Sitting of 28 February 1994

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

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1992–93
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before this House Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1992–93, showing:—
  (1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1993.
  (2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Maxwell Pensioners
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Government have taken to help Maxwell pensioners.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): We have succeeded in ensuring that all Maxwell pensioners have continued to receive their pensions in full while asset recovery work has progressed.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the liquidators and the Mirror Group trustees for recovering £84 million-worth of assets? That is a marvellous help to all the people in their later years who could do without worry, stress and tension. It is a magnificent example of the way in which the Government have worked closely with those two parties to ensure that—as was said in an earlier statement, not what the Minister has just told the House—all existing Maxwell pensioners should now receive their total benefit. That is marvellous.
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time, not statement time.
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely endorse the point that my hon. Friend made and will certainly convey his congratulations. We are fully behind Sir Peter Webster, who is working on behalf of the Maxwell pensioners' trust to seek a global settlement of all outstanding issues. That will be very much in the interests of pensioners and we hope that he will succeed.
    Mr. Ingram: On 7 June last year, the Under-Secretary of State, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), told the House:
    634
    "The long-term gap between the Maxwell pension scheme's assets and liabilities"—[Official Report, 7 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 9.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman perhaps did not hear the statement that I made last Thursday. I do not want statements at the Dispatch Box or from the Back Benches. It is Question Time and, therefore, I am seeking brisk questions and brisk answers.
    Mr. Ingram: I apologise. Does the Secretary of State agree that last June it was calculated that the gap between assets and liabilities would be less than £100 million? In the light of recent out-of-court statements to the Maxwell pensioners' trust fund, is the Secretary of State now standing by that assessment or has it been readjusted? In the light of the answer that he gave the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is he now saying that all the thousands of Maxwell pensioners will receive their pensions in full as a result of the recent settlements?
    Mr. Lilley: I understand the important point that the hon. Member makes. Of course a lot of work remains to be done, especially if a global settlement is to be achieved, or even more if it is not achieved. I understand that the scheme trustees are cautiously optimistic—that can be no more than an assessment on their part—that there is a reasonable chance that all their long-term obligations will ultimately be met if the present progress continues.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent modifications he has made to family credit.
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of families receiving family credit; and how many families were receiving a family income supplement in 1979.
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of family credit have been made since the introduction of the scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): Three for the price of one, for the sake of brevity.
    About £4.5 million of awards of family credit have now been made. In September 1993, 515,000 families were receiving family credit, compared with only 78,000 receiving family income supplement in March 1979. In April, we shall streamline the claims process for the self-employed, which will help 70,000 families, and extend the fast-track claims service to those people just starting self-employed work. From October, we are introducing a child care disregard in the in-work benefits, which will make 150,000 working families better off.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Can my hon. Friend's reply be interpreted as meaning that we are working, we have worked and we shall continue to work to ensure that those in greatest need receive that benefit?
    Mr. Burt: Yes, and the benefit will continue to do its job very well.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the £40 child care disregard in family credit that is to be introduced in October will help 50,000 families back into work and will help 100,000 families who are already in work?
    Mr. Burt: Yes, the provision for the child care disregard has been widely welcomed and will indeed help the number of families that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the family credit case load is more than 500,000—the largest ever—and that the number of awards has increased each year since 1988? Does not that confirm the success of the Government's policy of introducing family credit?
    Mr. Burt: Yes, the Government's success in introducing that policy was welcomed only last week in a report from the Policy Studies Institute, which revealed that family credit was a benefit. The recent changes that we have announced in relation to child care will be popular and will help low-income families still further.
    Ms Eagle: How can the Minister justify subsidising very low-paying, exploitative employers by using a benefit in that way? Should not we be trying to increase the wages paid by such employers, rather than subsidising them with taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Burt: The biggest determinant of family credit is the age and number of children, not any variant in the wages paid.

    Invalidity Benefit
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received as to the impact of reductions of invalidity benefit on family incomes.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have received a number of representations about our proposals to replace sickness and invalidity benefits with incapacity benefit from April 1995.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that, by the end of next year, the Government will be on course for saving £6 million in west Cumberland alone by the switch from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit? What measure of the effect on the economy has been made by the Government?
    Mr. Scott: In essence, the new arrangements are designed to produce a system to meet the needs of those who are incapable of work because of disability or long-term sickness and that is affordable and sensible, and sensitive to the needs of those who really need help.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my right hon. Friend share the frustration of a constituent of mine who is an invalid on invalidity benefit and who read in The Daily Telegraph today about someone who is also on invalidity benefit but is playing a game of squash three times a week and about someone else on invalidity benefit who plays two rounds of golf a week? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the legitimate use of invalidity benefit is still being abused and needs to be examined and that we need not be frightened to acknowledge that fact?
    Mr. Scott: I am certain that since invalidity benefit was introduced, the conditions for being able to get it have been
    636
    altered and made increasingly flexible. I believe that, with incapacity benefit, we are restoring the original intention of invalidity benefit. We are ensuring that general practitioners are not put under pressure to passport people on to this benefit and that there is an objective medical test of those who should receive it.
    Dr. Godman: It is the Government, in the shape of the Department of Social Security, who are abusing the invalidity benefit system. Will the Department reconsider its decision not to pay invalidity benefit to women aged between 60 and 65? Only this morning, I received a letter from a woman who will lose almost £60 because of this harsh, rotten decision. Will the Department reconsider?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the particular case he will, as ever, receive an appropriate answer.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution in (a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution in 1979 and in the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Lilley: In 1979, it was estimated that half of all pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution. By 1990–91, the proportion had fallen to less than a third.
    Mr. Evans: Do not those welcome statistics show a combination of the effects of low inflation in the 1980s, the spread of occupational pension schemes and the Government's direct action in favour of pensioners in keeping up benefit levels?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In 1979, only 77 per cent. of pensioners had additional income on top of state benefits but, in the most recent year for which figures are available, the proportion had risen to 85 per cent.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State now tell the House which poor people occupy the position at the bottom of the income scale once occupied by pensioners?
    Mr. Lilley: By and large, of course, the well-being of the population as a whole has increased. However, it is true that pensioners have done disproportionately well. Clearly, there has been a rise in the number of unemployed people, who therefore form a larger proportion of those on low income.

    Maxwell Pensions Unit
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the work of his Department's Maxwell pensions unit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): The Maxwell pensions unit continues to work in a variety of ways to

    637
    encourage an early resolution to the Maxwell pensions dispute. A speedy settlement must be in everyone's best interests, especially those of the pensioners.
    Mr. Lidington: Although I welcome the recent out-of-court settlements, what practical difference are they likely to make to the thousands of pensioners in, for example, staff and works schemes, who are still desperately anxious about their future?
    Mr. Hague: The drip-feed funding from the Maxwell pensioners trust will last longer if some of the schemes are able to reduce their calls on the trust. To date, 60 per cent. of trust funding has gone to the Maxwell Communication Corporation works scheme. I hope that, in the light of the settlements, the scheme's trustees will be able to make a substantial reduction in their calls on the trust.

    Social Fund
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the position regarding grants and loans from the social fund.
    Mr. Scott: Our routine monitoring arrangements for the discretionary social fund already allow us to keep its operation under regular scrutiny.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister consider extending the provision for people such as two of my constituents? After many months of unemployment, they have recently managed to obtain casual work, but they cannot afford the fare to travel across London to take up that employment, and they have found that a loan from the social fund is not available.
    Mr. Scott: The social fund was not introduced to provide help with travel to work. The Department of Employment has a variety of schemes, including schemes to pay for travel for those who are being interviewed for jobs. It is right that once people are in work—unless they are entitled to family credit in certain circumstances—the responsibility for travel is theirs.
    Mr. Willetts: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that every social fund loan repaid is money that is then available to help someone else on income support?
    Mr. Scott: It has been a feature of the success of the social fund that the resources can be recycled to help many more people than were helped under any previous scheme.
    Mr. Bradley: Does the Minister not realise that his monitoring has led to a crisis in social fund loans? Department of Social Security offices throughout the country report that they can give loans only to people who are in the highest risk category. When will the Minister put more money into the system so that people can be treated fairly, whether they walk through the door at the beginning of the financial year or at the end of it?
    Mr. Scott: There has been a substantial increase in the social fund—by 15 per cent. over the past 12 months and by 50 per cent. since April 1991. We have responded to the increased needs of the social fund over that period.

    Nursing Homes (Top-up Payments)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from voluntary organisations with regard to top-up payments for old people living in private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Burt: Income support is now given to 281,000 people in residential care and nursing homes at a cost of £2.5 billion, compared with support for just 12,000 at a cost of £10 million in 1979. We have regular contact with voluntary organisations and others on all aspects of the system, including the income support limits, but I have to say that we have received very few recently in relation to top-up payments.
    Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, the Minister neglects to answer the question. Is he aware of the fears and anxieties of carers who have been looking after elderly people and who find that their homes could be sold over their heads because of the inhuman approach by his Department to the top-up procedure? When will he accept that hardships will be caused to many of the carers? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Burt: With respect, I did answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked what representations I had received and I said that we had received very few, especially in relation to the top-up payments. Practically all the limits have increased in real terms since 1985. The limit for people in residential care homes increased by 13 per cent. in real terms and that for those in nursing homes by 36 per cent. between April 1985 and April 1993. We shall, of course, keep the limits very much under review. I shall be happy to receive representations in the manner that the hon. Gentleman mentions at any time.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister accept that I am surprised that he has had few representations on the matter of top-up, against the background of local authorities now negotiating fees that are higher than nationally set income support levels? Will the Minister agree to see a small delegation, perhaps consisting of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), myself and representatives of some voluntary groups associated with the problem, in order further to discuss the matter?
    Mr. Burt: I would, without any problems, but I repeat to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that I saw a group not too long ago. We discussed a range of items, but, since the increase that we have made, we have not received many expressions of concern about that matter. That is because we do not believe that the gap between income support limits and costs is widening.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the payments have increased 250 times in cash terms? Does not that underline the commitment of the Government and the hypocrisy of the Opposition?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is talking about the £2.5 billion income support expenditure during the currency of the Government, compared with just £10 million in 1979—true evidence of commitment to people properly in need.

    Income Support
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of Age Concern to discuss income support payments to older people.
    Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security met representatives of Age Concern last February. I also met Age Concern representatives in July last year.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that several voluntary organisations concerned with older people are worried that a number of income support claimants are wrongly placed in residential care and nursing homes? In view of the ombudsman's recent report on Leeds healthcare, what steps are being taken by the Department to review cases independently of people in residential and nursing care homes, to ensure that they actually need that form of care when they receive payments from the Department—people with preserved status?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We will certainly study the report that he mentions and other reports on the matter.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that what my elderly and retired constituents really want is certainty of income, particularly in these days of very low interest rates? When will the guaranteed income bonds be available, so that my constituents can have the benefit of the granny bonds to which they are looking forward?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend raises a matter on which my colleagues in the Treasury are expert—whether the bonds are available shortly or available already.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners now have some other incomes from occupational pensions, savings and state earnings-related pension scheme in addition to basic state pension.
    Mr. Lilley: An estimated 84 per cent. of pensioners receive income from savings or an occupational pension, in addition to basic retirement pension. Thirty nine per cent. receive state earnings-related pension in addition to basic retirement pension.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although Britain is increasing pensions in accordance with the rate of inflation, the Governments of France, Germany, Italy and Portugal are reducing benefits? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that earnings-related schemes in other European countries mean that low earners receive low pensions, but without the comprehensive network of support that only Britain provides?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have taken care to ensure that pensioners are protected against inflation. This year, of course, we are increasing pensions faster than inflation, to allow people some extra to cope with VAT on fuel, even though the Opposition voted against that measure and that increase. Not one of them voted for it. We in this country are far better off than those in many continental countries, where people face
    640
    pensions that are being cut or that are entirely earnings-related and therefore significantly lower than ours for those who were low-earners during their working lives.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is not it a scandal that a large number of people have come out of occupational pension schemes and gone into private pension schemes as a result of the encouragement of, and inducements from, the Government, and have found themselves with pension terms that are much worse than before? What will the Government do about that? The Government are responsible for those people being deceived.
    Mr. Lilley: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Securities and Investments Board issued a statement today on its progress so far in investigating people who have opted out of occupational funds and gone into private pension funds. It has the Government's support in looking at that matter thoroughly and making sure that remedies are applied where they are found to be necessary.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the important decision on SERPS was taken some years ago, it will start to apply only at the beginning of the next century? That is why the country needs to think carefully about long-term pension provision—not for people who are about to move to pensions but certainly for people under 40? Is not that exactly what is happening on the continent?
    Mr. Lilley: We have improved the position for those over 30 by boosting the rebate for over-30s since April last year. That ensures that it should be attractive for people, even if they are over 30, to opt out of SERPS into private pensions. In accordance with our manifesto commitment, we are considering introducing age-related rebates which will make it equally attractive for people of all ages to opt for private pensions.
    Mr. Dewar: Is not the Minister concerned about the atmosphere of scandal that now surrounds the sale of private pensions? Has he studied the figures featured in the Financial Times today which suggest that 60 per cent. of the 5 million people who have taken out private pension cover since 1988 are contributing only the basic SERPS opt-out figure and many of them therefore are likely to be very inadequately provided for on retirement? If he wishes to protect people in private pensions, what does he intend to do about the estimate that, since 1988, between £400 million and £1.3 billion of the money contributed by the taxpayer to encourage the pension provision of those people has been taken in commission? Should not he be acting on that now?
    Mr. Lilley: If we had not allowed people the opportunity to opt for private pensions when their firm did not have occupational pensions, many of those 40 per cent. who are making greater provision than they would have had if they had stayed in SERPS would not have done so. I want to see more and more people make additional pension provision over and above the minimum level laid down by SERPS and therefore laid down for those who opt out of SERPS. I am glad to see that one of the leading pension providers, Prudential, believes that 70 per cent. of those taking out personal pensions with that company are now making extra provision over and above the minimum laid down by the state. If the Labour party is against

    641
    private, personal and occupational pensions and wants to re-nationalise them, it should tell the pensioners of this country before the next election.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further changes he plans in the Child Support Agency rules.
    Mr. Burt: We have no current plans for further changes to the scheme. It is important that the recent changes are allowed time to take effect, However, we have always said that we will keep the operation of the Child Support Act 1991 under close scrutiny, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Lord: Everyone agrees that fathers should contribute to the upkeep of their children, but there is great dissatisfaction with some aspects of the Child Support Agency. May I ask my hon. Friend to look, as a matter of the greatest urgency, at those cases where fathers have taken on binding legal agreements with their former wives to contribute to their children's upkeep? They have maintained those payments throughout and are now being asked, because of the changes in the rules, to contribute amounts of money that they either simply cannot afford or that, in many cases, will deeply damage their new family arrangements.
    Mr. Burt: The impact of the recent changes should be a help in terms of phasing and also reducing some payments made by absent parents. It should not be forgotten that any decrease in payment from an absent parent will have a short or long-term effect on the receipt of money by the parent with care. It was always an intention that levels of maintenance might be raised and previous settlements were looked at very carefully both in the setting up of the Act and more recently by the Select Committee. Indeed, we will keep the operation of the Act under review, as we have made very clear to my hon. Friend, but we want to give the recent changes that we have made some time to have an impact.
    Mr. Olner: Is the Minister aware of the double standards of the Child Support Agency? It seems to be chasing responsible fathers who have court orders and are doing everything properly, but it is also saying that it will dispose of such court orders and when there is another low court order for a woman, it will not take action or follow the case through until 1996. Is not that the CSA adopting double standards?
    Mr. Burt: No, I do not think so. The Act set out a take-on strategy which means that by law some cases cannot be taken on until 1996. Just before Christmas, I announced that where it was possible to take on some cases before 1996 by application from a parent with care, we would look sympathetically at that—that had not previously been the case and it would be a help.
    As to whether we are going after the right people, about half of the cases taken on by the CSA at present involve those who have not paid maintenance before. By the end of this year, we hope that the figure will be up to about two thirds. Some 15,000 people who have been difficult to trace in the past and who might have escaped paying any maintenance altogether have been found by a specialist tracing unit. We are conscious of that particular criticism and we are doing our very best to meet it.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend rightly has drawn attention to the many changes and concessions which have been made, and they have been widely welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. Will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to take a close interest in the operation of the CSA? Unless we stop tinkering and take firm action quickly, many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members—honest, decent and hard-working people—will go bankrupt.
    Mr. Burt: I recognise the force with which my hon. Friend speaks. Of course, I keep a careful eye on the cases and the correspondence brought to me. The system carries a great deal of good will because of the change from the previous discretionary system, under which the amount of maintenance paid to women with children was falling to extremely low levels.
    We have made a series of changes that should improve the system and we will keep it under review. However, it is important to remember that we do not want to go back to a system that failed to obtain maintenance for women in the past. That meant repeated returns to courts and sometimes the avoidance of responsibility. When we make further changes—if they are needed—they must be carefully considered.
    Mr. Barnes: The Minister's initial reply was disappointing. The CSA will be like the poll tax; in that case, one bit of transitional relief was followed by another, before the poll tax was finally scrapped. Should not responsible and respectable parents in second families have their interests taken into account by a further alteration in the measure?
    Mr. Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but my earlier reply suggested how seriously we take the issue and how determined we are to make sure that the system is right. We have made some changes, and we want to make sure that they have an impact, but we will keep the matter under careful review. We all have a vested interest in making sure that there is a good system of child maintenance throughout the UK, and that is not a point at issue between the parties.

    Pensioner Households (Assets)
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable position in real terms in 1978–79.
    Mr. Hague: We do not have the information on the capital value of pensioners' assets. However, in 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, the estimated average weekly income that pensioners received from their savings or investments was £30.30. The comparable figure for 1979 was £11.20.
    Mr. Heald: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in 1979, 62 per cent. of pensioners had additional income from savings and investments?
    Mr. Winnick: Reading.
    Mr. Heald: I am not reading. That figure has now risen to 76 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows that a partnership between the private and public sectors can lever up standards for pensioners? Will he pay tribute

    643
    not only to the financial and pensions industry but to the pensioners who are prepared to make the effort to provide for their retirement in addition to the state provision?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—even without notes. He points to a significant improvement in the opportunity for and the success of pensioners in saving. The proportion of pensioners with income from savings has risen to 76 per cent. That reflects partly an improvement in their incomes over the years and partly the fact that inflation is lower than they experienced in the 1970s.
    Mr. Winnick: Has the Minister seen the report today from the Adam Smith Institute which recommends that pensions be abolished, together with all the other features of the welfare state? Does not that report show the hidden agenda of the Tory Government as, time and again, the Adam Smith Institute's recommendations have been brought about by the Government?
    Mr. Hague: The abolition of the state pension has been advocated by at least one Opposition Member, and not just by the Adam Smith Institute. We will read the report from the institute with interest, but the Government are engaged in sustaining the welfare state, not in ending it.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not the biggest form of pensioners' savings very often the house in which they live? Will my hon. Friend see what can be done to improve the position of the large number of pensioners living in valuable houses who have low incomes?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right to say that home ownership is an important part of pensioners' assets. Indeed, 94 per cent. of pensioners who own their home own it outright. That has contributed to the general improvement in pensioners' financial position.

    Pensions and Income Support
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the percentage change in real terms since 1979 in (a) average earnings, (b) the basic pension for a single person and (c) the level of income support for a single parent with two children.
    Mr. Hague: Since 1979, average earnings have increased by 35 per cent. in real terms. In the same period, the basic state retirement pension has risen by 3.2 per cent. in real terms, although the total average income of single pensioners has risen by 39 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
    It has been estimated that the level of supplementary benefit or income support for a typical lone parent with two children under five has risen by about 16 per cent. in real terms since 1979. However, direct comparisons between income support and supplementary benefit are difficult to make because the two schemes are very different.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on the "Social trends" survey figures published last month, which showed that since 1979 the share of national income of the richest fifth of our population has increased from 35 to 43 per cent. but the share of the poorest fifth has dropped from 10 to 6 per cent? Does he agree that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? We are "back to basics" Tory style.
    Mr. Hague: What is important is that since 1979 there has been an increase in income for all groups in society. That is what really matters. For example, the proportion of pensioners in the bottom decile of the income distribution, which was 31 per cent. in 1979, fell to 11 per cent. in 1990. That is a dramatic improvement in pensioners' living standards.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Has my hon. Friend had time to assess what would have been the effect of success by the 53 Opposition Members who attempted to stop the recent pensions increase?
    Mr. Hague: If that vote had been successful, it would have deprived pensioners of several hundreds of millions of pounds of income.
    Mr. Rooney: Does the Minister recognise in his manipulation of statistics that 8.25 million people are dependent on income support whereas 3 million were in 1979?
    Mr. Hague: Income support did not exist in 1979; there was supplementary benefit. I have compared the level of supplementary benefit as closely as possible to income support now. Income support now is approximately 16 per cent. higher than in 1979. That reflects the commitment of the Government to help people in a difficult position.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is sensible to increase benefits in line with inflation and not in line with earnings? Has he seen a report that suggests that if we increased benefits with earnings, in the next century we would have to add 17p to the basic rate of income tax to pay for it?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that increasing benefits in line with earnings would clearly add many billions to expenditure in future years.

    Invalidity Benefit
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he expects to lose entitlement to invalidity benefit as a result of the measures introduced in the November 1993 Budget.
    Mr. Scott: We estimate that, as a result of our proposals, an average of 130,000 fewer people will receive long-term incapacity benefit in 1995–96 than would have received invalidity benefit.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that many people who suffer from acute anxiety and depressive illnesses receive income support and that for them a game of squash might be part of the treatment? That is a reference to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). Will the Minister please give some assurances to those people whose worries about the Government's plans are making their depressive illness worse? Will he reassure them that his plans will not reduce their benefits arbitrarily and suddenly?
    Mr. Scott: Our clear intention is to ensure that those who are incapable of work through either physical or mental disability receive incapacity benefit and that those who are capable of work receive back-to-work benefits. I

    645
    can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that, in the objective medical test, special arrangements will be made to take account of mental incapacity.
    Mr. Bates: Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents who are existing beneficiaries of invalidity benefit that if they are genuinely incapable of work they will suffer no loss of benefit whatever and that the benefit will retain its tax-free status? Will he reject and condemn the scaremongering of the Labour party that has suggested otherwise?
    Mr. Scott: I will give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the point of change to the new system, there will be no cash losers, as long as people are able to pass the new, objective medical test.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: If benefit records are held at the Long Benton complex in my constituency of Newcastle, East, why has the Minister allowed a local manager to purchase 22 Olympic jackets to keep senior management warm, at a cost of more than £300 a jacket? Would not the money have been better spent on—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. That matter does not relate to the question.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who would lose entitlement to unemployment benefit in the current year if the period of entitlement were reduced from 12 months to six months.
    Mr. Burt: It is estimated that a total of 240,000 unemployed people at any one point in time during the current operational year would lose unemployment benefit if the length of entitlement were reduced from one year to six months, although 150,000 would be eligible for income support.
    Mr. Enright: Are not the unemployed paying for the incompetence of the Government's financial policies? Will the Minister give an assurance that if—as he and other Ministers are constantly stating—there is an upturn in the economy, he will instantly restore to the unemployed what is surely their right?
    Mr. Burt: The Government are giving more practical help and advice than ever before to aid the unemployed to get work. The Employment Service is set to find 5,632 placements in each working day, having placed 1.4 million people in employment in 1992–93. Employment and training programmes are providing opportunities for 1.6 million people, which represents an increase of 50 per cent. on the past financial year. That is a good record.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Butte Mining
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Attorney-General what consultations he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office in relation to the length of time being taken for its inquiries into the flotation of Butte Mining and allied matters.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Serious Fraud Office investigation into the affairs of Butte Mining plc began in June 1992. The matter is complex and the investigation is proceeding as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fact that for 18 months the Serious Fraud Office has been investigating a south sea bubble affair in the City of London, which occurred almost seven years ago, tends to bring our legal system into disrepute? I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we need to control City fraud. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is a prospect of the matter coming to some sort of conclusion?
    The Solicitor-General: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. The matter did not come to light until comparatively recently. As I said, the inquiry began in 1992. It involves inquiries in many foreign jurisdictions. It is a good example of the special skill and powers required to get to the bottom of cases of that nature. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being pursued rigorously.

    Serious Fraud (Trials)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time for a serious fraud case to be brought to trial after the accused has been charged.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The average time between acceptance of a case by the Serious Fraud Office and the preparatory hearing which constitutes the start of the trial was 27 months for the year ending April 1992 and 24 months for the year ending April 1993.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Surely it is intolerable that it has taken so long to bring to trial someone who has been charged and against whom there is already some evidence. Surely it is not in the public interest or that of the accused that that length of time should be taken. How long will it be before the number of months is reduced to a more acceptable level?
    The Attorney-General: The reason for setting up the Serious Fraud Office to deal with these complex cases was precisely that given by my hon. Friend—the matters needed to be investigated more expeditiously and efficiently. The length of time that it takes to deal with those complex matters is a great deal shorter than it was before the Serious Fraud Office was set up.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the Serious Fraud Office has adequate resources to investigate and proceed with cases expeditiously? Will he look into some of the cases to which much publicity has been given as a result of the delays and into prosecutions involving Ministry of Defence property?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, I am satisfied that the Serious Fraud Office has adequate resources. When it has taken on particularly big cases, such as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Maxwell, special arrangements for extra resources have been made. I will certainly consider what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Ministry of Defence cases, but I have no reason to believe that such cases are unduly prolonged. A number of extremely complex cases—for example, in relation to the North sea—have recently been brought to very satisfactory conclusions.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Since fraud cases must vary in their complexity and length, surely there is not much point in criticising the average length of time it takes to bring a fraud case to trial. On the other hand, however, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the longer a case takes to come to trial, the more likely it is that a company will be destroyed when news of the investigation gets around?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, although that news is likely to get around at the beginning rather than at the end of the investigation. That the cases should be dealt with promptly and expeditiously is extremely important.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General accept that, in the average case appearing before the Crown court, it takes 13.7 weeks between committal and trial? Although the matter of fraud is appalling, the average length of a trial is far too long. What is he going to do about that?
    The Attorney-General: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He compares relatively simple cases that appear before a Crown court and large complex cases. If he casts his mind back to the early 1980s, for example, he will find that some large cases from the City of London took five, six or seven years to come forward, whereas the equivalent period now is two, three or four years. Expedition is extremely important. We have made improvements; we must continue to work at it.
    Mr. Thurnham: Where the Serious Fraud Office has spent millions of pounds preparing its case, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider appealing against a grossly lenient sentence, such as that imposed on Levitt?
    The Attorney-General: I cannot comment on individual cases, but a clause has been tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to give my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the power to extend the power of the Attorney-General to refer sentences in serious and complex fraud cases.

    Asil Nadir
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what recent progress the Serious Fraud Office has made regarding the Asil Nadir case.
    The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office is ready to bring Mr. Nadir to trial as soon as he returns to the jurisdiction.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Attorney-General tell us whether the Government, the Serious Fraud Office or he himself have been in negotiation with Asil Nadir's lawyers with a view to trying to get him to plead guilty to one of the lesser charges—as was the case with Levitt—so that he can get off on the more serious charges? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a guarantee to the House today that in no circumstances will he or the Serious Fraud Office allow Asil Nadir to have those charges against him dropped so that he gets a plea on a lesser charge?
    The Attorney-General: I know of no such negotiations.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the criteria on which the Crown Prosecution Service determines whether to prosecute; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General: I am satisfied that the criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors which determine whether a prosecution should proceed are sound. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General announced to the House on 15 December 1993, the Director of Public Prosecutions is currently revising the code so that it may more easily be understood by the police and the public.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we expect the Crown Prosecution Service to act as judge and jury, a halfway house, in deciding whether we should prosecute? In those circumstances, would my hon. and learned Friend have any objection if Members of Parliament approached their local CPS office about a case of particular interest to the local police and the victims?
    The Solicitor-General: I should welcome, as I am sure would the CPS, the attendance of any hon. Member who wished to visit his local CPS office. I am sure that such offices would be cheered up immensely at the prospect of a visit by my hon. Friend. Any hon. Member who visits those offices will discover that cases are discontinued only after close liaison with the police. When that happens, it is done in the interests of justice and it is not any criticism of the police.
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of the Crown Prosecution Service in the final year in which it was administered by local government; and what is the percentage difference in real terms, between that figure and its cost in 1992–93.
    The Attorney-General: Before 1986, there were no uniform arrangements for the handling of prosecutions and it is not, therefore, possible to make the comparison which the hon. Gentleman requests.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Attorney-General will find that costs have increased. Does he agree that in West Yorkshire, for example, what has been purchased is a loss of local democracy? Does he also agree that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which is before the House of Lords, threatens further to erode local democracy and to create great national interference in respect of both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service which may not be in the interests of justice?
    The Attorney-General: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Prosecution decisions are not matters for elected members either of Parliament or of local authorities; they must be carried out by independent prosecuting authorities. The hon. Gentleman might care to reflect on the huge release of police time and effort away from the time that they had to spend in the courts prosecuting, giving evidence and providing antecedents in the Crown courts. That has enabled them to become free for much more front-line policing.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Overseas Aid
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of overseas aid.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Provision for aid this year is more than £2.1 billion.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister explain why his Department appears to ignore its stated policy of giving aid to those countries that have good government and are among the poorest in the world? Instead, it favours countries that are major purchasers of British weapons, such as Malaysia and Indonesia.
    Mr. Goodlad: There is no connection whatever between the sale of defence equipment to recipients of aid and the aid programme. The good government criteria which we apply to aid are extremely important, as are the criteria for tackling poverty. Eighty per cent. of our bilateral aid to developing countries was spent in the poorest countries in 1992–93. One of our priority objectives is to help developing countries to design and implement poverty reduction strategies. There is, therefore, no basis whatever for the hon. Lady's allegations.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in an analysis of overseas aid, the United Nations said that Britain's overseas aid was equivalent to the sixth highest in the world?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Britain maintains a substantial aid programme, which is the sixth largest in the world.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister recall that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who was put up to answer overseas development questions a few weeks ago, assured me
    "our aid programme is not and will not be linked to arms sales"?—[Official Report, 7 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 17.]
    Is the Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary admitted on Friday that aid and arms were entangled with the negotiation of the arms deal with Malaysia signed in 1988? Has British aid been entangled with the sale of arms on other occasions?
    Mr. Goodlad: I repeat that our aid programme is not linked to arms sales. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 25 January in a written answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham),
    "During discussions in 1988 about the proposed memorandum of understanding on defence sales, the Malaysians expressed their wish to make a reference to aid. A protocol was signed during the visit to Kuala Lumpur in March 1988 by the then Defence Secretary, my noble Friend, Lord Younger of Prestwick. This set out the Malaysian Government's intention to buy defence equipment from the United Kingdom, with the details to be elaborated in the later memorandum. The protocol included a reference to 'aid in support of non-military aspects under this programme.'
    After consultation with ministerial colleagues in London, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Malaysian Minister of Finance in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales"—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister will know that I have asked for brisk answers to questions. Overseas development has only 10 minutes, so I repeat my request.
    Mr. Goodlad: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend said:
    "As a result the issue was not taken up in the memorandum of understanding on defence procurement which the British and Malaysian Prime Ministers signed in September 1988, and which did not cover aid. Our aid programme is not linked to arms sales—[Official Report, 25 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 145–46.]—
    however much the Opposition may continue to repeat that it is.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Just to be absolutely clear about this, and so that the Minister cannot be accused of being economical with the actualité, can he tell us whether aid, now or in the past, has ever been entangled with defence and arms sales—yes or no?
    Mr. Goodlad: To avoid the risk of being accused of giving excessively long answers, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I have just said.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all this fuss is seen by business men in my constituency as, at best, humbug and, at worst, cynicism?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. There is a rich mixture of humbug and cynicism among Opposition Members. They will not tell us whether they are in favour of defence sales, whether they are in favour of the aid and trade provision or whether they are in favour of destroying jobs—so we must assume that they are in favour of the latter.

    Lomé Agreement
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reviews have been conducted on the completion of the first half of the current Lomé agreement; and what conclusions were drawn.
    Mr. Goodlad: The fourth Lomé convention included provision for a mid-term review by February 1995. Negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will begin in May.
    Mr. Enright: Is it not odd that the start should have been so late? If the Government are going to get down to a hard and proper analysis of what aid is needed, should not they be looking at regional structures in the ACP countries, particularly at the Economic Community of West African States? They should also be looking at education and, perhaps, at monetary union, which those countries, but not the European Council, are discussing.
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman makes two important points. The scope for regional co-operation is a unique feature of the Lomé convention. The seventh European development fund includes 1.25 billion ecu for regional co-operation projects. Regional allocations are subject to the same processes as national funds. Programming takes place at the beginning of each EDF. That is likely to be discussed in the negotiations with the ACP countries, which start in May.

    651
    Human development, in which education plays a major part, is a stated objective of the convention—one which will be upheld in the mid-term review. The Commission is producing a paper on education policy; it should result in a resolution at the Development Council in November this year.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend expect that, as part of the review of the Lomé convention, it will be pointed out that British exports to Malaysia trebled after the signing of the Pergau dam deal?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. Our exports to Malaysia have been extremely healthy; in 1993, they doubled the 1992 figures. I hope that, despite the efforts of the Opposition, they will continue to prosper.

    Game Reserves (South Africa)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make assistance available to the South African authorities for the upkeep of that country's game reserves following the impending elections.
    Mr. Goodlad: We expect to discuss future priorities for our aid programme with the new Government after the elections.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that enormous pressures will be put on the new Government of South Africa after the April elections, even if a civil war is avoided? There will be many priorities, but will he give us an assurance, on behalf of animal lovers in this country, that much of the good work that has been done in the South African game reserves will be upheld and that that will be one of the items that the Government will look at sympathetically in terms of aid to South Africa?
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman's dedication to animals, especially elephants, is well known, and the importance of game reserves is clear. We have not received
    652
    requests on this matter, but we might consider helping conservation projects with clear community benefits. Of course, we support the convention on international trade in endangered species. We spent more than £600,000 on elephant conservation projects in Africa last year. The black and white rhino, as well as the elephant, are flourishing in South Africa, which is a tribute to the game management there. I will certainly draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Somaliland
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid to the Republic of Somaliland.
    Mr. Goodlad: Since May 1991, Britain has committed £3.8 million-worth of bilateral humanitarian assistance to north-west Somalia.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to organisations such as Action Aid, Oxfam and Save the Children which are doing such excellent aid work in a territory which, after all, was administered by Britain? Can he tell the House what further help might be given to that territory, which is doing its best to re-establish efficient democratic government?
    Mr. Goodlad: I readily join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the work of the non-governmental organisations that he mentioned. We are keen to continue support for those organisations. Their assistance to date has helped to re-establish water supplies and human and animal health delivery services, and to support mines clearance work. The increased assistance depends on the existence of a secure environment in which to deliver effective aid. We hope to concentrate future British support for rehabilitation activities in north-west Somalia on police, primary health care and education, but concern remains about the security of people there in the light of recent events.

Levira Foods plc
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order. No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent attention, namely,
"the passing into receivership of Levira Foods plc at Preston Farm industrial estate in Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland."
The matter is specific; it relates to a brand new factory, announced by the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), then a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, two years ago this month. The factory was expected to create 700 new jobs with a further 100 being created in the company's suppliers. It is also specific in that it relates to circumstances causing the lay-off of more than 140 workers last Friday and the further lay-off of the remaining 300-plus early today.
The matter is important because the factory was announced as a specific response to the breach of the Government's four-year promise of relocation of the quality assurance facility at Woolwich to that site—a promise which, on several occasions, had excluded Cleveland from consideration as an alternative position for other governmental functions that were being relocated to the provinces. It was, we were told, the result of the Prime Minister's personal trawl of Ministries to find a replacement for the Woolwich disappointment.
It is important to note that, despite all the foregoing, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is reported in today's edition of the Evening Gazette as stating:
"The business was highly leveraged in the first place,"
and that
"it has had to be refinanced a couple of times"—
and all in less than two years.
The matter is in need of urgent attention, for the development has already been held directly responsible for the collapse of the construction contractors, Jewitt Builders, due to outstanding bills estimated at £1 million. The House will need to know how much money from the public purse was expended on that abortive scheme. While hon. Members are calculating that, they might also feel the need to assess today's claim from the Teesside development corporation:
"It is a remarkable achievement for Levira Foods to have created the most advanced food manufacturing plant in Europe."
It is indeed remarkable that a custom-made unit lies idle so early in its life; remarkable that 500 people starting on a flagship project with so much hope should be compelled to take to the boats quite so quickly; remarkable that such a flagship should be allowed to generate so much debt repeatedly; and remarkable that, after all that, a fellow hon. Member should plead for
"a less contentious financial background"
so that it might
"make a go of it"
To my mind, Madam Speaker, all the foregoing facts show clearly that those matters deserve urgently the closest scrutiny of the House—today.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to respond first. I shall deal with points of order in a moment.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has said and must give my
654
decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me take first a point of order from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), because he was mentioned.
Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I congratulate you on what I consider to be the right decision?
A temporary cessation of trading has taken place at the factory, which is in my constituency. Unfortunately, I received no notice from the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that he was going to raise the matter in the House today. I can say, however, that the Teesside development corporation is taking urgent steps to examine the matter. The present position will not be made clear for a few hours, but, in any event, the Government, who have invested heavily in the factory, have done so quite correctly, as the asset remains available for sale—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is barely a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised a point of order because he had been mentioned, but I cannot allow a debate on a Standing Order No. 20 application that I have just been unable to grant.
Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: There can be no further points of order on that matter.
Mr. Cook: The accusation was made that no notice had been given, Madam Speaker. Notice was given.
Madam Speaker: That has cleared the air very nicely. [Interruption.] Order. I am not seeking to name hon. Members at this point, but, if they have something to discuss, perhaps they will do it outside while we get on with our business.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today, unprecedented—indeed, historic—action has been taken by NATO war planes, which have shot down four Bosnian Serb war planes. That action, although authorised by resolutions 781 and 816 of the Security Council of the United Nations, nevertheless represents a serious escalation of events in Bosnia. It has already apparently resulted in an increased bombardment of Tuzla by Bosnian Serbs. We need to know whether the NATO ultimatum will be extended in any way to Tuzla or anywhere else, and whether these events are to be considered by the United Nations Security Council.
The Foreign Secretary has made a statement in Athens; the Secretary of State for Defence has made a statement in Leicester. Is it not unacceptable that the House of Commons has had no opportunity to hear a statement, and to question Ministers on these issues—especially when we bear in mind that Ministers are answering questions on these matters in the House of Lords? Have you, Madam

655
Speaker, had any indication of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a statement about these important events?
Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, as soon as the news of the shooting down of the aircraft came through, I contacted your office seeking an opportunity to raise the matter this afternoon. Subsequently, I heard the Prime Minister speaking from Washington, the Foreign Secretary speaking from Athens—that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—and the Secretary of State for Defence speaking on television. I have also been in another place, and heard a statement volunteered by Ministers. We have, however, heard nothing in the House of Commons.
Every single soldier serving in Bosnia, and every civilian, is represented by a Member of Parliament. The House of Commons, however, has been denied the opportunity to hear a statement by the Government, allowing us to cross-examine them about the escalation of events, the risk to our aid convoys—which have been stopped today because of that risk—the danger to troops and their families, who might also be at risk, and, indeed, the international aspects of the matter.
This is not an affront to the House of Commons, but a denial of the rights of those who look to the House of Commons when seeking explanations from Ministers about actions that may affect their lives and welfare and the future peace of Europe and the world. In the light of that, Madam Speaker, would you be prepared to accept tomorrow a Standing Order No. 20 application that I would have tried to move today, had I not failed to do what must be done in the first instance—that is, obtain a statement by private notice?
Madam Speaker: As hon. Members fully appreciate, a private notice question has to meet certain criteria, one of which is a change of policy. In this case, there has been no change of policy; the decision was a logical consequence of existing policy. If a Minister from the Foreign Office or from the Ministry of Defence, however, had wished to make a statement, that of course would now be taking place. [Interruption.] Order. I have had no request from a Minister to make a statement. I remind hon. Members that there are Foreign Office questions on Wednesday. I shall consider the Standing Order No. 20 request that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) wants to submit to me tomorrow, as I always do, with all seriousness.
Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Your statement that a private notice question has to be about a change of policy is an absolute innovation and is not to be found anywhere in "Erskine May", which states that the question must be definite, urgent and a matter of public importance. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is an alliance of which we are a member and it is the first time that NATO troops have ever been in action since 1948. That, dare I say so, even falls within the definition of a change of policy. I urge you to consider carefully the statement that you have just made.
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I do not have to give reasons for my decisions in the House. I have always attempted to be helpful in the House
656
by giving my attitudes and some of my reasons. Lack of a change of policy was simply one of the reasons for my decision. I have to consider many others and I have done so today. I realise, as do all hon. Members, the seriousness of the matter. If a Minister wished to come to the Dispatch Box, of course we would have a statement from him.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In your infinite wisdom, have you been able to detect the slightest improvement in the length of questions—or speeches—from Front or Back Benchers at Question Time? The position seems just as bad as it was.
Madam Speaker: I must say to the hon. Lady that I am agreeably surprised. I appreciate the co-operation of hon. Members, but I want us to do better tomorrow and from then on.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, that arises from the Minister's reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). You will remember that the Minister, who appeared to be making a statement, seemed to contradict what he had told the House on Friday. More important, he appeared to speak in contrast to what the Foreign Secretary told not the House, but the British Broadcasting Corporation, on the link with the arms trade—
Madam Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not concerned with the content of ministerial replies, although, to some extent, I am concerned with their length. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked the Minister to cut his reply short. Will he now make the point of order that is for me? Content and argument are not subjects for me. Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order about breaches of procedure?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. Tomorrow afternoon, we have an extremely important debate—initiated, to its credit, by the Liberal party. The House is entitled to hear from the Foreign Secretary in that debate. Has he requested the opportunity to make an important statement?
Madam Speaker: No.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. No doubt you will know that there is horror and shock in the civilised world, certainly in the House of Commons, over the massacre at Hebron in which about 50 people were gunned down while they were worshipping. That was one of the most terrible crimes that has been committed in recent months. Will there be an opportunity for the questions on the middle east to be taken after Foreign Office questions on Wednesday?
There will, I trust, be an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to contribute and to make clear that not only Britain, through the diplomatic channels, but Parliament itself wants to express in the clearest possible terms its horror over what has happened and its sympathy with the relatives of the bereaved.
Madam Speaker: It would set a bad precedent were I to anticipate questions that may be on the Order Paper in two days' time. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the

657
Procedure Committee, so he should be aware that he should wait until Wednesday to see how the questions fall in place.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you are aware that the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the Minister for Trade, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the Secretary of State for Employment, and the right hon. Member for Bexley and Old Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the Father of the House, are among 11 hon. Members who are in breach of a resolution carried by the House requiring them to provide information relating to Lloyd's in the Register of Members' Interests, which was published this morning? I wonder whether you are prepared to arrange a meeting with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests to give him your advice on how the House should now proceed in the light of the fact that 11 Members have decided that they should breach our resolution.
Madam Speaker: This is a matter for the House as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Register was published this morning and it is now in the public domain for all Members to inspect.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Law Officers in the Government—in any Government—and in the House of Commons occupy a rather special position. Therefore, I ask whether you have had any request from the Law Officers to report to Parliament on the statements made by the President of the Board of Trade this morning at No. 1 Buckingham gate, to the effect that he was forced to indulge in some type of cover-up, and that undertakings that were apparently given to him in relation to the defence in the Matrix Churchill trial were not carried out by the Law Officers. Any matters relating to Law Officers surely should be a matter of a report to Parliament when it is a matter of principle, rather than waiting for the report of Lord Justice Scott.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Law Officers Department that anyone is seeking to make a statement, but, of course, the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has it been brought to your attention that, apart from the Members mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), neither the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) nor the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has completed any entry in the Register of Members' Interests, as they should have done?
Madam Speaker: Order. I do think that this to and fro about the Register of Members' Interests is quite unnecessary—a total waste of our time here. The Register is in the public domain. It is available to all Members as well as to those outside.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. You said that the requirement that information be placed in the Register is a matter for the Committee. That is so, but the basic authority for the
658
Committee to be established and conduct its business is the Chamber and those in the Chamber. As I understand it, there has been a concerted and co-ordinated attempt by members of Lloyd's to refuse to provide information to the House via the Register of Members' Interests. If that were the case, it would be unfair on those Members who have provided information fully and properly, but, if it is the case, I hope that if the Leader of the House hesitates about putting down a motion you will encourage him to do so to ensure that they are brought to book.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as a member of the Committee, it is a matter for the House as a whole—the House in its entirety.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Reverting to the matter that I raised with you earlier, I was guided by my recollection that a request for a Standing Order No. 20 had to be given before 12 o'clock, but I refreshed myself of the Standing Orders and they say:
"if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour. If the urgency is not so known he shall give notice as soon"
as possible. The urgency is created by the statement made in another place, where the Minister has gone into all sorts of aspects of the suspension of the aid programme and so on, and therefore it is, I submit, in order for you to accept a motion that I would now like to move, That the House do adjourn under Standing Order No. 20 in order to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the assent given by Her Majesty's Government to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to take military action in the former Yugoslavia.
Madam Speaker: I will not hear the hon. Gentleman's application now, as he has put it to me, but he would certainly not be out of order if he would like to submit it to me in writing at any time for tomorrow and I would certainly look at it seriously, as I have already indicated that I would.

BILL PRESENTED
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
  Mr. Jeff Rooker, supported by Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Dr. Tony Wright, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Hugh Bayley, presented a Bill to repeal the Septennial Act 1715 and to introduce a fixed term for the House of Commons; to bring the age of nomination for election to the House of Commons into line with the age of voting by amending the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695; to improve electoral registration and absent voting procedures, to introduce weekend voting and increase the number of signatures for nomination of candidates by amending the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985; to change expense limits for candidates; to introduce early voting; to set up an Electoral Commission to administer and monitor all elections in the United Kingdom and to allow that Commission to register political parties and set limits to the expenditure nationally of registered political parties in the period prior to the fixed term elections; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

  European Communities (Treaties)
  3.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Bulgaria) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Czech Republic) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Slovak Republic) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and Romania) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  Mr. Hogg: This is an opportunity for the House to discuss the relationship between the European Union and central and eastern European countries. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spent a great deal of time in recent months discussing the enlargement of the European Union. As the House will also know, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is currently engaged in negotiations to that effect. Indeed, that is why he is not participating in the debate; he has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf.
  We are debating the Europe, or association, agreements between the European Union and the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. As the House may know, the agreements are known as mixed competence agreements. In other words, they require the approval of European Community member states and the assent of the European Parliament. The purpose of the debate is to set United Kingdom ratification in train by approving draft Orders in Council specifying the agreements as European treaties under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972.
  The events of 1989 presented us with the opportunity to put an end to the post-war division of Europe, and we are all now seeking to assist central European countries to establish—or, in many cases, to rebuild—the institutions that are essential for a pluralist democracy and a healthy market economy.
  In promoting that general objective, the United Kingdom has put in place a programme of bilateral technical assistance under the know-how fund. In addition, we have supported the participation of central and eastern European countries in a whole range of European institutions and, especially, in the European Union itself. That is why we are debating the orders. As the House will know, central European countries wish to belong to the Union, and the United Kingdom looks forward to the time when that can happen.
  The agreements that underpin the draft orders were a United Kingdom initiative. Developing relations with central Europe was a key priority of the United Kingdom's
  660
  presidency and was symbolised by the summit with the Visegrad countries in October 1992. We worked hard for last June's European Council decision that the associate countries should join the Union as soon as they were ready to take on the obligations of the membership.
  The European agreements lie at the heart of our efforts. They are the essential framework for preparing these countries for membership of the European Union. The four agreements that we are debating are very similar to the European agreements with Poland and Hungary that the House debated in detail in February and November 1992. They aim to establish a comprehensive framework for the development of trade, economic co-operation and political dialogue. I shall highlight five elements of the agreements.
  The first and most important element is trade liberalisation. These provisions are already in force under interim agreements. Opening European Community markets to the central European countries is crucial to their economic restructuring and political stability. The agreements will, in turn, provide new commercial and investment opportunities to United Kingdom firms operating in the east. They envisage a liberalisation of trade in industrial products over a 10-year transitional period, with the markets of the Community opening more quickly than those of associate countries. They also allow for reciprocal concessions in agriculture, meaning that over time imports from these countries will benefit from progressively lower tariffs.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify a point that is a little obscure to me? Over that 10 years, the products listed in the back of all the agreements will move to a zero level of tariff. What about the products that are not included there? There seems to be some ambiguity about whether any of those products will be included and whether, thereafter, those countries will be able to trade in those products within the Community on the same basis that we do.
  Mr. Hogg: There are specific agreements on textiles, steel and coal. Other industrial products are treated collectively, with the Community abolishing its quantitative restrictions at the outset and abolishing its tariffs within three years, according to sensitivity. Central European states will dismantle trade barriers more slowly. Customs duties will be abolished over seven to 10 years and quantitative restrictions will be abolished over 10 years.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hogg: I will proceed at this stage.
  The second element of the agreements is economic co-operation. That heading covers a wide range of sectors—education, agriculture, science and technology, nuclear safety and consumer protection. It complements the trade liberalisation provisions in aiming to develop the economic and political structures of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia. Technical assistance from the Community's PHARE programme is available to finance this co-operation.
  The third element concerns approximation of laws and standards. The Union will help the four countries to bring their legislation closer to existing European Community standards. Approximation to existing Community standards is a key step in preparation for Union membership. Some of the associate countries are already ensuring that

  661
  all new legislation is compatible with Community law. The Copenhagen European Council additionally decided that the Union should establish a task force composed of Commission and national experts to co-ordinate and direct that work.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the subject of education and culture, may I yet again raise the question of the trade, fearfully one way, in ecclesiastical art? I refer to letter C93/18235.MA from the Department of National Heritage. Northern Bohemia contains some of the most beautiful wooden ecclesiastical art anywhere in the world. Theft for the Frankfurt and London markets is such that part of the European heritage is being destroyed. That is not an easy problem to resolve. I give notice that if I catch your eye, Madam Speaker, I should like to refer to the matter in some depth. I hope that the Minister can consult his colleagues before the winding-up speeches.
  Mr. Hogg: I recall that, in February 1992, when the agreements were debated on the Floor of the House, the hon. Gentleman raised precisely that point; he has a long-standing interest in it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) responded at that time. I shall listen with considerable interest to what the hon. Gentleman says. Like him, I suspect that the problem is extremely difficult to tackle, but I will most certainly listen to what he says.
  The fourth element is political dialogue. The agreements establish Association Councils which will meet once a year at ministerial level to review the agreements and to build on them. The agreements also provide for meetings at Head of Government level and for close co-operation on foreign policy at senior official level.
  Fifthly, there is the question of financial co-operation. The agreements provide for continuation of temporary financial assistance to Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Romania through the PHARE programme, which has so far resulted in the Community contributing £725 million of technical assistance to the four countries. In special circumstances, the Community may also provide balance of payments support to those countries in the context of the G24. The Community has committed more than £2 billion in balance of payments support to those countries since 1991, and it is currently considering requests to give further support to Romania and Bulgaria.
  I should mention the inclusion—
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd.: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I am proceeding now.
  I should mention the inclusion of the important preambular paragraph in each of the agreements that look forward to the associate countries' accession. We want the associate countries to join the European Union as soon as they are ready to take on the economic and political obligations of membership. That commitment was made, at British urging, by the Copenhagen European Council in June last year.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: 'The agreements will help Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia to prepare themselves, and—
  Mrs. Clwyd: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am given to understand that the Minister is not prepared to give way. The hon. Lady must not persist in the circumstances.
  Mr. Hogg: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  The object is to enable those countries to prepare themselves, and the agreements are vital to those countries as a symbolic and practical confirmation of their place in Europe.
  4 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: We support the motions, which represent significant developments in trade with former communist countries and newly emerging democracies in eastern Europe. Undoubtedly, such links will become strong and trade will increase and lead, as the Minister has said, to closer formal relationships when internal economic, political and trade conditions are met by aspirant countries of eastern Europe.
  The issue of enlargement, of course, is for another time; the motions relate specifically to trade and economic relationships and the development of them. It is important for us in the west to support economic development, which is surely the underpinning of democratic societies.
  The agreements open political dialogue which is intended to familiarise central and eastern European countries with the political framework and foreign policy activities of the Community. More important in the short term, the agreements allow the free flow of, and access to, goods, but they do not particularly contribute to the creation of well-functioning market economies in eastern European countries. That is something for countries to work out for themselves.
  The Minister referred specifically to textiles, steel and coal. One matter of concern is dumping. What provision will be made, and what discussions have taken place, on restrictive anti-dumping legislation or controls? At present, as we all know, the problem cannot be resolved inside the European Community. It certainly cannot police it in any way. The general facilities to enable the European Community to do that are quite small. Unfair trading and state subsidies are still burning issues in the present European Community.
  South Wales and other industrial areas have suffered from the dumping of special steels and white goods, for example. A long time ago, when the Davignon plan was introduced to control and restructure the iron and steel industry in the European Community, this country virtually volunteered to have its steel industry annihilated over three or four years from about 21 million liquid tonnes down to about 11 million liquid tonnes. At the same time, the Germans and Italians were increasing their production.
  In respect of works such as the Hoover works in south Wales—those works are near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), and many of his constituents work there—we saw the dumping of white goods. Goods were put on the market by Italian washing machine manufacturers at a lower price than Hoover could buy special steels. There was an obvious case of state subsidy going to Italian washing machine manufacturers, but the European Community did not have the resources to police it. It is all right to bring in these agreements, but they do not work in the European

  663
  Community in their present form, and we should not extend them to other countries if we are not able to control the problem of dumping in the Community.
  There are other larger issues such as agricultural products and gaining access to markets because many of the aspirant countries are large agricultural producers. Another issue is the freedom of movement of labour within the Community and the agreement areas. Outside those major issues, we have the possibility of creating trading opportunities for the various member states.
  Whereas we must recognise that the agreements are between the European Union and countries individually, trade within the agreements will be between individual countries in the European Union and the individual countries of the agreements. It will not be trade between the European Union and a group of countries—individual countries in the European Union will have to do the trading. Of course, if countries do not take up the opportunity, we miss out yet again.
  Typically, Britain is already lagging behind. In the circumstances, the Government do not have the additional leverage of overseas aid to correct the distortion of market forces. Indeed, we are falling rapidly behind other European Community nations in our level of trade with former communist countries. For example, Germany has almost ready access into those markets. Indeed, some of the markets have a large German speaking and ethnic German population. Last year, Germany exported $23.9 billion worth of goods into those countries. Britain exported $2.7 billion worth of goods—that is one tenth of what Germany exported. We are way behind France, which exports $4.7 billion worth of goods. Italy exports $6.4 billion worth of goods.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Rogers: I will give way, but I shall finish my point first. Our exports to those countries are about equivalent to that of Holland, which has a population of about 15 million. Surely we will not be measured by that particular yardstick.
  Mr. Jenkin: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the fact that the Commission has reduced the PHARE programme, which is equivalent to the European Community's know-how fund? The money appears to have been diverted through a new structural programme, predominantly under German influence. The Commission spent large chunks of that money in Sudetenland, where there are many German-speaking people, to promote trade in German goods. That does not quite bear out the denial to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I wonder whether he could comment on that.
  Would not it be better if we got the Commission back under control and spreading its money on a more objective basis, rather than letting it be hijacked by particular national interests?
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is a specialist in Europe, shall we say, or a specialist in being anti-Europe, so he would know more details about such little nuances.
  Mr. Derek Enright rose—
  Mr. Rogers: I shall just answer this point. I do not think that anyone is foolish enough to believe that countries in
  664
  the European Community act in the Community's interests—they act in their own interests. There are no ifs or buts about that. That is by no means an anti-European Community or anti-European Union statement—it is the truth of the matter.
  I remember some time ago—the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) will certainly remember this, because they were Members of the European Parliament at the same time as I was—that the external trade commissioners for the European Commission were always Frenchmen: Pisani and Cheysson—
  Mr. Jenkin: And Brittan.
  Mr. Rogers: No, it was long before Brittan. I did not realise that Brittan is French.
  If one went anywhere in the world, one could see that a lot of European Community business went to France. The hon. Member for Hendon, South said—in weaker terms than those used by Mr. Alan Clark, a previous Minister for Defence Procurement—that he did not particularly care to which countries we exported, as long as those exports provided British jobs. That is what the French are all about within the EC. The hon. Gentleman is practising the same principle here today.
  Mr. Enright: Is not it true that continental companies, and especially German companies, keep much closer tabs on the various funds that are available? That is because of the regionality as much as anything, and Governments are able to assist firms in instantly reaching those funds. That is quite contrary to something that I overheard today from one of those wretched mobile phones as I travelled from Doncaster to King's Cross. A business man was saying, "Well, we were doing all right in Czechoslovakia until the damned Foreign Office got in the way".
  Mr. Rogers: That is very perceptive. I will press on. I was given the brief a short time ago, and I decided that I would speak only for a few moments.
  Our volume of trade with eastern Europe is increasing more slowly than that of other European Community countries. We are not only behind other countries; we are falling further behind them. That adds to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth. The Government do not help British industry in the matter and we are losing markets to other countries.
  Even if we are noble about the matter, we must realise that increased trade with those countries is certainly the best form of long-term aid. We have heard today that the Foreign Office believes that the agreements create no problems for British industry. I think that the proof of the pudding might well be in the eating.
  I have read details of the negotiations that have taken place and I do not think that the Government have stood up for Britain, or batted for Britain, quite as much as they did in Saudi Arabia or Malaysia. Perhaps we had better bring back a new opening bat, although that would not be a proper description of the noble Lady, the previous right hon. Member for Finchley.
  The Foreign Office and Ministers must get the CBI, chambers of commerce and trade organisations involved, give them assistance and stress the importance of building up trade. We cannot sit back and watch imports and exports

  665
  between other EC countries and eastern Europe. If we are in the EC, we must get in there pitching to improve Britain's position and our access to eastern Europe.
  We must make assistance more effective by supporting infrastructure developments, and that is why we welcome the technical and educational assistance to those countries. If there are to be free market economies and stable democracies in those countries, we must extend our trade into the ex-communist countries. It is in all our interests to create a stable climate in Europe. At the same time, it is certainly in our interests for the Foreign Office to be more forceful in increasing our exports to get British jobs.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. John Men: I will try to obey your injunction to be brief, Madam Speaker, but I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on his performance at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition. I thought that the hon. Gentleman spoke just like a member of the 1922 Committee, in particular when he placed strictures upon the performance of the Foreign Office. Scratch a Tory and one finds a Foreign Office-phobe at any time.
  I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister who introduced the statutory instruments. I should like to take advantage of the opportunity that he set again to discuss enlargement and to say that, particularly as a result of the decisions of the Copenhagen Council of June 1993, enlargement is at the centre of Community policy. It is a decision that will have the consequence of transforming the nature of the Community through a passage of time. To some extent, what we are debating this afternoon is what will be that passage of time and how uniform it will be. We do that particularly in the context of the prospective European elections in Britain.
  I welcome the debate because it enables us, as a preliminary to the elections, to debate issues that will properly be taken to the hustings in June. I say "properly be taken to the hustings" because it will be important to identify in the elections not merely the divisions—divisions which are reflected in the House—but the areas of common concern.
  I welcome the support expressed by the hon. Member for Rhondda for the draft instruments and the concept of enlargement. He was properly somewhat agnostic about the speed with which that enlargement might be achieved.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Rhondda was wise to remind us of the difficulties that are inherent in the economic fusion of the applicant countries and the European Union. In this debate we necessarily confine ourselves to the terms of reference. The politics of enlargement come behind the economics. For example, there was not much delay on the part of Germany when it sought to assert its interest in Croatia. I do not make any criticism of the German behaviour. I am simply acting as the hon. Member for Rhondda said. He did not say it in quite those terms. He said that he was not here for all that Euro-fuzz but as an honest-to-God Front-Bencher given the job only a few hours or days ago. He could bring to the debate only his own robust, South Walesian common sense tempered by some experience at Strasbourg. I cannot think of a more magic and potent formula than that.
  We know that the politics of central and eastern Europe are at their most challenging. I believe that the imperative today, whatever the uniformity of the eventual economic
  666
  arrangements, is to give political assurance to the countries of central Europe as they see the turmoil in Russia and some of the adjacent states still unresolved.
  In those circumstances, when we come to our election year and we talk about enlargement, we talk about the politics, which must be imprecise. The economics are rather more tangible because they are contained in the statutory instruments that we are discussing today. We have to ask what is the general thrust of the policy. That is a crucial question for the European Union as a whole. Will the thrust to embrace nations with very different economic performance than our own be sustained or hindered by a commitment to a single currency, a European bank and converged economies?
  That is not some odd question from a member of the awkward squad below the Gangway. It is absolutely at the heart of the debate, whether those in authority wish it or not. I say that because the Copenhagen Council, referring to the applications for membership of the Community from the central European countries, said:
  "Membership requires that the candidate country has achieved stability of institutions, guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy"—
  God help us—
  "as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union."
  That is the sort of ritual language with which we are all reasonably familiar. It is Euro-speak and the hon. Member for Rhondda must not rock his shoulders in mirth at my description, as he is now an eminent person with responsibilities sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. That is the challenging passage for him and for the Labour party, which is committed to economic and monetary union and to converged currencies.
  The passage continues:
  "Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union."
  No one who listens to this debate or hears about the problems caused by the different backgrounds of member countries—such as agriculture, textiles and steel—can envisage any future for the Union other than one in which there is much elasticity in the relationships between the east and central European countries and ourselves.
  Economic and monetary union will merely make infinitely more difficult what, in any circumstances, will be a challenging economic proposition—namely, bringing those countries into our partnership. We merely have to consider the difficulties that were created by the entry of Portugal and Greece, which have substantially different economic standards from those of the core EC member states.
  Mr. Jenkin: And eastern Germany.
  Mr. Biffen: Yes, my hon. Friend is ever helpful and encouraging and I accept that reinforcement.
  Because enlargement of the Community is so important for both it and all the peoples within it, enlargement will obviously be central to the debate in this country in June at the European elections. We are entitled to discuss how we envisage that that objective will be pursued.
  Furthermore, it is impossible to consider the exhilarating challenge of enlargement without realising that it will take a long time and that the objective will adjust with time. Enlargement will therefore be at the heart of those aspects of the Maastricht treaty that will be

  667
  renegotiated in 1996. The June election campaign will be incomplete unless our political leaders make clear statements about how they view prospects for enlargement and renegotiation.
  I have shamelessly sought to widen the debate to more philosophical considerations than the relatively narrow platform provided by the statutory instruments. However, if we are to have a successful Community it must be based not only on a relaxed relationship between the nation states of Europe, but on the peoples of Europe being led to understand the objectives of the political elites of those countries that fashion the relationships. That opportunity will come in this country in June, at the European elections. A forewarning of what might be a legitimate agenda does not come one moment too soon.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As so often during the past thirty one and a half years, I agree with many of the insights of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He is absolutely right about the importance of the subject under discussion. I am therefore a little shamefaced about turning to a subject that I must concede is not the most important aspect of the matter—the problems associated with the transfer of ecclesiastical art and valuable objects from Czechoslovakia to the art markets of western Europe, about which I have set down a marker.
  It would be a great irony if, having suffered a decade of the Nazis and four decades of the communists, and having maintained much of the traditional heritage of the eastern European countries, now that those countries are opening up, the imperatives of the market were to wreak havoc on the art treasures of eastern Europe. Neither the Nazis nor the communists succeeded in doing that.
  The House will forgive me if I tell colleagues a true little story. Two years ago, the all-party heritage group, which is extremely well led by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), went to Czechoslovakia. That organisation, in case anyone jumps to conclusions, does not organise freebies. We pay a full and proper amount for ourselves and for our wives, although we get an exceeding number of privileges in being received by the experts in the country to which we go. When we went to Czechoslovakia, we also had the privilege of going to the private apartments of President Havel. The all-party heritage group is known to a number of hon. Members.
  On the eighth day of our visit, based in Prague, we went to northern Bohemia. On the way up there, as we passed through a small town, a number of us at the back of the bus said, "Hey. We must stop here. That looks like a fascinating church." The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South acceded, somewhat reluctantly, because he is a great disciplinarian, to that request from the back of the bus. We stopped at the church. Out we got and went into it. It was full of the most beautiful objects in marble and wood.
  After looking around for some 10 minutes, it was then discovered that those of us who had gone into the church were locked inside. There was no way that we could get out. Imagine the scene. A number of distinguished Members of this House and a number of distinguished Members of the Upper House, such as Lord Crathorne,
  668
  who is joint secretary of the group, together with our wives, were locked firmly in a church with no visible means of getting out.
  An elderly priest eventually appeared and produced his keys. When it was realised that we were the parliamentary delegation to Czechoslovakia, everyone was full of apologies at having such distinguished souls, some of whom were very meek, like me, but others, like my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), were less meek on the subject, locked in the church.
  That elderly priest then explained in halting English what it was all about. He was full of excuses and said that had he known who we were, he would not have locked us in, but that people had had such bad experiences in so many of the country churches in that part of the country that they were doing what they could to protect what remained of their heritage. So many objects had been just snaffled, whipped and taken away. It was pure common-or-garden theft of holy relics.
  The German army, many of whom were Roman Catholics, did not, it was said, quite like to steal such objects. Many of the Russian soldiers, who may have had feelings about icons in their countries, demurred from taking other people's religious art. The elderly priest explained to us that those who thought that they could make money in the art markets of Amsterdam, Frankfurt or London had far less inhibitions than those in the Nazi armies or the Soviet armies.
  In a sense, it was a poignant moment. But it highlights—I hope, poignantly—the fact that it is a tremendous financial temptation either simply to take objects or to reach a pitiful bargain in which the money exchanged bears no relation to the value of the objects in the western art markets.
  When we returned, I raised the matter immediately with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and received a concerned response, as I had from the ambassador. I then discovered that the Prime Minister was going to Czechoslovakia. I saw him personally before he went and said that, although it was probably not the main content of his discussions with President Havel, would he nevertheless mention it to those quarters in Prague who might be concerned. The Prime Minister kept his word. On his return, he said that he had asked the ambassador to look at the matter on an on-going basis.
  I am criticising neither the Government nor the police but it might be for the convenience of the House if I stated the latest position. It is set out by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage in a letter to me dated 25 February. It said:
  "During the debate, on 14 February, on the draft Statutory Instrument to implement the EC Directive on the return of cultural objects, you drew attention to the problem of thefts from the Czech Republic, Russia and elsewhere; and I undertook to look at previous papers on this subject. You also enquired where the question of monetary thresholds came into the problem of the theft of cultural objects. I have now had an opportunity to consider these points.
  I fully appreciate your concern about the growing problem of arts thefts in the Czech Republic, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The previous papers on this subject make sad reading. As a criminal matter, the subject is essentially one for Michael Howard as Home Secretary; but, as you know, Tim Renton, when he was Minister for the Arts requested the cooperation of the London art trade in helping to identify the missing objects should they appear on the market here."
  First, what is the latest stage of the request to the London art trade? Secondly, I am told by people in the art

  669
  trade that, in most cases, experts know jolly well what is likely to have been taken, especially when it comes from Russian orthodox and Czechoslovakian or Polish churches. It is not too difficult to identify what is likely to have come from those sources because of the nature of the art, so identification is not the major problem. The major problem is what to do once identification has taken place.
  The Minister's letter went on:
  "I understand that the Metropolitan Art and Antique Squad are also working closely with their counterparts in the Czech Republic (and other Eastern European countries) to try to give assistance in countering the problem."
  I did not mention the name of the place where distinguished colleagues of ours were incarcerated in the church because no one wants to give away place names and make matters worse. I am, however, prepared to tell anyone interested after the debate.
  There should be some kind of register so that the British and European authorities can invite the Czechs and Russians to register what has gone missing and what worries them.
  The Minister went on:
  "I think that there may be some misunderstanding about the EC Directive. This provides a mechanism for one Member Slate to request the return from another Member State of a cultural object, which falls within the scope of the Directive, and which has been unlawfully removed from the requesting State on or after 1 January 1993. The Directive is essentially aimed at objects which have been illegally exported. The European Union does not have competence in criminal matters (i.e. art thefts), although a stolen object could fall within the scope of the Directive if it had also been exported in contravention of the requesting State's export laws."
  I am told that things would have been much easier had Britain been a signatory to UNESCO. The Minister may reply to me in his speech or, if he prefers, by letter, but I should like to know whether that is true. Would being a signatory add more legal clout to any action to protect the heritage of eastern Europe?
  The Under-Secretary ended:
  "as you know, co-operation via Interpol Already provides a means for recovery of a stolen item regardless of monetary value."
  I know better than to make detailed inquiries into how Interpol goes about its business, and it would not be desirable in this case that I or any other hon. Member should be told about that. But I do ask for a clear assurance that the Government are in active touch with Interpol on this matter and are making real efforts to do something about it.
  Although this is a difficult issue, the stakes are extremely high—including, first, the cultural heritage of eastern Europe; and secondly, more importantly, the self-esteem of the people of eastern Europe and their deep regard for their relations with the west. In Czechoslovakia and Russia people of influence are deeply upset by the fact that, after they have tried for much better relations with the west, part of the result of those better relations is the depredation of their own cultural heritage.
  The House has kindly given me time and attention to submit this—admittedly narrow—aspect of a much wider and important measure. I do hope, however, that right hon. and hon. Members will come to regard the matter in the same sustained way as some of us have already tried to do over past months.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am aware of the time and I shall try to keep my remarks brief.
  I welcome the Minister's comments about the inclusion of the four countries in the agreements, but I should like to make a few points about some of the detail, which is important—the more so in the light of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen).
  The debate gives us an opportunity to look back in on the Community. That can sometimes be difficult; it is rather like looking through a glass darkly. We often see in only from the outside, so important matters can be missed by those who give their full support to everything that the Community does, without proper scrutiny or without determination to find out why.
  One of the greatest difficulties that we face is the fact that the Community is obsessed with political ideals, to do with the single currency and so on, instead of with free markets and the sort of competitiveness embodied in the measures. The trade agreements give us the chance to stop and look again at what Britain's purpose in the Community has always been.
  Although I welcome the agreements, recognising that they are based on our original intention to open up the Community to wider markets, it is also clear that when the provisions come to be written, self-interest comes increasingly to the fore—short-term political interest and short-term goals. That avoids long-term, serious considerations such as those on which I believe that our Government have been set but from which they have been distracted in the course of the negotiations.
  I am particularly interested in a letter to the Financial Times of 2 June, in which the Czech minister for industry and trade, Vladimir Dlouhy, said:
  "Economic recovery is simply stifled if fair trading access is not assured, for trading is really the only long term effective aid."
  He is right. The key is to open up our markets and ensure that both we and eastern Europe improve our abilities as a result.
  When we look at the documents, we find that the two key sectors are industry and the common agricultural policy. I shall deal first with the common agricultural policy. The debate gives us the opportunity to look at it again and to try to understand what has gone so badly wrong. The system takes up fully £46 billion—more than half the Community budget. Only 40 per cent. of that ends up in the hands of farmers; nearly £28 billion goes in administration support matters and, dare I say it, a vast amount of growing corruption. The Commission has finally seen fit to put in the right people to sort that out, but corruption is part of the system and goes right to the bottom.
  We can no longer carry on with a system of agricultural support that ensures that the very people at whom it is aimed see least of it. The absurdities are demonstrated time and again. Each family pays something like £1,000 extra every year as a result of that intervention at the supermarkets and shops, where they pay higher prices as a result of the shoring up of that inefficient policy. We see clearly how self-interest, support for the CAP and the determination to keep it as it is has meant that we have shut our markets to the eastern Europeans to a far greater degree than we should have done.

  671
  We should be opening our market to those countries and saying that we welcome all of their agricultural produce and their processed agricultural produce. We should ask them to come and show us exactly how far we have departed from proper free trading principles. We have not done that. We have allowed self-interest to dictate that we shut areas of the market. I made the point earlier to my right hon. Friend that, even after 10 years, areas are still excluded. No mention has been made of those.
  Let us look again at steel and coal. Recently, in the debate on steel, we saw a fascinating exchange in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry went to the Dispatch Box to defend the absurd practice that has been going on in the Community for so long and that has resulted in failure to open the market and to get rid of subsidies. I notice that the document is carefully worded so that we end up helping to protect those heavily subsidised industries in Germany and Spain, those 60,000 jobs that everybody is scared of getting rid of, when Britain has set about that task without fear or favour. Poland has shed more than 70,000 in its steel industry, yet we still wish to help the Germans, Spanish and others protect themselves from what is justifiable free trade with eastern Europe, which would help to lower the costs of our manufacturing industry and make us competitive world wide.
  Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Conservative Government took us down this road and were hellbent on destroying the British steel industry in the early 1980s? That was a conscious policy of the British Government.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me an opportunity to declare again how much I supported my Government's drive to make our industry efficient throughout the whole of the 1980s. It is now one of the most efficient in the world. I am saying not that we should have shored it up but that we should now ensure that the others play the same game. We could then expand our industry as a result of our competitiveness. That is what the purpose of the eastern European deal should be about: letting them come in and compete.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am conscious of the time and should like to press on.
  Mr. Rogers: It is only a small point. The hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party, in the so-called strive for efficiency and streamlining, are quite prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of workers and their jobs, with no foreseeable possibility of the other countries in Europe coming into line with us. It will be 20 years before they do that.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that it is 20 years. If we are both right, we should do something about it. The point is that, by restructuring the steel industry in Britain, we have shown the way to the rest of Europe. It is high time that the rest of Europe did the same and stopped playing games with their 60,000 jobs. Such an agreement as this is the perfect opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is it not a fact that, during the 1980s, we increased our steel exports to the European Community
  672
  and elsewhere from a mere few hundred million pounds-worth to well over £2 billion per annum? That is the reward for getting one's steel industry into a fit condition. That is how one keeps permanent jobs in the UK. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, even the products listed in the agreement for the phasing out of the tariff barriers are to be phased out according to sensitivity. Does not that allow every Community country to put an obstacle in the way of the falling tariff barriers so that they are likely to remain there for a good deal longer than the 10 years according to the agreement?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes his point well and backs up all the points that I have made. I fully agree with him.
  Let me move on for the benefit of hon. Members and my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I noticed the other day, when reading through documents from the European Community, a report commissioned by DG 16 on the competitive market of Europe, which analysed the benefits and problems that would come to the European Community. The report comes to terms with that and decides that huge benefits are to be drawn from opening the market to eastern Europe immediately. In so doing, one would have thought that the Commission would follow suit and publish it with much publicity, but the Commission changed the head of DG 16 and the man who was put in his place was none other than an ex-cabinet colleague of Mr. Delors. Clearly it does not suit his purpose to have its report, because the cohesion group of countries, which so much supports many of his policies, would not like it. Nor, perhaps, would some of the French farmers, so the Commission has sat on the report.
  Hon. Members would be forgiven for not knowing of the report's existence, because it was deliberately excluded from their view. That applies also to the report that is now being published on the CAP; it, too, is being sat on by the Commission because it does not like what is in it. Rotten practice leads to rotten trading. We must ensure that we get rid of that concept. In many respects, while I do not doubt my Government's intentions on those matters, the problem with an agreement such as this is that it leads not to free trade but to managed trade. That is the clear purpose of the agreement, not so much opening up and saying, "Let us take on the best you have. Let us work together to get a free and proper market" but rather, "Let us ensure that we take only the products that frankly we cannot make ourselves; or exclude your elements of trade that we do not like because they affect our vested self-interest."
  I am intrigued as to how political input has been used to change all of that. Hon. Members have referred to the money for the PHARE programme. There is no question but that £115 million of that was diverted out of the budget at the end of the year, has been stuck into some form of structural fund and is now being used to support programmes directed from Germany in Silesia and Sudetenland. The purpose of that is clearly that it supports political positioning in Germany and other countries. Demand-led money, like our know-how fund, which I think is excellent, is the purpose of the PHARE programme and leads to better investment than anything dictated from one of the nations inside the European Community.
  The key point is that we want a free market. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to press the Commission and other member states not to fear what is out there but rather to see it as a challenge and to restructure the whole of the

  673
  Commission and our Community so that we meet the challenge as a free-trading group of countries rather than as a group of self-protected self-interest countries that would seek to close the market to those who would help us to compete.
  There is no doubt that we need the trade and influence of those countries. If we stick exactly to what is in the agreements, we shall do no more than help those protected interests in the Community and we must ensure that we go further. If that means changing the Community, the common agricultural policy and our industrial policy, so be it: that is what we need to do. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said, if it means renegotiating the Maastricht treaty—as I believe that it does—that is what we must undertake.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I followed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) with enormous interest—as, indeed, I followed his speech the other day. I find myself in complete agreement with the sentiments that he expressed today, and with those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said that monetary union was at the heart of the debate, which of course it is. Let me elaborate on that point by examining what the proposals for economic and monetary union actually mean, as applied to the countries mentioned in the motions.
  The preamble and explanatory notes to the agreements, and the main text, refer to
  "an appropriate framework for political dialogue"
  and the improvement of democracy in the states involved. We all want the agreements to take effect—not with faint praise or faint application, but so that they can enhance the economic opportunities available and free trade and freedom of choice can exist together. What, in the medium to longer term, does economic and monetary union imply for those countries? Far from continuing to improve the prospects for democracy—of which I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North would approve—it will actually prevent democracy from burgeoning. It will mean eventually handing over the running of the countries' economies to unelected, unaccountable bankers; it will mean giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
  A selfish streak run through the proposals—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford pointed out—in that they do not go far enough and, indeed, are positively exclusive of certain activities. Incidentally, those are frequently the most important activities in the countries concerned. In addition, the countries will be prevented from being able to develop their democratic and free-trading relationships with the rest of Europe.
  I support the proposals, however, as I supported the European Economic Area Act 1993. I note—as I noted then—the absence of enthusiasm, shown by nonattendance in the Chamber, of some hon. Members who go around criticising those of us who would prefer to be described as Euro-realists. I recall that one of the notable absentees on a three-line Whip was my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who had the nerve to attack me on television yesterday—much to my amusement and pleasure, I may say. Whenever he attacks me, I regard my stock as having gone up by about
  674
  50 per cent. He did not vote on the European Economic Area Act, and I do not observe his presence today. That is a great pity. Those of us who are true Europeans, and who want the arrangements to work properly, wish to be present—as, indeed, my hon. Friends and I are today.
  Having its own elections does not make a country a democracy. As I pointed out in a pamphlet that I wrote for the Bow Group in 1990, if we want to bring in those who have fought communism, have been at the sharp end and know what it is all about, we must give them the opportunity not only to have a free democracy but to engage in the kind of trading in their seminal industries that will enable them to match the theoretical democracy that they are being offered with a practical ability to deliver it, in terms of increased well-being for their people.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I agree with my hon. Friend about the poor attendance in the House. Is it not particularly notable that, while Conservative attendance is quite significant, the Opposition Benches are virtually bare?
  Mr. Cash: That demonstrates the extent of the Opposition's enthusiasm. As we are in the close season for European elections, I am more than happy to add to the Government's firepower in attacking Labour Members and Liberal Democrats for their weak-kneed, third-rate, impoverished view of Europe's future. It is exemplified by the fact that, apart from Opposition Front Benchers and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), no one is present to speak up for those two parties. At least a reasonable number of Euro-realists, who are committed to Europe, are present on the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Rogers: Whatever Opposition Members lack in numbers, we more than make up for in quality. Part of the reason for the lack of numbers is probably the fact that many of my comrades—comrades, indeed!—heard that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a speech.
  Mr. Cash: I am always delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot get away with cheap tricks like that. The fact is that no one is sitting behind him, probably because no one agrees with him.
  There is another problem: the difficulty that we now face in regard to the kind of Europe that the agreements add up to, in conjunction with the European Economic Area Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Single European Act and the treaty of Paris. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North is right. During the debate on the confidence motion, in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I called for a renegotiation of the treaty. It is perfectly apparent that it is not working and it is clear that, when added to the agreements, the acquis communautaire—which lies at the heart of the treaty—will be a millstone around the necks of the newly emergent democracies, with incalculable consequences for peace and stability throughout Europe as a whole.
  Scratch some of the recently fascist countries in western Europe, look at the civil disorder, at the mistakes that we have made in terms of our policy on the recognition of Croatia and Bosnia, at the extent of the commercial and political instability that is being generated and at the geopolitical landscape. Consider the present concern about what is happening in Kosovo and Macedonia, in relation to the Greeks and the Turks. Trace that through the Balkans, with today's critical problem over air strikes—which I

  675
  happen to think necessary, but that is another point—continue into the old Russias, with Mr. Zhirinovsky and the current uncertainty and tension.
  Finally, consider the instability that will follow in the countries mentioned in the motions if the monetary union described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North collapses like the ERM and drops like a stone. What kind of Europe will that invoke? It will invoke civil disorder and all the uncertainties contained in the agreements. I am certain in my own mind, and from what I have picked up from friends in the countries involved, that they are by no means embraced enthusiastically by people there. They know that they constitute no more than a half-hearted and rather selfish measure. It is precisely because we have not been sufficiently forthcoming that we are tending to destabilise those countries.
  Furthermore, if the EMU proposals indeed collapse, there will be chaos throughout Europe, which would only be worsened if the Parliaments of Europe have been emasculated by the reimposition of the totalitarianism from which those countries have only recently escaped. Hon. Members should please bear that in mind and consider the consequences of not allowing those countries to be let in. They have a great future if they are given an opportunity to enjoy proper free trade and proper democracy.
  Confusion exists in the European Community, the so-called union, between nationalism and federalism. It will not be resolved by such half-hearted measures, welcome as they are for the time being. As Ian Davidson stated in the Financial Times on 16 February:
  "it seems unlikely that members will renegotiate the Maastricht treaty, and certainly not in the middle of negotiations with the Efta candidates."
  The treaty will also not be renegotiated while the proposals involving other states adjacent to the European Community are under discussion.
  To resolve the problems that remain, we must renegotiate the treaty of Rome and the treaty of Paris—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford referred. The difficulties over the treaty of Paris were revealed by the fining of British Steel and the sale of Rover. We must also renegotiate the Single European Act—which is not working properly and needs internal reform—the Maastricht treaty, the arrangements that are under discussion today and the European economic area. Unless we do that, we shall consign the future of Europe to deep uncertainty and potential chaos.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I was interested in the ding-dong about the steel industry between my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). The hon. Member for Rhondda has forgotten that, in the early 1980s, the steel industry received £1 million of subsidy each day. There is no long-term future for employment if subsidy is given on that scale. It is much better to have a steel industry that is the most efficient in western Europe because that is the only guarantee of long-term employment.
  In discussing the orders and the future, we should consider employment not only in the steel industry but in the steel-using industries, and the benefits for consumers. The benefits for employment in the steel and steel-using industries and the benefits for consumers will result from
  676
  having an open market and by encouraging imports from countries in central Europe. We should remember that central Europe has received an appalling economic legacy from communism. Industry in central Europe was heavily overmanned, was greatly dependent on intra-COMECON trade and suffered from heavy under-investment and its production was environmentally most unfriendly. The economies of central Europe were distorted by unsustainable subsidies—[Interruption.] I should have thought that most hon. Members would agree that the German Government's subsidies were unwise and unsustainable. Their policy on the former East Germany has caused it and other countries in the European Community great economic difficulties. Even former Italian Governments found their subsidy levels were unsustainable. The Italian electorate decided that such Governments were unelectable, even if they were easily bribeable while in power.
  The economic inheritance that was given to the democratic Governments of central Europe coincided with the belief that democracy would lead to an early and quick improvement in living standards. Those unfortunate countries have had to suffer a crisis of rising expectation, with their people expecting living standards to improve dramatically. The reality is that they have suffered substantial inflation, economic stagnation and heavy increases in unemployment. It was for those reasons that the former communists were able to win an election in Lithuania. That is why there is a danger that other former communists will regain power, admittedly under different names, in Hungary and Romania. That underlines the need for the European Community to do everything that it can to help those countries.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with my hon. Friend. He probably saw the reports in today's newspapers that both the Czech Republic and Slovakia have had to reverse their demilitarisation policy and are trying to resuscitate their arms industries. Obviously, it is not in the interests of western Europe that that should happen. I hope that, by opening the door to proper non-military trade, we shall help both countries in their struggle to establish democracy and proper trading links with western Europe.
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right. The complaint that many of us have is that the European Community's trade with central Europe has not been open enough. The EC is all too eager to listen to the voice of the hon. Member for Rhondda when it deals with steel. It is unduly restrictive on fruit imports. It is more willing to export subsidised agricultural goods than to import from countries.
  Mr. Rogers: They grow our own peaches in the Rhondda.
  Mr. Marshall: They do lots of rotten things in the Rhondda, including electing the hon. Member. I apologise—we former Europeans should stick together.
  The European Community forgets that it is in Europe's interests that democracy should continue to flourish in the countries of central Europe, otherwise there is a risk that they will return to dictatorship. The impact of that will extend far beyond those countries. We should have been more willing to show them the hand of friendship, to trade and invest with them. After the orders are implemented, I hope that we shall adopt a more positive role.

