face of the Bill. This Bill is before us precisely because of the need to protect businesses from the consequences of the combination of the last revaluation together with the move from local to national business rates. All the evidence shows that revaluation contributed to perhaps three-quarters of the change in people's bills. As we explored in Committee, the revaluation had significant regional effects, benefiting the North and manufacturing industry as against the South, the City of London, offices and shops. The increases were so severe that the Government had to phase them in and then to phase in that adjustment. In order that those who were due to have their rate bills reduced should have their demand for relief met immediately, the provisions could not be self-financing, but cost us £ 2 billion over three years.
We accepted that that was a difficult situation for the Government and the series of Bills that have been presented to this House and the other place have been intended to mitigate the effect of what could and should have been anticipated, given a revaluation following a 20-year delay.
This time around, with the revaluation due in 1995, I understand that considerable research from the R&D side of chartered surveyors indicates the likely new pattern of that revaluation. It looks as though it will reverse some of the shifts of the previous revaluation, aiding inner London, the South East, offices and shops, but that it will relatively disadvantage the North, the Midlands and manufacturing. As I understand it, it looks as though retailers in central London will see their valuations fall by 15 per cent, but that there will be increases of, say,20 per cent. in the East Midlands and of between 15 and 50 per cent. in the North and North West. It looks as though the figures for office developments will be reduced in the South, but go up by 15 to 30 per cent. in the North and North West and by 50 per cent. in the Midlands. It looks as though the figures for industrial premises will be up 5 to 10 per cent. in London and the South East, but by perhaps 30 per cent. in the East Midlands, North and North West. Even within a region there may well be marked differences which will affect the competitiveness of individual firms and businesses.
The Government may again be minded to phase in any new revaluation because in many ways these increases are almost as substantial as the revaluation increases and decreases that were introduced in 1990. If they are minded to phase them in, that can only be at substantial public cost if the Exchequer is going to pick up the bill and if the provisions are not meant to be self-balancing. We have spent £ 2 billion on phasing in the last revaluation effectively. We must be talking about substantial sums (if not fully of that order) in the next round if the Government are to pick up the bill.
However, as far as we can tell that pubic money will again be thrown at businesses without any prior consultation about the impact of revaluation, the need for businesses to receive transitional relief or, following the previous amendment, the need to target what scarce public money there is. Again, we are confident that the Government cannot want to throw money indiscriminately at all corners. They should therefore consult about the impact not only of revaluation but also of any transitional relief and on the possible need for any elaborated hardship scheme.
This amendment would begin that process of consultation and make it a right. We are suggesting that the Secretary of State should consult the representative bodies of business and local authorities which could give him relevant guidance and avoid the need not only to have subsequent Bills of this order, but also the subsequent effort that is involved in trying to target relief on where it is most needed.
The amendment would have a second advantage. I hope that it would a low us to spend public money more wisely than currently. It is clearly a nonsense to throw transitional relief and Exchequer subsidy at major companies which ate so profitable that their profits are having to be curtailed by bodies such as Oftel.
There would be a further advantage. Under the old local rating system, local authorities were rightly required to consult local businesses about the level of rates both to establish that they offered value for money and that, where there were areas of business need that remained unmet in that community, the local authority should work with the local chamber of commerce and the like to further those needs. Such a need might be for local starter units, better distributor roads or the need to have a fast track for certain planning consents. It might relate to the scale of parking for key workers in those companies. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have been a local authority member and I am sure that we would both feet that we had failed if, after our meetings with local businesses in the local chambers of commerce, we did not all agree on a handshake that we had offered a splendid budget, exactly targeted on the needs of the local economy. In return, as a local authority, we expected to carry loss leaders such as airports and the like to further that local economy.
That local consultation has now effectively gone because national business rates, in the UBR, have made it redundant. Precisely because it is no longer relevant at local level (even though it was valuable) it is even more important that the Secretary of State undertakes to maintain it. Revaluation will have not only national but regional implications and any proposals for transitional relief will have significant effects on us all
We believe that this is a modest amendment. It would be inexpensive but useful. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake towards business that which the local authority was rightly required to undertake when it, rather than the Secretary of State, determined the level of the business rate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment for the reason anticipated by the noble
168
Baroness, Lady Hollis. I have experience of consultation at local level, as does the noble Baroness. I hope the Minister does not believe that an adequate response will be, "Of course, the Government always consult". I hope that that is the case. Let us say so and provide for it.
The noble Baroness says that consultation with business rate payers has effectively disappeared because the rate is now nationally set. The position is more bizarre, because although consultation continues there is very little on which the local authority can consult. It is certainly useful to have an annual meeting involving the local authority and local businesses. But those discussions continue throughout the year in any event. The statutory consultation remains. The local authority meets the business rate payers but they are not its ratepayers— if your Lordships take my meaning.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government fully understand the need to consult widely on any proposals they may have for introducing transitional arrangements following the 1995 and subsequent revaluations. But they see no need to add to the length of the Bill by accepting such consultation as a formal duty.
At Second Reading and in debate in another place the Government sketched out their intention to consult businesses on the effects of the 1995 revaluation by the early summer. We know that local authorities will need advance warning of any proposals, and we shall certainly take their views into account.
The record of the Department of the Environment in consulting on business rates is exemplary. There was extensive consultation on our proposals for transitional arrangements following the 1990 revaluation. Since then the department has listened carefully to the views of individual ratepayers and to business representatives. Officials have regular discussions with members of the valuation profession about the effects of revaluations and the detailed operation of the non-domestic rating system. They have regular meetings with local authority associations on all such matters. These are not just talking shops. Most of the dialogue is constructive and gives rise to positive action. The Bill and its predecessors are good examples of the Government's willingness to respond to the views of business and others about the operation of the system.
No purpose would be served by imposing a formal duty on the Secretary of State, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Therefore, I can see no reason for the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when one bears in mind what the Minister said in Committee it is perturbing to be told, on the one hand, to rely on Government intention and, on the other hand, to rely on Government regulation, but never to rely on Government legislation. I have heard nothing tonight which persuades me that although the Government are proposing this step it will hurt to have it in legislation so that it becomes an entitlement and not a courtesy or a favour. However, if the Government were proposing not to do so, the amendment would require them to have consultation that would ensure that public money was being better spent. Either way, I cannot see that

169
Government have anything to lose. If they are willing to give the undertaking, why not have it on the face of the Bill where it becomes enforceable?
I am sure that the Minister means what he says but he cannot bind his successors unless the provision appears on the face of the Bill. That is why so much of our pressure is to add to the Bill, often in the spirit of what the Minister intends and undertakes. However, as he resists putting the provision on the face of the Bill we have no way of ensuring that his intentions will be carried out by his successors with integrity. Except through the process of judicial review we cannot make them stick.
This may not be the time to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, I must point out to the House that if Amendment No.3 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No.4.
Clause 3 [Non-domestic rating: transitional pooling]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.3:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("Act)") to ("for") in line 42.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is drafted in the same terms as an amendment I tabled in Committee. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily by repeating arguments. However, the ground needs to be covered a little more effectively. I cannot find a new argument but I do not believe that it is incumbent on those of us who are anxious about the provisions of the Bill to find arguments. After all, we are not seeking to change what is currently enshrined in statute. That is an obligation on the Secretary of State. The words of the Bill will change that obligation from being mandatory to merely permissive.
On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister gave a commitment. I do not doubt his sincerity. He said that we should regard him as giving an assurance that the proper steps would be taken in the future. He continued, referring to the permissive aspect:
"I can add no more other than to say that we do not feel that it should be on the face of the Bill".
He added:
"The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has generously said that she trusts me; she must trust what the Government say in this instance". — [Official Report, 8/2/94; col.1523.]
We know that change happens and that Ministers change. Without for one moment impugning the integrity of the noble Earl's remarks tonight, given that the Government are already under an obligation it is incumbent upon them to explain more fully why the current position should be altered. We are seeking to defend the current position. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will address a profound worry. As I said in Committee, we have no doubts about the integrity of the Minister's intentions. It would be quite improper for us to express such doubts if we had them. However, the Minister cannot bind his successors. As a result of my experience in local government as chair of finance and the like, I
170
have seen positions announced by one Minister later amended and disavowed by others. They were statements in another place and therefore the local authority could not make those assertions and intentions stick.
I hope that in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Minister will answer a simple question. Let us suppose that the Minister's successor on his side will not feel able to fund such an account from central government moneys but instead removes it from the aggregate external finance of local authorities. How can local government make the Minister's intention stick if it is not on the face of the Bill? I understand that a local authority can seek a judicial review. At such a review the local authority will be told that the Minister cannot bind his successors merely by verbal statements. All that can bind his successors is primary legislation and the will of Parliament is required to change that. If the Minister has such an intention but if his successor will not honour his promises, what advice does he offer to local government to ensure that those intentions stick if they are not on the face of the Bill?
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, before considering these amendments in detail, it might help if I remind the House how the top-up provisions work. The Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992 introduced a duty to top up the pool to make good the shortfall arising from that particular Act, which froze rate increases in real terms and allowed remaining gains to come through in full in 1993– 94. Last year we extended its provisions to cover the shortfall arising from the 1993 Act, which froze rate increases for a further year. This Bill extends it further to cover the changes made by the November Budget. But, as we have explained, this Bill also looks ahead to the provisions we will require from 1995– 96 onwards. We sought flexibility in those arrangements because we did not know what transitional arrangements, if any, would continue to be needed. Had we not extended the 1992 Act provisions forward to cover future years as well, we would have left ourselves with neither a duty nor a power to top up the pool.
We are fully aware of the importance which local authorities attach to ensuring that the pool is not depleted. That is why the Bill addressed this issue by providing us with a power to make good any shortfall if one arose in the future. There was nothing sinister in this; we could have given ourselves a duty but chose not to on the basis that a duty would not always be appropriate and that a power would therefore allow us greater flexibility.
Given our good faith in bringing forward this power, we have been surprised and rather dismayed by the strength of feeling on this matter, which, I must say, we feel has been somewhat exaggerated. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Planning listened carefully to the views expressed by the Opposition in another place and was able to give the unequivocal assurance, which I have also given in this House, that we would always top up the pool if the circumstances warranted it. In our view, the