  677
  I welcome the fact that the know-how fund, which the hon. Member for Rhondda was willing to ridicule, has been warmly welcomed by the countries of central Europe. I also hope that our generosity will extend further and that soon we shall reach an agreement with the people of Albania, who have suffered more under communism than the people of any other country. The legacy handed down to the democrats of Albania has probably been the worst received by any democratic Government since the last war.
  I commend the proposals and I shall have much pleasure in voting for them if the Opposition are foolish enough to press the motion to a Division.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Rogers: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few more remarks.
  I did not refer to the know-how fund, so perhaps the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) should consult his hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned that there were only a few Opposition Members present. Conservative Members who have spoken sounded like a couple of ferrets in a sack as they squabbled among themselves and screeched away. The hon. Member for Stafford could only whine continually. We had a year of that during the Maastricht debate last year.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: I shall give way, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not whine any further.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman does not like much in the way of criticism. Many of us complimented him on the fact that he is now a member of the Labour Front-Bench team; I hope that he will improve on his performance today.
  Mr. Rogers: I know that I have not made much of an impact, but I have been a member of the Labour Front-Bench team for many years, so the congratulations are a little slow. Two years ago, after a few years of shadowing Mr. Alan Clark, the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I was relieved of that job and joined the foreign affairs team. My brief does not cover Europe. The hon. Gentleman, with his single-minded obsession about that subject, probably did not notice that I have participated in debates on America, the far east, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but not particularly in those on the European Community. I am afraid that my sights are set a little broader than his very narrow vision of what the world ought to be.
  In one way, that is what the agreements are all about—the fact that in Europe it is now necessary to bring into the general family of democracies the ex-communist countries of eastern Europe. It is not just a matter of simple trade, although I have sounded warnings in saying that we have to consider possible dumping. I do not know whether that has been covered in the agreements sufficiently or in the negotiation, or any restrictive legislation attached to it. We have to be aware of the problems of agricultural products coming in. We saw the problems with Spain and Portugal's entry; there was a distortion of the Mediterranean agricultural products and huge sums of money were required to buy their entry into Europe. We do not want to have to do that again with the agricultural products of eastern Europe.
  678
  Outside that, the main reason for the agreements—the preamble sets it out—is to bring these countries into our family of democracies to extend the hand of friendship, to start setting up political dialogues, to move towards political structures where we can be compatible and can work together. If that means more than simply renegotiating Maastricht and repeating it like some refugee from Hari Krishna, there is more to it than those simple phrases that are continually muttered by the hon. Member for Stafford. We are moving towards something that is large and politically significant.
  I want to give the Minister as much time as possible, so I shall stop there. We shall not divide the House on the issue, because we believe that it is important that the orders are passed. I just wish that the Minister's hon. Friends would give it some type of welcome instead of continually whining.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) drew attention to the fact that there were hardly any Labour Back Benchers present during the debate, and he was right to do so. The reason why he was right to draw attention to that fact was that the debate could have been taken upstairs, but the Labour party insisted that it be taken on the Floor of the House. It is, I think, a sign of the gravity that Labour Members attach to the matter that, on his own admission, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who spoke for the Opposition from the Front Bench, had picked up a brief but a few minutes prior to having spoken. The only Opposition Member who spoke in substance was the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I will turn to his contribution in a moment. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), a Front-Bench spokesman, hopped up, trying to intervene in my speech. She then walked out and has not been here since.
  What has happened is an abuse, because the matter could have been taken upstairs—the Labour party had no interest in it. There is, at the moment, but one Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber; the rest have played no part whatever in the debate. That is an abuse and the House needs to know that fact.
  I now turn to what I understand to be the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda. [Interruption.] We have a second Labour Back Bencher here. I welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). He is going as well—no, he is not. He is sitting down. He is very welcome.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda made two points—at least, I suppose that they were points. First, he grumbled about the dumping procedure. The hon. Gentleman would do well to look at the agreement. I commend article 30 with respect to dumping, because he will see that the general agreement on tariffs and trade-type safeguards prevail in those circumstances. The hon. Gentleman also embarked on a fairly extensive diatribe, criticising British industry and commerce in central and eastern Europe, wailing that we were not doing very well, to use the word that he likes to adopt.
  Mr. Rogers: Whining.
  Mr. Hogg: Whining is the word that the hon. Gentleman adopts. Whining certainly suits him. What a

  679
  pity that on that occasion he was not correct. It is perfectly true that the French and the Germans have done better, but it is equally true that if one contrasts 1993 with 1992 in the case of the four countries with which we are concerned, he will find that British exports increased by 40 per cent. Instead of whining, he might do well to bring those matters to the attention of the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made an important contribution. I entirely agree with the substantive parts of what he had to say. I welcome, as he does, the process of enlargement. Yes, there are difficulties inherent in the economic fusion. Yes, it will transform the nature of the European Union. The point that, I suspect, Opposition Members who are present have not appreciated is that the enlargement of the European Union will work with the Government's, and not the Labour party's, perception of what the European Union should be like. Let us consider the identity of the countries that wish to join the European Union and bear in mind their history during the past 50 years. Countries that have had their sovereignty taken away from them by force are not likely willingly to surrender more of their sovereignty than they must to the centralising tendencies of the European Union. If one asks where the Labour party stands on the centralising tendencies of the European Union, one finds that the party is in favour of it, so I suspect that it will find that its new allies—our allies—will be of scant assistance to it.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow—I am sorry that he was shut in a church—made a very serious contribution, to which I do not have a complete answer, let me hasten to say. Essentially, what he described is a plague that we suffer from here. I regret to say that my local church in Lincolnshire was recently broken into and artefacts were stolen. That happens throughout the United Kingdom. It is especially worrying in the Czech Republic because of the great richness of artefacts there.
  I can give one answer that is of some relevance. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow looks at article 97 of the agreement, he will see that it contains provisions for co-operation on the conservation of historical sites. That obviously could extend to addressing the type of problem about which he has spoken to the House.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised several questions which, frankly, touch more on the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and, indeed, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department than on my Department. I hope that he will forgive me if I draw his remarks to their attention, because I feel sure that they will wish to respond to what he said.
  Mr. Dalyell: Contact with Interpol may be the only practical way of making an impact on that problem.
  Mr. Hogg: Indeed, the contact with Interpol is what caused me to refer to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary might be the proper appropriate Minister to respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  680
  My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) concentrated on the merits of free trade, and I entirely agree with them. I am bound to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford was wholly right when he commended the strategic requirement of restructuring of the industries, especially of the steel industry. I thought that again we heard the traditional and true voice of Labour from the hon. Member for Rhondda when he suggested that it was wrong to restructure British Steel in the early 1980s. Yet, as we were rightly reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, the subsidies were running at £1 million a day. I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) say, "It is peanuts." It is not peanuts. It is the type of thing that would bankrupt—
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I will not give way. I shall not give way because I have only one minute. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that it was peanuts. He may not have liked to be heard. I am not surprised at that because he was saying to the House that the whole policy of restructuring was wrong, and that the taxpayer should have continued to subsidise an industry that everyone else knew was bankrupt and inefficient, and is now one of the most—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [25 February].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Bulgaria) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the questions necessary to dispose of the other motions to do decided at that hour.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Czech Republic) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Slovak Republic) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and Romania) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.—[Mr Douglas Hogg.]

  Representation of the People
  5.19 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
  That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  That the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  Mr. Lloyd: The first order increases the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and at local government elections in Great Britain to take account of inflation. The existing limits were set in March 1992. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has power to vary the maxima where, in his view, there has been a change in the value of money and it seems reasonable to increase these limits to take account of the change.
  The main political parties and the local authority associations have been consulted about the proposal to increase the limits. The Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have all indicated their support for an increase to take account of inflation. The aim is to have the increases in place in good time for the local government elections in May and also for the outstanding parliamentary by-elections.
  The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1994 perform two different functions. First, they increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at European parliamentary elections to take account of inflation. The existing limits have not changed since the previous European parliamentary general election in 1989.
  Secondly, they apply for the purposes of European parliamentary elections in England and Wales an amendment made by the Education Act 1993 about the use of grant-maintained schools as polling stations. That amendment was made to ensure that returning officers continued to have the right to use, free of charge, rooms in grant-maintained schools once responsibility for funding such schools passed to new funding authorities.
  The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland)(Amendment) Regulations 1994 increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, while the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 increases the limits at local elections in Northern Ireland. These increases correspond to the increases in Great Britain.
  I hope that the House will approve all four orders.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: The four orders propose to raise the maximum limit of candidates' election expenses. They are very modest measures but,
  682
  whatever our views on the precise level of the limit, I hope that the whole House will agree that the principle of limiting expenditure on elections is fundamental and central to our democracy. Without it, we could move rapidly towards the excesses of the system in the United States where it appears that one has almost to be a millionaire before one can afford to run for office. That is true not only nationally but locally and in state elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Ilsley) reminds me that, even in union elections, money talks.
  In the United States, Ross Perot, a billionaire, entered the presidential contest because he felt that it was appropriate and, in Italy at the moment, there is a similar development with Berlusconi. I hope that this evening we are not encouraging such a phenomenon in British politics.
  Of course, the principle of limits on expenditure applies only to local expenses. The local limits that we are debating contrast strongly with the free-for-all that exists at the national level. Local limits are, rightly, rigorously enforced and respected but national expenses are limitless and constitute a democratic deficit in the United Kingdom.
  Political campaigning by individual candidates, as opposed to national party political machines, is an essential element in any healthy democratic system. Getting it right locally is all the more important today when the national political system is showing serious signs of ill health. There is undoubtedly, and rightly, a deep public cynicism about politics and politicians in general and of the House of Commons in particular.
  The idea of democracy as a system of government by the people, for the people and of the people is an increasingly laughable characterisation of the over centralised, unaccountable and Executive-dominated system that passes for a democracy in this country. Labour has a wider democratic agenda to tackle the problem, but I shall not go into detail now because I know that you would bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the orders highlight another issue.
  All too often, contemporary political debate in this country is conducted through intermediaries, be they journalists, television reporters or assorted media pundits, but I do not blame them for that. We—in this place and at other political levels—are responsible for the fact that the importance of the relationship between candidates for office and their prospective electors has become an increasingly marginal relationship in the conduct of politics.
  We believe that strengthening the local link and the local dialogue, as the orders do, is vital if we are to close the ever widening divide between politicians and the public. It is, therefore, more important than ever that those who are standing for public office as elected representatives have adequate resources during local election campaigns to project themselves locally as individuals and to publicise their own distinctive views and those of their party to the particular constituency electorates that they seek to represent. Candidates' election expenses at the parliamentary and European level are, in the main, geared entirely towards precisely that.
  We believe, that in most respects, the current system of limiting a candidate's expenses is reasonable although hardly generous. In these days of direct mail, glossy literature and telephone canvassing, hon. Members may

  683
  feel that keeping down their expenses is rather like a boxer trying to make the weight limit—something that you may appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In 1992, my own limit was £6,900 or thereabouts. It draws gasps of astonishment from people who campaign in other circles, such as those in pressure groups trying to mount a local or national campaign, those running a business or marketing particular products, and especially those from abroad. My American acquaintances in particular are staggered when they hear that there are such low limits on the amount that individual candidates can expend locally.
  We believe that the local limits on election expenses should be uprated annually in line with inflation. Had the March 1986 expenses been linked to inflation, an additional £700 at today's prices would have been available to a parliamentary candidate in a borough constituency. The Minister mentioned linking these limits to inflation or catching up with inflation and, if he is listening, I ask him to comment on the possibility of a permanent link with inflation so that orders such as this are not necessary on an occasional basis and the amount that we can spend locally ratchet up with the retail prices index.
  The real danger not covered in the orders is the fact that the role of local campaigning on the basis of a rough parity of party funds is fatally flawed because of the huge differences allowed at national level. The Labour party's Plant committee on electoral systems recently examined the problem and concluded:
  "Whilst the principle that wealthy candidates should not have undue advantages by access to greater funds still, in the main, applies at local level, it has become meaningless in terms of national expenditure.
  Accompanied by a substantial increase by outside bodies in the promotion or rejection of a political party or its views, the concept of equality between parties is being steadily eroded."
  As in so many things, the Conservatives are isolated on this matter. Of the parties present in the House this evening, only the Conservative party is opposed to national limits on expenditure. Surely the notion of political equality is absolutely fundamental to a democratic system.
  More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle noted:
  "The first and most truly so-called variety of democracy is that which is based on the principle of equality."
  People may be unequal in the marketplace, much as some of us may regret that, but at the ballot box, they should be equal. We should do everything in the House to ensure that they stand as equals when they cast their vote.
  The increase in expenditure at European elections is most welcome. I believe that every penny of that expenditure will be extremely helpful to Conservative candidates, who will need to explain the commitments in the European People's party manifesto. One commitment—I quote one of many possibilities—is
  "to move resolutely forward in furthering the process of European unification and integration."
  No doubt many of the Conservative Members who have now vacated the Chamber will take great interest in that and in explaining to potential Conservative voters the possibility of a European defence force, a European immigration policy and a European constitution. No doubt the hon. Members who have left the Chamber are, at this very moment, rushing out to the electorate to notify them of those policy developments under the European People's party manifesto.
  684
  Perhaps we shall remember the orders going through the House this evening for the reason that this could be the last occasion on which the European parliamentary elections are fought on a first-past-the-post basis, which requires these limits. We shall have to consider new ways in which to devise expenditure limits for the next round of European elections after the elections in June.
  Another concern about the orders is their failure to address the problems, again identified by the Labour party's Plant commission, of overspending the limits and their enforcement at local level. The commission said:
  "We consider it grossly unfair that an agent at constituency level, often a voluntary member of the party, is subject to legal control, and liable to a possible prison sentence for breaching the law, whilst a national party and outside bodies can freely spend and influence the electors, technically on a national basis, but in reality giving support for candidates of one political party."
  That is wrong. There should be even-handedness in the way in which people are treated at national level, just as there is at local level. What is good for an individual, volunteer local party agent—the majority of us have such agents—should be good enough for a named person who should take responsibility for the legal implications of raising money and spending money at national level, if limits are breached. I state again for the record that Labour will legislate for national maximum spending limits, backed by legal sanctions, to ensure even-handedness.
  We believe that the orders are a seriously missed opportunity to eliminate the anachronism of the differential in election expenses between candidates for borough constituencies and candidates for county constituencies. That, of course, applies to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland elections and not to the European elections. The orders make that disparity greater. There is an increase in the expenses per elector in county constituency elections of 6.1 per cent.—from 4.9p per elector to 5.2p per elector. There is an increase of only 5.4 per cent. in the amount allocated per head to the electors in a borough constituency—from 3.7p to 3.9p per elector. The arguments that might once have justified that disparity have long since passed and it would be sensible for that disparity now to be removed. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on whether he feels that that matter should now be the subject of a serious review so that we can equalise the amounts that are given to borough constituency elections and to county constituency elections.
  The orders are also faulty in that they fail to take account of the many new developments in election techniques. Those techniques are familiar to most of us and may be more familiar to those who have fought marginal seats. None the less, should the exemption of various capital items from the definition of expenses be considered? Those items might include the election headquarters, computers, printing machinery and telephone equipment. That would ensure that the maximum permitted election expenses are limited to items that are specifically directed at the elector, such as literature, the direct promotion of candidates, canvassing, direct mail and, perhaps, poster and press advertising.
  Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether he would be receptive to such a change in the definition of election expenses. Perhaps he will clarify and pinpoint the services for which the money pays.
  It is important that we state that Labour has argued since 1929 that there should be a fundamental review of the whole way in which we fund political parties. The subject

  685
  is currently being considered by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and, although it has a Conservative majority, I look forward to it proposing some radical reforms to party funding. I am pleased to welcome the Chairman of that Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), to our proceedings. He may care to comment at some point on the Committee's discussions on this important matter. I ask him to tell us, at the very least, whether the Committee may consider committing itself to the setting up of an independent electoral commission, along the lines of the Boundary Commission, to oversee the whole area of election expense regulation and to oblige all United Kingdom political parties to disclose in their annual accounts any donation from a single source above a particular limit, let us say £5,000 per calendar year. That is the minimum that we expect from the Select Committee and I should be pleased if the Chairman would comment on that or on any other point made so far if he can do so without giving away too many secrets.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The inquiry into the funding of political parties is in a state of activity at the moment. The Committee has not yet come to a conclusion and it is too early for me to say what conclusions we shall come to on the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  Mr. Allen: That is most helpful. I look forward to the report. No doubt I shall reciprocate with a slightly more elaborate set of comments when I see the report. I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman well in drafting it.
  Another relevant point is the limit on local government expenses being extended from £192 per local government candidate plus 3.8p per head to £205 per candidate plus 4p per head. We certainly welcome and support that part of the order, but we also believe that there is now a very strong case indeed for examining the maximum and determining whether we are allowing sufficient resources to local authority candidates to fight their corners effectively.
  It is little use the House sometimes rather complacently saying that our turnouts are a lot greater than local government turnouts, when it is within the power of the House to assist candidates of all parties to spend a little more money contacting their electorates through additional literature or whatever other means they seek to employ. Turnouts in local government elections are too low, and we should do our bit to ensure that they are increased. However, it is incumbent upon the House to examine seriously whether the amount to which we limit local government candidates is sufficient to help local government achieve the turnouts, involvement and local interest that we would all like to see. Perhaps the Minister will comment not on the specific amount but on the broad dimension of funding that we allow local government candidates to use.
  Similarly, in the case of by-elections, there should be a higher maximum for parliamentary and local elections. Do we really expect the Eastleigh, Rotherham, Dagenham and Barking by-elections to be fought effectively on current limits? Those events are of national interest and they will generate immense activity. In such circumstances, we might need to consider once more whether the admittedly more generous amounts that are allowed to people who are fighting by-elections could be considered yet again in the light of modern circumstances.
  686
  The measures were drafted some time ago; certainly before the advent of widespread computerisation, widespread direct mail, and the press conference every hour, it seems, in local by-elections. Perhaps, with future measures, we should take a step back to assess the level of expenditure and come up with a more realistic limit for local and parliamentary by-elections.
  I have sought to place today's modest increases in expenses for candidates within the broader context of the enormous disparities within the levels of national party political funding which seriously undermine our democratic system. Recent allegations about the behaviour of certain Conservative councils suggest that the incestuous relationship between money and political power is alive and well in modern Britain. The problem, however, is not primarily that of illegality, important though it is to root out corruption from whatever source. The insidious problem is posed by large-scale, frequently clandestine but nevertheless legal financing of the governing party by the small wealthy minority who benefit directly from its tax policies. As we know, a number of the more substantial contributors to Conservative party funds—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the scope of the debate is narrow. Although he has been in order until now, the hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray beyond the bounds of the debate.
  Mr. Allen: The very important point that I am trying to make is that people in our respective constituencies, be they in a constituency Labour party, a Conservative association, and whatever it is that the Liberal Democrats have, work extremely hard to raise money. That is why we have the limits. Such people work very hard to raise money through socials, jumble sales, coffee mornings and so on. That hard graft of local party politics goes on in order to raise money, and we rightly put ceilings on expenditure.
  However, that has to stand in stark contrast with those who, at national level, are without any limit whatsoever and who, because they happen to be a foreign shipping magnate or a business man in Hong Kong, can donate amounts of money far in excess of that which any constituency has raised in 10 or 20 years.
  That element of fairness must be conveyed. Those individuals have a far greater and disproportionate effect, even though they might be citizens of a foreign country working on behalf of a foreign business, than the hundreds of people—I pay tribute to workers in party politics, be they Labour or Conservative—who work day in and day out, voluntarily and without payment to make local parties the engine of local democracy. Without those local parties we would not have politics; we would just have top-down financed political parties. Sources of Conservative party finance raise several questions that I will not go into.
  Although we support the orders, Opposition Members have a more radical agenda. The future Labour Government will remove the manifest unfairness of the existing system of party funding. We will legislate for limits on national spending, just as we have today on local spending. We will introduce state aid. We will ensure that party accounts are published. We will ban the funding of political parties by foreign individuals and foreign businesses. As part of our wider democratic agenda, we will work to create a level playing field for all political parties and candidates at local and national level, and we

  687
  will create a democratic system in which elections cannot be bought by wealthy vested interests but are won by the party with practical and imaginative ideas. We alone require no loaded dice. We alone will welcome that fair fight.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) meant when he said, "We alone require no loaded dice." I do not know whether he sought to include or exclude the Liberal Democrats in that.
  The hon. Gentleman laid out a wide canvas of reforms. I will not imitate that tonight, but suffice it to say that I hope that he will think it appropriate to seek cross-party agreement for any such reforms. Part of the essence of the hon. Gentleman's fair criticism of the Government is that they proceed in matters such as the reform of our electoral system with scant regard for the views of other parties on matters that are central to the efficacy of our democracy.
  Mr. Allen: If I was not clear, let make it clear that the association of ideas on the national maximum is shared by the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and, indeed, other parties, too. Only one party stands against a national maximum, and that is the one which needs a national maximum in order to make its own case, because it is incapable of making it on a level playing field.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. None the less, I would value the opportunity of a dialogue with him on this as on other matters, as, I am sure, would other parties represented in this House. I am prompted to say that because of what the hon. Gentleman said about the different expenditures in borough and county electorates.
  I remember serving on the Speaker's Conference on electoral law some years ago, when this matter was considered very carefully. Clear evidence persuaded the conference that the expenditure necessarily incurred in campaigning in county elections was higher per head of the population than in borough constituencies.
  In the view of the Speaker's Conference, that was sufficient to advocate the difference which these measures carry forward today. I do not have a dogmatic view on whether the difference is justified in contemporary circumstances, because I recognise that there have been substantial changes in the methods of campaigning at local level since the Speaker's Conference reported in the 1970s.
  It would make sense to carry out a deep study of the actual costs of campaigning at parliamentary and European elections in the latter decade of this century in order to have some justification for the figures, which we normally uprate once in the lifetime of a Parliament, to see whether they are a proper reflection of the costs.
  The figures are somewhat artificial. For example, they do not reflect the extent to which telephone canvassing may have become a core part of campaigning today. Nor do they reflect the difficulty in tracing expenditure on such campaigning.
  From my experience of campaigning in a very scattered rural constituency, I must reflect that the nature of the expenditure incurred is very different from that incurred in a borough. The expenditure on petrol in driving from one
  688
  public meeting to another is considerable, and expenditure on advertising as many as four or five dozen meetings in different local newspapers is considerable because of present printing costs.
  I know that, at the current levels of expenditure permitted by Parliament, it is difficult in such a rural area to do more than publish two, or at the most three, leaflets locally during an election campaign. I am not sure that that makes total sense in present times.
  Mr. Allen: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is coming towards the conclusion that, if the limits are too low—there is a case for saying that these limits are too low—we are in danger of introducing a possible element of corruption into the local electoral process, because the temptation that may exist to exceed the limits is great where they may be over-rigorous.
  Mr. Maclennan: I think that that is a risk. Certainly it is one that we should be aware of in looking at the realism of these measures in uprating the limits. I think that the Government have tied the uprating simply to the increase in the cost of living, but I do not think that there has been any detailed analytical work on the components of electioneering in bringing forward these measures.
  Campaigning has been much more sophisticated recently. There is much more targeted campaigning locally. There is much more printing of letters which are directed to particular members of the electorate, in an attempt to have a more sensitive campaign than perhaps in the old days of the soapbox, which the Prime Minister, in his effort to get back to basics, employed—it must be said, with some success—at the last election.
  Nonetheless, as we must be concerned about the evident cyclical decline in the number of our electors participating in elections, it is extremely important that election expenses which can be incurred at the local level should properly and fully reflect what it costs to run an informative campaign which allows candidates fully to display what they are offering to the public.
  As I said, there is a certain artificiality about the limits today. Of course, the biggest artificiality of all is that to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North referred—the tight control of local expenditure and the absence of control of national expenditure, which has a distorting effect on campaigning.
  Although I am not one of those who believe that what happens locally does not matter much—electoral battles are fought on television and won by the party leaders; and, provided that we control the amount of television time and cover of the principal advocates in a national election, what goes on below that does not matter greatly—the extraordinary disproportion of expenditure nationally is something we need to examine in a fair and modern democracy. However, we cannot look at that matter within the ambit of these measures, which deal with a limited part of our democratic process.
  I put it to the Government that the time has come to set up a Speaker's Conference to look at the disproportion between the tight control of local expenditure, which we are seeking modestly to raise tonight, and the absence of control of national expenditure. Undoubtedly, the Labour party has a clear view about what evidence it might submit to a Speaker's Conference. The Liberal Democrats might submit slightly different evidence, because there are

  689
  serious problems of control of national expenditure. We must take account of the practical difficulties of controlling national expenditure if we are to seek any change.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is there not an urgent need also to look at the consequences of the incumbency? Today, with the growth of regional and local media, Members of Parliament, local councillors and others have an increasing advantage over challenging candidates—that matter needs to be looked at—and generally there is no starting date in terms of knowing when an election campaign begins.
  Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is an advantage for the sitting tenant, whose record and history are known.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I certainly hope they are.
  Mr. Maclennan: In some cases it is an advantage, but it cannot be said that it is a universal advantage. The changeovers that occur suggest that it is not a sure-fire recipe for success at the polls. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is something that we should examine.
  The opportunity for a new candidate to come forward and sell himself at an election on the basis of two or three little bits of paper seems to be inadequate. I do not want to see a huge increase in spending on elections, which would also militate against the challenge of small parties, new parties and local parties which are not well heeled and which have little to do with the merits of the candidature.
  Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned fixed-term Parliaments, which would have an interesting impact on local expenditure limits. If candidates were to know when an election was to take place, that might well affect the way that they plan their campaigns. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view on that?
  Mr. Maclennan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am in favour of fixed Parliaments. However, that goes far beyond the ambit of the measures. Although it may be interesting for me to go down those avenues, I must confine myself strictly to what we are considering today.
  I put it to the Minister that the time has come for a new look at these matters in the round. There is plenty of time before his party will have to face the electorate and nemesis.
  The Government are therefore in an ideal position to take that step. In my experience, Speaker's Conferences tend to be dominated by the partisan views of those who participate in them. Nonetheless, they have served a purpose in the past of enabling evidence to be accumulated which can then go into the public domain and lead to a public debate. Such a debate preceded the alteration in the voting age, for example. Incidentally, Parliament rejected the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference on the voting age.
  It is an appropriate process for considering how the matters should be taken forward. We should seek to modernise the system of the control of expenditure, and we should take account of the realities of campaigning in this day and age.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a number of complaints about the orders, and he wanted them to do a lot of things which they cannot do. That is not merely because the orders do not contain the requisite material, but because they cannot do those things under the governing legislation. However, there were two or three points in particular upon which he asked my opinion.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could have increases automatically with inflation. I do not think that we can under the present law, because the Home Secretary is charged to come forward with regulations when he feels that it is appropriate to raise the expenses in line with the changing value of money. That must be his decision, and he has done that by consulting through his officials with the political parties. When there is a consensus—as there is on this occasion—he will introduce an order.
  The hon. Gentleman also remarked on the disparity, as he saw it, between borough and county, with the latter having higher expenses. He thought that the differences were now out of date. That was an odd way of putting it, because the reason for the differences is geography, and that remains as it was. The distances in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as compared with the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), are as they were previously.
  There is no doubt that a large constituency, with long distances to travel and a spread population, involves greater expenses than a smaller, urban constituency. There is no reason why the differentials should be wrong now if they were right some years ago. They could be looked at, but they could be changed only if the Home Secretary introduced orders which did not raise the ceilings in county constituencies with inflation, as he was recommending the House did in borough constituencies.
  Mr. Allen: The point that I was making in terms of the balance between counties and boroughs being slightly different now was based on the new campaigning techniques. There is greater emphasis on telephone calling and direct mail shots, and the physical moving of people and goods to different places around a constituency during a campaign has been somewhat diminished. The balance has shifted a little to more technological means of campaigning.
  Will the Minister comment on the point about research, raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland? Would it not be helpful to look into a lot of those things and for the Home Office to undertake some serious research into whether we have it right at the moment? That research could be even more serious than that which is undertaken already.
  Mr. Lloyd: I will come to that point in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested that the ceilings on candidates' expenses were too low generally, and that he would like them raised. That would need legislation. I am not convinced that higher ceilings are needed. It is interesting that some 40 per cent. of Labour party candidates spend about 80 per cent. of what they could spend in elections. It does not appear that they are pressing on those ceilings.
  There may be a need to look at the matter again. We last looked at it in conjunction with the other parties in 1987, when I did not have responsibility for these matters. The

  691
  hon. Gentleman knows that a series of study groups is dealing with aspects of voting and electioneering. There are six groups, which are drawing lessons from the general election. They have presented their draft reports, and those have either been sent to the political parties for comment in the past few days or are about to go out.
  We do not ask that the matter of candidates' expenses should be looked at again. There are a large number of other issues which impinge upon those matters, and we will be interested to hear of any other issues when we meet with the political parties. It is sensible to take the matters forward by consensus because, at the very least, there needs to be agreement that certain aspects need to be looked at, rather than because of pressure from one party or another to make changes.
  I am not sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right when he says that we need a Speaker's Conference. I would much rather have meetings with the political parties on the basis of the wide-ranging reports which we are already putting forward. If additional issues arose, they could be examined to see whether it was agreed that certain aspects should be examined further—research, to use the hon. Gentleman's term.
  The examinations could determine whether other discussions were needed, or whether there was not enough of a consensus to find a way forward. It would be much better to have meetings and discussions first. I do not want to rule anything out, but I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I was ruling anything in before the discussions.
  Mr. Allen: While a Speaker's Conference may be going too far, and while many of us welcome the study groups and working groups which were established under the auspices of the Home Office, perhaps a middle way could be for an independent electoral commission, as I suggested. There may be matters which are to the benefit of the electors which may not necessarily be for the benefit of individual political parties, despite the fact that we always try to represent all our electors.
  Mr. Lloyd: The outcome of the discussions between the political parties will be for wider debate. For example, we are consulting local authority associations, and other interested groups will want to comment. I do not believe that general, non-partisan interested groupings will be excluded in any way, but it would be sensible to take things stage by stage.
  A great deal of work has been done by the study groups which have already reported. We should take that work forward and add any other matters that the political parties combined want to study further as well.
  I will finish on the funding of parties nationally. That matter is outside the substance of this debate, but has been mentioned several times. The matter is being looked at by the Select Committee, and observations have been made by both hon. Members who took part in the debate. I am tempted to make some counter-observations of my own, but it is better if hon. Members keep within the rules of the debate. It would be sensible to wait until we knew the recommendations of the Select Committee.
  I hope and expect from what has been said in this short debate that the House will give approval to the four statutory instruments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Local Government Finance (Scotland)
  6.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move,
  That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate the Scottish local government finance settlement for the year ahead. It is common ground across the Chamber that it is an important debate for several reasons. Local authority services are clearly crucial to all those who receive them, be they the youngest or the oldest in our community.
  The debate is also important because of the huge amount of money that is distributed under the orders that we are considering. The total sum involved is £5.3 billion. That represents about 40 per cent. of the total Scottish Office budget or, to put it another way, £1,034 for every man, woman and child in Scotland from the United Kingdom and business taxpayers. The figure of £1,034 compares to the English figure of £709 and the Welsh figure of £835. So the figure in Scotland is 46 per cent. higher than that in England and 24 per cent. higher than that in Wales.
  The background to the two orders is provided in the reports on them, but I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I briefly summarise the position. I shall deal first with the main order, the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1994. It represents the final stage of the 1994–95 settlement, details of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State first announced to the House on 30 November. He said that Government-supported expenditure—the total of grant-aided expenditure and the provision for loan and leasing charges—had been set at just less than £6,014 million and that aggregate external finance had been set at £5,272 million for next year. Those figures represent increases of 3.52 per cent. and 2.41 per cent. respectively on the 1993–94 figures, inclusive in both cases of the amounts being transferred to local authorities for the second year of their community care responsibilities.
  The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1994 deals with the distribution of aggregate external finance—AEF—for next year. As the report to the order explains, AEF has three components. The first is the provision for specific grants. For 1994–95, that provision is estimated at £421.5 million, and a breakdown of that estimate among the various specific grants is given in appendix B to the report.
  The second component of AEF is the distributable amount of non-domestic rate income, which for next year has been set at £1,109 million. That estimate takes account of the 1994–95 rate poundages which my right hon. Friend also announced on 30 November. Those poundages, in turn, took into account a further reduction of £60 million as part of the Government's policy of harmonising business rate poundages north and south of the border.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do the figures take into account the costs already incurred of setting local government reform in motion?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes. The order provides an additional £5 million for local government reorganisation. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the major costs and savings will come in years subsequent to the order.
  Mr. George Foulkes: It would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate on the exact basis on which the £5 million was calculated. It is important to know how much of the expenditure he envisages would take place in the next financial year. It would be helpful if he could set out briefly—I think that we have plenty of time—the types of expenditure that he expects to be incurred in the coming financial year.
  Mr. Stewart: Certainly. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we sent out a circular to Scottish local authorities asking for an estimate of the costs of local government reorganisation in the forthcoming year. The costs mainly relate to information technology. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the main costs and savings will come in future years. We thought it right to allow a small increase in expenditure for costs in 1994–95. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, most costs will come in years thereafter.
  Mr. Foulkes: We are talking about 1994–95, which goes on, as I understand it, right until the end of March 1995. It seems to me that £5 million is a small amount. From the discussions in which the Minister has been involved in the Standing Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, it seems likely that by the beginning of 1995, local authorities—whatever structure we ultimately decide—will be involved in fairly substantial expenditure around February and March 1995. I wonder whether information has been made available to the local authorities on which they can make reasonable judgments about what the expenditure is likely to be.
  Mr. Stewart: Of course there will be substantial extra expenditure in the financial year 1995–96. The expenditure in 1994–95—the financial year that we are dealing with this evening—is likely to be very limited. No local authority suggests that it will incur other than preparatory expenditure. The hon. Gentleman is correct that, in 1995–96 and 1996–97, the picture will be different.
  I informed the House last year that, with the agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, it was proposed to distribute non-domestic rate income to regional and islands authorities only. That meant that district councils would receive their AEF support solely in the form of revenue support grant and specific grants. I am happy to say that those arrangements have been accepted by all involved and it is proposed to continue them for next year.
  The third component of AEF is revenue support grant, which for 1994–95 totals £3,741.5 million. A detailed explanation of how AEF for next year has been distributed to individual local authorities is contained in the report to the order. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly summarise the procedure, the object of which is to equalise both for variations in authorities' assessed need to incur expenditure and for their tax base. There are broadly two stages in the process.
  Mr. George Robertson: Broadly?
  Mr. Stewart: There are exactly two stages in the process. The first stage is to equalise differences in authorities' grant-aided expenditure assessments—GAEs—as determined by the client group methodology. That methodology, which is reviewed regularly, is agreed with COSLA in the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance. A little more than £1,303 million of the AEF total is used to equalise differences in GAE assessments.
  The second stage of the procedure is to equalise for differences in each authority's tax base—in other words, their ability to raise revenue locally. The balance of AEF remaining after equalising for differences in the GAE assessments is allocated to authorities in proportion to the number of council tax band D equivalent properties in each authority area. The sum of £3,927 million is distributed in that way.
  The principle underlying the distribution procedure is that if all authorities spent at the level of GAE assessment, they should all be able to set the same level of council tax. In practice, there is often a significant variation in the levels of tax because some authorities decide to spend above GAE and others below. Variations in tax levels, however, are not the result of the aggregate external finance distribution system being used to reward or to penalise certain authorities. Any claims of that sort made in previous debates—I am sure that they will not be made today—betray a lack of understanding of the system and the extent to which COSLA is fully consulted about the mechanisms that I have summarised.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Is not taking the council band alone into account a rather crude way to assess the tax base of an area and the impact on local authority expenditure? That crude formula alone will not take into account the fact that an area with many houses in the council band might also have been affected by unemployment or have a high level of poverty.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's argument is incorrect because of the two-stage process. Unemployment is an indicator in relation to the provision of a number of services and that is set out in detail in the distribution formula. If there were only one stage, the hon. Gentleman would be correct, but, because of the needs part of the procedure, indicators such as unemployment and deprivation are fully taken into account in the distribution of the grant.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Can my hon. Friend advise me whether COSLA has offered any constructive arguments on a change to the formula which would improve it, if that were possible?
  Mr. Stewart: The formula is constantly reviewed with COSLA. It is perhaps inevitable that authorities do not always wholly agree with the consequences of the formula because they are affected in different ways.
  I certainly pay tribute to the very professional expertise commanded by the distribution committee of COSLA and the Scottish Office, as hon. Members who have studied the client group methodology in detail will be the first to attest. I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is agreeing with me and I am sure that he studied it year in and year out when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. The methodology is extremely
  696
  technical and sophisticated and I pay tribute to those who work very hard to improve it in the light of continuing representations.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of the professional expertise of COSLA, to which the Minister rightly pays tribute, if it has so much professional expertise, why does the Scottish Office challenge its estimates for costs of up to £720 million for local government reform? Does he accept that that COSLA figure was put together not by a group of Opposition politicians, but by precisely the type of experts to whom he is paying tribute; for example, David Chynoweth, who was president of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Administration last year? Is it not dangerous to give such fulsome praise to COSLA's expertise—praise which is justified, in my opinion—but to say that it has its sums all wrong on another aspect of local government reform? The Government cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not accept that figure. When I paid tribute to the convention's technical expertise in one area, I do not think that anyone would imply that I necessarily meant that we accepted every figure that it produced on every subject under the sun. I merely said that the distribution formula is extremely complex and sophisticated and I paid due and proper tribute to those who worked very hard to ensure that the formula reflects changing circumstances; it changes from year to year.
  Mr. Gallie: I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening again. If I heard him aright, he not only complimented those who were technically involved from COSLA, but also people from the Scottish Office. That office has come up with different figures for local government reform to COSLA, so the argument is balanced. Perhaps my hon. Friend should acknowledge that and advise Opposition Members of that fact.
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right, as always.
  We are considering the distribution of the grant, which is done according to a formula agreed by the distribution committee. Both Scottish Office and COSLA officials do much extremely technical work. That does not mean that COSLA, by agreeing the distribution, necessarily agrees with the total, which is a different matter. COSLA is entitled to its view on that.
  I do not think for a moment that the second order is controversial. The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994 redetermines the amount of revenue support grant payable to each Scottish authority for each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. Those are the three years covered by an agreement with COSLA to adjust, either up or down, the level of RSG payable to each authority in the light of any variations between the estimate of non-domestic rate income and the amount collected.
  Hon. Members will appreciate, I am sure, that the amount can vary from the estimate because of changes in buildings, empty buildings and so forth. The introduction of pooling of non-domestic rate income—NDRI—from 1 April 1993 removed the need for the agreement to continue beyond 1992–93. With pooling, adjustments to the level of NDRI are made administratively.
  The order provides for the level of RSG for 1990–91 to be increased by £26.6 million; for the level of grant for 1991–92 to be increased by £39.7 million; and for the level of grant for 1992–93 to be reduced by £34.5 million. All

  697
  those adjustments are necessary in the light of the latest returns of non-domestic rate income collected by authorities for the three years in question. Overall, as hon. Members will doubtless be delighted to hear, the order provides for a net additional payment of £31.8 million to authorities. Clearly, there are swings and roundabouts as far as individual authorities are concerned.
  Mr. John McFall: And if the hon. Member has anything to do with it, Eastwood will always be on the roundabout.
  Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it is.
  I do not believe that the second order is controversial in any way. It has been fully discussed with COSLA. The settlement to Scottish local authorities provided for in the main order is entirely realistic, given the present low level of inflation, the Government's approach to public sector pay and the public expenditure situation and I commend both orders to the House.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: This will be an interesting evening, because we have started the debate earlier than anticipated. Hon. Members will therefore have a good opportunity to discuss the orders.
  We can also reflect on the fact that, although the Secretary of State has come to join us, he still manages to duck out of dealing with local government issues, as he did during Scottish Question Time last week. At the weekend, it was noticeable, however, that when he was debating with, or should I say when he was being attacked by, Conservative councillors, at a conference he managed a few remarks about the conduct of the Standing Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, although he has not even popped his head around the door of the Committee. He is, presumably, receiving detailed reports from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). Great debate and dissent are undoubtedly caused by them.
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has occasionally bumped into the Secretary of State in the Corridor and has put down a few amendments as a result.
  Mr. Gallie: Given the hon. Member's words of welcome to the Secretary of State, it would be churlish if Conservative Members did not mention the presence of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will benefit greatly from his hon. Friend's advice on, and sound knowledge of, local government.
  Mr. Robertson: I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Ayr turned his mind to it, he could turn that intervention into an amendment for the Committee tomorrow, because his ingenuity seems to have absolutely no limit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is, of course, welcome to join us. A trip down memory lane is never bad for people. I am sure that he will enjoy the debate, just as he always enjoyed the previous ones. In fact, he is probably one of the few people who enjoy such debates.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: He is the only person.
  Mr. Robertson: Yes, that may well be true.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden is certainly welcome, because he never shirked or dodged the column in dealing with important issues, especially those concerned with local government.
  I must admit that many a heart dropped when a study of the Order Paper revealed that the House intended to discuss the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1994 and the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994. Frankly, the Minister with responsibility for local government has just revealed the deathlessness of the prose and the complexity of the concepts as he explained different components of the aggregate external finance levels compared with the Government's supported expenditure levels.
  That explanation left the House of Commons more than cold in its appreciation. It also has the unfortunate effect of leaving the Government in the advantageous position of putting their figures forward as the truth—something which anyone with half a mind on the past would automatically dismiss.
  The Minister told us that this is a good settlement, but he has said that every single year, just as his predecessors have in the past 15 years. It is no more true this year than it was in the previous ones. Why should the Minister change the script; after all it is recycled year on year? A few different civil servants may be involved and Ministers may go round in circles, but, each year, we are given the same speech about more cash being available for local councils and that, as a result, council tax, poll tax bills and rate levels should fall across Scotland. As the Opposition know only too well, Ministers are not telling the whole truth.
  The truth, buried deep in the figures, is not just a matter of interpreting dry, obscure statistical complexities, but means money, which comes from the pockets of the people of Scotland. They are expected to shell out more money and more taxes. All those taxes are new ones, which are a direct result of this incompetent Government. Whatever Ministers say tonight—they have sold us this stale, unconvincing justification year on year—the minimum estimated effect of the orders will be an extra 10 per cent. on council tax bills across Scotland. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has authoritatively estimated that that is equivalent to £1.20 a week on average council tax bills.
  Mr. Stewart: Can the hon. Member therefore explain why the biggest Labour district council in Scotland, Glasgow, has just announced that it will reduce its council tax by 3.8 per cent?
  Mr. Robertson: As the Minister has said, there will obviously be swings and roundabouts. Because of the differentials involved and a number of other factors that apply, there will be differences of view about the figures. But the estimate, published this morning by the same professional officials whom the Minister has praised up to now, means an extra £1.20 a week on every council tax bills. That is equivalent to an additional 10 per cent. on top of all the other added expenditure which results from the Government's policies.
  Mr. George Kynoch: Would the hon. Member care to ponder on the fact that another Labour-controlled regional council, Grampian, has said that it intends to freeze its council tax levels? I wonder whether he attaches a lot of credibility to COSLA' s figures.
  Mr. Robertson: There are not many Conservative Members present, but I hope that they will come up with examples of the good housekeeping of individual Labour local authorities, which have been able to act in that manner in the face of the settlement and the circumstances dictated by Ministers. Those Labour local authorities have been able to do that because of the sheer professionalism of their approach. I shall explain, however, that the figures mean that it will be difficult for those authorities to uphold that behaviour.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: May I take the hon. Member's remarks as something of a compliment to the Scottish National party's financial convenor of Grampian region?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman can take it any way he wants.
  The Government say that the aggregate external finance level will be up 2 per cent. this year, but when one takes away transferred moneys from the other purses of Government—from the careers service, which has been transferred, and the care in the community cash, which has been transferred to local authorities from the Department of Social Security—that level is down to 0.97 per cent., on the Government's own estimates. That is an increase of less than 1 per cent. in the aggregate external finance, the totality of Government support to local authorities.
  That is the estimate before one takes into account inflation. If one takes away the Government's own estimate for inflation, which is published each year in the Red Book, as it was in the unified Budget, Scottish local councils budgets will be down this year by 2.91 per cent. That is almost 3 per cent. down not just on their current budgets but on those for last year. That means that, based on the figures for last year and not even on those on which the budgets that they reasonably proposed for the following year were based, a total of £148.8 million will be taken out of local authority budgets. In other words, almost £150 million will be taken out of local government budgets which are already stretched to breaking point. The consequence will be simple, brutal and unavoidable.
  Mr. Kynoch rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I should like to make more progress, as Ministers would say, before I give way again.
  The consequences of that reduction will be job losses, service reductions and an increase in council tax. All that is due to a direct, dictated, ordered, forced and even desired consequence of the Government's direction from the centre. At least £1.20, on average, will be added to council tax bills.
  That will be on top of an extra £10 a week which, from April, every family will have to pay for the broken promises on national taxation for which the Government are responsible, and on top of the cost of VAT on fuel, which will come into effect on 1 April. More taxes will be set on more taxes. All of them are the price to be paid by taxpayers as a penalty for the incompetence and the deceit of the Conservative party, which told the people two years ago at the election that it would reduce taxes year on year.
  700
  The simple message behind those complicated figures is, "The Tories pick your pockets and then waste the money that they have taken". I wondered whether I could draw an analogy with Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give to the poor, or with the sheriff of Nottingham, who stole from the poor to give to the rich. But the Government are acting like "East End Hood", who steals money from everybody and then loses it. That is the reality of the additional taxes which the Government are now imposing. They are picking the pockets of the Scottish people with extra taxes all the time. In return, we get less: fewer services and jobs, and longer dole queues.
  The bulk of the 300,000 people employed in local government in Scotland face a year in which the Government estimate that inflation will run at 3 per cent. The Chancellor has published that estimate in the Red Book. Where is the justice in saying that people face 3 per cent. inflation plus all the tax increases that will be heaped on them, but no increase in pay? It is yet another gift from this high-promising Government.
  The Government say that all that is fiction and exaggeration. They say that they have provided local councils with a pot of gold and that tax increases, service cuts and job losses are down to individual local council decisions. I say that that is hogwash.
  There are few Tory local authorities, but Stirling and Kyle and Carrick district councils are flagship Tory authorities which perform the role of shop windows for the Tory councils of tomorrow. Two weeks ago, Stirling district council fixed its council tax level, reducing it by between £34 and £100. In its headline making that announcement, the local newspaper, the Stirling Observer, made it clear what the price was. It said:
  "Jobs are lost to pay for tax cuts".
  The loss of at least 18 jobs and huge increases in charges will be the price paid by those in Stirling district who will enjoy a reduction in council tax.
  The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) does not participate in many Scottish debates. He does not enjoy a walk down memory lane and, as a begetter of the poll tax, there are few highways and byways in Scottish debates which he would like to visit. But the same edition of the Stirling Observer quoted him as saying:
  "The councillors and officials of Stirling district must be the toast of my constituents tonight".
  Some celebration for the 18 people who were to lose their jobs as a consequence of that decision, those who would pay up to 200 per cent. more to let a hall in Stirling district, or those who would have to pay more to bury their dead in the area because of the rise in burial charges.
  The Stirling Observer has not taken a partisan view. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stirling has received much favourable publicity from it over the years. But in its editorial opinion that week, Mr. Alan Rennie said:
  "Perhaps the district council should line up the 18 people whose jobs are to be axed and explain to us and them why they are surplus to requirements. Then line up the people who are expected to assume many of their functions overnight.
  I'm fed up with those who treat ordinary people as pawns in a political game or as mere figures in an accountancy exercise. There may be champagne corks popping in Conservative party HQ but elsewhere this budget is like a glass of flat beer.
  Interestingly, the story did not end there. The following week, the saga continued in the editorial opinion. Mr. Rennie told his readers:
  "One of the first calls to my office on Wednesday morning came from MP Michael Forsyth, who felt that I had been unclear in my criticism.

  701
  How touchy of the Minister of State, Department of Employment. Anyway, Mr. Rennie analysed the comments and other points put to him and concluded:
  "So I am going to stick to my guns. It's not the Observer that is playing politics. That charge lies at the door of the ruling Conservative group on Stirling District Council. And it is my readers who will suffer the consequences. Just wait and see."
  Mr. Rennie adequately makes the point about a council that has contracted out its legal services and handed them over to Professor Ross Harper in Glasgow, with a loss of jobs in the district and a legal challenge for unfair dismissal; contracted out its grass-cutting service with disastrous consequences; and spent £60,000 on designing a new logo and corporate identity for the district council. I heard it described as:
  "a Lego man for a loco council".
  The council has made itself a national laughing stock as a consequence.
  Given that grimy, unattractive shop window for Tory councils, it is small wonder that there are so few Tory councils around to talk about. But there is one more—the district council based on Ayr: Kyle and Carrick. It is still strong and is run on the Stirling model of champagne-popping, job-slashing, charge-increasing and standard-dropping councils. But Kyle and Carrick council is slightly more sinister at the edge because it now flouts the law as it seeks to break agreements that were freely entered into and contracts that were legally adopted. It seeks to dump existing contracts and the people who were party to them, and to sack loyal local workers and bring in contractors from Spain to handle the cleansing contract for the area. Loyal, decent, hard-working human beings will be dumped by those Tory fanatics—the loony right of Scottish politics—as they try to squeeze through some European loophole and illegally break signed contracts.
  That example, not the statistics of the aggregate external finance, is the true face of the Tory party in dealing with local government.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House how Kyle and Carrick district council has flouted any law, contractual or other? Is he aware that an announcement has only just been placed in the Journal of the European Communities and that no contracts have been placed? Certainly, no contract has been placed with a Spanish company, yet the hon. Gentleman seems to have the inside story. Can he put up the evidence? If not, he should come off that track.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has been involved in all those shenanigans and probably knows more than anyone else. Instead of posing questions, he would be well advised to provide answers. The House and the electors of Kyle and Carrick need to know whether those contracts, which were freely entered into, will be broken.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware that Kyle and Carrick district council announced that it would cancel a contract that had one to two years to run with the in-house tenderer for cleansing and refuse? Once that was announced, it was revealed that, prior to the announcement, five separate meetings had taken place between Provost Gibson Macdonald and its officials and the Spanish company, FOCSA. Does that not smell of a rat and some kind of collusion or corruption?
  Mr. Robertson: The words "rat" and "smell" certainly come to mind. There is little doubt that something funny is going on in Kyle and Carrick district council. There is certainly an intention to break a contract freely entered into with local workers. No doubt the law courts will ultimately adjudicate on whether the law has been broken or whether the council has found a loophole that will allow it to break the law. What is clear, however, is that there has been a breach of faith with local people who are adequately providing a service but are going to be mercilessly dumped because of blind ideology.
  Mr. Gallie: It is courteous of the hon. Gentleman to allow me to intervene again. He has suggested that something funny is going on in Kyle and Carrick district council. I read a newspaper article at the weekend which, under the headline "Spend, Spend, Spend", said that the council tax was being frozen. There is certainly something going on—it is very good news for the people of Kyle and Carrick.
  Mr. Robertson: It is difficult to know what to make of that. If the hon. Gentleman is adopting "Spend, Spend, Spend" as his slogan—
  Mr. Gallie: It is not my slogan.
  Mr. Robertson: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is what we know about the council's attitude to agreements and contracts, and to its local people, who will draw their own conclusions. There is little doubt that the Conservative party is setting out its stall in the area, and it is a wholly unattractive one.
  The Tory principles—higher taxes, broken promises, fewer jobs and bargain basement services—adopted by the Stalinists of the Scottish Conservative party—
  Mr. Stewart: Ha, ha!
  Mr. Robertson: The Tory Stalinists are not going to stop there. Those who dissent from the one nation, one party idea get the chop. The hon. Member for Eastwood may roar with laughter, but I should like to draw his attention once again to the case of Colonel Frank Saunders. That should wipe the smile off even his face.
  Mr. Stewart: I have heard the story before. I have great respect for Colonel Saunders, whom I have known for a long time. The hon. Gentleman talks of the Stalinist tendency. Who does he have in mind as Stalin?
  Mr. Robertson: That is an open question—which could be answered by anyone who cares to fill in a postcard and send it to St. Andrew's house. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister is Stalin."] Well, it is certainly not the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). I cannot imagine him leading that tendency, although he might be playing the part of a quiet Beria. If so, he has not yet disclosed the fact.
  As we all know, Colonel Frank Saunders has nothing to do with chickens of either the fried or the cowardly variety. He serves as leader of the Tories on Central regional council. He is therefore a man of no small distinction. He lives in Stirling district and is a constituent of the hon. Member for Stirling. He has been an active Tory for more than 52 years, and a councillor in Stirling for more than 30 years. Yet the colonel said, when the tap on the shoulder came in the night, in words evocative of eastern Europe:
  "After being told of the decision I asked if I was being dismissed because I had failed as a councillor. But I was told that

  703
  it was because I didn't support the local authority reform proposal."
  So he bit the dust, because he did not agree with the new architecture.
  I took a self-denying ordinance to the effect that I would not quote Councillor Brian Meek again. In a recent article he said that he wanted to be paid lineage if he was to continue to be quoted endlessly in the House. I fear that I must quote him again, however. Councillor Meek of Edinburgh district council had this to say about Colonel Saunders:
  "He was deselected. Because, it seems, Frank Saunders disagrees with the Government's plan to reform local councils, particularly as they affect Central region, he has been booted out. I support the move to one-tier authorities. Nevertheless I am concerned that the price of speaking one's mind"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. According to my information, we are discussing financial matters tonight, not the reform of local government.
  Mr. Robertson: Of course you are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Colonel Saunders would agree with you: he agrees with most of what the Conservative party is doing. He would probably agree with the orders that we are debating. We are talking about the financial base for local government in Scotland—a huge figure which the Minister outlined in his speech. It is extremely pertinent to this debate to know the policies of the councillors who will spend the money that Parliament, presumably, will vote through at the end of this debate. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Colonel Saunders' fate is of immediate relevance to these orders.
  Councillor Brian Meek went on to say—
  Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: First, it is worth quoting Councillor Meek, a close friend and buddy of the Minister. [Interruption.] I use the word "buddy" in its broadest possible sense. He said:
  "Are we not big enough, not magnanimous enough to recognise the sincerity and integrity of Frank Saunders, an active member for 52 years? Are we supposed to be speaking puppets?"
  Perhaps the Minister would like to answer that question.
  Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is just about to go on to the case of the four Labour councillors who have been suspended from the party in Monklands.
  Mr. Robertson: They have not been deselected as candidates. The party is entitled to its own disciplinary procedures, but we are talking about a man with 52 years' service to the Tory party, 30 of them as a councillor. He is a man of enormous distinction in Scottish local government and he has been deselected. I am quoting here the views of another Conservative, not my own views.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now well off the point. He has made his point, and we must move on.
  Mr. Robertson: I bow to your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should add that Colonel Saunders, from whom I am about to depart, is not alone in his disenchantment with this butchery.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to trespass against what Madam Deputy Speaker has just said.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Far from it. The hon. Gentleman has championed the cause of deselected councillors. Will he come to my constituency and champion the cause of Labour councillor David Falconer, who has just been deselected for not toeing the party policy line?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will have to tell us what party policy was involved—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to know. Please continue.
  Mr. Robertson: I think that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have saved the hon. Gentleman from the embarrassment of the irrelevance of his comparison. I notice that even he did not try to defend the decision to boot out Colonel Saunders.
  The disenchantment with the butchery of Scottish local government all across Scotland is not confined to the leader of the Tory group on Central regional council. Many people are now realising that this gerrymandered upheaval, done without the consensus of, or demand by, the people, without a review and on a crazy and impractical timetable, will cost them a packet. The new gerrymander tax is going to be substantial—yet another tax on the people of Scotland for Tory convenience. We do not have to take my word for that; it might be thought slightly partisan, despite the fact that it is accurate and dispassionate. Let us look at the report in yesterday's Scotland on Sunday about the Association of Scottish Conservative Councillors. Kenny Farquharson's article begins:
  "Scotland's Tory councillors yesterday sent a warning to Scottish Secretary Ian Lang that he has badly underestimated the price to be paid for the reorganisation of local government."
  It is not the Labour party, or even the suspect professionals of COSLA, who are telling the Government that they have underestimated the costs, but Tory councillors themselves. That is extremely relevant and pertinent. The Secretary of State for Scotland is quoted as saying:
  "The Labour leadership has lost the argument on the costs of reform".
  He went on to describe our claims as "extraordinary and wild". The Secretary of State was told by the Tory councillors—
  Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We seem now to be discussing the cost of the reform of local government in Scotland rather than the revenue support grant. Could you give me guidance on that?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am making the presumption that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is connecting the two.
  Mr. Robertson: Absolutely. If the hon. Member for Ayr had bothered to listen to the speech of the Minister, he would realise that there is specific inclusion in the orders for the transition costs to move into the new local authority structure. What I am saying is not only relevant but highly

  705
  inconvenient for the hon. Gentleman if he chooses to believe the sort of nonsense that is peddled by his Front Bench.
  It is interesting that the councillors are being quite specific. They said in Scotland on Sunday:
  "Yesterday's meeting of Tory councillors said Lang was deceiving himself over the true cost."
  The article then quotes Jim Evans, the chairman of Berwickshire district council and the association's new chairman, as saying:
  "We are a little bit more cynical than the Government about these things."
  The Government's centrepiece—their plan for reorganising local government based on saving public money—was torn into tatters by a Conservative councillor speaking at the weekend, but speaking the truth. All he is telling Ministers is what everybody else in Scotland knows and what we have been telling the Minister for weeks since the White Paper was published; it will cost more than the Government says, and substantially more at that.
  I can remember the words of Mr. Arthur Bell—another bosom buddy of the Minister—
  Mr. Stewart: A party colleague.
  Mr. Robertson: A party colleague of the Minister. He is a senior Conservative and has carried the blue flag of the Conservative party in Lanarkshire—no mean feat—for many years. Last November, addressing a seminar at Strathclyde university's business school and speaking in relation to the claims made by Ministers on savings at that time, which they put in the range of £120 million to £196 million, Mr. Bell said:
  "If anyone came to me with a gap as wide as this I would be amazed. I would not wish to make major changes in my business without being more accurate."
  Mr. Bell and the Association of Scottish Conservative Councillors are all saying it, and are saying it loud and clear.
  I look around me for Conservatives who are willing to speak the inconvenient truth, who are willing to run the same risks as Colonel Frank Saunders and spell out to the country precisely the consequences of what the Government are doing. I have yet another example. I think that it would be exhibit C in this case. It is an article by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), published in The Guardian—of all newspapers—on Saturday, and entitled
  "Colonel Blimp and the rural revolt".
  I do not know who that could be describing, but the article is about local government reorganisation south of the border, which is different from that north of the border, because the south was at least given a review and people there are arguing publicly about it. The timetable has gone completely haywire and very little is happening as a consequence. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, who, after all, was a Cabinet Minister—Chief Secretary to the Treasury and, later, Leader of the House—before departing office, said:
  "In the first instance there is no popular demand for such changes, and much cynicism about the supposed benefits and certain increase in costs."
  There we have it, authoritatively from the words of the Tory's themselves, the real insiders, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury; a prominent Lanarkshire Conservative supporter; and from the Association of Scottish Conservative Councillors. All said that the Government have got it wrong and that the savings that
  706
  they are projecting are implausible, contrived, hopelessly optimistic and, indeed, plain fantasy. So, too, are the figures that are supposedly included in the orders for the transition costs of reorganisation. This year, £5 million is allowed, with £25 million next year and a final £15 million in 1996–97.
  Those figures are unrealistic and wholly inadequate for what is being asked of councils today. After a month in Committee—I know that we are not allowed to debate in the Chamber what is happening in Committee—we still do not know what the boundaries will be for the new councils that the Government intend to set up, because a deliberate Government decision has been taken to leave as many of those issues as possible wide open for the future. We are only 13 months away from the first elections to these authorities, yet nobody in Scotland definitely knows what all the boundaries will be or even how many councils will actually—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a boundary in here of what is relevant, and the hon. Gentleman is trespassing over it.
  Mr. Robertson: I fear that the figures for the transition costs of local government reorganisation are pretty fundamental to the orders, because if they are as seriously underestimated as we believe that they are—as all the documentary evidence shows that they are—the settlement that has been made to Scottish local authorities this year will seriously embarrass them, cause a loss of jobs, increase council tax levels and mean a reduction in services.
  It is extremely important that we try to establish here and now precisely what the Government are playing at and how they can pretend to have finalised the details of local government reorganisation to the extent that councils are told that they must live within £5 million this year for transition costs in a reorganisation that is now hopelessly ambitious—although ambitious is the wrong word to use—in its timetable and construction. There is only one way in which the Government can be right: if they are to start dismissing large numbers of people in local authorities. The Secretary of State was quoted as saying at the weekend, again in Scotland on Sunday:
  "Of course, there will be transitional costs. But by far the larger part of those costs will result from the rationalisation of staff. So the greater the short term transitional costs, the greater the long-term savings from single-tier councils."
  What he is saying is that the more employees that councils sack, the greater will be the longer-term benefits. That is the only way in which the circle can be squared. But to do so, he will have deliberately to challenge the assurance that was given by the Prime Minister last October to Councillor Charles Gray, when he said:
  "We do not anticipate that local government reform will result in widespread job losses and redundancies."
  The Government now have a serious obligation to people in Scotland to explain how these fantastic savings will be made in the existing structure without the kind of job losses that the Secretary of State appeared to be signalling at a conference at the weekend. The COSLA figures that were produced quite clearly demonstrate—
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I wish to end my speech so that other hon. Members may contribute. It would be unfair if I went on for too much longer.

  707
  The COSLA study on costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, is compiled by the same experts, who, it would appear, are the only ones apart from the Minister's advisers who understand the detail of what he was talking about this evening. Those people, who received his plaudits and congratulations, are the same people who have put together this authoritative study on the cost of local government reorganisation. It cannot be applauded on the one hand and dismissed whole-heartedly on the other. Their estimates are based on experience. They are based on hard-headed experience of what has happened in previous reorganisations. Their analysis is based on reality, not on what is convenient for the present Government. People will listen to them before they will listen to any Minister saying anything. Even the mid-point of their analysis reveals half a billion pounds of transition costs, and precious little in the way of long-term savings.
  This whole exercise in butchering local government means a bad bargain for the Scottish taxpayer, which, moreover, is completely unnecessary—all for a local government structure that no one believes will last. It has neither the durability nor the stability to survive the test of time.
  Mr. Dalyell: Did my hon. Friend observe that, when he made assertions that many of us consider to be correct, the Minister just shook his head? Will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to explain the methodology of the Scottish Office, and why he thinks that my hon. Friend is wrong about this important matter?
  Mr. Robertson: The Minister's silence is due to the irrefutability of the arguments that have been advanced. If Ministers were expected actually to tell the truth about the methodology involved in transition costs—thinking of a figure and halving it—and in savings—thinking of an even more implausible figure and doubling it—I do not think that their credibility would be very great. I rest my case, as I know that my hon. Friend does, on the words of the new chairman of the Association of Scottish Conservative Councillors: he said that even he, one of the faithful, felt cynical about what the Government were doing.
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman should wait his turn.
  The orders are hopelessly inadequate for Scottish local councils. They will lead to cuts in services, the destruction of jobs, the lowering of standards and increases in council tax bills across the country. At the end of the debate, what Councillor Brian Meek so prosaically called the "speaking puppets" may well deliver a majority: that is a reasonable assumption and forecast—much more accurate than some of the Government's forecasts. I suggest, however, that in the Scottish regional elections on 5 May, when the people have a chance to make their voices heard in ballot boxes across the country, the Government will receive a profoundly different message.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: We have just heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) allegedly addressing the order. In truth, he did everything but that.
  708
  First, he tried to deal with the situation on the basis of personalities in Scottish politics. That was all right, as long as he was dealing with personalities who, in his eyes, wore Conservative colours; but, as soon as he began to discuss personalities who sailed under the Labour flag, he did not want to know anything about it.
  For instance, the hon. Gentleman did not believe that people could be expelled, or simply taken off the list of candidates, because they did not conform to policy. He says that that has happened to one Conservative candidate. As he and I know—as everyone in political life knows—it is possible to fall foul of the establishment from time to time; hon. Members sitting behind him have experienced that problem, and it has been experienced by at least one Conservative Member, whom I know very well. There is nothing new about that.
  Why did the hon. Gentleman use that point in evidence this evening, of all evenings? We are discussing a revenue support grant figure that is far in excess of inflation, but the hon. Gentleman failed to mention that; all he did was talk about people and personalities. Rather than dealing with the issue before the House, he spent his time trying to become the darling of the Scottish media by naming names, among other things. It is called tactical and strategic thinking.
  The man is an amateur. We very much miss the real contribution made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who would have done tonight what he has always done—analyse the content of the order, and explain why he did not agree with it. His speeches down the years have always been worth listening to, because we could always be sure that he had done his homework thoroughly, and he would always unearth aspects that required consideration. That was not the case tonight; the hon. Member for Hamilton has done a sad disservice to both his party and the people of Scotland.
  It is about time we began to think about this impostor—for that is what the hon. Gentleman is. He is no longer wearing the mantle of the Labour party, and carrying on its crusade; he is now conducting a personal campaign that he hopes will give him publicity and media attention. He hopes that we will call him the great saviour of the Labour party in Scotland.
  I have news for him: I think that exactly the opposite will happen. I think that both those sitting behind him and the Scottish media will realise that there is nothing there. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework on the revenue support grant order; if he had, he would recognise—as I have—the massive increase for three authorities in my constituency—Perth and Kinross, Angus district and Tayside region.
  I accept that authorities are never given enough money, but we have a very low real inflation rate at present. Moreover, Tayside region has received a substantial increase, from £171,379,938 in 1990–91 to £245,157,226 in 1992–93.
  Mr. Kynoch: Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would not let me intervene earlier; I suspect that he would not have liked my intervention, because it was not very convenient. I believe that 60 per cent. of local government expenditure is on labour. If the Government's guidelines on self-financing wage increases are adhered to, significantly more will be available in the revenue support grant than the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that telling intervention.
  I am always interested and amused by Labour's claim to be the party that will somehow give the people of Scotland better value for money. Labour does not address the key issue: can services be provided more cost-effectively so that people receive a better service having paid less?
  As has been clearly demonstrated in many other contexts—especially as a result of privatisation—when attitudes are changed, it is possible to achieve substantial reductions in manpower, for example. I hope that the objective of all employers is to secure the best possible value for customers—in this instance, for electors and council tax payers.
  I do not apologise for hoping that employers will do that, and will achieve better results. Unquestionably, when there is a move from labour-intensive to more capital-intensive activities, we expect a reduction in revenue costs. That is the real objective of heavy investment in new, modern capital equipment, which is taking place throughout the western world so that it can be competitive. I have never understood why people should think that local government is any different in that regard.
  As for the benefits received by Angus district and by Perth and Kinross, the 1990–91 figure for Angus was £3,995,821; it has risen to £8,282,606. The figure for Perth and Kinross has risen from £5,301,063 to £10,459,773. Of course I acknowledge that that contains an element of inflation, along with additional duties and responsibilities.
  Having taken all that into account, I believe that central taxation, which is paid for anyway by the taxpayer, contributes in real terms more than the rate of inflation towards the running of the three authorities in which I am interested. Consequently, I have no problem in supporting the order, and I hope that the Labour Members who will speak will address it.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, although fellow members of the Committee that is considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill might think that it is taking masochism a little too far. We sit all day until late at night on Tuesday and Thursday, and I see some familiar faces in the Chamber today, including that of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). We are taking masochism to a new form of supermasochism. Those of us who have been involved in local government, who are concerned about it and committed to it, and are anxious to ensure that services continue, believe that it is important to participate in today's important debate.
  I want to advance a serious and, I hope, non-partisan argument before I make some of my more partisan comments. I am sure that the Minister, having received representations from local government, will appreciate that there is a feeling that dealing with local government expenditure on a year-to-year basis does not allow for proper planning. I know that it may be understood that the sum that a local authority receives for the following year will be similar to that of the previous year, plus allowances for inflation. There is a growing feeling, which I hope has got through to the Minister and the Department of the Environment, that a rolling programme for capital and revenue expenditure would be sensible. A rolling
  710
  programme exists, to some extent, for capital expenditure. It would be helpful and useful if such a programme were considered for revenue expenditure, although I understand that that would always be provisional and subject to all sorts of qualifications. I hope that the Minister will consider that and ensure that there is more long-term planning in local government. That was my non-partisan argument, to which I hope that the Minister will respond.
  Some services will be under tremendous pressure as a result of the revenue support grant settlement and the other related order. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) here today. He knows that I used to be the chairman of the Lothian regional education committee. He was one of our excellent teachers before he came to Parliament to waste his time.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—like the rest of us.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend has inadvertently given the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is wasting his time here. That is not the case. He is doing an excellent job and his constituents should be aware of that.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am sorry—I chose my words incorrectly. I am doubly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). All three of us are experiencing the frustrations of Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith will find it much more satisfactory after we have won the next general election and we are in power and pressing forward with new developments. I know that he experiences the frustration that I feel.
  It worries me that our expectations of the education system and its provisions, not only in Lothian but across Scotland, have been depressed in the past 15 years by the Government. When I was chairman of the education committee, we were expanding education, reducing the staff-pupil ratio and developing community schools. We had just developed Wester Hailes school, the Wester Hailes education centre and Deans community school. We were talking about increasing resources and keeping schools across the region open for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We wanted the improvements to be spread throughout the region and community and we had a great vision for education.
  Mr. Gallie: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the late 1970s. Was not the rate support grant considerably cut in 1978 and 1979 by the then Government?
  Mr. Foulkes: I can recall that period very well: we were in the process of expanding community schools in Lothian region. The resources were made available and, compared with today, those were rosy days. I have noticed that my former right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, now Lord Healey, is appearing on posters. We think back on his days as Chancellor as the golden days. What is happening today, particularly in education, causes great concern.
  I do not know whether it is happening in other constituencies, but school buildings in my constituency are being maintained and painted less and less frequently. Their maintenance has been substantially reduced—that is poor long-term planning. The planning is being done on a short-term basis, which creates tremendous problems for school buildings. Regional councils are under pressure to

  711
  close schools. That pressure comes from the Minister and the Scottish Office Education Department, the name of which has been changed for reasons that I do not understand—I used to call it the Scottish Education Department. I live and work in Strathclyde region. The pressure is on that local authority to close schools, to save money and to cut its revenue.
  Let me take a random example from the south side of Ayr. When three or four primary schools in the region were half empty and, under pressure from central Government, Strathclyde regional authority attempted to rationalise its procedures and proposed to close Castlehill primary school, everyone, including the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), was up in arms. When that happened I also complained that the concerns of the parents should be met. Strathclyde region is being put under pressure by the Government to make savings—that subject relates to today's debate. We need to realise the consequences. Sometimes I feel that, when we consider the orders, the documents of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the figures, we do not understand what they mean on the ground. They mean fewer and less well-maintained schools. Pressure is being put on half empty schools to close.
  I want to deal with the subject of the staff levels, which will cause my hon. Friend the Member for Leith to think back. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), in a well-timed intervention, said that he welcomed the concept of self-financing wage increases. What does that mean? It means that if, for example, teachers claim for and receive a wage increase above the level of inflation, which they richly deserve—I hope that they receive a sensible and reasonable increase—the regional council will have to find the money elsewhere. Inevitably, that means either saving money on school buildings and maintenance, which means cuts and closing more schools, or sacking and cutting the number of teachers. That will result in an increase in the staff-pupil ratio or a reduction in the number of specialist teachers. The Government cannot have it both ways. If we have self-financing wage increases, it will mean that people will be sacked or that buildings will not be properly maintained.
  Mr. Kynoch: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of increasing efficiencies in other sectors where there may be scope for savings? Cuts need not be made in productive sectors.
  Mr. Foulkes: We considered that matter. I spent some time pressing the staff of Lothian regional council to find efficiencies. If the hon. Gentleman understands the education budget, he will know that more than half of it goes on teacher salaries. A substantial amount goes on other important staff such as janitors, who are responsible for the security of the buildings—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to do away with them—school cleaners, and a range of jobs. All efficiency savings that could have been made have been made.
  In my experience in the education service, no further savings can be made without cutting back the direct provision of services.
  Mr. Bill Walker: With the hon. Gentleman's extensive knowledge—it certainly occurred during his period when he was in charge of those matters at Lothian region—he
  712
  will know that one way to make changes and savings is to close schools in which the numbers of pupils fall below economic levels. The other way, which is often the result of that, is not to replace teachers who retire or who give up for whatever reason, and often that can be linked to the changes in school numbers and so on. The hon. Gentleman must know that there are always ways to do such things.
  Mr. Foulkes: Let us take the two examples that hon. Gentleman mentions, because he is helpfully participating in the debate. Let us take closing schools. Of course that is one way to do it, but those who are most vociferous about proposals to close schools are Conservative Members of Parliament. No one could have shouted louder than the hon. Member for Ayr about the closure of Castlehill school, yet it happened as the direct result of the policies of the Conservative Government. That is the hypocrisy that we see—
  Mr. John McAllion: Two-faced.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am not sure whether I am allowed to say that. That is the two-faced attitude that we see from Conservative Members.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am already dealing with one intervention.
  Let us take the second point, about retirement. If one has a single-stream primary school with seven classes of about 30 pupils and one teacher retires at the age of 60, one has to replace that teacher. One cannot have composite classes all the way up of 35 or 36 pupils. In secondary schools, if one gets rid of specialist teachers one reduces the quality of education. There is a limit, therefore, and that limit on savings has not just been reached, but passed.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman must realise that my main objection to the way in which Castlehill school was closed was that it was not half-empty—it had about 70 per cent. occupancy of pupils. Strathclyde region took an overnight decision. One moment it promised new build, the next minute it came up with a closure. That is not sound management. On another point, the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said in Committee that I find it difficult to deal with the hon. Gentleman because he makes so many misstatements. He says things that just are not true and it is very difficult to deal with people who do that. Strathclyde went through a long consultative process because there are a number of—
  Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly did not make a statement that was not true, in spite of the words of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair because the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of the content of speeches or remarks made.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. McAllion: Perhaps it is just as well.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is just as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) rightly said.
  A number of schools were half-empty. Forehill was half-empty, Castlehill was substantially empty and

  713
  Kincadeston was substantially empty. Kincadeston is a modern school, built only a few years ago. It was suggested that Castlehill, which has old buildings, should be closed down because its facilities are totally inadequate. That was proposed and there was full consultation. I opposed the closure, but there was full consultation. I opposed it because I am in favour of spending more money on education and therefore there was not anything contradictory in opposing it, but the hon. Member for Ayr, who also opposed it, wants to cut the money for education but at the same time to keep all those schools open. As the Member for Tayside, North rightly said, one cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) gave us a couple of what my hon. Friend described as "useful examples" of ways in which savings could be made—closing down schools and not replacing teachers who had retired. Is not it the case that if those self-same arguments that there is always room for efficiency and closure were applied to the national health service, he might find that one of the results is the closure of Meigle hospital?
  Mr. Foulkes: That is absolutely right. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because his logic is impeccable.
  Mr. Bill Walke rose—
  Mr. Foulkes: I give way to the hon. Member for Tayside, North for the last time.
  Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman examined carefully my record on school closures in north Tayside, he would find that I have supported schools that had to be closed. Equally, I have not supported the closure of hospitals that should not be closed. Those are entirely different things. My record shows that, equally, I have supported hospitals that had to be closed. I have supported closures. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework more carefully.
  Mr. Foulkes: There seems to be a dispute there but, looking at it completely impartially, the logic seems to be on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster).
  I shall now move off the subject of education and deal with two other sectors in which the settlement about which we are speaking today is actually reduced. The Minister said that there will be no quarrel about the settlement. I have a quarrel about two sectors, the first of which is roads and transportation, funding for which decreases by 5·8 per cent.
  Mr. Stewart: What I said was that I did not think that there would be any quarrel about the second order. I of course accept that hon. Members can take different views on the overall settlement.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful.
  Roads and transport decrease by 5·8 per cent. The Minister must know that there is a huge pressure on from Strathclyde region, and from Ayrshire especially, with regard—the hon. Member for Ayr actually wants it as well—to the building of the M77, the Ayr road link between the top of the A77 at the moment and the M77, the spur that is missing. Most of that is capital expenditure and must be taken into the capital account, but some of it is revenue expenditure that needs to be provided to get design work done in Strathclyde region, or by outside contractors if the
  714
  Government press it that way. My fear is that if funding for the roads department of Strathclyde is cut substantially, the much-needed design work on vital projects such as the Ayr link road, the Girvan bypass and the new Cumnock bypass will be delayed and the projects will be delayed.
  When we look at the figures we need, time and time again, to translate them into reality on the ground. That is what Conservative Members do not do. They go along with the Government. They vote blindly, like sheep, with the Government, day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, mouth out, year in, year out, without realising the consequences of what they are doing. Then they go to their constituencies and say, "Of course we want those roads to be built, of course we want those schools to stay open" when they are the very people who voted for settlements that inevitably mean that that will not happen.
  My next subject is domestic sewage. That does not sound like the most exciting subject to talk about at any time, but it is vital, as you know and as we all know, Madam Deputy Speaker. The domestic sewage settlement is decreasing by 6 per cent. Let us, once again, think of the consequences of our action. Every year, the European Community tells us that many beaches are no longer usable, do not satisfy the standards, are filthy and polluted. In Ayrshire we were told that beaches at Maidens, Turnberry, Girvan in my constituency, Troon, Ayr and Prestwick do not satisfy the required standards. We all jump up and down and say that it is disgraceful—and it is absolutely disgraceful. In some cases, raw sewage is being pumped out into the sea and in others housing and other much-needed developments cannot take place because there are not adequate sewerage facilities.
  Yet again, all the Conservative Members who complain—
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has intervened far too often. He can try to make his own speech later.
  All the Conservative Members who complain about those dirty, polluted beaches come to the House and are unwilling to vote the money and agree the settlement that is necessary to do something about those beaches. Again, their two-faced attitude becomes apparent.
  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made representations about the additional burdens imposed by central Government. Central Government always say that local government is required to do this or that because a new Act has been passed. Central Government willed the ends but would not will the means, and that is especially true now with care in the community.
  Care in the community has resulted in a substantial extra burden being placed on local authorities, which are the lead bodies in this respect. A certain amount of money has been transferred but nowhere near enough. I shall not give any details but I shall mention a case that was drawn to my attention at the weekend. Strathclyde region was unable to provide the money necessary for a severely disabled person in my constituency. As a result, the extra money that would have come from the independent living fund, a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) during Prime Minister's Question Time only week, is not available because Strathclyde region does not have the resources to trigger the money from the ILF. It means that millions of pounds that could be coming from the ILF will not be available

  715
  because of a lack of resources. Care in the community is just one sphere where an additional burden has been imposed by central Government because the necessary money is not being made available.
  I have dealt with regional council matters but now wish to mention two district councils in my area. I know that the Minister believes that Cumnock and Doon Valley district council has done an excellent job with industrial development, a sphere in which few local authorities become greatly involved. However, unemployment in the Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work area is now the highest in mainland Britain—it stands at 19·1 per cent.—so Cumnock and Doon Valley district council has made it its business to become involved in industrial development. I am concerned that no special attention is being given to Cumnock and Doon Valley's efforts.
  The Minister visited Cumnock and Doon Valley and, I concede, made some sympathetic noises but, when it comes to the settlement at the end of the year, those sympathetic noises are not translated into money to enable the local authority to do all that it wishes. The authority has a substantial industrial development programme, which it wishes to continue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to Kyle and Carrick district council. He mentioned what one of our colleagues in Committee called the competition for the gold medal in the loony olympics between Stirling and Kyle and Carrick to see which authority could come up with the craziest right-wing idea. I have heard a bit about what is happening in Stirling, but I believe that Kyle and Carrick is in the lead.
  I shall not spell out in great detail the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton referred but it has created tremendous concern locally, and not only among Labour Members and supporters or people who might be natural Labour sympathisers. There is deep concern throughout the community, including the business community, about the fact that a legal contract for cleansing and refuse disposal into which Kyle and Carrick entered, and which still has between one and two years to run—it was an in-house tender—is about to be torn up by the district council.
  The authority has advertised in European journals and elsewhere but we then found that there have been secret meetings with representatives of a Spanish cleansing company. That is sinister. Why did the meetings take place? Why was Provost Gibson Macdonald privately meeting representatives of FOCSA if not to start talking about tearing up the in-house contract and putting the job out to tender? I see no other reason why the provost and, on at least one occasion, the chief executive, should meet a Spanish-based company unless it was to put pressure on the district council, or come to an agreement with it, to tear up the contract. There is to be a demonstration in Ayr on 19 March and I shall certainly be there, supporting the unions in their legitimate legal challenge to Kyle and Carrick.
  The hon. Member for Ayr referred to the headline "Spend, Spend, Spend", which appeared in one of the local newspapers. It certainly describes what Kyle and Carrick Tories have decided to do. There are legitimate reasons for some of the authority's expenditure but, at a time when people are being asked to accept reductions—or, at the
  716
  very best, a standstill—in their wages, would not it have been far better for Kyle and Carrick district council to do what the Labour group suggested and reduce the council tax and the burden on ordinary council tax payers rather than proceeding with some of its more extravagant proposals? I hope that the Minister will examine the issue seriously because I do not believe that he would wish Kyle and Carrick to go ahead with some of its more outrageous proposals if the alternative is a reduction in council tax. After all, he has been recommending that other local authorities consider every possible way of reducing the council tax, so why would not he do the same to Kyle and Carrick?
  I am deeply worried about the two orders. They would cause a further reduction in services, a further deterioration in local government building stock, more job losses and a deterioration in the services that are so important to many people. I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against them for those reasons.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. George Kynoch: My contribution will be brief. Listening to Labour Members, one would imagine that the Government were cutting their support to local government rather than providing a significant increase.
  We must remember that inflation is very low. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), 60 per cent. of local government expenditure goes on employees' wages; so if we could hold wage costs level by whatever means—through efficiency and improvements or by making savings elsewhere—the whole revenue support grant contribution could be spread over 40 per cent. of the expenditure. If we take the current rate of inflation to be the full 2·5 per cent., we would need an increase of only 1 per cent. to cover the total. In other words, there has been a significant increase in the contribution to local government expenditure.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North that in Kincardine and Deeside—
  Mr. George Robertson rose—
  Mr. Kynoch: I shall give way in a minute; the hon. Gentleman kept me waiting.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North that there had been an increase of almost 6 per cent. in the revenue support grant settlement for Kincardine and Deeside. The same is true for Grampian region, which has also received a significant increase. Both councils have said that they intend to maintain the present council tax level.
  Mr. George Robertson: Why does the hon. Gentleman not believe the Chancellor's estimate of inflation, as stated in the Red Book, at 3·5 per cent.?
  Mr. Kynoch: I base what I am saying about expenditure on the current rate of inflation. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, quite rightly, has been prudent and sensible in his projections. It may well be that inflation is a little higher; hon. Members will appreciate the fact that if it applies to only 40 per cent. of local government expenditure, it accounts for only 40 per cent. of the increase. Mathematically, it does not make a lot of difference.

  717
  Local councillors must play a significant part in ensuring that their local taxpayers get value for money. I give the example of Kincardine and Deeside district council which faced a 4·2 per cent. increase in the draft budget for next year. The councillors simply said to the executives of the council, "This will not do. We have to get the budget level. We cannot stand a council tax increase at this time." Surprise, surprise, the second draft budget came in significantly less, to the extent that council tax will be held level. Whether it is to the credit of the Scottish National party.. as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) claims, or whether it has rather more to do with the fact that we face regional council elections this year, Grampian regional council, miraculously in election year, has managed to come in with a level council tax.
  I now turn to the move towards the unified business rate. Non-domestic rates play a part in the equation about which we are talking tonight. I very much welcome the fact that the variance between Scotland and England, which was 64·6 per cent. in 1990–91, will go down to 14·7 per cent. in 1994–95. Even that percentage does not tell the whole story because it is an average. Kincardine and Deeside, Gordon, Moray, Berwickshire, Tweeddale, Orkney and Shetland are all level with England. Their rates cushion the fact that the rate in Glasgow is still significantly higher than the average, with a rate poundage of 52·9p, which compares with the average in England of 42·3p. The message is loud and clear. The trend continues throughout Strathclyde, where the variances are between 19 per cent. and 20 per cent. from the English average. The clear message is, therefore, that Labour councils are not as good at getting their business rates down.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman live in such a fantasy world that he seriously believes that there are comparable social and economic problems in Glasgow and in the other authorities to which he alludes?
  Mr. Kynoch: I certainly believe that the affairs of that council can be managed as efficiently as those of other councils. In other cities that have problems similar to those of Glasgow, there is a lower rate poundage. That proves the point.
  Mr. McMaster: In an intervention, I asked the Minister about the way in which aggregate finance was calculated. He told me that indicators such as poverty, deprivation and poor housing were taken into account. As the Government are responsible for about 88 per cent. of the money that local authorities receive, why will the hon. Gentleman not allow local authorities to apply the same logic?
  Mr. Kynoch: I believe that I correctly heard my hon. Friend the Minister say that the formula for the revenue support grant split was discussed jointly by the Scottish Office and COSLA. COSLA must, therefore, shoulder its responsibility for the way in which the split has come about.
  I summarise by saying that I believe that the level of revenue support grant that has been applied in the order is more than adequate if councils use their best initiative to ensure that, on the labour side, they keep settlements this year to a level that can be self-financing. They therefore have plenty left with the remaining 40 per cent. to fund services so that there are no cuts whatever.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), to whom I listened with interest, is totally unrealistic if he expects local authorities in Scotland to be able to cope with the wage demands that they will receive this year and to make the savings that he suggested were possible. The evidence coming from south of the border, where some of the settlements are a little further on than they are in Scotland, suggests that that is hope above expectation. The hon. Gentleman also forgets that the local government settlements are nationally negotiated; they are not in the hands of individual councils because the rates are set nationally, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do. It is, therefore, a bit ridiculous realistically to expect such savings.
  I should like to make one or two general observations before turning to some of the detail of the orders. Over many years, I have become convinced of the need to look a bit more closely at the way in which we finance local government. The existing system is not transparent. It is very difficult—I say this neutrally—for ordinary council tax payers to determine for their own purposes exactly where the responsibility for some of the increases that they have to pay lies. If that is true, the system needs to be looked at again. It is now descending into a war of attrition between local government and central Government, in which each side tries to be the first to get in its retaliation and public relations so that it can attribute the blame for the increased cost of local government to the other side.
  The system is so complicated that the only person in the world who understands it, outside the Scottish Office, is Mr. Albert Tait, who does wonderful work for COSLA. The Minister was right to pay tribute to him and colleagues, who supply us with the information that we require to inform these debates. We must get a system that is more transparent and with which people can cope. We need a system that people can comprehend and about which they can make sensible judgments. That is not possible with the current system.
  It is not sensible to have a system, which we all now accept as a matter of course, that requires central Government to fund 88 per cent. of local authority spending. It is time that we stood back and looked at exactly what that means for the autonomy of local government and how local councillors can best discharge their duties. An important factor in the debate, which has been mentioned earlier, is that 66 per cent. of all local authority spending goes on staff-related costs. For the Government simply to say, as a matter of course, that they are giving increases that take account of inflation does not begin to meet the true increases that local authorities will face. We all know that, year on year, earnings invariably rise faster than prices. In Committee, we are now contemplating our system of reform for local authority organisation in Scotland, yet we are not looking in any detail at the system of finance. That is stupid. It is not possible to reform the system of local government north of the border without looking carefully at a more sensitive, coherent and transparent system of finance.
  The relationship between central Government and local government is appallingly bad. We should try to repair that relationship to achieve a greater feeling of partnership and a far lesser sense that there is a constant war of attrition between St. Andrew's house and the local authorities

  719
  collectively north of the border. I am very concerned that the results appear to be that no one is listening to the other side of the argument and that power is being gradually and inexorably drained away from the local authorities, which is a bad thing in principle.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wise to inquire into the number of people who are employed by local authorities? General extravagance and over-employment are the real cause of the burden on the citizen.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. and learned Gentleman, as usual, anticipates my next point. I agree with him to an extent, but there is a factual increase which is difficult to justify unless one considers the additional duties, responsibilities and liabilities that the House is placing on local government. I need to use only one example to demonstrate my point. The community charge legislation, which was succeeded by the council tax legislation, required even local authorities in south-east Scotland and other non-profligate authorities to hire extra hands and computers to deal with the work that we as a legislature perforce required them to undertake. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. We as legislators should be much more careful before we willy-nilly overlay new layers of duties on local authorities, as we often do. His point is valid to that extent.
  My next point in general terms is that I am suspicious of the client group approach, as it is currently implemented and introduced into the method of calculation of the relative amount that each authority receives. It is flawed. In my experience, it is certainly flawed in the way in which it calculates the share-out of local authority revenue in rural areas.
  Primary indicators basically count heads. For example, if money is to be paid to local authorities for primary education, one considers the first primary indicator, which is the number of children in schools. That is a common-sense approach. However, secondary indicators do not take nearly enough account of the factors that apply in rural areas which have disparate populations and a series of problems. Their problems might not be as great as those of urban areas but, in their own way, they are just as important to local areas in rural landward parts of Scotland. I do not believe that the client group approach, as currently drafted and implemented, takes those problems properly into account. I hope that the Minister will give the House some comfort by saying that he is prepared to consider developing and refining the way in which the client group method is calculated in practice.
  I had a slight difference of opinion with the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside about the ability of councils to accommodate wage costs and then redistribute savings. Of course I am in favour, as everybody is, of local councillors achieving efficiency, but that is a bridge too far. It is totally impossible for local authorities to make savings of the kind to which he referred; indeed, the reverse will occur.
  There is evidence that there will be job losses if central Government limits and capping rates are implemented in the way we expect. There are some problems. It is stupidity itself that we have a local government settlement that takes
  720
  no account of the realistic increases that are bound to be in the pipeline in the way of public sector wage settlements which, again, are negotiated nationally, not locally.
  I have concluded that there will inevitably be job losses or reductions in services. In my own regional authority, which is not a profligate authority, we have to find savings of about £400,000 in social work and about £200,000 in education. That means that all sorts of sensible, planned, service delivery projects will have to go by the board. Throughout Scotland, there is great need for nursery education—there certainly is in the borders. There is a great need in the border towns that I represent to develop, extensively, better facilities for young people. The social work and community education authorities have worked out plans and are doing their best to develop those services, but they are being hampered by a shortage of finance.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) mentioned the maintenance of school buildings. I agree. One price that we will have to pay for the orders is that maintenance schedules will be delayed and delayed again. As he mentioned, that is a short-sighted, short-term policy. Another consequence of the orders will be further delays in making improvements in the safety of school transportation which, as hon. Members know, is a matter of great concern to community councils and school boards in rural areas after the recent terrible accident in Biggar.
  As for social work, in the near future we will be able to determine the consequences of the orders. Already, in my authority, the charges for home helps and meals on wheels and other charges have been increased. People are already in severe financial circumstances, which will be exacerbated by the imposition of VAT on fuel on 1 April. They are being hit twice. It is a double whammy in terms of the effects of some social work cuts, not to mention the closure of the old part IV accommodation and residential homes, many of which are institutions in their localities. That accommodation will have to go by the board.
  Another example—it is not an exhaustive list—is that the ability to develop future industrial sites and engage in an industrial strategy at regional authority level will be severely hindered and hampered by the orders. Another point that is directly relevant to the non-domestic rate aspects of the orders is the effect on local authority finance in relation to the uniform business rate. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside mentioned that point. I am also concerned about some of the issues about which he talked.
  What worries me more than anything else is that, using the evidence of my own eyes and ears, high streets in market towns throughout Scotland are being decimated by a combination of factors, not just the non-domestic rate imposed on them. Our high streets are under tremendous pressure. The amount of rates that businesses now pay in place such as Kelso and Jedburgh is worrying. The effect is available for all to see. Many of our high streets are suffering and paying the price. The orders take out an extra £12·5 million, according to the COSLA figures, from what local authorities would otherwise have expected had the old non-domestic rating system applied. That money would have helped them to address the problem.
  I wonder, too, whether the allowance for loan and leasing charges of £750 million or thereabouts for 1994 is enough. With a bit more leeway, local authorities would be able to develop capital projects. I can list several capital projects in my constituency—for example, the new school that is needed in Jedburgh, the new bridge that is urgently

  721
  needed as a matter of safety in Kelso, the redevelopment scheme at Gallalaw in Hawick and the Eyemouth harbour development project. They are examples—again, it is not an exhaustive list—of projects that could be brought on stream by local authorities in a way that would put local people back into work and assist the national finances very positively.
  Finally, I shall refer to something that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). The allowance for transitional costs to the new local government system is severely understated, at £5 million for this year, £25 million for next year and £50 million for the year after that. I ask the Secretary of State—he is the Treasury Bench note-taker while everyone else is out having his tea, and we are not complaining about that—whether, if we bring evidence in the coming weeks and months that shows that the figures are inadequate for 1994–95 and subsequent years, he will give an assurance that he is willing to look at that evidence and bring back more realistic estimates. The whole of the local government establishment north of the border is severely exercised and worried about that question.
  A whole series of worries relate to the orders. I do not think that it is anything like good enough for the Government simply to say that there is price protection and a bit more, so why is anyone worrying? That is a superficial and disingenuous approach. When the detail of the orders is studied with care by people north of the border, and if they get to the stage where they can understand the full consequences of the orders, they will be very unhappy that the settlement reached for next year is unfair to local authorities north of the border.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I did not come here armed to speak today. Having heard the rate support grant settlement, I honestly thought that all hon. Members would be amazed that the Secretary of State has been able once again to increase the levels of rate support grant beyond the level of inflation. That is a remarkable achievement which goes back year by year throughout the 1980s. Bearing in mind the comments by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on education, I must repeat that if we go back to 1978 and 1979, there were no rose-coloured spectacles; the fact is that at that time the rate support grant was cut in real terms. It beats me why hon. Members hark back to those times. The reason why they criticise the settlement announced by the Secretary of State is beyond my comprehension.
  More than £6 billion has been allocated through Government supported expenditure this year. That is a remarkable sop. If we analyse it further, we find that that accounts for some £20 per week for everyone in Scotland in 1994–95. Scotland receives greater central Government support for local spending than the rest of the United Kingdom. That means that we have higher expenditure of about 34 per cent. per head in Scotland than in England. That tells a story.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) suggested that the people of Scotland will have to pay more because of the generous rate support grant settlement. Of course, they will have to pay more. If the Government spend more, taxpayers must take more out of their pockets, whether through council tax or general taxation.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Gallie: If the hon. Gentleman lets me finish my point, I shall give way. The charge today from Opposition Members is that the Government are not putting enough into the kitty through revenue support. If the Government put more in through revenue support, their only option will be to raise taxes, although Opposition Members continually condemn them for taxing at the current levels. What I have not heard in this debate is how on earth Opposition Members would bring in more money through the general taxation system and where they would put that money with regard to local authority expenditure.
  Mr. Salmond: In the hon. Gentleman's comparison of Scottish and English local government figures, has he allowed for a different range of responsibilities? Obviously, in the current circumstances English local authorities do not control water and therefore do not spend anything on it, although there were substantial green dowries when English water was privatised. Allowing for that difference in responsibilities north and south of the border, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the real figure?
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman refers to water. The rate support grant for water in the Strathclyde region is absolutely infinitesimal. Basically, the charge for water and sewerage services is set by the councils and I see no reason to change the figure of 34 per cent. along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify that point further as the debate continues.
  As to the charge that the rate support grant is not sufficient for local authorities to sustain services and thrive in the years ahead, I must come back once again to the stated intent of Glasgow district council to cut back on the council tax. At the same time, I do not hear a charge that Glasgow will cut services. Glasgow seems to be able to live with the settlement and has adapted it to meet the needs of the people in its city without passing on the massive increase that we heard so much about from the hon. Member for Hamilton. Indeed, there have been numerous examples of other local authorities announcing standstill and reduced council tax settlements, despite what Opposition Members said.
  I have every reason to feel a certain degree of pride with regard to Kyle and Carrick district council. When that council changed administration almost two years ago, it inherited a massive deficit of £2 million on the revenue account, which it has turned round. That is a sign of good Conservative management in local authorities. That must not be condemned but applauded.
  When I examine the spending programmes for this year, and had I been a councillor on Kyle and Carrick district council—we have been told that it is a radical right-wing council, yet it seems to be going on a spend, spend, spend programme, as the local paper suggested; and perhaps I am a bit more right than some members of the council—I would certainly have looked at a reduction in council tax charges for next year. That would have been meritorious.
  The rate support grant means that expenditure will be directed at improving the infrastructure and aspects of Kyle and Carrick. It means that new jobs will be created as a result of the way in which cash is spent, and Kyle and Carrick will prove that its cash investment will be advantageous to council taxpayers in the future.

  723
  Stirling district council was condemned for laying off 18 people and much has been said about job losses. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) suggested that there are problems for local authorities in this area. He referred to the imposition of the community charge and the fact that that had created many more jobs in local authorities. If that is the case, and given that the hon. Gentleman has got his way and we have returned, somewhat reluctantly as far as I am concerned, to a property-based tax for funding local authorities, perhaps local authorities should now be examining the manpower that they are using in this area. If there had been a massive increase in the requirement for labour at the time that the community charge was introduced, and if Opposition Members are correct now, perhaps there is an opportunity to cut the number of people employed in this area.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to buy him a cup of tea afterwards and explain to him how a local income tax would mean significant staff reductions? I would like to see that, and we have been arguing for it for many years.
  Mr. Gallie: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is an ardent supporter of a local income tax, but I think that he will recognise the impossibility of introducing such a tax against the background of the numerous local authorities in Scotland. His argument might gain a little value following the changes that we are studying.
  Having said that, I have no wish to see a local income tax introduced in Scotland. It would not be rational, and it would be highly bureaucratic. Those involved in the tax would be looking deeply into the affairs of individuals, and I would not support that intrusion.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend might care to inform the Liberal Democrats that some of us have examined the working practicalities of a local income tax in great detail. My information—based on research which I have done during a number of years—suggests that such a tax would be even more costly to operate than the community charge, and would cause far more resentment.
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes down that way, I remind him that we are talking not about the council tax or any other tax but about revenue support grant, and the hon. Gentleman should stick to that.
  Mr. Gallie: I was talking about revenue support grant and the adverse effect on jobs that that would have, as has been suggested by Opposition Members. Advantage could be taken of recent changes which would allow additional cash through revenue support to be used in a different manner.
  Dr. John Reid: Given that revenue support grant is dependent in its proportion on the manner in which other local finances are raised, and given that the hon. Gentleman has ruled out a local income tax and has, in addition, ruled out a property tax, will he put on record for the people of Ayr that he still supports a poll tax?
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want the hon. Genteman to go down that way and talk about the poll tax, the council tax or any other tax. We are talking about revenue support grant.
  Mr. Gallie: I respect that view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is with great reluctance that I do not respond. I would certainly have liked to respond in a positive manner to the hon. Gentleman's comments. Given your guidance, I will attempt to stick to revenue support grant.
  With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall concentrate a little further on jobs. A local authority must look at the number of people it employs when considering revenue support grant as an element of its financing. With about 60 per cent. of local authority expenditure going on the wage bill, that is very relevant. It is the responsibility of every local authority to look at its staffing structures and to attempt to get the right structure to meet its needs.
  After all, running a local authority is not much different from running any business, if one considers the turnovers for each local authority. In Kyle and Carrick, for example, about £14 million comes in revenue support grant from the Government.
  We have heard no whining from Kyle and Carrick. The council is holding its council tax, and it is still managing to spend £2 million on capital projects. That is despite the fact that Kyle and Carrick's revenue support grant has been reduced during the current year. We have heard no one whine—the council has got on with the job, and a dashed good job it is doing.
  It is not just local authorities who have been forced into cutting jobs. The Daily Record has cut 200 jobs, and the House has not heard the Opposition complaining about the cut in the newspaper's staffing. Yet Opposition Members think that the loss of 18 jobs in local government is a major disaster. That is a logic which escapes many of us, and certainly escapes the workers at the Daily Record.
  I have heard comments about cuts in the education budget as far as it affects school buildings. It is my view that Strathclyde regional council has failed to address the real problems of sound maintenance and management of its school building programmes. I did protest about the closure of Castlehill, a school which had a 70 per cent. occupancy rate and a set place in its community. I protested against the background of Strathclyde having promised a replacement school for Castlehill up till the eleventh hour, when there was a sudden change and the council went for hon. Gentleman was elected."] The closure was wrong. It was bad management, and that was what I criticised. That record in the management programme for the provision, new build and maintenance of school buildings has continued for 10 or 15 years.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I thought that it was on record that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland had mentioned how prudent and good an authority Strathclyde regional council was. Many of the council's management plans saved a lot of money. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's statement on management or mismanagement. Will the hon. Gentleman put that on record so we can see clearly where he believes the deficiencies were in Strathclyde?
  Mr. Gallie: I must say that the hon. Gentleman's reading is not mine. If he cares to present to me the statements made by the various Secretaries of State who

  725
  have commended Strathclyde regional council on its schools maintenance programmes, I shall take them on board.
  Mr. Stewart: Did my hon. Friend hear the sedentary comment from Opposition Members to the effect that Strathclyde proposed the closure of Castlehill because he had been elected to the constituency?
  Mr. Gallie: I must think carefully before I respond to my hon. Friend. I must say that it is not the first time that I have heard that remark. Certain remarks were made along similar lines with respect to a sewage works at Greenan. I would like to discount those comments, because I do not believe that any authority with any credibility could consider making judgments in such a way. On that basis, I shall dismiss the comments that my hon. Friend heard from the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to the much-needed link between the A77 and the M8, and to the link between the M77 and the A77. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey) and myself have both been chasing my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South on that matter over recent months.
  Strathclyde regional council has had capital consents given over the years which should have allowed it to make progress on that length of road, but year by year that cash has been diverted elsewhere. I am well aware of the delicate state of the negotiations between my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South and Malcolm Waugh, the convener of the transport committee of Strathclyde regional council. I do not wish to aggravate the position and I shall not comment further. I should like to think that agreement can be reached in the not-too-distant future and that plans for the road link will come to fruition.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made some remarks about sewerage facilities in Ayrshire. Here again, there are instances—
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am not sure whether I misheard the hon. Gentleman or whether he referred to my constituency when he meant to refer to that of someone else.
  Mr. Gallie: I have referred to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) when I should have referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). Apart from the pleasantries exchanged outside the Chamber, the fact that I used the words "hon. Friend" speaks for itself.
  In drawing my remarks to a close, it would be churlish of me not to refer to the generous increase of more than 8 per cent. in housing capital allocations given to my local authority recently. I recognise that that is not revenue support, but it is worth noting and I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for it. It is also worth while extending my comments to the housing non-revenue account payments which will also meet with satisfaction in my area. I recognise that I am beginning to stray a little, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so before I incur your wrath, I shall take my seat.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) made a commendably brief speech. It was fascinating because it
  726
  revealed how his mind operated. He sought to give us a lesson in elementary economics of such naivety that I suddenly realised how lucky we were to see the hon. Gentleman in the House at all. If he had applied such simplicity in his business affairs, he would have gone bankrupt long ago and would have been unable to take his seat in the House. I have never heard such misrepresentation of the facts on expenditure, revenue or proportions grossed up or grossed down. I do not think that he understood what the order was all about.
  The difficulty that we have in discussing the orders is that we have little to go on when we try to work out how the different figures in the orders have been arrived at. The Minister would have us believe—I apologise for missing the early part of his remarks—that expenditure figures are calculated according to some sophisticated mathematical formula. He would have us believe that everything is worked out to give authorities their proper due. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friends will allow me to speak, I will not barrack them in the middle of their speeches.
  The approach of the Minister and of many Conservative Back Benchers is simple. They take the general view that local authority expenditure is bad and Labour local authority expenditure is worse and not to be tolerated. I will give the Minister at least some credit. I think that he was trying to be accurate. All that I can do is be charitable to him by saying that he does not understand the formula.
  The Minister's view is that any wage increases must be paid for by efficiency savings. That view is commonly reflected on the Conservative Benches. Many Opposition Members know that that is unrealistic. In many cases, the phrase "efficiency savings" is a euphemism for driving down wages and sacking people. That is what it amounts to.
  Everyone knows perfectly well that it is unrealistic to expect efficiency savings to meet all the increases which are in the pipeline. Let us take the example of wage increases. We know for a fact that teachers in England and Wales have already received a 2·8 per cent. pay increase. We do not know what the figure will be in Scotland. I should be surprised if it was less than 2·8 per cent. We know that other wage claims are in the pipeline. The Minister cannot expect ordinary people to put up with large increases in tax from April this year and the imposition of VAT on electricity and gas without seeking recovery for that in their wages.
  It is bad enough that the Minister says that there should be no pay increase. He is asking for a severe reduction in people's living standards. People are right to seek at least to maintain their current living standards. Our ethos should be to increase people's living standards. There is no way in which the pay increases that are in the pipeline can be met by the settlement. Indeed, there is no way in which those pay increases can be matched by loss of jobs or anything similar.
  Mr. Salmond: I noticed the Minister shaking his head when the hon. Gentleman was making the point about efficiency savings in the public services. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with my constituency and with the Willowbank adult training centre for the mentally disadvantaged. Does he think that efficiency savings in that centre can be used to pay reasonable salary increases to the extremely committed staff who man that centre?
  Mr. Hughes: I certainly do not believe that efficiency savings, particularly in places dealing with the mentally handicapped, should be the way in which staff wages are increased. Many of the staff who put in for pay increases are dedicated people who offer a service more often than not above and beyond the call of duty. They do not simply see their way through the day from 9 am until 5 pm, or whatever time, and then go home. People take their work home with them. They have a commitment to the people whom they serve. That is not confined to those who deal with the mentally handicapped.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to understand clearly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As I understand his argument, his view is that it is unrealistic to expect the wage increases that are in the pipeline to be met by efficiency savings. He is not saying that there is no such thing as efficiency savings?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course I am not saying that there is no such thing as efficiency savings. However, for at least the past five years, if not longer, we have been told that tale every year. We are told that there must be efficiency savings and efficiency gains. The facts and figures show that local authorities throughout the country have made large efficiency savings and gains. They have squeezed and cut the services down to the bone. When I give some examples of how that has been done, people will understand that we have gone so far that we cannot go any further.
  The Minister praised some authorities for holding their council tax down. I wonder how many of them are spending their reserves. Perhaps he can answer that. In my view, to spend the reserves simply on keeping the council tax down is bad. If there are reserves, they ought to be spent on the people directly by providing services.
  We have this sterile argument year after year. The Minister and Conservative Members say that so long as an authority holds its rates, poll tax or now council tax steady, with no monetary increase, it is a good authority. I say that that is not necessarily the best test. It is not a bad test, but it is not necessarily the best of tests. We need to look at council tax and service provision together.
  Let us consider what is in store for local authorities. I am told that a 3 per cent. pay award across the board cost Aberdeen city district council £5 million on its band D tax. That will take a lot of recovering in council tax.
  The trouble is that Ministers do not take into account the many demands being made of local government. The population is increasing in the north-east of Scotland, which implies increasing demand in the city of Aberdeen and the region. We are entitled to an explanation from the Minister of how he arrives at his figures for the area.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will appreciate that not all the council tax figures for the north-east of Scotland are in. However, he will also appreciate that the recommendation to the Grampian region is for a zero increase in council tax, that Banff and Buchan has decided on a 4·8 per cent. increase and Gordon on a 4·7 per cent. increase. Those figures are not compatible with the argument that the settlement is somehow unfair to the north-east of Scotland.
  Mr. Hughes: That goes to show that one should never give way to a Minister in the middle of one's speech because one will not get the answer one expected. I did not
  728
  ask the Minister about the figures. I asked how many authorities in Scotland are using their reserves to keep the council tax down.
  I shall now deal with what I regard as the unfairness to the north-east of Scotland. The aggregate external finance has been cut by 3·3 per cent. for the city of Aberdeen, but it has increased in Grampian by 2 per cent., in Banff and Buchan by 1·8 per cent., in Gordon by 1·2 per cent. and—the oddest of all and I cannot understand any reason for it—in Kincardine and Deeside by 5·1 per cent. What are the factors that govern such huge differences in aggregate external finance in a fairly compact and cohesive area?
  Why should the aggregate external finance for Aberdeen, which faces the tremendous social problems normally associated with cities, decrease by 3·3 per cent. while Kincardine and Deeside which borders it—the constituency overlaps the local government boundary for the city—gets a 5·1 per cent. increase? I know that there are problems in rural areas, but why should there be such a difference?
  I know that the Minister's stock answer will be that the distribution figures are worked out by the distribution committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The decision on the figures is not taken by COSLA, but by the Minister. He cannot duck his responsibilities by saying that such matters are discussed or decided elsewhere.
  The explanations for expenditure decisions and how they are arrived at are inadequate. What about community care? We have been told that much money has been transferred to local government so that it can deal with community care. Yet we are also constantly told, and given example after example, that the amount of money transferred is inadequate to deal with the social problems involved.
  We have all been made aware in our constituencies of examples of the lack of follow-up care and attention—examples of people being put into local authority houses and left on their own without supervision. Who is responsible for supervision? Is it the hospital or the regional authority? Is it the health trust or the social work department? No one seems to know.
  As far as one can discern, the distributions seem to mix up community care expenditure and expenditure on aids and adaptations to houses, which is unfair. The Minister must look more closely at the way in which, under the tenants' rights legislation, so-called amenity houses can be sold while sheltered housing cannot. That is resulting in severe problems with the provision of aids in amenity houses. Authorities are beginning to wonder whether they should spend money on anything except temporary adaptations, which can be taken out. That is bad economics. It is much better to make proper, permanent provision for the people who need such aids so that the houses can be transferred to other needy people later.
  We mentioned education and I hope that the Minister will listen closely because expenditure on education has been cut so much that Grampian region, which the Minister keeps telling me is a very good authority—I am sure that that remark in Hansard will be used in election manifestos in May—
  Mr. Stewart rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I shall not allow the Minister to renege. I had a ringing endorsement for Grampian regional council from him and it will have to stay in the record. He is not going to wriggle out of it now.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No. I shall not allow an ambitious and hopeful surrogate Minister to intervene.
  I take it that the Minister agrees that Grampian region has done extremely well on education, but we have problems. Beechwood school in my constituency caters for children with special needs. The school swimming pool has been closed for more than a year because the region does not have enough money to repair the heating system or install a new one. One might ask, "What's a swimming pool? It's just for recreation. The children can go elsewhere." The kids are going elsewhere, but they have to be out of school for two and a half hours to get a half-hour swimming lesson. For children with special needs, swimming is not simply recreation; it has therapeutic value. It is disgraceful that such money should be held back and that there is not enough in the budget. That is one example of how education is being squeezed and the children who are most in need are the ones to suffer.
  People are beginning to understand that one will always have to pay the price for neglecting social provision and social problems and for ignoring the rise in drug addiction and other similar problems. There is a price to be paid. Parents in many parts of Aberdeen are becoming desperately concerned because syringes that have been used to inject drugs intravenously are being left lying around. That is dangerous for health. That is the cost which must be paid. If one neglects good housing conditions and good education, the community will pay the price.
  It is far better for the community to face up to the costs of providing good education, social services, housing and employment prospects. That is a much better and more positive price to pay. People are beginning to grasp that argument and the fact that holding the council tax down—as the only real test of a council's efficiency or value—is bad news and a bad way to approach the problem The more that they wake up to the fact that good social and local authority provision are good for the community, the better. We are winning that argument and we will win votes as well.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: The hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) said that my area has high expenditure, but it is not much higher than other areas of Scotland. The hon. Member for Tayside, North mentioned addressing the issues, and I shall certainly do so tonight—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should be called to order.
  I have served on local authorities for a number of years, and I know exactly where all the problems began. Just in case the Minister has never visited a constituency such as mine, let me tell him about the poverty and the misery that has been created over the years by the Government. We have heard all the rubbish about the revenue support grant, but everyone knows that it is a pittance, which will never deal with the problems.
  In my area, some houses have been boarded up for two years. People are crammed into houses, and others are
  730
  homeless. They never will get a house from the Government. My authority is still paying the interest charges on houses that were built 60 years ago. We know all about local authorities and we know how, over the years, the Government have pressed them hard and brought them to their knees. How did they do it? The answer is the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1983 and the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, which gave the Secretary of State more powers. Is it not a scandal, wrong and shocking that the Secretary of State should have those powers?
  I wish that we had a video of all the problems that have been created since the Government came to power. All the problems I have mentioned are related to the rate support grant and to the revenue support grant, which is supposed to clear up the problems of the country.
  What have we got? Unemployment is high all over the place. The poor health of my constituents is unsurpassed throughout Britain. Glasgow has the worst infant mortality rate in Britain, and the mortality rate for adults between 45 and 65 years is the highest in the country. Those are the problems created by the Tory Government. The people of Britain and of Scotland must do one thing. They must recognise that the Government are not on their side. If they were, they would not just be giving people a small pittance in the revenue support grant.
  How are people supposed to deal with the problem of 12,000 drug addicts in Glasgow, with an evil trade worth £188 million? The police cannot even catch the dealers for a breach of the peace. They cannot deal with the problem, but the morgue is full of youngsters. What are the Government doing about that when they talk about statistics? This is not a game for the faint-hearted or one of comedy. It is a game of seriousness, because people are out there dying on the streets. We want to make sure that something is done. That is why we must increase the revenue support grant when we take power.
  The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside mentioned the unemployment figures, and how we should deal with them if we cannot deal with the problem through the rate support grant. The only way to deal with the problem is to regenerate the economy. We should not pay £9,000 for people to sit in their houses and lie on the labour exchange. The Government should invest that money to give those people a job and hope. Show them a light at the end of the tunnel. If the Government cannot do that, they should not be in power, and they should never return to power.
  Many local authorities in Scotland, especially those in Glasgow, would like to do more to improve housing. Over the years, Glasgow has suffered from Tory landlords who have left and sold their properties off at a pound a time. They put a burden on local authorities, when priority should have been given to people who are living in slums. Their fathers and mothers could not get a job and they were on the labour exchange from the day their children were born to the day they died. This is the kind of world that the Tories want people to live in.
  Bad education is hereditary. Why did the Government not take up the recommendations of the Plowden report, which said that areas of deprivation should be made a priority and given nursery education? It also said that the pupil-teacher ratio should be reduced. [Interruption.] It is all right for the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to laugh. While you are laughing, people are suffering out

  731
  there. I hope that the cameras are on you, because you are a certain calibre of Conservative. Why are you laughing when people out there are suffering?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. May I cool things down a little bit by saying that I am responsible for none of this? The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to "you", but that means the occupant of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman refers to an hon. Member or hon. Lady, he will be in order.
  Mr. Wray: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your correction. Unfortunately, we are worried about Conservative Members who come in here—perhaps they have been sitting in the Tea Room, when we have been sitting in the Chamber all day because we are really interested in trying to improve services throughout Scotland.
  Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend and I are close friends. He will be aware that I have been inundated with requests from mothers for nursery provision in all areas, including Erskine, Kilbarchan, Lochwinnoch and Gourock. Those mothers are desperate for their kids to get some pre-five education. My hon. Friend is quite right that Strathclyde cannot provide it, because it does not get enough money from the Government to satisfy the needs of our people.
  Mr. Wray: My hon. Friend is quite correct. Strathclyde region had policies that were designed to last not for one or two years, but for between five and 10. It had decided to implement policy, but when it had an opportunity to implement the recommendations in the Plowden report, it had to close schools down. Plowden recommended that people living in deprived areas should have a pupil-teacher ratio of 1:10 not 1:20, 1:30 or 1:50, as in the past. That is the kind of education we need for people from humble backgrounds. [Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Members will listen carefully.
  Mr Bill Walker: I genuinely respect the hon. Gentleman's passion and concern. I trust, however, that he acknowledges that not all Conservative Members have no experience of poverty, and that we care just as deeply as he does.
  Mr. Wray: That applies to very few Tory Members. I have never heard a Tory Member make a passionate speech about his or her constituents living in poverty and bad housing. If you lived in my area—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman again, but he has not yet got out of the habit of saying "you". I hope that he will try to do so.
  Mr. Wray: From now on, I shall address my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that Labour Members are extremely concerned about the changes that have been made, especially with regard to housing. Under health legislation of 1970, if a house is below tolerable standards and is damaging household effects, a tenant in Scotland has a right, because the local authority is not dealing with the service as it should and is creating a hazard to the tenant, to summon the local authority to court.
  732
  Under housing legislation of 1966, local authorities have the discretion to spend money to put those properties right. Glasgow district council has had to spend millions of pounds in compensation, because the Government would not give it enough money to deal with the problems in the area.
  Strathclyde regional council was restricted by rate capping, so it could not deal with its transport problems. The Government then introduced deregulation, when good services disappeared and we were left with ghost streets. A greyhound service and a leapfrog service now compete with each other. Many important services have been lost, so we know exactly what the situation is.
  The Government wasted millions of pounds when they introduced the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985, allowing local authorities to buy equipment and waste money. Those millions of pounds could have been spent on solving the problems. If the Government had come to me, I would have told them about the food and drugs legislation, the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 and section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968, which would have saved local and central Government millions of pounds. We took them to court because they did not know the Act, which is why they had to introduce the 1985 Act. All that was a waste of money.
  Why do hon. Members think that all the mad schemes which the Government have introduced, such as the poll tax, the council tax and those mad local government schemes, were not respected by COSLA? We had seen what local government reorganisation meant. Men and women who had worked for years in local authorities were dumped on the dole because the Government had bought out their jobs.
  Two decades later, the Government are doing the same again. They are looking for money through the introduction of those schemes. Schemes such as child support have nothing to do with helping children: they are simply about helping to clear up the deficit. Of the £530 million coming in, only £50 million will go to the children. That is why local councils cannot provide the rate and revenue support that is needed.
  I realise that many hon. Members are waiting to speak, so I shall not take a great deal more time. I could stand here all night, because I have a great deal of experience in the corporation. I live a lot among the people. They act as a sounding board for me every Saturday. Why do not the whole Government take a walk with me around Paddy's market on a Saturday and see exactly what the problems of the people are? A walk around the Oxfam shops will show them just how well people are doing.
  I just hope that, next time we deal with rate support revenue or any other assistance which the Government hope to give working-class people, they will give them a wee bit more.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The consequences of this important debate will have an impact on thousands of council workers and millions of service users. Once again, this debate has shown that there are lies, damn lies and Scottish Office statistics. The Government have particular reasons for distorting the figures this year, because this is the worst settlement for local government since 1979, and Opposition Members can all remember quite a few bad ones.

  733
  Tonight we need to compare the figures for 1994–95 with the figures for 1993–94—not that this year's figures were very brilliant. But before we do so, we should bear in mind two points which may have become muddled by certain Conservative Members in this debate. First, what inflation rate are we talking about? We are not talking about the rate that includes mortgage interest relief—at 1·8 per cent. We are talking about the other inflation rate, which, according to the Red Book, will be 3·25 per cent. in the coming year.
  Secondly and crucially, we must remember that the money for next year includes community care money that was not included in the settlement for this year. That community care money will amount to about 2 per cent.—a fact consistently forgotten by Conservative Members, enabling them to inflate the actual figures for next year's spending.
  I want to look at the figures for Lothian region; it helps to look at one authority instead of bandying about general figures. The aggregate external finance for Lothian region for this year was £572 million. Aggregate external finance for next year will be £583 million. No doubt the Government will tell us that that represents an increase of £11 million. I must tell the Government, however, that transferred money for new expenditure on community care will amount to £11·5 million; so the cash settlements for Lothian region this and next year will be the same.
  I could also point out other items of new statutory expenditure, such as money for devolved school management and local government reorganisation. Taken together, these would mean that the cash for next year, in straight terms, is less than for this year. For the sake of this debate, however, let us assume that the figures for the two years are the same. Since 1979, as far as I can remember, Lothian region has never suffered no cash increase from one year to another.
  The settlement therefore represents a real cut, given the inflation rate of 3·25 per cent. This 3·25 per cent. cut is part of a general public expenditure cut across local authorities in Scotland and across all the services in the United Kingdom. This has led Andrew Dilnot of the Institute for Fiscal Studies to say that this public expenditure round makes Lady Thatcher and Lord Howe look like socialists, so draconian is it and so much worse than anything they imposed.
  It is because of this sort of figure that the Government aim to reduce the share of GDP taken by public expenditure from 45 to 42·5 per cent. in only three years. These draconian figures are getting worse; my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has seen the Grey Book—the updated public expenditure figures—which reveals an additional £750 million cuts in public sector asset creation. No doubt there will be other changes too, but that is the one that she has drawn to our attention.
  This is a terrible settlement for local government, and it is part of a terrible public expenditure settlement. Lothian will receive the same cash this year as in the previous year, once the community care money is stripped out of the figures.
  The Governnment claim that there can still be a cash increase of 1·75 per cent. It does not take too much imagination to realise that the only way to achieve that is to hike up the council tax. Even a cash increase of 1·75 per cent. will still mean a cut, but to achieve that cut Lothian
  734
  region will have to increase its council tax by 10 per cent. So the region faces next year a cut in services and a 10 per cent. increase in council tax.
  Quite apart from the general budgetary problems faced by the Government, it probably suits their political purposes to do this, because this is regional elections year and a time of local government reorganisation. Doubtless the Government hope that the people of Lothian will feel that theirs is not a good council, because it is putting up the council tax by 10 per cent. and cutting services at the same time.
  The Government hope that the people of the region will not regret the passing of that council—but the people of Lothian are not stupid. They are quite used to the cuts imposed on them by this Government, and they will realise, when their council tax rises and the cuts are imposed, that the blame lies at the door of the Government.
  To get to that 1·75 per cent. capping point in the next recap, Lothian councillors must decide how to take £12 million out of what is already a strictly disciplined base budget. Those decisions will be made this week, and £12 million of cuts must be made in education, social work and other services. Although the decisions have not finally been made, we will probably find that, when people leave their jobs, their jobs cannot be filled, there will be fewer teachers and people in community education, grants to voluntary organisations will be cut, and school meal charges may even go up.
  Lothian region will have to make those cuts because it is not getting enough money from central Government. It has had a massive real-terms cut, which means that the amount it receives this year will be the same as that for next year. The cuts would have to be twice as great if Lothian were to give the normal pay increase. In its budget this week, it will have to allow no money whatever for wage increases for its employees. We may have heard of pay freezes since the second world war under various Governments, but I cannot remember a pay freeze that did not give at least some protection to low-paid workers.
  We all know that thousands of council workers are on low pay. Let us consider the effect that the settlement will have on their lives. If the freeze is maintained for the next three years, their pay will be cut by 10 per cent. Many of the tax increases that we know will happen in April will penalise low-paid workers in particular—such as the freezing of allowances, increases in national insurance contributions and VAT on fuel; not one low-paid worker will get a penny of compensation for VAT on fuel.
  Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will realise that there will be a swingeing increase in rents for the thousands of Scottish Homes tenants that the Government control. That will affect very much the low-paid workers in local government. Once again, we are seeing the boot being put in to people who are least able to defend themselves.
  Mr. Chisholm: I thank my hon. Friend for adding that point. Housing is not strictly the subject of this order, but it relates to the public sector pay freeze, and allows me to say that there will be a rent increase in Edinburgh for another reason, because Edinburgh does not get a penny of housing support grant. I will not trespass on that subject, but that must also be borne in mind.
  The public sector pay freeze is built into Lothian region's budget and all the Government's budgetary calculations. They are assuming that it will hold for the

  735
  next three years. Public sector workers have an impossible choice. If the freeze does not hold, there will be job losses. From this settlement and the general public expenditure settlement, we are likely to get job losses, a pay freeze and a devastating effect on services—all because of the economic incompetence and mismanagement of the Government.
  It is not even as though, at the end of the day, it will achieve the Government's objectives. They would argue that we must take that medicine to solve the problem of the budget deficit, yet many experts are questioning whether the Government can achieve, by taking so much demand out the economy through pay cuts and public expenditure cuts, the growth that is necessary for them to achieve their targets.
  Studies have been made in the past week by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the London Business School and the CBI, all of which say that the Government will not achieve their growth targets, and therefore will not solve their budget deficit problems. That leads to the obvious conclusion that the only way in which we shall have some restoration of public services, solve the deficit and achieve growth is by electing a Labour Government. That cannot come too soon.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) took the present collection of Ministers round Paddy's market, he might have difficulty in finding a buyer. His speech, however, was very worth while. It brought us back to some of the basics—basic services affected by the orders.
  There is a tendency for debates such as this to become ritualistic. The debates are also complicated by the fact that virtually no one understands the distribution formula that is being discussed. This is very much the Schleswig-Holstein question of Scottish politics. Only three hon. Members have ever understood it: one is dead, one is mad and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is no longer in the Chamber.
  That ritualistic quality does not convey a message worthy of the subject. In the normal course of events, the Government describe the settlement as generous, and the Opposition call it miserly and inadequate. We quote figures from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, such as £1·20 and 10 per cent. increases in council tax. The Minister implies, or even says in some cases, that COSLA has a vested interest in the figures and that its estimates are, therefore, not to be trusted.
  When the overall settlement for Scottish local government was made, I took the precaution of asking the House of Commons Library to give its opinion of what the settlement would mean for the revenue position of Scottish local government. I did that at least to demonstrate that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was not the only person to use the services of the statisticians in the Library.
  I think that the House of Commons Library provides a reasonably authoritative and independent estimate. It is not a hotbed of anything, apart from librarians. This is what the Library said about the settlements:
  "We estimate that after adjustment for changes in responsibilities this implies falls in real Government Support Expenditure (GSE) of 1·7 per cent. in 1994–95, 1·9 per cent. in
  736
  1995–96 and 0·7 per cent. in 1996–97. On an equivalent basis Aggregate Exchequer Finance … will fall in real terms by 2·9 per cent. in 1994–95, 2·7 per cent. in 1995–96 and 1 per cent. in 1996–97."
  Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept figures from local government itself, is he prepared to accept argument and analysis from the House of Commons Library? Is he prepared to accept that that is the real position that faces local government in Scotland over the next few years of his stewardship? It is not good enough for him to point to individual councils that have succeeded in controlling their finances and to say that that proves that the overall settlement is adequate. That proves nothing except that some councils have managed their finances very well.
  I was interested to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House compliment Grampian region on the running of its finances—although the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) seemed to have forgotten the complexion of the council, and I am not entirely convinced that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) knew it in the first place. In any event, Councillor Pearl Paul, Scottish National party finance convener of Grampian region, will no doubt take the tributes made to her—by implication, at least—in good faith and in good heart. Grampian region indeed deserves to be complimented, not only on freezing the council tax but, for example, on the excellent 10p bus scheme that it introduced this year, which has been lauded by old-age pensioners throughout the region.
  Let me offer a quick catchline to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside, which he will doubtless hear rather more often during the coming weeks. What is the difference between the current administration of Grampian region and the Conservative party? The current administration helps pensioners and freezes the council tax; the Conservative party freezes the pensioners and helps itself to the tax.
  Individual councillors and councils can do very well by prudent financial management and by looking after their own resources. That, however, does not alter the fact that, on the whole, the settlement and the orders are extremely bad news for the financial position of Scottish local government. We deserve an answer to the point about the overall settlement and the overall squeeze on local authority finance.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman kindly read out some of the observations of the House of Commons Library. I doubt that any hon. Member would suggest that our Library gives us anything other than splendid service. Would the hon. Gentleman care to read out the qualifications listed along with the figures that he gave?
  Mr. Salmond: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the only part that I did not read out was the following sentence:
  "As you will be aware, there was an announcement yesterday on local authority finance in Scotland."
  Apart from that, I read out the whole of the Library's summary. I am happy to hand the full correspondence across the Chamber. I hope that, now that I have given the hon. Gentleman that information, he will join us in the Lobby tonight. Who knows? Wonders will never cease.
  There is a real and important point in regard to what the settlements mean for Scottish local government. The

  737
  Minister should tell us a bit more about the overall settlement and not about individual success stories of councils in Grampian or elsewhere.
  Scottish local councils and councillors are underpaid, under-appreciated and under the thumb of central Government. That position is deleterious to good local government administration. By and large, local councils and councillors in Scotland discharge their responsibilities very well. There are individual exceptions. Some councils are blots on the landscape of Scottish local government. When Ministers and the Labour Front-Bench team fling at each other the extreme examples of Kyle and Carrick and Monklands, it does not add to the debate and both parties are on a loser.
  I have another question on finance. What evidence can the Minister produce to show that withdrawing powers from Scottish local government—powers that are covered by the revenue support grants—will lead to the better administration of public services in Scotland? What evidence can he produce that control by quango is more economically efficient than control by democratic local government? What evidence has emerged from the recent experiences of the Greater Glasgow health board and various local enterprise companies that control by quango, adding to the 5,000 quango members appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the £5·5 billion—40 per cent.—of the Scottish Office budget already controlled by quango, will be in the best interests of the economic administration of services?
  In the administration of finance, local government and local democracy have a better track record than quango government. Every local democratic council, even Monklands, has one essential saving grace. If Monklands district council does not discharge its responsibilities properly, its electorate can get rid of it at the next electoral opportunity. That check on efficiency is not available to anyone who wants to get rid of quango members who are clearly not allocating and carrying out their responsibilities properly. I can see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are becoming somewhat restless about the comparisons that I am drawing, but they are relevant to the economics of the revenue support grant in Scottish local government. Local government provides both the best economic and democratic means of allocating finance for important services.
  My next argument relates to the cost implications of the changes, including the £5 million that is mentioned in the orders. There is a good argument that single-tier local government will be more efficient. There is academic evidence based on the fact that smaller councils have a good track record on efficiency. I grant that to the Minister, but he should also face the fact that severe questions surround the estimates on the changes to Scottish local government that he has provided to the House. The estimates of other bodies seem to be a good deal more competent and soundly based than the Minister's. Apart from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other participants in the debate, independent organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy are severely critical of his estimates. The range of estimates also tend to show that the Minister is not confident about the figures that he has put forward.
  As the Minister knows, before I fell among thieves in this place, I used to turn a penny as a professional economist. It was well known in the economics profession that, to safeguard one's back against future inquiry, one
  738
  could conduct a scenario analysis. One would present not a single figure for projections and forecasts but a wide range of figures so that one might blunder into the right estimate. That appears to be exactly what the Government have done.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked the Minister a question last Wednesday. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman should be running a seminar on how to ask questions during Scottish questions, from which many hon. Members might benefit. When he asked the Minister to give to the nearest £10 million his latest estimate of the changes in Scottish local government, the Minister's eyes glazed over. At the very least, that should not make us confident that there had been a proper and adequate financial examination of the figures.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether I fall into the category of thieves among which the hon. Gentleman has fallen in this place, but I do agree with him that we have not had from the Scottish Office any suggestion of the way in which it has arrived at its figures. At the least, it owes the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the rest of us some explanation of how it has arrived at its figures because, bluntly, Miss Anna Capaldi and her Touche Ross figures have just been exposed as being totally flawed—in fact, I do not know how Touche Ross got taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Salmond: I happily exclude the hon. Gentleman and myself from the category of thieves into which we have both fallen. I am not so sure that I would be excluding Touche Ross, if we consider the benefits that have been gained for itself from its expensive report into the financing of Scottish local government. I think that the argument has been well made once again by the hon. Gentleman.
  I want to make two final arguments, in summary. I hope that the Minister will not continue to make the argument that I hear sometimes from his lips, that somehow, when the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is the representative organisation for local government, says something it is necessarily in the pockets of the Opposition parties and necessarily its viewpoints and arguments must be disregarded. I merely draw to his attention the fact that the president of COSLA, Charles Gray, is one of the more independent-minded members of the Labour party in Scotland and has a known track record of saying things in an extremely independent way. When someone such as Charles Gray makes comments on those matters, his arguments deserve to be taken on their merits. I should like some indication, at least, that the Minister is prepared to do that and not allow Charles Gray to fall victim to the "Stalinist tendency" that has been identified in the ranks of certain political parties in Scotland.
  Secondly, and lastly, I should like the Minister to show some appreciation of the fact that the debate is not just another ritual debate about the revenue support grant orders. As the hon. Member for Provan reminded us, the debate affects finance, and real services which affect real people. I hope that if the House gives leave to the Minister to sum up the proceedings this evening, there will be some sign in his closing speech—which I do not think was there in much of his opening speech—that he realises the importance to people of the services that we are debating this evening.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The debate has been characterised by some excellent contributions by Opposition Members and by total ignorance about local government displayed by Conservative Members.
  I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), who made a tremendously passionate and clear speech about the implications of the orders for ordinary people outside the House. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was equally right when he drew attention to the ritualistic nature of the way in which we debate rate support grant orders and housing support grant orders. They become just another item on the agenda of the business of the House and we sometimes forget how much they matter to people and how measures that we can joke about and make cheap debating points about across the Chamber affect people's lives and mean more suffering and more deprivation for everyone. It is important that we try to remember that and keep our remarks to the point of the debate.
  This is a very disappointing settlement for local authorities in Scotland, and it is not only hon. Members who have long experience of local government who are saying that but local government itself. Of course the Minister would argue back that local government "would say that, wouldn't it", saying that it has an interest to argue that it is a poor settlement. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, the objective analysis of the settlement that is provided by the House of Commons Library suggests that the settlement is worse than does the analysis by COSLA. We should keep that in mind when we consider the figures.
  The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) drew attention to the fact that most local government expenditure is tied up with employing people; the wages bill accounts for most of it. Ingeniously, he argued that we can cut that out of the rate support grant settlement—freeze employment, not think about employing any more people and so on. He said that the settlement is generous if one considers only the 40 per cent. expenditure that remains after one thinks about employment.
  I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside the fact that the local government services that are provided across Scotland are people-intensive. They have to be people-intensive. They are about employing people. Government statistics show that there are more pensioners in Scotland, and more people aged over 85, than there ever have been before. That fact in itself means that local government needs to employ more people to look after the elderly. There will have to be more home helps and social workers—residential and domiciliary—and more warden support and meals on wheels. The provision of such services means people being employed to deliver them—there is no way around that. One cannot exclude people costs.
  Mr. Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the figure that I cited for the revenue support grant increase excluded community care and that the increase in revenue support grant could be applied to the non-wages element if the wages element were frozen?
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman says that the figure that he cited excluded care in the community; but it is not
  740
  only care in the community that is people intensive; all the services provided by local government are people intensive. For example, everyone admits that crime is a massive problem in Scotland, especially in the urban areas. There are more offenders than ever before. Local councils provide offender services and need social workers to look after offenders. Victim Support is in its infancy in Scotland and if it is to grow and if victims are to get the proper care and attention that they require, that will have to be provided by local authorities and regional councils and the social workers employed by them.
  It is disingenuous of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside to argue that we can discuss local government services without talking about local government employees. Local government services are all about local government employees. If one reduces the number of local government employees, one reduces local government services to people who need them. If Conservative Members do not understand that simple fact, they do not deserve to be representing their constituencies.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman that local government services are largely about people doing jobs on behalf of the community. I also agree with what he said about issues such as law and order—we all think that more money should probably be spent. However, a large percentage of the cost involved in the provision of services is taken up by human factors such as wages. There is nothing odd about that. Retail distributors know that it is not uncommon for 60 per cent. of their costs to be accounted for by wages, but one can increase efficiency and make savings by changing the way in which services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman must accept that that is as true in local government as it is in distribution.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: In other words, reduce employment.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has answered the hon. Gentleman's point. The retail industry is all about low wages, reducing the number of employees and cutting corners. One cannot cut corners when providing services for vulnerable people. Cutting corners in the provision of such services means that the vulnerable suffer and end up being sacrificed for the sake of levying a council tax lower than might otherwise have been the case had proper services been provided by the local authority. That is what Conservative Members favour.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) refers to the need for efficiency and compares public services to retail, he is making a fundamental mistake? One cannot compare a home help with someone working in retail, in a shop. If efficiency is to be improved, presumably a home help will have to look after more old people. A better service would result in home helps looking after fewer people more intensively, which is the very opposite of private sector efficiency.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend speaks from direct and recent experience of working on a major regional council. He knows what it means to deliver services to people in a large part of Scotland. If some Conservative Members had come from a local government background, we might not be debating such orders.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I cannot give way again. I must make progress. The hon. Gentleman has been here since 1979 and it is many years since he worked in local government, if he ever did.
  I believe that a copy of the brief from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been given to every hon. Member. The first sentence states:
  "The Convention re-affirms its earlier view that on average Council Tax bills are likely to increase by about 10 per cent. or £1·20 per week next year as a result of the settlement proposals".
  COSLA is not saying that the council tax will increase because inflation is going up, because local authority wage settlements are going up or because local authority services are being increased; it is talking about council taxes going up by £1·20 as a direct result of the revenue support grant that the Government have made available to local authorities in Scotland.
  That example is not an isolated one. As many hon. Members have pointed out again and again, it is only two weeks since we debated an order on the housing support grant which will inevitably increase rents across Scotland. We have also recently heard about the increase in NHS prescription charges. We have heard about the massive increases in income tax that the Government are to introduce in April. We all know about VAT on fuel. If we consider all those things together, a pattern begins to emerge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set himself the target of eliminating the public sector borrowing requirement, which currently stands at £45 billion, by 1997–98. He will do that by cutting public services in every way that he can think of. One way is to cut back on the funding for local government, as the order shows.
  COSLA makes that point very clearly. It says that the level of grant-related expenditure for next year is well below the figures that it has identified as being necessary to maintain the level of services available in local authorities at the moment. If COSLA says that the amount is not enough even to maintain services, against a background of increasing unemployment in Scotland—that is the official level of unemployment and not the unofficial level, which is much higher—and against a background of massively increasing poverty in Scotland, what does that imply for ordinary people whom we are meant to represent here?
  Tayside regional council social work department recently sent me a report. It considered the figures from the 1991 census. It went through a number of the changes in my part of Scotland over the past 10 years. I suspect that they are fairly typical of what is happening in the rest of Scotland. The department pointed out that there has been a massive increase in the percentage of single-parent households. As there are more single-parent households, there is a need for greater child care facilities to be provided through local authorities.
  There is also a need for more nursery provision through local authorities and there is a need for more bridging schemes to allow single parents to make the jump from relying on benefit to going back into employment. There is a need for employment schemes to be run by local authorities. There is a massive need for local authorities to increase their expenditure at a time when the Government are cutting the RSG that is available to local authorities in Scotland.
  The department points out that, over the past 10 years, there has been a large increase in the percentage of people
  742
  living in the area who are recorded as being permanently sick and who are on invalidity benefit. The Secretary of State for Social Security has already told us that he intends to eliminate about 700,000 people who are currently in receipt of invalidity benefit. When they come off invalidity benefit, they will go back on income support. They will then need social work services which are provided through the local authority. When they look to the local authority to provide those services, they will find that the Government have cut the grant and that the local authorities are, therefore, unable to help them. The situation will be even worse than it is at the moment. So it goes on.
  The percentage of low-income families across the city of Dundee has not changed since 1981. On many occasions, I have heard the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Under-Secretary, shout about the British economic miracle that took place in the 1980s. Where was the British economic miracle in Dundee, in Glasgow, in Edinburgh or in Aberdeen? The percentage of people living on low incomes is the same as it was 10 years ago. The economic miracle bypassed them; they have never had access to it. Those people need strong local authorities which are able to provide them with the services that they need.
  One point that has not been brought out concerns the aggregate external finance figures which are provided in the order. They show, for example, that Tayside region will get a percentage increase next year of 2·2 per cent. As has been pointed out time and time again, that does not make an allowance for care in the community. Once we make an allowance for that, we are talking about a very small increase of less than 1 per cent. or even about a cut, yet councils will face increased demands for their services. There will be a cut in the aggregate external finance available to Dundee district council.
  The grant-aided expenditure figures within the aggregate external finance figures show that Tayside regional council will have an increase of 2·56 per cent. The Secretary of State will use that figure for capping purposes. The right hon. Gentleman is actually encouraging Tayside regional council to increase its expenditure above the funding that he is making available to it. That argument applies even more to Dundee district council; its grant-aided figure allows for an increase of up to 5 per cent. but funding is not provided to cover it.
  In effect, the Minister is saying that he is withdrawing central Government support for local government services. At the same time, he is allowing local councils to increase their expenditure, in the hope that he will make local council tax payers pay for that before the Secretary of State steps in to cap the councils. The Secretary of State is desperate to cut public expenditure and he is doing so by back-door methods. He hopes that, at the end of the day, local authorities will be forced to increase their council tax and that they will be blamed for that, and that he and the Government will not be blamed for cutting support for local authorities. That is completely despicable.
  It is assumed that any pay awards will be met from efficiency savings. We have heard much nonsense about what that means. Teachers and local government workers have made pay demands which are in excess of 10 per cent. If even 50 per cent. of their demands are met, there will be tremendous cuts in local government services.
  We have heard much about efficiency savings. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that one of

  743
  the greatest efficiency savings that could be made arises from school closures. Do Conservative Members think that they should advocate school closures when people in Scotland are calling out for child care facilities and increased nursery provision? The only matter that we are discussing is how to shut schools and pay off teachers to make savings for local authorities. It does not make sense.
  The hon. Member for Tayside, North referred to schools falling below what he called the economic level. I remember that argument being used in respect of the mines back in 1984. Uneconomic pits had to be shut down. Why do not Conservative Members, in particular the hon. Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), use that argument about farmers? Why do they not say that uneconomic farms have to close down? Why do they pay surpluses to farmers? Why do they subsidise them to set aside fields that they do not even farm? They actually give them public money to do that. We never hear Conservative arguments about economic farms because farmers generally vote Tory. That is why the Government are prepared to pay massive subsidies to farmers.
  When it comes to schools and children's futures, we hear Conservative Members talk nonsense about uneconomic schools and having to close them down and leaving kids on the scrap heap. It is no wonder people turn to drugs or to crime, bearing in mind the way that they are treated by the Government. If the debate proves anything, it proves what the Scottish people have always said—that is, that the Conservative party is not fit to be in government. The sooner the people in the south of England realise that, the better it will be for the whole United Kingdom.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be very brief because some of my hon. Friends also want to speak.
  I should like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said about the Lothian region. The people whom I represent in Midlothian district council pay regional and district council rates. Midlothian district council has told me that its grant-aided expenditure for 1994 means a reduction of 0·46 per cent. When we boil that down to money, we see that the district council will lose £439,000 out of a budget of £10·287 million.
  The gearing effect means that the council tax will rise by 20 per cent. We will have that against a backcloth of unemployment, a wage freeze, lower-paid workers, and even VAT on fuel. The Secretary of State has told us the expenditure that it is appropriate for authorities to spend. Where will economies be made? They will be made among people who can least afford them.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is listening not to me but to one of his colleagues who would say that what I am saying is a load of nonsense anyway. It is not nonsense. I am making a plea on behalf of not only my constituents but many others in a similar plight who pay rates to district councils.
  I was a county councillor and a regional councillor for 16 years and I know what it means when the Government make cuts. I fought against both Labour and Tory Government cuts in the past. I became the ex-chairman of
  744
  the Labour group because I fought against the Callaghan Government on cuts. I was not elected to local government for cuts; I was elected to give services to the people whom I represented. That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to tell the Government that public expenditure cuts are bad. Tory Members, the Minister and the Government seem to think that cuts in public expenditure are great. That is the way with rates and everything; the stock exchange will hit the ceiling.
  Many companies are waiting for the day when the Government start to spend money in local government. I see that as a way of getting out of the recession and giving people what they deserve. There are many other things that the Government are delaying for which we will have to pay a high price in the future. I am talking about the renewal of sewers, housing, hospitals and many other things that come under the so-called umbrella of capital expenditure.
  The people of Midlothian are no different from anyone else. They have had cuts. All their industries have been decimated—the coal industry, the carpet industry and the paper industry before that. Many industries, especially electronics, were brought in supposedly to save the locality that I represent. However, we find that they are moving out.
  All I can see is an area that needs help and a council that cares. By the way, we may be hoist by our own petard because the council spends money on making the place more beneficial to investors and others in the area. There is hidden poverty behind the facade of so-called prosperity. When we look at the unemployment figures and so on, we see that there is poverty in the community. I have made many appeals to the Secretary of State on behalf of our young people. They cannot get jobs in the collieries or elsewhere. This direct cut in district council expenditure is one of many cuts that these people cannot afford.
  I am making a plea to the Secretary of State and I want an answer: how can the Government justify this cut? What have the people of Midlothian or Scotland done to deserve it? Is it the result of the Government's incompetence? As I see it, it goes back to black Wednesday. We are all paying the price for the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Once again, the Secretary of State and the Minister have got the situation wrong with regard to Scotland. They have come forward with proposals that will mean further cuts in the quality of life for the people whom I represent.
  Undoubtedly, some of the profound statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) went into the deaf ears of the Minister who will blunder on tonight and make the usual decision—cuts, cuts and cuts. He will not listen to my hon. Friend's plea for social services, home help and services for the mentally handicapped. We have already heard pleas about dealing with crime in Scotland. Once again, the Minister will do nothing to help to reduce crime in Scotland, which will continue to rise. We will continue to have the problem of drug barons having more money than the police to furnish their evil trade in drugs.
  Earlier, I made an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) about nursery provision, for which there is a tremendous demand in my area. Unfortunately, local government does not have the

  745
  wherewithal because of the Government's continued savage denial of local finance. Local government cannot get young folk into pre-five education quick enough because there is not enough money.
  I hope that the Minister is listening to the point that I am going to raise. Scotland has one of the longest coastlines in Europe; we have literally thousands of miles of coastline. Scotland is one of the most important countries for tourism in Europe, and certainly 'we contribute a considerable amount to the coffers of Great Britain. Tourists come not just to visit the City of London, Manchester or Birmingham, but to visit Scotland. The revenue that that provides to this country is enormous. If we spent some time, consideration and money in that area, that revenue could increase.
  I remember not long ago the town of Salou in Spain was castigated in the papers, and rightly so, for sewage problems which created an unhealthy situation for tourists. Did that fall on deaf ears? No. The people of Spain and Salou realised the consequences of that and proceeded not to bury the sewage or hide it out of sight, but to do something about it. They spent £250 million to solve the problem and to make sure that Salou became an admirable, decent and healthy place to go and have a holiday.
  The Government do not recognise the role that local government has to play to ensure that the environment in Scotland is brought up to a decent standard. That would ensure that the American, Canadian, Australian and Japanese tourists all come and spend their money. But what do the Government do?
  I often fly to London, and the situation has got that bad that one can see the devastation from up in an airplane. One can see quarries unfilled, and dirty and dank places. When one drives through Britain, what does one see? Rubbish is dumped by the side of the road. There is household and domestic rubbish and, worse, there is business rubbish from businesses which cannot afford to pay the going rate. They are tipping on the fly at night all around the country, and especially in Scotland.
  Renfrewshire is becoming one huge tip, because the Government are not providing enough money to allow local companies to develop and dump their rubbish legally. I also use the train, and when I go through Britain and look out of the window it is an appalling sight. There is rubbish strewn about everywhere, and falling buildings and devastation. The Government do nothing.
  At one time, folk used to sing songs about the River Clyde. "What a wonderful place, the name of it fills me with pride". If you were going up the Clyde in your wee boat tonight, Madam Speaker, you would need a big brush to clean away the stuff at the side of it after you docked it. I can assure you that our beautiful beaches have been turned into rubbish dumps.
  The Minister does not need to believe me. I am sure that he will believe one of the great newspapers of Scotland., the Evening Times, which mentioned that about 40,000 pieces of rubbish had been dug up from a stretch of about one mile on the Ayrshire coast. That is not very far from where the Minister and I live. We do not just fly over rubbish or drive through it—we also sail thorough it.
  The Government have not taken on board the serious point that if we wish tourists to come and spend money in Scotland, we must ensure that local government gets sufficient money to clean up our beaches. We must ensure
  746
  that the water supply meets the standards of the European directive, and we must ensure that our sewerage system is the best in the world, and not the worst.
  I say to the Minister that, once again, the people of Scotland are getting a shabby deal from the Government. Once again, the Government are savagely reducing the quality of life. Once again, they are denying our people the ability to make a decent living, by failing to ensure that there is a solid and decent tourist industry. I shall finish on this note: why does the Minister not do the right thing and resign?
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Madam Speaker, time-wise we need to press on, but I should like to say that I am appalled by the consequences of the unpicking of the Lothian social work department. My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who was a councillor in Edinburgh, and other colleagues have outlined general worries. In view of the time, I shall simply ask six precise questions following long and detailed conversations with John Chant, who is the longest serving director of social work in Britain. He has rightly been awarded a CBE for his work.
  First, in removing the statutory requirement to establish a social work committee and appoint a director of social work, how does the Minister envisage that the new councils will carry out their statutory and other responsibilities to provide for the social welfare of their community and ensure accountability for the development of policy and the delivery of service? That question has not yet been answered.
  Secondly, is the Minister confident that all of the new councils will be of a size that will enable them to provide the full range of services currently offered by mainland regional social work departments? I pay tribute to what has been done in Strathclyde, Lothian, Tayside and elsewhere in the advancement of social work in recent years. It is a crying shame—I shall not use stronger language—that all the work should be unpicked when Members of Parliament know at first hand from our day-to-day work how it benefits our constituents.
  Thirdly, what requirements does the Minister intend to place on the new councils to ensure the preparation of community care plans and plans for the development of criminal justice and child care services? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that such plans are drawn up by people with the relevant qualifications and experience? It is far from clear that the smaller new councils will have such people, particularly specialists.
  Fourthly, how does the Minister intend to ensure that the new councils put in place proper systems of professional accountability, develop social care policies, provide appropriate services and deliver those services in an accountable manner? How is that to be done? We have not been told.
  Fifthly, in the absence of a social work committee or a director of social work, what arrangements does the Minister propose to make to ensure that sufficient staff are trained and deployed to meet the statutory requirements of the mental health and child care legislation? There has been no indication of how that will be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) knows a great deal about such matters.

  747
  Unfortunately, he serves on the Standing Committee which is considering the Criminal Justice Bill, not the Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
  Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the burdens that are placed on our social work departments will be exacerbated by many of the clauses in the Criminal Justice Bill? Those additional burdens have been ignored by the odd-job lot on the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the member of the Scottish Labour group on the Criminal Justice Bill, my hon. Friend is in a position to know. It is a serious matter.
  Sixthly, local authorities are now substantial purchasers of social care services. How do the Government intend to ensure that local authorities give first consideration to the needs of the person to be served and the quality of care provided? What steps have been proposed to avoid service provision being led solely on the basis of cost? Do the Government intend to require local authorities to consider and evaluate any proposed contract for the provision of social care services by a suitably qualified or experienced person?
  All my colleagues on the Opposition Benches could go on and on about the subject. Those questions have to be answered very soon and not at the fag end of the Committee stage of any Bill.
  10 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: The debate has once again highlighted the divide in the House on local government issues. One the one hand, the Government and their supporters are unwilling, on any occasion, to praise the tremendous work done in Scotland by the employees who provide some of the best services that one can find anywhere in Europe. We have heard the usual snide comments about inefficiency and lack of value for money. That is not the local government scene that Opposition Members know. We know that local government provides excellent services in Scotland and it would at least show a little humility if the Government sometimes allowed their consciences to get the better of them and if they praised the excellent work that is done.
  On the other hand, Opposition Members praise the work going on. We have to sit through debates on local government in Committee and in the House, but we hear precious little appreciation of the efficiency, effectiveness and economy demonstrated by Scottish local authorities, in the face of the tremendous difficulties that have been heaped on them year after year by the Conservative Administration.
  The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) was one of the highlights of the debate. He made a passionate speech and spoke at first hand about the real issues facing Scotland and the real context within which the revenue support grant settlement should be viewed. He mentioned poverty, unemployment and many of the other problems that local authorities are trying to tackle. Sadly, they are doing so in very difficult circumstances because of the Government's policies, attitudes and prejudices.
  Such debates are always characterised by technicalities. The Government like to hide behind a smokescreen of revenue support grant orders. We hear from Government
  748
  Ministers that every order is better than those of the previous year. We hear that the order will allow councils to cut council taxes and to expand services. If any of that were true, there might be something in Government policies for Opposition Members to praise, but the local government settlement does none of those things. It is another smokescreen to hide continuing cuts at the very heart of local government in Scotland.
  As if the local authority settlement were not bad enough, the existing problems of cash-starved services endure. We can see that from the problems with crime, care in the community, housing and—at a time of rising unemployment—economic development.
  One other consideration will loom large for the Government and for Ministers during the next two or three years—reorganisation. How eloquently my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) posed his questions about this crazy reorganisation and the bill, which will have to be measured in higher council taxes for the Scots or in massive cuts in services and dramatic job losses.
  That is the price that we are paying and will continue to pay for the Government's incompetence and mismanagement of the Scottish economy and—what is more important—for a Government who, after 15 years, have refused to face up to the fact that we have genuine and endemic structural problems in Scotland, which are not being tackled.
  This evening, it is important for us to move beyond the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of the motley crew on the Government Benches and to talk about the settlement. We have heard that, in cash terms, it is supposed to be yet another that captures the plaudits, as far as the Government are concerned, but nothing could be further from the truth.
  Over the next three years, we will witness a cut of a third of £1 billion in real terms from local authority budgets. How can that be squared with an excellent settlement on revenue support? It simply cannot, because significant real terms cuts will be made. How do the Government measure up to that? Is the Minister willing to explain away that cut or is he willing to carry on with the smokescreen in an attempt to deceive Scottish public opinion into thinking that we are making significant progress?
  Another issue that we must consider is the naive simplicity demonstrated, once again, by Conservative Back Benchers. We have heard, of course, of the links between the local authority settlement and the possible cuts in or freezing of council tax levels. The Government do not understand that those levels are based on a number of factors, not just the revenue support grant settlement. Those factors include expenditure levels, the possibility of capping and non-statutory expenditure in which many local authorities are involved. My own regional council, for example, provides one of the best concessionary transport systems anywhere in Britain. For its trouble, however, it does not get a penny from this mean Government.
  The Prime Minister is always talking about expanding nursery provision, but "Where's the beef, Prime Minister?" In Scotland, some of the excellent provision does not get any help from the Government. We have heard enough from the Government about how they help out local authority services, but in key services non-statutory spending is going ahead because Labour councils care about and appreciate real need, unlike the Government.

  749
  The Government's settlement falls well short of what would be needed, in real terms, to keep ahead of inflation. At a time of massive problems, it also falls well short of the expectations of Scots. It falls well below the expectations of local authority leaders. Senior officials in local government, of course, know at first hand the problems that they face.
  We must also consider services. The settlement will do nothing to deal with the 1 million crimes that are committed in Scotland every year. We have a crime epidemic under the so-called law and order party. The settlement will not provide for an extra policeman or provide an extra opportunity for a young person involved in crime to be caught. Once again, we see the nonsense of a settlement that does not match expectations in an area where the Government are trying to take credit.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Provan said, the settlement will not help to tackle the endemic problems of poverty. Some 900,000 Scots, or one in six, live in families where income support is the only source of income. How do the orders square with the reality of misery for hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland and nearly 250,000 children under the age of 16? They simply do not. The Government are trying to deceive all who listen to their hollow promises about real improvements in revenue support grant.
  Unemployment has been mentioned by my hon. Friends. The Government have seen unemployment rise in Scotland by nearly 4,000 a week in the past month. Again, they are constraining our local authorities from tackling economic development in the way that they want. We could put the unemployed back to work. Our local authorities could help. We could give the young people the skills that they need, but we need the tools to do that. That means hard cash, not vacuous comments from a Government who simply do not care, but who try to deceive people into thinking that they do.
  According to the revenue support grant settlement, £5 million will go towards local government costs of reorganisation. Even by the Government's estimates, however, those costs will be £200 million. According to COSLA's expectations, they will be nearly £720 million. Once again, however, we find that the Government will not provide any substantial help towards the massive costs involved.
  The settlement is a bad one by any stretch of the imagination. It is a settlment that will steal a third of £1 billion from local authorities and will not go even towards providing the costs, of up to £720 million, of the crazy reorganisation. The message to Government is clear and simple: you can fool some of the people all of the time, but Scots believe that it is time for a rethink about the need for serious money to tackle the serious problem that Scotland is enduring.
  10.9 pm
  Mr. Stewart: May I make three points in winding up the debate? First, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) criticised a speech that I did not make rather than the one that I made. None of my hon. Friends has criticised the hard work done by many people in local government. whatever their political party, and officials throughout Scotland.
  Secondly, I understand that the Opposition intend to vote against the orders. The hon. Member for Hamilton
  750
  (Mr. Robertson) confirmed that. As we know from the press, he is a man of great parliamentary guile and, as he constantly boasts, lots of Conservative Members will doubtless vote with him in the Lobby. I point out for the record that, if he succeeds in the vote on the first order, he will deprive local authorities in Scotland of £31·8 million to which they are entitled. If he succeeds in the vote on the second order, he will deprive local authorities in Scotland of £100 million a week from the beginning of April. But if that is the Labour party's policy, so be it.
  Thirdly, I have wound up these debates when the right hon. Bruce Millan and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) have led for the Opposition. All three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen had one thing in common: they gave every impression that they had read the orders and were aware of the details and figures concerned. The hon. Member for Hamilton hardly referred to the order.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No, I must get on for a moment.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) rightly supported the orders.
  Before I deal with some of the general points that have been raised, may I respond to some of the detailed points? The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) made a fair point about the usefulness of planning for current local authority expenditure. I accept that point in principle, which is why last year, for the first time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced not only Government support expenditure and aggregate Exchequer finance figures for 1994–95, but his plans for the forward two years of the 1993 public expenditure survey—1995–96 and 1996–97. The hon. Gentleman will accept the constraints, but in principle he made a fair and proper point.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) argued that the client group methodology was biased against rural authorities. I have heard urban authorities argue that the methodology is biased in favour of rural authorities, but representations from his authority and others will no doubt continue.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked me a specific question about the differences in the distribution between the city of Aberdeen and Kincardine and Deeside. Those relate to the two authorities' different loan and leasing charges this year. As it is fairly late in the evening, may I write to the hon. Gentleman explaining that point in detail?
  Throughout the debate, Opposition Members have argued that local government in Scotland was badly treated by this Conservative Government compared to the last Labour Government. I remind them that, on the 1977–78 settlement, the president of COSLA said:
  "To have been told by the Secretary of State that the percentage grant was being savagely cut by 4 per cent. was something none of us expected."
  I refer Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), to an excellent recent article by David Begg, chairman of the finance committee of Lothian regional council.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: Mr. Begg is much respected by Opposition Members, and he has said that, according to his

  751
  estimates, local government employment has increased in Scotland by 3.9 per cent., in full-time equivalent jobs. He went on, in the Local Government Chronicle of 9 February, to say that his figures
  "destroy the myth that 14 years of Conservative Government have decimated services and destroyed jobs."
  I commend the article to Opposition Members.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I right in thinking that the debate on the orders can continue until 11.30 pm? The Minister seems painfully unaware of that, given his refusal to give way to hon. Members who have sat through the entire debate. Is there some agreement to which neither you nor I is a party about when we must proceed to vote on these orders?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct: I am party to no agreement. The debate can go on until 11.30 pm
  Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was about to give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—I just wanted to get my point on the record.
  Dr. Godman: Does the Minister intend to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) dealing with each of his six important questions about the operation of our social work departments? If so, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to put a copy of his letter in the Library? They were criticial questions dealing with the need to continue the efficient operation of our social work departments.
  Mr. Stewart: Of course, the hon. Gentleman's questions were in order, but he will recognise that they were not specifically related to the 1994–95 settlement. They were, however, related to the broader issues covered by the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, and if the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raises those questions in Committee, I shall be happy to deal with them. If not, I shall of course respond to him in writing and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister heard me refer to a Library analysis which seems to demonstrate a continuing squeeze on Scottish local government over the next three years. I know that the figures have been supplied to the hon. Gentleman by his new parliamentary private secretary—the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Does he broadly accept the Library's analysis?
  Mr. Stewart: I believe that this is a realistic but tight settlement. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ever said anything different. I would point out, though, that per capita expenditure in Scotland is 34 per cent. higher than it is in England and 26 per cent. higher than it is in Wales. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not maintain that Scotland is being hard done by in this settlement. The total level of support for Scottish local authorities, compared with support for English and Welsh authorities, is very high.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber, and I am sure that the Minister missed my question about the Library figures—at any rate, he avoided answering it.
  Madam Speaker: A number of conversations are going on. I do not want to stop them, but I should be obliged if they were not quite so noisy.
  Mr. Stewart: I believe that, although the settlement is tight—nobody denies that—it is realistic in terms of the increases in local authority expenditure that have been made in Scotland in recent years against a background of the need for public expenditure constraint. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for warmly welcoming the settlement as realistic and reasonable. I commend the orders to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 266.

  Division No. 148]

  [10.19 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Couchman, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Amess, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkins, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Eggar, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Elletson, Harold

  Body, Sir Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evennett, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Faber, David

  Bowis, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brazier, Julian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, Graham

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forth, Eric

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Burns, Simon

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  French, Douglas

  Butcher, John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Butler, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Garnier, Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Cash, William

  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)

  Colvin, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Congdon, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Conway, Derek

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hague, William

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  753

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hannam, Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nelson, Anthony

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heald, Oliver

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Page, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Paice, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lightbown, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  McNair-Wilson, Sir 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

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thomason, Roy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Merchant, Piers

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  754

  Trend, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilkinson, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Willetts, David

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wilshire, David

  Walden, George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Ward, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Ray

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dafis, Cynog

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainger, Nick

  Darling, Alistair

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Austin-Walker, John

  Denham, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry

  Dixon, Don

  Barren, Kevin

  Dobson, Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Benton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Enright, Derek

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blair, Tony

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Blunkett, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boyes, Roland

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

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

  Foulkes, George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fraser, John

  Burden, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Byers, Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Garrett, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Godsiff, Roger

  Canavan, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mildred

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gould, Bryan

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Graham, Thomas

  Clapham, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Gunnell, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hain, Peter

  Coffey, Ann

  Hall, Mike

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hardy, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Harvey, Nick

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Bob

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cummings, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  755

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoyle, Doug

  Olner, William

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jowell, Tessa

  Reid, Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Salmond, Alex

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Simpson, Alan

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  McFall, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  McLeish, Henry

  Spearing, Nigel

  McMaster, Gordon

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stevenson, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michael, Alun

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Milburn, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Miller, Andrew

  Watson, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Spellar.