171
Government would be hard-put not to honour this commitment even if the complexion of the Government were to change.
We have been anxious all along to try to minimise delay on this Bill so that local authorities know where they stand before they send out their rates bills in early March. The department has received a number of telephone calls from local authorities of all political persuasions, up and down the country, concerned about the risk of delay Many will want to send final instructions to their printers before the end of February. Any delay in sending out rates bills could give rise to cash-flow difficulties for local authorities. Given the commitments we have made, we see no reason to delay this Bill any further.
I should perhaps add that we would see particular difficulties with. Amendment No.4 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. That tries to turn the power into a duty in a rather indirect way, by making the Secretary of State account for any decision not to exercise his power to top up the pool. Given the commitments we have made, we would always do so where necessary. But even if it was clearly not necessary, this amendment would nevertheless require the Secretary of State to lay an order for debate in both Houses to explain why. Furthermore, the Secretary of State would have to return to both Houses each year and go through the whole process over and over again. That would seem a roundabout way of proceeding.
As I have said repeatedly, the Government have given their word that they will always top up the pool whenever transitional arrangements leave it short. Anything else is un necessary and would only serve to delay the Bill. That is why we believe that we have gone as far as we car' to meet the Opposition's concerns and why we believe that both these amendments are unacceptable.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, there is perhaps a trite comment with which I could reply to the Minister when he accuses us of seeking to delay the implementation of the Bill; that is, if the Government accept the amendment, there would be no question of delay.
He identifies very neatly the intention behind Amendment No.4. I thought that that was an imaginative crabwise rather than direct approach to the issue. The noble Lord says that a duty would not be appropriate; that a power would enable the Government to approach the matter flexibly. I wrote down the noble Earl's words— and I shall be corrected by the Official Report if I am wrong. He gave unequivocal assurances that if circumstances warrant, steps would be taken to top up the pool. He then said that where necessary, the pool would be topped up. Towards the end of his speech — and this was the clearest commitment— he said that the Government would always top it up when transitional arrangements leave it short.
It is the very fact that there can be so many different ways to describe that which leaves those of us who have a little cynicism about these matters still cynical as to what may happen in the future. It is a fair point to say that a different government may be stuck with a
172
commitment, but that does not appear to frighten any of us who may look to there being a different government in the future. I fear that we have not progressed further. I had hoped that the Government would take the opportunity to do so, but I shall not tax the patience of your Lordships any longer or allow the Minister to do so, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.4 not moved.]

Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
It is very nearly a year since I asked your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this legislation. Immediately that had been done, an Instruction was moved by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve and accepted by the House. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lady Macleod cannot be here this evening, but I have had a number of discussions with her outside the Chamber and I do not believe that she is still unduly concerned, although she certainly was at that time.
Since then, the matter has not gone to sleep. It was referred to a Select Committee, together with the Instruction. That Select Committee was chaired extremely thoroughly by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. Having read the transcript of the proceedings, it seems to me that her four colleagues— the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and Lord Crook, and my noble friends Lord Cadman and Lord Moyne— took an extremely full and intelligent part in the proceedings. I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to them for their contributions.
The committee had to consider the Instruction of the noble Baroness; it had a copy of the full debate which took place on Second Reading; it had a presentation of the Bill by counsel and witnesses; and petitions were put forward. In all, it took eight days to consider the matter and, in addition, at the beginning of July all members of the Select Committee took part in a view. They went to look at the area as a whole and had the opportunity to see for themselves what it was that was under discussion, in so far as they did not know already.
As a result, a document was produced which your Lordships may find extremely helpful. It is a special report from the Select Committee which was ordered to be printed on 18th October. I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Select Committee for doing that and in particular will be grateful for its reasoned decisions on all the points upon which it had to deliberate and the conclusions which were reached.
A substantial number of amendments are set out at the end of the special report. Many of them were introduced by the promoters of the legislation as a result of their continuing discussions and in order to meet petitioners' objections. But some amendments came from the Select Committee in order to meet points that had been made to it.

173
After that, the Bill went to an Unopposed Bill Committee and, by that time, the Parliamentary Session had ended and it was carried over so that it is now being dealt with in the new Session.
After all that consideration, I am asking your Lordships this evening to send the Bill on to another place in the certain knowledge that, if there are still matters which people in the area or anywhere else think are not right, then the whole process of petitions and the Private Bill procedure can be embarked upon yet again, as before. Therefore, all I am asking your Lordships to do is to send the Bill on its way as part of the parliamentary process.
The Malvern Hills are a term of art. They consist of the land which is controlled by some conservators. The conservators have been set up and empowered by a series of four Acts of Parliament which span a period from 1884, the last of them having been passed in 1930. Their powers are entirely granted by those private Acts, they cannot do anything without the legislative provisions in one or other of those Acts; and, indeed, some parts of the Bill now before the House are there in order to deal with certain matters which went slightly wrong in the earlier legislation.
As noble Lords who were here a year ago may imagine, it is not surprising that after about 64 years there are matters that need updating. That is what the Bill seeks to do. Of course, the Malvern Hills are very special. A great deal of care must be taken about powers that are given to the people who are looking after them. There must also be proper checks and balances. Moreover, should there be extra powers and duties that the conservators should now enjoy and perform? I hope that your Lordships will feel entirely confident that such issues have been very fully explored by the Select Committee process to which I referred.
I am very happy to answer questions about what happened. I do not propose to go into any great detail about the amendments that have been made. However, it looks to me as though the Select Committee did not readily accept that the Bill should proceed in the form that it took after the Second Reading, at the time when the Instruction was granted. The Select Committee looked very carefully at that construction. There are three paragraphs set out in paragraph 5 of the report. Those noble Lords who are interested in the subject will know that very well. However, in the special report there are repeated references to the Select Committee's intention and determination to fulfil the points set out in the various paragraphs of that instruction. One only has to look at paragraphs 54,58,71 and 75 to see that members of the Select Committee had picked out the various points in the Instruction and that they were quite certain that they would give effect to what your Lordships had instructed them to consider most carefully.
The special report contains one telling paragraph, paragraph 49, which states:
"The promoters' amendments to exclude the application of the bill's more controversial powers from the existing Malvern Hills"—
I shall return to that point—
174
"have in our opinion transformed the bill. Without these amendments the bill would be unacceptable. With them, the Hills remain inalienable but largely undisturbed; and the balance of argument inclines in favour of a suitably amended bill. With the further amendments tabled by the promoters to meet the petitioners' objections and with the amendments required by us and described in the following paragraphs, we believe that the House may properly give the bill a third reading".
I take that to be a fairly severe comment on the Bill. But, nevertheless, it gives a justification to your Lordships to pursue the matter now as the amendments are all incorporated.
There were, essentially, two main areas of opposition. There is great sensitivity about what may be built upon the Malvern Hills, however one may describe them. Originally in Clause 3 there was the power to rebuild one of the two café s on the Hills, the Beacon Café, which burnt down not very long ago. It was in a very prominent position. The original Bill gave the power to rebuild it either there or somewhere else. The Select Committee received representations on the matter which are by no means one sided. But the recommendation made by the Select Committee (which is now included in the Bill) is that there should be no rebuilding of the Beacon Café but that the other cafe, the St. Anne's Well Cafeteria, should be dealt with. That should be enough provision on the Hills. If people want refreshments, they will have to take them elsewhere. Of course, there are plenty of other facilities in the immediate area.
There was also the original Clause 10, which ran into a great deal of criticism. On the face of it, the clause allowed the conservators, as some people thought, to build and sell speculative buildings, especially office buildings, on what everyone thought were the Malvern Hills. Such buildings were for administrative purposes, and so on. However, it was also feared that such buildings could be sold on or, for all anyone knew, could be set half way up the Malvern Hills. Moreover, one has to concede that the drafting was not all that it might have been.
In the event, as regards those two points, there is to be no Beacon Café, but only the St. Anne's Well Café, which is still there. That can be rebuilt if and when it becomes necessary. No other building provision is allowed under the Bill. What is left to the conservators in respect of their intention to provide accommodation for themselves is the provision that they can buy existing accommodation or lease it; but they cannot construct it for themselves.
Theirs is becoming quite an elaborate organisation. At present, it functions from the offices of a firm of solicitors in Malvern. The moment may very well come — and should be provided for if we are not to have legislation more than once every 60 years— for the conservators to acquire the necessary accommodation for themselves. They need room for their staff and for their administration. They also need, though not necessarily there, somewhere to keep the equipment and the machinery that they require to look after the Hills. They may also need somewhere for their small workforce to live. It now transpires that, if the conservators are to have somewhere which is much nearer to the centre of the population and not anywhere