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Petition

  Warre Drive and Snows Hill Crescent, Blackpool
  10.32pm
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Warren Drive and Snows Hill Crescent Action Group, whose members live in my constituency. They are concerned about proposals in Blackpool borough council's local plan for the area which would result in severe traffic problems, detrimental social effects and disastrous environmental consequences in the only open green spaces left in this otherwise densely populated residental area. The petition has been signed by 808 people.
  The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Government to declare the said land to be public open space.
  To lie upon the Table.

Traffic Growth (Blaby)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10.36 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is fitting that I should follow the presentation of that petition, which was also concerned with yet further pressure of the growth of traffic.
I believe that the growth of traffic is one of the biggest long-term problems—if not the biggest—facing the United Kingdom today. In my constituency of Blaby in south Leicestershire, which used to be a rural area before 1962, much has changed. Not all the change has been good; some has been excellent, but most of that change has been due to the motor car. In 1962, the M1 was built up as far as Lutterworth. That was followed by the M6—the M6–M1 junction is in the south of my constituency—and then by the M69. Rural calm in my constituency has been shattered for ever as traffic growth on all roads has increased,.
The debate is aimed to express the unhappiness of my constituents arising from the growth of traffic, and to ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is in no doubt as to the scale of the problem in this one constituency, this one region of the country, but is repeated nationally.
The growth of traffic impinges on all aspects of life—first, and most obviously, noise. People cannot sleep at night. People are for ever with the hum of traffic in their ears. There is also pollution, and the carbon emissions from traffic relate to our Rio commitments.
We also have asthma, which is currently the subject of much debate in the newspapers, and general health problems. We have the danger from traffic. When I was a child, I used to bicyle to school. No longer is that possible. We have the real stress caused by the growth of traffic and congestion. We have damage to the environment. We also have light pollution, about which constituents are beginning to write to me, as innumerable road lights lead to one being able, as it was described at the weekend, to read a book throughout the night in many villages.
Forecasts vary, but most would suggest that traffic will approximately double in the next 30 to 40 years, and the Department of Transport's forecasts state, in a written answer to me, that the growth in car traffic is forecast to be between 57 and 87 per cent. between 1994 and 2025 and the growth in heavy goods vehicle traffic during the same period is forecast to be between 54 per cent. and 110 percent.
What is our response to be? Will we double the number of roads? I read from a letter that I believe encapsulates the situation. It is from a constituent who has lived on the Leicester road in Glen Parva for 25 years. He writes:
"On first moving to my borne the road was an attractive elm tree lined avenue with light traffic even at peak times. Sunday was quiet and gardens in evening time were akin to being in the countryside. The 'dawn chorus' of birdsong was interrupted by isolated passing vehicles or at worst a single public service bus.
There has been an insidious deterioration of living conditions adjacent to the A426 over the years, at the root of which I consider to be the increase in vehicular traffic, its density, nature and behaviour.
Traffic noise under normal flowing conditions is now at such a level that normal conversation in the frontage of the house is not possible and proper rest within front bedrooms is elusive; the constant road noise of passing vehicles is disturbing. There is virtually no time of day or night—weekday and weekend—when no traffic noise is discernible."
758
He continues in the same vein. My constituent wants the Glen Parva bypass to be built. It has been planned; indeed, the proposals were drawn up 30 years ago.
Development has taken place in the region because it was believed that the road would be built to take the traffic flow but, understandably, people living near the proposed route are very upset. Ironically, the route follows two old and quieter transport systems—the Grand Union canal and a dismantled railway.
Although the Department of Transport has not funded the Glen Parva bypass this year, I believe that it will be built, backed by all the locally elected representatives in my constituency. But will it be enough? In 15 or 20 years' time, will we want another, wider road and will the Leicester road be congested again? I fear so unless we have an entirely new approach to dealing with traffic growth.
It was announced today that the M1 in the north of the constituency is to be widened to four lanes each way between junctions 21 and 21A in the next financial year, 1994–95. The M1 cuts deeply into Leicester Forest East, making life hell for those who live near it. Houses are blighted, and lives are disrupted.
Of course, the M1 was not so noisy when people bought their houses, and they want proper noise screening. Indeed, the Department of Transport has given an assurance that it will extend the planned noise screens all the way along the route through Leicester Forest East. However, my constituents and I want more. My constituents want proper compensation for the disruption of their lives, for the nightmare that their lives have become.
Sadly, the nightmare continues. At a recent Department of Transport presentation in the constituency, a civil servant from the Department said that the M1 would need to be widened further by the end of the decade. If that is true, will the Department consider buying properties now to end the anguish of my constituents who live alongside the route, or will it at least consider giving proper compensation?
I quote the chairman of Leicester Forest East parish council:
"If the DOT predictions prove correct then we will have the situation that the Ml through LFE will be in a state of chaos for a period in excess of 10 years. The situation on the MI is indicative of the lack of long term planning which we are suffering from in all aspects of Government, we have just completed lane closures for installation of lighting, now we have lane closures because of Junction 21 A, next year lane closures for widening to 4 lanes, and in the near future closures for widening to 5+ lanes."
Again, that encapsulates the point of the debate.
Next to Leicester Forest East, the A46 Leicester western bypass is being built. It is cutting off the village of Glenfield from the villages of Groby and Ratby and from the Bradgate Park area to the north as it is built to a new junction—junction 21A—which was not planned when the motorway was built because traffic was much less.
Besides all the disruption and unhappiness caused by the building, two ancient footpaths, which are still used by many residents, mostly now for recreation, are being closed. My hon. Friend the Minister—we have corresponded on this—will tell me that they are not being closed, but being diverted. He has suggested to me a mile-long walk alongside this very busy four-lane dual carriageway.
I suspect that a mile-long walk along a four-lane dual carriageway is not many people's idea of recreation, especially if they are old, or if they have dogs or children

759
with them. I suggest that my hon. Friend chastises the civil servant who suggested that, because it is, frankly, ridiculous. In this case, as in so many, cars are being put before people.
Further south in the constituency, where the boundaries run with those of Leicester city, there is Narborough road south, which has become a major highway. Huge developments, including the opening of the MI and M69 junction—junction 21—have created vast traffic flows. What was a suburban road—a relatively quiet road—is now eight lanes of very busy traffic, with a dual carriageway in the middle and two service roads on either side. Leicestershire county council has recently imposed a 50 mph limit there, but to little avail. Trucks continue to thunder by, shaking people's houses.
Again, I shall quote a constituent, whose letter sums up everything that I wish to say:
"Therefore, Government legislation is required for compensation to be granted for these properties…road works associated with the MI Junction Employment Area which are responsible for the following:

(1) Residents are unable to use front bedrooms and front living rooms due to excessive noise.

(2) Suffer from vibration of heavy vehicles.

(3) Cannot open windows due to traffic noise and air pollution.

(4) Property deterioration.

(5) Children cannot get readily to sleep.

(6) The effect of carbon emission on residents.

(7) Residents cannot sit peacefully in their gardens.

(8) Suffer huge loss in house value."

Those residents are too far from the road works to qualify for compensation, although their lives have been severely harmed. Their living environment has been spoilt. I urge the Government to compensate my constituents and at least to pay for double glazing. Above all, I ask the Government to look at the overall problem of the growth of traffic.
I now move south through my constituency to the market town of Lutterworth which was bypassed when the M1 was extended north in the early 1960s, having been built up to there in 1962. How calm it must have been when the M1 was built north—but no longer. Traffic streams through the centre and heavy goods vehicles shake all the buildings.
Already, a southern bypass is planned and will be built within the next two years. However, planners propose a box around Lutterworth, a western relief road to surround the town with heavy traffic.
Lutterworth is a popular place to live. Many new housing estates are being built, the houses in which command great sums. It is a popular place to live because of the quiet rural environment, with the fields between Bitteswell and the town where a small stream meanders. That is the site of the proposed western relief road, and that too will be destroyed for ever for short-term gain.
I hope that the road will not be built, and I urge my hon. Friend to resist the pressure from developers who are offering to build the road for the county council so that they can proceed with further developments. I urge my hon. Friend not to approve the scheme, but to look at the whole environment of the town, and, if action is required, as it may be, to put a new junction on the M1 north of the town, at junction 20A. The M1, after all, was built to bypass Lutterworth. Does it really need a second bypass not 30 years on?
760
Also in the south of the constituency is the A47, which was once a quiet country road. It now shakes to the passing of endless HGVs. It is very dangerous; there have been many accidents and some fatalities. Villages such as Walcote in my constituency were not designed for such traffic. The village is cut in half and ruined by the traffic.
Leicestershire county council has introduced some traffic calming, but with small effect. The building of the Al-M1 link, the A14, will be a palliative, but for how long? As it is, this new road has been driven through some unspoilt countryside, which we can ill afford to lose. It was described to me by my hon. Friend's predecessor as likely to be one of the last major new roads through virgin territory; I hope so, but we need a new approach.
Still in my constituency, the A5 is now intended to be dualled all its length. That will make another major source of traffic. Leaving aside new roads and new developments, even little villages are touched as roads carry more traffic than before—more traffic than they were designed for. Rural lanes become rat runs, and villages are spoilt by traffic, while the life of the villagers is degraded.
The huge problem of traffic growth affects everyone. Roads are designed and built to cure the situation, but in my constituency the Soar Valley way and Lubbesthorpe way were built not six years ago. They are, in effect, brand new roads, but they have already been dualled to cope with the extra traffic. If the traffic should double, as is predicted, what then? Will we have to double the size of those roads again?
I have demonstrated the problems of my constituency of Blaby, but if hon. Members would like a national example or an example in London, I refer to the M25, which has created huge traffic growth around London. People commute from Chelmsford to Chertsey. That is ridiculous, but it is being encouraged by road-building policies.
I ask the Government to take careful note: the problem will not go away. The Government are making sensible moves in the right direction, and I hope to encourage more tonight. I know that they are taking greater note of public transport needs. I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) today, in which he said:
"The Government is committed to a greener future for transport in Britain and wants to see the railways play their part."
It is excellent to hear that. Fifty years ago—perhaps even 35—I could have gone around my constituency by railway. I cannot do that now because of the Beeching axe. We must continue to encourage the return of freight and passengers to trains. We must also encourage everyone away from roads, I hope, by a policy of carrot and stick. We must enable cleaner, better buses and trains. I hope that rail privatisation will do just that for the railways. I applaud road pricing and the increased tax on fuel in the Budget.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider further provision and much firmer action. I urge, for instance, assistance for cyclists, encouragement for pedestrians and real assistance and encouragement. Leicestershire county council—to give credit where it is due—is very supportive of transport choice and of corridors. It is opening the new Ivanhoe line, it is assisting the cycleway from Dover to Inverness, through my constituency, and it is supportive of cycle paths. I applaud that, but I urge the Government to enable and assist further car sharing.
There is a new scheme called "Leicestershire", which is run by Environ, which used to be the Leicester Ecology Trust, in conjunction with de Montfort university. I heard

761
about it on Friday on a visit there. Many of my constituents drive into Leicester. I was astonished to discover that there are 47,000 empty car seats travelling into Leicester per day at peak times. Again, we should enable, encourage and assist car sharing.
Last week, the Leicester Mercury reported that four out of five drivers would support more environmental driving campaigns. In other words, they are prepared to change their driving habits. That is what we all must do.
On Saturday, a constituent, a friend of mine in his 60s, said: "We cannot go on like this." He was referring to traffic growth. He is right—we cannot. At 6 pm, outside the House, anybody trying to cross the road through the fumes could do so easily because the traffic is at a standstill. We cannot go on like that, in London or in Leicestershire.
Some people in villages such as those in my constituency will always have to drive. I am not anti-car as such. My hon. Friend the Minister has been quoted—I hope correctly—as having a love affair with the car.I urge him, if not to have a divorce, at least perhaps to cool his ardour. I look forward to being able to take public transport around my large, semi-rural constituency. I hope to see hon. Members using public transport to get to Westminster. We must change our attitudes. Perhaps we need to allow a little more time for travelling.
In conclusion, I urge my hon. Friend to tackle this huge problem of traffic growth before it overwhelms us all, as it is beginning to overwhelm my constituents in Blaby and in constituencies across the country.
10.54 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic(Mr. Robert Key): Because my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has spoken with such good sense tonight, we can all be sure that it will not be reported in the national media and press tomorrow.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. He has raised a number of extremely important issues, and I would find it difficult to argue against most of his propositions. His constituents can rest assured that their Member of Parliament means what he says and carries out his word.
As it happens, I have a copy of the Leicester Mercury of Saturday 16 October 1993. The headline is: "Bridge battle will go to Parliament". It has, and here it is. My hon. Friend has brought the battle here, as he said he would. In the journal, there is a photograph of my hon. Friend with a large number of people who were showing him exactly what they meant about the issue of footpaths.
I know that I will not have time to answer all the points raised by my hon. Friend, but I undertake to write to him on the detail. I shall concentrate on his major proposition, which is that we need a new approach to transport and the car in this country.
Of course he is right, and that is happening, although one may be forgiven for not realising that from reading what is written in the press by the various environmental and some of the motoring correspondents, who seem not to listen to this sort of debate. In such debates, Members of Parliament and Ministers can sort out a few of the controversial issues of the day.
My hon. Friend talked about the growth in traffic. He is absolutely right. In December, we announced a review of the methodology of traffic forecasting. For some time, I
762
have not been convinced that we had it right, so we are looking at that with the help of outside, independent experts.
Hon. Members may say that that is clearly meant to be a cover-up—that we just change the statistics. As someone who taught economics for 16 years before entering the House, I know that George Bernard Shaw said:
"If you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they would not reach a conclusion."
My hon. Friend then listed a number of important and practical points which concerned his constituents—for example, noise. Noise can be so intrusive. I happen to live next to a major road. I find it rather more quiet in my tiny flat in central London than in the pastures of Wiltshire, and the reason is traffic noise.
My hon. Friend was generous to point out that my Department is providing a great deal of screening from traffic noise. We are doing more. We are making enormous technological and engineering progress—for example, in new kinds of concrete surfaces. I am not talking about those terrible road surfaces that roar all night across the country; I am talking about whisper concrete technology and porous asphalt technology, which is coming on apace. Therefore, we can tackle noise to some extent.
Clearly, pollution also extends to emission pollution. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his policy on fuel duties, has given a long-term signal of the direction in which we mean to move here. My hon. Friend referred to sustainable development. That is very important. The Department of Transport was a major player in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's launch of our sustainable development policy a little while ago.
My hon. Friend also referred to asthma, which afflicts so many people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has established a working group on that, which expects to report in the first half of this year on asthma and traffic. A number of other reports have been made, which of course I have seen.
My hon. Friend also mentioned light pollution. I could not agree with him more. One of the most distressing things about the countryside now is the way in which it tends to be lighted by roads. But good news is at hand. Only last year, I published a good lighting guide for transport engineers, which points out that new lighting technology has improved the situation dramatically. Spillage of light from roads will be minimised—we will never get rid of it completely. Light on our major motorways and trunk roads is important for safety, but I am at one with my hon. Friend on the distress which light pollution can cause in the countryside.
I am looking urgently at the deep problems which affect transport in this country. For example, we must look at the motives for travel. Obviously, freight is a prime motive for any kind of transport in different modes, as is commerce and business. Leisure and pleasure are increasingly important motives for use of different modes of transport. They are important, because 90 per cent. of our journeys and freight travel by road, yet 40 per cent. of my Department's budget is spent on public transport subsidy, and quite right too.
Nevertheless, we must discuss the motives for travel, and we must address fairly and squarely issues such as demand management. That means different things to different people. To some it means marginal cost pricing. I feel strongly about that. I have thought it odd for many

763
years that we priced marginally the cost of a journey by train, plane, taxi or bus, but not by motor car or goods vehicle.
There is also the question of integrating planning with our transport, which is a part of demand management. Urban congestion, charging and road pricing are also involved. Of course, the management of demand can also refer to the management of the consequences of demand, and that is different. The consequences of demand include the congestion and pollution to which my hon. Friend referred. We must address also the important issues, such as whether it is the number of cars or the number in use at any one time.
We must do much research with the motor industry, which is concerned that the number of vehicles will fall in the coming years. That would be bad for employment in this country. The Government are often criticised for our failure to achieve long-term planning. The current roads programme was envisaged and detailed in 1989 in a White Paper.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been engaged since August last year in a prioritisation review of the road programme in this country. One of the motives for that is the establishment of the Highways Agency, which will be up and running from 5 April and will be charged with our road programme and the planning and maintenance which eats up such a substantial and growing part of the roads budget.
That will leave Ministers with rather more time to concentrate on proper integrated transport policies. Of course, it is right that we should encourage the use of modes of transport other than motor car. We must also recognise that the car will be with us for a long time.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that this afternoon I was the co-chairman of the Greener Motoring Forum, which was established by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside. The forum had representatives from car manufacturers, motoring organisations, local authorities and a number of other people who are interested in the future of transport in this country. That included the Department of Trade and
764
Industry, because we do not build roads for fun. We build roads, and improve and maintain them, to ensure the economic prosperity of this country.
My hon. Friend said in the Leicester Mercury on 16 October 1993—I am sure that he remembers it as if it were yesterday—that, if we are to have roads, we must take account of the people who already live near them and their ancient rights of way.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Grand Union canal and the dismantled railway that traverses his constituency in the area of Glen Parva. I have so much sympathy for his constituent who described what the area was like some years ago.
I am sorry that we were not able to accept the Glen Parva bypass for transport supplementary grant in 1994–95. Competition for funds was fierce this year, particularly as it has been necessary to reduce funding for local transport infrastructure by 15 per cent. Even more rigorous scrutiny of local authority bids than usual was warranted in the light of the current economic climate. The decision letter to Leicestershire county council included some detailed advice on bidding for funding for new major schemes in the context of the package bids for funding in urban areas.
I know that I shall have to end on this note, Madam Deputy Speaker. Package bids are a new feature of our transport supplementary grant. It means that we can invite local authorities to put together integrated transport bids that give proper attention not only to the motor car, to roads and to the quality of life of people who live beside roads as well as those who use them, but to cyclists and to pedestrians.
I shall shortly announce a new Government cycling policy. I am not sure that we have ever had one, but it is high time that we did. Also, we shall encourage local authorities in those package bids to bid for pedestrianisation schemes, which will add so much to the quality of life.
The Department of Transport is accused of many things. It cannot be accused of failing to look forward with optimism and realism to the needs of the next century. It is a demanding challenge, and one which I accept. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to air some of the arguments tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is the minimum period before which fees are settled for legal aid in(a) England and Wales and (b) Northern Ireland.

  (2) what is the average length of time for settlement of fees in legally aided cases in (a) England and Wales and (b)Northern Ireland.

  (3) what is the maximum period his Department allows itself for settlement of legal aid fees in (a) England and Wales and (b) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no minimum or maximum period for settling legal aid claims in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland. For England and Wales, both the Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor's Department have set performance targets for processing claims. Present targets and performance against those targets is as follows:

  Type of proceedings

  Time taken

  Target (per cent.)

  Performance (per cent.)

  Magistrates' Courts' Bills1

  6 weeks

  90

  295

  Civil Bills (taxed and assessed)1

  6 weeks

  75

  384

  Other Bills1

  6 weeks

  92

  295

  Criminal Higher Bills (standard fees)1

  (i) claim lodged day case concluded

  5 days

  100

  87

  (ii) claim received thereafter Criminal Higher Bills1

  10 days

  100

  87

  (courts' non standard fees)

  4 weeks

  70

  73

  Criminal Higher Bills4

  3 months

  75

  74

  (taxing teams' non standard fees)

  6 months

  100

  100

  1 From receipt of claim. The process involves the assessment of claims, and in civil proceedings investigation of the statutory charge, as well as the actual payment process.

  2 99 per cent, within 13 weeks.

  3 98 per cent, within 13 weeks.

  4 This target relates to final payments and to the period from the bills being ready to tax. "Ready to tax" means all claims in the case have been submitted. In certain circumstances interim payments may be made in respect of these cases.

  For the first time the Law Society of Northern Ireland set targets for processing claims during 1993–94. These were based on actual performance during 1992–93, which was as follows:

  Type of proceedings

  Time taken">4

  Performance Per cent.

  Criminal legal aid

  Magistrates' Courts Bills

  7 weeks

  50

  12 weeks

  93

  Appeals from Magistrates' Courts

  7 weeks

  50

  12 weeks

  90

  Crown Court bills

  12 weeks

  35

  26 weeks

  95

  Bails

  7 weeks

  54

  12 weeks

  94

  Civil legal aid

  County Court

  7 weeks

  73

  12 weeks

  88

  530

  Type of proceedings

  Time taken4

  Performance Per cent.

  High Court

  7 weeks

  79

  12 weeks

  91

  Appeals

  7 weeks

  73

  12 weeks

  89

  Bails

  7 weeks

  72

  12 weeks

  90

  ABWOR

  1 week

  100

  Legal Advice and Assistance

  7 weeks

  92

  4 From receipt of claim to assessment. A further period of up to 4 weeks may elapse before actual payment.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The figure for public appointments made by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Northern Ireland court service in 1993 is 42 per cent. This answer does not include judicial appointments.

  Mr. Bryan G. Davies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will invoke the services of the Official Solicitor in the case of Mr. Bryan G. Davies, currently in Brixton prison.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As a Minister I have no power to assign the Official Solicitor to a particular case.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to implement the Law Commission's proposals to allow for a time limit over the period after mortgage repossession during which interest may be charged by the lender.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Law Commission's report on "Transfer of Land—Land Mortgages", Law Com. No. 204, which contains these proposals remains under consideration by the Government.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if his Department will collect and publish statistics on possession proceedings taken by secured lenders.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At present, information is published on possession actions taken in the county courts, broken down between local authority and private lenders, including banks, building societies and other lenders. My Department has no plans to amend the categories used in the collection of these statistics.

  Courts Charter
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to amend the courts charter to ensure that courts provide access and facilities for disabled people and minority language provision.

  Mr. John M. Taylor:
  The courts charter applies equally to all court users. It will be reissued in April 1995
  531
  and revised to ensure that it meets the needs of court users. Facilities for disabled people are provided in all new court buildings and when old buildings are refurbished. However, there are constraints with some of the very old buildings. A register of facilities for disabled people in the Crown and county courts is produced by the Department.

  County Courts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions he has had with the citizens advice bureaux service and other consumer and advice agencies on providing advice and representations schemes in the county courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The citizens advice bureaux are consulted on all proposed county court rule amendments. The majority of county courts hold regular user committee meetings usually at quarterly intervals. The citizens advice bureaux and other advice agencies are represented on approximately 50 per cent. of the committees.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last met the Home Secretary to discuss the method for petitioning the European Court of Human Rights.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I regularly discuss matters of common interest with the Home Secretary.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last met the President of the European Court of Human Rights.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have never met the President of the European Court of Human Rights. The Lord Chancellor last met him on 8 October 1993 at the Council of Europe summit meeting in Vienna.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has

  Name

  When appointed

  Term (years)

  1st Commissioner:

  Lord Mansfield

  September 1993

  2

  2nd Commissioner:

  C. K. Howes

  September 1991

  5

  Commissioners:

  R. B. Caws

  January 1994

  3

  J. N. James

  January 1993

  3

  P. Sober

  January 1992

  3

  A. Macdonald

  January 1993

  3

  J. H. Norris

  April 1991

  3

  Lord De Ramsey

  January 1994

  3

  All appointments were made by Her Majesty the Queen.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table giving(a) the average mortgage interest rate for the leading building societies averaged throughout each year since 1979, including the average to date for 1994, (b) the average interest rate paid to investors by the leading building societies averaged for each of these years and (c) the differential between them.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table gives annual average mortgage and share rates for all building societies during the period 532
  received on the ability of United Kingdom citizens to petition the European Court of Human Rights; and from whom.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I have received representations on this subject from five persons or bodies. I will not say who they are since I have not obtained their consent to do so.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest statistics, for the year ending 1 September 1993, show that women were appointed to 31 per cent. of the public appointments made by the Treasury.

  Value Added Tax (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what average net weekly increase to revenue his Department estimates will be generated by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel once all bills become subject to the 8½ per cent. rate of VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  There are no plans to charge 8½ per cent. VAT on domestic fuel and power. Estimates of the yield of forthcoming changes are given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current Crown Estate Commissioners; how were they appointed; when were they appointed; and how long their appointment will last.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  1979–83; from 1984 onwards, it gives the rates for the largest 20 societies. The interest rate paid to investors has been enhanced to take account of withheld tax paid by societies direct to the Inland Revenue, on investors' behalf. The latest available figures are for 1 January 1994. These rates are taken from "Financial Statistics" published by the CSO.

  Date

  Average Mortgage Rate

  Gross Average Share Rate

  Differential

  1979

  11·94

  12·07

  -0·13

  1980

  14·92

  14·77

  0·15

  1981

  14·01

  13·13

  0·88

  533

  Date

  Average Mortgage Rate

  Gross Average Share Rate

  Differential

  1982

  13·30

  12·57

  0·73

  1983

  11·03

  10·39

  0·64

  1984

  11·76

  11·29

  0·47

  1985

  13·51

  12·78

  0·73

  1986

  11·92

  11·10

  0·82

  1987

  11·56

  10·42

  1·14

  1988

  10·97

  9·38

  1·59

  1989

  13·61

  12·30

  1·31

  1990

  14·99

  14·04

  0·95

  1991

  12·72

  11·01

  1·71

  1992

  10·64

  8·45

  2·19

  1993

  8·09

  5·78

  2·31

  11994

  7·94

  5·32

  2·62

  1 1 January.

  I should point out that the January 1994 mortgage rate quoted in reply to previous questions, 14 February, column 579, and 24 February, columns 273–75, should also have read 7·94 per cent. and not 8·00 per cent.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table giving the pre-tax profits in total for each of the members of the Building Societies Association for each financial year from 1978–79(a) in cash terms and (b) in real terms in 1994 figures.

  Mr. Nelson
  These figures are not collated by the Treasury and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Recession and Recovery
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 2, what are the widely used conventions for defining recession and recovery.

  Mr. Nelson
  A common convention is to define a recession as two or more consecutive quarters of falling output, with the recovery dated from when output clearly starts to rise again.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of member states' net contributions to the EC budget, after the United Kingdom rebate, in 1993; and what estimate he has made, in respect of the calendar year 1994, of member states' net contributions to the European Union budget for that year(a) on the basis of the latest draft proposal European Union budget, and (b) after taking account of the latest estimate of the United Kingdom's rebate for 1994.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave on 13 January at column 246.

  Ministerial Instructions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the occasions since 1979 when Ministers have issued written instructions to override his Department's accounting officer's objections.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: I know of no such cases.
  534

EMPLOYMENT

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the schemes his Department operates to assist staff facing financial hardship following a transfer, showing(a) the particular criteria and rules applying to each one, including the circumstances under which any loans can be written off, (b) the total amount loaned or granted under the schemes in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94 and (c) the number of staff assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When staff in the Employment Department Group are transferred to other sites in order to maintain operational efficiency, allowances are payable to cover the costs of house moves. In addition, if any staff are experiencing severe financial hardship, the Department has discretion to help with the repayment of bridging finance. Staff are required to borrow the maximum available from commercial sources. Help may then be available in one or more of the following ways:An interest-free loan of up to 12 months' salary; and/or
  An interest bearing loan; and/or
  In very exceptional cases, write-off of part of the capital. If the total to be written off is in excess of £5,000, in accordance with required procedures, prior Treasury approval is sought

  Each case is dealt with according to the particular circumstances and its merits.

  Staff transferring who find that the value of their old home is no longer sufficient to repay the mortgage may be allowed an interest-free loan of the difference between the sale price and outstanding mortgage to allow a relocation to go ahead.

  In 1992–93 40 staff received help in this way. The cost was £457,000, of which just under £130,000 will be recovered over the next 10 years. In 1993–94 so far, four staff have received help, at a cost of £41,000, of which just under £10,000 will be recovered.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he currently defines unemployment; how he currently compiles the unemployment figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department compiles and publishes two alternative and complementary measures of unemployment.

  The monthly claimant unemployment count is based on people claiming unemployment related benefits, that is, unemployment benefit, income support or national insurance credits at Employment Service local offices, who on the day of the count were signed on as unemployed, available for and actively seeking work. Students claiming benefit during a vacation and who intend to return to full-time education and temporarily stopped workers are excluded. The claimant count is a by-product of the administrative system for paying unemployment-related benefits. It is compiled from records of unemployment claimants provided by the Employment Service local offices. Almost all the data used to compile the count are derived from the Department of Social Security's national unemployment benefit system computers.

  In addition to the "unadjusted" claimant count the Department publishes a consistent seasonally adjusted

  535
  series. This series which is maintained to be consistent with the current coverage of the count, takes into account all relevant changes which, unless adjusted for, would distort comparisons over time. It thus allows meaningful comparisons with the past. The consistent seasonally adjusted series is available from 1971 onwards nationally, and from 1974 onwards for each standard region. It is this series which is the prime focus of economic analysis.

  A measure of unemployment according to the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition is obtained from the Department's quarterly Labour Force Survey. The ILO measure includes as unemployed those people who at the time of interview were without work—that is, working less than one hour per week—were available to start work within the next two weeks and had either looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained. The figures are consistently extremely close to those provided by the unemployment benefit claimant count.

  The Labour Force Survey has been conducted since 1973 and had provided a measure of unemployment consistent with the ILO measure since 1984. Quarterly results have been available from the survey since 1992. About 150,000 people in 60,000 households are interviewed each quarter. The survey covers a wide range of labour market topics on the basis of internationally standard concepts and definitions.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for the ratio between the number of unemployed persons and the number of vacant jobs in(a) south-east England, (b) the whole of England, (c) Wales and (d) the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  When making comparisons between claimant unemployment figures for an area and the corresponding jobcentre vacancy figures it should be borne in mind that, nationally, jobcentre vacancies represent only approximately a third of all vacancies, and this proportion is likely to vary between regions and between different skills and occupations. It is therefore not meaningful to express such figures as ratios. The extent of the available information is given in the table:

  Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment and Vacancies January 1994 (£000's)

  Claimant Unemployment

  Unfilled Jobcentre vacancies

  South East Region

  884·7

  36·6

  England

  2,320·9

  106·2

  Wales

  127·5

  10·4

  United Kingdom

  2,787·6

  141·8

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which occupations are not covered by national vocational qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have set the National Council for Vocational Qualifications the following target:"To secure the accreditation of NVQs of high quality and widespread acceptability, covering 90 per cent. of the employed population, by the end of 1995."
  536
  Currently 83 per cent. of the employed population, including all major occupational areas, are covered by national vocational qualifications at levels 1 to 4.

  The Employment Department and NCVQ are working closely together to develop NVQs in particular for higher levels and for occupations where the costs of developing NVQs can be justified by the numbers of people likely to demand them.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of young people who took national vocational qualifications level 2 passed in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. However, according to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, just under 200,000 national vocational qualifications in total were awarded from October 1992 to September 1993. The total has not been broken down by age and level. Information on awards by age and level should be available shortly.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Figures are collected each year for the year ending 31 August. In 1992–93 901 appointments were made. Of these, 182 or 20 per cent. were women.

  Figures for the calendar year 1993 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Access to Work
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what decisions he has reached on the detailed arrangements for access to work as a replacement for the existing special schemes for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 22 June 1993,Official Report. col. 102, I announced in outline the introduction of access to work, a major new programme for people with disabilities, in the next financial year. I am now able to announce further details.

  In reaching decisions about details, I have taken full account of the many comments and representations made to myself and to my noble Friend Lord Henley by hon. Members, noble Lords, disability and employer organisations and others, and advice by the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities.

  Access to Work will assist people to overcome barriers to work resulting from their disabilities. It replaces the special aids to employment, adaptations to premises and equipment, fares to work, and personal reader service schemes, which will be wound up. Help available under access to work will not be confined to specified forms of assistance; the scheme will be able to respond flexibly to need—for example, the needs of deaf people for communication support.

  It will be open to unemployed, employed or self-employed people registerable as disabled, with priority for unemployed people.

  As already announced, there will be an upper limit to the amount of financial help an individual can receive over

  537
  a five-year period, with entitlement beginning again after five years. I have decided to set this limit at £21,000. I have also decided to empower senior officials of the Employment Service, exceptionally, to authorise payments in excess of this limit where it is necessary and reasonable to do so and is compatible with helping the planned numbers of people from the resources made available to the Employment Service region concerned.

  I am very grateful to all those who participated in consultation and the various meetings I and my colleagues have held. In view of the evidence that many business people feel that a mandatory contribution could act as a deterrent to employers, contrary to the original survey data produced, I have decided to introduce access to work without seeking an employer contribution. I am particularly persuaded by the arguments of members of the all-party disablement group that we should try the new scheme for a year without an employer contribution and then review the position. However, we will continue to expect an employer to contribute when the help will be of general benefit to the firm and not solely for the disabled employee.

  I have therefore decided to introduce access to work without seeking an employer contribution and without assuming that employers will meet one-off costs of £100 or less for established employees. This will allow us to consider further the case for an employer contribution in the light of experience of operating the scheme. To fund wider access in 1994–95 I am increasing by £3·5 million the expenditure in 1993–94 on the schemes that Access to Work replaces. This includes £2 million that had not been in any previous plans. The total budget for further activities in 1994–95 will be £14·6 million.

  I will review access to work, including the issue of employer contributions, after the first full year of operation.

  The changes to the operation of access to work outlined earlier mean that it will no longer be possible to launch the new arrangements from 1 April 1994. Access to Work will now be introduced on 6 June 1994 and accordingly fares to work, adaptations to premises and equipment, special aids to employment, personal reader services for the blind., and separate help towards the cost of communication at interview for deaf people will continue until 5 June 1994.

  People receiving help under the current four schemes will be supported on their existing terms until 31 March 1995, from which time they will join access to work. They may join access to work earlier if they wish—for example, if they would benefit from the new forms of help.

  As previously announced, the business on own account scheme will be wound up from 31 March 1994. The job introduction scheme will continue unchanged.

  I believe that the introduction of access to work will be widely supported by disabled people and employers and will be a major step forward in releasing the skills and potential of disabled people at work.

  Child Labour
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions of employers illegally employing child labour there have been(a) since 1973 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for the years 1979 to 1992 on the number of prosecutions in England and Wales for 538
  offences in connection with the employment of children and young persons is given in the table. Data prior to 1979 are not available centrally.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for offences in connection with employment of children and young persons under the Children and Young Persons Act 1993, sections 18 to 21—section 18 as amended by the Children Act 1972–1979–1992. England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1979

  23

  1980

  26

  1981

  24

  1982

  17

  1983

  12

  1984

  12

  1985

  11

  1986

  2

  1987

  8

  1988

  28

  1989

  23

  1990

  25

  1991

  15

  1992

  12

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grade 1 and 2 listed buildings have been(a) demolished, (b) lost by fire or (c) otherwise lost since 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  The number of demolitions for which listed building consent was given between 1 January 1979 and 31 March 1993 are as follows:

  Number

  Grade I

  0

  Grade II*

  37

  Grade II

  2,227

  Total

  2,264

  The annual rate has decreased substantialy in recent years.

  Records are not kept centrally on the extent to which losses took place without the need to apply for consent, the causes which led to applications being made, or the extent to which consents given were implemented.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in what circumstances sports facilities are revenue funded.

  Mr. Brooke
  The great majority of public sports facilities are funded by local authorities. It is for them to decide what suitable revenue funding arrangements to make. My Department does not directly provide assistance for the revenue funding of any sports facilities.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations he has received from people in Coventry about the future and finances of building-based sports facilities;
  539
  (2) what representations he has received about the difficulties faced by sports clubs and local authorities in new capital schemes and enhancement schemes, particularly in the early years of sports facilities.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department has received representations from a number of local authority associations and individual local authorities, including Coventry city council, about these matters.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the funds available to Coventry sports organisations from the West Midlands sports council in 1994–95.

  Mr. Brooke
  The West Midlands region sports council is negotiating its proposed grant-aid to Coventry city council for two capital and two revenue sports projects within Coventry in 1994–95.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to allow all sports facilities to be revenue funded.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is largely a matter for local authorities rather than central government.

  The hon. Member may have in mind national lottery assistance for revenue funding. The draft directions I issued on 18 February set out the circumstances under which maintenance costs of capital projects might be assisted by revenue grants paid for out of lottery proceeds.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to allocate funds to regional sports councils from the national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the Sports Council is responsible for distributing that share of the net proceeds from the national lottery that will go to expenditure on or connected with sport. The Sports Council may not delegate this function to its regional offices, but may, of course, seek their advice on applications relating to their parts of the country.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oman
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the Export Credits Guarantee Department credit for Oman has been allocated to defence contracts in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  Of the guarantees issued by the Export Credit Guarantees Department in support of United Kingdom capital goods and projects exports to Oman over the last five years, the proportion in respect of exports of defence equipment was as follows:

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  0·0

  1989–90

  100·0

  1990–91

  100·0

  1991–92

  0·0

  1992–93

  98·4

  540
  ECGD's recently published 1992–93 annual report details the breakdown by sector, including defence, of the capital goods and project exports it has exported during each of the four years to 1992–93.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export credit guarantees have been provided to Oman in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department has issued eight guarantees in the past five years in support of United Kingdom exports of capital goods and projects to Oman as follows:

  Number

  1988–89

  1

  1989–90

  1

  1990–91

  1

  1991–92

  2

  1992–93

  3

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total Export Credits Guarantee Department exposure outstanding with Oman.

  Mr. Needham
  At the close of its last financial year on 31 March 1993, the Export Credits Guarantee Department's exposure on Oman stood at £427·6 million.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 320, if he will provide the information concerning foreign investment in some other form.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on stocks of foreign direct investment within the United Kingdom is regularly published in "Business Monitor MA4 Overseas Transactions", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Information on direct investment within OECD countries is published in "International Direct Investment Statistics Yearbook 1993", OECD, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Libya (Trade Figures)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trade figures between the United Kingdom and Libya over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The trade figures between the United Kingdom and Libya for the past five years are shown in the table.

  United Kingdom trade with Libya—1989 to 1993

  £ thousands

  imports

  Exports

  1989

  104,545

  239,191

  1990

  151,605

  244,849

  1991

  121,219

  255,718

  1992

  162,899

  228,273

  1993

  156,542

  274,051

  Source: UK Overseas Trade (Business Monitor MA20).
  541

  Textiles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made on securing increased market access for the United Kingdom textile industry under the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Valuable gains in market access have been achieved with the United States, the Philippines, Thailand and the Latin American countries. The improved access for wool cloth to the United States is particularly significant. The European Commission is continuing to negotiate with those countries which have made disappointing offers. I can confirm that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade met the Indonesian ambassador to the United Kingdom on 14 February to express concern about Indonesia's offer. In addition, he wrote to the high commissioners for India and Pakistan on 18 February.

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates his Department withdrew commercial export licences from United Kingdom companies wishing to sell(a) bacillus anthracis, (b) clostridium botulinum, (c) brucella melitensis and (d) clostridium perfringens to Iraq.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Export licences for Iraq were revoked by DTI on 9 August 1990 when SI 1990 No. 1651 came into force. This implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 of 6 August 1990. There is no record of any licence being issued for these agents in the period 1986–1994.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the first fuel core was delivered to the Sizewell B reactor.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand from Nuclear Electric plc that the first fuel elements were delivered to Sizewell B on 14 February 1994.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contracts have been taken out with Lloyd's Register for the independent safety assessment of the commissioning of the Sizewell B nuclear plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with his German counterpart as to the compatibility of the policy on the international co-operation on export controls, announced in December, with the European Union policy on co-operation and harmonisation of trade regulations.

  Mr. Needham
  I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had discussions with Herr Rexrodt, the German Federal Economics Minister, on the subject of the proposed EC dual-use regulation. There have also been regular bilateral contacts between British and German officials on the same subject.
  542

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Women (Violent Offences)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidelines the Crown Prosecution Service operates in considering public interest in the prosecution of women for violent offences.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service considers the personal circumstances of all potential defendants when deciding whether or not prosecutions are in the public interest.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  Recent representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public have emphasised the importance of continuing to tackle serious fraud both firmly and effectively.

  Bromley Council (Social Services Department)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 726, when the inquiry by the Metropolitan police concerning the alleged fraud within the social services department of Bromley council began; and on what date the last police report was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Solicitor-General
  The investigation began in January 1991. The Crown Prosecution Service received the most recent police report on 25 January 1994. It decided that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings for corruption. The Metropolitan police are continuing inquiries into a separate allegation of dishonesty.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General how many representations have been made to him about the opening statement made by the Cabinet Secretary to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I make no appointments to public bodies.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Attorney-General what instructions he has given to the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the prosecution of persons alleged to have assaulted police officers; if he will instruct the Director to prosecute illegal immigrants charged with assault rather than relying on deportation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Where there is sufficient evidence the public interest normaly demands prosecution when the victim of an assault is a police officer.
  543
  The Crown Prosecution Service last week issued guidance to all Crown prosecutors emphasising that illegal immigrants should not be dealt with by means of deportation when the gravity of the offence demands prosecution.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were considered by the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution in the last 12-month period for which figures are available; what number and percentage of cases were actually prosecuted; what number and percentage of convictions were obtained for England and Wales; and what are the corresponding figures for the Devon and Cornwall area.

  Table A: Magistrates' court

  Column 1 Completed Cases

  Column 2 Prosecutions Dropped

  Column 3 Bind Overs

  Column 4 Prosecutions could not proceed

  Column 5 Committal Hearings

  Column 6 Hearings

  Column 7 Convictions

  Column 8 Dismissals

  CPS

  1,362,277

  175,025

  23,920

  175,025

  103,299

  950,676

  935,044

  21,953

  Total (per cent.)

  —

  (12·8)

  (1·7)

  (12·8)

  (7·7)

  (69·8)

  (97·7)

  (2·3)

  CPS

  69,968

  8,535

  610

  4,034

  5,099

  51,690

  51,087

  839

  South West (per cent.)

  —

  (12·2)

  (0·9)

  (5·8)

  7·3)

  (73·9)

  (98·4)

  (1·6)

  The number of completed cases at column 1 does not include cases referred to the CPS by the police for pre-charge advice, or non-criminal proceedings.

  Convictions at column 7 are inclusive of guilty pleas as well as convictions after trial. Both convictions and dismissals are inclusive of cases proceeding to a hearing after the defendant offered mixed pleas of guilty to some counts and not guilty to others: these defendants are counted twice.

  Table B: Crown Court

  Column 1 Completed cases

  Column 2 Hearings

  Per cent.

  Column 3 Convictions

  Per cent.

  Column 4 Acquittals

  Per cent.

  CPS total

  95,600

  84,608

  (88·5)

  78,156

  (90·1)

  8,620

  (9·9)

  CPS South West

  5,647

  5,028

  (89·0)

  4,762

  (92·1)

  409

  (7·9)

  Completed cases at column 1 do not include appeals or committals for sentence.

  Hearings at column 2 do not include proceedings in which the defendant was bound over to keep the peace; prosecutions dropped by the CPS before the jury was sworn; or cases in which the prosecution could not proceed because the defendant had died, could not be traced, or was found unfit to plead.

  Convictions are inclusive of guilty pleas. The figures for convictions and acquittals include cases proceeding to a hearing after the defendant offered a mix of guilty pleas to some counts on the indictment, and not guilty to others: these defendants are counted twice.

  The national totals given comprise the 13 CPS areas, but do not include the specialised casework undertaken by the headquarters of the service.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Attorney-General what guidance is given to the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether it should proceed with a prosecution; and if he will make a statement.
  544
  The Attorney-General
  Figures for prosecutions in Devon and Cornwall are included in the total for CPS South West, and cannot be given separately. The latest period for which figures are available is the year ending December 1993.

  Table A shows at column 1 the number of defendants whose case was completed by the CPS in magistrates' courts during 1993; at column 2 the number and proportion of prosecutions dropped; at column 3 the number and proportion of bind overs; at column 4 the number and proportion of prosecutions which could not proceed; at column 5 the number and proportion of committal hearings; at column 6 the number and proportion proceeding to a hearing; at column 7 the number and proportion of hearings resulting in conviction; and at column 8 the number and proportion of hearings resulting in dismissal:

  Table B shows at column 1 defendants whose case was completed by the CPS in the Crown court during 1993; at column 2 those proceeding to a hearing; at column 3 those resulting in conviction, and at column 4 those resulting in acquittal:

  The Attorney-General
  The criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors are that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and a prosecution is required in the public interest.

  The charges should reflect the gravity of the defendant's conduct and will normally be the most serious revealed by the evidence.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pitcairn
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ecological considerations have been adduced by the Pitcairn islanders in expressing their preference for transferring from Britain's dependent territories to those of France.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Pitcairn islanders have not expressed to us any wish to become a dependent territory of France or to change the nature of their existing relationship with the United Kingdom.
  545

  EC Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the likely annual cost of the new EC Committee of the Regions.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Committee of the Regions has been allocated 12 mecu—£8·94 million—in the EC budget for this year.

  EC Bodies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the likely annual cost of each of the new Community bodies that were formally established at the European Council meeting on 29 October.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have the following information on estimated annual costs for those European Community bodies whose locations were determined at the European Council in Brussels on 29 October 1993:

  European Environment Agency

  The 1994 budget for the European Environment Agency has been fixed at at 8 million ecu.

  European Training Foundation

  The European Communities budget provides for expenditure of 5 million ecu for the European Training Foundation in 1994.

  Office for Veterinary and Plant Health Inspection and Control

  No detailed work has yet been done on the projected budget for the agency.

  European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

  The reserve chapter of the European Communities budget for 1994 includes provision of 4·8 million ecu for commitments and 4·64 million ecu for payments.

  European Medicines Evaluation Agency

  The budget for 1994 has been set at 7·5 million ecu (of which 0·7 million ecu is in the reserve chapter of the European Communities budget). The intention is that running costs will in due course be offset by fees so that within a relatively short period the Agency will be self-financing.

  Agency for Health and Safety at Work

  The appropriation requested by the European Commission in 1991, when the original proposal was made, was 6 million ecu for a fun financial year. Discussions are still continuing on the remit for the agency, and a final assessment of costs cannot be made until agreement has been reached. No budgetary provision has been made for 1994, but the European Parliament voted 500,000 ecu to the existing European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions "to take over the tasks of the planned Health and Safety Agency" pending the setting up of the agency.

  European Monetary Institute

  The size of the European Monetary Institute's resources is a matter for the Council of the European Monetary Institute (ie the central bank governors of all the member states and their President) which has not yet reached a view on the question.

  The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks, designs and models)

  The European Communities budget for 1994 includes provision for start-up costs of ½million ecu in its reserve chapter for this office. This may increase in subsequent years—in 1990 the European Commission, based on a study by consultants, estimated annual operating costs at 17 million ecu. The intention is that running costs will in due course be offset by fees so that within a relatively short period the office will be self-financing.

  European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)
  546
  CEDEFOP's budget for 1994 has been set at 11 million ecu.

  Translation Centre

  No detailed work has yet been done on the projected budget for this centre although it is planned that it should be self-financing on the basis of charges for its services.

  The European Council in Brussels on 29 October 1993 also determined the location of Europol, an intergovernmental organisation created under the third pillar of the Treaty or, European Union. The total budget estimated for the European Drugs Unit (the first phase of Europol) for 1994 is 2·065 million ecu.

  Libya
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of British nationals employed in Libya in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no figures available of British nationals employed in Libya. However, between the years 1990–92 we estimate that there were 5,000 British nationals there.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals were employed in Libya at the most recent date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no figures available for the number of British nationals employed in Libya. We estimate that there are 4,000 British nationals there.

  Jamaica
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Jamaican nationals have applied for visas since 1 January; what was the comparable figure for the same period of 1993; what is the current waiting time between application and interview; if he will appoint additional staff to process applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A total of 327 Jamaican nationals have applied in Kingston for entry clearance since 1 January. The corresponding figure for last year was 322. Applications to visit Britain are normally processed the same day. The one entry clearance officer in the British high commission in Kingston is assisted by a second such officer between 1 April and 30 September each year. The option to appoint additional staff, if required, to process applications is always under review.

  Mr. Stephan Kock
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions and in what capacities Mr. Stephan Kock acted on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in relation to contracts arising out of overseas development since 1988.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Mr. Stephan Kock was appointed to act on behalf of the Joint Intelligence Committee in relation to the Pergau dam contract in Malaysia.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.
  547
  Mr. Kock is not, and never has been, an adviser to the Joint Intelligence Committee.

  Mr. Israr Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 43, concerning an application made by Israr Ahmed (Ref: IMM/CO 442) to the British High Commission in Islamabad to enter the United Kingdom, when the hon. Member for Bradford, West will receive the substantive reply.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I regret that the hon. Member has not yet received a substantive answer. I will ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to let the hon. Member have one as soon as possible.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure his Department instructs British overseas embassies and high commissions promptly to issue visas to those wishing to enter the United Kingdom in cases where appellate bodies uphold appeals or refuse to grant his Department leave to appeal to the immigration appeals tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Entry clearance officers at posts overseas are under standing instructions to issue entry clearances as soon as possible when determinations favourable to the applicant are received via the Home Office.

  Mr. Ahmed Zahir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will instruct the British high commission in Islamabad to issue a visa to enter the United Kingdom to Mr. Ahmed Zahir (TH/1322/93) following the refusal of the immigration appeals tribunal to grant his Department leave to appeal on 3 December last; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In the absence of any information about this case, I have asked the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to let the hon. Member have a substantive reply in due course.

  Somaliland
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking, at international level, to ensure that resources are available to provide programmes of work and support for disarming militias in Somaliland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As a permanent member of the Security Council the United Kingdom has ensured that all relevant UNSC resolutions have underlined the importance of disarming militias throughout Somalia. We have also ensured that UNSC resolutions urge member states to provide resources in support of UNOSOM's efforts throughout Somalia.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way the United Nations supports the Egal Government in Somaliland.
  548
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are four senior UNOSOM staff in Hargeisa, comprising officer-in-charge, senior humanitarian officer, political officer and security co-ordinator. There are also local and international support staff.

  UNOSOM is working to promote stability and rehabilitation within existing civic structures throughout Somalia including the north-west.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the 1993 budget of the United Nations operation in Somalia—UNOSOM—was spent in Somaliland; and what proportion this was of UNOSOM's total expenditure in Somalia as a whole.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Total UNOSOM expenditure in 1993 was approximately $650 million, of which some 84 per cent. relates directly or indirectly to troop costs. The remainder covers the administrative support costs of the operation. Details regarding the proportion of this figure spent in north-west Somalia are not available.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Admiral Jonathan Howe, head of UNOSOM, has visited Somaliland; what promises of assistance were given; and what has actually been delivered by UNOSOM.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Admiral Howe visited Berbera in north-west Somalia on 6 November 1993, and committed UNOSOM to provide more than $3 million for strengthening the police, prison and judicial services, and for the provision of administrative kits to help local administrative structures improve their operations in north-west Somalia.

  This money has been allocated, but UNOSOM is not yet able to provide a summary of how much has been disbursed.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the United Nations to increase the resources of the Office for Project Services division of the United Nations Development Plan in Somaliland to assist the reintegration of former militia into a peaceful society.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations attaches importance to the early reintegration of former militia into a peaceful society. OPS is, however, an implementing agency which performs services for the United Nations system and governments on a cost-reimburseable basis. Any expansion of projects under way would depend on the availability of additional donor finance.

  "Partnership for Peace"
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made since the NATO summits of the diligence and application being shown by those responsible for setting up the combined joint task force and the infrastructure for "Partnership for Peace"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Work was set in hand to develop the combined joint task force concept and the "Partnership for Peace" initiative immediately after the NATO summit in January. Considerable progress has already been made. I have no reason to doubt the diligence and application of those responsible for this work.
  549

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British Medical Association and Department of Health will be consulted on the health effects of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I said in my answer on 1 February, c.605, our submission to the International Court of Justice will set out the position of the Government on this question. We shall therefore be consulting relevant Government Departments.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 605, when he will be making his submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall make our submission before 10 June.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of I February,Official Report, column 605, whether Her Majesty's Government's submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons will be published in advance.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Under rule 106 of the rules of the International Court of Justice it is for the court to decide, following the opening of an oral hearing, whether to publish submissions.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 605, what consultations he will hold before submission of Her Majesty's Government's report on the legality of nuclear weapons to the International Court of Justice.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will be consulting relevant Government Departments. We have discussed this question with allies in the past and may do so again if necessary.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 605, if his submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons will support the legality of (a) the use and (b) the possession of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It will.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 605, whether Her Majesty's Government's submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons will be laid before the House of Commons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A copy of our submission to the International Court of Justice will be placed in the Library of the House if and when the court has ordered publication of submissions to it.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the objectives and current status of CSCE 550
  missions in (a) Madedonia, (b) Georgia, (c) Estonia, (d) Latvia, (e) Moldova, (f) Tajikistan, (g) Nagorno-Karabakh and (h) Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  CSCE missions can make an effective contribution to promoting stability and containing the spread of conflict. They complement the work of the CSCE's high commissioner on national minorities and office for democratic institutions and human rights. I welcome the appointment of Richard Samuel, a recently retired member of the diplomatic service, as head of mission to Moldova.

  A note prepared by the CSCE unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, giving details of the objectives and current status of CSCE missions, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Poland
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current United Kingdom relations with Poland; when a senior Minister of the Crown last visited that country; and what significant visits by Ministers are planned during the next 12 months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We attach importance to our relations with Poland which are warm and friendly. We are optimistic that the one problem, that of air services, will be resolved soon.

  The last visit to Poland by a senior Minister was that of my right honourable and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in October 1992. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited in May 1992. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales paid a visit in May 1993 and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in September 1993.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to visit Poland this spring. Other high-level visits are under consideration.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the ratification of the 1981 inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The subject is under active consideration. We hope to make a decision soon.

  Anguilla
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the Anguilla Parliament has no Parliament building; and what plans there are to build one.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Agreement for the construction of separate accommodation for Anguilla's House of Assembly features in the country policy plan—CPP—signed between the Government of Anguilla and ourselves in August 1993. The relevant section of the CPP calls for the drawing up of detailed plans for the building in the financial year 1994–95, with construction scheduled to commence the following year.

  Iraq
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from the United Nations special inquiry commission on
  551
  Iraq to provide a list of British companies thought to have provided Iraq with military equipment or dual-use technology; and what examination he has made of the German submission to UNSCOM on the German companies' contribution for arming Iraq since its publication by UNSCOM.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]We have received no such requests from the special commission. However, we co-operate closely with UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Authority on questions of supplier information and investigate where the evidence warrants it.

  I am not aware of any publication by UNSCOMT/IAEA on the German contribution to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.

ENVIRONMENT

  Commission for Local Administration
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of the commission for Local Administration in England in each of the last three financial years and in the first six months of the present financial year.

  Mr. Curry
  The cost of the commission since 1 April 1990 has been as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  3,969,804

  1991–92

  4,905,021

  1992–93

  6,105,854

  11993–94

  3,219,800

  1 1 April to 30 September.

  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long it has taken, on average, for the Commission for Local Administration to deal with individual cases in each of the last three years and in the most recent six months.

  Mr. Curry
  The average time taken to deal with individual complaints has been as follows (number of weeks):

  Stage 12

  Stage 23

  1990–91

  18·0

  69·5

  1991–92

  17·0

  74·5

  1992–93

  15·4

  70·5

  11993–94

  14·4

  65·0

  1 1 August 1993 to 31 January 1994.

  2 A stage 1 investigation is one where the complaint is examined but investigation is not pursued beyond the stage of considering the council's detailed comments on it.

  3 A stage 2 investigation is one which proceeds with a view to the issue of a formal investigation report.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homeless households were temporarily accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hotels by each of the London boroughs, in rank order, at the latest available date.
  552
  Sir George Young
  The numbers of households reported by the London boroughs in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the end of September 1993, the latest date for which data are available, ranked by size are as follows:

  London borough

  Households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation

  Wandsworth

  435

  Tower Hamlets

  322

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  240

  Kensington and Chelsea

  215

  Westminster

  210

  Haringey

  202

  Barnet

  188

  Hackney

  159

  Lambeth

  100

  Enfield

  82

  Brent

  78

  Harrow

  74

  Hillingdon

  67

  Newham

  45

  Croydon

  44

  Hounslow

  36

  Bromley

  34

  Redbridge

  21

  Kingston upon Thames

  20

  Southwark

  18

  Sutton

  16

  Ealing

  9

  Merton

  9

  Bexley

  6

  City of London

  4

  Havering

  0

  Lewisham

  0

  Greenwich

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  Camden

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Source: Quarterly PIE returns.

  No return was received from Islington for this period.

  The differences in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation reflect variations in authorities' practices and in the level of homeless acceptances.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what agreement he reached with the Association of District Authorities on using nature of tenure as an indicator in the personal social services and the all-other services standard spending assessment;

  (2) what agreement he has reached with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on using nature of housing tenure as an indicator in the personal social services and the all-other services standard spending assessment;

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Association of County Councils on using nature of tenure as an indicator in the personal social services and the all-other services standard spending assessment; and what measure of agreement was reached.

  Mr. Baldry
  As part of the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 we discussed the inclusion of indicators of housing tenure in SSAs with representatives of each of the local authority associations. The main forum for these discussions was the SSA sub-group.
  553
  The decision to include indicators of the nature of housing tenure in SSAs was based on a statistical analysis which was discussed with representatives of each of the local authority associations in the SSA sub-group.

  The report of the SSA sub-group for 1994–95 was considered by the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance on 12 October. This report contained a number of options for changes to SSA methodology requested by these local authority associations which included indicators of the nature of housing tenure. During consultation on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95 none of the local authority associations listed made representations on the proposal to use nature of housing tenure as an SSA indicator.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authority associations prior to his announcing the provisional revenue support grant settlement as to the use of nature of tenure as a proxy for disadvantage for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution.

  Mr. Baldry
  Prior to the announcement of the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, as part of the review of standard spending assessments, we discussed a wide range of possible changes in SSA methodology with representatives of each of the local authority associations. The use of indicators of the nature of housing tenure was considered as part of these discussions, which took place in the official level SSA sub-group.

  The report of the SSA sub-group for 1994–95 summarises the papers presented to the sub-group and the points made by representatives of the local authority associations in the discussion which took place. I have placed a copy of this report in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reporting mechanisms for homelessness as used to calculate standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information on homelessness used in the calculation of standard spending assessments is taken from the annual housing investment programme returns completed by local authorities.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the bed-and-breakfast hostels for the homeless that have (i) been opened and (ii) been closed in each yeare since 1990.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally.

  Earth Tremors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the last four years, and for the current year to date(a) the location and (b) the Richter scale measurement of earth tremors that have occurred in England; and what structural damage was reported.

  Mr. Baldry
  The British Geological Survey has located 1,478 earthquakes in the United Kingdom and its offshore area in the period January 1990 to mid-February 1994.554
  Reports have been received of minor damage caused to properties from seven of these earthquakes; most widely from the so-called Bishop's Castle earthquake in western Shropshire on 2 April 1990 which had a magnitude of 5·1 on the Richter scale. Details are contained in annual bulletins and annual reports of the national seismic monitoring and information service operated by the BGS. Published copies for the first three years and draft material for 1993–94 have been lodged in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Canada Geese
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of Canada geese on the environment and on other forms of wildlife.

  Mr. Atkins
  There is growing concern about the impact of Canada geese on the environment and last year my Department set up a working group to assess the need for and develop a strategy to manage the population. To assist the group's work the Government have commissioned research into whether the geese pose health problems and whether they interact adversely with the nesting and breeding success of native wildfowl. It is also proposed to commission research into population distribution dynamics and movement of the species, and to quantify damage caused by geese to amenity land in London.

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the current mood of funding passenger transport authorities through the levy system.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Recyclable Waste
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the percentage of waste sent to landfills which is recyclable.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have made no such estimate. However, research by the Government's Warren Spring Laboratory suggests that over 50 per cent. of household waste by weight sent to landfill is recyclable.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total income received by each district council from the sales of council houses in each of the past five years; what percentage of these have been reclaimed by his Department; what is the projected figure, from each council, for the building of new council housing in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Information on the total income received by each district council from the sales of council houses in the past five years will be placed in the Library of the House. None of these receipts is reclaimed by my Department. Under the capital receipts rules, local authorities are normally required to set aside 75 per cent. of their housing receipts to meet their debts. Figures for the building of new council housing in the next financial year
  555
  are not held centrally. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing, with local authorities concentrating on their enabling role and on managing their large stocks of existing council housing.

  British Scrap Federation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of his Department's officials have attended the half-yearly dinners of the British Scrap Federation in each year since 1993; and what positions they held at the time.

  Mr. Atkins
  Although the British Scrap Federation hold half-yearly annual dinners in the spring and the autumn, it is only the autumn dinner that is normally attended by outside guests. Mrs. L. A. C. Simcock, head of waste management division in the Department, attended the dinner last November.

  English Nature
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes have been made to the allocation of money for management agreements for English Nature; what limits there are on the levels of payments for new agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has recently provided English Nature with an additional £800,000 to spend on management agreements in the current financial year. Financial guidelines in accordance with section 50 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provide the basis for calculating payments under individual agreements. These are currently under review and a consultation paper will be issued as soon as possible. In addition, English Nature is required to consult my Department where annual payments would be £40,000 or more or a lump sum payment of £250,000 is proposed.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment the quality of urban air review group has made of the relative disbenefits to the environment and human health of motor vehicles using(a) leaded petrol, (b) unleaded petrol, (c) diesel and (d) natural gas.

  Mr. Atkins
  The most recent report of the quality of urban air review group, "Diesel Vehicle Emissions and Urban Air Quality" was published on 28 January 1994 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the average waiting time for appeals going to the council tax valuation tribunals and (b) the cost of valuation appeals for each English valuation tribunal area.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is not yet possible to say what is the average length of time taken to hear appeals, since a great many cases are being settled by agreement between the taxpayer and the Valuation Office Agency, and only a small proportion have been heard and determined by valuation tribunals.
  556
  The estimated average cost of processing a council tax appeal in the current financial year in England is£115. This estimate includes Valuation Office Agency and valuation tribunal costs.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many households in Rochdale have appealed against their council tax banding; and how many of these appeals have been accepted;

  (2) how many households in Rochdale are still waiting to hear the results of their appeals against wrong council tax banding.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), on 17 February, column 967. Details of the outcome of appeals are not collected centrally.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the review of powers and duties of public authorities relating to the identification, assessment and appropriate treatment of contaminated land and liabilities to be completed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The review of the machinery for dealing with contaminated land and of liabilities is making good progress and is expected to be completed later this year.

  Offshore Oil Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which blocks his Department recommended should be excluded from the 14th round of offshore oil licensing; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department expressed concern about certain blocks which were of considerable importance to the marine aggregates industry. Our concerns were met and appropriate conditions were attached to those blocks which were included in the 14th licensing round.

  Forests (Access)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance the Government are giving to English local authorities to help them sign access agreements on privatised Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Atkins
  No specific grants are available for this purpose, but considerable general financial support is provided to local government through revenue support grant. Local authorities determine for themselves how these resources are to be used.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what controls exist at present on the rents charged by housing associations; and what plans his Department has to increase these controls in the future.

  Sir George Young
  The rents of secure housing association tenants—those whose tenancy began before 15 January 1989—are controlled by the rent officer. The rents of assured tenants—those whose tenancy began after 15 January 1989—are set at the discretion of the housing association. For housing provided with public subsidy, all
  557
  registered housing associations are required by the terms of the tenants guarantee to set and maintain assured rents which are within the reach of people in low-paid employment. The corporation monitors rent levels and the financial efficiency of housing associations, and can take action where excessive costs might lead to high rent levels. My Department has no plans at present to increase these controls.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy as regards the contruction of wind farms; and what circulars he has issued to local planning authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's policy on renewable energy, including wind energy, is set out in Planning Policy Guidancee note 22. Copies of this note were sent to all local authorities in England and Wales in February 1993.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) wind farms and (b) propellors (i) have been constructed, (ii) have been approved and (iii) are pending.

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

  Bio-fuels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned to determine the effect of bio-fuels on the global environment.

  Mr. Atkins
  Bio-fuels can affect the global environment by influencing emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, other gaseous emissions, and reservoirs of carbon in soils and vegetation. My Department has commissioned research on greenhouse gas emissions from waste disposal including waste as fuel, on landfill gas production, and on gaseous emissions from engines driven by landfill gas. We are also undertaking research relevant to quantifying the effect of bio-fuels on United Kingdom carbon reservoirs.

  Storm Damage
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which regions of the United Kingdom have been most severely affected by storm damage for each year from 1985 to 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Meteorological Office, who will reply directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 25 February 1994:

  I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking which regions of the United Kingdom have been most severely affected by storm damage for each year from 1982 to 1993.

  All parts of the British Isles can be affected by storms. Notable storms in the period include 15/16 October 1987 (southern England), 13 February 1989 (Scotland) and 25 January 1990 (much of England and Wales). In general, the windiest places are exposed coasts and hills, particularly in northern and western
  558
  Scotland. However, building standards do take account of the expected extreme winds in the local area, so that storm damage is not necessarily related. Records of wind damage are held by the Building Research Establishment. Further information can be obtained directly from the Chief Executive, Building Research Establishment, Bucknalls Lane, Garston, Watford, Hens WD2 7JR.

EDUCATION

  Special Schools
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children were taught in special schools in 1977, 1979, 1981, 1989 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Forth
  Pupils in special schools as a percentage of total pupil population in maintained schools in the years concerned, based on the latest data available, are as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1977

  1·55

  1979

  1·59

  1981

  1·62

  1989

  1·34

  1993

  1·25

  Prospect School, Berkshire
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education under which Act the ballot for grant-maintained status at Prospect school, Berkshire, has been conducted.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The governors of Prospect school, Berkshire passed a resolution on 10 January 1994 to ballot parents on the question of seeking grant-maintained status. The ballot has therefore been conducted under section 28 of the Education Act 1993.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost would depend on the types of provision, the balance between full-time and part-time attendance and the numbers of parents who choose to take up a nursery place. We estimate that the average annual recurrent unit cost for a full-time equivalent pupil aged under five in the maintained sector is £1,770 at 1993–4 prices. In addition, there would be capital, transport and staff training costs. As at January 1993, 55 per cent. of children aged three and four in England were already in receipt of some form of maintained or independent schooling.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give an indication of the figure available for supplementary capital allocations to local education authorities for 1994–95.

  Mr. Forth
  The total of supplementary credit approvals to be made available to local education authorities for 1994–95 is £39·398 million.
  559

  Drug Education
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the allocation for drug education in schools in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Forth
  Most current expenditure on schools is incurred by local education authorities, either directly or delegated through local management of schools schemes and totals some £15 billion a year. It is for schools and LEAs to determine in the light of local priorities and taking account of advice and guidance available how much of their total budgets to spend on drugs education. Through the grants for education support and training programme funding was made available on a pump-priming basis to support expenditure of £7·3 million in 1991–92 and £5·0 million in 1992–93 on preventive health education and training in schools, including education about drugs. At national level my Department's preventive health education budget supported drugs-related initiatives with grant exceeding £42,000 in 1991–92 and £149,000 in 1992–93. The provisional figure for 1993–94 is £104.000.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he was consulted by the Colleges Employers Forum on its model contract for further education staff.

  Mr. Boswell
  No.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East can expect a reply to his letter to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), dated 25 January.

  Mr. Boswell
  I replied to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East on 25 February 1994.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Latin America
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the aid programme in Latin America.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have a sizeable and successful bilateral aid programme in Latin America. It is focusing increasingly on the key areas of environmental cooperation, natural resources and good government.

  Southern and Eastern Africa
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom overseas aid to the southern and eastern African countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Africa is a high priority for Britain's bilateral aid programme. In 1992–93 we disbursed almost £304 million of bilateral aid to countries in eastern and southern Africa, excluding CDC investments, to help promote sustainable development and to relieve immediate suffering.
  560

  India
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the level of aid to India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  India is the top recipient of our bilateral aid and will continue to be a high priority. Planned expenditure for next year is in line with average levels over recent years.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many individuals in how many countries are estimated to have benefited from overseas aid in each of the past five years; how much cash was involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the last five years we have provided bilateral aid to an average of 133 countries each year. By promoting economic and social development, and by helping reduce poverty, our aid is intended to be of wide benefit in the recipient countries. It is not, however, possible to say how many individuals have benefited. The amount of aid which we have provided is as follows:

  Gross bilateral aid £ million1

  Total gross aid £ million1

  1988–89

  933

  1,616

  1989–90

  1,035

  1,736

  1990–91

  1,168

  1,893

  1991–92

  1,081

  2,016

  1992–93

  1,278

  2,245

  1 Rounded to the nearest million.

  Oman
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each project funded by the Overseas Development Administration in the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 7 February 1994,Official Report, column 70.

  Angola
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of United Kingdom aid to Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the start of 1993 we have allocated over £15 million of aid for Angola. This includes our share of EC aid.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British Aid is currently being given to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We expect United Kingdom bilateral aid expenditure for Indonesia in the current
  561
  financial year to be about £21 million. Our aid supports projects in such sectors as power, forestry, railways, civil aviation, education, broadcasting and public administration.

  South Africa
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to offer aid to South Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  This year we will spend up to £15 million, plus over £11 million as our share of EC aid. We will increase our aid to support a new South African Government pursuing sound policies.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to transfer the Driving Standards Agency to the private sector.

  Mr. Key
  I have no plans to change the status of the agency. Options for the future of the agency will be reviewed again in around three years. Meanwhile, the chief executive has been asked to make full use of the market testing initiative to secure best value for money.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether consultants have been employed to consider the future status of the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Key
  No.

  Supermarket Construction
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his intention to give a direction to refuse Asda/Thomas Storey, Stockport, Application No. 59583, which was lodged on 7 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No application for this proposed development has yet been referred to the Department.

  Vehicle Testing Stations
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the future status of the Vehicle Inspectorate's testing stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his provisional conclusions shortly. He recently made available to the Transport Select Committee the consultants' report on the future of the VI's testing functions; a copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) of 8 February,Official Report, column 149, whether the Government's review of the issues surrounding sustainable development resulted in any changes in the Government's policies on transport.
  562
  Mr. MacGregor
  "Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy" builds directly upon the commitments made in "This Common Inheritance" and subsequent reports. We are, therefore, already taking action on the issues raised. In addition to setting out the environmental situation in the United Kingdom and the principles and processes designed to respond to it, the strategy also highlights key areas for future action.

  Polish Airlines
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons he approved the withdrawal of landing rights for the Polish airline LOT; and how he proposes to resolve the dispute.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter I wrote to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 16 November 1993 which was deposited in the Library of the House and which explains the background to the current situation. We have been in contact with the Polish Government since the autumn in an attempt to resolve the current difficulties. Contacts are continuing and we hope that it will possible for direct services to be restored soon.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated number of all categories of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom, together with the estimated percentage of them equipped with catalytic converters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The distribution and volume of the United Kingdom vehicle fleet is set out in full in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1993". The latest information on the total volumes of licenced vehicles up to the end of September 1993 is included in the following table.

  Total licensed vehicles End September 1993

  Thousands

  Taxation class

  Total

  Petrol

  Diesel

  Other

  Private and light goods

  22,371·5

  20,249·6

  2,120·7

  4·8

  Of which:

  Private cars

  20,157·3

  19,040·7

  1,113·1

  3·5

  Motor cycles

  713·2

  712·4

  0·7

  0·1

  Goods vehicles

  430·3

  15·8

  414·4

  0·0

  Public transport vehicles

  107·8

  7·2

  100·6

  0·0

  Agricultural machines

  319·9

  7·8

  310·1

  2·0

  Other vehicles

  56·1

  39·8

  16·2

  0·0

  Exempt vehicles

  961·8

  766·3

  163·7

  31·7

  ALL VEHICLES

  24,964·2

  21,798·9

  3,126·5

  38·8

  The precise number of vehicles fitted with catalytic converters is not known, but is estimated at approximately 2·5 million or 13 per cent. of the total licensed passenger car fleet, excluding diesel cars. Catalysts are also optionally offered on some diesel car models and some motor cycles, but the numbers licensed are likely to be negligible.

  Midland Metro
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce Government funding and financial support for the Midland metro.
  563
  Mr. Freeman
  We will be looking carefully, in the context of this year's public expenditure round, at the scope for making resources available to that a start could be made on Midland metro in 1995–96.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for what reason no commitment to re-route the A40 trunk road in Cheltenham was made in the Government's draft planning guidance for the south west; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he plans to announce a starting date for road improvements to the A436 and the A417.

  Mr. Key
  The draft regional planning guidance for the south-west is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It provides the framework for the updating of structure and local plans in the region and is not the appropriate vehicle for commitments to particular road schemes.

  Construction of the A417 Brockworth bypass started last month. Further improvements to the A417 in this area are at the very earliest planning stages. It is planned that the A436 will act as a bypass for Cheltenham in conjunction with Brockworth bypass. A constultants' study is in progress to identify the need for, and environmental acceptability of, any improvements.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has considered paying the Automobile Association a fee for running the cones hotline.

  Mr. Key
  In considering the future development of the cones hotline, we are currently looking at the option of having it run by a private sector agency.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the cones hotline number is an indirect line.

  Mr. Key
  Until recently the cones hotline has operated adequately on the Department's general inquiry number. However, it has now been changed to a direct line—0345 50 40 30.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the purpose of the cones hotline.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 2 February, column 759.

  Baggage Security
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of instances annually, over the past five years, in which unaccompanied baggage was erroneously carried on flights departing from United Kingdom airports.

  Mr. Norris
  No such information is available.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it compulsory by law for all aircraft hold baggage to be reconciled with passengers on all flights departing from United Kingdom airports.
  564
  Mr. Norris
  It is already a legal requirement for aircraft operators to ensure that all passengers and operating crew, whose hold baggage has been loaded into an aircraft, have boarded and will travel on that aircraft. The baggage of passengers who check in but do not board the aircraft is required to be removed and may not be carried unless it is subjected to security controls. There are circumstances where baggage may be legitimately carried without an accompanying passenger; however, such unaccompanied baggage is not carried unless it is first screened and if necessary hand-searched.

  The United Kingdom has always complied with international requirements on passenger baggage. We have even gone further and introduced a recommended practice for airlines to account for and authorise for carriage every item of hold baggage that they carry. This will become a mandatory requirement within a few months.

  A27
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the cost of the tunnels on the Department's scheme for the A27 development in Worthing and Shoreham and the costs of the tunnels of the blue route and the extent to which these figures have been reduced by improved technology compared with the technology used on the Brighton bypass.

  Mr. Key
  This information is available from the Department's representative at the public inquiry into the A27 Worthing-Lancing improvement proposals. I will ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the properties which have been purchased by his Department in connection with the developments of the A27 in the Worthing area which he has or now proposes to sell; what is the price, and total cost to his Department, of each; and at price each has been(a) sold or (b) is now on the market.

  Mr. Key
  Of the properties which have been purchased in connection with the A27 Worthing-Lancing scheme, six have been offered for sale as follows:

  Property

  Offers invited in the region of(£)

  52 Longlands, Worthing

  130,000

  54 Longlands, Worthing

  135,000

  56 Longlands, Worthing

  140,000

  44 Copthorne hill. Worthing

  75,000

  11 Fontwell close, Worthing.

  90,000

  20 Findon road, Worthing

  57,000

  Total

  627,000

  A sale has been agreed for 54 Longlands, but it would not be appropriate to disclose the sale price which is confidential to the prospective purchaser.

  It would not be appropriate to disclose the price paid by the Department for each property, which is confidential to the former owners, but the total price to the Department for the six properties was £901,750 exclusive of fees and other administrative costs.
  565

  Goods Vehicle Information Discs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the discs which goods vehicle operators are required to display are designed to be read by pedestrians who are aggrieved by the vehicle's operation or operator.

  Mr. Key
  Goods vehicle operator discs are primary intended to assist the police and other enforcement organisations who carry out checks on heavy goods vehicles. Should members of the public who wish to register a complaint concerning a goods vehicle have difficulty in readily identifying the operator of the vehicle, they should contact the local traffice office quoting the vehicle's registration mark.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Information in the precise form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. An annual monitoring exercise is undertaken of the position as at 1 September each year and figures are passed to the Cabinet Office for inclusion in their annual publication of "Public Bodies 1993". The proportion of DOT appointments held by women shown in "Public Bodies 1993" is 19 per cent. In "Public Bodies 1992" it was 14 per cent. The departmental objective is that the percentage should be increased to 25 per cent. by 1996.

  Traffic Regulations (Implementation)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which private organisations have been authorised to implement traffic regulations; and in what circumstances they have been authorised.

  Mr. Key
  Some local traffic authorities employ contractors to carry out various parking enforcement functions, and some police forces use them to remove vehicles under the direction of constables or traffic wardens. In addition, the Metropolitan police use contractors to fix and remove wheelclamps—again under the direction of constables or traffic wardens. There is no requirement for the traffic authorities and police forces concerned to notify the Department of their arrangements, so there is no central record of those which have employed contractors on these tasks, or of the contractors used.

  Trolley Bus Service
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reinstate the proposal to establish a trolley bus service from Bradford city centre to Buttershaw in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The West Yorkshire passenger transport authority did not include this project in its bid for resources in 1994–95. It is for the PTA and the city council to decide whether to include it in their bids in future years.
  566

  Free Rail Passes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision he has made for the continuation of the availability of the free rail passes to former GWR and subsequently BR employees, currently pensioners, under future franchise arrangements.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have given a clear assurance that free and reduced rate travel concessions for the retired staff of BR will be safeguarded. Franchised service operators will be obliged, through the terms of the contracts that they will have with the franchising director, to provide concessionary travel on their services to those permanently entitled.

  Railway Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to establish a joint railway industry pension scheme, providing benefits no less favourable than the existing BR pension scheme, which BR staff employed on 5 November 1993(a) who continue to work in the railway industry and (b) who, following privatisation, leave the railway industry company in which they were first employed, will have a statutory right to join.

  Mr. Freeman
  It has long been Government policy to establish such a scheme, which will provide benefits no less favourable than the existing BR pension scheme to BR staff participating, or eligible to participate, in that scheme at 5 November 1993. Those staff will have an "indefeasible right" to remain in the joint industry scheme so long as they remain in continuous employment in the railway industry.

  A66
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give estimates of the number of vehicles travelling east to west along the A66 from Stockton to Darlington on(a) weekdays and (b) Saturdays and Sundays.

  Mr. Key
  The average westbound traffic flows on the A66 in the vicinity of Elton and Longnewton are as follows:

  Daily

  Peak hour

  Weekday

  12,900

  1,380

  Saturday

  9,700

  760

  Sunday

  6,600

  600

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct his regional office not to divert traffic from the A66 through Elton during the week beginning 5 March.

  Mr. Key
  I regret the inconvenience to my hon. Friend's constituents. Diversion through Elton is, on balance, the optimum solution and will go ahead as planned.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish an official syllabus for learner large goods vehicle drivers.
  567
  Mr. Key
  The Driving Standards Agency has today published "Your Large Goods Vehicle Driving Test". As well as giving clear guidance about preparing for and taking an LGV driving test, the book contains the officially recommended learner LGV syllabus which was developed by the DSA following extensive consultation with the road transport and haulage industries. The book also offers advice on issues that will be equally relevant to the more experienced LGV driver, such as driver attitudes and knowledge, hazard perception and motorway driving. I am placing copies in the Library.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for starting new construction on trunk roads in 1994–95.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am pleased to announce that, subject to the completion of the remaining statutory procedures and availability of funds, we will begin work on 22 major national road starts in 1994–95. These starts represent new investment in total over the whole construction period of over £1 billion. The Highways Agency, which will assume responsibility for managing, maintaining and improving the trunk road network at the beginning of the new financial year, will oversee the construction of these starts.

  I am also publishing today a reserve list of seven starts that could also begin in 1994–95. In the event of unavoidable delays in the planned starts, these will be brought forward.

  The planned and reserve starts are as follows:

  Planned starts

  A564 Doveridge Bypass1

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass and Spur

  M1 Junction 21–21A Widening Phase 1

  M40 Junction—1A-13 Widening

  A13 Wennington—Mar Dyke Improvement

  A428 Bedford Southern Bypass

  A1(M) Alconbury—Peterborough Upgrading Contract 11

  A12 Hackney—M11 Contract 2

  A12 Hackney—M11 Contract 3

  A406 Silver Street—Fore Street Improvement

  A568 Widnes Eastern Bypass (South)

  M66 Denton—Middleton Contract 2

  M65 Blackburn Southern Bypass Contract 2

  M6 Junction 20–21A (bridge renewal)

  A19 Norton—Parkway Improvement

  A34 Newbury Bypass

  A34 Chieveley/M4 Junction 13 Improvement

  M25 Junction 8–10 Widening1

  A30 Honiton—Exeter Improvement

  M5 Junction 18–19 Widening

  A50 Blythe Bridge—Queensway Phase 2

  M621/M1 Link

  Reserve list

  All Roudham—Attleborough Improvement

  M25 Junction 16–19 Widening1

  A406/A1/A598 Regents Park Road Junction Improvement1

  A13 West of Heathway—Thames Avenue Improvement

  A69 Haltwhistle Bypass

  A27 Polegate Bypass

  A35 Tolpuddle—Puddletown Bypass

  1Design and build schemes.

  All the 1994–95 starts will bring substantial economic and safety benefits to users of the national road network and local residents. They are particularly important in
  568
  helping to reduce the cost of congestion to industry. All the schemes have been subject to full environmental assessment and have been designed in accordance with the latest techniques to minimise the impact on the environment. The planned starts include six bypasses particularly designed to remove traffic from town and village centres.

  Three of the planned starts and two of the reserve starts are being progressed under design and build contracts, where the contractor is responsible for both scheme design and construction. These contracts offer increased certainty over timing and cost and greater efficiency of design.

  The 22 new starts are in addition to the current construction programme. There are over 50 contracts currently under way. In 1994–95 we estimate total expenditure on new construction will be some £1·3 billion.

  Arundel Bypass
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the proposed date is for commencement of work on the construction of the A27 Arundel bypass.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: Start of construction of the A27 Arundel bypass will depend on the completion of statutory procedures, the outcome of the current review of the roads programme, and the availability of funds.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to each of the health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. and learned Friend has approved the following appointments to the boards of health and social services trusts:

  ROYAL GROUP OF HOSPITALS HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  Dr. William George Quigley CB

  Non-executive directors

  Dr. George Alexander Baird

  John Carson Esq.

  Alan Johnston Gibson Esq.

  Paul McWilliams

  Sister Mary Turley

  BELFAST CITY HOSPITAL HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  G. Henry Moore Esq.

  Non-executive directors

  Danny Carty Esq.

  Harold Ennis Esq.

  Mrs. Catherine Francis (Pip) Jaffa

  Wilfred Mulryne Esq.

  Professor Robert G. Shanks

  DOWN LISBURN HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  Mrs. Gillian Shaw

  Non-executive directors

  Albert S. Baird Esq.

  Mrs. Anne Marie Colgan

  Mark Ennis Esq.

  Mrs. Denise Fitzsimons

  Alfred Linehan Esq.

  569
  EASTERN AMBULANCE SERVICE HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  G. Ivor Oswald Esq. OBE

  Non-executive directors

  Brian Carlin Esq.

  Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Fulton

  Ernest George Taylor Esq.

  GREEN PARK HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  Norman Shaw Esq.

  Non-executive directors

  Sir Kenneth Percy Bloomfield

  Lord Alan Henry Brookenborough

  Ian Doherty Esq.

  Mrs. Christine Lynch

  Rollo McClure Esq.

  NORTH DOWNS AND ARDS HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  Jim Shields Esq.

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. Ann R. Bagnall

  Eric D. Carson Esq.

  Charles Coleman Esq.

  Mrs. Eileen Siobhan Grant

  Stanley McDowell Esq.

  NORTH AND WEST BELFAST HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  Gordon Burnison OBE Esq.

  Non-executive directors

  Thomas Connolly Esq.

  Mrs. Judith M. Eve

  Mrs. Anne M. Maguire

  Ronald E. Moore Esq.

  David Russell Esq.

  SOUTH AND EAST BELFAST HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  Mrs. Brenda McLaughlin

  Non-executive directors

  Peter Fleming Esq.

  Gerald F. Gilpin Esq.

  Robin Hams Esq.

  Professor Simon Lee

  Mrs. Georgina Poulter-Brown

  ULSTER NORTH DOWN AND ARDS HOSPITALS TRUST

  Chairman

  Sir Dennis Faulkner

  Non-executive directors

  Mrs. Joan Cynthia Baxter

  Mrs. Lucinda Blakiston-Houston

  David de Bohun Chamberlain Esq.

  George Harkness Esq.

  Barry McBride Esq.

  CRAIGAVON AREA HOSPITALS HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  Noel Stewart Esq.

  Non-executive directors

  Professor Michael Connolly

  Mrs. Anne Eimear Cullen

  David Hall Esq.

  Archie Mckelvey Esq.

  Mrs. Cecilia M. Woods

  CRAIGAVON AND BANBRIDGE HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  David Somerville Cook Esq.
  570
  Non-executive directors

  Not yet appointed

  NEWRY AND MOURNE HSS TRUST

  Chairman

  John Francis McEvoy Esq.

  Non-executive directors

  Walter Cosgrove Esq.

  Mrs. Delia Cunningham

  George Graham Esq.

  Fergal McCormack Esq.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a detailed report of the discussions which took place in the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on the proposed United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies; what undertakings were given to the Irish Republic's delegation in regard to those proposals; and what representations made by the Irish Republic's delegation have been brought to the attention of Madam Speaker, as chair of the Boundary Commission.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not the custom to publish reports of discussions which take place within the intergovernmental conference, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the terms of the communiqué issued after that meeting. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland is an independent body responsible to Parliament and not to the Government, a fact which was made clear at the IGC. It follows that Her Majesty's Government has no role in representing anyone else's views on the Boundary Commission to its Chairman.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Poisons Board.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current membership of the Poisons Board is as follows:

  Mr. T. Ferris, QC (Chairman)

  Professor D. T. Burns

  Dr. D. J. L. Carson

  Mr. R. A. Hall, OBE

  Dr. B. D. Harper

  Mr. W. T. Hunter

  Dr. G. D. Johnston

  Mr. R. G. P. McMullan

  Mr. T. Scott

  Mrs. M. Singleton

  Dr. W. M. Mawhinney

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Laboratory Services Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Laboratory Services Advisory Committee are as follows:

  Professor J. M. Bridges (Chairman)

  Dr. G. P. R. Archbold

  Dr. P. C. Boreland

  Mr. R. G. Coulter

  Mr. E. H. Crozier

  Dr. B. M. Hannigan

  Mr. W. D. Harvey

  Mr. B. P. Ingram

  Mr. G. W. M. Leahy

  Dr. M. Madden

  Miss G. Roberts

  Professor P. G. Toner

  571

  Dr. T. S. Wilson

  Mrs. M. Keenan

  Mr. J. J. O'Boyle

  Miss M. A. Pidgeon

  Mrs. K. Savage

  Mrs. E. Roche

  Miss P. Ginnety

  Mrs. M. J. Smyth

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Distinction and Meritorious Service Awards Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The present membership of the committee is:

  Mr. D. Gordon, CBE

  Professor J. Bridges

  Professor R. G. Shanks

  Professor M. Rosen, CBE

  Professor B. M. Hibbard

  Dr. F. Caldicott

  Mr. D. D. Smyth

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice T. O'Donnell (retired)

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Carswell

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current membership of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Dr. J. A. F. Beirne (Chairman)

  Mrs. Nora Archibald

  Mr. Eric A. N. Culbert

  Dr. Yvonne Duff

  Mrs. Joan Ewing

  Mr. Mervyn Gallagher

  Mrs. Deidre Gilchrist

  Mr. George Graham

  Mr. William Keown

  Dr. Joseph H. K. Lim

  Dr. Carolyn M. Marriott

  Dr. Graham McDonald

  Dr. Joseph MacMahon

  Dr. Agnes M. McKnight

  Mrs. M. Kay Rogers

  Mrs. Isobel Thompson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Clinical Imaging Services Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Clinical Imaging Services Advisory Committee are as follows:

  Chairman:

  Dr. J. G. Crothers

  Members:

  Dr. T. K. Bell

  Dr. K. Cranley

  Dr. C. W. Majury

  Mr. R. McQuade

  Miss C. O'Neill

  Miss D. Patton

  Mrs. A. E. Porter

  Mr. S. H. Porter

  Miss J. Robinson

  Dr. J. Walker

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics Services Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics Services Advisory Committee are as follows:
  572
  Chairman

  Dr. J. E. Galway

  Members

  Mr. M. W. Algie

  Mr. D. A. Adams

  Dr. T. K. Bell

  Dr. M. Cody

  Mr. W. J. Doran

  Mr. J. M. Easton

  Mr. T. L. Frew

  Dr. P. D. Hanley

  Dr. G. Kernohan

  Mr. J. D. Malcolm

  Mrs. S. Mullin

  Mr. D. O'Donnell

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Central Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Central Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee are as follows:

  Chairman

  Mr. D. Corbett

  Members

  Mr. D. Dougherty

  Mr. C. Watt

  Miss A. Diamond

  Mr. J. P. Beagon

  Dr. J. D. G. O'Hare

  Ms A. Bowen

  Mrs. M. Singleton

  Mr. V. E. Reaney

  Mr. T. G. Hannawin

  Miss A. McCollom

  Dr. D. J. Morrison

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Central Personal Social Services Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Central Personal Social Services Advisory Committee are as follows:

  Chairman

  Mrs. E. McKay

  Members

  Mr. A. S. Buchanan

  Mr. C. J. Common

  Miss M. S. Irwin

  Mr. K. P. Keenan

  Miss P. A. Lockie

  Ms M. C. McAuley

  Mrs. V. McGuffin

  Mr. R. I. McKeown

  Mrs. G. McKibbin

  Mr. R. Moore

  Dr. J. R. Pinkerton

  Ms M. B. E. Smyth

  Mr. P. Sweeney

  one vacancy.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Central Medical Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Central Medical Advisory Committee are as follows:

  Dr. S. M. Lyons(Chairman)

  Dr. A. M. Telford

  Professor R. W. Stout

  Dr. J. Wilde

  Mr. D. S. Gordon

  Dr. C. A. Hamilton

  Dr. H. A. Jefferson

  573

  Dr. E. P. Beckett

  Dr. D. A. J. Keegan

  Dr. J. M. W. Park

  Dr. P. J. Kennedy

  Dr. M. J. Toal

  one vacancy.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee of the Therapeutic Professions Allied to Medicine.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Advisory Committee of the Therapeutic Professions Allied to Medicine are as follows:

  Mrs. C. Rosen (Chairman)

  Miss M. J. Boyd

  Mrs. I. Boyd

  Mrs. J. Holmes

  Mrs. C. McGartland

  Miss R. Nesbitt

  Mrs. D. E. Braden

  Mrs. C. M. E. Cranston

  Mrs. R. M. Maxwell

  Mrs. G. E. McDowell

  Miss A. McQueen

  (one vacancy)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Non-executive appointments

  Miss E. McNair (Chairman)

  Mrs. R. Malone

  Mrs. M. McGinley

  Mrs. A. Colgan

  Miss P. Stanley

  Professor M. Connolly

  Mr. G. R. Camlin

  Executive appointments

  Dr. O. D'A. Slevin

  Mr. E. N. Thom

  Miss S. G. Campbell

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Charities Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Ancram
  The current members of the Charities Advisory Committee are:

  Sir Eric McDowell, CBE

  Mr. J. R. Comerton

  Mr. F. J. Ledwidge

  Mr. H. T. Morrison

  Mr. J. M. Holland

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been expended by his Department in each year since the Department of Agriculture first leased and began investigations into the salmon in the River Bush; and how many reports have been produced as a result of that work; how many and which of these reports have been published for sale to the general public; and if he will now publish a comprehensive report of all the findings in a form easily understood by the general reader.

  Mr. Ancram
  The total expenditure by the Department in each year is not available. However, the running costs 574
  relating to the project are published in the annual reports on the sea and inland fisheries of Northern Ireland, copies of which are in the Library. Forty-eight scientific reports arising from the River Bush project have been published. A comprehensive report will not be published until the project has been completed. However, annual reports on the project, written in layman's terms, are published in the annual report on research and technical work of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Copies of the scientific publications and the annual reports are available, on application, from the Department.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the area of spawning grounds available to grilse and salmon in the River Bush catchment area, the number of such fish that this area can accommodate, the number of fish counted in such areas in each of the last five years for which figures are available, the number of parr produced in each of the last five years and the number of smolts migrating in those years; and what is his estimate of the optimum numbers of each cohort of such mature and juvenile fish.

  Mr. Ancram
  The total usable salmonid nursery habitat, comprising spawning and nursery habitat as both are necessary to produce juveniles, is 41·06 hectares. The internationally recognised methodology for measuring utilisation of habitat is ova deposition, rather than number of adult fish, as number of ova per fish can vary considerably. From the research to date, it has been estimated that the overall optimum ova deposition for the River Bush is 2·46 million ova. Ova deposition actually achieved over the past five years is set out in the table. The target deposition has been exceeded in three out of the last five years.

  Year of run

  Ova deposition (millions)

  1988

  4·60

  1989

  1·06

  1990

  2·44

  1991

  2·97

  1992

  2·72

  11993

  1

  1Not yet collated.

  The number of juvenile fish—fry and parr—on the River Bush is ascertained by electrofishing surveys at 137 sites covering all the significant spawning and nursery areas. The table sets out the results of the survey.

  Year

  Average number salmon 0+ per 5 min. fishing

  1988

  8·26

  1989

  16·20

  1990

  5·65

  1991

  12·48

  1992

  13·04

  5 year average

  11·25

  It should be noted that the surveys are not fully quantitative. They should provide indices of abundance to compare between years and should not be interpreted as indicative of the number of salmon comprising the standing stock at the time of the survey.
  575
  The wild salmon smelt migration is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of smolts

  1988

  22,994

  1989

  17,812

  1990

  17,354

  1991

  18,471

  1992

  10,006

  It should be noted that the target ova deposition set by the Department to achieve optimum recruitment may, due to biological and environmental conditions occurring after ova deposition, result in a wide range of recruitment—that is, an egg-based target aims to ensure full utilisation of habitat, but environmental and predation factors influence the eventual number of fish produced. As a result targets cannot be set for these categories of fish and the statistics given on juvenile and smolt numbers are of limited application to the estimation optimum numbers requested as there are no juvenile or smolt targets set.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the cash income and (b) the real income of Northern Ireland farmers, divided into the main farm sectors, for the longest available series of years since 1964, with the numbers of farm businesses in each of those years, the number of (i) farmers, (ii) full-time farm workers, and (iii) farm family workers, giving the total

  Table 1

  Total Income from Farming, Income per Farm Business and Annual Wage per Full-time Male Worker (20 years and over) in Current Terms and in Real Terms in Index Number Form, 1970–1993

  Total income from farming

  Number of farm businesses3

  Income perform business

  Annual wage per full-time hired male (20+)

  Total income from farming: real terms index 1993=100

  Income perform business: real terms index 1993=100

  Annual wage per full-time hired male 20+: real terms index 1993=100

  (£ million)

  (£)

  (£)

  1970

  45·52

  37,079

  1,228

  728

  126·37

  98·07

  66·40

  1971

  46·85

  36,190

  1,294

  829

  119·23

  94·80

  69·34

  1972

  50·61

  35,230

  1,436

  889

  120·43

  98·35

  69·48

  1973

  61·62

  35,207

  1,750

  1,068

  133·63

  109·22

  76·09

  1974

  42·41

  34,700

  1,222

  1,449

  79·70

  65·09

  89·48

  1975

  46·00

  33,641

  1,368

  1,914

  69·38

  59·35

  94·01

  1976

  56·34

  32,529

  2,033

  2,147

  85·92

  75·77

  91·32

  1977

  89·32

  32,352

  2,761

  2,381

  99·80

  88·77

  87·30

  1978

  87·87

  31,715

  2,771

  2,581

  90·72

  82·31

  87·52

  1979

  58·51

  31,075

  1,883

  2,988

  53·20

  49·27

  89·26

  1980

  51·57

  30,284

  1,703

  3,596

  39·79

  37·81

  94·14

  19811

  112·54

  33,740

  3,335

  3,869

  77·53

  66·12

  87·57

  1982

  130·52

  33,665

  3,877

  4,165

  82·90

  70·86

  86·91

  19832

  122·75

  33,373

  3,678

  4,597

  74·48

  64·22

  91·64

  1984

  160·14

  32,814

  4,880

  4,815

  92·57

  81·18

  91·46

  1985

  118·92

  32,426

  3,660

  5,186

  64·76

  57·47

  92·77

  1986

  100·66

  31,951

  3,150

  5,560

  53·01

  47·72

  96·18

  1987

  154·22

  31,203

  4,943

  5,734

  78·07

  71·99

  95·35

  1988

  187·11

  30,843

  6,066

  6,141

  90·23

  84·18

  97·28

  1989

  215·13

  30,289

  7,103

  6,585

  96·27

  91·46

  96·81

  1990

  162·40

  29,850

  5,441

  5,992

  66·35

  63·96

  93·85

  1991

  197·87

  29,363

  6,739

  7,779

  76·41

  74·88

  98·69

  1992

  229·67

  29,096

  7,893

  7,978

  85·45

  84·51

  97·51

  19934

  272·86

  28,775

  9,483

  8,306

  100·00

  100·00

  100·00

  1 Owing to changes in definition, the numbers of farm businesses in the years before 1981 cannot be compared directly with those from 1981 onwards.

  2 Owing to changes in methodology, the estimates of total income from farming in the years before 1983 cannot be compared directly with those from 1983 onwards.

  3 The numbers of farm businesses in each of the years 1981 to 1992 refer to all holdings in the main census register which produce agricultural products. The earlier series excludes holdings with insufficient crops or livestock to provide at least 50 standard man-days of agricultural work.

  4 Provisional.

  576
  number of persons employed in farming and the average income of each such person with the latest available year taken as the base year.

  Mr. Ancram
  Aggregate income estimates by main farm sectors are not available. Table 1 provides details of total income from farming in Northern Ireland agriculture as a whole between 1970 and 1993. These data are presented in both current terms and in real terms in index number form.

  This table also presents data on the number of farm businesses between 1970 and 1993 and total income from farming divided by the number of businesses to give a measure of the average income per farm—the amount available to reward owners, spouses and family workers for their manual and managerial labour and to provide a return on their own capital invested. Again, the information is presented in current terms and in real terms in index number form.

  Also given are estimates of the annual average wage per full-time male hired worker—20 years and over—over the same timespan, in current and real terms.

  In table 2, data are presented on the numbers of farmers, partners and directors, full-time hired male workers, regularly employed family workers and the total agricultural labour force—that is, farmers, partners and directors, their spouses, family workers and hired workers —in the years between 1964 and 1993.

  Caution should be exercised interpreting these data owing to the breaks in the series indicated in the footnotes to the tables.
  577

  Table 2

  Northern Ireland agricultural labour force, 1964–1993

  Year

  Farmers and partners

  Full-time hired workers

  All regularly1 employed2 family workers

  Total agricultural labour force3

  1964

  42,600

  7,300

  24,700

  100,600

  1965

  41,900

  6,000

  23,400

  96,200

  1966

  38,600

  6,200

  21,500

  89,200

  1967

  38,500

  5,700

  22,200

  86,700

  1968

  37,600

  5,400

  21,300

  83,200

  1969

  36,100

  5,000

  20,800

  80,000

  1970

  36,100

  4,700

  19,800

  78,100

  1971

  38,700

  4,600

  17,100

  75,700

  1972

  37,900

  4,300

  16,200

  72,700

  1973

  37,500

  4,300

  15,400

  71,100

  1974

  37,300

  3,800

  14,200

  68,900

  1975

  37,900

  3,300

  12,400

  67,100

  1976

  37,200

  3,200

  12,000

  67,800

  1977

  37,200

  3,000

  11,000

  65,800

  1978

  39,200

  2,900

  10,000

  65,700

  1979

  38,700

  3,100

  9,600

  64,700

  1980

  38,500

  2,800

  9,400

  63,500

  1981

  36,900

  2,700

  8,800

  60,700

  1982

  36,800

  2,400

  8,500

  60,300

  1983

  36,800

  2,500

  8,300

  60,800

  1984

  36,600

  2,300

  8,200

  60,500

  1985

  36,100

  2,200

  8,100

  60,600

  1986

  35,900

  2,100

  7,800

  60,000

  1987

  35,400

  2,100

  7,500

  59,400

  1988

  35,700

  2,100

  7,200

  59,500

  1989

  35,000

  2,000

  7,400

  59,100

  1990

  34,600

  2,100

  7,200

  58,400

  1991

  34,300

  2,000

  6,900

  57,200

  1992

  34,500

  1,900

  6,700

  56,500

  1993

  32,400

  1,900

  6,000

  56,500

  1Numbers of regularly employed family workers include those working full-time and part-time but exclude farmers' wives. The 1993 figure excludes the husbands of female farmers (previously included as family workers).

  2Prior to 1975, figures for seasonal and casual workers were not collected separately and would have been included with part-time family and part-time hired workers.

  3The total agricultural labour force includes fanners and partners, regularly employed family workers (both full-time and part-time), regularly employed hired workers (both full-time and part-time), casual and seasonal workers and farmers' spouses.

  Farmers' Early Retirement Scheme
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to introduce the early retirement scheme for farmers approved by the European Commission; and what proportion of the scheme is co-financed by the EAGGF/Guarantee Fund.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no plans to introduce an early retirement scheme for farmers in Northern Ireland under the provision approved by the European Commission. The regulation covering a discretionary early retirement scheme provides for EC co-financing of 50 per cent. of cost rising to 75 per cent. in objective 1 areas.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision on the Milk Marketing Board's proposals to form itself into a farmers voluntary co-operative will be considered.

  Mr. Ancram
  Ministers are currently examining the proposals in the reorganisation scheme submitted by the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland and the 578
  representations received in response to the consultation exercise which ended on 18 February 1994. No decisions will be made until this exercise has been completed.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) wind farms and (b) propellors (i) have been constructed, (ii) have been approved and (iii) are pending.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There are two wind farms containing a total of four turbines currently in operation in Northern Ireland. One further wind farm has been approved, containing 26 turbines. Five applications for wind farms containing a total of 58 turbines are currently under consideration.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy as regards the construction of wind farms; and what circulars he has issued to local planning authorities.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is the planning authority in Northern Ireland. Its policy for the construction of wind farms is set out on pages 115 and 116 of the policy document "A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland", which was published in September 1993. A copy is available in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of 21 February,Official Report, column 32, if he will give his reason for declining to provide the information on official gifts requested.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a large number of such gifts, most of minor value. The cost of providing a list would be disproportionate. All the gifts have been handled in accordance with the provisions set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 162, if he will list those official gifts purchased by Baroness Thatcher on leaving the office of Prime Minister; and how their value is established.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 22 February,Official Report, column 162.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of official gifts received by his office.

  The Prime Minister
  The arrangements set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" are followed.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the items of jewellery given to the state which are at present housed at No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: There are a number of such items.
  579

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993" including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 17 January,Official Report, columns 367–68. The public bodies referred to in that answer, which are not listed in "Public Bodies 1993", are the Kennedy Memorial Trust together with the Chequers Trust, the Chevening Trust and the Dorneywood Trust.

  I make no appointments to non-executive agencies and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of public appointments was taken by women in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  On 1 September 1993, 28 per cent. of appointments to public bodies were held by women, compared with 26 per cent. in 1992 and 23 per cent. in 1991.

  All Departments have drawn up objectives and goals to achieve further progress in this area over the years to 1996 and beyond. A summary of the departmental plans was published on 16 November 1992, and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, columns 32–33, if he will list those conventions of the Council of Europe to which the Government have refused to accede from 1964.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 17 January,Official Report, columns 354–55.

  Lady Thatcher (Foreign Visits)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all visits made by Lady Thatcher, when Prime Minister, to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, with a list in each case of all the business people who accompanied her on those visits.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and noble Friend, when Prime Minister, made the following visits to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. My right hon. and noble Friend was not accompanied by business people on any of these visits.

  Indonesia.

  9–11 April 1985

  Malaysia

  5–8 April 1985

  6 August 1988

  18–24 October 1989

  Thailand

  6–9 August 1988

  580

  Malaysia
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions were held with Malaysians concerning the construction of military bases in Malaysia by British companies during his visit in September 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  Commercial discussions were held by British companies on a number of issues during the course of the visit.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what offers of ECGD credits were made during his visit to Malaysia in September 1933; and for which purposes.

  The Prime Minister
  No offers of ECGD credits were made during my visit to Malaysia in September 1993.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those who accompanied him on his visit to Malaysia in September 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and a party of senior business men representing BICC, Biwater, British Aerospace, British Gas, Cable and Wireless, GEC, John Laing, Johnson Matthey, the National Grid, North West Water, PowerGen, Rolls-Royce and Trinity Holdings, together with my wife, officials, support staff and members of the press.

  Thailand
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all visits of Government Ministers and officials to Thailand since 1979 with dates and their purpose of each visit.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Jewellery
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of all items of jewellery available for wearing by the Prime Minister and his family; and to whom such jewellery belongs.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the items of jewellery in the ownership of the state but kept at No. 10 Downing street.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the inventory of Downing street jewellery, its source, a statement of ownership and who has the rights to wear such jewellery.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: Nearly all the jewellery available for wearing by my family belongs to my wife personally. I have no intention of providing the hon. Member with the details he seeks. There are, in addition, a number of items given to previous Prime Ministers and kept at No. 10 on the official inventory.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 33, on what date in February 1991 he was first

  581
  informed that the Foreign Secretary intended to issue a direction to the accounting officer in respect of the Pergau project.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs drew my attention to the concerns of the Overseas Development Administration accounting officer when he minuted me on 16 February 1991 recommending aid and trade provision support for this project on the basis of commitments previously given. The need for a direction to the accounting officer was reported in the subsequent ministerial correspondence.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Bacterial Infections
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what provision he is proposing to increase the level of research into staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus faecium and the development of antibiotics to counteract them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As part of its clinical research initiative in Nottingham, the Medical Research Council is building up support for several groups studying bacterial infections. One of them has a particular interest in staphylococcal infections. The council is also reviewing the literature relating to septic shock, especially in relation to possible studies of monoclonal antibody therapy. In addition, the Public Health Laboratory Service—a non-departmental public body—is undertaking surveillance programmes to monitor the incidence of multiple antibiotic resistance to staphylococcus aureus and to enterococcus faecium. The development of new antibiotics is principally a matter for the pharmaceutical industry.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Car Parks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many criminal offences occurred in premises of major car parking providers in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many violent attacks on women occurred in car parks in each of the last five years.

  Mr Maclean
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, the British Crime Survey indicates that in 1991 some 7 per cent. of the 15 million offences counted in the survey took place in publicly and privately owned car parks of any sort. A breakdown of the types of offences involved is in table. The survey indicates that in 1991, 1 per cent. of assaults—woundings, common assaults and sexual offences—against women occurred in car parks, representing two incidents mentioned by the 5,600 women interviewed in the survey.

  Offences in car parks in 1991: British Crime Survey

  Percentage of different offences of all offences in car parks1

  Assaults

  4

  Robbery/theft from person

  1

  Bicycle theft

  1

  582

  Percentage of different offences of all offences in car parks1

  Vehicle thefts2

  77

  Vehicle vandalism

  16

  All offences in car parks3

  100

  1 Public and private car parks in a wide variety of locations, including car parks at the workplace.

  2 Thefts of vehicles, thefts from vehicles, and attempts.

  3 Excludes threats.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the last three available years; and what is the estimated cost in 1994–95 after the introduction of the tariff scales.

  Mr. Maclean
  Compensation paid by the board in the last three years, and estimated compensation in the current financial year and in 1994–95 is as follows, in cash terms:

  Financial year

  Compensation paid

  (£ million)

  1990–91

  109·33

  1991–92

  143·66

  1992–93

  152·49

  1993–94

  164·00

  1994–95

  188·00

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The readily available information about public appointments for which my Department is responsible is given in "Public Bodies". A copy of the 1993 edition is in the Library.

  Film Classifications
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to create a not suitable for home viewing classification for films in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no such plans. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 16 December 1993, column 780.

  Young Offenders
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many 15-year-old girls were found guilty in (i) magistrates courts and (ii) Crown courts in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993; and for which offences;

  (2) how many 15-year-old girls were cautioned or found guilty in (a) 1992 and (b) 1993; and for which offences;
  583
  (3) how many 15-year-old boys were cautioned or found guilty in (i) magistrates courts and (ii) Crown courts in (a) 1992 and (b) 1993; and for which offences;

  (4) how many 15-year-old boys were cautioned or found guilty in (a) 1992 and (b) 1993; and for which offences.

  Table A: number of 15-year-old females cautioned and/or found guilty of all offences at all courts by type of offence and type of court

  England and Wales 1992

  Found guilty

  Offence

  Cautioned

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown Court

  Total cautioned or found guilty

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  786

  173

  3

  962

  Sexual offences

  7

  2

  —

  9

  Burglary

  188

  69

  5

  262

  Robbery

  22

  26

  9

  57

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  4,713

  332

  —

  5,045

  Fraud and forgery

  98

  6

  —

  104

  Criminal damage

  41

  20

  3

  64

  Drug offences

  94

  4

  —

  98

  Other (excluding motoring offences)

  24

  26

  —

  50

  Motoring offences

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5,973

  658

  20

  6,651

  Summary offences

  Offences (excluding motoring offences)

  837

  155

  —

  992

  Motoring offences

  1

  9

  —

  9

  All offences

  6,810

  822

  20

  7,652

  1 Not applicable.

  Table B: number of 15-year-old males cautioned and/or found guilty of all offences at all courts by type of offence and type of court

  England and Wales 1992

  Found guilty

  Offence

  Cautioned

  Magistrates' courts

  Crown Court

  Total cautioned or found guilty

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  1,783

  692

  26

  2,501

  Sexual offences

  284

  44

  16

  344

  Burglary

  2,213

  1,415

  64

  3,692

  Robbery

  79

  161

  48

  288

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  8,784

  1,843

  14

  10,641

  Fraud and forgery

  196

  40

  —

  236

  Criminal damage

  402

  211

  19

  632

  Drug offences

  676

  70

  4

  750

  Other (excluding motoring offences)

  308

  215

  19

  542

  Motoring offences

  1

  74

  1

  75

  Total

  14,725

  4,765

  211

  19,701

  Summary offences

  Offences (excluding motoring offences)

  4,791

  1,718

  6

  6,515

  Motoring offences

  1

  380

  2

  382

  All offences

  19,516

  6,863

  219

  26,598

  1 Not applicable.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of self-harm involving 15-year-old girls on remand in penal custody were recorded in each month of 1993; and in which institutions these incidents occurred;

  (2) how many incidents of self-harm involving 15-year-old boys on remand in penal custody were recorded in each month of 1993; and in which institutions these incidents occurred.
  584
  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1992 is given in the tables. Data for 1993 will not be available until autumn 1994.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent questions about self-harm by 15 year olds in prison custody.
  585
  The information you have requested is not routinely collected centrally, and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many 15-year-old girls were remanded in custody pending trial or sentence in 1993 and received custodial sentences at the conclusion of their trial;

  (2) how many 15-year-old boys were remanded in custody pending trial or sentence in 1993 and received custodial sentences at the conclusion of their trial.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest information is for 1992 and is provisional. During that year 377 males aged 15 were received as untried or convicted unsentenced by a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales, of whom 141

  Provisional Receptions of 15-year-old males into prison service establishments, England and Wales each Month by Offence in 19932

  Month

  Violence against the person

  Sex offences

  Burglary

  Robbery

  Theft and handling

  Other offences

  Offence not recorded

  Total offences

  January

  3

  1

  11

  2

  6

  5

  1

  29

  February

  4

  2

  10

  4

  14

  2

  1

  37

  March

  4

  3

  14

  7

  14

  6

  2

  50

  April

  1

  —

  13

  6

  10

  9

  —

  39

  May

  6

  1

  22

  6

  7

  7

  —

  49

  June

  3

  —

  15

  4

  19

  3

  2

  46

  July

  1

  2

  18

  7

  20

  6

  1

  55

  August

  8

  —

  15

  —

  21

  5

  2

  51

  September

  1

  —

  22

  6

  13

  37

  2

  51

  October

  5

  —

  18

  7

  13

  6

  1

  50

  November

  7

  —

  26

  9

  9

  4

  3

  58

  December

  3

  —

  18

  3

  8

  3

  3

  38

  Total

  46

  9

  202

  61

  154

  63

  18

  553

  1 Aged 15 years as at date of sentence.

  2 Excludes those committed in default of payment of a fine.

  3 Includes 2 inmates received for drugs offences.

  Provisional receptions of 15-year-old females1 into prison service establishments, England and Wales each month by offence 19932

  Month

  Violence against the person

  Robbery

  Theft and handling

  Other offences

  Total offences

  January

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  February

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  March

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  April

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  May

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  June

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  July

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  August

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  September

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  October

  3

  2

  —

  —

  5

  November

  1

  2

  —

  1

  4

  December

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Total

  10

  6

  5

  4

  25

  1 Aged 15 as at date of sentence.

  2 Excludes those committed in default of payment of a fine.

  Deportees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which countries deportees escorted in 1993 by the police forces of(a) Cambridgeshire, (b) Devon and Cornwall, (c) Durham, (d) Greater Manchester, (e) Leicestershire, (f) Norfolk, (g) West Mercia, (h) South Wales, (i) the Metropolitan police and (j) the Royal Ulster Constabulary were being deported.
  586
  were recorded as being subsequently received under a custodial sentence. No female aged 15 was received as a remand prisoner in 1992.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many 15-year-old girls were sentenced to immediate custody in each month of 1993; and for which offences;

  (2) how many 15-year-old boys were sentenced to immediate custody in each month of 1993; and for which offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information for receptions of sentenced prisoners into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 1993 is given in the tables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In-flight escorts were provided, as follows:

  Police force and country w which person removed

  Cambridgeshire

  Slovakia

  Devon and Cornwall

  Bermuda

  Durham

  Jamaica

  Greater Manchester

  Jamaica

  Leicestershire

  Hong Kong

  587

  Norfolk

  Algeria

  West Mercia

  Israel

  South Wales

  Hong Kong

  Metropolitan Police

  Algeria, Angola, Canada, Croatia, Egypt, Ghana, Jamaica, Nigeria, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Sir Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad, Turkey, Uganda and the United States of America

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  New Zealand

  Medomsley Prison
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions she has had about recommissioning Medomsley prison; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has for the former prison in Medomsley, Consett.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Director General of the Prison Service that there are currently no plans to recommission Medomsley. The site is surplus to prison service requirements. An appraisal has been conducted of the Medomsley site to assess whether it might prove a suitable location for a new secure training centre for persistent juvenile offenders. No final decisions have yet been reached on sites for secure training centres.

  Public Alert Systems
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the need for a national public alert system, and of the cost of establishing one; and what provisions currently exist for a public alert system.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), announced on 12 November 1992 that the national siren warning system was to be closed and that future warning arrangements would be based around television and radio broadcasts. Such arrangements already exist and studies are being carried out to see what enhancements may be required and at what cost.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made on the future of emergency planning and public alert systems as part of the local government review.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In response to a request from the Local Government Commission for England, my officials have recently written to suggest that while firm arrangements must depend on local government structures finally adopted, it will be important that those who provide local services are able to be linked with a coherent strategic framework that can ensure an effective response to major emergencies.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which agencies are currently responsible for emergency planning and the provision of public alert systems.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for emergency planning lies across many parts of central and local government with a wide range of agencies and with the private sector. This is why the Home Office promotes the concept of integrated emergency management.
  588
  My Department has a specific responsibility for the provision of national air attack warning on which studies are in hand to establish whether enhanced arrangements are necessary.

  Airline Securities Consultants Ltd.
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of his Department's investigation of the complaints alleging excessive force by Airline Securities Consultants Ltd. when it is complete.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to her question on 1 February, columns 649–50.

DEFENCE

  Fissile Material
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom is still producing fissile material for weapons purposes.

  Mr. Aitken
  There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government policy on the production of fissile material. Production of this material for weapons purposes is kept at the minimum level required to meet defence needs.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department has decided to raise the maximum warhead ceiling for the United Kingdom's ballistic missile-carrying submarines when Trident replaces Polaris.

  Mr. Aitken
  The introduction of Trident represents no change in the Government's policy of maintaining only the minimum nuclear deterrent required for our security needs. We have long made it clear that we do not intend to use the full capacity of the Trident system and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 16 November that each submarine will deploy with no more than 96 warheads, and may carry significantly fewer.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has decided how many warheads will be deployed on the first Trident submarine when it enters operational service.

  Mr. Aitken
  Planning for HMS Vanguard's first operational deployment is well advanced and assumes a particular number of warheads, within the maximum ceiling of 96 announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 16 November 1993.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 516, if the maximum technical capability of Trident to deploy 192 warheads applies to Trident missiles fitted with the mark IV bus.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes. All United Kingdom Trident missiles will be fitted with the mark IV bus.
  589

  Warhead Deployment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the United Kingdom's planned warhead deployment of the recent agreement with Russia to de-target Russian territory.

  Mr. Aitken
  The joint declaration signed in Moscow on 15 February on the detargeting of strategic nuclear missiles will not affect our planned warhead deployment.

  Habitats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions he will take or policy changes he will make to implement the requirements of European Union directive 92/43 EEC on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence gives a high priority to the conservation of the land in its ownership and is co-operating with the statutory bodies concerned with the implementation of European Union directive 92/43 EEC (Habitats and Species Directive). In particular, management plans are being created to integrate the protection of flora and fauna with the primary military use.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Twenty-four per cent. of new appointments made during 1993 to MOD non-departmental public bodies were women.

  Offshore Oil Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which blocks his Department recommended should be excluded from the 14th round of offshore oil licensing; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence is consulted on all proposals to undertake oil exploration work to ensure that they and essential military activities are not incompatible. For operational reasons it would be inappropriate to identify the particular blocks where such military activity takes place. The licenses subsequently issued reflect the outcome of negotiations between this Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the companies concerned.

  Hunting Dogs
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who pays for the kennel costs and upkeep of the dogs belonging to the Britannia Beagles Association at Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth; and what was the total cost to the Exchequer in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Britannia Beagle Association is fully responsible for the cost of water, food, electricity and staff of their kennels which are lodged at and predate BRNC Dartmouth. Maintenance costs are the responsibility of my Department but the kennels require little upkeep and no costs have been incurred during the last three financial years.
  590
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all his Department's establishments where hunting dogs are kennelled and list the total amounts spent by his Department, in the last five years, on the upkeep of the dogs at each establishment.

  Mr. Hanley
  Hunting dogs are kennelled at the following establishments: Sandhurst, Bovington, Catterick, Colchester, Larkhill, Shrivenham, Warminster and Dartmouth. The upkeep of the dogs is paid for out of private subscription and fund-raising, although these are cases where utilities, such as light and water—the costs 'for which could not be separately identified, and would in any case be minimal—will be borne by my Department.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list details of accidents involving low-flying RAF jets over Wales in 1991 in which the deaths of civilian pilots flying other aircraft were involved; and if he will make a statement about the settlements made to the bereaved civilian families.

  Mr. Hanley
  There was one such accident in 1991 which involved a RAF Jaguar and a civilian Cessna aircraft. No claim has been made against the Ministry of Defence by the next of kin of the civilian who died in the accident.

  Mr. Stephen Kock
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions Mr. Stephen Kock has represented Her Majesty's Government in campaigning for defence exports to Oman, Jordan, Indonesia and Thailand.

  Mr. Aitken
  Mr. Stephen Kock has not, on any occasion, been asked to represent Her Majesty's Government on these matters.

  Battle of Normandy
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will arrange for financial assistance to be given to the sons and daughters of British service men who died at the battle of Normandy to enable them to attend the 50th anniversary ceremony in France; and if he will give special consideration to cases where such sons and daughters are the last surviving next-of-kin and are now retirement pensioners.

  Mr. Hanley
  While the Government sponsor a war widows grant-in-aid scheme to help widows visit their husbands' graves once at public expense, I regret that it is not possible for my Department to extend financial assistance to all relatives of those British service men who died at the Battle of Normandy. Commercial arrangements are available and in many cases are being arranged by local veterans associations.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance will be given to widows of those involved in the D-day landing to enable them to go to France in June to receive commemorative medals.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.
  591

  Gulf War
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Government department authorised the export of new uniforms, webbing, disruptive patterned material and other battledress and related equipment manufactured in the United Kingdom, to the Government of Iraq in the 10 years prior to Operation Desert Storm.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Prior to the introduction of sanctions on 9 August 1990 the goods listed would not have required an export licence unless specially treated for use against chemical or biological agents. No Government permission needed to be obtained for the export of untreated military clothing.

  Following the imposition of sanctions any applications received for the supply of military clothing would be submitted to the UN Sanctions Committee (Iraq) for approval. No such licences have been issued.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Robins
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give specific details of the premises and their use in which robins were killed under licence in 1990 and 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The details requested are as follows:

  Year

  Type of premises

  1990

  Supermarket, Hove, East Sussex

  1992

  Wholesale food shop, Leicester Food warehouse, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear

  Wrens
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what happened to the wrens for which a licence to kill was issued in 1992 but for which no deaths are recorded.

  Mr. Soames
  The licence was issued to allow the shooting of one wren trapped in a supermarket. Before the licence was used, one last attempt to catch the bird was successful and the bird was released.

  Forestry Plantations
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will list all the plantations at present owned by the Forestry Commission in Somerset and those disposed of within the last 10 years giving, in each case, their acreage and the extent of public access, and which of them are included in the current disposals programme;

  (2) if she will list all the plantations at present owned by the Forestry Commission in Devon and those disposed of within the last 10 years giving, in each case, their acreage and the extent of public access, and which of them are included in the current disposals programme.

  Mr. Jack
  Lists and maps of all Forestry Commission woodlands are in the Library of the House. I shall also send the hon. Member a list of the woodlands in Somerset and Devon which will indicate those which the commission is currently selling or planning to sell.
  592
  Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the commission from the start of the disposals programme in July 1981 to December 1992 are held in the Library of the House. A list of the forest land sold by the commission in 1993 is being prepared and will be placed in the Library shortly.

  The commission does not maintain records of the extent of public access to individual woodlands, so this information is not included in the lists.

  Offshore Oil Licensing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which blocks her Department recommended should be excluded from the 14th round of offshore oil licensing; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Jack
  I have nothing to add to the reply given on 16 February 1994 by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, at column 835.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the dumping of nuclear waste at sea; and how her plans have changed as a result of the London convention consultative meeting of 8 to 12 November 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 17 February,Official Report, column 986.

  Wool
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received regarding the operation of the British wool marketing scheme; what complaints she has received from British wool merchants regarding the purchase of British wool by foreign buyers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this issue. Included among these were complaints from two companies of British wool merchants regarding the ability of foreign buyers to purchase wool directly from United Kingdom producers. My right hon. Friend has also received representations from the Confederation of British Wool Textiles Ltd. which emphasise that approximately 98 per cent. of all United Kingdom wool merchants strongly support the Government's decision to retain the British wool marketing scheme.

  Farm Business Survey
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the average area in terms of(a) hectarage and (b) acreage of (i) hill and upland less-favoured area farms and (ii) severely disadvantaged less-favoured area farms participating in each of the local surveys conducted by universities and colleges in connection with the annual farm business survey;

  (2) what is the average stocking per farm in terms of (a) cattle livestock units, (b) sheep livestock units and (c) cattle and sheep livestock units for hill and upland less-favoured area farms and severely disadvantaged area farms respectively participating in each of the local surveys conducted by universities and colleges in connection with the annual farm business survey.
  593
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: The information requested is shown in the following tables for those farms classified in the 1992–93 farm business survey for England as cattle and sheep farms in the less-favoured areas as a whole or in the severely disadvantaged areas. The data provided are unweighted

  Cattle and sheep (LFA) farms: unweighted sample averages per farm, 1992–93

  Province

  Farm area (hectares)

  Farm area (acres)

  Livestock units Sheep

  Cattle

  Cattle and sheep

  (Isu)

  (Isu)

  (Isu)

  Newcastle

  307

  757

  80

  69

  149

  Askham Bryan

  258

  637

  66

  55

  120

  Manchester

  178

  440

  54

  72

  126

  Nottingham

  110

  273

  45

  71

  116

  Exeter

  130

  322

  57

  65

  122

  Cattle and sheep (SDA) farms: unweighted sample averages per farm, 1992–93

  Province

  Farm area (hectares

  Farm area (acres)

  Livestock units Sheep

  Cattle

  Cattle and sheep

  (Isu)

  (Isu)

  (Isu)

  Newcastle

  332

  821

  86

  68

  154

  Askham Bryan

  258

  637

  66

  55

  120

  Manchester

  195

  483

  56

  73

  129

  Nottingham

  110

  273

  45

  71

  116

  Exeter

  149

  368

  69

  63

  131

WALES

  Bird Killing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences have been issued in each of the last five years for the taking of cormorants and saw-billed ducks in each river system in Wales; how many birds were taken, pursuant to each licence; what consultation he had with the National Rivers Authority and conservation bodies; and what was the nature and origin of the evidence submitted to him to justify the issue of such licences.

  Mr. Redwood
  No such licences have been issued. It is the Department's practice to consult the CCW and the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority on applications.

  Housing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce for Wales a system of licensing for landlords of privately rented accommodation in multiple occupation similar to that currently operating in Scotland.

  Mr. Redwood
  Local authorities in Wales can already operate registration schemes and have extensive powers to deal with houses in multiple occupation.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Between 1 January and 1 December 1993, I and my predecessor appointed 50 women—25 per cent.—and 149 men to public bodies.
  594
  averages and merely describe the sample. In order to make estimates for the populations from which the samples are drawn, it is necessary to weight the sample imformation. The sample for Nottingham is too small to give reliable results.

  Early Year Forums
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available funding from the children and family support grant to support voluntary sector early year forums; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  One application for grant aid in 1994–95 has been made to support an early years forum in Clwyd. Details of grant awards under this scheme have yet to be announced.

  Technology Education
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ensure that design and technology are established as statutory entitlements for all pupils at stage 4 in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have accepted the recommendations of the Curriculum Council for Wales on the review of the national curriculum, including the proposal that technology should become optional for 14 to 16-year-old pupils —key stage 4—and that they should be encouraged to take forward their education in technology at this key stage through a variety of routes. The right course for Wales is to concentrate on the basics of language, mathematics and science and to leave further subjects to choice according to pupils' need to pursue GCSE or vocational qualifications, such as a full general national vocational qualification, if they so wish. I am encouraging schools not only to maintain the progress that they have made with technology at key stage 4 but also to provide appropriate courses in this subject.

  European Union Funding
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the 10 capital projects which received the greatest amount of European Union funding in Wales in each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.
  595
  Mr. Redwood
  Grants under Welsh structural funds programmes are made on a programme basis and cannot be attributed to single calendar years. The 10 largest grants under the programmes for the calendar years 1989–91—1987–91 in the case of the Dyfed-Gwynedd-Powys programme—and 1992–93 were as follows:

  1989–91

  £

  Llanelli Relief Road, Trostre/Yspitty

  6,888,464

  Technical and Vocational Training Centre, Haverfordwest

  6,117,606

  Milford Docks Redevelopment Phase 2

  4,685,500

  Additional Coastal Protection Works, Towyn

  3,108,000

  Docklands Distributor Road, Newport

  2,778,278

  Welshpool Tourism and Leisure World

  1,933,350

  A4067 Pontardawe to Glanrhyd

  1,893,202

  Bala Lake Tourism Development

  1,750,000

  New Pavilion Theatre, Rhyl

  1,749,396

  West Promenade Car Park, Rhyl

  1,694,178

  1992–93

  £

  A472 Maesycymmer/Newbridge1

  5,426,500

  Lower Rhymney Valley Relief Road Phase 21

  3,971,400

  Pontypridd Inner Relief Road

  3,324,960

  Children's Village, West Promenade, Rhyl

  2,753,335

  Quest Centre Phase 1, Cardiff Bay

  2,744,100

  Former Coed Ely Colliery Redevelopment

  2,489,200

  Fishguard Harbour Development

  2,190,000

  A4119 Dualling—Ynysmaerdy Industrial Estate

  2,091,800

  Brecon Leisure Complex

  1,734,000

  JKI/Firestone Redevelopment, Wrexham Industrial Estate

  1,600,000

  1Grant subject to resolution of outstanding issues with the European Commission.

  Information for EU grants other than from the structural funds could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much Wales received from the European social fund in each year since 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information for the period from 1990 is set out in the table.

  ESF for Wales 1990–93

  £

  1990

  10,094,700

  1991

  28,503,500

  1992

  29,064,600

  1993

  51,792,500

  Notes:

  1. Before 1990 all applications were handled directly by the European Commission and information is not held centrally in the United Kingdom.

  2. The amount shown for 1993 represents the amount of ESF committed as final claims have not yet been received. For all other years the figures show the amounts claimed.

  3. No reliable information is available for objectives 3, 4 and 6 in 1990 so the figure for that year covers objectives 2 and 5b only.

  4. The objective 3 and 4 money received by Central Government for programmes in Wales for 1991 and 1992 is calculated as a percentage of the national figure.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of their budgets each local authority spent on the provision of social housing in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is not collected centrally on the proportion of revenue budgets spent on the provision of 596
  social housing. Information on actual, rather than budgeted, capital expenditure is available but this forms only a small part of the total spending on social housing.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much grant Tai Cymru received in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to table 8.6 of "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 13 1993".

  Welsh Economic Council
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to set up a Welsh economic council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I intend to make a statement on the Welsh Economic Council in the very near future.

  After-school Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what money was made available in 1993 to help employers, voluntary groups or schools set up after-school care; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1993–94, £153,000 is available in Wales for after-school and holiday care through the Government's out of school child care grant initiative. A further £18,240 has been made available through the child and family services scheme to support a kids club network development officer in south-east Wales.

  The Chwarae Teg Consortium is co-ordinating the childcare grant initiative on behalf of the training and enterprise councils. It is proposed to spend a further £2 million on the initiative over the next three financial years.

  Radioisotopic Pollution
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest information regarding the levels of radioisotopic pollution in the Trawsfynydd lake; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Data on levels of radioisotopes in Trawsfynydd lake are collected in the course of routine monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Results are presented in the "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report" published annually by that Department's directorate of fisheries research. The latest issue, No. 38—item 6.10 of which refers to Trawsfynydd —is in the Library of the House.

  Touche Ross Survey
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the Touche Ross survey of school governors in Wales; and when the Touche Ross survey of school governors in Wales will be published.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 17 February, column 947, to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
  597

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the current capacity shortfall for cardiac surgery in(a) Wales and (b) that area of Wales currently served by the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

  Mr. Redwood
  In addition to their own resources, health authorities in Wales are fully funded for the target level of cardiac surgery set in 1989. Additional resources are being made available, and new facilities developed, to ensure that the total estimated need in South Wales, which we announced in June last year, can be met by Welsh hospitals. Health authorities in North Wales are fully funded to secure appropriate levels of cardiac services from a number of specialist centres both within and outside Wales.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Association of the Directors of Social Services in Wales, the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the chairmen of the health authorities and trusts and the voluntary sector in relation to the reduced grant to the Alzheimer's Society; and what assessment he has made of the effect of future grant levels on Alzheimer's patients in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office continues to give financial support to the Alzheimer's Disease Society Wales office. In addition, we provide support for some individual projects at county level on a time limited, reducing basis, with the agreement of the statutory and voluntary agencies concerned. These grants are discussed, as appropriate, with the agencies involved.

  Health and social services authorities are responsible for assessing the need for services for people with Alzheimer's disease and their carers and for making arrangements to meet that need, in consultation with all relevant interests.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each non-departmental public body in his departmental sponsorship, the value of consultancy contracts approved and commenced in each of the past three financial years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Conflicts of Interest (Advice)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the additional advice on conflicts of interest given by the then permanent secretary of the Welsh Office in March 1993 to the chief executives of all non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation in relation to the reduction in the number of consultants to be employed by the corporation.
  598
  Mr. Redwood
  The chairman has suggested to me that the development corporation could save money by employing fewer consultants and doing more work in-house. I have encouraged him to work up such proposals.

  Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with area child protection teams in relation to approving a protocol on covert video surveillance in hospitals in the case of Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy, non-accidental injury and allied suspected conditions and episodes.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding his plans for a special advisory body on sustainable development before deciding not to set up a similar body for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  No, because effective arrangements already exist in Wales for consulting Welsh interests on matters relevant to sustainable development. For example, my Department organised a successful seminar in Cardiff in September 1993 on this topic. I am not immediately persuaded that these arrangements need to be formalised via a new advisory body. They will, however, be developed further through the national round table and citizen' s environment initiatives.

SCOTLAND

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his reasons for establishing a special advisory body for sustainable development in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Separate advisory bodies across the full range of Scottish Office responsibilities are appropriate from time to time to help in the effective delivery of policies and programmes in Scotland. In this instance, in view of the range of interests, my right hon. Friend considered that there would be advantage in establishing such a body to facilitate action in Scotland on agenda 21.

  The Government's panel on sustainable development, chaired by Sir Crispin Tickell, will, of course, be advising on strategic policies and progress for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Studentship Selection Committee.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]The current Secretary of State appointees are shown in the table:

  Professor J. Trainer (Chairman), University of Stirling

  Professor J. Butt, University of Strathclyde

  Professor D. Harding, University of Edinburgh

  Professor R. Jack, University of Edinburgh

  Professor W. Gordon, University of Glasgow

  599

  Professor R. J. Bauckham, University of St. Andrews

  Professor S. W. Smith, University of Dundee

  Professor J. R. Cameron, University of Aberdeen

  Professor J. B. I. McDonald, University of Glasgow

  Professor P. H. Ramsay, University of Aberdeen

  All members were nominated by the principal of their respective university, with the exception of Professor D. Harding, who was nominated by the senate of the university of Edinburgh.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Examination Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]The members currently appointed to the Scottish Examination Board by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are listed in the table, with the source of their nomination where relevant:

  Chairman appointed by Secretary of State:

  Mr. I. L. Fraser OBE (Chairman)

  Chosen by Secretary of State for experience in industry, commerce or other relevant qualifications:

  Mr. R. Dobson

  Mrs. A. J. Gardner

  Mrs. A. I. Ritchie

  Miss V. M. Pugh

  Mr. J. B. Wright

  Universities of Scotland nominated by Scottish Universities Council on Entrance:

  Professor R. J. Lyall

  Professor P. R. Boyle

  Dr. I. M. Hannah

  Professor H. M. Hine

  Professor M. K. Thomas

  Professor D. J. Tedford

  Professor E. H. Thomson

  Professor R. J. Knops

  Education Authorities nominated by COSLA:

  Councillor T. M. Dair

  Councillor Mrs. K. Hutchison

  Councillor T. R. Dumble

  Councillor T. McAughtrie

  Councillor Mrs. E. Macginnis

  Councillor Mrs. J. P. Orskov

  Director of Education nominated by ADES:

  Mr. D. S. Alexander

  Mr. N. R. Galbraith

  Teachers employed in Education Establishments nominated by various teacher unions:

  Mr. J. Bell—EIS

  Mr. G. M. Munro—HAS

  Mr. A. Hannah—SSTA

  Mr. D. Drever—EIS

  Mrs. E. C. Marsh—AHTS

  Mr. G. MacBride—EIS

  Mr. J. B. 0. McNair—HAS

  Mr. K. Paterson—PAT

  Mr. G. A. Rubenski—EIS

  Dr. P. W. Thomson—EIS

  Mr. B. Williams—SSTA

  Central Institutions nominated by Committee of Principals and Directors of Central institutions:

  Professor C. E. R. Maddox

  Institutions of Further Education nominated by Association of Principals of Colleges:

  Principal W. Greenock

  Colleges of Education nominated by Conference of Scottish Centrally Funded Colleges:

  Professor Kirk

  Educational Advisers nominated by Association of Educational Advisers in Scotland:

  Mrs. D. McVean

  Independent Schools nominated by Scottish Council for Independent Schools:

  Mr. R. Nimmo

  600
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Animal Diseases Research Association.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]The Animal Diseases Research Association is a registered friendly society. There are currently 49 members of the directorate of ADRA. They are listed in the table. All officers and directors except the president, vice-president and the co-opted and special directors are elected by the members of the association present and entitled to vote at an annual general meeting or a special general meeting. Directors are elected by members on a regional basis. The president and vice-president are elected by the directors. The source of the appointments of the co-opted directors and special directors are shown in the table.

  Hon. President—His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch

  Hon. Vice-Presidents

  Sir John Gilmour

  Sir John Gilmour

  J. Cameron

  C. B. R. Gray

  President

  J. Stobo

  Vice-President

  J. Matts

  Directors

  Scotland North

  R. J. Lennox

  R. Simpson

  A. D. Forbes

  G. A. D. Clyne

  R. Paterson

  Scotland South

  K. A. Brooke

  J. Duncan J.

  J. Sharp

  MacMillan

  W. Brown

  Jeffrey

  England North

  H. McLaren

  C. Slade

  P. Johnson

  Fiona Fell

  A. Harker

  M. Walton

  England South

  J. Matts

  Lesley Stubbins

  Harbottle

  J. Hindson

  Catherine Paine

  D. D. Mackie

  Wales

  T. Tudor

  R. Howells

  H. Hughes

  J. Willyman

  A. Lewis

  J. Jones

  Northern Ireland

  J. Campbell

  Co-opted Directors

  W. Elliot—Sheep Representative

  D. J. Biggar—cattle Representative

  Dr. K. A. Linklater—Veterinary Representative

  Dr. P. Wells—Industry Representative

  601

  Lady Sanderson—ADRA Equine Fund

  Special Directors

  J. Ross—Secretary of State for Scotland

  Councillor C. Hebenton—COSLA

  Councillor A. Milne—COSLA

  T. Elliot—RHAS

  Trustees

  W. A. Biggar (Chairman)

  J. G. S. Gammell

  J. Gilmour

  J. Izat

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 774, if he will list those hon. Members defeated in the general election of June 1987 who, at any subsequent date, have been appointed to public bodies by him or his predecessor; and if he will list those appointments.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]As indicated in the reply referred to by the hon. Member, no hon. Member who was defeated in the general election of 1987 currently holds appointment on any non-departmental public body or NHS body for which my department has responsibility. The information held centrally by my Department does not show whether defeated Members were appointed to such bodies earlier.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a register of new appointees to executive bodies or advisory bodies which would show previous and present political affiliations, together with financial contributions to any political parties.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]No. Appointments are made on the basis of aptitude and merit. No central record is kept of the political affiliation of those appointed to public bodies.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has issued to non-departmental public bodies regarding the admission of public to meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]None. Given the very wide range of non-departmental public bodies for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible, general guidance would not be appropriate.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the arrangements made by each non-departmental public body appointed by him, to enable members of the public to have access to agendas, minutes and reports of such bodies.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: It is not normal practice to make the agendas and minutes of the meetings of NDPBs available to the public. Those NDPBs which are covered by the Companies Acts are required to publish annual reports, as are some other bodies. In a number of cases, the body is required by statute to produce an annual report on the exercise and performance of its functions for the Secretary of State which he is obliged to lay before Parliament. Many executive NDPBs, both statutory and non-statutory, make their annual report available to the public. Full details of the availability of annual reports in relation to executive NDPBs are given in my letter of 16 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), a copy of which was placed in the Libraries of the House.
  602
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his practice to consult the leaders of the opposition parties in Scotland prior to making appointments to the chairmanship of non-departmental public bodies within his Department's responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: No.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the rent assessment panel for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 78 members currently appointed to the rent assessment panel in Scotland. The list of members as at 14 February 1994 is as follows:

  President

  G. F. Robertson, FRICS, FCIArb

  Vice President

  Mrs. M. J. L. Walker, MA, LLB, NP

  Chairmen

  J. M. Barton, WS

  J. Burns, MA, LLB

  Mrs. L. J. M. Campbell, BL

  Mrs. J. Catto, LLB, NP

  Miss A. Chisholm, LLB

  Miss M. Crighton

  C. J. Forrest, WS

  J. R. Gardiner, BL, NP, WS

  Miss S. T. Givens, MA, LLB

  J. M. D. Graham, LLB, NP

  The Hon. Simon E. G. Guest, LLB, WS

  Miss C. S. Hederson, MA, LLB, NP

  Professor J. A. M. Inglis, CBE, MA, LLB

  E. G. Kennedy, LLB, NP

  Miss D. McGhie, LLB

  J. G. Malcolm-Smith

  Mrs. E. Mochar

  J. A. Robertson, BL

  J.G. L. Robinson, BA, LLB

  E. O. St. John, BL. WS

  O. H. Spiers, MA

  B. C. T. Wood, BL

  Valuers

  J. M. Bennett, FRICS, ARVA

  K. I. Crichton, FRICS

  F. M. Halliday, FRICS

  Mrs. U. L. Heaney, MA, FRICS

  M. Kay, FRICS

  A. C. Love, FRICS

  R. R. McConnell, FRICS

  L. J. McFarlane, FRICS FRVA

  R. A. M. MacKenzie, FRICS

  MacPherson, MA, FRICS

  E. Milne, FRICS

  W. W. Mitchell, FRICS, FRVA

  Miss C. Oliphant, ARICS

  P. Paterson, FRICS

  J. B. Pettinger, FRICS, ARVA

  T. F. Phillips, FRICS

  A. J. Prentice, FRICS, ARVA

  J. D. O. Ramsay, FRICS, FFB

  G. Scott, FRICS, FRVA

  R. T. Shanks, FRICS

  J. G. Smith, FRICS

  D. Sutherland, FRICS

  T. Sutherland, FRICS

  J. S. Traill, MSc, FRICS, MRTPI

  A. E. L. Weir, FRICS, FRVA

  >Lay Members

  Mrs. P. Bolton

  S. J. Boyd, AIPM

  Mrs. H. Charlton

  Ms A. S. Daghlian

  I. S. Davidson

  M. Fleming

  603

  J. Forbes

  Mrs. C. K. Fraser

  W. G. Fyfe, MA, BD, STM8

  A. Gray

  W. Hill, FIHsg

  Mrs. E. R. Innes

  N. MacPhail

  A. McQuaker

  Mrs. S. B. Mathieson

  J. S. Methven

  Mrs. A. O'Neale

  Mrs. E. Park

  Mrs. D. Rankin

  Mrs. S. Ritchie

  R. C. Robinson

  Mrs. S. Ross

  Mrs. M. M. Roxburgh

  J. I. Stevenson

  Mrs. A. Tankel

  J. Thomson, MBE, JP

  Mrs. A. Woodward-Nutt

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Rowett Research Institute.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: There are currently fourteen members of the board of the Rowett Research Institute. Their names and the sources of the appointments are:

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Provan— Secretary of State for Scotland

  Mr. M. Mackie, Jnr—Secretary of State for Scotland

  Professor A. Trichopoulou—Secretary of State for Scotland

  Mr. W. J. Ferguson—The Scottish Agricultural College

  Professor H. M. Keir—University of Aberdeen

  Principal J. M. Irvine—University of Aberdeen

  Professor C. Kidd—University of Aberdeen

  Dr. R. W. Brimblecombe—Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. F. G. Perry—Confederation of British Industry

  Professor P. Cohen—Learned Societies The Royal Society

  Professor A. J. F. Webster—Nutrition Society

  Mr. C. S. MacPhie—Co-opted by the Rowett Research Institute

  Mr. D. S. C. Levie—Co-opted by the Rowett Research Institute

  Professor C. H. MacMurray—Co-opted by the Rowett Research Institute

HEALTH

  Hospital Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the change in numbers and cost of hospital general and senior managers between 1986 and 1991;

  (2) how much was spent on hospital general managers and senior managers in England in the lass year for which figures are available and the previous year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General and senior management posts were introduced in phases from 1986 before which the national health service was clearly undermanaged. In the hospital and community health services in 1986 and 1991 there were respectively 510 and 12,420 whole-time equivalent staff paid on general and senior managers' terms. HCHS salary costs for this group of staff were £25·7 million in 1986–87, £383·8 million in 1991–92 and £494·1 million (provisional) in 1992–93. Comparisons over the years are meaningless because the growth in numbers and costs is mainly due to the reclassification of staff 604
  previously included in other administrative and professional categories, including many senior nurses. General and senior managers account for only 2 per cent. of the total NHS work force and 3 per cent. of total NHS expenditure on salaries and wages, but the proposals set out by my right hon. Friend on 21 October 1993 contained a commitment to streamline the structure of the NHS, to slim down its management and to make it simpler and sharper.

  NHS Administrative Costs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in the NHS management executive, the NHS Supplies Authority, the Prescription Pricing Authority, the medical advisers support group and the medicines research centre in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Disaggregated costs for managers, advisers, administrative and clerical staff in these five organisations are not available centrally. The total manpower costs for the national health service management executive in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 were £24 million, £20 million and £29 million respectively. These figures are not directly comparable because of organisational changes between the NHSME and the rest of the Department of Health. The total manpower costs for the national health service supplies authority were £640,000 for the six-month period from 1 October 1991, when the authority was formally established, and £32·2 million in 1992–93 when 4,500 staff were transferred from NHS regional and district health authorities. The total manpower costs for the Prescription Pricing Authority were £20·19 million, £22·17 million and £24.13 million in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively. The total manpower costs for the medical advisers support group were £71·11 million in 1990–91—part year in which the MASG was set up-£157·96 million and £175·94 million in 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively. The total manpower costs for the medicines research centre were £83 million in 1990–91—part year in which the MRC was set up—£114·25 million and £111·83 million in 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively.

  HIV
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies born in each of the last five years were found at birth to be HIV positive; what percentage remained HIV positive one and a half years later; and if she will make a statement on HIV in the new-born.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between the beginning of 1989 and October 1993, 235 children born in England have been recognised at or after their birth as born to an HIV-infected woman. HIV infection has been confirmed in 76 of these and 49 are known to be uninfected. The infection status of the remaining 110 has not yet been resolved. However, the figures do not provide a reliable guide to the transmission rate as they do not cover all women who are HIV positive, but only those who were already known to be so, or whose status was recognised retrospectively as a result of the child developing symptoms. It is generally accepted that the proportion of infants born to HIV-infected women who are infected themselves is best estimated from prospective studies such as the European collaborative study, which estimates the transmission rate at 14 per cent.
  605

  Highfield Hospital
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the letters sent to her by the Save Highfield Hospital Campaign on 20 November 1993 and 31 January 1994 and to the petition on Highfield hospital which was handed to her on 20 November 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Save Highfield Hospital campaign has been informed that the proposal to close Highfield hospital and transfer services to Worcester royal infirmy was dealt with in accordance with laid-down procedures. As agreement was reached locally with the two community health councils involved and followed a full public consultation exercise, North Worcester health authority was able to implement the proposal without recourse to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Children's Rights
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for carrying forward the work of the children's rights development unit in connection with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child following the decision to cease its funding; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The children's rights development unit is an organisation independent of Government and questions relating to its future work should be referred to that organisation.

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the schemes her Department operates to assist staff facing financial hardship following a transfer, showing(a) the particular criteria and rules applying to each one, including the circumstances under which any loans can be written off, (b) the total amount loaned or granted under the schemes in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94 and (c) the number of staff assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are two schemes to assist staff affected by the fall in house prices:

  Bridging Loans

  The Department may assist a member of staff transferred at the public expense who is in severe and immediate financial difficulties as a result of taking out a bridging loan which subsequently exceeds the selling price of property. Provided the member of staff cannot make good the shortfall of funds from his or her own resources and, that a value for money case can be clearly established, the Department can offer:

  an interest free advance of up to 12 months salary repayable over 15 years; and/or

  an additional housing cost allowance to cover the interest charges on extra mortgage borrowing; and/or

  as a last resort where other options are not possible, to write off up to £15,000 of the bridging loan. Amounts in excess of this require Treasury approval.

  Mortgage Redemption (negative Equity)

  Where staff transferred at the public expense face genuine financial hardship an advance of up to 12 months salary may be made, repayable over 15 years.

  In 1992–93 eight members of staff received advances of salary averaging £7,860 under these provisions. To date the comparable figures for 1993–94 are two and £16,500.
  606

  Mental Hospitals (Nursing Staff)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the level of competence and skills of the nursing staff at(a) Broadmoor hospital and (b) other mental hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Those who manage hospitals are responsible for ensuring that the nursing staff they employ have the required competence and skills. The management of Broadmoor hospital and the other special hospitals is the responsibility of the Special Hospitals Service Authority.

  The review of mental health nursing which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in 1992 has now been completed and the report will be published shortly.

  Oral Health
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 530, when she expects to publish the report of the oral health strategy group.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 18 February at column 1042.

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the membership of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs; and which of them have specialist knowledge in the treatment of skin conditions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The names of the members and their areas of medical expertise are listed. Dr. Grattan is a consultant dermatologist with a specialist knowledge in the treatment of skin conditions. The committee can also seek advice from external experts if it wishes to do so.

  Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs Membership

  Name

  Areas of Medical Expertise

  Chairman

  Dr. J. S. Metters

  Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Department of Health

  Members

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool

  Professor C. M. Castleden

  Professor of Medicine for the Elderly, University of Leicester

  Mr. D. L. Coleman Professor H. D. Edmondson

  Community Pharmacist, Norfolk Professor of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, Dental School, University of Birmingham

  Dr. P. R. Fellows

  General practitioner, Gloucestershire Chairman of Gloucester Local Medical Committee

  Professor D. Ganderton

  Visiting Professor in pharmacy, King's College, London. Chairman of the British Pharmacopoeia Commission

  Miss A. F. Glasier

  Consultant gynaecologist, Director of Family Planning, Lothian Health Board

  Dr. C. Grattan

  Consultant dermatologist, Norfolk and Norwich Hospital

  Dr. A. Greenhough

  Professor of Clinical Respiratory Physiology, King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry

  Dr. G. Hargreaves

  Former GP with experience of the Pharmaceutical Industry

  607

  Name

  Areas of Medical Expertise

  Professor S. Holgate

  Specialist in allergic disorders, Southampton Hospital

  Dr. D. F. Jones Professor R. M. Jones

  General practitioner, South Wales Professor of Anaesthetics, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London

  Mr. A. G. Kerr

  Consultant ENT Surgeon, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast

  Mrs. S. Noyce Dr. S. J. Richards Dr. C. H. Swan

  Pharmacist adviser to Sefton FHSA General practitioner, Exeter Consultant physician (gastro-enterology) City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent

  Professor P. J. Tyrer

  Professor of Community Psychiatry, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London

  Dr. D. M. B. Ward

  General practitioner, Glasgow

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the referral to the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs of treatments for skin diseases; what action she has taken as a result; when she expects the report of the committee; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A number of representations have been received about drugs acting on the skin. These have been drawn to the attention of the independent advisory committee, which will be reporting as soon as its review is complete. Any recommendations resulting from the work of the committee will be published for consultation before final decisions are taken.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she takes to ensure that animal tests currently used for the safety assessment of food products are effective for identifying constituents of diet that are potentially toxic or harmful to humans.

  Mr. Sackville
  The use of toxicity studies in laboratory animals for the safety testing of food and other products is of proven value and has gained acceptance by the scientific community worldwide. Most chemically-induced toxic effects seen in humans are also seen in appropriate animal studies. Animal studies are assessed by expert toxicologists experienced in extrapolating the information to predict likely effects in humans. Allowances are made for the uncertainties involved, particularly any differences between species.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the introduction of validated alternatives to the use of animals in the toxicity and safety testing of food products.

  Mr. Sackville
  Validated alternatives to laboratory animals are available for assessing mutagenic potential of chemicals in food and other products. These data are also of value in screening compounds for their carcinogenic potential.

  Much effort is being put into the development of alternatives in other areas, particularly for screening for local irritant effects, where it is hoped to have validated alternatives within a few years. However, the replacement of animals for general toxicity testing is much more difficult because of the need to reproduce the very complex
  608
  biochemical and pharmacological interactions that occur in animals. There has been some progress in reducing the number of animals used in certain tests and reducing the distress that may be caused, for example by the use of the fixed dose procedure as an alternative method for investigating acute toxicity. This was validated in a large international study sponsored by United Kingdom Government Departments and the European Community. The new procedure obviates the need for calculating LD50 values.

  Sir James Ackers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the special circumstances in view of which she made a payment of £10,000 to Sir James Ackers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 29 April 1993, at columns 492–93.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 385, if she will list for each trust chair and non-executive director in the Northern region the name of the organisation by which they are employed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not maintain up-to-date information relating to the names of appointees' employers.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 385, if she will list for each trust chair and non-executive director in the Northern region their known party political affiliation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The political affiliation of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts plays no part in the appointment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and would be known only where an appointee is actively pursuing a political career at the time of the appointment. No attempt is made to check on whether that activity is continued after appointment, so current political affiliations are not known.

  Age Limits
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what age limits her Department(a) recommends and (b) requires for appointment to community health councils, health authorities, health service trusts, family health service authorities and any other bodies for which age limits are recommended or required; and if in each case she will state the reasons why limits have been set.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no statutory age limits for members of national health service authorities and trusts, nor for community health council members. Regional health authorities have been recommended not to appoint members to community health councils older than 70 years except in special circumstances.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of public appointments made by her Department in 1993 were of women; and if she will make a statement.
  609
  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993, 35 per cent. of members of national health service bodies and health non-departmental public bodies were women. This includes 40 per cent. of appointees to fourth-wave NHS trusts.

  Secure Accommodation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many females aged(a) 12, (b) 13, (c) 14, (d) 15, (e) 16, (f) 17 and (g) 18 years were detained in secure accommodation on the last day of each month of 1992 and 1993; and what were the reasons for their detention in secure accommodation;

  (2) how many males aged (a) 12, (b) 13, (c) 14, (d) 15, (e) 16, (f) 17 and (g) 18 years were detained in secure accommodation on the last day of each month of 1992 and 1993; and what were the reasons for their detention in secure accommodation;

  (3) how many females aged (a) 12, (b) 13, (c) 14, (d) 15, (e) 16, (f) 17 and (g) 18 years were admitted to secure accommodation during (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993; and what were the reasons for their detention in secure accommodation;

  (4) how many males aged (a) 12, (b) 13, (c) 14, (d) 15, (e) 16, (f) 17 and (g) 18 years were admitted to secure accommodation during (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993; and what were the reasons for their detention in secure accommodation.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available information on the numbers of children and young people admitted to secure accommodation and resident in secure accommodation during the year by legal status and age on admission relates to the year ending 31 March 1992 and has been placed in the Library.

  Midwives
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether midwives employed by health authorities and trusts will continue to benefit from their employer's liability insurance cover.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service bodies are not required to take out insurance cover for possible negligence by the health care professionals that they employ, but both health authorities and NHS trusts are responsible for the negligent acts and omissions of their midwife employees acting in the course of their employment. Insurance is desirable for any work done outside the NHS contract of employment, such as Good Samaritan acts in emergencies and providing midwifery services to friends and relatives.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the decision by insurance companies to regard self-employed midwives as a high financial risk; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Cumberlege, has had discussions with the Royal College of Midwives about this matter; they arrange for their self-employed members to be provided with professional indemnity insurance and are actively seeking to resolve the concerns raised.
  610

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for September 1989, September 1990 and September 1992, for each regional health authority, the number of nurses, midwives and health visitors by clinical grade and specialty.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dentistry
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department will publish the results of the 1993 children's dental health survey.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Preliminary results of the survey were published on 22 February, copies of which will be placed in the Library. A full report of the survey will be published later this year.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were registered with dentists in each of the six months up to and including January.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. Child registrations increased in each month until 31 December when, on that day, child registrations which had not previously been extended for a further term were automatically deleted from the dental register. Children whose registrations have lapsed will be able to re-register.

  Month ending

  Child registrations

  July

  7,156,512

  August

  7,273,977

  September

  7,396,329

  October

  7,488,760

  November

  7,604,594

  December

  6,196,058

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has given to the British Dental Association's letter of 9 February; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the British Dental Association on 22 February.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 February,Official Report, column 7: What is the percentage of the implicit element within the standard spending assessment calculation for personal social services relating to charges for services other than residential care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Within the calculations of the standard spending assessments for personal social services other than residential care for the elderly, it is uniformity between authorities in the rate of recovery of gross expenditure through income from charges which is implicitly assumed, not any specific rate of recovery.
  611

  Administrative Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish a table showing administrative expenditure by family practitioner committees in 1989(a) in total and (b) by region;

  (2) what was the total administrative expenditure of family health services authorities for each year since their creation (a)for England as a whole and (b)by region.

  £000.

  Region

  FPC (1989–90) and FHSA (1990–91 to 1992–93) Administration:

  Revenue Expenditure in England

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  6,159

  9,684

  9,438

  10,824

  Yorkshire

  6,304

  9,769

  9,265

  10,973

  Trent

  5,175

  7,811

  12,689

  14,638

  East Anglian

  3,021

  4,640

  5,083

  5,663

  North West Thames

  5,429

  9,983

  12,964

  15,160

  North East Thames

  4,588

  7,677

  12,297

  14,772

  South East Thames

  2,903

  6,689

  10,975

  14,604

  South West Thames

  4,693

  6,423

  9,711

  11,533

  Wessex

  2,979

  6,285

  6,417

  7,701

  Oxford

  1,810

  5,641

  6,403

  8,528

  South Western

  4,168

  4,997

  7,210

  8,151

  West Midlands

  6,855

  9,956

  14,314

  16,700

  Mersey

  3,432

  3,499

  7,146

  7,899

  North Western

  8,993

  10,863

  12,779

  14,735

  Total

  66,509

  103,917

  136,331

  161,881

  Source:

  Family Practitioner Committee annual accounts for 1989–90 and Family Health Services Authorities' annual accounts for 1990–91 to 1992–93; net revenue expenditure.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further action he is taking concerning fraud.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am determined to step up the fight against fraud and abuse. A wide variety of initiatives are being introduced including making more use of information technology, more secure payment methods, a one-stop service and tightening the rules to prevent abuse.

  Household Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what precentage of households have an income which is less than half the average national household income; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  In 1979, half average national household income was £86 before housing costs and £73 after housing costs, in 1991 prices. The percentage of households with income less than this was 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. In 1990–91, the latest date for which information is available, half average national household income was £118 before housing costs and £101 after housing costs. The percentage of households with income less than this was 23 per cent. and 27 per cent. respectively. The percentage of households below half of the 1979 average household income held constant was lower in 1990–91 than in 1979.
  612
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The information is shown in the table. Family health services authorities manage the introduction of general practitioner fundholding, the monitoring of GP prescribing, and the development of clinical audit in primary care —all initiatives aimed at improving the effectiveness of patient care and value for money. In 1992–1993 FHSA administrative expenditure represented only 2.5 per cent. of the £6.5 billion of taxpayers' money spent on the FHS.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further representations he has received on the workings of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  From 20 January to 16 January the Department of Social Security and the Child Support Agency headquarters have received 2,954 written representations covering a range of views about child support policy and Child Support Agency operations.

  The cost of establishing the number of written representations made to the Child Support Agency centres and field offices would be disproportionately high. The number of representations made in person or by telephone is not recorded.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what timetable he has drawn up for a further review of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The child support system will continue to be kept under close scrutiny, as it has been since its introduction. The recent changes are testament to that fact. This is a continual process and therefore not one which should be subject to a specific timetable.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to charge the collection fee for child support maintenance to the absent parent when the Child Support Agency takes on all maintenance agreements in 1996 where the parent with care is not on income support and where the parents are not using the collection service.

  Mr. Burt
  Where payments are being made direct to the parent with care but she has requested the Child Support
  613
  Agency's collection service, which includes enforcement, the fee will be payable by both parents. Otherwise, no fee will be charged where payments are made direct.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for the protection of mothers who may know the whereabouts of the absentee father, but may be reluctant to divulge it.

  Mr. Burt
  A parent with care receiving income support, family credit or disability working allowance is required to authorise the Child Support Agency to obtain maintenance, unless the pursuit of maintenance would risk harm or undue distress to her or any child living with her. Where there is such a risk, the parent with care is not required to give authority.

  In all cases the agency will act as a buffer between the parent with care and the absent parent, and will not divulge her address to him.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in what proportion of cases the Child Support Agency is currently meeting the performance target it has set itself by writing to parents with an assessment within five working days of receiving all the information needed by both parents.

  (2) what steps the Child Support Agency is taking to fulfil the promise in its customer charter to let customers know as a matter of course if there has been undue delay.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is the responsibility of its chief executive, Ros Hepplewhite. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 24 February 1994:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking the steps being taken by the Child Support Agency to fulfil its commitments to write to clients with an assessment within five working days; and to let clients know as a matter of course if there is an undue delay in processing their application.

  The Agency is currently monitoring its performance against Charter Standards. At the end of its first year of operation, it will be in a position to determine case clearance times, and to advise clients how long on average the process is likely to take. The Agency will also be in a position to advise clients if there has been undue delay.

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current backlog for second tier review applications arising out of disputes with the Child Support Agency; at what rate second tier review applications are being lodged each month; how many second tier review applications are being cleared each month; how many post-second tier applications are being sent on to appeal each month; and what is the average length of time that applicants then wait for an appeal to be heard.

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

  Letter from Derek Brown to Mr. Frank Field, dated 25 February 1994:

  In her absence, the Chief Executive Mrs. Hepplewhite has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the
  614
  Secretary of State for Social Security, asking about the average times taken to process reviews and appeals in the Child Support Agency.

  You asked about the position on requests for second tier reviews. At 31 January the Agency had received and cleared the following:

  Month

  Received

  Cleared

  April to November

  8,000

  1,500

  December

  3,700

  800

  January

  4,900

  3,500

  Total

  16,600

  5,800

  The number of reviews requested has increased over the last three months. This is as expected, and reflects the significant increases in the number of assessments now being processed by the Agency.

  Requests that had been received but not processed are being actioned. The Agency has increased the number of staff undertaking this work, and significant progress is being made. During January four times as many cases were processed as in the preceding month.

  Finally you asked about appeals. Appeals are primarily a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service which is an Independent Statutory Authority. I understand that, to the end of January 1994, a total of 611 appeals had been lodged, of which 82 cases had been heard by the Child Support Appeal Tribunal. Figures are not currently available on the proportion of these that had already been subject to a second tier review. Given, however, that the only category of client who has a right of appeal direct to the Tribunal are those appealing against a decision to impose a reduced benefit direction, it is likely that a large majority of appeals had already been subject to a second tier review.

  The President of the Independent Tribunal Service informs me that information on the average length of time applicants wait for an appeal to be heard is not available. The average length of time from receipt of an appeal to the date the tribunal decision is, however, 17 weeks.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had in relation to the operations of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Between April 1993 and 16 February 1994 the Department of Social Security and the Child Support Agency headquarters received 13,715 written representations covering a range of views about child support policy and Child Support Agency operations.

  The cost of establishing the number of written representations made to Child Support Agency centres and field offices would be disproportionately high. The number of representations made in person or by telephone is not recorded.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receive family credit; and how many received family income support in 1978–79.

  Mr. Burt
  In September 1993, 515,000 families were receiving family credit compared with only 78,000 receiving family income supplement in March 1979.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current average award for family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  The average weekly award is £43.30.

  Source: Five per cent. sample of Family Credit recipients as at 31 May 1993.
  615

  Pensions
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of uprating the retirement pension in 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated cost is £717 million.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for a real increase in pensions in the current year.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the full uprating of pensions in line with

  Number of retirement pensions in Great Britain

  Category of pension

  Number with retirement pension

  Number with less than 100 per cent. basic retirement pension

  Percentage receiving less than 100 per cent.

  Average percentage for persons in receipt of less than 100 per cent.

  All retirement pensions

  9,581,660

  1,085,450

  11

  62

  Category A men

  3,293,560

  161,030

  5

  76

  Category A women

  2,336,620

  666,780

  29

  56

  Category BL wives

  1,330,740

  45,790

  3

  74

  Category ABL wives

  628,490

  2,930

  —

  85

  Category B widows

  1,884,860

  61,530

  3

  79

  Graduated pensions only

  134,130

  134,130

  100

  N/a

  Additional pensions only

  13,260

  13,260

  100

  N/a

  N/a—Not available.

  The percentage of people residing overseas

  Category of pension

  Number with retirement pension

  Number with less than 100 per cent. basic retirement pension

  Percentage receiving less than 100 per cent.

  Average percentage for persons in receipt of less than 100 per cent.

  All retirement pensions

  613,860

  550,120

  90

  14

  Category A Men

  234,880

  212,540

  90

  17

  Category A Women

  154,540

  140,660

  91

  15

  Category BL Wives

  108,690

  98,770

  91

  6

  Category ABL Wives

  32,190

  24,520

  76

  1

  Category B Widows

  75,690

  65,760

  87

  13

  Graduated pensions only

  7,040

  7,040

  100

  N/A

  Additional pension only

  830

  830

  100

  N/A

  Notes:

  1 Figures given are for people of contributory Retirement Pension (including Graduated Retirement Pension or Additional Pension only) at 31 March 1993 excluding widowers receiving Category B pension (total number at 31 March 1993 is 750).