175
right up on the Malvern Hills, there might be a good case to have information offices; in other words, places where you can get maps and so on.
In Clause 2 of the Bill— and unless you are an expert on drafting Acts of Parliament you would not immediately spot it— a new phrase has been introduced: it is,
"the existing Malvern Hills".
That means the land under the jurisdiction of the conservators at the time of the passing of the Bill into law. There are certain things which they cannot do in that respect. Among them is the ability to obtain the new accommodation that they want. They will have to obtain it elsewhere. What is more, if the conservators buy or lease land and it turns out— as may very well be the case — that what is available on the market is more than they require and they need to dispose of any surplus, they will have to make up their minds within a matter of five years whether they will keep it or sell it. That applies not only to land and buildings on the Hills, but also to other land. That is the change, the differentiation, between the existing Malvern Hills and new land which may be bought in the future and which will become the Malvern Hills by definition but which is not yet the Malvern Hills. That is the change that appealed, as I understand it, to the Select Committee. I believe that any possible excesses that might have been feared as regards the way the conservators would use their powers have now been dispelled by the curb that has been put on them and the new device that hats been built in.
The other matters that were discussed— they are important — are the various restrictions upon what can be done. There have always been powers to make by-laws, and indeed there are by-laws. What has been dealt with in this Bill is the opportunity to take into the legislation the modern powers to make by-laws which carry with them modest penalties if anyone is prosecuted.
The modern power enables by-laws not only to be made but also gives a power to consult about them, as the Home Office directs, beforehand. This is a standard formula which applies to all local authorities and for these purposes the conservators are assimilated with other local authorities. Therefore we have now for the first time in the legislation a completely ordinary system of making by-laws which applies all over England and Wales and is familiar to everyone. I think it must be accepted by this tine that the system is working well.
There is also a. provision now— your Lordships would not guess it unless you were told— in the first schedule, and in Clause 25, which opens up the proceedings of the conservators to public access and also gives the public the opportunity of looking at the documents that the conservators produce.
I think there may be one or two other points that your Lordships wish to raise but I believe those are the main matters that were discussed which could be said to go to a principle. There were a lot of other details. There have been many other detailed amendments to the Bill which have been, as I said, either accepted by the conservators on their own account, or imposed by the committee. All of those are now in the legislation, which, if your Lordships read what came before the House on Second
176
Reading, may look quite substantially different from what was then before the House for consideration. I would therefore ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading in its present form with the knowledge that there is the fallback provision, if necessary, for further petitions in another place. I ask your Lordships to let the Bill go on its way so that the conservators can get up to date with their powers and duties in the 1990s as opposed to what they have had heretofore. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. — (Viscount Colville of Culross.)
8.53 p.m.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, first I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his generous opening remarks and compliments to my colleagues and myself. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Select Committee and the Principal Clerk of Private Bills, Mr. Brendan Keith and his staff for their constant support and assistance throughout our proceedings.
I am sure my colleagues would also like me to take this opportunity of thanking the clerk for the conservators and his staff for the arrangements they made for our successful and pleasant visit to the hills on a glorious day last July. We all regret the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, from the House tonight due to the bad weather and the driving conditions that prevail between her home and London. However, I hope she will feel that the Select Committee has paid due regard to the wishes of the House as expressed in the threefold Instruction that she moved on Second Reading of the Bill last March. I was glad that the noble Viscount felt that we had followed that Instruction with proper regard and with due care.
I also hope that the special report to which the noble Viscount referred, and which has been before the House since October of last year together with the list of amendments which we appended to that report, meets the concerns which were expressed on all sides of the House during the debate on Second Reading last March. It is not my intention— certainly not at this late stage and when we are aware that other noble Lords are patiently waiting to resume their deliberations on the police Bill once we have completed our Third Reading— to refer in any detail to the subject matter that is carefully and, I hope, thoroughly stated in the sections of the report dealing with the case for the Bill, the case against the Bill, the committee's opinion and the annex which contains a long list of amendments which we have offered to the Bill.
I would only again refer to paragraph 49 which the noble Viscount read to your Lordships a few moments ago and which, to my mind, sums up the unanimous opinion of the Select Committee, which I hope will enable the House to endorse its findings and give the Bill a Third Reading. The noble Viscount seemed to find our remarks in that paragraph somewhat severe. I personally view them as rather direct. I can assure the House that that was the unanimous opinion of the committee and that we have as far as is humanly