  2 Category A pension is payable on a person's own contributions.

  3 Category BL pension is payable to a married woman based on her husband's contributions—the standard rate is approximately 60 per cent. of the standard Category A rate.

  4 Category ABL pension is payable to a married woman based on her own and her husband's contributions—the standard rate is the same as that for Category BL.

  5 Category B pension is payable to surviving spouses on the basis of their late spouses' contributions—the standard rate is the same as that for Category A.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the Budget speech of 30 November,Official Report, column 1037, if pensioners who do not receive 100 per cent. of a state pension will receive the full 50p addition in respect of VAT on fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The extra help towards VAT on fuel will be included in the standard rate of basic retirement pension. The rate of pension is reduced where basic pension entitlement is less than 100 per cent. This will have the effect of reducing the extra help in proportion to the percentage rate of basic pension entitlement.

  The standard married woman's rate of basic retirement pension, based on her husband's contributions, will be increased by 20p per week thereby providing pensioner couples in receipt of the standard rate with an overall additional increase of 70p per week.
  616
  inflation from April, plus extra help with the cost of VAT on fuel, amounting to 50p a week for single pensioners and 70p for couples.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of people in receipt of state pensions receive less than 100 per cent. of the full pension; and what number of people this represents;

  (2) what is the average percentage of state pension received by those in receipt of less than 100 per cent. of the full state pension.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the tables.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his speech, all pensioners on income support will receive the full 50p single and 70p for couples, whether or not they are entitled to a reduced rate retirement pension.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what gross weekly cost his Department estimates will be incurred by the increase of all state pensions to compensate for the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel in each week during April.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  It is estimated that the average gross weekly cost from 11 April, when the 1994 uprating will become effective, will be approximately £4 millon.
  617

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what proportion of, applicants for disability working allowance in the. last 12-month period for which information is available, were disqualified because of their earnings or rise in family income.

  Mr. Scott
  Out of a total of 12,665 applications received between December 1992 and November 1993, 850 new and repeat claims were disallowed because their income exceeded the level of disability working allowance. This represented a proportion of 6·7 per cent.

  Poverty
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government's assessment of the extent and scale of poverty prevailing in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Statistics on patterns of household disposable income, for the United Kingdom are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979–1990/91", published in June 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households were in the bottom decile of income distribution in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  Numbers of pensioner families with incomes in the bottom decile of income distribution (000s)

  1979

  1990–91

  Before housing costs

  Couples

  510

  290

  Single

  890

  620

  All

  1,400

  910

  After housing costs

  Couples

  550

  160

  Single

  580

  290

  All

  1,200

  450

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Surveys, rounded to nearest 10,000.

  2. Numbers relate to pensioner benefit units.

  Social Fund
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessments he has made of the operation of social funds within benefits agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The operation of the discretionary social fund is monitored routinely. We believe that the basic principles of the fund are right and working well, but we continue to evaluate its effectiveness and to introduce operational improvements as required.

  Pensioner Households (Assets)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable position in real terms in 1978–79.
  618
  Mr. Hague
  We do not have information on the capital value of pensioners' assets. The estimated average weekly income which pensioners received from their savings or investments are in the table.

  Year

  Couples

  Singles

  All1

  1979

  £16·20

  £8·60

  £11·20

  1990–91

  £45·10

  £21·60

  £30·30

  1 Single people over state pension age and couples where the husband is over state pensions age.

  All estimates derive from the family expenditure survey and are at 1990–91 prices. Averages are across all pensioners, whether or not receiving an income from savings or investments.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the long-term unemployed to his Department in 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost of those receiving benefit for more than six months cannot be separated from the planned total benefit expenditure of unemployed people which for the year April 1993 to April 1994 is £10·39 billion.

  Notes:

  The information is taken from table 5 of the 1993 departmental annual report which is in the Library. The 1994 annual report will be published shortly and will be placed in the Library.

  The benefits included are: unemployment benefit, income support, family credit, child benefit, one-parent benefit, housing benefit, community charge benefit, and social fund loans.

  Benefits
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account the 1994 uprating benefits for pensioners and sick and disabled people has taken of the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Hague
  The uprating of benefits from April 1994 is based on the movement in the retail prices index over the preceding September-to-September period. In addition to price indexation, the standard weekly rates of basic retirement and invalidity pensions, severe disablement allowance and income support for sick and disabled people will be increased by 50p single rate or 70p couple rate to provide extra help for VAT on domestic fuel.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which area of benefits he proposes to make cuts.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 1 December 1993 at columns 1037–59 announcing a full uprating of benefits, substantial extra help towards VAT on fuel and proposals for the reform of a number of benefits. The subsequent Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1994 was approved by the Commons on 16 February, and will be debated by the Lords on 28 February.

  We continue to keep social security under review to ensure that we have the kind of system which will serve the country well into the next century.
  619

  Family Allowances
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase family allowances; and by how much.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced that child benefit will be increased in line with prices from April 1994. The rates will increase to £10·20 for the eldest eligible child in the family and £8·25 for each other child.

  Disability Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to increase the disability allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  On 1 December 1993 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced increases in disability living allowance, attendance allowance and disability working allowance from April 1994 as part of the annual uprating of all social security benefits.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.
  620
  Mr. Hague
  For the year ended 31 August 1993, 47 per cent. of all new appointees were women.

  In support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's public appointments initiative, this Department set a goal for 40 per cent. of new appointees to public bodies to be women. This goal has been exceeded, increasing the overall percentage of women holding public appointments from 27 per cent. in 1991 to 32·5 per cent. in 1993.

  Occupational Pension Plans
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to introduce legislation allowing employees who have an occupational pension plan an annual statement of the valuation of their savings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government are considering, in the light of the report of the Pension Law Review Committee, the whole question of what information should be provided to members of occupational pension schemes, either routinely or on request. Under current legislation, members of defined contribution occupational pension schemes already receive an annual statement showing the value of the member's rights and members of defined benefit schemes have a right to request one.

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

European Parliament: Committees
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, at the next meeting of the European Council, they will put forward proposals for the meetings of all committees and sub-committees of the European Parliament to be open to the public and to the media, subject to their right to private deliberations as and when necessary.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, as I advised the noble Lord on 11th October, open sessions of committees of the European Parliament are a matter for the Parliament itself to decide.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the European Council, which is comprised of the heads of state, can affect amendments to the treaties and can lay down the conditions under which the institution and its members work? Is it not the case that during the Maastricht debate the leaders of all political parties in this place and in another place agreed that the European Parliament could look after the European finances? In view of the fact that neither this place nor another place bothered about the 1994 budget, would it not be wise to have the meetings of the Budget Committee and other committees of the European Parliament thrown open so that we know exactly how our interests are safeguarded in that organisation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I have much sympathy with his view. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the comments that he made in a forceful intervention at a European Parliament seminar last week on fraud, money and controlling the Commission. That was the intention of the Maastricht Treaty and will be the way in which it is carried out. We in the councils of the European Union, and in particular the European Council, will make sure that all parts of that budget are subject to scrutiny. But I agree with the noble Lord that it could have had more debate.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for that favourable reply. Will the Minister ensure that the sentiments expressed in the Maastricht debates by all three Front Benches— that the European Parliament should be regarded as a safeguard of European finances — are openly and transparently carried out by Members of the European Parliament? On the basis of what we
806
read about the Parliament's plenary sittings, which I have read many times, their contributions so far have largely been insignificant.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is a clear message for all would-be candidates who wish to have the support of the noble Lord in the June elections: that all Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg will be expected by their parties to scrutinise far more than some Members have done in the past and to make sure that what is set by the European Council is carried through by the Commission.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister referred to what can be expected of candidates in the European Parliament elections in June. What can be expected from the candidates of her party? Will they support the manifesto of their Christian Democrat allies? Is there any truth in the fact that they are being threatened with being expelled from the European People's Party if they do not back those policies? Can we expect that from her colleagues?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knew that the British Conservatives are allied members of the EPP in Strasbourg. They are not bound by its policies or its manifesto and I am not answerable for them at this Dispatch Box. However, I point out, as I have on many previous occasions, that this argument seems to be about the dreaded word "federalism" and it has different meanings in different places. That is exactly why we were right to insist that it should not be included in the Maastricht Treaty. We were clear that we were opposed to centralisation, but some regard federalism as being a decentralised Community. Some of those are in the Community and some are even on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister asked whether I was aware of something. Is she not aware that Mr. Martens, the former Belgian Prime Minister, said in relation to Conservative MEPs:
"All other objectives of this manifesto have to be accepted for collaboration in the future group of the EPP. Conservative MEPs will be obliged to accept the commitment".
Is that true?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is going very wide of the Question. All I shall say to him is that Mr. Martens is but one Member.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question. Does the noble Baroness agree that the European Parliament is agreeing to expenditure of large sums of money which are raised by the House of Commons and British taxpayers? Therefore, we should be able to see exactly what it is doing and spending. Is it not necessary that the British and European public should be able to see what those people are doing at the cost of £ 1 million per head per annum?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that noble Lords are well aware of the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on this issue and he knows that I share some of that scepticism. It is

807
absolutely crucial that "own resources" are decided not by the European Parliament, although it makes frequent attempts to increase the amounts involved. We can see quite clearly from the European Parliament conference on own resources that it is not in line with any of the 12 national governments and I believe that future debates on finance in this House, in another place and in the European Parliament must make transparent the whole business of European finance.

BMW and Rover
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the assurances about future policy given by the chairman of BMW to employees of the Rover company have been recorded in writing and, if so, whether they will place copies of the relevant document in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the assurances about the future of Rover given by the chairman of BMW are set out in a letter to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. Copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 31st January.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that modest response. In view of the great importance of the firms concerned to this country's balance of payments, defence resources and employment, are the Government going to stand aside completely and wash their hands of the whole issue?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is a commercial matter and it is not for the Government to intervene. The important factor is that Rover will be able to build on its recent success and will continue to produce high quality cars in this country, thereby providing real jobs and opportunities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have we not come to a pretty pass in this country when Honda Limited is more concerned about the retention of a British car industry than Her Majesty's Government?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I repeat that the important facts are that Rover will continue to build on its recent success and will produce high quality cars and that that will create jobs in this country.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to assurances. Are they cast-iron assurances as regards the maintenance of capacity and research and development by Rover, which is a major British engineering asset? Is there any danger that Rover and the automobile industry may become increasingly dependent on German-based BMW research and development?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are strong commercial reasons for BMW to stick to the assurances that it has given. The £ 800 million paid is a substantial
808
financial investment in the company, which BMW hopes to increase over time. It represents an extremely serious commitment.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, did BMW pay £ 800 million for Rover? The Sunday Times yesterday, I believe, said that there is some £ 270 million cash within Rover, which of course became available to BMW. What was the net figure that BMW paid for Rover?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the agreement reached on the sale price of Rover is a matter for British Aerospace and its shareholders.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, did the assurances cover the many hundreds of factories and establishments in the West Midlands which at present supply parts and accessories to Rover? Will those firms still have the satisfaction of supplying to Rover?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in his letter to my right honourable friend, the chairman of BMW stated that BMW is committed to continuing Rover's excellent relationship with its suppliers and does not intend to combine the purchasing functions of the two companies.
Lord Peston: My Lords, when the deal is finalised, Rover in this country will be a branch of BMW, which is a German company. As I understand it, Germany has signed the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. Will the employees of Rover now be protected by the Social Chapter? They may not have been before.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point is that employees working in this country are governed by the laws of this country.
Lord Jay: My Lords, are the Government really content that a decision of this national importance should be taken by a private board of directors, with a part-time chairman, after a few days' notice, with no consultation whatever with the tens of thousands of employees involved?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I repeat the Government's position; namely, that this is a commercial matter. But with regard to the employees, BMW has agreed to the new employment deal announced in April 1992 called Rover's "New Deal". The key principles of that deal were that no employee would be laid off and that employees who wished to work for Rover would be able to stay.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is it the Government's view that BMW would treat its British workers in its Rover plant in a way inferior to its German workers in the plants in Germany?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. We do not believe that BMW would treat its workers in England in an inferior way.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the recent Honda announcement that it will now pull out? What effect will that have on the employees and sub-contractors involved?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the unwinding of the cross shareholding is not in itself the end of the relationship. Several technical agreements exist between the two companies which are currently profitable for Honda. Any disengagement would take some time and would be costly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I ask a question which many people are putting to me? Can the noble Viscount say whether the policies of Rover in future will be made in Munich and not in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the commercial policies of a commercial company are a matter for that company.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, that is a totally inadequate reply. He should be in a position to answer such a fundamental question about the making of policy. Is it the case that policies will be made in Germany and not in this country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the policies of a commercial company will be made by the board of that company.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is it not the case that, when the policies of the Rover Group— formerly British Leyland— were made in Whitehall, in this country and by the party opposite when in government it used to cost the taxpayer millions of pounds a year? However, now it is in the private sector it does not cost us anything.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I endorse my noble friend's view that Rover has been a very great success in recent years.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to take the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a little further. If the Government are so certain that equality of terms will apply to BMW and Rover, can the noble Viscount use his good influence to ensure that my pension is brought up to the same level as that of my former Dutch associates in a multinational company?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates to BMW's future plans for Rover rather than historic events which led up to the takeover, or indeed the noble Lord's pension.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give the House an assurance that the Government will approach British Aerospace to ensure that there will be no more sell-offs of its undertaking to foreign buyers, as was forecast in a Question tabled in this House over two-and-a-half years ago?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I have stated, commercial decisions for British Aerospace will be a matter for the board of that company.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what will really ensure the success of the Rover car company in the future will be increased sales of motor cars? That will be the greatest benefit to employees.
Viscount Goschen: Indeed, my Lords, the ultimate employment level will depend upon the success of the company. The association with BMW will provide Rover with access to an investment on a scale unprecedented in its recent history. It will offer an expanded dealer network in areas where Rover has so far been unable to penetrate.

Bosnia: European Co-ordination
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the level of co-ordination between Europe's Foreign Ministers in dealing with the situation in Bosnia.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes, we are satisfied with the level of co-ordination. The European Union plan of action produced by that co-ordination has been accepted in principle by all parties as the framework for a negotiated settlement. Bosnia has regularly featured high in the agenda for monthly Foreign Affairs Council meetings. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is in close and frequent contact with his main EU colleagues on policy towards Bosnia.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But judging from the situation in Bosnia, it would not seem that there is a relationship between any Foreign Secretaries which will help end this miserable war. Does the Minister accept that thousands of people are being killed every week, in addition to the racial slayings of Moslems? Does she also accept that the NATO powers should now assert themselves? Otherwise there is no point in having NATO. I should like to take the opportunity to mention the magnificent job being carried out by General Sir Michael Rose, the British commander of the United Nation forces, He is doing a first-class job; but is he not being frustrated by the politicians of the West?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no politicians are frustrating either General Sir Michael Rose or any of the other commanders. As we shall hear in a Statement later today, NATO had to take action this morning when there was a blatant breach of the no-fly zone by Serb aircraft. There is no doubt in my mind that not only NATO but also UNPROFOR on the ground are carrying out the jobs that they were asked to do. In parallel with that, we must continue to try to make progress with a negotiated settlement. Indeed, action still continues, despite the lower level of media coverage for it, in order to try to reach a resolution of the problems involved in the tragedy of Bosnia.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a good test of the level of co-ordination among European Foreign Ministers would be the speed with which they now issue a unanimous statement supporting the NATO action to which she referred?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can well understand why the noble Lord has asked the

811
question. Our Foreign Secretary this morning in Athens made a very important comment on the incident. The incident must not affect the efforts which so many are making— for example, the European Union, America, Russia and others— to build on the improvement of recent weeks and work towards a settlement in Bosnia.
It is also important to note that the matter is now being discussed not only with our European partners and America but also with Russia. This morning my right honourable friend saw Moscow's special Yugoslavia envoy, Vitaly Churkin. Everyone is aware that the action this morning was taken under Security Council Resolution 816.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government back the American initiative for a Bosnian-Croat/Bosnian-Moslem confederation? If they back the initiative, can the Minister also tell the House whether they have had discussions with our European Union partners on the matter and, indeed, with the noble Lord, Lord Owen; and whether— again assuming that they back the initiative — it now means that the Owen-Stoltenberg plan for a partition of Bosnia is now on the back burner?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, the British Government fully support the United States initiative to promote a rapprochement between the Moslems and the Croats. That should build on the ceasefire which has been agreed between the parties in central Bosnia. Both the United States and the Russian Federation accept that all this must be built on the European Union plan of action and on the achievements gained by the co-chairmen. It certainly does not undermine what the co-chairmen have done; it will build upon it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no real action was taken by the United Nations or by the Foreign Secretaries of Europe in 22 months? Is she further aware that that is causing grave irritation not only in this country but also in the United States of America? There is now the danger that a solution to the problem will be found by the Russians. That is so, and that would be no help to Great Britain or, indeed, to the United States of America. Therefore, will the Minister and her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (who stands in very high esteem in Europe) hold an emergency meeting to devise a policy that will bring this slaughter to an end?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord that I do not believe anything would be achieved at this precise moment by calling such a meeting. We have a further meeting next week of Foreign Ministers of the European Union. As I said in answer to an earlier question, my right honourable friend has already been in touch today with Russia's special envoy. Moreover, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is in the United States of America and is in discussion with the Americans and we are in constant touch with all our European partners. Although the United Nations may have seemed not to take the
812
action that the noble Lord would have liked, it has indeed set down in two pages a number of very clear guidelines.
As I have said in your Lordships' House many times before, the difficulty that we face in Bosnia is that, however much all of us who are not involved in the fighting want it to stop, the tragedy will not come to an end until the parties concerned themselves decide that it will cease.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is this not a time when we ought to be congratulating the Security Council, the members of the United Nations and, as my noble friend said, the general in command? The role of General Sir Michael Rose has been most important. Therefore, when there are good prospects— and we have seen more progress in the past 10 days than we have seen in so many months— surely this is a time for some recognition of success?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree. It has been extremely heartening to see the strong stand taken by General Sir Michael Rose and by all our troops and those on the ground. However, I caution about believing that we are near to the end of the problem in Bosnia. But I do not think that the noble Lord meant to imply that in what he said. Where we must be most cautious is in saying that any solution can be down to one person, one group of people or one organisation. It will take the combined strengths of the United Nations, the European Union, the other partners and especially NATO's coverage of the situation to bring the conflict to an end.

Kashmir
3.0 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Nations are making any progress in restoring peace and security to the people of Kashmir.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the UN Resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which India and Pakistan agreed and Britain supported, provided the basis of a possible solution of the Kashmir dispute. Nether side fully implemented those resolutions. We welcomed the resumption of talks between India and Pakistan on Kashmir in January in Islamabad. We believe that bilateral dialogue represents the best way forward. We hope that they will continue their efforts to resolve the Kashmir problem.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what she has said. This problem has existed for years. It is deeply to the disadvantage of India and involves perhaps one of the most beautiful parts of India. If we cannot bring peace and happiness to that area, we shall find it difficult to bring peace and happiness to any part of the world where there is any form of religious antagonism. My noble friend has

813
suggested that progress has been made. I believe she said that she is hopeful there will be a successful outcome to this matter. Is that correct?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I remain hopeful. I believe that the best way forward is through simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan, as was provided for under the Simla agreement in 1972 between Zulfikar Bhutto and Indira Gandhi. We also need a genuine political process to be established in Kashmir, an improvement in human rights there, and indeed a clear cessation of the external support for violence in Kashmir. We consistently urge both sides to resolve this dispute through peaceful negotiation and I am sure that when the Indian Prime Minister visits here in just a few days' time, we shall discuss this issue yet again to try to solve it in the way that my noble friend would like.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that no progress at all has been made since the Simla agreement of 1971 and that at the recent bilateral talks which were held in Islamabad the Pakistanis tabled some proposals on confidence-building measures which have so far not received any reply from the Indian side? Will the noble Baroness say whether the Twelve have yet had an opportunity to consider their attitude to any resolution which may be tabled on human rights in Kashmir by Pakistan at the Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva"
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, at the invitation of the Indian Government, the European Union Troika delegation visited Kashmir from 7th to 11th February. The delegation made a wide range of contacts and it now has first hand information about the problems facing Kashmir. As I understand it, this is being discussed at the moment in one of the high level committees, and if necessary will go to the Foreign Affairs Council when it meets in a few days' time.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister, or other Ministers, will raise the matter with the Indian Prime Minister when he visits this country. Do the noble Baroness and the Government share the concern about breaches of human rights in Kashmir which have recently been referred to by President Clinton? Are the Government prepared to suggest to the Indian Government that they should take up the offer made by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dr. I3outros-Boutros Ghali, that he would make available the good offices of the United Nations? Would that not be a proper way to proceed following the talks in Pakistan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are two schools of thought about this. I think it is fair to say that we are encouraged that an Indian human rights commission was established last year and its first report, including its investigation into the incident at Bijbehara in November, is due to be published next month. That, and the growing possibilities of bilateral discussions, may absolve the United Nations of the need to get involved. There are of course some, particularly the Pakistani Government, who would prefer the matter to
814
be solved through the United Nations. However, our feeling is that if it can be solved bilaterally— we will do all we can to encourage such a solution— it should be so done.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I welcome the setting up of an Indian commission on human rights, but does the Minister accept that there have nevertheless been adverse reports from Amnesty International about the human rights situation in Kashmir? When the Indian Prime Minister visits this country in the near future, will the Government raise with him the question of human rights in Kashmir, and in particular what has happened to the 200 or more people who have disappeared in detention in India and Kashmir?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness can rely upon us to raise all the relevant matters concerning this difficult dispute. We have continued to hold regular discussions on Kashmir with the Indian Government over recent years and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor discussed this matter when he was in Delhi in December. All Ministers are raising these issues at each and every opportunity.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does; my noble friend agree that it would be dangerous even to give the appearance of putting the Indian Government in the dock and making it look as though they were guilty of bringing this appalling situation to pass, as others have played a major part in this?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in a dispute of this nature I do not think it is wise to put any particular country in the dock when there have undoubtedly been faults on both sides. I certainly agree that we cannot see a solution for Kashmir without the agreement of India and Pakistan. I further believe that atrocities will be condemned by whoever commits them. There have been excesses by the militants in Kashmir. We condemn all human rights abuses. Both sides have had problems and we hope that the discussions which now seem possible can bring this awful situation to an end.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, will the. Minister comment on what progress has been made to allow more international organisations into Kashmir to monitor allegations of human rights abuses?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Amnesty International staff were allowed to visit India in January and to go to Delhi and Bombay. The Indian Government have already said they will be allowed to make further visits elsewhere in India on a case by case basis. I know that the International Committee of the Red Cross is to be allowed to visit Kashmir and the advance ICRC team will go there in late March. In addition, I know that there has been a four-man delegation from the International Commission of Jurists. I believe it visited in August last year. We await its report at this time. I do not believe that the Indian Government are refusing groups who go to do a proper and sensible job.

Bosnia: Aircraft Incident
3.7 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely: whether the Government will make a statement on the shooting down of four Serbian military aircraft in Bosnia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with your permission I would like to make a Statement on the incident this morning in which four aircraft were shot down by NATO aircraft. At half-past six local time six Galeb single seater air to ground attack aircraft were identified airborne over Bosnia. NATO Combat Air Patrol comprising two US F-16 aircraft went to intercept and investigate. A verbal warning was issued by the NATO aircraft but no response was received. At 6.48 a.m. local time NATO aircraft shot down one of the violating Serb aircraft. Five minutes later, at 6.53 a.m., three more of the violating Serb aircraft were shot down. The remaining two were seen exiting into Croatian airspace, at which point the engagement was terminated, in accordance with the NATO rules of engagement for enforcement of the no-fly zone. There were subsequent reports, though as yet unconfirmed, that the two aircraft were seen landing from the North at Banja Luka airport. It is thought that the aircraft had been bombing a Croatian ammunition factory near Novi Travnik.
The action was taken under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 781,786 and 816 which established the no-fly zone and authorised its enforcement.
I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this prompt and appropriate response by NATO to such a clear violation of United Nations resolutions.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for making what he described as a Statement but which I understood to be an Answer to a Private Notice Question.
Can the noble Viscount confirm unequivocally that the action that was taken was in accordance with United Nations resolutions? Can he tell us what the aircraft were doing immediately before they were shot down? Was specific authorisation given to the F-16s to take this action while they were in the air?
One hears, for example on "The World at One", that the Serbs have retaliated by bombing Tuzla. Can the Minister confirm whether that has happened? Can the Minister say what response, if any, there has been from the Russian Government to the action? As he will know, the Russian Government have an important role to play.
Finally, what effect do the Government believe this will have on the safety of British troops at present in Bosnia?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the action was fully in accordance with UN resolutions, and in particular United Nations Security Council Resolution 816. In
816
answer to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, posed about authorisation, it may be helpful if I emphasise the command chain.
In the short interval after the aircraft were detected at 6.30 a.m. local time the following actions took place. At 6.35 a.m., in accordance with the rules of engagement, the F-16s warned the Galeb aircraft to land. That warning was ignored. At 6.48 a.m. the first aircraft was shot down. Between 6.35 and 6.48 the situation was reported to the commander of the Fifth Allied Tactical Air Force, whose headquarters are in Vicenza under the command of NATO commander CINCSOUTH. The authorisation was given by that officer in accordance with the rules of engagement drawn up in April 1993. We are satisfied that those rules of engagement have been observed.
I can now confirm that the Serbs have shelled Tuzla on a regular basis. However, it is not yet clear whether the shelling reported today is different from previous shelling and therefore a result of the action which I described to your Lordships.
We are not as yet aware of any Russian reaction to the events.
I turn now to the question of the safety of UNPROFOR troops, and in particular of British troops. As your Lordships will be well aware from previous Statements which my noble friend Lady Chalker and I have made, the safety of British troops is our paramount concern. So far we are satisfied that all appropriate actions have been taken to safeguard British troops, although of course we cannot guarantee their safety in so dangerous a situation.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, on the basis of the information he has given us, the action appears to be fully justified? Perhaps we should express appreciation of the action of the F-16 pilots.
Can the Minister say a little more about the effect of the events on the aid convoys? Is any special decision being taken in connection with the aid convoys at present? While we can applaud the reaction to the bombing by the Serb aircraft, it is undoubtedly in some respects a matter of considerable anxiety as it raises the level of danger for the aid convoys and the United Nations peacekeepers. It is inevitable that we should ask when the Russians will express support for the NATO action. It is also disturbing that the Serbs should feel sufficiently confident to raise the level of aggression in this way.
Will the Minister comment on those points? Can he assure us that at the earliest opportunity the Government will give us an account of the Russian reaction?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend has confirmed to me that aid convoys in Bosnian Serb areas have been suspended. However, the situation is under what is described as hour-by-hour review.
As I told the noble Lord, Lord Richard, there has as yet been no official reaction from the Russian Government as to whether they support the action. I am happy to give an assurance that, should your Lordships wish to be kept informed, Her Majesty's Government will be happy to do so.

817
As regards interpretation of the Serb aircraft action, it is not entirely clear whether the aircraft concerned were Bosnian Serb aircraft. That is something that we still have to find out. Your Lordships will no doubt be told as soon as we do so. At this early stage I leave it to your Lordships to judge what the implications of these events will be.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but if they were not Bosnian Serb aircraft, what on earth could they be— Serbian Serb aircraft?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, those are the two obvious possibilities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is the first time in its history that NATO has engaged in military action? Does he agree that it is unfortunate that that should happen in a civil war?
Secondly, what is the Government's opinion as to whether today's action will have an adverse effect on the peace process and the negotiations which are taking place? Thirdly, does he agree that the position of President Yeltsin will be further undermined and that great comfort will be given to his opponents, who may wish to involve Russia in the affairs of Bosnia far more than has so far been the case?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can confirm that so far as I am aware this is the first time that NATO has fired shots in anger. It is a great tribute to the deterrent effect of NATO that it has taken more than 40 years for this to happen.
As regards the effect on the peace process, the United Nations Security Council resolutions were passed to show that the United Nations means business. If there was no effective back-up force for those resolutions, they would carry very little meaning for the Serbs and the other combatants in this terrible conflict. If the noble Lord feels that merely passing a resolution is sufficient, I am afraid that for once he and I part company.
So far as concerns the position of President Yeltsin, the United Nations Security Council and the allies in NATO have welcomed the position of Russia in the lead-up to the declaration of a ceasefire around Sarajevo. That was helpful. As I said, so far there has been no official declaration from the Russian Government. We see no reason to suppose that the Russian Government have in any way changed their view.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in view of the fact that we have carried out action which was obviously necessary but which may lead to a deterioration in the overall situation, would it not now be wise for the Government to withdraw the 7,000 redundancy notices which they issued to the Army so that we can keep those troops, as they may well be needed?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, your Lordships may think that the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, takes even him outside the scope of the Question. I merely comment that part of the reasons for the third tranche of Army redundancies announced last week was in order to make sure that the shape and structure of the
818
Army were consistent with the smaller Army that we have proposed under Options for Change. The noble Lord will also remember that two additions of 3,000 men to the Army have been consistent. with the assurances that I have given to your Lordships that we would review the situation with regard to manpower if it seemed necessary.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Russians supported the original resolution, it would be somewhat unfortunate if they were to change their minds at this stage.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the matter with Moscow's special envoy in Yugoslavia, Envoy Vitaly Churkin, and that the action by the NATO fighters was taken under United Nations Security Council Resolution 816 which was supported by Russia.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Viscount help us a little further on the purely military aspects of the affair? Is there any evidence that the warning from the F-16s was in fact heard and received by the Galebs? If an F-16 comes up behind you and warns you that it will shoot you down if you do not remove yourself from the no-fly zone, it is rather odd that you do not immediately remove yourself. Is there some special radio frequency along which such warnings are delivered? Is there some code which ensures that reception is acknowledged? How does the frequency work? Did it work properly in that case?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware that the Bosnian Serbs, and indeed the Government of the rump of former Yugoslavia in Belgrade, are well aware of the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution 816 which imposes a no-fly zone. They are well aware that, if they break the provisions of that no-fly zone, some very unpleasant consequences are likely to follow. That has indeed happened; they were warned that it would happen. They violated Resolution 816, and the consequences are all too apparent.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the Russian membership of the Security Council, and the Russians' very close interest in what is happening in Bosnia, may we be assured that there are official lines of communication between NATO and Russia to advise the Russians on what is happening rather than their receiving reports through press agencies?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, yes.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel? Is there a recognised radio channel between fighter aircraft, on whichever side they may be? Therefore, if an American aircraft, as it may be in this case, wishes to communicate with a Bosnian aircraft, would there be a well-known frequency for communication?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The terms of Security Council Resolution 816 are perfectly clear. They have been broadcast to everyone, both to the public and the governments concerned. They know perfectly well what the results of breaking that resolution are. We have seen those results today.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is quite important, if one has a United Nations resolution which has very widespread support, that at the first moment at which serious and very grave consequences occur people should not wonder about the rectitude? It is very dangerous not to support the action; otherwise the authority of the United Nations really means nothing.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as so often, I entirely agree with my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, given that perhaps we cannot answer the question about radio link directly, must it not have been obvious on the basis of the original Statement to the three which were subsequently shot down that one of their number had been shot down and that they might expect the same if they did not comply?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, indeed. As is so often the case, I find it difficult to quarrel with my noble and learned friend's logic.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. — (Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. — (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 25 [Service delivery plans]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No.51:
Page 19, line 41, at end insert:
("() Each principal council shall prepare and publish each year, before a specified date, a Children's Services delivery plan describing—

(a) the manner in which they propose to provide support for children and families as required in the Children Act
820
1989, and the Guidance and Regulations issued by the Secretary of State under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act;

(b) the local arrangements for the implementation of Working Together: a guide for inter-agency cooperation for the protection of children from abuse and other guidance; and

(c) any arrangements for contracting with other authorities, voluntary organisation, or others for the provision of services;

and in carrying out these planning functions, a local authority shall consult with health authorities, voluntary organisations and other relevant bodies.
The principal council shall make a draft plan available for public comment no less than two months prior to publication. Each principal council shall produce and publish an annual report of performance against service delivery plans, undeciding the manner in which deficiencies will be remedied in subsequent plans.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, four amendments, three of which stand in my name, give us an opportunity to debate a number of issues that were raised in earlier proceedings on the Bill. In particular, they refer to the delivery of services to children. They refer to the need for each principal council to prepare and publish a children's service delivery plan. They also further develop the argument for a children and young persons' commissioner for Wales. An amendment concerning that was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and myself. A further amendment seeks to establish for each principal new council a children's complaint representa-tion service— a form of local children's commissioner. Another amendment, which I welcome, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, places obligations on each transition committee to prepare and publish a review of children's services.
I move the amendment against a tragic and obnoxious background: the growth in reported child abuse cases. I do not wish to indulge in an argument about the causes or the specific effects of those cases. At present a particularly obnoxious case is proceeding. I do not wish to comment in any way upon those proceedings. However, I believe that it is sufficient for me to say that we have seen a growth in the reported instances, involving not only parents but also carers. Therefore in this House we need to ensure that we do everything possible when passing legislation on services which affect children to ensure that they are protected.
That obligation is placed upon us not only by legislation of this House but also by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Some of those subjects were covered in debate on Wednesday evening of last week in your Lordships' House. However, Article 19 of the convention places an obligation on each state party which has signed the convention. The convention was ratified by the United Kingdom Government in December 1991. It places an obligation on each party to protect children from all forms of maltreatment perpetrated by parents or others responsible for their care and to undertake preventive treatment programmes in that regard. The article states:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or

821
exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child".
That article has been ratified by the United Kingdom Government and there is in existence the children's rights development unit which is linked with other organisations representing the other departments of state within Scotland ard Northern Ireland. The organisation works in close collaboration with Children in Wales, which is the umbrella organisation for children's organisations, both statutory and voluntary, within Wales supported by the Welsh Office.
The work of the CRDU is a three-year project to promote the implementation of the convention. It is producing a national agenda for children and the amendment attempts to identify, article by article, where any law, policy, or practice in the United Kingdom fails to meet the standards of the convention and to develop detailed policy proposals to bring UK practice into line with those standards. That involves a wide range of collaboration with statutory and voluntary organisations and professional associations, including leading charities in the field such as the NSPCC.
My concern in moving the amendments is that the changes we are now bringing about in local government in Wales will make it less effective for us to implement the United Nations convention. We are in danger of undermining the specialised services that are currently available for children. In particular, we are undermining the collaboration between various authorities which was deemed to be so necessary by the Government in all the debates prior to the passing of the Children Act 1989.
Those concerns are as follows. There is a concern about the level of resourcing for children's services. By seeking to establish a specific structure for an overview of children's policies, each principal council will be able to monitor effectively the resourcing of children's services, whether it is resourcing for the educational aspects, the social services aspects, the cré che facilities aspects or for housing. Whatever aspects of children's services are being delivered by the authority, an integrated approach will be able to monitor the allocations.
I would argue that, falling short of that, the Welsh Office itself should look at ring-fencing and reallocating in accordance with a specific formula for the resourcing of children's services. However, I prefer the local solution that I propose; namely, that we have within each new principal council a service delivery plan which is specifically related to children's policies.
We were told at earlier stages of our debate that those structures existed and that it was possible to continue a social services committee. At that stage I tried to point out that we had before us in legislation specific clauses which enabled local authorities to abolish social services committees. Therefore, we could be in a position where there would be no effective overview of the services. It was also suggested to me that child protection procedures existed through the existing area child protection committees, of which we have eight in the present structure of counties. It was suggested that those could provide the solution for which I was looking. They are important committees of specific
822
practitioners in the field; they involve local authority areas, the health authorities and police authorities and their functions. They are coterminous with the probation service, so they involve the whole of the penal, social and health services.
I appreciate the work undertaken by those committees, but with the development of the locally maintained schools and education services and with the development of health trusts and their particular emphasis on the purchaser-provider of services, I am not satisfied that we have at present in the plethora of agencies the opportunity for effective strategic planning of children's services. Therefore, I am deeply concerned that we shall not have the mechanism to enable the work of the existing protection committees to take place. That also applies to the work undertaken by the Welsh Office and other departments, post-Cleveland, in preventive activity on child abuse, and training and retraining for early identification by the health service, the police service, the social service or the educational service of any signs of possible abuse. All those important initiatives will no longer be effective because of the way in which we shall reform local government. For those reasons, I ask the Government to take very seriously the proposals made in the amendments for a specified service delivery plan for children's services.
Now I turn to the question of the inspectorate or complaints procedure and a commissioner. The proposal for a complaints service to look at the needs of children in each principal council is for a local children's commissioner or local ombudsman. That would be in the form of a representation or advocacy service and would relate not only to the functions of the principal councils as proposed in Amendment No.73, but also to the associated functions of health authorities and NHS trusts. That gives the opportunity for a comprehensive advocacy or representation service for children within each authority area. In my view, it would parallel the work undertaken by the area child protection committee.
It would also provide an opportunity for members of local authorities to be directly involved in that work. It would clearly be a statutory plan for an authority and a statutory representation service by the authority. There is the opportunity for members democratically to overview the effectiveness of a procedure— an option which is not directly available with the work of area child protection committees.
The other recommendation in the amendments is for a children's commissioner for Wales. This is an attempt to ensure that overall, throughout the services of the Welsh Office, regard is taken of the needs of children and young persons; that the services for them are monitored; and that complaints at national, Welsh Office level are investigated. Through the work of the commissioner the principles laid down in the United Nations convention, to which I referred, should be implemented and there should be co-ordination between voluntary organisations and the statutory services.
Of course, it is important that such a commissioner should be an independent officer. That is why we propose that he should be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for a

823
period of five years. There are comparative models which can be looked at in other countries. I recommend to the House particularly the functions of the commissioner as set out in the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act, passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 1989. That country is not dissimilar to Wales in many respects. In New Zealand the commissioner has the functions of monitoring and assessing the policies of any departments, persons and bodies which provide a service for children. The commissioner has the power to encourage the development of policies and services, to promote research, to inquire generally into matters relating to children, to receive representations from the public and to increase public awareness. In other words, there is a broad remit, and it is the kind of remit we should like to see for a children's commissioner for Wales.
I wish to pay tribute to the work of the voluntary societies in the field. I have mentioned the NSPCC and the other societies which co-operate within the umbrella organisation of Children in Wales. That organisation is relatively new. It is resourced by the Welsh Office but, in my view, it is not sufficiently powerful as an agency of overview for children's services. I know that many of those who are part of that forum are aware of that. It is all very well to have an overall forum; it is much more effective to have a commissioner who can become a guarantor of children's rights. As I said at the beginning, I put those arguments in the context of deeply serious, disturbing and increasing instances of child abuse.
I have chosen not to dwell on the specifics of that abuse. I could have done so, but it is sufficiently grievous and painful for the people concerned— both for the psychologically damaged perpetrators and for the sufferers from such a practice— for us not to repeat at length what it means in terms of damage to individuals, and in particular to children whom it is our obligation in this House to protect. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. As it is so important these days, I wonder whether we could consider the question of cost. Perhaps I may hitch all that I have to say on the question of the cost to the country.
If there are to be, as appears to be the case, a large number of unitary district authorities, they will be small authorities. They have the obligation to implement the various different children and young persons' Acts, the courts' preventive work and the training of social workers in that work. A large unitary authority can have one set of systems that apply to the whole county. But a number of small districts will not be able to supply the needs of children in each small area. Therefore I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that one needs to have an overall commissioner who will bring about co-operation and co-ordinate the work of all the areas so that overlapping does not occur.
Perhaps I may give some examples. Let us say, for instance, that training is needed in the way that children who have been sexually abused are helped. A small district cannot run a full course. And if it does, to have
824
that one team in that one area will be very expensive. If, on the other hand, one has a commissioner for children to co-ordinate training over all the districts in a larger area, a good service will be provided at much less cost.
Perhaps I may move on to the question of secure accommodation. (I hardly dare talk about this subject because it will give rise to a great deal of discussion on a Bill that will come before this House.) Let us suppose, for instance, that (as things stand at the moment) each local authority must provide secure accommodation for children. Such provision is very expensive. If every district is to have to supply that service it will become very expensive. If on the other hand there is an overall scheme for all the district authorities which the commissioner could negotiate and work out, the provision would be much less expensive and the service would be as good.
If the proposal is simply to have good co-ordination — and I speak with very deep feeling— we know what happened in London with all the London boroughs having to co-ordinate services but without having any one system or any one person to co-ordinate children's services. I think I am right in saying that there was a committee meeting every day as between one borough and another. If one has a children's commissioner, that commissioner would be able to co-ordinate the work of all the districts and not just have to negotiate as between one district and another.
On the question of co-ordination with the district health authority, if there were one commissioner who could co-ordinate the work for all the districts, the process would be much less costly and time consuming. That also goes for negotiations with the voluntary organisations. Voluntary organisations do not have the time to negotiate with the 37 district councils, whereas, if there were a commissioner, they could negotiate with that one person in order to cover all the district councils.
Furthermore, the proposal would make for a unitary sense of care for children throughout Wales. It would make for consistency. It would make for a better service. If, for example, one has a group of children who are very, very difficult and who need help, no one authority can set up one home or one system for those children. They need to be co-ordinated throughout the area. I therefore support the proposal for a children's commissioner for Wales to co-ordinate the work and instil consistency throughout. It would be more cost-effective than every district having to supply its own services for very few children, which would not really answer the purpose.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I must confess to some puzzlement regarding the wording of this amendment. In the penultimate line (it is on page 2 on the Marshalled List) appears the word "undeciding". That to me is completely meaningless in this context. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would communicate what is intended?
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on Amendment No.57, on the children's rights commissioner. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull— although the noble Baroness did not mention the fact— I was a member of the advisory group brought

825
together by the Gulbenkian Foundation to look in detail at the idea of a statutory children's rights commissioner in the UK. That was in 1991. It produced the report Taking Children Seriously. Unfortunately the Government have so far not accepted that idea, which has been found to be so valuable in other countries.
Here there is an opportunity to introduce such a commissioner on a limited scale, in relation only to local government in Wales. It could act as a very valuable forerunner to a statutory commissioner or commissioners operating throughout the UK and able to represent children's needs and rights at central and local government level.
Surely no one can argue with the need for a statutory office to represent the citizens who have no vote and no effective voice in local or national politics. Government ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child two years ago, in December 1991, was very welcome. But there is no sign of rigorous action to ensure that even the basic principles of the convention are properly respected when decisions which affect children are being made on central or local government action.
This new clause would create an office with powers linked to the convention. The commissioner would ensure, for example, proper respect for the principle in Article 3 of the convention that the best interests of children must be of primary consideration in all actions concerning them; and, in line with Article 12 of the convention, that the children themselves have an opportunity to express views and have them taken seriously and to be heard in any administrative proceedings which affect them.
The Government sometimes seem to suggest that the Children Act does all that is needed for children's rights and welfare in England and Wales. That is an exaggeration. It is an Act that we all welcomed (although we would like to see implementation backed by necessary resources). But it does not cover all aspects of local authority services to children; it is only a staging post towards proper respect for full implementation of the convention.
The Government should welcome this proposal as innovative and fully in line with the commitment made at the world summit for children in 1990 by Mrs. Thatcher and 70 other heads of government that:
"The well-being of children requires political action at the highest level".
It is surely obvious that children are a special case and that their lack of power demands positive and special forms of representation to ensure that their perspective is respected in policy development.
Finally, surely there is a particular case to be made for this proposal al a time of such radical reorganisation of local government to ensure that children's services and children themselves do not suffer. We heard from the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that that is something that could very well happen. I hope that the Government will be prepared to take on Amendment No.57 and create a children's commissioner for Wales. It would be a very helpful experiment for the whole country.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I support these amendments. I should like to say a few words in particular about Amendment No.57. It seems to me that if one is to have innovation and experiment, Wales, being a geographical unit and having its own Secretary of State, is a very good place to have it. At the moment there is an overwhelming case for a commissioner specifically charged with children's welfare. Where better to try that out than in a place like Wales?
It is essential to have the social services as close to the ground as possible. I often think that one of the mistakes that we make in modern life is to establish chains of communication on a bureaucratic level. The actual communication is never as good as it ought to be. We have the framework for it but often we do not achieve it.
Nevertheless, I was greatly impressed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I believe, particularly having regard to the innovations that have now been introduced into Welsh local government, the size of Wales and its population, that this provision would be a cost-effective measure as well as an effective one. A commissioner specifically charged with looking after the welfare of children, complaints about children, services and so on covering a population of slightly more than 2.5 million people is likely to be not only effective in practice but also extremely cost-effective.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may make a small contribution from the Cross Benches, though I am not a Welshman. I should like to endorse in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said. It is important that we should dip our toe into this area and, as he said, what better place to do it than in Wales.
My name is attached to Amendments Nos.57 and 84. I should like this provision to be simply a pilot scheme which could be extended as soon as possible to the rest of the United Kingdom, where children are just as much in need of a commissioner as they are in Wales. One takes this very first opportunity to press the Government on the proposal because the Welsh area is an ideal place to start, as has so eloquently been said. There are well over 13 million children in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not know how many there are in Wales but certainly it would be a more manageable number and Wales is an ideal place in which to start.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made some important points about co-ordination, which is notoriously bad on children's services. If it were not for the voluntary services, I do not know what would happen. In all parts of the United Kingdom we rely on the voluntary services. They should not be left to deal with such an important matter on their own. Government services are widely separated in their responsibilities for children and do not seem to have adequate co-ordination; and, as the noble Baroness said, that is also the case in local services. It would be invaluable to have the children's ombudsman as a co-ordinating factor. The other important area is to promote compliance with minimum standards. That has been mentioned on both sides of the House.

827
I understand that the amendment in which I am particularly interested in this package commends itself to the House. I hope that it commends itself to the Government as the ideal experimental basis for the idea of an ombudsman recommended universally.
The other amendment in the package to which very little attention so far seems to have been paid concerns transitional provision; namely, Amendment No.84. I should very much like to have a detailed answer from the Government to that amendment. None of us knows what will happen in the interval. It is very clear that large sums of money will be involved. We ought to know how those sums will be allocated and that they will not be forgotten.
Amendment No.84 describes what each transition committee ought to be responsible for. As indicated, we feel that each committee should prepare and publish a review by 31st December 1995. I believe that the sums of money are considerable. I should like to know whether the informed guesses with which we have been provided are of the right order.
It is important that children should not suffer in the transitional period and that the needs of the services which provide for them are protected. The amendment provides for all aspects of services for children which are currently provided both at county and district level. Unless the transitional committees collect that information, I do not believe that there will be a proper basis for continuation beyond the transitional period in the future. I should be very grateful indeed for the Government's response to the proposals in that amendment. I very much support the whole package of amendments so ably introduced by my noble friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, Amendment No.57 creates a person who shall exist for many years to come. The other amendments in the group consider the problems of transition. I rise simply to draw the attention of my noble and learned friend to the importance of someone being in a position not unlike that of the proposed Children and Young Persons' Commissioner for Wales — indeed, that applies to England as well, though it is not the subject of the Bill— to look after children at risk during the turbulence of reorganisation.
As I understand the matter, local authorities keep registers of children at risk of non-accidental injury. Those registers are instrumental in obviating a significant number of tragedies, such as that originally suffered by Maria Caldwell, whose death caused those registers to be implemented under statute in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who in this House was Minister for Health.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will bear in mind that such a function needs to be carried out and is not provided for in the Bill as drafted. I am not certain that Amendment No.57 provides what is needed because a commissioner without either pay or powers will not achieve a great deal. I presume that this is not so much a probing amendment as a demonstrative amendment which we hope that my noble and learned
828
friend may prevail upon his friends in another place to consider further and turn into a working operation. However, I believe that the principle is sound.
4 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support all the amendments that have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I concentrate on Amendment No.84 and then speak to Amendment No.57.
The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the destruction, disorientation and reshuffling of officers brought about by reorganisation inevitably contains an element of uncertainty. In that kind of situation the value of the survey, review and recommendations embraced in Amendment No.84, tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, would be twofold, if I may be precise.
First, it would provide the newly formed council with a firm baseline from which to start its activities in support of children; and the new council would therefore be relieved of an initial task which would otherwise make demands of staff heavily committed on other matters. Secondly, it would be of value to children. It would ensure that their day-to-day services, co-ordination and planning would not suffer disruption when responsibilities are handed over to the successor authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, developed the argument— as did the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in respect of an earlier amendment— but I should like to return to what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in Committee in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I believe the noble and learned Lord was then saying, "You should not single out the needs of children rather than the needs of all categories of vulnerable groups". Of course he has a point. But in case he ventures to repeat those arguments this afternoon I must say to him that the amendments are defensible on several grounds and three in particular.
First, as my noble friend Lady David said, children are unable to defend themselves; they have no power; they have no clout; they are unable to have a direct say regarding the way services for themselves ought to be administered, and they are too young to bring political pressure to bear upon the authorities in order to bring about the necessary changes. That is one reason why the amendments can be distinguished.
Secondly, the far-reaching reforms launched by the Children Act 1989 are still in the process of being implemented. Many noble Lords will recall being in this Chamber when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described the 1989 Act as representing,
"the most comprehensive and far reaching reform of child law which has come before Parliament in living memory". — [Official Report, 6/12/88; col.488.]
We in Wales have to ensure that the Children Act is brought into full effect as soon as possible and that the pace of implementation will not be slowed down by reorganisation.

829
Thirdly, the amendment will go some way to ensure that we in Wales implement the provision of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by this Government in 1991. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and my noble friend Lady David dwelt upon the significance of that United Nations convention. Those three arguments apply with equal force to Amendments Nos.51 and 84. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will ensure that they are given careful consideration by the department.
I turn to Amendment No.57 which proposes the introduction of a children's commissioner for Wales. I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke in support of the amendment, as did my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Those of us who come regularly to the House know that the House listens with great respect to their views. I am particularly pleased that they support the amendment. I shall not attempt to traverse the ground which was covered so admirably by the other speakers. Again I should like to concentrate on the criticisms of the amendment made by the Government in Committee.
Noble Lords who were present in Committee will know that the Government resisted the amendment on two main grounds. First, they said that the rights of children are already safeguarded by the Children Act 1989 and therefore we do not need a commissioner. As I indicated, the Children Act is an important piece of legislation for children. It covers child-care, child protection and the consequences of divorce and separation. But it does not cover all their rights. The 1989 Act is silent on the children's right to education; it is silent on their right to health; and it is silent on their right to housing. Those are all important elements in the well-being of any child. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will not attempt to defeat the amendment by referring to the Children Act 1989.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate claimed that the rights of children in Wales were already protected by the existing system of the ombudsman. I made some inquiries and came up with some interesting replies. Around 3,000 are looked after in Wales. But the Welsh ombudsman— I have a high regard for him and know him personally— did not receive a single complaint direct from children in 1993. I am not sure that that piece of information allays all our anxieties. However, we have been told that it is not envisaged that the commissioner should have a power to investigate individual complaints; what is envisaged is that he should investigate whether the existing complaints procedures are effective or exist at all, particularly in those areas which are not covered by the Children Act 1989. Indeed, the commissioner may be attracted to consideration of whether the ombudsman complaints system in Wales, as it received no complaints in 1993, is functioning and protecting the rights of the child.
The children's commissioner would be an important source of information and guidance, ensuring that the broad policy— described by the noble Baroness, Lady
830
Faithfull, as a consistent policy, and I accept that it is an improvement— based on the principle of the best interests of the child is paramount and would mark the administration of all main local government services throughout Wales and all local authority and health agencies. That would represent a huge step forward. Of course it would be innovative in terms of the UK experience. I hope that if the Welsh Office accepts the principle of the amendment, it will not instruct or advise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to refuse it this afternoon but to have second thoughts.
It is fair to say— I am sure that those of your Lordships from Wales will agree— that the temper of the Welsh Office is essentially administrative rather than creative. But here is an opportunity for it to be creatively committed to institutional arrangements for Wales which reflect its interest and its ambitions. I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that it will be a precedent for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the debate on this matter touched on many points. But it would probably be sensible to start where essentially the whole discussion starts; that is, with the transitional arrangements. Obviously one is facing, first, the transitional position. That topic was raised by a number of noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. He asked what the position was.
The Government's position on transitional matters can be found in Clause 45. There one finds a fairly elaborate provision on the setting up of transition committees which are charged with having regard to transitional matters. The power is very wide indeed. One sees in Clause 45(4) that a matter is a transitional matter,
"if, in the opinion of the transition committee for that council, it is one which it is expedient for the committee to consider in order to ensure that the council will be able to function effectively as from 1st April 1996".
It would hard to think of a wider definition. It is also correct to say that it certainly would be one which would be wide enough to include all the kinds of matters relating to the provision of services to children which have been discussed by your Lordships in connection with local authorities. However, if it so happened that one of the transition committees, or indeed a number of them, failed to take these matters into account and paid no attention, for example, to the provision of children's services, and the Secretary of State thought that was inappropriate, your Lordships will see that under subsection (5) the Secretary of State may give a direction requiring a particular transition committee, or a number of them, or every transition committee to consider any such matter as may be specified in the direction. So already one has in the heart of Clause 45 not only a very wide power for the transition committees themselves but a reserve power for the Secretary of State in connection with transition committees.
If one moves on a stage, one has in Clause 25 the following provision:
"Every new principal council shall… prepare and publish a plan Ca service delivery plan')—
(a) describing the manner in which they propose to perform their functions",

831
during the year and,
"(b) giving particulars of the arrangements for organisation and management which they propose to adopt".
That, again, is a wide provision and it is a provision which one would expect to be carried out properly by the local authority.
That brings us to the point where the Government's position perhaps departs from that of some noble Lords. The Government fully share the anxiety of noble Lords for the proper provision of care for children and young people. They are concerned that this will be properly safeguarded during the transition period and beyond. However, the Bill is about the provision of services by local government. I have been at pains to stress on a number of occasions that the Government's underlying philosophy in relation to the Bill is that local government is essentially just that; it is local government, where we expect people, elected locally, to take responsibility for the provision of services to their areas. We believe that people who have been elected as councillors for their areas will be conscious of the need to provide proper services for all the people in their area, and— by no means least— for the vulnerable people, including— by no means least again— children and young people. We believe that local authorities will do that.
It is recognised that, especially until the first elections are held after the councils have been in place, there may seem to be a lack of control. For that reason, as we have seen on a number of occasions, the Bill contains in Clauses 28,29 and 30 a means of putting into place a system of joint working arrangements. I particularly refer to those in reply to my noble friend Lady Faithful!. She raised the question of the increase in the number of unitary authorities and said that it would be difficult for those authorities to be able to deliver all the necessary services especially at a financially satisfactory cost. It is precisely for that reason that the philosophy underlying the Bill involves the authorities being enabling authorities and not necessarily in all the cases the authorities which will deliver all the services.
In particular, as we have seen on a number of occasions, it is clearly envisaged that there may very well be certain services of a specialised nature or certain other services which by their nature may best be delivered by a series of arrangements with other authorities. That can be done in a number of ways envisaged under the Bill and under existing legislation. In particular of course the Bill recognises that a reserve power up until the timing of the first set of elections may be necessary. So one finds in this series of clauses— Clauses 28,29 and 30— reserve powers for the Secretary of State to obtain information as to the delivery of services and then a power in the first place to give a direction to councils requiring them to make specified arrangements in relation to the exercise of specified functions. That power is widely expressed but it quite clearly would be capable of being used if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State were to conclude during the relevant period that satisfactory arrangements for the exercise of the functions relating to
832
children were not going to be provided, or were unlikely to be provided on or after 1st April, or were not being provided.
These powers exist in the first place to encourage authorities to enter into a working arrangement if they will not do it voluntarily and in the final analysis there is the ultimate power to set up a joint authority. These are the ways in which we believe that it will be possible for the unitary authorities as envisaged under this legislation to deliver the kind of services which will be required in order to provide the necessary level of service to children as in other areas. For these reasons we do not believe that it is necessary to have separate provision for service delivery plans for children, nor that the scheme as envisaged in the Act will fail to work as my noble friend suggested.
In addition, one of the proposals in the amendments is for a children and young persons' commissioner. I repeat what I said in Committee. It seems to the Government that in this matter the children are not in any way to have their rights devalued. They have rights whether under the Children Act or other legislation. These rights should be enforced in the same way as the rights of other persons. In addition, there is a proposal for a Children's Complaint and Representation Service to be established. Again, as far as the Government can see, that is an unnecessary proposal since the 1989 Act already makes provision for local authorities to establish complaints procedures. We have no evidence that they are not working.
It is very important that where responsibilities are put on local authorities it should be quite clear that they do indeed have them and that they are ultimately responsible to those who elect them for the discharge of those responsibilities. It is not desirable that those responsibilities should somehow or other be diluted or diverted from the local authorities on whom they have been placed.
In summary, therefore, we believe that the services to children are adequately safeguarded under the existing legislation and in particular under the elaborate Children Act with the associated guidance and regulations. Nobody has denied that local authorities in Wales, as elsewhere, have worked hard to implement that legislation over the past four years. The fruits of their labours will not be lost but will be inherited by the new authorities and carried forward by them. It will be on them that the responsibility for all children's services will lie. As I say, they will be required to plan the delivery of the services and those plans, under the legislation, will be available for inspection by the public and the other agencies involved. In the long run and as a backstop, there are the reserve powers of the Secretary of State.
Having regard to that whole package, the Government believe that the services to children will be carried out well and adequately by the new authorities when they come into effect. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, as he was unable to address himself directly to the question of which I gave him notice about

833
children at risk and registered on the register of children at risk and non-accidental injury, will he write to me to explain how their interests are to be protected when a register which covers a large area is broken up into several registers which deal with several smaller areas? If my noble and learned friend can reply to that now I shall be grateful, but if he wishes to do so by post I shall of course understand.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that the answer will be by reference to the possibility of joint working. I believe it is preferable that I give my noble friend a definitive answer in writing.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, may I have a reply on the process of provision? He has spoken about Clauses 28,29 and 30 and he said that each local authority must provide, which is true. For instance, when considering mental health child guidance clinics and negotiations with voluntary organisations, the district health authorities will have 37 district councils approaching them. What will happen? Each local authority will try to provide, but they need an overall service and not just a service for that par: icular local authority. For instance, there would not be 37 psychiatrists in Wales to provide the mental health services required. As regards voluntary organisations, if there is a need for accommodation for, say, deaf-blind children, only about four or five authorities would need such accommodation. They would have applications from all the local authorities.
I am worried about the process and the work which it is going to give to all the districts, the health authorities and the voluntary organisations. That point is not covered in the three clauses which my noble and learned friend mentioned.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I hope that my reply will satisfy my noble friend. I simply point out, as I did in other connections, that, for example, Clause 24 makes provision for a new principal council to enter into an agreement with another council for the provision of services. It is recognised that not only in this area but in other associated areas there may well be situations where it would not be desirable for all the local authorities to act individually. That is well understood. We would expect that that fact would be recognised by the people most concerned about this matter; namely, the local authorities which will be providing the services.
In that situation we would expect that the local authorities themselves would in fact see the importance of uniting to provide various services in these ways. Of course, not all would be able to provide individually the necessary services but would do so in the way I have outlined. For that reason the Government believe that the kinds of anxieties which my noble friend expresses will not in fact come to pass in the way she envisages.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support for this group of amendments and particularly for Amendment No.57.
834
I was disappointed by the Government's reply. It seems to me that they have been unable to take their thoughts further, although they have had an opportunity to do so. As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, it is what we call at the Welsh Language Board "gwall teipograffig". Since tomorrow is St. David's Day, I shall let that stand on the record.
My anxiety is that in the points made in the debate we have had a very clear statement of the need to ensure that the children's services are fully protected. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for what she said and also to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who emphasised the possibility of developing this service in Wales— as did my noble friend Lord Henderson— as an example perhaps to the rest of the United Kingdom. This is a matter which clearly does not commend itself to the Welsh Office.
I have a number of brief points in response to the Minister which I wish to place on record. Do I understand him as now saying that he expects that in the area of children's services, particularly specialised services, the working together provisions of the Bill are expected by the Welsh Office to be implemented by local authorities? Were they not to be implemented, would the reserve powers of the Secretary of State then be used?
The argument that he put forward earlier was fascinating. He said that because local authorities had statutory responsibilities in this area they were expected to deliver them. However, the rest of the Bill, including some parts relevant to this debate, are hedged around with Welsh Office guidelines, or the threat of them. It seems to me that not to accept the argument for guidelines in the area of children's services while advocating them in others is a small contradiction. Small contradictions often emerge from the Welsh Office, but as tomorrow is St. David's day the Welsh Office is generally an excellent government department.
The other serious point I make is that in not accepting these amendments the Government are in danger of undermining their own advice to local authorities. In the document Working Together under the Children Act 1989 it was emphasised that co-operation at individual case level needed to be supported by joint agency and management policies for child protection consistent with their policies and plans for related service provision. If that was true in the advice given under that Act, it is even more true when we come to a reorganisation of local government that creates new principal councils and different levels of operation, where the quality of services to children may be undermined. I am afraid that my concern on this issue has not been reduced by what the Minister has said.
In view of the support that has been indicated for the amendment, I intend in the appropriate place to move Amendment No.57 that deals with the children and young persons' commissioner. That will guarantee the monitoring of the services failing the view so far taken by the Welsh Office. On the basis of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw the other amendments in this group.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call the next amendment I should inform the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No.53.
Clause 26 [Decentralisation schemes: preparation]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.52:
Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) If the conditions mentioned in subsection (1A) are satisfied, the Secretary of State may give a direction to a new principal council requiring them to prepare and submit to him a decentralisation scheme for such area falling within the area of the council as the Secretary of State sees fit to specify in the direction.
(1A) The conditions are that—

(a) an application relating to the council has been made to the Secretary of State under this section by ten or more of their members;

(b) the application is expressed to be made in relation to a specified area falling within the area of the council; and

(c) at least ten of those persons making the application are members of the council who are connected with the area specified in the application.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.52, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.53A to 55. These amendments are tabled in response to concerns expressed by noble Lords at Committee stage that the 10 members who request a decentralisation scheme should be members of the council representing electoral divisions which fall within the area for which the scheme is requested. Amendment No.52 confirms that the application should be made in respect of a specified area and that at least 10 of those making the application must be members of the council who are connected with the area specified in the application.
The term "connected with" is defined in the second of the two new subsections to be inserted by means of Amendment No.55. Members will be deemed to be eligible to be included among the 10 if they represent electoral divisions that fall wholly or partly within the specified area for which a decentralisation scheme is made.
The first of the two new subsections to be inserted by Amendment No.55 allows the Secretary of State a discretion in determining the exact area to be covered by a decentralisation scheme. This is put in so that, for example, the Secretary of State can comply with the duties imposed upon him by subsection (8) of Clause 26.
Amendment No.54 clarifies the process of applying for a decentralisation scheme. It may cover only a single physical area. No scheme may cover two or more areas. It is for that reason that the reference to "or areas" is deleted as being superfluous.
Amendment No.53A is purely consequential on Amendment No.52, which provides for an application for a decentralisation scheme to be made to the Secretary of State.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for this series of amendments. Amendment No.52, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Amendment No.55 (which defines the meaning of the word "connected"), meets
836
our concerns. These amendments are acceptable, and in those circumstances I shall not be moving Amendment No.53.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.53 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos.53A to 55:
Page 20, line 22, leave out ("request") and insert ("application").
Page 20, line 25, leave out ("or areas").
Page 20, line 42, at end insert:

("() In specifying any area in a direction, the Secretary of State shall have regard to, but not be bound by, the terms of the application in response to which it is given.

() For the purposes of subsection (1A), a member of a council is connected with a specified area if he is a member for an electoral division which, or any part of which, falls within that area.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No.56:
Leave out Clause 26 and insert the following new clause:
("Decentralisation schemes: preparation
26. — (1) Every council shall have a duty to prepare a draft decentralisation scheme for their area in accordance with this section.
(2) A draft decentralisation scheme shall contain a council's proposals for the administration of their functions within the whole area of the council and shall specify the date or dates by which such a draft scheme shall be implemented and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, may include provision as to—

(a) arrangements for the holding of meetings of the council (or any committee or sub-committee of the council) at particular places within the area of the council;

(b) the establishment of committees for particular areas and the delegation to those committees (under section 101 of the 1972 Act) of specified functions of the council;

(c) the composition of committees for particular areas and section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on committees) and sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned) shall not apply in relation to membership of the committee;

(d) the location of offices of the council within the council's area, the staffing of such offices and the delegation to members of staff (under the said section 101) of specified functions;

(e) the provisions of facilities at particular places within the area of the council where advice may be obtained on services provided by the council.

(3) Every council shall, before 1st April 1996, give public notice of the fact that they have prepared a draft decentralisation scheme and of the places within the area where copies of the draft scheme may be inspected, and any such notice shall invite the public, within a period of not less than eight weeks from the date of the notice, to make representations as regards the draft scheme.
(4) Every council shall, during the period mentioned in subsection (3) above, consult the community councils within their area about the draft scheme.
(5) After considering any representations made under subsection (3) or (4) above, the council may amend the draft scheme (whether to take account of those representations or otherwise) and shall adopt the scheme.
(6) After the scheme has been adopted, the council shall

(a) send a copy of the scheme in its adopted form to the Secretary of State; and

(b) give public notice of the scheme.

(7) Where a scheme has been adopted, it shall be the duty of the council concerned to implement the scheme by the date or dates specified in the scheme.
(8) A council may amend a scheme adopted under this section or revoke and replace such a scheme but the amended scheme or, as the case may be, new scheme shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of this section, subject to such modifications as are necessary.

837
(9) The Secretary of State may, after consulting such associations of local authorities and such other persons as appear to him to be appropriate, issue guidance with respect to the form and content of decentralisation schemes.
(10) A council shall take account of any guidance issued under subsection (9) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a replacement for Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill. I will develop my argument in support of the amendment in two stages. I will set out our criticisms of Clauses 26 and 27 and then proceed to advance the case for this amendment in particular.
It was interesting to note that decentralisation never featured in the White Paper which preceded the Bill. Clauses 26 and 27 were designed by the present Secretary of State last summer as a middle solution in an effort to retain Montgomeryshire in the County of Powys. But what has been designed as a political expediency for one part of Wales has been elevated in this Bill into a general principle of decentralisation which may be available throughout Wales.
Within local government circles in Wales there is widespread dissatisfaction with the decentralisation scheme under Clauses 26 and 27. It is authoritarian and its content depends on what the Secretary of State decides is appropriate having regard to the need for efficiency and the geographical, historical, cultural and demographic circumstances of the local area. There can be immense arguments about the meaning of that criterion. But it means that the Secretary of State can exercise his power to reject or modify a scheme on almost any ground which appeals to him. That decision is not capable of being appealed. He is therefore in a position to prescribe the scheme. That point, which was well made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel in Committee, was, I believe, taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. The discussion is to be found in column 732 of the Official Report for 20th January 1994.
As I understand the Bill, on the basis that the Secretary of State requires the scheme to be amended, the council is left with no discretion, except that at the end of the day, if the elected members are not prepared to serve on the area committee, the scheme cannot be implemented. I should he grateful if the noble and learned Lord would consider that point and confirm that it is a correct interpretation of Clause 27(8) (b). I mention that because the Bill does not place a duty on any member of the council to serve on the area committee, so that is the ultimate weapon which local people can exercise in their dispute with the Secretary of State.
However, the authoritarian nature of the scheme is not the only source of criticism. There is a strongly held conviction, which is reflected in particular in the conclusions of the officers of the Council of Welsh Districts, that the Powys scheme will prove unworkable. Is there anywhere in Christendom a precedent for this scheme?
The draft decentralisation guidance issued by the Welsh Office has been studied carefully. There is a strong feeling that the division of functions between the council and the area committee,
838
"will lead to a confused and inefficient separation of services between the two tiers".
The officers have referred us to the division in the housing field, where the area committee may have responsibility for allocating the council tenancies and handling the renovation grants but it will have no control over the all important housing revenue account or the housing strategy.
Should the responsibility for housing be divided along those lines? Indeed, should it be divided at all? The division will almost inevitably mean that one tier will be able to blame the other for its own shortcomings. The citizen will be left in a weak position in trying to hold the council or the area committee to account. It is also well worth noting that the existence of this division will in due course lead to a demand to bring these functions together in a single authority. Therefore, this is at best a short-term political solution.
The officers of the Council of the Welsh Districts also foresee that the council may end up being accountable to the courts, to the auditors and even to the ombudsman for a function which has been delegated to the area, while it has no means of ensuring that the recommended action is implemented. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will address that issue too. For those reasons, we say that the Clause 26 scheme is not acceptable.
Amendment No.56 starts with a recognition of the need for decentralisation. In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate stated:
"It is thought that a decentralisation scheme for Anglesey, for instance, is unlikely to make sense". — [Official Report, 20/1/94; col.734.]
The Anglesey Borough Council already operates a decentralisation scheme. What this amendment requires is a commitment to the principle of decentralisation. It will require all councils to introduce a decentralisation scheme, which should of course take account of the Secretary of State's guidance but would not require his approval. So Amendment No.56 allows genuine discretion to the councils within the broad parameters of the clause to produce their own scheme to reflect the conditions in the areas that they serve.
It will also be noted that it requires the council to publish its draft scheme and to consult with the community councils for the area so that the scheme will be responsive to the wishes of the people of the area. Furthermore, the need for local consultation is a requirement which is glaringly omitted from Clauses 26 and 27.
I acknowledge that Amendment No.56 is taken largely from the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. I do not claim that Welsh legislation should always be by reference to Scottish legislation but we believe that on this issue the Scottish approach is a vast improvement on Clauses 26 and 27. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I support the amendment and the knowledgeable speech of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I too have always believed that there should be a commitment to the principle of decentralisation. However, it should be left to each

839
council to produce a decentralisation scheme which would reflect the conditions in its own area. The route that we are considering is not democratic.
Like my noble friend, I am anxious about the way in which the Bill seeks to apply the principle of decentralisation in Clauses 26 and 27, if that is the underlying philosophy of the two clauses. Unlike the Bill as it stands, the amendment recognises that all councils will be expected to decentralise their management but to do so in a way that best suits the needs of their areas and the weight of local opinion. That is a matter of the first importance. The amendment requires the council to consult with the community councils for its area. Under the Bill, a council cannot devolve management to an area committee except on the basis that its scheme is approved by the Secretary of State. That implies that there is only one way to decentralise functions: it must fit the Secretary of State's thinking of what is appropriate. That idea is far removed from the spirit of decentralisation.
I accept that a council in drawing up its decentralisation scheme should pay regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. However, the guidance should not be prescriptive, as it could be under the Bill. In Clauses 26 and 27 we have another example of the excessive power of the Secretary of State for Wales to interfere on points of detail. We are advised by experienced local government officials in Wales that the scheme envisaged by the clauses creates opportunities for continuous internal conflict, instability and confused accountability, as was mentioned in our discussions in Committee. Those are matters that we wish to avoid at all costs. Knowing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as I do, I am sure that he shares that view.
I believe that Amendment No.56 gets the balance about right; that is, the balance between giving proper weight to the requirements of decentralisation to meet local conditions while avoiding the re-emergence of the two-tier structure and confused accountability.
As the Bill is piloted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for Scotland, my most powerful argument is that the amendment reflects the Scottish approach set out in the Scottish local government Bill: if its provisions are good for Scotland, why should they not be good for Wales too? That is an unanswerable argument and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord must agree with me, being the prudent and able man that he is.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, this amendment is almost identical to the amendment which I tabled in Committee to explore the differences between the Scottish approach and the approach taken in this Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told us something of the genesis of the two schemes in Committee. He was kind and courteous enough to send me a letter, which I have made sure was circulated. That confirmed what he said and dealt in greater depth with the genesis of the two schemes.
The noble and learned Lord told us— and I accept it — that the pressure for the Scottish decentralisation scheme came from the community councils in Scotland.
840
They pressed for decentralisation measures. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is right to say that the genesis of the Welsh scheme arose from the problem of Powys. When it was announced, to the horror of almost everyone in Powys, that it was to become a unitary authority, in order to try to gain support and assuage fears, the county council suggested that there could be a federal scheme for Powys, whatever was meant by that, with powers devolved to the three separate parts; that is, Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor.
That was seized upon by the then Secretary of State, Mr. David Hunt, who put forward a version of the decentralised scheme that he had in mind. When he was replaced by the present Secretary of State, Mr. Redwood, Mr. Redwood finessed the present proposal, but it was still in embryonic form. It is absolutely right that he promised delegates from my area that the committees would have much greater powers than he and the officials were eventually prepared to concede. Therefore, it was a much more hand-to-mouth scheme than anything that appeared in the Scottish Bill.
It seems to me that that is of vital importance. If the Government are stupid enough to carry on with the scheme and to create a unitary authority as huge as Powys, the only way in which that can possibly be made acceptable and tolerable to the people is by a fair scheme of decentralisation.
One is driven to ask where the money lies if there is to be devolution in a very large area like Powys. Power is where the money lies. No committee structure will be effective without a high degree of financial control over resources. It will need its own budget. Does the Secretary of State contemplate that? He told a delegation from my defence committee that he did. He retracted that subsequently in a meeting with the representatives of the district councils.
But as I see it, under the Scottish scheme, if I may refer to the amendment as such, subject to eventual approval and the following of certain guidelines, there would be the possibility of maximum devolution. Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor would want that.
If the Government's scheme means no more than decentralised service delivery, we have that at present, as the noble Lord indicated, in Anglesey and Montgomery. There is decentralised service delivery from the county and district councils. Therefore, there is already decentralisation at two levels in Powys. As was pointed out in what was circulated by the Council of Welsh Districts, that happens also in Wrexham and Cardiff.
Under the present scheme there is a real danger of confused service delivery. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is right to point out the danger in relation to housing. The guidance indicates that management will be at two levels and will be a two-tier organisation, whereas at present there is only one housing authority under the three district councils. For example, if 95 per cent. of housing management must, in accord with government guidelines, be subjected to competitive tendering, in many areas there will be a housing direct service organisation, a housing contractor or an area

841
committee and an authority-wide housing committee. At present there is only one authority and the responsibility is clear.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has been performing a Trojan's role in respect of this highly unsatisfactory Bill. Our sympathy goes out to him because we suspect that his sympathies cannot be with this adequate Bill. Will he ask the Government why they do not apply the principle of subsidiarity, of which we heard so much from the Prime Minister at the time of Maastricht? The definition of subsidiarity given then was that powers must be retained at the lowest feasible level. If that is to apply to Europe and the states contained within it, it should apply also at local government level.
I am informed that the closer social services are to the grass-roots, the better. I am told that at present in Powys,95 per cent. of social services can be and are run by a decentralisation scheme. The only services which cannot be provided at that level are services dealing with adoption, fostering and training and, of course, there must always be a separate monitoring service.
It seems to me. hat the present provisions of Clauses 26 and 27 have been put forward because there was such an outcry in Powys at the idea of a Powys unitary authority. It was thought that some kind of sop should be given: something to try to make acceptable what was manifestly unacceptable. That is why Clauses 26 and 27 were introduced.
The Government must consider the possibility of buck-passing between, for example, the centre and area committees; and the confusion which is possible over legal and administrative accountability. For example, the principal authority will remain accountable to the courts, the ombudsman and the auditors, but area committees will have derived their responsibilities from the Secretary of State. Where will the control lie? Where does accountability rest?
The scheme will tend to be rigid. What is right for Powys may be totally wrong for other parts of Wales. I see the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. It is extremely important that Meirioneth has as much control over its own affairs as possible. But it seems to me that there is a great danger of rigidity and an inherent conflict if decentralisation is to mean anything at all. How is that conflict to be resolved?
I hope that in another place the Government will look with extreme care at this matter and will look at the two provisions side by side to see which is more acceptable. My present view is that Amendment No.56 gives greater scope for real meaningful devolution and a far greater variation of devolution between different parts of Wales than is provided by the present powers. No doubt we shall heat what the Government have to say on that point.
I have the overall impression that this is a miserable, ill-thought out political response. Pressures were brought to bear on all sides because of the proposal to create a unitary authority, which is far too large. I suspect that the extremely able and efficient Mr. Barnish, the then chief executive officer for Powys, persuaded high officials in the Welsh Office to change the Secretary of State's mind about unitary authorities
842
for Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor. We saw the change between 1991– 92 and then, in 1993, there was a complete change of front. We have had Mr. David Hunt and now we have Mr. Redwood wallowing about with schemes of area committees to make palatable and acceptable what is unacceptable.
I should like to make one point in response to the letter that the noble and learned Lord wrote to me. He stated that it was an attempt to meet the pressure from Brecon, Radnor, Merioneth and Montgomery for much greater control over their own affairs. However, I believe that the noble and learned Lord would find that Brecon, Radnor, Montgomery and certainly Merioneth — and I know that this is absolutely right—did not ask the Secretary of State for area committees they were asking to resort to the original plans so that we did not have remote, unwieldy and really unworkable unitary authorities. I believe that that was an attempt to provide us with a sop.
I have come to the conclusion that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is, in my present state of knowledge, preferable to the Government's clause. It seems to me to be the only possible way of achieving a real measure of devolution.
5 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, began by saying that he thought the scheme in Clauses 26 and 27 was authoritarian. It does not appear to the Government to be so. As has been mentioned on a number of occasions both in Committee and in correspondence, the genesis of the scheme was a recognition by Secretaries of State that there was in Montgomeryshire, and in other parts of Wales, the kind of pressure for local representation which we heard so eloquently spoken to when discussing boundaries.
I do not pretend— indeed, I have never pretended — that the pressure was for the setting up of area committees. However, while rejecting the idea that those areas should have their own unitary authorities for other reasons, the Secretary of State said,"Well, having taken the decision that we will have to have a larger authority— be it Powys, or wherever— nonetheless, we recognise that such local pressures exist. Here is a scheme which may provide one way in which expression can be given to the kinds of desire for more local control than would otherwise be available without this particular structure".
I emphasised "one way", and did so advisedly. It is not the case that Clauses 26 and 27 are the only method by which a policy of decentralisation could be carried out. In the letter that I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I pointed out that, under the existing powers of Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, many of the things that are envisaged in the Scottish clause can already been done. In particular, it would be possible to delegate functions to committees having responsibilities for part of a local authority's area. There is therefore no question of a scheme under Clauses 26 and 27 being the only way in which it can be done. If a

843
unitary authority, using its powers under Section 101, decided that it would like to have a committee dealing with one area of its local authority, that could be done.
The purpose of Clauses 26 and 27 is to take the matter just that bit further. There is absolutely no compulsion upon a local authority to go down that road. On the contrary, it is only if people from the area want such a scheme that the matter will arise. In such a case, the application would be put forward. Of course, it may apply only in connection with certain specified functions. It does not need to cover all the council's functions; indeed, only certain specified functions may be covered by the scheme. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am much obliged. People are concerned to know whether, under a scheme of devolution, the Secretary of State would approve of a plan that would give them real financial power.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, there is no question of them having fund-raising powers. That is not in issue. I would envisage that the position under such a scheme— and, of course, it would depend on the type of scheme adopted— would be that some sort of block grant would be made available by the principal council to the area committee for the discharge of its functions. The important point to note is that only if people wished to have such a scheme would the matter arise. The Secretary of State would approve such a scheme only if he thought it appropriate, having regard to the various criteria set out in Clause 26(8).
Some play was made of the wide-ranging nature of such criteria. However, had those criteria not been so wide ranging, I have no doubt that play would have been made of the fact that the Secretary of State was not given discretion to take into account the geographical, historical, cultural and demographic circumstances. I should have thought that all those considerations were very much the kind of things which one would expect a Secretary of State to take into account when deciding whether or not the scheme before him is one that should be approved for the area.
It has been said that the scheme would be rigid. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, thinks so, especially in connection with Powys. There is no reason why what would be put in position for Powys should be replicated elsewhere. For example, if the people of Merionethshire were to come forward and request an area committee, there is no reason why the scheme laid down for that area should be the same as that requested by Montgomeryshire. On the contrary, the clause provides that the scheme should be tailored to the particular circumstances.
It is correct to say that it is a novel proposal. However, it is not one that is forced upon people; it is one that people can adopt. It is perhaps thought to be rigid in one sense. However, that rigidity is possibly one of its attractions to an area like Montgomeryshire. If such a scheme is put into place and approved, the people there will have the confidence that the position will be maintained whatever happens, unless there is an agreement that it should be abolished. That is as a
844
safeguard for the people of Montgomery which they would not have if they merely used the powers under Section 101; nor would they have any such safeguards if the clause envisaged in the Scottish Bill was put into place.
It is because the provision here gives this extra security that it had been thought that it would be attractive to people in these areas. Of course, if they do not wish to have that security, and if they merely wish to have area committees which do not have the kind of lock and other measures of security which are established by these provisions, they do not need to use this measure. They can use the existing powers under Section 101 and persuade the council to set up area committees.
In all these respects the Government believe that the provision I am discussing offers an option which may well be attractive to certain areas. Of course it is recognised that in the nature of things there will be a measure of splitting of functions. I had naively thought that one of the advantages of this whole scheme would be that whereas, for example, the wider strategic planning aspects would be dealt with by Powys, the enforcement of planning policy might be carried out by Montgomeryshire, the people of Breconshire, and so on. I should have thought that would be desirable.
I should have thought that the matter of certain aspects of housing policy being discharged by people who are familiar with the conditions in the area concerned was one of the advantages of the policy. Of course I recognise that there may be an element of conflict between the two authorities— we shall perhaps discuss that later— but at the end of the day these are matters which will be resolved at the ballot box. If people in a local area do not prove to be carrying out the will of the people who elect them, no doubt they will be removed in due course at the ballot box. We believe that that is the correct way forward.
Of course one can envisage circumstances— I believe these are rather remote— where people might not choose to take up the seats on the scheme which has been devised for them. However, I believe that is rather unlikely given that the initial movement for such a scheme comes from the people in the area concerned. It is true to say, of course, that there may be certain aspects which would not be carried out by a particular committee if, for example, it fell down on that. At the end of the day the council would carry the responsibility for that, but that is no different in one sense from the position where any function is devolved to a committee of the council. At the end of the day one is dealing with a committee of the council and, ultimately, the council bears responsibility for the discharge of the functions. It could not be otherwise.
We do not believe that those matters will prove to be stumbling blocks at the end of the day. We believe that this scheme will work. However, I must stress to your Lordships that we are not imposing this scheme on anyone. We have suggested it as an option. There are powers to do most of the things in the Scottish scheme if people wish to do them. The provision I am discussing gives an extra power for people to obtain a new structure with the advantages which I have stressed. It is not

845
forced on them and it is not authoritarian: it is something which they can choose to have. We believe that, judged against the background of the Welsh conditions, this would prove an attractive scheme to certain areas, and that they would wish to operate it.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope he can clear my mind on one point. It appears to me from the first line of Clause 26 that any 10 members of any council could stir up trouble if they wished to, and that this would make the whole proceeding even more difficult than it would otherwise appear.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the provision has of course been amended and the application now has to come from 10 members who represent the area to which the scheme would apply. Of course they can come forward from whatever council throughout Wales and we accept they have a democratic right to do that. If 10 members come from an area which they believe is an appropriate area in this context, we believe that is a situation where it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to consider the scheme.
Baroness While: My Lords, surely that is an absolute recipe for chaos. Is it not better to accept the proposal in the amendment that,
"Every council shall have a duty to prepare a draft decentralisation scheme",
and not leave it to the chance of 10 disgruntled members putting it forward?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the request under subsection (1) can only be made in terms of subsection (6). It is limited in time and we do not believe that it is a recipe for chaos; nor do we believe that it is appropriate to force local councils, which may have no intention of having a decentralisation scheme of this kind or another kind, to consider such proposals.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, as reference was made to Meirionnydd— this was a subject of a previous debate — do I understand him to say that a decentralisation scheme, were it envisaged for the Meirionnydd area, could be distinct and different from any other decentralisation scheme— for example the one in Montgomeryshire?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will perceive that all one has here so to speak is a framework. It is simply a power to put forward the proposals. The scheme which the Secretary of State accepted for Merionethshire might be very different from another, because of the differences in population and cultural differences. One would presume it would be tailor-made since ultimately, it would have come from the council in the area. Therefore it would be designed to suit the particular conditions in Merionethshire rather than, for example, the wholly different conditions in Powys.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble and learned Lord but this is an important matter.
846
I think the great problem is that this matter has to be approved by the Secretary of State. If a scheme were put forward after this Bill has become an Act, the Secretary of State could say,"No. I merely mean that the delivery of services can be devolved but nothing else". What will the Secretary of State approve? The noble and learned Lord has given us no indication of that. We are really asking people to buy a pig in a poke.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, what the Secretary of State will have to consider is the submission of a decentralisation scheme by the council in terms of subsection (3) of Clause 26. It would be that which he would consider in the light of the criteria of which I have spoken.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his lengthy response to the amendment. I believe at the end of his speech he said that this was a scheme which was suitable for the Welsh background. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, it has nothing whatever to do with the Welsh background. It has everything to do with Montgomeryshire. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate acknowledged that this was a novel scheme. As I understand it, it is untried anywhere and it has not been the subject of consultation with any of the local authorities in Wales. However, the noble and learned Lord went further and said that the scheme was novel and rigid. To hear that the scheme is novel and rigid in no way allays our anxieties. I believe the noble and learned Lord is shaking his head, but we shall have to see what is printed in Hansard The noble and learned Lord said the scheme was novel and rigid. I thought he was anticipating the discussion on Amendment No.58.
Our great difficulty with Clauses 26 and 27 is that the Secretary of State is personally committed to them— that is what we hear from our friends within local authority circles— and therefore he is not prepared to listen to representations. I see that we cannot possibly bring this amendment, or a variation of it, back to the House for discussion because the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that he will not listen to representations. It seems to me that in those circumstances, and given the widespread dissatisfaction within local government about Clauses 26 and 27. it is our duty to press this amendment to a Division.
5.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.56) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

David, B.