177
possible dealt fairly and thoroughly with the special Instruction. I hope that on that basis the House will tonight give the Bill a Third Reading.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I, too, am extremely sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, cannot be with us tonight because on Second Reading she led the criticism of the original Bill in what I thought was an eloquent and impressive speech and moved that pertinent Instruction which has guided the work of the Select Committee.
On Second Reading I myself spoke critically about the Bill as then drafted. I was particularly concerned about the possible erection of buildings and other structures on the hills. However, the Select Committee's report fully meets the points I made. The Bill as originally drafted was, I believe, far too sweeping in its scope and was in my view rightly described by the Select Committee as unacceptable. It has been transformed by the Select Committee and I think we can all agree that the committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has done an admirable job. The report seems to me a model of what such reports should be. Incidentally, I am sure the report is right as regards the Beacon Café. My view of the report is not one that I hold solely myself. The Open Spaces Society has written to me as it wishes to thank the Select Committee for its excellent work on the Bill. The Countryside Commission has written to me stating:
"We think this Bill illustrates very well what an important role the Upper House fulfils on this kind of legislation. All of our key concerns about the Bill as it originally stood have now been dealt with and the result is a vast improvement".
There is one point which the Open Spaces Society has made to me and is referred to in paragraph 48 of the Select Committee's report; namely, that if the Bill is passed into law there would be five different Acts dealing specifically with the hills. The society asks that the legislation should be consolidated. That is a valid point. I note that the Open Spaces Society made the same point in the petition it has now submitted to another place. It seems to me that not only the conservators but also the general public cannot be expected to understand the complexities of five different Bills with constant cross-references between them. It would be in everyone's interest to have the legislation consolidated.
The Countryside Commission has also said that there are one or two small points it thinks should be clarified. I have mentioned these to my noble friend and expressed the hope that these points can be addressed when the Bill goes to another place. The commission considers that it should be made clear beyond any doubt that the Clause 9 power to acquire buildings by means of purchase, lease or otherwise, does not include the power to construct them, as it did formerly. It believes that it should be made clear whether the Secretary of State's consent is required under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for access roads authorized
178
apparently unilaterally under Clause 7A and for fences erected under the power at the end of Clause 15(3), which is exercisable
"notwithstanding anything in any enactment"
— a phrase which may cancel out the effect of Clause 21(1). It also believes that Section 194 should probably be made to bite in both cases.
Lastly, the commission considers that the powers to restrict riding in Clause 16 and what follows may be rather too sweeping given that they include no test of reasonableness. It is suggested that perhaps the formula in Clause 15(3), which provides a test of reasonableness in another context, may be the sort of provision which is required.
That said, I believe that this is a far better Bill than that which we considered in March last year. I hope very much that your Lordships will give it a Third Reading.
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to speak. As Bishop of Worcester and one who frequently walks on the Malvern Hills, and as one who is married to someone who until a month ago was a conservator, I should like to thank noble Lords for all that they have done. The committee has done what was required. I do not believe that the Beacon Café should be rebuilt. I believe that we are much better off without it.
I believe that the conservators are a body of people who exercise their responsibilities with impeccable care. Chiefly, I wanted to rise to express my thanks for the time which your Lordships have given to what we in Worcestershire consider an important Bill.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must make it clear that, although I speak from this Dispatch Box, the views that I express are my own, as this is a Private Bill, and are not necessarily shared by my colleagues.
We have heard that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has been unable to get here. She telephoned me earlier today and asked me to convey to the House her views on one or two matters. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to do that.
The noble Baroness wanted to say, first, that she feels that the Instruction has been fully implemented. She wishes to thank the committee for its work. It had 10 meetings and committee members went to the top of the hills to see for themselves. The noble Baroness was greatly impressed by their energy and thoroughness. She also wishes me to say that she is disappointed that none of the conservators took the opportunity to meet the committee, either in London or on the hills. That is a pity because it might have helped matters along a little.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, in applauding the work of the committee. It has helped to secure a precious piece of our natural heritage for future generations.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, explained very clearly that most of the objections raised in the Second Reading debate have now been met, and there is little left to say about them. In particular, I welcome the

179
decision of the conservators not to seek to make trespass a criminal offence. The proposals for powers to control public access now include much better safeguards, and I welcome both those measures. Perhaps I may mention in passing that I understand that in another Bill shortly to come before your Lordships' House we have again to face the problem of trespass being made a criminal offence, but that is an argument for another day.
I support the committee's views on the need to limit the potential for inappropriate commercial activity. At the same time the committee has allowed enough flexibility to raise income from enhanced facilities. That seems much more in keeping with the 1884 Act than the original proposals which were before us.
The only other point that I wish to make is that made by the noble Lord. Lord Moran, and raised by the Open Spaces Society; namely, that with the passing of this Bill the Malvern Hills will be governed by five different Acts. In the interests of good management and open government it is essential that there should be a consolidation exercise. I hope that the conservators will feel that they can take that on as soon as possible. I understand that it is an expensive exercise for them, but nevertheless 1 believe that it is necessary if the public are to understand fully how the hills are to be governed.
With those few comments. I wish the Bill well from now on and am glad to accede to the Third Reading.
9.4 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it may assist if I intervene briefly to indicate the Government's view on this Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Goschen said at Second Reading, the Government were broadly content with the Bill's proposals, subject to the clearance of some points of detail. Those have since been resolved to our satisfaction so that from our point of view there is no hindrance to the Bill being given its Third Reading.
9.5 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am very grateful for the reception that the Bill has received from your Lordships. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate is a wholly impartial witness to the excellence of the conservators, but as a month has passed I am sure that his impartiality has increased. What he said is very much appreciated. One or two sticks and stories were thrown at the conservators in the course of the Select Committee proceedings, and the right reverend Prelate's remarks, as one who knows that part of the world extremely well, will be much appreciated.
I entirely take the point made by my noble friend Lord Moran and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about consolidation. There is no difficulty about consolidation, it is simply a technical matter and, as the noble Baroness said, it is expensive. If the people who pay for the conservators out of the charge which is levied upon them feel that it is essential that there should be a consolidation of this legislation, it is they who will have to pay for it. I suppose that the choice is theirs. I do not believe that I can say more than that. It is all too clear that it is unsatisfactory to have the legislation partly in
180
the Victorian form and partly in the very up-to-date and extremely complex form of cross-referencing in the present Bill. As a former chairman of the Consolidation Bills Committee a long time ago I know the process. It is very complicated and expensive. It would have to be paid for by the people who support the conservators financially through the charges which are made upon them.
That is a matter for the locality. If it is considered essential, I do not believe that the conservators would be averse to it. I have discussed the matter with them. It would just have to be done by some competent lawyers whom I know they have at their command, if they wish to use them. That is as far as I can take it this evening.
As for the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, he very kindly gave me notice of them and I have considered them very carefully. Yes, it is perfectly true that it has been considered very important that conservators should not be allowed to build, particularly speculatively. What I can tell him is that— and I referred to it in my first speech — the conservators are absolutely bound by the powers contained in their private legislation. They are creatures of this legislation. They can do nothing that is not allowed in it. That is why, for instance, in Clause 10 of the Bill powers have had to be taken to borrow for the purposes of the 1930 Act, because that Act unfortunately did not provide powers to borrow for the carrying out of the functions contained in it. That is the sort of strictness with which the law looks upon powers granted by this type of legislation. If the law does not say "construct", it means that they shall not construct. I think that my noble friend had been absolutely reliant upon that.
I still think that Clause 21, as it stands, deals with the requirement to get the Secretary of State's consent for any encroachments under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act. It is very carefully spelt out in Clause 21 and it appears to me at least to be a satisfactory solution to that problem.
The last point the noble Lord raised was whether the provisions about restricting horse riding should be governed by some reasonable provisions. Looking at the clauses relating to horse riding, you see a number of uses of the word "reasonable". My noble friend does not want the conservators to impose unreasonable restrictions. Ultimately brought into this whole realm of law is the position of the conservators as being people who act in the public domain. If they act under the anti-horse riding or limitation of horse riding provisions in this Bill, they are not anti-horse riding; they are there to try to control it so that it is consistent with the amenities and facilities. If they act in ways that no reasonable conservators would act, they are subject to judicial review, for the very reason that they have acted as no good conservators would act. They know that, and so does everybody else.
I hope that my noble friend and those who have been in touch with him from the Countryside Commission will appreciate that the Bill now, in these horse riding clauses, goes as far as is necessary for the legislation, given that there is this overriding provision in the general law about judicial review for such activities. I

181
think that that deals with all the points. I am very grateful for the reception that the Bill has received, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
9.11 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 6 [Police Fund]:
Baroness Hylton of Eggardon Baroness Hylton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.77:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert:
("8AA. The Secretary of State shall within three months of the date of Royal Assent lay before Parliament a report setting out—
Report on costs of reorganisation.

(a) the anticipated expenditure in the financial year commencing on 1st April 1994 in connection with Police Authorities established in accordance with section 3A of the Police Act 1964;

(b) the likely level of borrowing of such authorities in the three financial years commencing on 1st April 1994,1995 and 1996 respectively; and

(c) his estimate of likely additional expenditure by Chief Constables on financial and personal management in the financial years commencing on 1st April 1994,1995 and 1996 respectively.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment, probing the financial costs of this reorganisation. The Government, in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, estimate that the cost of setting up these new police authorities will be £ 21 million. Divided among the police authorities and forces in England and Wales which are affected by the Bill, this amounts to roughly to £ 500,000 per police area. The cost will be incurred during the second half of the 1994/95 financial year, when both the old and the new authorities will be operating. The memorandum states that:
"The new authorities may incur some costs … for their own purposes and some costs for the purposes of the police forces for whose maintenance they will assume full responsibility from April 1995. The force may need to recruit and train staff in areas such as personnel and finance in order to be able to fulfil the management tasks which will be given them from April 1995. For the same reason, they may also need new equipment such as computer hardware. "
We should be grateful if we could have further information about the necessity for training staff in areas of personnel and finance which are not already provided for within the present administrative set-up of forces, and some indication of how the enormous sum of £ 21 million of extra costs will be made up. If the figure amounts to a best estimate based on a careful assessment of need to spend public money, then it should be possible to provide us with a reasonable breakdown of how the estimate is arrived at. That is particularly important at a time when, as we know, the imposition of heavy taxation on the public is imminent and where universally there are criticisms of the waste of public money on a grand scale.
The sum of £21 million would be enough to supply 1,000 extra police officers on the beat. Alternatively, one could make comparisons with the Safer Cities programme. The original programme of 20 projects,
182
which the Government counted a success, was supported by Home Office funding of around £ 17 million. Clearly one could more than double the scope of the programme with an extra £ 21 million and we would need to be satisfied that that is not money which is being wasted on needless reorganisation of police authorities. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could provide us with more information about how that large sum of £21 million is made up.
It is also claimed in the Financial Memorandum that the Bill will provide greater efficiency. Police authorities and forces have, of course, been increasing their efficiency over many years now and there has been considerable streamlining of ranks. For example, something like 360 officers in the ranks of chief inspector, superintendent and chief superintendent— which we have already heard about— have been eliminated. The police service has been very conscious over the past 10 years or so of the need for efficiency and for the careful use of public money.
It is our impression, gained from looking at the Bill, that it will be counter-productive from the point of view of efficiency because the degree of central involvement, if the police authorities as envisaged go forward, will be more bureaucratic than at present. The police authorities will need more in the way of clerical support, administrative support and financial advisers. That will also apply to the central directives that may be issued by the Home Secretary. Of course, because of what has happened today, we have not dealt with those, but, if they are to be implemented, then the police authorities will need more in the way of bureaucracy and clerical administration to monitor the key objectives and to assess whether forces are complying with them.
Generally our overall feeling is that the proposals are counter-productive to efficiency and we should be grateful if we could have some indication as to where this enormous extra sum of £ 21 million is to be employed. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may raise one further matter concerning the £ 21 million. As the noble Earl will recall from a Written Answer he gave me, the Lords-Lieutenant issue, if I may so describe it, only emerged as a practical proposition on, I think,4th January this year. It did not appear in the White Paper, nor on any other occasion. Suddenly, just before the debate on Second Reading, we were told that the Association of Lords-Lieutenant had been approached to find out whether they would become involved in the strange proceeding whereby they would sit with management selection personnel to choose the members of the Home Office team to be imposed upon police authorities. Obviously, we shall discuss Clause 2 and Schedule 2 on recommitment.
My question is financial. As that policy had not been decided upon at the time the Bill was published, it is quite obvious that it is not included in the figure of £ 21 million. Can we be told what the public expenditure implications are and whether Treasury approval has been given to the expenditure? We should all be

183
immensely grateful to the noble Earl were he able to assist us in the matter. Clearly, it is directly related to the Financial Memorandum to the Bill.
Lord Renton: Having expressed reservations about everything on the Bill this evening until now, I am happy to say that I think that the Government are to be congratulated on replacing Section 8 of the 1964 Act with this much simpler Clause 6. It reads very well and succinctly, it is admirably brief and it does not attempt to go too far.
As to the amendment, however, I cannot find myself in agreement with it. I say that principally because what it requires overlaps with what is in any event bound to happen before the start of every financial year: namely, the submission of the Estimates in another place. Bearing in mind the well-established system, I see no need for what is proposed in paragraph (a) of the amendment.
As for what is proposed with regard to 1995 and 1996 under paragraphs (b) and (c), I should have thought it would be hard to anticipate two years ahead what would be the likely level of borrowing of each of the authorities. Quite frankly, I doubt if that is realistic. However, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about it. I am not impressed by Amendment No.77.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for saying that he is not very impressed with the amendment. I was not impressed either. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, then quite fairly said that it was merely a probing amendment. I had not realised that. I was concerned because it obliges the Home Secretary to give in a separate form information that would be put before Parliament in the normal way, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, through the supply estimates, and by appropriation accounts and other means. We did not consider that a very necessary additional procedure.
The only additional expenditure resulting from the Bill will be that to cover the cost of setting up the new police authorities and to cover the period of parallel operation by the old and new authorities in the year 1994– 95. The new authorities can also incur some costs in 1994– 95, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said, in relation to training, recruitment and equipment needs in the forces for whose maintenance they will assume responsibility from April 1995. That expenditure will be confined to the financial year 1994– 95. My noble friend Lord Renton is right. Parliament will be informed about it through the supply estimates. It is therefore unnecessary to provide a special report.
Provision has already been made to allow the new police authorities to borrow up to an amount agreed by the Secretary of State in 1994– 95, the amount being paid back the following year. Thereafter, most borrowing will be for capital purposes and will be dependent on the provision which the Home Office has made for credit approvals. Credit approvals for protective services, which comprise largely those for the police, are published in the public expenditure statistical supplement to the Financial Statement and the Budget Report.
No provision has been made for additional expenditure by chief constables from April 1995
184
onwards, as the changes which are instituted by the Bill will be broadly cost neutral. Any additional expenditure on financial and personnel management will be a matter for the chief constable and his police authority and will be accomplished by reallocating existing funds.
The noble Baroness asked why on earth we spend £ 21 million when we can get 1,000 extra police officers for that sum. Of course one can get all sorts of things for that figure. I quite agree. The point is that the Bill will make sure that all the resources available are used more effectively. That is the whole purpose behind the Bill. There are some small costs involved in setting up the new authorities and providing police forces with the proper management information that they need to run themselves more efficiently, as the Audit Commission recommended. That is why we are making available the sum of £ 21 million. About £ 4 million will be spent in setting up the new police authorities, and up to £ 17 million will be spent on recruiting the staff needed by forces to carry out new functions such as strengthening the force finance functions and personnel functions and ensuring adequate information systems.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the Lord Lieutenant system, saying that it had been produced only in January, that it had not been predicted, and so forth. Of course it was only produced in January. It was produced in order to try to find a solution to the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others, identified at Second Reading; namely, their concern that the independent members would be placemen of my right honourable friend. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, still keeps jogging along with that theme. He regards it as "this strange procedure to choose the Home Office team". That really is a total and gross exaggeration. It does not surprise me that the noble Lord says that. In his whims of fancy, he is sometimes given to exaggeration. He knows perfectly well that it is not a Home Office team; it is the appointment of independent people. Because he, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others complained that the body was not independent, my right honourable friend, in a gesture of magnanimity which I am bound to say is wearing pretty thin at the way we are going on, decided to have an arrangement which showed beyond peradventure that it was independent.
But the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, "Oh, no, this is a Home Office team. " He asks what it will cost. I do not know what are the charges for Lords Lieutenant at the moment. I cannot tell the noble Lord the cost. As the noble Lord will realise, that particular system has not been fined down. We have approached the Lords Lieutenant but I cannot give him their reply as yet. However, I do not believe that it will be a substantial proportion of £ 21 million.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not wish to cause the noble Earl any further grief on this particular issue tonight. However, perhaps he will bear in mind that when he used the term "independent members" those gentlemen will be many things— assuming that they are ever eventually contained in the language of the Bill — but independent they certainly are not. They will be party placemen, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well.