Ardwick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dean of Thorntone Fylde, B

Brain, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brookes, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Carter, L.

Ennals, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Faithfull, B.

847

Falkland, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mertyn-Rees, L.

Glenamara, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

MoUoy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

[Teller. j

Mulley, L.

Grey, E.

Nelson, E.

Halsbury, E.

Nicol, B.

Hampton, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Haskel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayter, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hooson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Howell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stedman, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Listowel, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gridley, L.

Addison, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harrowby, E.

Annaly, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Astor, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Blyth, L.

Howe, E.

Boardman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Borthwick, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kenyon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Burnham, L.

Leigh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cadman, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Camock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. (Lord

Chelmsford, V.

Chancellor.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Mancroft, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Manton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moran, L.

Denham, L.

Morris, L.

Derwent, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dundonald, E.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newall, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Rather, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

848

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rennell, L.

Swansea, L.

Renton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Teviot, L.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

Stewartby, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Stockton, E.

Westbury, L.

Strange, B.

Wharton, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.27p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No.57:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Children's Commissioner for Wales
— (1) There shall be a Children and Young Persons Commissioner for Wales ("the Commissioner") to monitor the effectiveness of all services for children and young persons provided by principal councils, to investigate specific complaints about these services and to report annually to Parliament.
(2) In exercising his functions under this section, the Commissioner shall—

(a) seek to ensure that the rights and interests of children and young persons are at all times properly taken into account by principal councils when decisions are taken on policies affecting children; and

(b) have regard to—

(i) the principles laid down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,

(ii) the need to ensure co-ordination between voluntary organisations providing services for children and principal councils, and

(iii) the need to consult from time to time with children and those who seek to promote the interests of children.

(3) The Commissioner shall be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for a period of five years during which time he may only be relieved at his own request or removed by Her Majesty for just cause or excuse; and the Commissioner shall be eligible for reappointment at the end of that period.").
The noble Lords said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No.57.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.57) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,80; Not-Contents,118.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Addington, L.

Elis-Thomas, L. [Teller.]

Archer of Sand well, L.

Ennals, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brain, L.

Falkland, V.

Brookes, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carter, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

[Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Greenway, L.

David, B.

Gregson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Grey, E.

Dean of Thoraton-le-Fylde, B.

Halsbury, E.

Donoughue, L.

Hampton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hanworth, V.

849

Haskel, L.

Moran, L.

Hayter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Mulley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Nicol, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Peston, L.

Hooson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Howell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Redesdale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richard, L.

Jeger. B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Judd, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Listowel, E.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Molloy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hood, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anan, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Kenyon, L.

Astor, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Beloff, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bethell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Blyth, L.

Leigh, L.

Boardman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Bruntisfield, L.

Chancellor.]

Burnham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Manton, L.

Cadman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Milverton, L.

Clariwilliam, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Courtown, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cox, B.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Cranborne, V.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Derwent, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Flather, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylcbone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harrowby, E.

Stockton, E.

Hayhos, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Scrathmore and Kinghome, E.

HolrnPatrick, L.

[Teller.]

850

Sudeley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Swansea, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Tebbit, L.

Vivian, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Trefgarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Clause 27 [Decentralisation schemes: approval, implementation and safeguards]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No.58:
Page 21, line 37, at end insert ("or in the absence of such agreement with the consent of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Secretary of State believes that the overriding merit of the decentralisation scheme is that once it is in place it cannot be changed without the consent of the area committee. If that is a merit, in our submission it is far outweighed by its weakness. If the scheme proves to be unworkable, the damage cannot be undone without the consent of the area committee. Therefore the Bill does not address a situation in which the council and the area committee are immovably deadlocked.
Amendment No.58 provides a solution. We have stated on a number of occasions in Committee that we do not wish to add to the Secretary of State's powers. However, in that situation, and in particular since services to people can be damaged as a result of the impasse, we believe that it is proper to give the Secretary of State the power to resolve the dispute.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris offered such a solution at Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that it would be invidious for the Secretary of State to act as an arbiter or umpire between, say, the Mid Wales Council or Radnorshire Area Committee. With respect, that argument has no force. The Secretary of State is the author of the scheme. It may well be a distorted scheme from the outset. It is ever right that he should carry the responsibility of sorting out the impasse when it arises. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as I stated in Committee, the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to introduce a power for the Secretary of State to intervene in the circumstances envisaged. We shall be dealing with committees which have been set up under such a scheme; they are committees of the local authority. We do not believe that the deadlock to which the noble Lord refers is likely to arise. There will be the stability which is built into the Bill, and at the end of the day the test should rest ultimately on the decision of the electors of the area or of the unitary authority.
It is that power which ultimately provides the sanction for what would in essence be a political dispute of a local nature. I dare say that one can envisage various ways in which people could put the issue to the test. However, we believe that it is appropriate that it should be dealt with locally by electoral control.
For that reason we do not believe that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to become involved. Nonetheless, I am happy to draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the fact

851
that noble Lords opposite believe that his powers should be increased in this fashion. I do not hold out any hope that he will change his mind. I believe that the theory underlying the present policy is consistent with the scheme in the Bill. On the other hand, I am happy to draw the views of noble Lords to his attention.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his reply, but the scheme is novel and a deadlock is therefore foreseeable. In those circumstances, for the Welsh Office to rely on the elections which may come in a few years' time borders on irresponsibility. It seems to us that a commitment to doing nothing in such a situation, although it may be acceptable to Welsh Office Ministers, borders on the irresponsible.
I am, nevertheless, grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for a grain of sympathy for my position. I am sure that we are right to draw attention to the need for a solution. There may be a better way of dealing with the difficulty, but I have a feeling that this is an issue to which others in another place may well return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Provision of information to Secretary of State]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No.59 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos.60 or 60A.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No.59:
Page 22, line 6, leave out subsection (I) and insert:
("(1) The Secretary of State may, with a view to exercising the powers contained in section 29, at any time before 31st March 1999 direct any new principal council to give him details of the arrangements which they have made, or propose to make, for the performance of specified functions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No.59 in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No.60 and also Amendment No.61 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
We discussed the provision of information to the Secretary of State when your Lordships were in Committee. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to write to me after our exchange explaining why in the Government's view Clause 28 of the Bill should stand. With the greatest respect to him, his letter started with something of a trumpet tone stating that the clause was necessary. The trumpet began to give an uncertain sound as the letter went on. As I see it, the main thrust of the noble and learned Lord's argument was that the clause is in the Bill because there are strong presentational reasons for its inclusion. I accept that there may well be presentational reasons, but that does not seem to me enough entirely to justify a clause being in a piece of legislation.
Our amendment seeks to achieve a similar effect to our amendment in Committee. We are worried about several matters. First, we are worried that the Secretary
852
of State already has powers under Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972 which would allow him to gain all the information relevant for his purposes. Secondly, we are worried that Clause 28 is drawn too widely. The Secretary of State can ask any new principal council to give all kinds of things which are not relevant to the Secretary of State acting under Clause 29 and, if necessary, Clause 30.
On the second point, Clause 28(1) (b) states:
"information of a specified kind or description as to the performance of specified functions of theirs".
If the Secretary of State is now to be allowed to require any new principal council to give information as to the performance of specified functions of theirs, what is the meaning of the word "performance"? Does it mean: "Would it not be better if it were done some other way?" "How much money has been spent on that?"? All kinds of details of a seriously bureaucratic nature can be required of the principal council by the Secretary of State.
So Amendment No.59 seeks to limit the Secretary of State in two ways: first, by the words:
"with a view to exercising the powers contained in section 29".
In other words, if our amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State may require only such information as he needs to exercise his powers under Clause 29, which we are to discuss.
Secondly, Amendment No.59 tries to limit the remit of the Secretary of State and the width of his remit in that it eliminates subsection (1) (b), to which I have just objected. In other words, the Secretary of State can ask only for details of the arrangements which the councils:
"have made, or propose to make, for the performance of specified functions".
We believe that the version in Amendment No.59 is preferable, for the reasons I have given, to the Government's version in Clause 28.
Amendment No.60 is quite simply a fallback position. If the Government do not like Amendment No.59, we would somewhat reluctantly accept that Amendment No.60 might be accepted by the Government, given that the primary purpose of both our amendments is to limit the Secretary of State to requesting information directly for the purposes of his powers under Clause 29.
I shall leave it to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to explain his views on his amendment, but it seems to me that the proposal is well put. Subsection (3) appears to me to be otiose in the sense that it is quite clear that nothing in the new section affects anything else. I cannot quite understand in the first place why it is there. However, if it is to be there, no doubt the Government can explain and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will explain what he has in mind.
I revert to Amendment No.59 and hope very much that the Government will take those arguments seriously. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, quite rightly pointed out in Committee, information is power. The Secretary of State in Wales, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said on an earlier amendment, has an enormous amount of power in a multifunctional

853
department. We are anxious to make sure that he has that power only if it is vitally necessary to make sure that the legislation is properly conducted. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not know whether anyone else will speak from the Opposition Front Bench or whether my noble friend wishes to go ahead of me. If not, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No.61 in my name. I referred to the point in speaking to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in Committee with which I ventured to agree, as I do with what he said today.
However, this is a slightly different point. The amendment seeks to remove a provision which is in any event completely unnecessary. The amendment is an anti-inflationary provision. Among other things, its acceptance is a test of how serious the Government are in their desire to bear down on inflation. The background is the undoubted inflation of the statute book. When the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation reported in 1975, it drew attention to the unnecessary and undesirable prolixity of the statutes. The statute book then ran to three volumes.
Ten years later, notwithstanding what the Renton Committee had said, it ran to five volumes. Not only that, but those five volumes contained fewer statutes — fewer public and general Acts, in other words— than the three volumes of 1975. In order to pack in more legislation still, the format of the statute book was increased. That was of course extremely inconvenient to those who had had book-cases made to fit the smaller format. But that was neither here nor there when it came to government convenience.
By increasing the format the statute book was reduced once again from five volumes to three. Nevertheless, in the latest set of statutes (1992) it has gone up again to five of the large format. The cost of them is £ 345. Every government department has to have a set. I think a set is at the knees of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. There are a great many other sets scattered round this Palace, and indeed elsewhere. Every lawyer has to have a set of statutes. It is not only the Stationery Office public and general Acts; it is also the Statutes in Force which are similarly inflated. Therefore the question arises as to whether the Government are serious about reducing inflation. Are they serious about removing from the statute book any unnecessary provision?
What this clause does, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has explained, is to provide that information should be supplied to the Secretary of State. In regard to subsection (3) perhaps I had better read what the Notes on Clauses say that it does. It is there that one looks for the purpose. I invite noble Lords to compare what I shall read with what appears in the clause. The Notes on Clauses say:
"Subsection (3) provides that the operation of the powers in this Clause shall not affect the operation of any other requirement on a local authority to provide information to the Secretary of State or any other person".
There is a blinding Damascene flash of illumination.
Failing to find anything in the Notes on Clauses, I fall back on what I suggested was the purpose of the subsection, with which I understood the noble and
854
learned Lord the Lord Advocate to agree. In other words, it is to obviate, to forestall, an argument that the provision in this clause that information shall be provided to the Secretary of State impliedly repeals and obviates any provision anywhere else in the statute book that local authorities shall provide such information.
The noble and learned Lord is a highly regarded lawyer. I am therefore content to leave the question to him to be answered yes or no. Does he think that such an argument stands any reasonable chance of acceptance in any reasonable tribunal?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the thrust of the first of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, Amendment No.59, is in effect to delete paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 28, thereby removing the power there given to the Secretary of State to require specific information about the performance of specified functions of the council.
That power is one which is desirable as a power used within the framework of Clauses 28,29 and 30. It is one which allows the Secretary of State to specify the kind of information that he wishes to have and to limit it in relation to particular functions of the council. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked what kind of information it would be. It is general. It is information as to the performance by the council of its functions. In my respectful submission, that seems to be an appropriate power for the Secretary of State to have, especially given the general background against which this whole issue has been discussed, namely the fears which people have as to whether the councils will, especially in their early years, discharge their functions and perform them properly. In that area it seems desirable to have this particular power as specified.
Amendment No.59, which is also shadowed in Amendment No.60, aims to limit the power of the Secretary of State in Clause 28 specifically to the situation that it be,
"with a view to exercising the powers contained in section 29".
I have accepted that Clause 28 comes in the package of clauses headed with the cross-heading "joint working", and that it is within that general area that these powers will be used. That is reflected in the fact that they are limited in time, as are the powers in the other clauses. For that reason, even putting it at its lowest, the insertion of those words is unnecessary. It is clear that it is within that general context that the matter arises.
There is also this point. The Secretary of State would not necessarily be envisaging using his powers under Section 29, as it would be. He would simply be obtaining information upon which he would then make a decision as to whether it would be appropriate to use his powers under Section 29. There can be no question at the Clause 28 stage of him having already made up his mind that he would use his powers under what would be Section 29. It would merely be a question of obtaining the information based upon which he would then decide whether the powers under Section 29 would then have to be used. For that reason the limitation there goes further than is desirable in this area, although I

855
fully accept that it is against the background of the possibility of such powers being used that the matter arises.
I fear that I cannot add much to what I said in Committee to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. My position remains that subsection (3) has been put in to avoid the possibility of an argument of the kind which the noble and learned Lord has characterised as being one which he obviously thinks would have no reasonable chance of success. It is of course the case that if one appeared in front of the noble and learned Lord he would undoubtedly take that view. But not all judges are inevitably and in all circumstances as wise as the noble and learned Lord. Sometimes people are very persuasive with their arguments in favour of a particular view, as the noble and learned Lord also knows. For that reason it seems desirable to obviate the possibility of such an argument being advanced and carrying the day by putting in what is after all only a short subsection of this kind. It is, as the noble Lord—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I interrupt him. He has not answered the question yes or no that I specifically asked him. He indicated that I correctly framed the purpose of the subsection. I now ask him again: does he think that such an argument stands any reasonable chance of success before any reasonable tribunal?
6 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have to reply in my own way and say that I do not believe that such an argument should succeed. But I also say that this subsection makes sure that the matter does not waste the time of any tribunal, whether reasonable or unreasonable. The provision is put in to avoid that kind of argument being advanced.
I accept that, as the noble and learned Lord said on another occasion, if one were to fill the statute book with provisions cutting off all unreasonable arguments, the statute book would suffer the kind of inflation of which he spoke. But I do not believe that this subsection falls into such a seriously inflationary category. It is precedented and for that very reason to leave it out always gives rise to the possibility of an argument. Therefore I believe that subsection (3) should remain in the clause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response to the amendments. I am unconvinced by his response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I said when introducing my amendments and referring to his amendments that I believed that subsection (3) was wholly otiose. I still believe that it is wholly otiose. It adds nothing. In my view the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made his case.
However, I return to Amendments Nos.59 and 60. I accept the noble and learned Lord's arguments about the inclusion of subsection (1) (b). He made a convincing case for having paragraph (b) in the Bill. The Secretary of State needs to know whether certain things have
856
happened. But the noble and learned Lord and I seemed to be moving closer together on the definition of why the Secretary of State is asking for that information. Quite rightly, he criticised my amendment because it seems to presuppose a decision that the powers will be exercised. He understands my point about wishing to circumscribe the motives of the Secretary of State in asking for information.
Therefore, I put it to the noble and learned Lord that together we could support an amendment on Third Reading which would read— I do not intend to draft on my feet, as it were— something like "in deciding whether or not to exercise his powers under". An amendment along those lines might satisfy both of us. If the noble and learned Lord would agree to that, I should be happy to withdraw my amendment. Perhaps he might wish to comment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord rightly said that there are precedents for subsection (3). So there are. It is not that subsection (3) is ever necessary; but that formula has got into a computer in Whitehall and pops up whenever this topic comes into the statute book.
I was not surprised that the noble and learned Lord could not quite bring himself to say that he thought that the argument had any reasonable chance of success before any reasonable tribunal. But he said that the argument might be advanced, however unreasonable, because that is the premise. The unreasonable argument might be advanced and therefore he must obviate it.
I venture to remind your Lordships of what the noble and learned Lord said finally when the matter was discussed in Committee. He agreed that if one tries to obviate and forestall every silly argument that might be put forward, however fanciful, the statute book would go on growing inexorably, as it has been growing in the way that I indicated to your Lordships earlier. Unfortunately, I am forced to the conclusion that the Government are not interested in countering inflation.
If this matter were to be decided by those who have heard that argument, I should take the matter to a Division. But I cannot close my mind to what happened on the last two Divisions. Therefore, I shall not press my amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in respect of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke again, although I do not think that I can go so far as to give him the undertaking which he sought, I can say that I am very happy to take the matter away and reflect further upon it. I do not think that there is all that much between us.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that with his great wisdom he will come to the conclusion that some wording should be put in the Bill which will receive the approbation of your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.60 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No.60A:
Page 22, line 11, at end insert:

857
("(c) information relating to their performance in implementing the policies set out in Cmnd 2426: Sustainable Development.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled following publication of the UK Government's document, Sustainable Development, to which it refers. The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the importance of the integration of different levels of government in relation to environmental policy. I should declare an interest as a deputy chairman of Cynefin, which is a very small private sector environmental consultancy which does mainly public sector work. I am also on the advisory committee of Keep Wales Tidy, which is related to the Tidy Britain group.
On that basis and because of those concerns I have followed with interest the whole environmental debate, both internationally and within the EC. The EC fifth environmental programme on environmental action, Towards Sustainability, emphasises the importance of securing the integration of environmental considerations in all policy areas. That is a key to the pursuit of sustainable development.
Within that same document emphasis is laid on the question of shared responsibility and subsidiarity; in other words, international organisations, member states and local authorities as well as the economic sectors and social partners should have a role in delivering sustainable development. Local government already has a good record in that field. The targets include the adoption of Local Agenda 21 for local authorities by 1996. They include ensuring that environmental considerations are at the core of the delivery of services to all local authorities, and cover the local environment and its state, eco-management and auditing, the integration of transport and land use policies, the assessment of the transport strategies in each area, working with local businesses on sustainable develop-ment and so on.
All that activity has a local base to it. But it is also important to accept the need to share information on an all-Wales basis. That is the purpose of the amendment; namely, to ensure that there is a free flow of information between local authorities and the Welsh Office on all aspects of best practice in the field of sustainable development and environmental policy. It follows from my wish to see the development of a comprehensive sustainable economy and ecology within Wales. Since my arguments are so patently green, acceptable and morally worthy, I am certain that the Welsh Office will accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his amendment. Perhaps I too should declare an interest as president for the Campaign for Protection of Rural Wales.
The whole matter of sustainable development will be debated by your Lordships on Wednesday. Nevertheless, a serious point arises relating particularly to Wales, which the noble Lord brought out in introducing the amendment. It is vitally important that there should be a proper co-ordination of all the efforts for sustainable development in Wales, and a lot of effort will have to be made if we are to meet our
858
national commitments. However, that can only be done with proper co-ordination between the Welsh Office and the new principal councils. It seems to me therefore that we should either have something in the Bill or be given a clear assurance by the noble and learned Lord that those matters will be taken into account.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I accept that the purpose of Amendment No.60A is to raise the issue; but the specific place in which it arises would not on any view be appropriate. As we saw, it is to do with reserve powers in connection with the joint working arrangements, and so forth.
The Government are committed to the policies and objectives of Agenda 21 and, as your Lordships are aware, in previous years have published White Papers which dealt with the progress made in those matters. It is also the case that while local authorities are already, under their present existence, taking a range of actions in support of the objectives under Agenda 21, for the most part they are matters which are not statutory requirements. However, they are matters which they have taken forward.
The way in which that has been done is for those matters to be discussed at various meetings between representatives of government and of local authorities, and indeed with others because it involves not only local authorities but also businesses and other individuals. It is therefore the kind of topic which must be discussed in the wider area. When the new local authorities come into existence then the same kind of approach will be appropriate and will be carried forward. Just as the existing local authorities recognise their responsibilities in that area, I expect the new authorities to do likewise. While I cannot accept Amendment No.60A, I accept that it will be important for the new authorities to take account of those policies.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, in view of the acceptance of the principle of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.61 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Joint working arrangements]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No.62:
Page 22, line 17, after ("State") insert ("on the basis of information provided as a result of a direction given under section 28").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.62 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. We come to Clause 29, and to a certain extent the amendment is the reverse side of the coin of the amendment that I tabled to Clause 28. Its purpose is to make sure that the Secretary of State—if I may use this phrase, and I hope he will not take offence — does not take any frivolous decisions; that is, decisions which have no basis in serious information that he gained as a result of his investigations under Clause 28.
The Bill as drafted does not limit the Secretary of State to any specific reason why he should give a direction. He may decide purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence, the evidence of one person or no

859
people or, indeed, just walking around the fields. It seems to me that the Secretary of State needs a proper basis on which to decide that a function should be discharged and to give a direction to that effect.
Again, we want to follow the logic of the noble and learned Lord in Clauses 28,29 and 30. I believe that the amendment follows that logic. Information is gained by Clause 28. If that information proves that there is an unsatisfactory situation, as a result of acting on that information the Secretary of State may decide to exercise his powers under Clause 29. If that is done, then Clause 30 is the blockbuster— if I can put it like that. That seems to me to be a perfectly logical way of going forward. The amendment not only fits in, but also improves that logic. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the key point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was that the powers under Clause 29— Section 29 as it will be — would have to be exercised by the Secretary of State on a proper basis. Of course I accept that. If there were not a proper basis, and in particular if there were not a proper basis in fact— if he were merely to take the rumours of the hedgerows and act upon them— then he would be subject to judicial review. The courts nowadays have become astute to examining such matters. It is therefore a presupposition of the correct exercise of a power under Clause 29 that it is used on a proper basis.
So far I see no divergence between the noble Lord and myself. However, I cannot accept the following-through of his logic. I accept that Clause 28 is envisaged as being used for purposes in connection with Clauses 29 and 30, as I said. But it does not follow that Clause 29 should be limited to circumstances where information has come to light or been provided on the basis of a direction under Clause 28. For example, a situation could arise where the Secretary of State acquired perfectly good and sound information which provided a proper basis upon which he could determine that a specific service was not being provided by the council, and where he could conclude that without obtaining information under Clause 28. In that situation it would not be appropriate that his exercise of Clause 29 should be delayed until he had gone through the machinery of Clause 28, provided that the factual basis on which he was proposing to act was established.
There would of course be the added possibility that, notwithstanding the giving of a direction by the Secretary of State in Clause 28, nonetheless the council failed to provide the information that was requested or required to be given under that provision. I accept that in such a situation the Secretary of State could take legal proceedings against the local authority. But again, one may be dealing with a situation where the need for the Secretary of State to instruct the local authorities to put in place joint arrangements is a matter of urgency. For example, it may be that inadequate services are being provided for children. In that situation it would not be desirable that the exercise of the Clause 29 powers
860
should be delayed simply because the council failed to respond to Clause 28 and the Secretary of State therefore had to litigate before he could use Clause 29.
For those reasons, because there may be cases where there is a proper basis for action under Clause 29 without the Secretary of State invoking the provisions of Clause 28, we do not consider that Amendment No.62 is acceptable. In those circumstances, we believe that the flexibility of Clause 29 should be given to the Secretary of State, always remembering that it can only be exercised on a proper basis.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. However, I am rather more worried having heard his reply than I was when I started. I just do not think it is enough to rely on judicial review. Judicial review is becoming a common process but it is an awkward and unsatisfactory process. Furthermore, it prejudices those who are taking public officials— officials paid by public funds— who can hire distinguished counsel at public expense and whose costs are then met, if necessary, if judicial review is thrown out and the judge decides that he is prepared to award costs against the person who is trying to take the Secretary of State or the local authority to judicial review.
I do not think that judicial review is an adequate mechanism for ensuring that the Secretary of State behaves in a fully responsible way. Judicial review is very much loaded in favour of the Secretary of State; and possibly it should be. I am not arguing that one way or the other. I am simply saying that it is not a proper vehicle. There should therefore be a provision in the Bill.
Secondly, I am concerned when the noble and learned Lord says that the Secretary of State may have other information that does not come from a direction under Clause 28. We must, after all, deal somewhere in open government. We must make sure that the information on which the Secretary of State may make a direction under Clause 29 has some basis in fact and that a local authority has the opportunity to reply.
For example, as president of the CPRW I can allege that the Powys council is not obeying its development plan. As president of the CPRW I carry, I believe, a certain amount of authority with the Secretary of State; I can prove this, that and the other; I can say to the Secretary of State, "This must be done"; and a court would probably uphold the function of the CPRW in doing it. The Secretary of State might reasonably say that it was perfectly good information and that he would do something about the council purely on the basis of that information. That is exceedingly unfair to Powys council. It should be given a chance to say what is the truth; hence the Secretary of State would make a direction under Clause 28, and, if Powys council did not reply, the silence would implicate the council. But Powys council would no doubt reply to the CPRW allegation.
We would therefore have a quite simple situation. Where the Secretary of State gets evidence, however valid, from sources other than directions, under Clause 28 we would have quite a simple mechanism for

861
ensuring that the council in question has the right of reply. That must be right. It seems that the Secretary of State should take action under Clause 29 only when he has that information from the council, whatever other information he may have from whatever other source. If I am arguing slightly strenuously it is because I am trying to convince the noble and learned Lord that this is the right position to take. I hope that he agrees with me.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not think that we are really all that far apart. As I have stressed on a number of occasions, the powers here are reserve powers. They are not ones which the Secretary of State is itching to use. He is not desiring to have to give a direction to local authorities to enter into these arrangements. He does not particularly want to have to set up joint authorities. These powers are there to remedy possible situations where there has been a failure on the part of the local authority.
As I have said on a number of occasions, because he does not particularly wish to intervene he would of course envisage that before he exercised powers— for example, under Clause 29— he would consult with the local authorities as to whether or not that was the way to go forward. Nonetheless, one has to bear in mind that there may be circumstances where there is a complete breakdown of a particular service. It may be known to everyone and be clamant. In that situation the Secretary of State could act on the information, if it was perfectly obviously correct, and say to the local authority, "Will you remedy this by entering into such an arrangement", and then give it the opportunity to do so. If it did not, he could invoke powers under Clause 29.
In that situation the local authority would no doubt come forward and explain what it was doing and so on. In that way there would not necessarily be the need always to use the powers under Clause 28 and the information would come forward. However, there may be times when it is necessary to get specific information. What I say is that one cannot and should not limit the occasions upon which Clause 29 can be used to those occasions where it is necessary to use Clause 28. It may be that a local authority will volunteer the information required and, having considered the information which has been volunteered by the local authority, the Secretary of State will nonetheless say, "I understand what you are doing. You have explained it very fully. Nonetheless I consider that the standards of service provided are not adequate and therefore you must enter into a joint arrangement". In that situation he would have the information. He would not have had to direct it. He would have the information on which he would then proceed to make the direction under Clause 29. It is for that kind of reason that I believe it would be wrong to limit the use of Clause 29 to those circumstances where it would be necessary to use Clause 28.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has either convinced me or indeed himself. He has two arguments. The first is that the Secretary of State is not itching to use these powers; he is not particularly interested in Clause 28
862
and will not go out and push people into doing things. The second argument is that he will have information anyway from the council concerned; or if he does not, the council will be guilty of not performing in the way that it should. It seems to me that, for the protection of councils, this amendment or something like it —the noble and learned Lord says that we are not all that far apart— is required. If councils do not give the information required under Clause 28, there is a clear admission that they are not prepared to defend themselves and the Secretary of State can make a direction under Clause 29. However, I see that we shall not get very far. I hope that between now and Third Reading the noble and learned Lord will reflect on this matter because, although it is a minor point, it is one which gives some protection to councils. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No.63:
Page 22, line 28, at end insert ("in particular to ensure effective strategic planning").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and myself, whose names appear above this amendment, I must first of all apologise. It is an important amendment and I cannot be brief. Therefore I shall try to be quick. I must also apologise for raising an issue which was not really touched upon either at Second Reading or at the Committee stage. It is only just becoming clear that arrangements in the Bill for town and country planning will significantly change the terms on which strategic transport and land use planning will be carried out in the future.
At the present time these vital concerns are addressed through the structure plans of the eight counties. The policies in these plans have to conform to Welsh Office-DoE planning guidance and they are subject to wide public consultation through an examination in public— that system is well known— presided over by an independent planning inspector. There is full coverage of these plans across Wales whereas there is only patchy coverage of district or borough local plans. The Bill appears to ensure that the democratically agreed policies in these eight structure plans as well as those in local plans, mineral plans, waste disposal plans and the like, where they exist, will continue to apply to the new unitary authorities until such time as they can draw up and adopt unitary development plans for their areas. So far, so good. But there is deep concern among many professional planners— the Royal Town Planning Institute and environmental bodies such as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, of which I am a trustee— that the quality and scope of strategic planning will be very much diminished in future when left to relatively small unitary authorities to carry out, quite possibly in isolation the one from the other.
In its response to the Secretary of State's White Paper proposals, the County Planning Officers' Society in Wales identified a list of key planning functions where it believed that arrangements for joint working would have to be established. I am indebted to them for ordering my thoughts on this topic and providing a

863
number of examples. This list included such things as strategic transport planning, minerals planning, conser-vation of the natural environment— for instance, by the designation of green belts; determining the overall provision of housing, and the location of major economic regeneration projects like power stations.
In addition, the society identified a further list of services that it believed would inevitably suffer from a loss of quality unless effective collaboration between unitary authorities took place. That list included such things as formulating economic development strategy, especially when unitary authorities are required to work with the WDA, the DBRW and the European funding section of the Welsh Office; recreation and tourism provision; land reclamation design and implementation; and the provision of what might be described as "countryside services"— such things as encouraging access to the countryside, providing country parks, woodland management, archaeological advice, and so on.
It may well be said by the Government that all these important functions will be adequately addressed by the proposed unitary authorities, both in the unitary development plans and through any joint working arrangement that might be entered into, either voluntarily or under the direction of the Secretary of State.
The aim of this amendment (I apologise again for it) which is a probing amendment at this late stage, is to seek clarification of the way it is intended, through the proposed framework of unitary authorities, to ensure that there is always a proper distinction between strategic planning policies and the more detailed application of those policies at local level, taking account of local conditions and sensibilities. This distinction between strategic and local planning is clearly enshrined in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
Perhaps I may put my anxiety into questions, of which I have given plentiful notice. First, how will the Secretary of State ensure that the important strategic functions identified by the county planning officers are not undermined or hijacked by short-term, narrow, parochial ambitions, which are quite likely to surface in small unitary authorities?
Secondly, how will the Secretary of State ensure that strategic planning, if it is conducted behind closed doors under joint working arrangements between the unitary authorities, results in policies which command broad public support, as is currently ensured through the wide consultation which takes place on county structure plans?
There is a real and widespread fear that, without transparency and consultation, jointly agreed strategic policies will result from what I may describe as the lowest common denominator (the LCD of interest) and will command very little respect and adherence. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I recognise that this is a probing amendment. The position which the Government have adopted as regards strategic planning raised by the noble Lord, is to recognise that it is one of the matters— the noble Lord also mentioned transport and minerals— where it may very well be necessary or desirable that a view which is wider than that of a particular individual unitary authority should be taken. The Government recognise that. That of course falls within the broad approach in Clause 29, which we have looked at on a number of occasions.
I go back to the basic philosophy behind these clauses in the Bill. These are matters where we would expect the local authorities charged with these functions to recognise for themselves; namely, that it would often be desirable for them to have regard to the position in a neighbouring authority and so on, in order to take proper decisions.
So we would expect that many such arrangements would be entered into by the unitary authorities on a voluntary basis, as the noble Lord really anticipated. During the period when it exists, Clause 29 remains as a fallback and reserve power for the Secretary of State where he considers that a particular function— strategic planning is obviously one of them— in a particular area would be best discharged by the use of some joint arrangement. In that situation a direction under Clause 29 would be appropriate.
That is the general approach which underlies the Act. I accept that the amendment is a probing one, but it is not really necessary. We believe that it concerns simply one of many kinds of functions which we would expect to be considered by the new authorities and appropriate decisions taken or the back-up powers used to provide the necessary check. The noble Lord asked me two specific questions. I have not got the necessary, detailed answers to those at this stage, but I shall write to him about them.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, as always, for a very straightforward and succinct reply. He recognises that the Government may need to take, if I quote him correctly, a wider view from time to time on matters like transportation and strategic planning. I am delighted to hear that.
He argues also that local authorities should realise for themselves the necessity for making arrangements at this level and for this kind of eventuality. I am not sure that I would necessarily share his and the Government's faith in the total wisdom, energy and good sense of every local authority even within Wales, to do that kind of thing. No doubt many will, but, in my view and I believe in the view of many noble Lords on this side of the House, the Bill ought to be providing safeguards for the "what-if-they-don't?" syndrome.
As we said when my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel argued so cogently on Amendment No.62 and the directions which can be created under Clause 29, the arrangements as they stand are imperfect. I believe that there is room for quite a lot of tidying up and improvement in this area of the Bill. The noble and

865
learned Lord said that the new authorities should be doing that, but in that particular case it may very well be too little and too late. However, I take his assurance that he will write to me. I shall look carefully at what he says in his letter. I shall go back and take the advice of the considerably worried people who have made representations to me. Perhaps even at the last minute on Third Reading we shall come back to this question, if we have not by then been totally satisfied. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No.64:
Leave out Clause 29 and insert the following new clause:
("Joint working arrangements
29. — (1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State on the basis of information provided as a result of a direction given under section 28—

(a) that particular functions of a new principal council should be discharged in accordance with arrangements entered into by that council and one or more other such councils in relation to the exercise of those functions, but

(b) that satisfactory arrangements for the exercise of those functions will not be, or are unlikely to be, in force on or after 1st April 1996,

he may, at any time before 31st March 1999, give a notice in writing to the councils concerned requiring them to prepare and submit to him for approval, within a time specified in the notice, arrangements in relation to the exercise of specified functions.
(2) The councils to whom such a notice has been given shall submit arrangements to the Secretary of State in accordance with the requirements of the notice.
(3) Where the councils concerned have submitted arrangements to the Secretary of State under subsection (2) he shall—

(a) approve the arrangements as submitted;

(b) approve the arrangements subject to such modifications as he considers appropriate; or

(c) reject the arrangements.

(4) Where the Secretary of State approves the arrangements, whether under subsection (3) (a) or (b), he may, at any time before 31st March 1999 give a direction to the councils concerned requiring them to implement the approved arrangements.
(5) Where—

(a) any council to whom a notice under subsection (1) has been given shall fail to submit arrangements to the Secretary of State in accordance with the requirements of the notice, or

(b) the Secretary of State rejects the arrangements in accordance with paragraph (c),

he may, at any time, before 31st March I999, give a direction to the councils concerned requiring them to make specified arrangements in relation to the exercise of those functions specified in a notice given under paragraph (1).
(6) The arrangements specified may, in particular, be, or include, arrangements for the joint exercise of functions.
(7) In this section "specified", in relation to a direction, means specified in the direction.
(8) In considering whether to approve arrangements under subsection (3), or give a direction under subsection (5), the Secretary of State shall have regard, in particular, to the desirability of the functions in question being discharged effectively and in a financially efficient manner.
(9) A direction under subsection (4) or (5) shall remain in force—

(a) until it is withdrawn by a notice in writing given by the Secretary of State to the councils concerned; or

(b) where a period is specified in the direction, during the period for wtich the direction is to have effect, provided that the direction has not been withdrawn by the Secretary of State.

(10) Nothing in subsection (9) shall be taken to affect the power of the Secretary of State to give a further direction under subsections (4) or (5) provided that the procedure set out in section 28 and this section is first undertaken.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe we are all agreed that to set up a body corporate under Clause 29
866
will be a drastic step. It has been described as a reserve power. This amendment will require the Secretary of State to give local authorities an opportunity to design their own joint arrangement schemes before he can direct them to implement his scheme.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pointed out that an amendment that had been moved to achieve the purpose of this amendment was flawed because it failed to provide what was to happen in the event of a voluntary scheme being rejected by the Secretary of State or authorities being unable or unwilling to agree a scheme. In Committee I immediately agreed that the amendment was flawed. I believe that subsection (5) of the amendment in its present form corrects that defect. Your Lordships will see that if a voluntary scheme is rejected by the Secretary of State or the local authorities fail to submit a scheme, the Secretary of State will be empowered to impose an arrangement. The thrust of this amendment is to ensure that local authorities are given the opportunity to design their own schemes before the Secretary of State exercises the power under Clause 29. The local authorities hope that the Secretary of State will look with sympathy at this amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, the effect of Amendment No.64 is to require the Secretary of State, before making a direction under Clause 29, to inform the councils of his anxiety and then require them to submit for his approval arrangements for the exercise of the particular functions. If the Secretary of State approves the arrangements, it envisages that he will give a direction that requires their implementation. If he does not approve them, or none is submitted for his approval, he will issue a direction specifying other arrangements. In substance, this appears to the Government to be a rather elaborate way of allowing local authorities to work out their own arrangements before the power of direction under what will be Clause 29 becomes available.
I am sorry to harp on a theme that I have mentioned on a number of occasions, but the Secretary of State has a marked preference for voluntary joint arrangements. He has no desire to operate the powers under Clause 29 to set up statutory joint arrangements other than where it is absolutely necessary.
The Government can see the merit in local authorities working out their own arrangements. If they do that, the need for statutory arrangements will not arise. This clause envisages that that may not always be possible, and this clause will be used where in effect voluntary arrangements have not been possible.
I emphasise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will use this power only reluctantly. He prefers to see local authorities work out their own voluntary joint arrangements. I stress that he will also consult the authorities before issuing a direction. I believe that in most circumstances the Secretary of State will consider himself to be at risk of challenge in the courts under the judicial review procedure if he does not consult. However, when services to a local community are at risk— the situation where it is envisaged that this power may be used — the Secretary of State must have

867
the flexibility to be able to act swiftly to protect those services. The amendment would restrict that ability. Having regard to the explanation as to the circumstances in which this power will be used, I urge your Lordships to leave the power as it is and reject the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the response of the noble and learned Lord. Clearly, those who advise us will have to study his words with care. I was glad he said that the Secretary of State had a marked preference for voluntary arrangements. I find that encouraging. We have no means of knowing whether his successor will take a similar view. We would have been happier if the spirit of this amendment had been embodied in Clause 29. It may well be that the clause is elaborate. We would be very happy if the Welsh Office simplified it. However, I have a feeling that the gap between us is not all that great. We shall be looking to those who advise us for further guidance. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No.65 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos.66 or 67.
Clause 30 [Joint authorities]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.65:
Page 23, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert ("he may by order establish a joint authority for the area of the councils to which the direction relates which may be a body corporate, the membership of which shall consist of members of the councils concerned and nominated by those councils, to discharge those functions to which the direction relates, from a date specified in the order, until such alternative arrangements for the exercise of the functions as appear to him to be necessary are brought into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have had an opportunity to study very carefully Amendment No.66, and in the circumstances I do not propose to move Amendment No.65.
[Amendment No.65 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.66:
Page 23, line 12, at end insert:

("() A joint authority shall consist of such number of members as may be determined by the order establishing it.

() Those members shall be appointed by the councils to which the order relates, from among their members, each council being entitled to appoint such number of members as may be specified in the order.

() Where at any time the number of members of a joint authority is less than the required number, the Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that the councils concerned have had a reasonable opportunity to make the necessary appointment or appointments—

(a) give such direction to the councils concerned or to any of them as he considers appropriate; and

(b) appoint such members (from among such persons as he considers appropriate) as may be required to complete the membership of the authority.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, an identical amendment to Amendment No.65 was moved in Committee and was withdrawn when I undertook to come back with an amendment that embodied the spirit
868
of it. I hope that Amendment No.66 fulfils the spirit of the undertaking I gave at that time. In the light of that, the noble Lord has withdrawn Amendment No.65.
Amendment No.68, to which I wish to speak at the same time, will remove the mechanism for a body created by a joint authority to inherit the property and rights associated with its functions. Your Lordships will recall that at Committee I undertook to consider whether that provision was necessary and whether the contingency was sufficiently real to justify the inclusion of the provision. The matter has been considered and we concluded that the contingency was so remote as not to require provision in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment is brought forward.
Clause 30, as amended by Amendments Nos.66 and 68, would allow the Secretary of State to establish joint authorities whose members would be drawn exclusively from the councils concerned and would be appointed by those councils. However, there is a possible contingency — that in default of such appointments the Secretary of State should have the power to appoint committee members who may not necessarily be members of the authorities concerned.
Amendment No.67 would seek to remove the Secretary of State's power in that respect. The Government cannot accept that amendment because it would leave a joint authority, and therefore the effective delivery of services, in limbo if one or other of the councils concerned did not appoint members. We hope that that will not happen often, but to cater for that contingency the measure provides for the Secretary of State to have the power to ensure that any joint authority which is established is able to act effectively to safeguard and deliver services. However, I emphasise that there should be no need for the Secretary of State ever to have to use this power. Provided that the local authorities themselves appoint the requisite number of members to a joint authority created under the clause, the Secretary of State will not be able to make any appointments to the authority. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved, as an amendment to Amendment No.66, Amendment No.67:
Leave out lines 7 to 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for tabling these amendments and for his explanation of their wording, which is complicated. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give the House two assurances. The first is that it is intended that the total membership will be appointed by the local authorities. The second is that the Secretary of State will exercise his power of appointment only in default of local authorities making the necessary appointments. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I had intended to make that clear, but if I have not I am happy to do so. It is intended that the total membership of such joint authorities shall be provided from the local authorities. I stress that only in default of such being provided will the Secretary of State's power arise.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No.67.
Amendment No.67, as an amendment to Amendment No.66, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No.66 agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.68:
Page 23, line 33, leave out from ("established") to end of line 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.69 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Decision making procedures of principal councils: experimental period]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.70:
Page 24, line 7, at end insert:
("() No application may be made under subsection (1) except on a resolution of the council concerned passed by a two-thirds majority of those voting at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment provides a guarantee to ensure that experimentation schemes as envisaged in the clause cannot be embarked upon without the support and consent of a wide body of opinion within the applicant council. The terms of the amendment ensure that no application for such a scheme can be submitted to the Secretary of State without there first having been proper consideration of the proposal within the council itself. Minority groups will thus have the opportunity to consider and comment upon any proposal to disapply the political balance required. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.71 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No.72:
Page 24, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to leave out one of the most worrying provisions in the Bill. Your Lordships will appreciate that Clause 31 makes it possible for the statutory social services committee to be removed by the Secretary of State on the application of a new council, subject of course to an affirmative resolution.
The principle of the unifying social services committee arose after the report of the departmental committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord Seebohm. I have a feeling that Lord Seebohm would have been astonished to read Clause 31(2) (b). After all, the need for a social services committee was the central recommendation of his committee and the duty to set up the committee is at the heart of the 1970 Act. However, Clause 31(2) (b) allows the Secretary of State to reverse what has been the central policy for the past 24 years.
We say that the reversal of such a policy should not be arranged in a deal between the Welsh Office and the individual councils, even if that is subject to an affirmative order. To dispense with the committee would be a drastic change which could result in a fragmented service and serious harm to vulnerable people. Parliament having provided in the 1970 Act that every local authority should have a social services committee, it is for Parliament to reverse that
870
fundamental policy only after the issue has been properly debated in the light of an objective and authoritative review by an independent committee. Until such a review has been concluded, it would be premature and irresponsible to take such a fundamental step as dispensing with a statutory committee, even on a ad hoc or experimental basis. Therefore, the need for a statutory committee is as true today as it was in 1970. I beg to move.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend has made a persuasive speech and I propose to be brief. The statutory social services committee with responsibility for planning services for all vulnerable groups works in an area of fundamental importance to the individual and to the family. We are constantly and properly reminded by responsible sources of the need to strengthen the provision for those who are vulnerable and unable to defend themselves and to make the system of care in this country more co-ordinated. Our experience has convinced us of the need to strengthen the social services committee, as my noble friend has argued. This is the one body which is accountable for discharging the social services and this is not the time to disband it or to weaken it in any way.
We have been reminded that the need for a statutory social services committee was the major recommenda-tion of the committee chaired by the late Lord Seebohm, for whom the House had an immense respect. We still miss the noble Lord. His recommendation was accepted by the then Labour Government and it was established by Clause 2 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention that my noble friend Lady Serota piloted that Bill through your Lordships' House.
The existence of a social services committee, with its professional links, has helped considerably to integrate the social services. We believe that the absence of such a committee would lead to awkward issues and the problem of co-ordination being ignored, skated around at the highest level or, indeed, put on the shelf. And yet, under Clause 31, the Secretary of State, on the application of a council and subject to the affirmative resolution, is free to authorise a council to dispense with that statutory committee.
I appreciate that initially dispensation would be for an experimental period. However, without the statutory committee, in my estimation the social services would be in grave danger of fragmenting to a point at which serious harm may be inflicted on people and their families. That worries me when I consider the implications.
There is a continuing need, stretching out to the next century, for that statutory committee. I believe that the Welsh Office and the new Welsh councils should not be tempted to dispense with it. Therefore, Clause 31(2) (b) should be removed as we proposed in the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Faithful!: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I wonder whether the role of a social services committee and which Acts of Parliament it must administer has been fully recognised.

871
It is a question of accountability. For example, a social services committee is responsible for administer-ing the Adoption Act. Those of us who have worked in social services departments will know that all those who are applying to adopt a child and the children who are to be adopted are brought before a subcommittee of the social services committee. Is that to be left entirely in the hands of the officials? That cannot be right and that is not the way in which a social services department operates.
There are several other issues for which the committee is responsible. Social workers have a terrible responsibility in the field of child abuse. If there is no social services committee, who is accountable? Is it to be the social services staff? Who is to appoint them if there is no committee? It seems to me that it has not been fully recognised how the department operates.
There are various other spheres in which there is accountability. Social services committees are the links between the officers of the social services department and the people of the area. I give one example. In one area that I know it was proposed by the officers that all the old people's homes should be closed. Had there not been a social services committee to act as a link between the people of the area and the officers, what would have happened?
I feel very strongly about this issue, particularly because it means that the officers must carry the responsibility for matters for which they should not be ultimately responsible. They must feel that they have the support of the social services committee which represents the people of the area.
Furthermore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that Lord Seebohm would be appalled by this. Had he been here, he would certainly have spoken against the Government's proposal. It goes to the root of accountability of officers of a local authority. Why should they carry full responsibility when councillors have been elected to represent the people of the area? I support the amendment and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to accept it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I cannot accept the amendment. The intention behind Clause 31 is to allow local authorities in Wales the opportunity, which many have asked for, to experiment with alternative forms of political management within a framework provided by the existing system.
The Government believe that authorities wishing to experiment should be allowed to do so in circumstances which meet the criteria laid down in this clause. It is extremely important to note that, were an order made that Section 2 of the 1970 Act did not apply to the council, so that it was under no obligation to establish a social services committee, that would in no way diminish the obligation upon the local authority to provide the services; nor would it have the effect of casting the whole burden of responsibility for the provision of such services onto the officials.
Clause 31 contains a provision which has been very
872
carefully drafted. I shall be corrected if I am wrong but I believe that it is one of the few clauses in which, in subsection (4) one finds the words:
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless".
Therefore, the provision is not that where such and such appears to the Secretary of State, he shall make an order but, on the contrary, the higher test is laid down in the statute that:
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless … the council's decision making procedures as so altered will, in his opinion, produce (in relation to their functions) a satisfactory basis for organising",
and I ask your Lordships to note the following three words:
"efficient, effective and accountable local government for their area".
Therefore, there is no question of the Secretary of State making such an order unless he is satisfied that what is being proposed will provide efficient, effective and accountable local government.
For example, it may be possible— and this is purely hypothetical— to have a children's committee instead of a social services committee. Its members would be councillors, in the same way, but it would be responsible for dealing with all services affecting children. That may include adoption, education, other elements relating to social services, housing and so on as they touch upon the affairs of children. That may be a way in which such a service may be organised. I merely give that as a hypothetical example.
There is no question of the service not being provided; it would be. Not only is there a built-in safeguard of the reversed onus on the Secretary of State as provided in Clause 31(4) but, in addition, as has been recognised by noble Lords, such an order can be made only on the basis of an affirmative resolution. I believe that that is a true measure of the seriousness of the step. It is not a matter which the local authority can enter into lightly; it is not something which the Secretary of State would approve lightly; and I am sure that it is not something which Parliament would approve lightly.
We say that, where a scheme was proposed which met the kind of test laid down in subsection (4), then, in that situation, it should be possible for the council to proceed with such a scheme on an experimental basis. We should always bear in mind the fact that, if it proved against expectation to be unsatisfactory, the Secretary of State may revoke the scheme at any time in terms of subsection (5).
There are many safeguards built into the provision. When such safeguards are taken into account, I believe that the matter is adequately dealt with and that the provision in subsection (2) (b) is satisfactory.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I hesitate to inject myself into a Welsh debate, but I have a little Welsh ancestry which goes back a long way and which I hope entitles me to do so. I also have a little local government ancestry which is much more recent and which forces me to my feet to say that this is a monstrous proposal. It is sheer dogma. There is no other reason to put such a proposition before the House to remove the long-standing and traditional obligations of all local

873
government committees to be responsible in every way and in every particular for the decisions and the actions which are taken.
When I was in a responsible position in the City of Birmingham, I found myself in the Chancery Court on a matter such as this where Mr. Justice Vaisey, as he then was, held — to my regret, as we lost the case— that the City of Birmingham was one and indivisible. It was not possible for us to argue that one committee had powers which could be exercised in isolation from the powers of the city as a whole. Here, the Government are proposing to go much further than that in making a distinction between committees. As the noble Baroness and my noble friend on the Front Bench said, it is a proposal which states that officials can be allocated responsibility because— and I hope that I heard the noble and learned Lord correctly— that might be an experiment in management. Well, we are having too many such experiments in management at the expense of the democratic process. The proposal before us is yet another one.
In my view, and as a result of my experience, I do not believe that members of a local authority or of any social security committee can absolve themselves from responsibility for what they may choose to do in the exercise of the clause. If I am right, it means that, although we may have such an experiment in management, every one of their decisions must be reported to a local authority so that it can, if it wishes, exercise the obligations that it clearly has in law. Putting it at its most generous, that means another increase in bureaucracy because local authority members cannot absolve themselves of the ultimate responsibility for every decision.
That being the case, I hope that the Government will withdraw the proposal and think again. If they do not do so, I hope that my noble friend, who will probably not feel like testing the opinion of the House at this late hour will think it right to return to the matter at a later stage.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, for the sake of clarification, I simply add that the only proposal here is to permit councils not to have a particular committee. It does not say in any respect that the responsibility for that: will be devolved from the local authority to the officials. Of course, it will remain a question of the organisation of the local authority as to how those concerned wish to deal with it, whether by setting up, as I suggested, a children's committee or otherwise. It is only the provision that requires one specific committee to be included among the council's structures which is in issue.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cledwyn for his powerful speech, the noble Baroness. Lady Faithfull, and, of course, my noble friend Lord Howell. Notwithstanding the firm tenor of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I very much hope that the Secretary of State will ponder long and hard over the views that have been expressed this evening.
874
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the wide span of functions that are covered by the committee. Indeed, it covers 14 functions which are set out in 14 Acts of Parliament. That illustrates that social need is complex and that it can rarely be divided so that each part is satisfactorily dealt with by a separate service. However, as I understand it, the local authorities in Wales will be tempted to go down that route.
I was not aware— although, no doubt, it is my failing — that Welsh local authorities had applied for exemption from the 1970 Act. I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could let us have a list within the next few days of those local authorities which have requested such an exemption.
On these Benches, we are not prepared to agree that this is an area which is ripe for experimentation. Indeed, I am advised that there is already an accumulating body of evidence— and, no doubt, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will support this— which suggests that, where local authorities have experimented with structures deemed to be within the framework of the 1970 and 1972 Acts, it has, nevertheless, tended to make accountability lines more blurred and, as a result, services and staff morale have suffered.
As my noble friend Lord Howell quite rightly said, this is not the time for me to press the matter further. However, I am sure that either we in this House or my colleagues in another place will return to the clause to remove that subsection from the Bill. I can take the matter no further this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.73 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Decision making procedures of new principal councils: permanent provision]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.74:
Page 24, line 48, at end insert:
("() No application may be made under subsection (1) except on a resolution of the council concerned passed by a two-thirds majority of those voting at a meeting of the council specially convened for the purpose.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment follows the principle of a similar amendment in relation to Clause 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Funds]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.75:
Page 97, line 28, leave out ("This section'') and insert ("Subsection (2) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Section 62 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies where an authority has failed to set a new budget within 21 days after capping. Essentially, it prevents the authority from receiving council tax income until such time as it sets a new budget in accordance with the capping order. The new Welsh authorities will not have a collection fund or general fund. There would therefore be no transfer between the funds to which subsection (2)

875
could apply. It follows that subsection (2) would be irrelevant and is, therefore, disapplied by the amendment.
We had originally intended to disapply the whole of Section 62 on the basis that there would be no major precepting authorities in Wales. However, that element may now be relevant if, after police reorganisation, there are new-style police authorities which are major precepting authorities. In that situation they would precept on the council fund for their share of council tax income.
If a police authority were ever subject to capping, it would not be desirable for the unitary authorities in its area to be under a legal obligation to continue to pay a precept even when they knew that the police authority would have to issue a new, lower precept as a result of a capping order approved by the other place. I urge the House to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Transfers of staff]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No.75A:
Page 32, line 13, at end insert:
("() Nothing in this Act affects the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, in their application in relation to the transfer of an undertaking, or part of an undertaking, within the meaning of those Regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.75A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No.76 which covers much of the same ground. The two amendments have been grouped together. In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made it clear that the Government anticipate that a majority of the staff affected by this Bill will be accommodated through transfers. However, there still remains a minority for whom no such assurances were forthcoming. I argued in Committee that the transfer of all employees would be beneficial. There would be opportunity for redeployment and retraining of staff to cater for the needs of the new authorities. However, I withdrew my amendment at that time and said I would return with another one on Report designed to give the protection to which we think all staff are entitled. For this reason we have drafted an amendment which quite explicitly refers to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
This is an absolutely minimalist amendment which sets out what I believe to be the legal position anyway; namely, that nothing in the Bill can affect the operation of the TUPE regulations. In that case the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might ask why the amendment needs to be included in the Bill. It needs to be included because it is essential that the staff should know beyond doubt that they are entitled to the full protection available under the TUPE regulations and that those whose job it will be to administer the transitional and changeover arrangements will know it as well.
The amendments which were before the Chamber in Committee were rejected by the Government on the
876
grounds that the Bill as drafted would be better for the staff than the terms of our amendments. I must say, however, that the local authority associations, UNISON and the Wales TUC all hold views entirely to the contrary on this issue. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said that it was the Government's objective, as far as possible, to ensure that transfer arrangements should treat staff from counties and districts on a basis of equality. But how can this be unless all those who wish to transfer are given the opportunity of so doing? I believe that that was the procedure followed at the time of the previous reorganisation in 1974 and we do not understand why that precedent cannot now be followed. We feel therefore that it is absolutely necessary to spell out in this legislation that the TUPE regulations apply to all staff.
What are these regulations that were introduced in 1981 and then amended in 1993? Basically they are meant to ensure that workers do not lose out when their employer changes. When the regulations apply, the new employer takes over the liability in respect of the contracts of all employees who were employed by the previous employer immediately before the transfer, and of any person who would have been so employed if he had not been unfairly dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer. The new employer also takes over any collective agreement made on behalf of the employees which is in force immediately before the transfer, and also— this is very important— the recognition of independent trade unions so that the individuals are then assured of trade union representation.
The Welsh Office clearly thinks that TUPE applies, as in its guidance to the Staff Commission dated September 1993 it states:
"The Staff Commission will need to take account of TUPE in considering the general principles for the transfer of staff to the new authorities. Because it is the Government's intention that the vast majority of existing staff should transfer on their existing terms and conditions to the new authorities, the application or otherwise of TUPE should not prove to be a significant factor in the transfer of staff. The Staff Commission will nevertheless need to ensure that all staff who might claim to be covered by TUPE are transferred. This would minimise the risk of any legal challenge from staff who have not been transferred to the new authorities and claim that TUPE might have applied to them".
In other words, the Welsh Office is issuing a warning about the need to have a care lest legal actions might result designed to obtain rights for staff who might feel disadvantaged.
We would, of course, have preferred it had the amendment we put forward in Committee been accepted. We would have liked to make it clear that all staff would be transferred and for this to be stated unequivocally in the Bill. We did not succeed with that and therefore we have now returned with this amendment. I would point out that the Government were prepared to accept that TUPE should apply in legislation such as the Railways Act, which we discussed earlier this year. A similar form of wording appeared in the first draft of that Bill when it was discussed by your Lordships' House.
As I said earlier, Amendment No.76 is another attempt to write into the Bill some protection for individuals who could be adversely affected by the

877
reorganisation proposed in the Bill. We have put down these two amendments because we think that they present the Government with a choice as regards the kind of wording that would be most appropriate in the circumstances. In Amendment No.76 we have spelt out precisely who are the relevant employees to whom TUPE would apply. They are relevant if they are covered by Clause 41 of the Bill and that is fairly clear. However, they are also covered if immediately before 1st April 1996 they were in the service of an abolished body under a contract of employment which would have continued but for the abolition of that body. We believe that it is necessary for the avoidance of doubt to have some form of wording giving commitment to TUPE set out in the Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may feel he is able to accept either one or other of these amendments for the purposes of clarification if nothing else.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that in circumstances such as those created by a Bill of this kind with its radical restructuring, there is bound to be a sense of profound instability and insecurity among the staff concerned. There is also, perhaps regrettably, a lack of trust for various reasons which I need not go into here. Therefore it is necessary in our view to spell out that rights exist and that they will be honoured. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider these amendments seriously because, as my noble friend has pointed out, this is the second reorganisation of local government in Wales in a comparatively short period of time, and of course it will shortly apply to England as well. It is necessary that the staff of the existing authorities should be given an undertaking that they will be no worse off under the reorganised local government system than they are under the present one.
My noble friend mentioned that under the Railways Act employees were covered by the TUPE regulations. Of course employees have been covered by the TUPE regulations under many other privatisation Acts and I believe that local government employees cannot see why they should appear to be disadvantaged in the way they believe they are being disadvantaged by this Bill. Apparently the Minister will reply that the Bill makes the employees better off. However, the trade unions, including UNISON for whom I act as an adviser, are not convinced of this. They are convinced that the employees would be better covered under the TUPE regulations and by these amendments which have been moved this evening by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to show exactly how under this Bill the existing employees of local government will be better off than they would be if the Government accepted in their entirety the amendments which are before us now.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Government cannot accept the amendment. In practical and legislative terms the amendment is unnecessary
878
because, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will be very well aware, United Kingdom legislation cannot be inconsistent with binding provisions of European Community law. As the noble Lord will know, the TUPE regulations are the United Kingdom manifestation of the Acquired Rights Directive which applies to the United Kingdom as it does to the other member states. Directives are binding forms of legislation. It follows, therefore, that no provision in the United Kingdom statute book can affect the operation of the provisions of European law. In particular, if the TUPE regulations apply, nothing which is said in the statutes can take that right away.
As I said previously, the Government accept that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, there will be occasions when TUPE applies. That is because the kind of transfer which is envisaged is one to which the TUPE regulations apply. There will be other circumstances in which, because of the nature of the transfer and because it does not affect an economic unit which goes across an undertaking, TUPE will not apply. That is why in some cases it applies and in others it does not.
The scheme which we have here fulfils the requirements. It would have been possible for the Government simply to have said nothing and to have left the whole matter to rest upon the basis of TUPE. However, we have created a scheme which wall apply to the particular circumstances of these local government transfers. We believe that staff— who I accept must be worried about their position— will be able to look at the provisions in the statute and gain an understanding of what is proposed. If it had not been put in this form they would have had less certainty.
I reject the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness because it is not necessary to put such a provision into the statute books. Reference was made to the provision in the Railways Act, and I accept that a similar provision to that proposed by the noble Baroness applies in that case. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that the provision in that Act was made against the background of Section 93(1) of the Act which provided for the board to introduce schemes modifying the terms and conditions of employment of employees. In that situation it was thought desirable that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that any such provision was without prejudice to the provisions of TUPE.
Nothing of that nature appears in this case. We accept that where the provisions of TUPE apply under the reorganisation, nothing which is in the Bill will take away employees' existing rights.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords,1 note with interest what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. I am glad to note that he said that the scheme which has been created will give all the cover which TUPE provides, and more. However, the reason for putting this proposal forward for inclusion in the Bill was our feeling that it was necessary to give staff assurances that they would be properly protected and looked after. Indeed, Amendment No.76 states:
"For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply in relation to relevant employees of the abolished bodies".

879
In other words, we wanted to spell out for people who are worried about their future that the legislation made it clear that they would have all the protection that was available to them under the TUPE regulations.
I repeat what I said when I moved the amendment. If by any chance people feel that they are being disadvantaged there will be problems associated with issues being taken to the courts and perhaps even to the European Court of Justice if anybody feels that they ought to have had the protection of TUPE but it has not been afforded to them by whatever scheme is created by the Government.
I realise that there is not much point in pressing the amendments at this stage of the evening, and I shall take away and consider what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had to say. He gave certain assurances, for which I am grateful, that the provisions of TUPE will certainly apply. I am sure that the unions, which have been watching the progress of this Bill with a great deal of interest, will study those assurances with great application. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.76 not moved]
Clause 42 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No.77:
Page 32, line 21, at end insert ("details of which as they apply to staff affected by this Act will be available by 30th September 1994 and will be the same regulations as applied to staff affected by the Local Government Act 1985.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.77 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.78,78A,80 and 81, with which the amendment has been grouped.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I touched briefly on the matter of compensation for staff who find themselves without employment following the restruc-turing envisaged in this Bill. Where staff are made redundant by reason of reorganisation or where they suffer a reduction in pay or conditions it is necessary that they should receive some compensation. Obviously, change cannot be effectively managed unless staff who would not have a role in the new organisation can be offered encouragement to find roles elsewhere. The Government must make early decisions on such matters so that authorities and individuals can plan on the basis of some certainty.
I understand that, based on a decision in the case of North Tyneside v. Allsop, the Department of the Environment suggests that authorities should be given the discretion to pay a severance payment of up to 66 weeks' pay less any redundancy pay to which the employee may be entitled. That would also apply to employees over the age of 50 who are entitled to an immediate pension as early retirees. I am informed that the unions representing the staff regard those suggestions as unacceptable. They believe that there should be consistent treatment between staff and therefore would like to see a mandatory scheme for all staff linked to age and length of service. For those under
880
the age of 50 they point out that the proposals are less generous than those which applied at the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan authorities.
Many senior staff so affected may not be able to find a new job easily in Wales. The unions ask (and we included this in the amendment) that as a minimum the 1986 regulations should also apply in Wales. The 1986 regulations provided for the maximum added years to apply to those over the age of 50 who are entitled to an immediate pension. They also provided for a doubling of the redundancy payment to those with five years' continuous local government service with no entitlement to an immediate pension and gave such staff aged 41 and over an additional four weeks' pay for each year of service after the age of 41. The maximum payment was 82 weeks' pay for those under 50.
The unions believe that a scheme of that kind would be greatly beneficial to the achievement of a smooth transition in Wales. Incidentally, it is my understanding that civil servants made redundant can receive a maximum payment of 156 weeks' pay, nearly twice that provided for in the 1986 regulations to which I referred.
Perhaps I may also speak to the other amendments in this group standing in my name. The purpose of Amendments Nos.78 and 78A is also to deal with the question of people whose contracts are frustrated. It will perhaps be recalled that when the Bill was debated in Committee I specifically asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate what would happen in the case of people who are in the minority who will not be transferred and whose contracts are said to have been frustrated (cols.773 and 774 of Hansard for 20th January applies). I expressed concern about the so-called frustration believing the term ordinarily to be used when a contact had been frustrated through illness or imprisonment. I had not heard of it being applied in circumstances where the employer no longer existed or because of a transfer of the kind envisaged in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies asked (at col.774 of Hansard) whether the position of such employees would be precisely that of a redundant employee with all the rights that entails. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made it clear that he would not go so far as that. Notification of redundancy, for example, would not apply. I must say that we were not happy with that answer. Our amendment seeks to ensure that any employee faced with possible loss of employment has the same rights and protection as an employee made redundant in other circumstances. Our amendment spells out precisely what those rights are and the statutes in which they are contained.
Thus under our amendment there would be an entitlement to notification, to redundancy payments, and to sue for unfair dismissal at an industrial tribunal if it were thought to be the case of wrongful selection for redundancy. There would also have to be proper consultation with the unions as set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.
That would at least afford some protection to employees who otherwise might be left in limbo as a result of the so-called frustration doctrine. It takes into account the statements made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at col.774.
The Government should understand that if they persist in taking the view that contracts of employment are somehow frustrated, and this takes such contracts outside the ambit of protective legislation, thus denying employees the right to redundancy legislation on the statute book, they and the local authorities could well have to contend with a great deal of aggravation from discontented staff members and their unions— unions, moreover, which in the past have shown willingness to take cases into the courts and to pursue such cases with vigour, even so far as to the ECJ if that appears to be worthwhile. They have the resources, the energy and the commitment to do so.
I tell the Government and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that it simply is not worth it. If, as they say, we are simply talking about a small minority, why not accept the amendment and the propositions contained in it, which we contend are fair and reasonable? I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the first point I make is that the arrangements envisaged for compensation apply throughout Great Britain. That involves the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment. Compensation for local government reorganisation cannot be dealt with solely by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Those issues are being considered carefully at present.
It is also important to recognise that the Government have proposed increasing the maximum redundancy payment which local authorities may make from 30 weeks' to 66 weeks' pay in certain circumstances. That proposal provides a framework within which compensation arrangements for local government reorganisation may be considered further in the light of the discussions with local government officers in Wales and elsewhere.
The first of the amendments of the noble Baroness would apply to the reorganisation of the compensation regulations which applied when the metropolitan counties were abolished. I recognise that those regulations allowed redundancy payments of up to 82 weeks' pay in certain circumstances. However, as she indicated, I understand that the local authority associations and the management board have submitted draft proposals for compensation which would keep within the 66 weeks' limit. Those are of course only draft proposals at this stage. However, the Government will be considering those and all other representations which they receive before they announce their own proposals.
Perhaps I may give some indication. The Government are considering whether or not the early retirement scheme should be enhanced and expanded; and whether or not there should be detriment compensation for staff whose pay is cut as a result of the reorganisation. Your Lordships would of course expect the Government to consider the financial implications of such arrangements very carefully.
The amendment seeks to have the details of the compensation arrangements available by 30th September. I accept on behalf of the Government that it is important that staff should know as soon as possible
882
what arrangements are likely to be made. The Government intend to finalise their own proposals in the autumn of this year and will consult on those proposals before then. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Baroness that the Government are giving serious and urgent consideration to the compensation arrangements.
Some mention was made of the position on pensions for those under 50 years. Again, the Government are aware that comparatively few staff in Welsh local authorities will be aged 50 or over at the time of reorganisation. Therefore, they are giving careful consideration to the options, including the suggestion that staff aged between 45 and 50 in 1996 should have the option of receiving a redundancy payment immediately and their pension when they reach the age of 50. However, I cannot give a commitment about the outcome of those deliberations, which continue at present.
The noble Baroness also spoke to her other amendments. Clause 43 of the Bill is not novel. Indeed, it follows the precedent of Section 59 of the Local Government Act 1985. We would expect Clause 43 to be relevant only to a minority of staff. Ft provides explicitly for them to receive a redundancy payment. As I outlined in Committee, the staff concerned will know before 1st April 1996 how the reorganisation is to affect them because we envisage that staff transfer orders would be published in draft in November 1995 and would be made in February 1996. There would be full consultations between the present and new councils, the trade unions and the staff commission about the content of those transfer orders.
As a matter of good practice, the Government would expect the authorities which are being abolished to inform staff properly as to how the abolition would affect them and to explain what options are available to them. That is a matter on which the staff commission could be asked to advise.
Having said all that, the Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are well aware of the very strong feelings which exist in connection with all these matters. My right honourable friend will have to take into account the views which have been expressed forcefully today. He will wish to consider those along with all the other views. He will wish to take account of the views which may be expressed in another place. If I cannot say more at Third Reading, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will give more information at Second Reading in another place.
A number of detailed matters were raised by the noble Baroness. I know that she attaches considerable importance to them. I believe that it would be best if I write to her on those points.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his constructive response to my amendments. I am glad that there will be full consultation with the unions about the scheme. I am glad, too, that it may be possible to return at Third Reading with more information. Such information will certainly be valuable at Second Reading in another place.

883
I am glad that the strong points put forward by myself and my noble friends on behalf of the staff have been taken on board by the Government and that there is an appreciation of the deep anxiety which staff are bound to feel in any situation where they face the radical restructuring indicated in the proposed legislation. Having listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord said, I have made some fairly extensive notes, but I shall look with interest at the report in Hansard.I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Redundancy payments]:
[Amendments Nos.78 and 78A not moved.]
[Amendment No.79 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos.80 and 81 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Committees of existing councils for consideration of certain matters]:
[Amendment No.82 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No.83:
Page 34, line 15, at end insert:
("() In making any determination under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall secure that the number of persons who represent county councils is equal to the number who represent district councils.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, moved an amendment identical to Amendment No.82 during Committee and withdrew it after I explained that the Government understood the concern that both tiers of the existing structure should be equally represented, if the Secretary of State had to determine the membership of a transition committee.
I undertook to:
"consider the matter further and return with our own proposal at Report".
I draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No.83 which will achieve exactly the same purpose as Amendment No.82. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for having tabled Amendment No.83 on behalf of the Government. It fully meets the anxieties conveyed to us by the local authority associations.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No.83A:
Page 34, line 28, at end insert:
("(OA) Each transitional committee shall, before the specified date, prepare and publish in relation to the implementation of the Welsh Language Act 1993 in its area—

(a) a survey of existing facilities or arrangements for treating the English and Welsh languages on the basis of equality in the conduct of business of the Council in its area; and

(b) a statement indicating

(i) the under-provision in the existing facilities and arrangements in its area; and

(ii) the steps already in progress or proposed by the transitional committee to correct the situation.

(I B) In subsection (1 A) "specified date" means a date, not later than 31st December 1995, specified in a direction given in writing by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we on these Benches are anxious that the objects of the Welsh Language Act 1993 should become a reality as soon as possible. Unfortunately, by the end of this year, owing to
884
reorganisation, council members and officials through-out Wales will have their minds on many matters, apart from the implementation of the Welsh Language Act. Indeed, those councils will cease to exist from 31st March 1996 and the new councils will be operative from 4th April 1996.
The fear is that the pace of the implementation of the Welsh Language Act 1993 will inevitably slow down. The purpose of the amendment is to point out that an early start has to be made on the programme of work leading to the formulation of the language schemes. We believe that there should be a lead responsibility on the transitional committees to prepare an up-to-date statement setting out what provisions ought to be made, to be approved later on by the Welsh Language Board, so that the successor authority can proceed to implement the Act expeditiously and smoothly.
As I understand it, the transitional committee will come into existence after the Bill has been enacted or possibly even earlier. But the shadow councils will not be fully operative until about September or October 1995. That is why we believe that the transitional committee should undertake the preparatory work.
There is just one question which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord of which I have given him notice. We believe that it would be a well-received contribution if the Government or the Welsh Office were to agree to make available a Welsh language version of this important Bill immediately after it has been enacted. The production of such a Bill would be a practical manifestation of the principle of equality.
There is ample precedent for that. Your Lordships will know that the Welsh Language Act 1993 has itself been produced in Welsh. But that is not the only precedent; the Local Government Act 1888 was translated into Welsh, although I am not sure which department was responsible for the translation. However, I am in a position to provide confirmatory evidence of its existence, so I hope that the Minister can make a satisfactory response to my request. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word in support of my noble friend's eloquent case for the amendment. In the public sector the Welsh Language Act requires the Welsh Language Board to supervise the implementation of the principle that, in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales, the English and Welsh languages will be treated on the basis of equality. Some noble Lords will remember how hard fought was the phrase "the basis of equality" when we brought the Welsh Language Bill before the House some while ago. That was because feeling was very strong in Wales and we had as our duty to represent that feeling. It is still there.
The Welsh Language Board will do its work by assisting public bodies to prepare schemes. The proposed reorganisation of local government presents an opportunity for the new authorities to adopt bilingual policies from the very outset.
In effect, the amendment allows the bodies to do what, in the good old purple of the grammar schools, we would have called "homework". Those of your

885
Lordships who were underprivileged and attended public schools would, I believe, have referred to it as "prep". We do not ask for the transitional committee to take decisions or to implement the requirements of the Welsh Language Act but simply, like St John the Baptist, to prepare the way: to make straight in the desert a highway for the new authorities. All we ask for is a "survey" and a "statement", purely factual matters.
The amendment would also provide— if the Government could look kindly on it— what I might call an 'earnest of seriousness" on the matter of the Welsh language. We know already that some counties and districts are Well advanced in the preparation of language schemes. Others, we suspect, are not. The Welsh Language Board might greatly benefit from knowing which areas most urgently need its help. So far as I can see, there is no compelling reason to wait to start work on Welsh language schemes. There is every reason to get on with the job, and this amendment will help to do precisely that.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Government envisage that as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will issue formal guidance to transition committees on the preparatory work to be undertaken to ensure that the new unitary authority will be ale to function and to deliver services effectively from 1st April 1996. As your Lordships are aware, the guidance has already been issued in draft form to all existing local authorities in Wales. The guidance will include advice on the role of the transition committees in relation to the preparation of Welsh Language schemes by the new authorities. That aspect of the advice is not yet complete, largely because the formal guidelines as to the form and content of Welsh language schemes which the Welsh Language Board will prepare and issue under the Welsh Language Act 1993 are not yet available. In the meantime, I understand that the Welsh Language Board is happy to advise on the use of Welsh by public bodies.
The current draft guidance already makes provision "at the very least' for transition committees to:
"identify any schemes of existing authorities which have been approved under the 1993 Act".
That is, the Welsh Language Act. We would certainly expect committees to look at the use of Welsh across the whole range of local authority business and that the information would be included in the information made available to the new authorities. We do not, however, believe that it is desirable or necessary to impose a specific requirement upon the transition committees to undertake a special survey of just one aspect of activity when we want the committees to consider all issues of service delivery.
With regard to the second part of the amendment, we feel that a requirement for a formal statement about under-provision and remedial steps on the part of the transition committee would be inappropriate. To some extent that seems to pre-empt the functions of the Welsh Language Board, and particularly its relationships with the local authorities, both the old ones and the new ones.
We believe that it would be inappropriate to impose upon transition committees a requirement that they take what would be no more than judgmental views when
886
other courses of action might be more constructive. That is not to say that the transition committee should not have a role in considering the provisional Welsh language facilities. Our belief is that it does have a valid role, and that is vindicated and established by the inclusion of this matter in the guidance.
We feel, however, that it is a matter where a degree of flexibility is advantageous to allow the transition committees to recommend such steps as may be necessary in consultation with the Welsh Language Board. Of course, any action will be for the new unitary authorities themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had the great courtesy to forewarn me of his point in relation to the possibility of having a text in Welsh of this particular Bill. My understanding is that the 1888 Act was a private publication, and the Welsh Language Act was published in Welsh by the Welsh Office and not by Parliament officially.
There are a number of practical difficulties in the way of such a publication. It would be a matter of requiring the most careful legal and technical translation. One particular matter seems at first sight rather to tell against the advantage of translating this Bill. Noble Lords will have been aware as we have gone through the Bill that to a very large extent it amends existing local government legislation. In effect, therefore, one would have this particular Bill in Welsh amending other Bills which are available only in English. For those reasons it may be that the scheme is not as attractive even to those who put the idea forward as it might at first sight have seemed. But I am able to tell noble Lords that in the light of the matter having been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I made the point to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and the Welsh Office is considering the matter further.
8 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful once again to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his general response to the amendment. I hope, nevertheless, that the transitional committee will pay attention to the wording of our amendment. I do not propose to press it any further, but I am pleased that the transitional committee is taking the matter on board. I very much hope that it will proceed to take the preliminary steps before the statutory guidelines are approved by Parliament.
Turning to my request for a Welsh language version of the Bill, I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. I do not believe that the difficulties are insurmountable. I must say that the idea is still attractive to me. I would be quite prepared, as I believe would many of us, to draw the line at 1993, and not ask the Government or the department to produce Welsh language versions of the 20 or so Acts which are mentioned in the Bill. We are quite prepared to draw the line at 1993. I would have thought that that should be acceptable to the Government. We have been told repeatedly by Ministers, and indeed by the Prime Minister himself, that from 1993 Welsh has official status for the conduct of public business. As I said earlier, one practical means of acknowledging that

887
status would be to produce the Welsh language text of this very important piece of legislation. I take the matter no further this evening, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.84 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No.85:
Page 38, line 33, at end insert:
("(j) any grants made to voluntary organisations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No.85. I would also speak to Amendment No.85A if I had the foggiest idea why the two amendments have been grouped together. It may be that there is some arcane, mysterious reason which has defeated me. If there is, I beg leave simply to talk to Amendment No.85 and find out about it later.
The purpose of Amendment No.85 is to ensure that voluntary organisations in receipt of funds from local government at 31st March 1996 which would normally have been expected to continue into their 1996– 97 financial year are protected for a year from being forced to close down their activities as a result of the reorganisation process. That is the purpose of the amendment. I wish to support it with no less than five powerful arguments.
First, grant aid to voluntary organisations is particularly vulnerable under the proposals to reorganise local government. There is no obligation on the new principal councils to continue annual grants which end on 31st March 1996.
Secondly, there are many grant aided projects and posts which support the voluntary sector's involvement in local authority activities— in areas such as community care, children's services and the youth service. Very often these are funded through joint arrangements involving district and county councils and central government. Many of them will cross over the new council boundaries.
Thirdly, human nature being what it is, the new councils will understandably concentrate on setting up their own statutory services and may be very hard pressed to set up new funding arrangements for voluntary sector projects before 1st April 1996.
Fourthly, many voluntary organisations, particularly those with cross-boundary projects, may well find themselves forced to shut down their activities because new funding arrangements have not been agreed in time. Such projects would be very costly to replace.
Fifthly, this amendment places a responsibility on the new council to ensure that grant aid to voluntary organisations continues for a period of one year at 1996 level with appropriate inflationary increases. That period is short enough to allow a new authority to go its own way and long enough to permit the voluntary organisation to seek support elsewhere if it is under threat.
Those are five powerful, persuasive points which must surely melt the noble and learned Lord's stony heart— or that of the noble Viscount, or whoever has the
888
job of answering— and compel him to concede that this harmless amendment will simply improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. This country owes much to the voluntary organisations. Many local authorities, and particularly the social services departments, could not do without the voluntary organisations. It would send up the cost of rates if local authorities did not use them. If such organisations cannot keep their budget within the money that is allotted, they have to close down under the laws of charity. Therefore, if they cannot subscribe to the charity laws, they have to close down if the local authorities do not make it possible for them to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made that point.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of making one other point. Under the Education Act and under the children and young persons Acts, very often treasurers try to beg those in the education and social services departments in local authorities to take a cheaper voluntary organisation rather than what is best for the child. I hope that in future we may take what is best for the child and not be dominated by the treasurer's department saying that it cannot be afforded. At the end of the day that proves to be the worst way out and the most expensive.
Lord Rodger of Earisferry: My Lords, I stress that the Bill does not alter the statutory basis of local authority support for the voluntary sector. The giving of grants will continue, as it is now, to be discretionary. However, it may be that the new authorities initially will wish to continue their predecessors' policies.
The Bill provides voluntary organisations with the means to influence the decisions of the shadow authorities. In the first instance they can make contact with the transition committees to be established under Clause 45 of the Bill. The Secretary of State's draft guidance to those committees published last December invites the committees to identify existing support for the voluntary sector and to propose a strategy for their future development. The Welsh Office has given its support to a booklet called Towards Shared Aims, which sets out practical arrangements for developing links between local authorities and voluntary organisations.
Once the new authorities are elected, voluntary organisations should make contact with them and press their case. Organisations will have the opportunity to see the draft service delivery plans and to ensure that they address their needs. They will also be in a position to make representations about them.
Where an abolished authority has a funding agreement which takes the form of a contract and which extends beyond 31st March 1996, it is a liability which will be transferred by order under Clause 52(2) (c) to the appropriate new authority or authorities.
Subsections (4) and (5) (a) of Clause 51 already provide for a funding decision taken by an abolished authority but not put fully into effect to be treated as having been taken by an appropriate new authority. Thus, where a grant for the financial year 1995– 96 had not been paid in full by 31st March 1996 and the voluntary organisation had met any conditions for the

889
grant to be paid, the balance of the grant would be a liability which would be transferred under Clause 52 again.
Having said that, what the legislation cannot do, and I believe should not do, is to create liabilities where none exists. If an authority has every year taken a decision to give an organisation a grant for the coming financial year, an expectation of funding may have been created, but there will not be any "concrete" liability which could be transferred under Clause 52. As I said, it will be a matter for the particular organisation to make its case to the new authority.
In the Government's view the amendment is unnecessary because it would not add to the scope of Clause 51 and not add to the powers that are available under Clause 52. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, that is a most disappointing and saddening response to the powerful arguments which I deployed, which were supported by what I suddenly realised were even more powerful arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that I wish I had thought of myself.
The noble and learned Lord said that the Bill does not alter the status quo. Quite so, exactly and precisely. We want it to alter the status quo. We want it to do just that. We want it to alter things and safeguard this vital sector, which plays such an enormous part in partnership with local authorities in the activity of funding social improvement. It places the onus of begging for help back on the charities yet again. Why not? Vice versa, why should the onus not for once just for a short time be on the fly-by-night transition committees which are here today and gone tomorrow? No great terror would be introduced into the legislative heart by a small act of charity of that kind.
The noble and learned Lord told us that an existing contract would be a liability. Any existing contract is a liability. That is ore of the things that a contract is. That gives us absolutely nothing. He has offered us nothing but crumbs of comfort— small crumbs and very stale bread, if I may say so.
But at this hour of the night I should not be successful were I to divide the House. However, I am not a bit pleased with what the noble and learned Lord has had to offer me. I shall take advice and I shall read carefully what he said. I may very well wish to come back at a later stage, suitably allied with other noble Lords from all sides of the House, and take a much sterner view of this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 [Existing joint boards and committees and port health districts]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No.85A:
Page 44, line 39, leave out from ("before") to end of line 40 and insert ("1st April 1996.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to define "existing" joint boards and committees and port health authorities for the
890
purposes of this clause as those which exist immediately before the implementation date of 1st April 1996. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Regulations, orders and directions.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No.85B:
Page 46, line 11, leave out ("or"),
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to the second manuscript amendment standing in my name. Perhaps I may refer your Lordships to Clause 59 of the Bill (page 46, line 11). My first amendment, Amendment No.85B, is to Clause 59(3) and is designed to delete the word "or" after "31(1)". My second amendment, Amendment No.85C, is designed to insert after "32(1)" the words "or 52(1)". The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that orders made under Clause 52(1) are subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament rather than the negative procedure as at present.
Perhaps I may now refer your Lordships to the orders that I have in mind (at page 39 of the Bill, Clause 52(1)). That passage is worth reading because it allows the Secretary of State to:
"make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient—

(a) for the general purposes, or any particular purpose of this Act or in consequence of any of its provisions or for giving full effect to it; or

(b) in consequence of such of the provisions of any other Act passed in the same Session as this Act as apply to any area or authority affected by this Act".