185
But the issue that I have raised is a different one. When the Bill was published there was no such provision within it in terms of taking account of the position not only of Lords Lieutenant but the personnel management consultants— presumably public advertising, perhaps for members of the authorities. The question is a simple one. Has Treasury approval been given for expenditure of this sort? Perhaps I may say with respect to the noble Earl that the answer is either yes or no. I ask him: which is it?
Earl Ferrers: So far as I know, the Treasury is aware of what is proposed and is happy with it.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I thank the noble Earl for a rather minuscule increase in my knowledge about where the £ 21 million is to be spent. I am still not at all clear that a detailed estimate has been provided to us and we are not clear how the sums have been arrived at. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Civilian employees]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.78:
Page 6, line 13, after ("employ") insert ("or appoint").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No.79. There are curious anomalies in the history of the appointment and employment of civilian staff within the police service. The present legislation in itself is somewhat anomalous. The chief constable is responsible in all aspects for uniformed staff and has day to day directional responsibility for civilian staff. The civilian staff themselves are not employees of the chief constable. They are employees of the police authority and the police authority retains responsibility for their employment.
The 1964 Police Act states in Section 10(1) that the job of the civilian staff is to assist the police force and to enable the authority to discharge its functions. So we have the curious situation that the staff are not part of the force but are part of the authority, which has wider responsibilities than simply maintenance of the force.
Clearly that is anomalous and clearly it is undesirable that the staff who are very largely used to assist the police force should not be under the control of the chief constable. However, it must be said that there has been very little conflict as a result. Very few chief police officers have reported practical difficulties about the implementation of the 1964 legislation.
But a distinction is and should be made between those civilians who, to use the words of the legislation "assist the force"— in other words are doing things which uniformed or detective police officers should not be doing or which they could do better than the officers — and those who are enabling the authority to discharge its functions.
We ought to be clear that there are functions of police authorities which are different from, if not wider than,
186
the functions of the chief constable and of the police force itself. For example, the police authority ought not to be entirely on its own; in other words, it ought not to be without the benefit of paid staff to advise it on such matters as the long-term costs of capital development, the ways in which the public are consulted about policing in the area, the accuracy of estimates of inflation costs, equal opportunities policies, and the propriety or advisability of any action proposed by the chief constable and recommended to the police authority. Those are proper functions with which the police authority is concerned which are not properly the responsibility of the chief constable. Yet the Bill as drafted says that all civilians shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable unless there is agreement between him and the police authority to the contrary.
The last thing I want to do is to set up any conflict between chief constables and police authorities. The whole thrust of our amendments has been to try to avoid that kind of potential for conflict. But it seems logical and reasonable to recognise that there are functions of police authorities which are not the functions of the police force, which may require a police authority to "appoint" and "employ". The addition of the word "appoint" is technical but in management terms it is what one must do. One cannot employ somebody unless that person is appointed first and it is as well to spell that out. I refer to people who assist the police authority to perform those functions which are not functions of the police force.
First, the amendment would correct the lack of recognition of appointment as well as the employment of persons— Clause 8 of the Bill, line 13 on page 6. Secondly, it would provide that subsection (2) of Clause 8 shall not apply to such persons as the authority consider it necessary to employ or appoint directly in pursuance of its functions. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is not a recipe for discord between chief constables and the police authorities; on the contrary, it is a recognition of the real difference between their functions and the necessity for staff to assist them to carry them out. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not find any question of principle arising in Amendment No.78. They are matters of phraseology but we should try to get them right. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is right in regard to the need for the words "or appoint" after the word "employ".
We employ employees but we appoint independent contractors and professional people. We appoint solicitors unless we are going to have them in our employment all the time. We may need both kinds of person to serve a police authority. I am thinking particularly of accountants. A police authority is likely to need at least one accountant as a permanent employee to supervise the expenditure and so forth, but from time to time it may need to engage another accountant to give advice on a specific problem or obtain a second opinion, or to engage a solicitor for that purpose. In that case it would not be employing them; it would be appointing them, engaging them ad hoc for their professional

187
services. The same would apply to an architect brought in to build a new police station, and so forth. Therefore, the words "or appoint" may well be appropriate on Amendment No.78.
Amendment NJ.79 is a purely technical matter. I do not wish to express an opinion upon it, but at first sight it looks as though it simplifies the drafting and makes the point that needs to be made.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Renton always comes out with some fairly good observations. He said that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right to draw our attention to this part of the Bill. I dare say he was right; but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was wrong in the conclusions which he drew. Perhaps I may explain why.
If these amendments were accepted, the nature of the new framework for policing for which the Bill provides would be altered for the worse. It is an important element of the new framework that chief constables should in future have direct responsibility for the management and control of all the civilians working with and in support of the police, without the detailed involvement of the police authority. If police authorities were to be able to appoint additional people, who would not come under the control of the chief constable, those people could become involved in detailed police civilian matters in a way which would undermine the chief constable's new powers. That would be undesirable. One of the most important features of the Bill is to give greater management freedom to chief constables.
Clause 8 allows chief constables and police authorities to agree that certain members of staff should remain under police authority control. On this point the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Renton ought to be satisfied. Clause 3 substitutes a new Section 10 for Section 10 of the 1964 Act. The new Section 10(1) states:
"A police authority established under section 3 of this Act may employ persons to assist the police force".
Subsection (2) states that,
"any person employed by the authority under this section is under the direction and control of the chief constable of the police force maintained by the authority".
That does not satisfy my noble friend's anxiety about the accountant, but then subsection (3) states:
"Subsection (2) 01 this section shall not apply to such of the persons employed by the authority as may be agreed between the chief constable and the authority".
In other words, there would be certain people who are there to service the police authority and not to be part of the civilians over whom the chief constable has authority. It would be up to the chief constable and the police authority to agree that those people, and those people alone, came under the authority of the police authority and not under the authority of the chief constable. For those reasons I would suggest to the Committee that the Bill should remain as it is.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that what I am about to say will not cause the noble Earl unease, but I find that I rather agree with him on this point. It is a difficult matter as to how this decision should be implemented and what the responsibility of the chief officer on one side should be and what the position of
188
the police authority on the other side should be. It is most desirable to ensure that there should not be arty confusion as to who in fact is in charge. Subsection (3) deals with the point that there can be agreement between the authority and the chief constable that certain persons can be employed by the authority itself and be answerable to the authority rather than to the chief constable. If there is any dispute about the matter there can be a determination by the Secretary of State. Apart from that it is highly desirable that the chief constable should have the powers set out in subsection (2). Therefore, on that point, I agree with the noble Earl.
Lord Monkswell: In following this debate I am rather disturbed. Earlier in the Committee's consideration of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke about the tripartite relationship of the chief constable, the police authority and the Home Secretary. The independence of those three legs to the milking stool, to which the noble Earl referred, is incredibly important. Yet there is written into Clause 8 effectively a limitation on the ability of the police authority, as one of the legs of that tripartite arrangement, to operate independently.
Perhaps I may give an example. If a police authority wants to have independent financial or legal advice which is independent of the chief constable and the Home Secretary, it is almost prevented from getting that independent advice by the clause. Subsection (3) means that the police authority in effect cannot employ people without the agreement of the chief constable and, failing that, of the Home Secretary. If the chief constable and the Home Secretary, as other parts of the tripartite arrangement, do not think that the police authority should have independent legal advice, it cannot get it. That is very disturbing. Can the Minister explain whether I have misunderstood the situation or whether there is genuine cause for anxiety?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is making a mountain out of a molehill and is getting it wrong in the process. The situation is perfectly clear. A police authority can employ civilians and that is what it will do. Once the civilians are employed they come under the authority of the chief constable. That is made perfectly clear in subsection (2) which states,
"any person employed by the authority … is under the direction and control of the chief constable".
That means that the civilians who may operate typewriters, word processors or telephones will come under the control of the chief constable. I have no idea whether it will come into effect, but the chairman of the police authority may need a personal secretary or an accountant. Those people will be employed by the police authority but, with the agreement of the chief constable, they will not come under his authority. That seems to me perfectly simple. Those who are working in the force, as it were, will come under the authority of the chief constable, but those who are serving the authority alone will, with the agreement of the chief constable, be part of the authority and not part of the chief constable's responsibility.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister thinks that it is very simple, but the Bill provides the possibility that it may not be. It provides that, in the absence of

189
agreement, the matter may be determined by the Secretary of State. In other words it is anticipated that there may be disputes. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, have misconstrued the amendments. They have ignored the fact that the addition of the word "appoint" is appropriate for those who are not to be employed in the normal sense but who are to be used on a sessional or ad hoc basis.
The Bill provides a quite unnecessary system of appeal to the Secretary of State in the case of a dispute. Is it really the function of a Secretary of State to adjudicate between a chief constable and a police authority about the employment of a secretary? That seems to me a gross misuse of central power and central responsibility, as bad as many of the things that the Bill proposes to remove in the detail of control by the Home Office of police authorities.
We have never said in connection with the amendment that the chief constable should not be able to direct the staff who assist the force. Of course not. That would be going back not just on the 1964 Act, but in particular on the way in which that Act has operated. What we are saying is that a police authority has different functions from those of the police force and it seems entirely proper that the authority should decide who to employ or appoint to advise it and to carry out those functions on its behalf. I do not think that the answers that have been given by the Minister or the comments that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, have contributed in any way to the understanding of the issue.
This is not a matter of prime importance in the Bill. It is certainly not a matter on which I wish to seek the view of the Committee. However, it is another example of how the Government's mania for controlling organisations and functions around the country has gone too far. I am grateful for the supporting words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which encourage me to think that I may return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.79 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.80:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("(5) Each police authority shall appoint a person to be the clerk to the authority. ").
The noble Lord said: This is a related amendment, but it is so specific that I hope that it will be thought even less controversial than the previous two amendments. The Deputy Chairman seems to think that I am making a joke. I cannot think why.
There are two kinds of police authority. There are police authorities in counties which are special committees of the county council and there are joint police authorities in other areas and in metropolitan areas. Where the police authority is coterminous with the county council, it is possible to have the chief executive or clerk of the county council as clerk of the
190
police authority. Where there is a joint authority, it is possible for arrangements to be made to have a clerk, but a clerk may not be required.
However, it seems to us that a police authority should have a clerk because there are certain functions, such as calling meetings, publishing statutory notices, receiving resignations and co-ordinating the activities of the police authority, which should be performed by a clerk. This probing amendment seeks to discover in what way the Government propose that each police authority should have a clerk, as it should. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I support the amendment. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Knights: I shall add only one point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there needs to be a clerk, but we have to be careful that we do not regard that as a full-time appointment. The clerk to the West Midlands Police Authority at the moment is the clerk to Dudley Borough Council. His work for the police authority is regarded as a very part-time appointment. I hope that the Committee will not think that police authorities will need full-time clerks. We are talking about part-time appointments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knights, for that contribution. The amendment does not imply— and I do not intend— that such a clerkship should be full-time.
Earl Ferrers: When discussing the previous amendment I thought that we had got the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on our side. However, I see that he has slipped the painter, gone off again and hitched up with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That is a dangerous alliance and I recommend that the noble Lord should choose his friends more carefully.
I agree with the main thrust of the noble Lord's amendment. Of course it is important that each authority should appoint a person who is clearly responsible for the running of that authority and for the proper management of it, the organisation and the staff who work directly for it. The Bill provides for that. Paragraphs 34 and 37 of Schedule 4 ensure that Section 4 of the Local Government Housing Act 1989 will apply to the police authorities. The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord McIntosh, probably had not perceived that. In that, they would have had the sympathy of my noble friend Lord Peyton in his earlier interventions.
That section requires every authority to designate one of its officers as the head of its paid service. It gives that officer the duty to report to the authority when appropriate on the way in which the different functions of the authority are co-ordinated, the number and grades of staff required by the authority, the organisation of those staff and the appointment and proper management of those staff. It covers all the important matters. It does not require the authority to call the person its clerk but it can if it wishes. That hardly appears to be a matter on which we need to legislate.
Earlier the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accused the Government of wanting always to interfere. Now the noble Lord is trying to interfere. If the authority wants

191
to call the individual a clerk it can do so. If it wants to call him a chief executive it can do so and, so far as I know, it can call him a secretary.
There is no obligation for most of the existing police authorities to appoint a clerk. No such requirement exists for all I hose police authorities which are currently committees of county councils. There is a separate requirement in the Local Government Act 1985 for the police authority it a Metropolitan area to appoint a clerk but that section preceded the introduction of Section 4 of the 1989 Act. That section seems to do the job better and I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, arid, in temporary alliance with him, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Subject to any view which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have, I am prepared to accept that the amendment may not be necessary. I do not know whether the noble Earl made a slip of the tongue in using the term "chief executive". I do not like that term because it would create an undesirable suggestion of a degree of power on a police authority, which would raise questions about the operational independence of the chief officer. I hope that no encouragement will be given to the term "chief executive". In that way we should be proceeding down a dangerous path. Subject to that, if the Minister says that, given the statutory framework that he has outlined, there is no need for the provision, I am content to accept his view.
Earl Ferrers: I did not wish to imply that there would be any encouragement to call anyone a chief executive. I was merely trying to point out that there was no necessity to call him anything at all, provided that he does the job which is required.
Lord Monkswell: I wish to ask for more clarification. The noble Earl referred to a local government Act aid said that the person would be the head of the paid service. That person would be the chief constable because he is the head of the paid service. All the employees of the police authority answer to the chief constable, as we discussed on the previous amendment.
If that is the case, the person who will be the clerk to the authority will be the chief constable. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention and it would be nonsense if it were. Will the Minister clarify the position and explain the distinction between the chief constable as the person responsible for all the employees of the authority and the person who will take the position of clerk to the police authority?
Earl Ferrers: The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is extremely simple, although he may find that it is esoteric. It cannot be a chief constable because a chief constable is not a paid employee of the authority. He retains his stewardship as a Queen's Constable and he is not an employee. The section of the Local Government and Housing Act requires every authority to designate one of its officers as head of its paid service. The chief constable is not a paid employee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has given us an extremely interesting reply, because the implication of that is that as a Queen's Constable, all the provisions about performance related pay, short-term contracts and so on sit rather uneasily. However, we shall return to that matter when the Bill is recommitted in due course.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not in his seat because I am tempted to follow his earlier musical act by reading from Schedule 4, to which the Minister referred. He is quite right to say that it refers to the head of paid service, but paragraph 34 states:
"In section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of head of paid service), in subsection (6) (a) after the words 'paragraphs (a) to (e)' there shall be inserted the words 'or (g)".
Apart from anything else, what has happened to paragraph (f)? Where is paragraph (g)? I look all the way through that part of the schedule and I see no reference to paragraph (g) under Section 4 of the 1989 Act. Does that paragraph explain, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would have wished, to the plebs what the legislation is actually about? Where is paragraph (g), what does it mean and what does it say?
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether that question is directed at me, though I cannot imagine at whom else it may be directed. I do not have the slightest idea what paragraph (g) refers to because I do not have that legislation to hand.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that that is a good enough reason for me to seek to withdraw the amendment. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me and explain what paragraph 34 of Schedule 4 means. It is not clear to me and I imagine it is not clear to anyone else who has the misfortune to read it in the course of duty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Questions by local councillors]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not propose to weary the Committee by going into the detailed provisions of the clause. It is obviously related directly to the discussions that we shall have on re-commitment as regards Clause 2 and Schedule 2 and the composition of police authorities. I merely give notice that we may return to the question once we have got through the problems of Clause 2 and Schedule 2.
Lord Monkswell: I rise to support the Motion. I wish to elaborate further about my anxieties. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, it was hoped that earlier this afternoon we might have had a resolution as regards the composition and size of police authorities. We shall now have to wait for that.
I did not intervene this afternoon. I must admit that we were all having such great fun that I did not think that it was up to me to interfere with that. However, there is a serious point which was not touched upon: that is, what accountability is there for the local authority members on the police authorities? It is very important

193
here to recognise that local authority members do not just exist in isolation. They are not people who exert some magic just because they are members of a local authority; they are accountable to the people whom they represent or to the council upon which they serve.
One of the difficulties with the Government's projected framework for the new police authorities is that, in some areas, there are sub-areas that would effectively be unrepresented. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee the example of Greater Manchester. I do not believe that there are any plans for the Government to change the boundaries of the Greater Manchester Police, but they do have plans to change the make-up of the police authority. If the Government's original plans were to go through, there would be eight members of the police authority from the local authority. But, in fact, there are 10 metropolitan districts in Greater Manchester. Therefore, two metropolitan districts would automatically be without representation on the police authority. The Government have recognised that fact and that is why Clause 9 is in the Bill.
However, Clause 9 is not adequate in the sense that legally the regulations enable questions to be put down for answer by members of the police authority. In my five years as a member of the Manchester City Council, I cannot recall one occasion when a formal question has been put down for answer by one of the members of the police authority on the council. However, that is not to say that police affairs are not discussed in the city council in Manchester. Indeed, there are occasions when the operations of the Greater Manchester Police are complimented and others when they are criticised. That information is taken back by the members on the police authority from the city council and forms part of the framework for their deliberations, discussions, debates and decision making.
If we think in terms of the only connection between the police authority and the local authority being a formal question, we lose the essential connection between the two. I must admit that I was concerned earlier this afternoon by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He said that police authorities were not criticised for the actions of the police but that it was always the Home Secretary who came in for criticism. Of course, the Home Secretary is criticised for the actions of the police in London because he represents the police authority in London, but I suspect that the noble Lord does not appreciate that in the provinces police authorities are criticised by local people. That criticism is taken on board and acted upon.
It is important that we should have a better mechanism to deal with that difficulty than that contained in Clause 9. I hope that that will finally come through when the Bill is amended and that it will be positively in line with the debate that we had this afternoon in a way that will enable each local authority area to have direct representation on the police authority that covers its area.
Lord Renton: I find the speech of the noble Lord very surprising because under Section 11 of the 1964 Act members of the Manchester City Council, of which he was himself a member, were told that,
"Arrangements shall be made … for enabling questions on the discharge of the functions of the police authority … to be put, in the course of the proceedings of the council",
and for an answer to be given by a member of the council who is a member of the police authority. It is strange that that great opportunity provided by Parliament was not made use of.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, introduced this matter in what I may call a low key. I think he was wise to do so because I think, quite frankly, the Government have got it right on this occasion. The arrangements under the Police Act 1964 for this matter have to be altered slightly because of the different composition of police areas and of local authorities, and therefore because of the different representation there will be. The Government in Clause 9, which we are discussing, has replaced Section 11 by arrangements which look as though they are just right in these fresh circumstances. I would have thought that this is a matter on which I am happy to say that my noble friend Lord Ferrers can relax.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I did not particularly wish to become involved in this matter but I was on the Manchester City Council during the period referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I always carefully consider the views that the noble Lord expresses on legal matters as I greatly respect those views. However, I believe he has forgotten some of the quirks of history that have occurred. In 1964 there was a Manchester City police force, but due to the actions of the then Conservative Government the metropolitan counties were formed, among which was the Greater Manchester metropolitan county. So the Manchester City police force became the Greater Manchester police force. Therefore the remarks of the noble Lord have been overtaken by events. The noble Lord shakes his head but I believe that I should make this point. I believe that when— I am not just referring to the present Government— governments pursue this kind of exercise, they do not often think through the consequences of their actions.
Clause 9(2) states:
"On being given reasonable notice by a relevant council of a meeting of that council at which questions on the discharge of the police authority's functions are to be put, the police authority shall nominate one or more of its members to attend the meeting to answer those questions".
There are now 10 authorities. Some borders may have been altered slightly, but I am not sure about that as I have not gone into that matter. There are at present 10 metropolitan districts, including the City of Manchester, that comprise the area that is controlled by the Greater Manchester police force. There is now no Greater Manchester civil authority; it was disbanded by the Government. Therefore I must ask which council we are talking about. Are we talking about Manchester City, Salford City, Oldham borough, Stockport borough, Rochdale borough or Trafford borough? I believe this whole matter needs to be explained better than has been the case so far. Clause 9(2) states that,

195
"the police authority shall nominate one or more of its members to attend the meeting to answer those questions".
I know that the discussions on the proportion of local authority representatives on the new police authority are still in the melting pot. However, if the final number is between 16 and 24, will the Government say to the Greater Manchester area, "You will have these delegates on a pro rata basis"? Manchester has one-fifth of the population of that area and therefore, presumably, it will obtain one-fifth of the delegates on the relevant police authority. The other local areas will be allocated delegates on a pro rata basis. By what vehicle will the members of the police authority raise the question of the police at a council meeting?
I am not trying to be funny. These are matters which will have to be looked at. We have to know which council we are talking about. There must be a substantial number of local authority representatives on any police authority. From my experience many of them are far too big and unwieldy, but if I was still leader of Manchester City Council when the Bill became an Act and wanted to oversee the matter in the best possible manner I would have to be advised diligently as to how I was to carry out the function. At present I do not know how that could be done.
Will there be an ad hoc group of councillors serving on the police authorities, with magistrates and other appointees nominated by the Secretary of State who will all get together? It could be that at the end of the sausage machine the member of the police authority reporting to the council is also a member of that particular city council or borough council. The position is extremely complex. It requires a great deal more thought than it has been given so far.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has explained the matter adequately, but we are talking about a joint authority in which some relevant member councils covered by that joint authority may not have a voice. In that case, it is necessary to appoint somebody from the joint authority to answer questions from the council which is not represented.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has put his finger on the issue precisely. The 1964 Act was perfectly clear because there would always be enough local authority members who were members of each constituent council to answer questions and take part in debates on police matters. The restrictions proposed both on the size of police authorities and in local authority membership mean, as my noble friend Lord Dean made clear, that in Manchester a number of constituent councils will not have a member of their council on the police authority. Therefore, this clause, which makes much less adequate provision for reporting back for consultation than the 1964 Act, is necessary because of the Government's proposals in Clause 2. When we deal with Clause 2 on recommitment I hope that we shall make Clause 9 unnecessary.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may stress that I am serious in saying that some of the points that I have made need to be addressed. I shall not oppose the clause now but a better
196
explanation is required. The Government may want to alter the clause. At present I see difficulties which may make it unworkable.
Earl Ferrers: I do not like to suggest that Members of the Committee are making another mountain out of a molehill. I shall do my best to try to explain the matter to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who made the remarkable suggestion that he had served for five years on the Manchester City Council and had never asked one question of the police authority. That is remarkable. However, I shall let that pass.
The position is, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that the existing Section 11 of the Police Act 1964 enables each council within a police area to call before the council one of its own members, who is also a member of the police authority, to answer questions about the police authority's discharge of its functions. Now, with the proposed changes to the composition of the new police authorities, those arrangements need to be modified. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, it cannot be certain that each council will have one of its own members on the police authority. As full members of the authority, there is no reason why the independent members or magistrate members should not be called upon to answer questions posed by one of the constituent councils. The council may have a meeting and want to know what is happening on the police authority. It will ask for a member of the police authority to account for what is happening.
The new version of Section 11 provided by Clause 9 enables each council to make arrangements for questions about the functions of the police authority to be posed by members of the council and to be answered by a person who is nominated by the police authority. The decision as to who is to respond to any questions posed by one of the relevant councils will in future rest with the police authority and will not rest with the local authority which is asking the question. Apart from that, the procedural change in other respects— the opportunity for councils by this means to scrutinise the work of the police authority— is essentially unchanged.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister cannot be allowed to go on calling them "independent members". They are not independent members: they are appointees of the Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: I really do think that is a childish intervention. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows perfectly well that they are independent. That is what they have been called. He can call them what names he likes, but that is the name by which they have been known.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl should not get too cross. We are getting a little late tonight. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was of course entirely right. These are Government appointed members: they are not independent. As the noble Earl will have recognised, there were very few Members on his side of the Committee this afternoon who took the view that these members were going to be independent in any way whatever. However, I do not propose to

197
proceed further with this matter. As I indicated earlier, we will come back to this question after we have dealt with Clause 2 and the second schedule.
As this brief debate has indicated, as a result of the character of Clause 2 as it stands at the moment, and also as a result of the second schedule, a situation will arise whereby a number of constituent local authorities are not going to be represented on the police authority. That is offensive in the extreme. It is wholly wrong that democratically elected local representatives on a local authority will find that their own authority does not have a member on the police authority. That is quite wrong, and it is one of the many reasons why we feel as strongly as we do about the provisions of the Bill which have been debated this afternoon. But, I beg the noble Earl, let us have no more of this nonsense about independent members. With that, I shall not press this particular matter further.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I should like to just question the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Dean of Beswick: It arises from something that the Minister said, not what I said. The Minister should
198
be aware that there is still another peculiarity in the Manchester situation because the appointees who are placed on the police authority by the Government— am I right?— will be from the magistrates' Bench. I should say that most of them probably will be. From my experience, the magistrates' Bench in Manchester is overwhelmingly peopled by those who do not live in the city of Manchester but in Cheshire. What is the situation when someone who is not even an elector in Manchester is asked to go to Manchester City Council to talk about the Manchester police force, having been appointed by the Secretary of State because he or she happens to be a magistrate who has been appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but who may live miles away — nowhere near Manchester? These are some of the things that we shall have to look at on a later occasion. That is all I am saying.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  SOUTH AFRICA: FLIGHT OF CAPITAL
  SOUTH AFRICA: FLIGHT OF CAPITAL
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S APPOINTMENTS: MPs' SPOUSES
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S APPOINTMENTS: MPs' SPOUSES
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPs' SPOUSES
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPs' SPOUSES
  HOME OFFICE APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPS' SPOUSES
  HOME OFFICE APPOINTMENTS HELD BY MPS' SPOUSES
  FINANCIAL SERVICES: CONTRIBUTION TO GDP
  FINANCIAL SERVICES: CONTRIBUTION TO GDP
  MONEY LAUNDERING: PREVENTION
  MONEY LAUNDERING: PREVENTION
  RUSSIA: EXPORT OF CAPITAL
  RUSSIA: EXPORT OF CAPITAL
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
  CAR BOOT SALE TRADERS: INSURANCE AND TAX
  CAR BOOT SALE TRADERS: INSURANCE AND TAX
  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TRUSTS
  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TRUSTS