In other words, the Secretary of State is being given authority, if the Bill passes as drafted, to change primary legislation.
That matter was studied by your Lordships' Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers. I refer your Lordships to the second report of that committee where, at page 4, the committee states quite clearly:
"In view of this extension of the delegated power to supplemental provision, and of the Welsh Office's admission … that the power could be used 'in potentially far reaching ways', we urge the House to consider whether or not the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in this case"
In moving the amendment I am giving the House an opportunity to consider whether or not the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate in this case. There are two reasons why I believe it to be more appropriate. First, my general view is that Henry VIII clauses such as this should be, in so far as possible, designed to make an affirmative procedure mandatory on any Secretary of State who wishes to change primary legislation by order. Secondly, as a House we set up a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It produced its second report, in which it went through the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill at considerable length and with a great deal of authority. This is the only one where it says affirmative rather than negative procedure should be used. It says that there is some justification for all the others.
I believe, therefore, that the House should he given an opportunity to agree with the scrutiny committee when it recommends that the powers given to the

891
Secretary of State under Clause 52(1) should be the subject of affirmative rather than negative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, with the utmost force at my command. The hour is late; the Chamber is empty and it is therefore very much a matter of honour on the part of the Government. Quite plainly, affirmative resolution procedure ought to be available if primary legislation is to be altered by a Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave two main reasons and the second was that the scrutiny committee was the only committee proposed by the Jellicoe Committee about which the Government expressed reservations. Of course they did. The last thing they want is to have their processes of delegated legislation scrutinised. Far better would be to shrug off, as they have for so long, the increasing anxiety of your Lordships' House, which was mentioned and, indeed, was the mainspring of the recommendation of the Jellicoe Committee and again of the Rippon Committee, which was only given initially a probationary role.
It is no use our setting up the scrutiny committee at the outset of the Session if the Executive is going to try, late at night, in an empty Chamber, with the Chief Whip having his troops on the reverse slope, to disregard what it draws to our attention.
There are two other reasons why I venture to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. The first is that the negative procedure is quite innocuous from the point of view of the Government. In the other place the negative resolution notices are, more often than not, not reached at all; time runs out before they can reach the Order Paper. In addition to that, your Lordships, by convention— not a very strong convention, but one that the Government strongly rely upon— do not, as a matter of practice, vote against a statutory instrument. Therefore, more often than not the negative procedure gives the Government a perfectly clear run.
The second reason is that the affirmative procedure is parliamentarily so advantageous. On the affirmative resolution procedure the Minister, at the outset, explains what the regulations are and what they are designed to do. He then moves them. On the other hand, in the negative procedure, there is a scrappy debate and the Minister only replies at the end. If one is going to take parliamentary control of legislation at all seriously, this is eminently a case where the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, should be accepted.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Government have considered the whole matter extremely carefully, not only in the light of what was said by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in its report, but also in the light of what was said by noble Lords at the Committee stage of the Bill.
Let me say straight away that I believe that much of the anxiety, particularly of the scrutiny committee, about this matter may have arisen because of the words
892
used in the Welsh Office memorandum to the scrutiny committee. If noble Lords note, they will see that one of the factors referred to by the Committee was that,
"an order under this clause may involve amendment to legislation and can be used in potentially far reaching ways".
That choice of words was, frankly, unfortunate. It was an inappropriate choice of words. I realise that it may well have caused considerable inconvenience to the scrutiny committee and I apologise for putting it in that way. I say that the form of words was unfortunate because it is open to misinterpretation and does not reflect the Government's intention, the existing practice in the use of such powers or, indeed, the legal position.
I inquired into the matter and I understand that it was intended that the memorandum should convey that the provisions could affect a wide-ranging nature of provisions. In other words, the local government reorganisation could touch a wide-ranging nature of provisions but that those widely scattered provisions could only be affected in minor ways. With your Lordships' permission I shall elaborate upon those points.
The first point to stress is that the powers contained in Clause 52 can be used only for matters arising in consequence of local government reorganisation. Your Lordships will see that the Bill is already a complex piece of drafting which refers to many statutes across a wide range of subjects. That is inevitable given the type of material with which we are dealing. The Bill already contains many provisions which are in effect incidental, consequential or supplemental to the main purpose of the Bill. As your Lordships would expect, much of that material is found in the schedules to the Bill. It is anticipated that in the detailed work of implementation which will follow the passing of the Bill other examples of a similar kind may be identified. Some minor, mechanical point may need to be addressed and it may be that supplemental provision needs to be made to complete the legislative jigsaw. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be regrettable in the extreme and would be hardly understood if the smooth working of local government were seen to be held up because of some minor point which had not been foreseen but for which a practical solution had plainly to be put in place. It is for that kind of matter that this power in Clause 52 has been provided. It is against that background that the whole matter has to be considered.
I stress to your Lordships that there are many precedents for a power of this kind being included in legislation. The scrutiny committee recognised that. Powers of this kind have been included in legislation on local government at least as far back as the Acts of 1929 and 1958. Similar powers are also to be found in Section 9(8) of the National Health Service Act 1946. These powers have always been used in the narrow way in which I have explained them. Indeed, despite our best researches, it has been found difficult to find specific examples of uses of the power which can be clearly said to be, for example, supplemental as such. That is because the powers are invariably taken together in their modern formulation of incidental, consequential, transitional and supplemental. What might be envisaged as "supplemental" would be the possibility of a

893
requirement for some kind of public notice to be deposited at the district council's principal office under the Act; but with the advent of areas which are larger than existing districts, it might be appropriate to introduce a supplemental requirement for such a notice also to be deposited at local offices within a new area. That is the kind of thing we have in mind.
The final matter is to have regard to the legal position. This is an important point. The vires of the provision are drawn very narrowly. Judges have stressed the ancillary nature of the provision. The late Lord Dilhorne, in a speech in the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, in the case of Daymond v. the South West Water Authority, said that,
"supplemental means something added to what is in the Act to fill in details of machinery for which the Act itself does not provide".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene as he raises a legal point. It is true that when a word appears in an Act of Parliament it falls for determination by judicial decision, and Lord Dilhorne expressed himself on the occasion that the noble and learned Lord cites. But it is utterly different when the words appear in a statutory instrument. It is that with which we are concerned. If the word "supplemental" were used as authority for a wide-ranging, to use the department's own expression, exercise of power in a statutory instrument, the courts could not intervene because the instrument would have been passed by Parliament and intervention would infringe Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will at least agree with that.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I very much regret that I cannot agree, partly because I think that the noble and learned Lord has not given the full context within which Lord Dilhorne was speaking. He was speaking about the scope of the power to make a supplemental order. The words did not come within the terms of an order but the words being construed were the words of a statute which gave a power. Lord Dilhorne was saying that supplemental means something,
"added to what is in the Act to fill in details of machinery for which the Act itself does not provide— supplementary in the sense that it is required to implement what was in the Act".
It was in that sense that Lord Dilhorne was speaking.
That statement of law has been cited and followed in a number of subsequent cases. It follows that the power in Clause 52(1)— the controlling part of Clause 52— can be exercised only within strict limits. If the Secretary of State strayed beyond them, any resulting order, whether or not passed by Parliament, would be ultra vires and could be struck down by the High Court in appropriate proceedings.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord still has not explained how that is compatible with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it is perfectly compatible with Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to decide whether or not the exercise of a particular power has been ultra vires or intra vires. I add that I am
894
for my part happy to give the House an undertaking that the Secretary of State will use his powers to make supplemental provisions only as envisaged by Lord Dilhorne in that speech; that is, to fill in details of machinery for which the Act does not provide.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. What would the Secretary of State lose by accepting the amendment?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the amendment would subject all orders under Clause 52(1) to the provisions of the affirmative resolution procedure. It would seem to me that that procedure, which is valuable in its appropriate sphere, is not thought to be appropriate for the kinds of matters which here are simply defined as incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental. If the House were to go down the route of saying that all these orders had to be subject to the affirmative resolution, your Lordships would face the prospect of having all kinds of minor and trivial orders, perhaps dealing with the transfer of a single piece of property, subjected to the whole machinery of the affirmative procedure. I cannot believe that your Lordships would think that that was the best use of the time of the House or that it would be appropriate.
The Government have recognised that in other areas the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate. We say that it would not be appropriate to introduce that procedure for the kinds of orders which are envisaged in Clause 52. While I accept that to some extent the blame for this matter lies with the memorandum which was submitted to the committee, nonetheless I hope that, with the fuller explanation which I have been able to give to your Lordships and because of the respect in which the Committee is held, among other things, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he concentrate for a moment on Clause 52(1) (b) which deals with the Secretary of State being able to make provisions,
"in consequence of such of the provisions of any other Act passed in the same Session as this Act as apply to any area or authority affected by this Act"?
I am asking the question for information purposes. Does that provision give the Secretary of State power if, for instance, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill comes out at the end of the parliamentary sausage machine with a different area of authorities for the police? Does that give power to the Secretary of State to change the boundaries of the principal councils?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I shall have to take away that precise question. But the general position is that it can only be something which was consequential, transitional or supplementary in the sense in which I have given it. It is certainly the case that where there was such a consequential change to be made in the light of the police Act Clause 52(1) (b) would provide the authority for it. I do not think that it will provide the authority which the noble Lord envisages. It seems to me that that would fall beyond the scope which he has in mind. I would prefer to write to him on the question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that he recognises that this is a point of some substance. It is not my intention to divide the House at this hour. We have to read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord has said. However, I must tell him that I regard the opinions of the scrutiny committee of your Lordships' House as being of the highest importance. Whether or not it was misled by the memorandum from the Welsh Office which was couched— to use the noble and learned Lord's words— "in inappropriate language" (in other words, it means it was a duff memorandum) I do not know. We shall have to see. I would like to consult with the chairman of the scrutiny committee to see what he thought about it.
I wish to assure the noble and learned Lord that I and my colleagues on these Benches will read what he has said in great detail. But I shall be tabling a similar amendment at Third Reading to allow your Lordships to take a considered view because I do not believe that a second report from the scrutiny committee should just be cast aside without your Lordships having an opportunity to take a view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.85C not moved.]
[Amendment No.86 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.87:
Page 46, line 20, leave out ("consequential or transitional") and insert ("or consequential").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos.86,88 and 89. But the two latter amendments raise quite different points. With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak to Amendment No.87 separately because it raises a point of very great constitutional importance.
The purpose and effect of the amendment is to remove the word "transitional" from the subsection which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has read. In effect, it is a probing amendment and as such desirably it should have been moved in Committee. It was not because the point has arisen since the Committee stage of the Bill. I have given the noble and learned Lord notice of the point I am going to raise. To some extent it overlaps what we discussed as regards the previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
I say this because it affects this amendment as well as the other: to some extent I suppose that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I were speaking in legal code. I mentioned Article 9 of the Bill of Rights when I questioned whether the courts could possibly say that a statutory instrument which had been passed by both Houses of Parliament was ultra vires. As your Lordships know, that very famous article declares that proceedings in Parliament shall not be questioned out of Parliament. That meant primarily at that time and today questioning courts of law.
That overlaps the matter of "transitional". In relation to the last amendment and this, your Lordships are
896
concerned with the age-long tension between Parliament and the Executive as to who shall legislate. It goes back to the Statute of Proclamation under Henry VIII, hence we talk still of the Henry VIII clause. It was the staple of constitutional conflict under the Stuarts and was finally resolved for a long time at what we still call the Glorious Revolution— "glorious" because it established the right of Parliament to legislate as against the pretensions of the Stuart kings to legislate by proclamation or other edict or order. So that is the background— the tension between Parliament and the Executive as to who is to legislate.
This particular matter arose specifically in relation to regulations made under the Child Support Act. Before that perhaps I may quote generally from a very able statement in a research paper in the Library of the other place on the deregulation Bill:
"there continues to be concern expressed at the volume and nature of delegated legislation".
Then an example is given in a special report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It goes on to say:
"In a letter to the Leaders of both Houses the chairman of the committee"—
a very highly regarded chairman—
"said that 'instead of simply implementing the "nuts and bolts" of Government policy, statutory instruments have increasingly been used to change policy, sometimes in ways that were not envisaged when the enabling primary legislation was passed—.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind particularly that passage.
The matter arose in the following way under the Child Support Act. What that Act did was to remove the power to adjudicate on child maintenance from magistrates' courts. They had previously exercised that function in conjunction with their power to adjudicate on wife maintenance, taking account of local conditions and the infinite complexity of situations where there were two families to support. That jurisdiction was vested in officials who applied a formula which nobody claimed to understand.
As your Lordships know, when that Act came into force the application of the formula by officials of the Child Support Agency raised a storm of protest. Members of the other place said that the volume of the correspondence they received was the biggest since the poll tax. Two situations arose. The first was where the Act had already had an impact; that is, where officers had applied the formula and made an assessment. The other situation was where an assessment had not yet been made. When the child support regulations were brought in to modify and render less harsh that body of assessment, they operated purportively under the word "transitional". They used that word not only in relation to those cases that had not yet been assessed— in other words, where the liability had not attached under statute — but also in relation to the reopening of cases where assessments had been made and attached and a liability had arisen under an Act of Parliament.
In effect, by use of the word "transitional" to justify the latter, the Department of Social Security claimed retrospectively to alter the impact of an Act of Parliament. Naturally, the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the attention of both Houses to that matter. It said that the power being exercised was

897
unusual and that in effect it was unprecedented and unexpected. On the department's own case, it was unexpected. The department was claiming that if it had realised the mistakes that it was making in the Act, it would not have made them and that they could be put right in the provisions of transitional regulations.
That was such a startling departure from constitutional usage that in my submission your Lordships would have been justified in throwing out the regulations condignly. Your Lordships did not do that for two reasons: first, because of what I called the weak convention whereby your Lordships did not vote against a statutory instrument. More potent was the fact that the regulations were needed. We did not consider that they went far enough but they mitigated to some degree the harshness of what had been done under the Child Support Act— an Act which had been heavily criticised in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships accordingly allowed the use of the word "transitional", but notice was given that the matter would be raised before the Procedure Committee and in proceedings in this Bill where it was noted that the word "transitional" appeared.
Therefore, we look to the noble and learned Lord to assure us, we hope, that notwithstanding love of precedents and a willingness to use any precedent for the enlargement of executive power, the word "transitional" here and elsewhere will not be used retrospectively to alter the impact of an Act of Parliament on the ground that a mistake has been made in the Act and that if it had been recognised at the time it would not have been made.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe I can assure your Lordships that the Government have no intention to do anything under the heading of "transitional" other than that which is necessary as a direct consequence of the need to provide for the transition of functions, property, duties and so on from the abolished councils to the new successor bodies. The Government are fully conscious of the views of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in this respect as those views were expressed in the context of the draft child support regulations. Whatever the precedent may be in this matter, it is solely intended to use the power here in the way that I have indicated.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I noted that he did not specifically say that the word "transitional" would not be used in the way it was used in the Child Support Act. Obviously a Division at this hour would be of no avail. The matter will have to go to the Procedure Committee. At least we have had some assurance from the noble and learned Lord. I cannot pretend that the situation is satisfactory, but I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having gone as far as he has. As to the remainder, that must rest with the Procedure Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No.88:
Page 46, leave out lines 22 to 24.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 seek to remove from the Bill two unnecessary provisions. What I and the noble and learned Lord said earlier apply to some extent to these provisions. Amendment No. 88 applies to regulations or orders and states that the Secretary of State may:
"make different provision for different cases or classes of case or for different localities".
Amendment No. 89 removes subsection (6) (a), which is similar as regards directions.
I assume that the object of those provisions is to obviate the argument that the Secretary of State is bound to make exactly the same direction or regulation; however different the circumstance or the locality, he must make only one kind of regulation. I ask again whether the noble and learned Lord believes that such an argument is likely to be received as a reasonable proposition by any reasonable court.
On the previous occasion the noble and learned Lord said that even though no reasonable court could accept such an argument, the provision was desired to prevent such an argument being put forward. I imagine that he will say something of the kind today. However, on that argument there is no limit to the inflation of our statute book. I ask specifically whether the Government have any care that the statute book has been extended in mass in the way that I have mentioned and that an annual set costs little less than £ 350. Does that mean nothing to a government who at any rate talk about inflation?
Of course, the situation is much worse. It means that the statute book is a mass of empty verbiage, logorrhea. Obviously, any bright young man going into the draftsman's office can think of a fanciful argument and might be put off. If he is remonstrated with he can say, "The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that it does not matter how absurd it is, we must prevent it being put forward". There will be no answer to that, and obviously there has been no answer in similar circumstances.
Nonsense literature is a valuable genre in our culture but there is no reason to carry it so far into the statute book. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have an uncanny feeling that what I am about to say may not entirely satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I believe that the provision serves a useful purpose. It makes clear that a power to make a particular set of regulations or a direction— albeit that the regulations emanate from only one exercise of the power— can nonetheless manifest itself in different provisions applying to different classes of case or different localities.
I am aware of circumstances in which comfort has been taken from the existence of those words when the drawing up of regulations or the use of a direction has been in question. These particular words make clear an issue which would otherwise be unclear. They are well precedented, as the noble and learned Lord knows, and they serve a useful purpose. Of course the Government are concerned about the growth of the statute book and

899
they are concerned not to include unnecessary provisions. However, these particular provisions are necessary.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, obviously, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has raised important procedural and constitutional points, as has the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The Commons Committee will be alerted to your Lordships' concern about these matters. When the Bill has passed through the Commons and returned to this House— it is unusual to introduce a Bill of this kind into this House— will we have an opportunity to consider these points again?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is only if amendments are made to the Bill in the Commons that those Commons Amendments can be considered by this House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said truly that the object is that the Secretary of State in one set of regulations can provide differently for different localities and for different cases and classes of case. So far, he will receive the enthusiastic acclamation of the whole House. No one would dispute that.
Where we venture to differ is when he says that that is necessary. Of course, the Secretary of State can do just that without being told that that is what he can do. The alternative is to say that he is acting unreasonably unless he has exactly the same regulations, whatever the difference in locality, case or class of case. But we shall not get very far with that.
One can only hope that by going on and on, the statute book may, in the end, shrink a little; that its more outrageous nonsense will be dropped; and probably that will happen only when there is a revolt by the purchasers of the statute book. Unfortunately, the main consumers are government departments which readily condone each other's excesses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.89 not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Minor and Consequential Amendments of the 1972 Act]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.89A:
Page 108, line 43, at end insert:
("(2) Before section 54(2) insert—
"(1B) Where the Welsh Commission make proposals for the constitution of a new principal area, those proposals shall specify whether the new area should be a county or a county borough.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Section 54(1) of the 1972 Act provides, among other things, for the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales to submit proposals for the creation of a new local government area.
The amendment is consequential upon the changes in nomenclature of the local authorities in Wales. If the commission uses its existing powers, it requires it, when submitting proposals—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord speaking also to Amendments Nos.90A,91A and 92?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, no. I am speaking only to Amendment No.89A. It requires the commission, when submitting proposals for the creation of a new principal area, to specify whether the new area should be a county or a county borough. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No.90:
Page 113, line 5, at end insert:
(". In section 187(3) (notices deterring public use of footpaths) after "district council" insert "or, where they are not the highway authority, a Welsh principal council".
In section 189(3) (town and village greens etc.)—

(a) in paragraph (c), after "district" insert "or Welsh principal area"; and

(b) in the words following that paragraph, after "district" insert "or (as the case may be) area".

In section 191 (ordnance survey)—

(a) in subsection (2), after "district council" insert "(or, in Wales, a principal council)";

(b) in subsection (4) (a), after "require" insert "(or, in Wales, the principal council)";

(c) in subsection (4) (b), after "require" insert "(or, in Wales, the principal council)"; and

(d) in subsection (5), after "any" insert "preserved county

In section 195 (social services)—

(a) in subsection (2) after first "county" insert "in England"; and

(b) in subsection (3) omit "as amended by subsection (1) above".

. —(1) Section 204 (licensing) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "districts" substitute "principal areas";

(b) for "district" substitute, in both places,"area";

(c) for "areas in which" substitute "localities in which"; and

(d) for "April 1,1974" substitute "1st April 1996".

(3) In subsection (2), after "shall" insert "(except in relation to Wales)".

(4) In subsection (3), after "council" insert "or, in Wales, of the principal council".

. Omit section 207 (public libraries and museums in Wales).
. In section 213(1) (local licence duties), omit "and Wales" and at the end add "and, in Wales, be vested in the principal councils".
. In section 214(1) (cemeteries and crematoria) after "councils of insert "Welsh counties, county boroughs".
. —

(1) Section 215 (maintenance of closed churchyard) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) (c) for "district" substitute "county or county borough".

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) for first "district" substitute "district, Welsh county or (as the case may be) county borough"; and

(b) for "of the district" substitute "to whom the notice is given".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.90A,91A and 92. These are further and minor consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1972 to take account of the new local government structure and nomenclature in Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No.90A:
Page 113, line 31, at end insert:
(". —

(1) Section 246 (powers, privileges and rights in relation to former cities and boroughs) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) insert—

"(2A) Any powers to appoint local officers of dignity exercisable immediately before 1st April 1996 in relation to

901
any area by the council of a district in Wales by virtue of a charter granted under section 245 above shall, on and after that date, be exercisable in relation to that area by the council of the principal area in which, on that date, that area becomes comprised.

(2B) Where on 1st April 1996 that area becomes comprised partly in each of two or more principal areas, those powers shall be exercised on and after that date by such of the councils of those principal areas as may be agreed between them, or, in default of agreement, as the Secretary of State may designate."

(3) In subsection (6), after first "subject to" insert "subsection (2A) above,".

. In section 247 (transfer of armorial bearings from old to new authorities), at the end add—
"(3) Subsections (1) and (2) above also apply in relation to new principal councils in Wales and authorities which ceased to exist at a result of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 but as. if the reference to April 1,1974 were a reference to 1st April 1996."
. In section 248 (freemen and inhabitants of pre-1974 boroughs), at the end add—
"(6) This section shall have effect in relation to Wales as if—

(a) in subsections (2) and (3) the references to the relevant district council were references to the relevant principal council; and

(b) in subsection (2) the reference to the council of the district were a reference to the council of the principal area."

. In section 249 (honorary aldermen and freemen), after subsection (6) insert—
"(7) A principal council in Wales may, by such a resolution as is required by subsection (5) above, admit to be honorary freemen of the county or county borough persons of distinction and persons who have, in the opinion of the council, rendered eminent services to the county or county borough.
(8) The admission of a person to be an honorary freeman under subsection (7) above shall not confer on him any such rights as are referred to in section 248(4) above.
(9) A principal council in Wales shall, in relation to any person on whom they have conferred the title of honorary alderman or whom they have admitted to be an honorary freeman, have the same powers as are conferred by subsection (6) above." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.91 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendments Nos.91A and 92:
Page 113, line 44, at end insert:
(". In paragraph 20 of Schedule 29 (certificates under Schedule 3 to the Gas Act 1965), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply in relation to Wales." ").
Page 113, line 44, at end insert:
(". In paragraph 28 of Schedule 14 (consent of highway authority required in connection with functions relating to clocks, drinking fountains etc.) after "district council" insert "or, where they are not the highway authority, the council of a Welsh principal area".
. In paragraph 55 of Schedule 16 (applications for certificates of appropriate alternative development)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "Elsewhere" substitute "In England, elsewhere"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), after "National Park" insert "in England but".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Other Consequential Amendments]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendments Nos.93 to 98:
Page 114, line 11, at end insert:
902
("The Finance Act 1908 (c.16)
In section 6 of the Finance Act 1908 (collection by local authorities of duties on game licences)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit "and Wales" and at the end add "and in Wales be vested in the councils of counties and county boroughs"; and

(b) in subsection (2), omit "district" and after "1st April 1974" add "or, in relation to Wales, to a council having power to levy those duties after 1st April 1996".").

Page 114, line 22, at end insert:
("The Education Act 1944 (c.31)
In section 54 of the Education Act 1944 (power to ensure cleanliness), at the end add—
"(9) Subsection (4) above has effect in relation to Wales as if the words from "and where" to the end were omitted."
Page 115, line 30, at end insert:
("The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (c.75)
.— (1) Omit the following provisions from the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964—

(a) in section 4 (library authorities and areas), from " (a)" to "(b)", in subsection (2);

(b) in section 5 (joint boards), the proviso in subsection (3);

(c) section 6 (special provisions as to Welsh districts);

(d) in section 11 (supplemental provisions as to transfers of officers, assets and liabilities), in subsection (2;, the words from "or (b)" to "library authority".

(2) In section 4 of that Act, at the end add—

"(3) In Wales, county councils and county borough councils shall, subject to section 5 below, be library authorities for the purposes of this Act."

(3) In section 25 of that Act (interpretation), after the definition of "library officer" insert—

(— local authority", in relation to Wales, means a county council or county borough council; ".").
Page 120, line 10, at end insert:
("The Education Reform Act 1988 (c.40)
In section 235 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,".")
Page 120, line 36, at end insert:
("The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c.4)
In section 58 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (incapacity for work: work as councillor to be disregarded), in subsection (4) (a), after "county" insert "or county borough".
The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
In section 191 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (a), omit "and Wales" and after "Scilly; " insert—
"(aa) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough; ".
The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c.13)
In section 90 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,".").
Page 121, line 10, at end insert:
("The Education Act 1993 (c.35)
.— (1)In section 166 of the Education Act 1993 (duty of District Health Authority or local authority to help local education authority), in subsection (5), after "county council," insert "a county borough council,".
(2) In section 305 of that Act (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", after "county council," insert "a county borough council,".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also move Amendments Nos.94 to 98 en bloc. Schedule 15 makes further consequential amendments to legislation on account of the new system of local government in Wales. The amendments amend eight Acts of Parliament to provide references to the

903
new unitary authorities. The amendments relate solely to the transfer of county and district functions to the new councils. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Savings and Transitional Provisions]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos.98A to 99A:
Page 121, line 25, at end insert:
("Former cities and boroughs-privileges and rights of inhabitants
Any privileges or rights belonging immediately before 1st April 1996 to the inhabitants of any area in Wales by virtue of—

(a) section 246(1) of the 1972 Act (saving for privileges and rights of citizens and burgesses); or

(b) any provision made under subsection (2) (b) of that section by a charter granted under section 245 of the 1972 Act (grant of borough status);

shall belong on and after that date to the inhabitants of that area.").
Page 121, line 25, at end insert:
("Honorary aldermen and freemen
Any person who, immediately before 1st April 1996, is an honorary alderman by reference to his past membership of an old authority—

(a) shall continue to have that status even though the old authority has ceased to exist as a result of this Act; but

(b) shall not, while serving as a councillor of any new principal council in Wales, be entitled to be addressed as alderman or to attend or take part in any civic ceremonies of that council as an alderman.").

Page 126, line 15, at end insert:
("Freemen and aldermen
.— (1) Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect any person's status as a freeman or honorary freeman, or the right of any person to be admitted as a freeman of any place.
(2) Services rendered to an old authority, the area of which becomes wholly or partly included in a new principal area, shall be treated for the purposes of section 249 of the 1972 Act (honorary aldermen and freemen) as services rendered to the council of the new principal area.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.98A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.99 and 99A. The amendment will preserve the status of existing freemen and aldermen. Amendment No.99A allows service rendered to an old authority to be treated as service rendered to a new authority for the purpose of deciding whether eminent services have been rendered. That is relevant when a council is considering whether to award the status of alderman to an individual. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Repeals]:
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendments Nos.100 to 107:
Page 126, line 31, at end insert:

("8 Edw.7. c.16.

Finance Act 1908.

In section 6, in subsec-tion (1) the words "and Wales" and in subsection (2) the word "district".").

Page 126, line 33, at end insert:
904

("1944 c.31.

Education Act 1944.

In section 114(1), in the definition of "minor authority", in para-graph (b), the words "is a community having no community council or" and, in paragraph (c) (iii), the words "which is a community having no community council or".").

Page 126, line 36, at end insert:

("1958 c.33. Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958. In section 3(5), the words "or Wales".").

Page 126, line 44, at end insert:

("1964 c.75.

Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

In section 4(2), the words from "-(a)" to "(be)". In section 5(3), the proviso. Section 6. In section 11 (2), the words from "or (b)" to "library authority".").

Page 126, line 46, at end insert:

("1970 c.44.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

In section 21(8), the words "or Wales".")

Page 127, line 38, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 195(3), the words "as amended by subsection (1) above". Section 200. Section 207. In section 213(1), the words "and Wales".").

Page 129, line 29, at end insert:

("1989 c.41.

Children Act 1989.

In section 105(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".").

Page 130, line 26, at end insert:

("1992 c.5.

Social Security Administration Act 1992.

In section 191, in the definition of "local authority", the words "and Wales".").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall move Amendments Nos.100 to 107 en bloc. Schedule 17 sets out repeals to certain enactments which would be spent as a consequence of the new local government system in Wales. They are consequential on the provisions of the Bill and in particular the additional consequential amendments to Schedule 15. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I may be mistaken, but in Amendment No.103 at the end of the first line of the rubric there appears to be a curious dash in front of the bracket surrounding the letter "a"; for example, the line reads,"-(a)". Can the noble Lord clarify whether the dash is meant to be there or whether it is a misprint?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good point. It seems that the dash may not need to be there.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Licensing of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill [H.L.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: 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 Corn mittee. — (Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Regulations]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No.1:
Page 7, line 21, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:

("(1) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations under this Act except after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests concerned.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.1, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos.2 and 3. They are three technical amendments which have been tabled in response to the Third Report from the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers. The report says that the Select Committee is,
"glad to assist the sponsor of a Private Member's Bill who works without the backing of a Government Department".
In this case, the Select Committee suggested two improvements to the Bill that I introduced. I am happy to accept both points and, as a result, I have tabled the amendments. Amendment No.1 would ensure that all regulations under the Bill would be statutory instruments which can only be made after consultation. In the Bill as introduced, not all regulations under the legislation were statutory instruments subject to consultation. That is a gap which the amendment seeks to remedy.
Amendments Nos.2 and 3 meet the Select Committee's concern that Clause 6 should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, as it seemed to delegate power to create a criminal offence. In the Select Committee's view, such a provision is only acceptable where the general scope of the offence is defined in the Bill. That is the case with the Bill, as the provisions of Clause 6(1) are intended to do just that. However, the clause is couched in advisory rather than mandatory language and so there is scope for further provision not spelt out in the Bill. The Select Committee accordingly suggested that this power should be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure rather than the negative procedure applied by Clause 12 of the Bill. These amendments meet these points. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No.2:
Page 7, line 31, after ("Act") insert ("other than under section 6 of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No.3:
906
Page 7, line 33, at end insert:
("(5) No regulations shall be made under section 6 of this Act unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994
9.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this draft order, I wish to speak also to the other four draft orders. As a result of these orders, social security will cost over £ 83 billion in 1994– 95. It will rise to £ 88 billion in 1995– 96 and £ 92 billion in 1996– 97. That large increase demonstrates both the need to reform our system to make it affordable in the long term and our commitment to maintain a decent level of social security.
We have met our commitment to uprate benefits (at least in line with inflation). We have fulfilled our pledge to provide extra help for those most affected by VAT on fuel, and we are improving the benefit system for mothers who want to return to work. We have also provided a very generous package of extra help— over and above the normal uprating— towards VAT on fuel. This will help over 15 million people in the coming year.
The package of extra help with VAT on fuel will cost an extra £ 400 million this year alone. Over three years the cost will be £ 2.5 billion. In practice it means that people on income support will see an increase of 3.9 per cent. from April, and a further 2 million people above income support levels who receive housing benefit and family credit will get similar increases.
We also wanted to help those who have worked, saved and earned modest pensions, who often get no extra help. So single pensioners will get an extra 50p. a week and couples will get an extra 70p. this year. That is on top of the £ 1 or £ 1.60 rises in the full basic pension, in line with the retail prices index Next year the extra amount for VAT will be worth £ 1 for a single pensioner and £ 1.40 for couples. In the third year it will be £ 1.40 for single people and £ 2 for couples.
The increases for VAT will also apply to people on widows' benefits, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and the disability premium. In six weeks' time people will begin to receive the extra money with their benefit, as we promised, before the higher fuel bills arrive. In addition, we are increasing cold weather payments from £ 6 to £ 7 in November, and by a further 50p. from November 1995.
To help in particular those with higher than average heating costs, we are making a further £ 35 million

907
available through the home energy efficiency scheme. From April 1994, all pension pensioners and disabled people not on income related benefits will be eligible for grants from the scheme to insulate their homes and make them more energy-efficient. More than 200,000 extra households next year will be eligible for grants. By any standards this is a very substantial package of help.
In July last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security published an analysis of the growth of social security. It indicated that one of the main sources of growth, both in numbers of claimants and in expenditure, up to the end of the century would be invalidity and related benefits. That is why we are making a fundamental reform of those benefits.
Our reform to statutory sick pay will return responsibility for levels of sick absence to employers. We are improving the structure of statutory sick pay and giving extra support for small employers. At the same time we are reducing the employers' national insurance contributions by a full 1 per cent. for lower paid employees and by 0.2 per cent. for others. That will more than compensate for the increased costs on statutory sick pay. Overall, employers' net costs will be reduced by over £ 100 million a year. Those employers who accept the challenge to improve their sick absence records will benefit even more.
My right honourable friend also announced further, very substantial practical help for people with family responsibilities who want to work. Giving up benefit in favour of a low-paid job can be an unattractive proposition, especially if it involves childcare costs. So we propose from October 1994 to enable families with a child under 11 to offset up to £ 40 a week of childcare costs against their earnings before those earnings are taken into account against benefit.
Families on family credit will be up to £ 28 a week better off. This measure will help up to 150,000 families and we expect 50,000 to take up work as a direct result of this measure.
These orders achieve the full uprating of social security benefits. They go further, providing extra help on top of uprating for pensioners and other vulnerable groups with the costs of VAT on fuel. They also provide extra help for mothers wanting to work and a number of measures for disabled people. They contribute to our programme of reform which, as serious commentators on social security recognise, will lead to a better benefit system. I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Viscount Astor.)
9.26 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for explaining these important orders and the substantial increase in benefits which are involved for many millions of our fellow citizens. I welcome in particular the uprating of benefits.
I should declare an interest as a national insurance pensioner myself and also a war pensioner. I realise that
908
war pensions are not covered by these regulations, but the increases in war pensions which will come into effect at the same time are more than welcome because the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot get at them. They are tax free.
Many of your Lordships will remember the time when increases of this kind were introduced by primary legislation. It is interesting that we have now reached the stage where we are so accustomed to annual increases in benefits that we find this procedure most convenient and acceptable.
There has been some criticism outside your Lordships' House that these benefits are not enough. We have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but I do not suppose that she will use that argument because she will recollect the pledge of the leader of her party that he did not intend to propose any increases in public expenditure.
However, one has to ask who pays. It is the present working population who pay for these welcome increases in benefits under our pay-as-you-go system. Therefore, we have to balance the needs of pensioners against the increased burdens that we place on contributors. As your Lordships know, in these orders there is a 1 per cent. increase in contributions paid by employees. We also have to take into account that a substantial proportion of pensioners now have occupational or public service pensions or other forms of savings in addition to their state pensions. When one weighs all those factors I believe that in their proposals the Government have got the balance about right.
I should like to say a brief word about the statutory sick pay scheme and particularly the improvement in the small employers' relief. It is an acknowledged fact that small firms are assisting this country to move out of recession. It is therefore all the more important that we should give them every encouragement. The Finance Bill now undergoing scrutiny in another place, together with this improvement in the small employers' relief, are therefore much to be welcomed.
In bringing forward the orders, the Government have amply fulfilled their pledge to ensure that pensions and benefits on an annual basis shall be increased at least enough to compensate for the rise in the cost of living in the previous year. On that basis I warmly welcome the orders.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, today I cannot help but remember the first occasion on which I had to speak on a social security statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was moving the instrument. He stated that it was couched in more than usually impenetrable language. I could not help agreeing with him. However, on this occasion, the instruments before us are couched, if I may so put it, in more than usually penetrable language. Perhaps I may express my gratitude to those responsible for the drafting. It was a great deal less hard work than usual to understand the regulations.
I shall not detain the House with my views on statutory sick pay. The noble Viscount knows them well. However, I should like to express a regret that the

909
period for relief is still at four weeks and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, suggested, at two weeks.
I was struck by one specific piece of drafting in the minimum pensions order. The Secretary of State says that "it appears to him" that the general level of prices was greater by 1.8 per cent. I welcome that note of caution, of recognition of the subjectivity of any assessment of retail prices. In engaging with the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, raised about whether the amount is enough, one has to wonder whether the RPI always measures what pensioners are paying. Prices in supermarkets are a good deal lower than those in corner shops. Not every pensioner has the maximum amount of mobility. I have seen an estimate that in rural Wales food prices may be as much as 20 per cent. above the national average. In the end the question of whether the sum is enough is a matter for the pensioners themselves. It is no good convincing the House unless they also are convinced. Therefore I am glad to know that the Secretary of State has that little degree of caution about the assessment of prices.
I believe that there are some missed opportunities in the national insurance contributions order. I shall not develop the point. I made it on Second Reading of the Bill On 10th January.
In the main uprating order, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount about the authority needed to bring in the changes for family credit that were recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and myself on 1st February, and those which I recommended on 1st December. Could those changes be brought in by regulation and have we therefore here a missed opportunity; or would it require primary legislation? The answer to those questions might determine the best way to proceed on a matter to which we shall return.
In the light of the situation created by the changes in the child support regulations— they leave many people on family credit worse off than they were before— I was distressed by the wording of Regulation 21, which provides that the uprating shall not apply to those at present on family credit until the end of the sixth month period at which they receive their next routine reassessment. I cannot help feeling that that compounds the felony. I hope that there may be some thought about it.
I heard what the noble Viscount said about compensation for VAT on fuel. I am glad that there is compensation; but in the end, again, whether it is enough will be a matter for the fuel users themselves to decide. I hope that the noble Viscount is justified in his optimism on this question. I heard what he said about the £ 35 million for home energy efficiency for insulation. I am glad that that sum has been granted, but again, I cannot help wondering whether its sufficiency is quite as great as he suggested.
In Schedule 2, on the rates of income support, I notice the division between the rates for younger people and those for older people. I notice also a characteristic effect of percentage increases: that if they apply over a long period, the gap between the top and the bottom
910
begins to widen. Whenever one is using percentage increases, one must be prepared for an occasional adjustment to prevent the process from becoming too extreme. I am sorry that the Government did not choose to do that on this occasion and I should like to know what their justification is today for the lower rates of income support for younger people.
On housing benefit, I am sorry that there is no adjustment of tapers, as recommended in the report by Shelter and NACAB, of which we shall hear a good deal more. On Schedule 8, which deals with reductions and disentitlements, I wish to know— if the noble Viscount can tell me— how many people are at present affected by all those various deductions which are set out in the schedule.
I should like to draw attention to a general problem. People on benefit occasionally do things, like all the rest of us, which appear to attract a penalty. But a financial penalty on those who are at subsistence level tends to have damaging effects. If that is not suitable, what is? There is here a problem about what means of punishment for those on benefit could be suitable or appropriate without doing undue damage. I do not know the answer to that problem. I hope to hear, when the noble Viscount replies, that he at least sees that there is a problem even if, like me, he does not see the answer to it.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has outlined what are in many ways a routine set of draft statutory instruments embodying the DSS proposals outlined by the Secretary of State at the beginning of December. At that time they were debated in this House. Statutory sick pay and national insurance have recently been taken through the House and the up-rating of the rest of the benefits is in line with the Rossi index, together with some partial off-setting of the additional cost of VAT on fuel for some benefit recipients.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall not spend much time on either national insurance or statutory sick pay, as we debated both Acts at some length. On national insurance, we have already aired our concern that national insurance is rising at a time when the benefits which it was supposed to fund are, over time, being eroded. We were especially concerned about the situation of the 500,000 people, mainly women, who did not earn enough to pay tax but were nonetheless facing an increase in national insurance. That indicated an increasingly regressive method of funding our benefit system.
On statutory sick pay, I am sure that the Minister will continue to welcome the additional protection offered to small businesses, but I hope that he will share with us a concern that continues that statutory sick pay will represent an additional negative dowry which the disabled will have to bring with them to work. The Government insist that there is no evidence that that will be the case, but it is hardly surprising that there is no evidence since the Government consistently refuse to collect it.

911
As to benefits, the Rossi index obviously ensures that people are no better or worse off in real terms than they were a year ago. But it is worth reminding ourselves that people on benefits do not exactly enjoy a princely income. A couple with two children under 11 will have an income of some £ 113 a week plus housing benefit. That is not much with which to join the mainstream of our society.
Similarly, the state pension now represents 15 per cent. of earnings. It is likely to fall to 7 or 8 per cent. in the next 20 years or so. While the Chancellor assures us that it is the cornerstone of the welfare state and will not be allowed to become vestigial, his own Chief Secretary expects its value to be nugatory in the future. We would welcome the Minister's comment on what role he sees the state old age pension performing in future years.
The compensation for VAT on fuel will partly compensate those on some benefits. It may meet perhaps half of the expected cost of the VAT increase. But it is worth emphasising that many people will experience real hardship and will gain no protection. Low paid families with young children, for example, will not receive any protection because it does not come through to family credit; nor will recipients of unemployment benefit receive any protection against VAT on fuel; nor — and this is most worrying— will many of the disabled. Yet it is those with young children, those who are at home, unemployed, and above all those who are disabled, with high heating and laundry costs, and sometimes electric wheelchair costs, who most need protection against the VAT increase and who will not get it.
It is worth reminding ourselves again just how aggressive that VAT increase will be. The poorest 20 per cent. spend 11 per cent. of their budget on fuel. The average family spends only 5 per cent.
The Minister may talk about the "green" effects of such VAT. Only 3 per cent. of the money raised by VAT on fuel will be recycled back into the total energy efficiency programme; and on the Government's own figures carbon dioxide emissions will be cut by less than 1 per cent. It is about raising revenue, not saving energy. I am sure that the Minister will not want to revisit that territory when he comes to some of his conclusions.
When dealing with the rise in benefit levels, it is also an occasion to reflect on the adequacy of those benefits, their reach and the extent to which the areas of need to which the Minister referred have been created by the Government's own policies.
I should like to come first to the implication for the disabled. It is obvious that the severely disabled are increasingly unable to be self-supporting. Over and beyond the fact that they are three times more likely to be unemployed, they face the problems of statutory sick pay. We had feared that they would also face the problems of returning to work, or being in work and becoming disabled, and asking employers to bear the cost of their access to work. I should like to pay compliments to the Government and to the Minister today on the fact that they have thought it right— I am sure that they are right— to think again about the access to work proposals. It appears that now, for the first year
912
at least, the whole of the access to work programmes will be funded by government and not shared between employer and government. We are very pleased about that.
However, the problem of the Independent Living Fund and the complications of interlocking services in kind from the local authorities with services in cash from the ILF remain to such a degree that barely 20 per cent. of the ILF budget for this year will be spent. One could add to that the incapacity Bill which is wending its way through the other place. The Bill will not only remove invalidity benefit from some 200,000 people in poor health, pushing them on to unemployment benefit and then on to income support, but will at the same time reduce the value of the benefit itself— for example, by curtailing the additional allowances for other members of the families. Taken together, the Government's benefit policies for disabled people make it harder for disabled people to obtain work while simultaneously punishing them more fiercely for failing to get it. That still remains immoral and perverse.
I ask the Minister when the Government will also reconsider their position on the carers' rule, which means that only if one cares for one person for more than 35 hours a week is one entitled to allowances; whereas if one cares for two people for a total together of 35 hours a week there is no entitlement. I hope that the Minister will tell us or give us some guidance about that.
The second area of social policy where problems have in part been created by the Government's policies is the issue of child support. As we repeated in the debate on this matter which was so eloquently and elegantly introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, none of us doubts that absent parents— usually fathers — have a duty to maintain all their children and it may necessitate a decline in the standard of living of second families as maintenance replaces benefits for first families.
But did the Government intend that the parent with care who was on benefit— not just the absent parent— and whose benefit is being replaced by maintenance should be worse off? Women who lose passported benefits to free school meals and the like will be worse off, as will be the group referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell: those 250,000 women on family credit who receive their family credit for six months at a time.
Quite rightly, the Government have modified maintenance payments by absent fathers, increasing protected income from some £ 8 per week to £ 30 per week for all absent fathers and introducing transitional arrangements for those absent parents who are now in a second family, thus phasing it in. As a consequence, some men will find their maintenance payments to former partners who are now on family credit dropping by some £ 50 a week. Yet, because family credit is fixed for some six months at a time, as though the carer were receiving full maintenance entitlement, that drop of £ 50 in a man's maintenance contribution cannot, as the law stands, be offset by any floating up of family credit.
On a previous occasion the Minister talked about swings and roundabouts. That vocabulary is simply rubbish. The Government have unilaterally altered

913
every maintenance award — I do not object to that. But they have unilaterally altered every maintenance award which goes to women on family credit, apart from those cases where the men themselves are on benefit. I fear that many women will find themselves on incomes at less than income support level should they be foolish enough to remain in part-time work. In other words, men in second families have been helped— I do not begrudge that at all— but helped at the direct cost of women in the first families who are unable to have their family credit renegotiated because of the six-month rule.
There are 250,000 women at risk of serious cuts in their income by virtue of the Government's across-the-board policy. That is not swings and roundabouts. It is about the impoverishment of women by an all male department. We ask the Minister to permit women who are in receipt of family credit to represent themselves as of right for that family credit to be recalculated, given the new circumstances in which they find themselves, which are not a consequence of their actions or their former partner's actions but a consequence of the Government's actions. That is only fair; otherwise the Government's generosity to fathers is being paid for at the cost of women and their children. Clearly, over six months the problem will drop away. It need not be an expensive one over time. But did government not know that such women might fall below family credit levels? Or did they merely not care because such women tend not to shout as loudly as men and tend not to have such sharp elbows?
There is one final problem encountered by women with children on family credit. The whole House welcomed the introduction of child care disregards worth, £ 40 gross and £ 28 net to women and families on family credit. But it is worth reminding ourselves that it is a disregard and lot a payment. It cannot therefore benefit those families who are already on maximum family credit. Clearly maximum family credit cannot be pushed higher by a disregard. By definition therefore those on maximum family credit, who are those on the lowest incomes who most need help, will not receive a penny out of the child care disregards. That too is perverse and the opposite of what any sane and decent humane policy should seek to do.
If our first area of concern is the disabled and our second the situation of children and mothers receiving child support, our third area is that of the Social Fund. The Government changed the system to a discretionary Social Fund so that it should be better targeted. The research that the department commissioned and which we obtained last summer from York university showed that the Social Fund was failing on every count. People receiving help from the fund were shown to be in no greater need than those who were refused it. Those who were eligible for grants and loans were shown to be in virtually identical situations to those who were not. The better off were receiving grants; the poorer were receiving loans; and the poorest of all were receiving nothing because they were neither entitled to grants nor could afford to repay loans. That is unbelievably perverse, to say nothing of the lottery of the timetable.
The research that the department funded showed that the Social Fund is not targeted; it is not helping the most
914
needy and, incidentally, it is extremely expensive. Something like 40 per cent. of its expenditure goes towards the funding of its own administration. The Government's Social Security Advisory Committee, in its 9th report, said that it was,
"convinced … that structural changes are required before long".
Can the Minister tell us when we can expect to see such structural changes?
Fourthly, we still have the problem of the withdrawal of benefits from 16 to 17 year-olds who are assumed either to be in education, in work or in training; but certainly not on income support. Yet at the last count, given the shortfall in training places, we calculated that something like 80,000 youngsters— many had come out of care but 80,000 in all— were not in education; were not in work; were not in training and were without any visible means of support. Can the Minister tell us how many youngsters still fall into the forgotten group of those who are expected to support themselves without any visible state benefits by which to do so?
Fifthly, can the Minister help us in regard to the income support regulations 1992? They withdrew hardship payments from those single people or couples who were deemed not to be actively seeking work. They were targeted at travellers but we feared at the time that they would hurt women in refuges facing domestic violence; that they would hurt people with disabilities and people for whom English was not the first language. At the time the noble Lord, Lord Henley, promised an uneasy House of Lords that he would monitor the situation. Can the Minister tell us what was the consequence of that monitoring and how many people have had such hardship payments withdrawn?
In his opening remarks, the Minister made much of the fact that social security expenditure was rising and threatening to go out of control. We must keep challenging him on those assertions. At the moment social security spend in this country, as a percentage of GDP, is currently 12.3 per cent. — well below the average in Europe and lower than in most European countries. As the Social Security Advisory Committee said:
"It is right to keep the system under review but we do not start from the viewpoint that the cost of the social security system is out of control and that real cuts must therefore be made".
Quite so, my Lords, and those are the words of the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee.
On the projections it gives, if the Prime Minister is correct and the present Budget forecasts are correct in showing growth rising to 2.75 per cent. in 1995– 96 and to 3 per cent. in each of the following two years, social security expenditure will remain virtually constant and could even fall as a percentage of GDP. If it does not do so it will have everything to do with the levels of unemployment and mismanagement of the economy and nothing at all to do with the levels of benefit and the number of people who are scrounging and whose benefits need to be cut.
Poverty is growing in this country. A quarter of Europe's poor are now in Britain. Inequality is growing in this country and the gap between the bottom 10 per cent. and the top 10 per cent. is now wider than since

915
records were first kept in the late 19th century. There is a real crisis out there. But it is a crisis not of benefits but of poverty.
9.56 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree as I know that all noble Lords have waited rather longer than we expected for these orders to be debated; some of us some three hours longer. I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for the up-rating. He is right when he says that we have the balance about right, particularly when we look at the statutory sick pay scheme and small employers' relief, which we discussed during the proceedings on the recent Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his compliments to the parliamentary draftsman and to the officials who, I am sure, try to make everything as clear as possible.
The noble Earl asked some questions about regulations that he talked about in two previous speeches and whether there was a need for primary or secondary legislation. I should like to study what the noble Earl said in those speeches and write to him to make that point clear.
The noble Earl and the noble Baroness asked about women on family credit losing out through the new arrangements with regard to the Child Support Agency. The recent package of changes has shown that we can respond to constructive proposals for reform. It is inevitable that if absent parents keep more of their income and pay less in maintenance some parents with care will get less. Because family credit awards are not normally affected by changes of circumstances, recipients will benefit from any increases of income during the award period. The £ 15 maintenance disregard in family credit means that families with maintenance are able to get family credit at much higher levels of income than would otherwise have been the case. The new phasing arrangements will allow absent parents with second families more time to adapt to their new increased financial responsibilities. We will continue to keep the scheme under close scrutiny and we will monitor the effects of the changes closely.
The noble Earl also asked about 18 to 24 year-olds being paid less in income support than those who are 25 years and older. Lower rates reflect the lower earnings expectation of this age group. In April 1993 the new earnings survey showed that the average earnings of the 18 to 24 group to be £ 202.90 and of all adults to be £ 330.30. Average earnings for the 18 to 24 age group are more than one-third less than the average for all adults. We think it would be wrong for the benefits system to offer an attractive alternative to seeking work or training or to act as a perverse incentive to young people to leave home unnecessarily.
The noble Earl also asked about the RPI. Historically, the RPI has been considered to be the best indicator of the movement in prices. The Secretary of State for Social Security uses the RPI less housing for up-rating income-related benefits as this more closely reflects the movement in the costs of that group.
916
The noble Earl also asked me about the numbers affected by Schedule 8 reductions. I am unable to obtain up-to-date figures. However, I can give him the figures which we do have available. In May 1993 income support deductions at 20 per cent. for voluntary unemployment affected less than 1,000 people; 40 per cent. affected 25,000. Income support urgent cases at 90 per cent. of the normal adult rate were awarded to 55,000 people and direct mortgage interest payments were made for 463,000.
The noble Baroness spoke about the state pension falling in value. The state pension remains the cornerstone of the Government's policy on pensions. Of course, the state pension is by no means the pensioner's only resource. However, I must point out that overall the income of pensioners has grown by 42 per cent. since 1979. She also spoke about the independent living fund. I have to admit that the start has been disappointingly slow. The noble Baroness will remember that when it originally started it was also slow in exactly the same way. These new arrangements will need time to settle down. Community care, of which the 1993 fund forms a small part, is an agenda for change over many years. The budget for the fund will be increased from £ 4 million to £ 11 million in 1994– 95. I expect the level of successful applicants to be substantially higher next year.
The Government's funding for independent living has increased from £ 750,000 in 1988– 89 to an estimated £ 121 million in 1993– 94. In addition there is £ 64 million provided for local authorities on top of the core community care funding in recognition of their role in independent living provision.
The noble Baroness was also concerned about the disabled and VAT. About five million out of six million disabled people in Britain will be helped with VAT on fuel. Extra help for IVB and SDA recipients and people on income support in receipt of a disability premium, will be 50 pence for single people and 70 pence for couples per week from April 1994. Only a million disabled people are not helped. One has to accept that these must be the younger and less severely disabled who are in work or who are better off. Disabled people receiving income support will receive similar increases in April 1994 and April 1995.
The noble Baroness asked me about the social fund. That is not the subject covered by these orders tonight so we must not get distracted by that. She also asked me about tightening up of the actively-seeking-work provisions and whether other groups have been affected. I have studied what my noble friend Lord Henley said to the noble Baroness. I am able to tell her that there is no evidence at all that the removal of access to hardship payments for fit childless claimants of income support who fail the actively-seeking-work test has had an adverse effect on vulnerable groups which was feared by some people at the time.
The child care disregard provision has obviously been welcomed. It was welcomed when we brought it in. It will help about 150,000 families to combine work with family responsibilities. It is a positive incentive to help families to get back into work. A £ 40 disregard makes a substantial contribution to child care costs.

917
Perhaps I may say a word more about the 16 and 17 year-olds. There is a higher proportion of young people than ever before staying on at school. A sum of £ 844 million is to be spent on youth training this year. That represents a considerable investment in the future. The number of 16 and 17 year-olds on government training increased from 7,000 in 1978 to 270,000 in June 1993.
These orders implement the full uprating of social security benefits, keeping our pledges to pensioners and to families. We have gone further than that, providing extra help over and above the cost of living rise, with the cost of VAT on fuel, to the least well-off— those on income related benefits— and to pensioners and disabled people. We have been able to provide a very substantial disregard for child-care costs, helping parents on benefit who want to work. This demonstrates again this Government's commitment to maintaining the benefit system.
We are equally committed to necessary reform which will ensure that we have a benefit system which is affordable and sustainable as we enter the next century. The recent changes to the statutory sick pay scheme help to achieve that goal. I commend these orders to the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, there were a number of points in his winding up speech which I should have liked to press him on, but the one which I am most concerned about is family credit. I took down the Minister's words and I believe he said that the Government were monitoring the situation. This is a six-month problem. For how long do the Government: propose to monitor the situation — seven months? Of course, by then the problem will have disappeared. In the meantime, many women may find that their incomes are below income support level as a result of a government policy. Can the Minister tell us why women in that situation simply cannot have their family credit reassessed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I explained this point to the noble Baroness when we dealt with the child support regulations in a recent debate. I made clear to her that family credit awards were not normally affected by change of circumstances. Recipients will benefit from any increases during an award period. The position is exactly the same as if they receive extra money from any other source during the period. The system does not change. As the noble Baroness knows, the system is based upon 26 weeks. We tried to look as carefully as we could at those who were affected by the child support regulations, and we brought in new regulations in the light of all the points put to us. Obviously, we must see how they work. We will closely monitor the effects of those changes. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that. I cannot satisfy the noble Baroness on the point that she has raised, but I am able to say that we will look at the matter very closely.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courteous reply. Can he tell the House how he will monitor it? Will he be reporting back and, if so, on what basis?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the department monitors the many benefits for which we are responsible, in the same way that it monitors the business which the department is in, which is the giving of benefit to those who are in need.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister how he will know what is happening if these women cannot re-present themselves.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may ask him to convey two messages to the department. The first deals with the 1992 actively seeking work regulations. Perhaps he will offer my thanks to his colleague Mr. Burt, for his efforts to ensure that those regulations do not do undue harm to women in refuges. The other matter relates to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I am afraid that his answers give no more satisfaction on these Benches than they have on those.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I address first the point raised by the noble Earl. I will pass on the contents of his remarks to my right honourable friend. I am afraid that I can go no further than I have been able to go. I realise that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have a different point of view on this subject. It is a point of view that I respect. However, I am unable to give them any further satisfaction. We do not feel that it is right to implement the changes that have been suggested, but we will monitor the situation, as we will monitor all the changes in the regulations that have been made under the Child Support Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1994
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1994
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1994
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1994
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]. — (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Photography and Films (Unauthorised Use) Bill [H.L.]
10.10 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
One thing has been proved tonight: that I am a pretty lousy tipster. I tipped that the other business would be concluded by about seven o'clock and that we should then start this Bill. I also tipped that my modest Bill, helpful and useful as it is, would be unanimously accepted almost at once. Neither of those tips have credited me as a worthwhile tipster.
However, I have benefited from the Bill in one respect. It has brought me in closer touch with the noble Lord, Lord Brain. We had the opportunity of exchanging views, which I found helpful. The contact was friendly and I hope that that will continue well beyond tonight.
I present the Bill with some confidence. The subject is ideal for the Private Bill procedure, which is an important part of our parliamentary proceedings. It enables the House to give a speedy decision on matters which may have been inadvertently overlooked. It also enables one to tack on to an existing Bill new terms without the necessity of giving details of penalties which flow as a result, and so forth. However, the Private Bill procedure should be confined to modest points. The minute that the issues move into the realms of high principle, Bills should go through the full parliamentary procedure. I claim that this Bill falls into the first category because it is modest, useful and the issue should have been dealt with previously.
In order to make the procedure work it was necessary to find an existing statute on which to tack on the new point. I decided upon the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The provisions of this Bill fit in well with that Act. People are entitled to proper privacy and I wish to gain recognition of the fact that anything that is likely to interfere unfairly with that privacy and to cause them damage should be dealt with. If people are being damaged by a written article, or even by words which amount to slander, they are well protected under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Provisions exist under that Act which enable them to apply to have the damage rectified, and they can be compensated if the courts are satisfied that damage has occurred. That is what my Bill tries to do in relation to photography and films. Therefore, the mechanics of the Bill and its presentation are my own, using my parliamentary knowledge. However, the principle on which it is based was inspired by Donald Sinden, the well-known actor,
920
who showed by the way that he recognised it that the anxiety is felt outside immediate parliamentary circles. He impressed me by saying: "If I send you a letter, under the law as it is, the paper on which the letter is written and the envelope in which it comes are yours but the words on the letter are still mine, and I can protect those words as my own possessions. If they are misused in a way which can damage, then I can take steps through the courts to see that my damage is recognised and rectified".
I believe that we all recognise today that the photograph is perhaps a more potent messenger in terms of giving impressions than is the written word. A photograph presented in a certain way can give a deeper impression than a written article of 10,000 words. I wish to protect against the misuse of that impression.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, is eminent in photographic circles. I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that; and I certainly do. I understand absolutely the noble Lord's wish to avoid the Bill reaching the statute book. However, I suggest that he sees the Bill in the wrong way.
The Bill as it stands, as I envisage it and as I want it to be will in no way interfere with people already taking photographs in the normal way. The Bill will in no way interfere with photographers going where they do now in the way that they do now. If someone takes a photograph and presents it so that it is unfair to the image of the person photographed, then under the Bill the person who has been unfairly damaged can go to the appropriate court for it to decide whether or not he was damaged; whether or not the photograph was distributed out of malice of greed; and for the court to take the appropriate action.
People exist— and we know they do— who take photographs with long lenses, or by boring holes in dressing-rooms in gyms and by contorting themselves so that those photographs are taken unbeknown to the people being photographed. They send those photo-graphs all over the world to make easy money. This Bill seeks to deal with those people.
The French provide a good example of how such matters can be dealt with. They have a privacy law. I do not pretend that this Bill goes an inch towards dealing with the privacy law issues which the Government should face. Until the Government find the time and the inclination to produce more explicit legislation to cover the whole privacy issue, people may suffer damage. This Bill merely aims to protect those people who may be damaged while the Government are preparing their own legislation to deal with such matters. After all, if you have a leaking roof and it is obvious that you need a new one but it cannot be done for several months, you put a bucket underneath it in the meantime to take the drops in order to avoid the damage that would otherwise be done to the contents of your house.
As I see it, the Bill is no more than a safeguard. That is all I want it to be. I believe that the words say that that can be done; no more and no less. However, if I am wrong in that and if under detailed examination it can be seen that the Bill is in danger of being unfair to other people — that is, the photographer or anyone else— then

921
it must go before a committee where, under detailed scrutiny, it can be altered so that it does only what I want it to do.
I do not want the Bill to interfere with photographers. I do not want it in any way to step in to prevent people who are now taking photographs in any form from doing so. I merely want a Bill that will at any rate protect the interests of the general public. As I said, they have a privacy law in France which covers the situation. Indeed, we have the evidence regarding the Duchess of York, who had to withstand whatever flowed in this country and in other parts of the world from the long-lens photographs that were taken in what she thought were private. circumstances. However, in France the Duchess was able to get £ 50,000 in compensation and an injunction to prevent the photographs being circulated throughout that country.
We do not have a privacy Bill, nor do we have privacy legislation in the French form. We should perhaps get a step nearer to having just that. However, that may take time. In the meantime, I believe it to be right and proper that we should give people all the protection that we can. What I am suggesting is not new, neither is it ill thought out. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a Lord of Appeal, spoke on the third day of the debate on the gracious Speech at the beginning of this Session, he drew attention to the report of Sir David Calcutt on the matter of privacy. The noble and learned Lord pointed out to the House that one of the recommendations from that impartial Calcutt Committee was that: it should be a criminal offence to take a photograph without the consent of the person being photographed.
If members of that committee felt that that was the right thing to do under permanent circumstances because of all that has happened, then we should take this opportunity to do something under the Private Bill procedure (which means that it can be done quickly and with the minimum number of words) to tide us over. Indeed, there have been so many examples over recent months where people have been unfairly dealt with. That is nothing to do with me, but I am entitled to comment. I believe that the honourable Member for Bolsover was treated most shabbily in the way that photographs were taken of him under certain conditions in a motor car. That was not fair or right.
I have vivid remembrances of a photograph of the Prime Minister that appeared in the newspapers only a couple of months ago which gave the impression that he had given up the ghost. The photograph showed the Prime Minister with bottles in front of him as though he were an intoxicated clown-and-out who had given up the ghost. That was not a good photograph. It made no difference to his standing in this country, but who knows how it influenced the opinion held by people in other parts of the world, particularly those who might have to meet the Prime Minister at future summits? That matter in a word, is all that this Bill is about. Perhaps at some stage the Government— they may intend to do this eventually— will produce a privacy Bill which will include the measures proposed in this Bill, or similar measures. It may take some time for the Government to
922
produce another measure to be attached to this statute which will enable protection to be given in the way that I seek.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Trumpington is to reply to this debate. It is worth a couple of lines in one's biography to state that even for 10 minutes one was led in the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on this or any other issue. There is no reason at all why any intentions the Government may have on this issue should hinder this Bill receiving a Second Reading. This Bill will in no way interfere with the Government's freedom to enact whatever they choose in another measure. However, those of us who know the length of time it takes to obtain a White Paper, a Green Paper and all the other paraphernalia one has to go through before producing a piece of legislation, realise that it may take two or three years to get a Bill through, even if it receives a smooth run in both Houses. In the meantime I believe that this Bill will be welcomed.
As I have already said, I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Brain. If he considers that the Bill does not constitute what I am now describing it to be, I say in advance that I will be the first to accept any wording which will make the Bill fit the description of it that I have just given. I want no more and no less than that. I believe that the existing wording fits my purpose but I have an open mind on this matter. The sharing of minds on this issue could well prove that other wording is necessary. It may be that some cowboy photographers want to make easy money out of someone else's discomfiture, and I want the courts to be able to compensate people who have been damaged by the actions of those photographers. With that general explanation, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. — (Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
10.29 p.m.
Lord Brainrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion ("That the Bill be now read a second time") to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have no major quarrel with the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has just proposed, but I feel that his interpretation of this Bill is very different from mine. I think he was talking in some cases about libel rather than the use of copyright. I quite agree that Donald Sinden may own the copyright of a letter, but if the letter is malicious or spiteful or something of that nature, then the person offended has the right to take action under the laws of libel.
In the case of a photograph I agree that the situation is different and I shall discuss that later in my speech. I do not like remarks about general permissions to take photographs. I believe that that matter may be dealt with by one of the other speakers.
I have no objection to privacy legislation. Various photographers with whom I work have assisted in formulating a reply to the Government's consultation

923
paper Infringement of Privacy. However, I am greatly against using the Copyright Act 1988 to introduce a very limited non-governmental privacy restriction.
The 1988 Act establishes the protection of an author's intellectual property— in this case a photograph — by making him the first copyright owner. It gives him the liberty to control the publication of his work and be rewarded for his endeavour when he licences such publication. I accept that Section 85 places a "moral right" restriction on the use of a photograph which has been commissioned by a person under particular circumstances for private and domestic purposes. A photographer who takes that commission is aware of that restriction and can charge accordingly. That restriction was included in the 1988 Act to replace an established restriction of similar effect in the previous Copyright Act.
This Bill seeks to give the protection of privacy in a situation in which the person seeking the moral right has no connection with the person owning the copyright. Surely, at a time when the Government have completed their consultations for a general privacy Act, it would be better to wait for the next step from the Government rather than seek to make a tenuous extension to the Copyright Act in an area quite unrelated to copyright.
I ask the noble Baroness when she replies to give an indication of the current state of progress resulting from that consultation document Infringement of Privacy and perhaps when White Papers and Bills might appear. I know that she will not be able to give me that information, and I would be very optimistic if I suggested that it might appear in the next Queen's Speech.
I turn to what I consider to be the defects in the Bill. The Long Title of the Bill contains the words:
"to protect the privacy of individuals",
yet nowhere in the text does the word "privacy" appear. Instead, the Bill refers to a person's "private life". A dictionary definition of privacy reads:
"Being withdrawn from society or public interest; avoidance of publicity".
Thus, whether or not a person seeks publicity can be decided in many cases by their actions, the location of the photograph and, perhaps, by their standing in public life. I wish there were some lawyers present because I would ask them to advise us whether "private life" matches "privacy". I feel that it does not.
The words "consent or knowledge" are used. We can all agree that consent requires previous knowledge, but how can a photographer establish the state of a person's knowledge at the time he takes the photograph? What about the situation in which photographers are asked to leave some premises? Surely knowledge exists in that case. What about people in the public eye in a public place? They see photographers there. Surely they have knowledge that photographs are likely to be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, mentioned John Major and some bottles. I should be most surprised if he was not aware that that photograph was being taken. I do not know. I do not know the circumstances and I have not seen the photograph. Knowledge is an important factor. I would also debate with the noble
924
Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, whether the Duchess of York was not aware— and therefore had knowledge— that photographers were out to get her in the circumstances he mentioned. I wonder whether his Bill as drafted would provide the protection he seeks.
I shall speak shortly about "knowledge" in circumstances where a photograph is obtained from a library. Again, how can it be established whether or not a person had knowledge that the photograph was being taken?
Can merely the publication of a photograph intrude upon a person's private life? Does the manner of that publication have to be considered? Does the subsequent amount of publicity have to be considered? As the Bill is drafted the right of privacy would apply to any publication, exhibition or broadcast. That is a very broad form of publication privacy restriction.
Some factors may be found in law to be intrusive. Others may not. I regret that the noble Lord wishes the point to be settled by the courts. I should much prefer it to be relatively clear, as is the law of libel, so that people may decide whether or not they are intruding beforehand. I regret the suggestion that the issue should be decided by the courts.
The Bill as drafted does not provide any defence to the matter of intrusion. However, Clause 85, upon which it is based, provides for a restricted photograph to be used in certain circumstances. The consultation paper, Infringement of Privacy, suggests a wide range of defences against infringement. The Bill does not offer even one.
Taking the link between the Bill and libel a stage further, let us suppose that a journalist is investigating some matter. He decides, with perfect advice, that he is not libelling someone and therefore publishes the matter. During his investigation he has also taken a photograph. The Bill prevents him from publishing that photograph, which may well support his case and act as a defence against libel. The Bill presents an absolute ban. I do not believe that it is reasonable to allow that.
I suggest that there is a need to provide such defences as public interest, prior publication, consent, actual or implied by a person being in a public place, and the intrusive matter being only a part of the photograph. One has to take the whole subject in context. It is a difficult issue. The Bill does not define "privacy","intrude", or "private life". Those words and the thoughts underlying them and their use in privacy legislation are discussed at length in Chapter 5 of the consultation paper to which I have referred. That carefully thought-out and argued paper makes it clear that those areas are for debate and explains the problems behind establishing a workable legal framework.
The Bill appears to be taking a shotgun approach to the people against whom action can be taken. Let us take a usual trail in the publication of a photograph. A photographer takes a photograph; he sends it to an agent who is authorised to license its use under the Copyright Act; the agent may then pass it on to a picture library with a sub-licence; the library may then sell it for specific use; it ends up on the desk of a newspaper or television editor, and is finally published or broadcast.

925
Who has infringed whose rights? Is everyone to be sued? Logically, from my reading, the Bill provides that that is so.
The Bill does not consider the need to amend such clauses as Clauses 88, 89 or 95. It does not bring in any commencement date or transitional provisions. Those clauses may need to be amended to provide the answer to such questions as how the Bill should apply to photographs or films where more than one person is depicted and they hold different views about the privacy factor. How would it apply if only part of the work were published? Should it apply after the death of the person photographed? If so, who should exercise the right?
I wish to emphasise that I am all in favour of a privacy Bill. I feel strongly that the present Bill cannot be amended. I shall listen with care to the remainder of the debate and then decide what action I shall take, bearing in mind the lateness of the hour. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion ("That the Bill be now read a second time") to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months"). — (Lord Brain.)
10.39 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the House for not having my name on the list of speakers. I am a photographer. Most of my work deals with the acting profession and is for agents and for use in casting and trade journals. It is I who sign a piece of paper allowing them to use my photographs for publication or to promote their careers, although they may not sell the photographs.
However, I also photograph outside situations for exhibition, and they sometimes have close-ups of members of the public. I feel that I would not be able to do that if Clause 85A stands. The clause could also affect amateurs if their photographs of people appeared in exhibitions or magazines, and frequently they do. I only need to draw your Lordships' attention to the recent exhibition in this House. Many of those pictures would not have been allowed unless we had sought permission first.
Documentary photography has always played a powerful part in recording our lives, and much of it done by amateurs. I am sure that the clause is really meant to prevent the invasion of privacy by aggressive commercial photographers like the paparazzi who trade photographs for a high price because of the well-known nature of the subjects in them.
Finally, what about security photography in shops, where an innocent party could be part of a photograph shown on television in order to identify a suspect? I am afraid I cannot agree with Clause 85A as it stands unless it can he drastically amended at a later stage.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I shall not delay the House long. There appears to have been perhaps an excess of Welsh wind earlier and we are running late.
I begin by expressing my sympathy with the general objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. There have been far too many excessive intrusions into privacy both by journalists and by photographers in a
926
quite appalling way. I have personally witnessed some of the photographers in action. They behave like animals and no civilised society should allow them to do so. The freedoms they claim to exercise are not true freedoms, they are not freedoms we should defend. They are all simply breaches of other people's legitimate freedoms. They are not liberties, they are abuses of liberty. The great philosophers of liberty in the 18th and 19th centuries always argued that no liberty should be exercised beyond the point where other people's liberties are infringed. That is basically what most of these people do, whether journalists or paparazzi. So I am very much behind the basic instinctive position of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
However, there is one point I wish to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Brain. He mentioned knowledge and whether the subjects, such as the Prime Minister, had knowledge that they were being photographed, with the implication therefore that they should put up with it. It seems to me that the point now is that with the modern long-range technology of cameras, it is possible to photograph people without their knowledge in the most private of circumstances. That is quite outrageous and it is why the problem is now much more acute.
Having said that, I believe that basically we must wait for the Government's White Paper on privacy. If we are discussing privacy, that is due to be brought before us; and despite having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, explained about his bucket under the roof, I do not think we should be second-guessing what we trust the Government will shortly do. We hope that they will be firm and clear and will come to us with proposals for clear protection of genuine privacy. Then we can discuss it on its merits in the proper context. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to use all his influence with the Government to secure that that happens.
With reference to the Bill before us, I must say that I found it commendably short and I wish all legislation before us were broadly of that scale. The Bill has a number of technical defects which have been very well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Brain. The scope of the Bill seems too broad and unspecific. There are no criteria for defence of publication on grounds, for example, of public interest as was set out in the Government's consultation paper on privacy.
The definition as to what is privacy is always a difficult matter. What are the subjects of intrusions, and the definition of intrusion itself, seem perhaps imprecise. Above all, I am not convinced that a copyright Bill is the best vehicle for privacy legislation. Basically, privacy has nothing to do with copyright. I therefore have reservations about the Bill, while I deeply hope that the basic problems that concern the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will have been dealt with by the Government before too long in this Parliament.
This Government and this Prime Minister constantly complain about journalists, newspapers, the media, the paparazzi, and so forth, with good cause. But no one in this country has more powers to deal with that problem than the Government. They should stop complaining;

927
they should put up or shut up; and they should come to us with very clear, firm legislation to cage these particular animals.
Finally, I must point out to the House that, as an Opposition, we do not take a position on this Bill at this stage, or on the amendment, so we shall not vote on it.
9.46 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was so gallant to this old grey mare that I fear that when he hears what I am about to say he may feel for the third time this evening that his tipster instincts have failed him yet again.
The protection of privacy in particular from the unwarranted attentions of the press is one of the most difficult and intractable questions, but also one of the most important which confronts us. I thought it might help the House in its deliberations if I were to set out the Government's policy on this issue.
I should say at the outset that I fully agree with the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, about the use of copyright law as a vehicle for this amending Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, privacy is not a copyright matter at all. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is concerned with assigning proprietary rights between those who claim copyright of original creations, including photographs and films. The general principle is that the author of a work owns the copyright. The Act does not give any copyright to those who appear in photographs or films, unless they happen to have acquired the copyright, employed the photographer or commissioned the work (or perhaps have photographed themselves with a time-delayed shutter).
However, in few if any of these cases would the photograph have been taken without the knowledge or consent of the subject. I note that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has cunningly limited the application of the Bill to works in which the copyright subsists. But copyright subsists in any work created or published in this and more than 100 other designated countries, and thus his Bill, to all intents and purposes, is a protection of privacy Bill unaffected by the law on copyright.
I shall not weary noble Lords with a detailed history of the consideration which has been given over recent years to the question of press intrusion into privacy. Suffice it to say that, since the Second World War, there have been a number of official reports on the press or on privacy, and a number of Private Members' Bills. The reports have generally found newspapers in default, particularly by intruding into privacy without any justification in the public interest, and have warned that failure to make self-regulation work will inevitably lead to further calls for statutory intervention without actually recommending such intervention. The Private Members' Bills conferring a right to privacy or a right of reply have not made progress.
The most recent report, on privacy and media intrusion, was published by the National Heritage Committee on 24th March 1993. The Committee recommended a statutory press complaints ombudsman, a protection of privacy Bill with civil and criminal
928
elements, and further improvements to press self-regulation. The Government intend to respond to the committee and to any outstanding recommendations made by Sir David Calcutt in his Review of Press Self-Regulation published on 14th January 1993 in a White Paper which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage hopes to publish shortly.
Much as your Lordships would obviously like me to, I cannot anticipate the detailed contents of the White Paper. But I can say that the Government's overriding concern in this matter will be, first, to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the right to privacy and other equally important rights, including the right to freedom of expression, and, secondly, to ensure a proper balance between the use of criminal and civil remedies. We have made clear our reluctance to see any statutory control of the press, whether through a statutory tribunal or a press ombudsman, and we have accepted the case for criminal offences of intrusion. The White Paper will set out the Government's conclusions on the privacy tort.
The Government welcomed and will continue to welcome all improvements to newspaper self-regulation (including the recent appointment of Professor Robert Pinker as Privacy Commissioner) which have been introduced by the industry. The question that we shall be addressing in the White Paper is whether those improvements go far enough in the light of the criticisms of press self-regulation noted by Sir David Calcutt and the Select Committee.
I would only add that we would have grave reservations about any proposal to extend privacy rights in the way that my noble friend's Bill would require. We agree with the conclusion of the 1990 Privacy Committee (in paragraph 9.8) that, although the law of copyright could be extended to give each person appearing in photographs joint copyright with the photographer, this would be wholly impracticable, especially in relation to group photographs, crowd scenes or photographs including passers-by. The committee went on to note that, even if the photograph had but a single subject, his consent would be needed for any public use of the photograph, even if that involved no infringement of his privacy. Difficulties with films of, for example, a moving crowd would be proportionately much greater.
Added to that are definitional difficulties, the fact that the subject's right to protect a photograph of himself is not subject to any public interest defences or tests of harm and the many other matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Brain, referred.
In conclusion, the Government are not convinced that giving this disproportionate protection to a single aspect of privacy is the right way forward. As I said, we shall bring forward a White Paper setting out comprehensive proposals on press regulation and privacy very shortly. Meanwhile, we ask your Lordships to be patient a while longer. No doubt there will be opportunities to debate the White Paper proposals once they are published, but at present I would ask my noble friend to reculer so that he can mieux sauter at a later stage.
10.53 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, one thing that has come out of this short debate is how much noble Lords are in agreement with each other. Every speech has recognised that there ought to be some kind of control over the outrageous happenings that we have all witnessed even over recent months.
Having settled that, which is the main principle, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, whom I should like to thank very much for the explicit way in which he put into words what I felt. I also thank my noble friend for the: kindly way in which she tried to say no. There is nothing wrong with that.
I believe that the consensus that we have shown justifies giving this Bill a Second Reading so that we can see whether we can overcome in Committee some of the technical points, particularly the ones made by the noble Lord, Lord Brain.
That is what the parliamentary system is all about. As for the business of not tacking it on to a copyright Bill, why not? I examined all the possible alternatives and the obvious method available to do it in the form of a Private Bill, which did not need all the paraphernalia of the full compensat on, was the copyright Act.
When my learned friend goes to the market and buys a bread knife, that does not mean that she cannot cut sausage with it if she so wishes, just because it is called a "bread" knife. Copyright is one part of the legislation and this aspect can be added to it without in any way cutting across the message of copyright, but affecting only the part concerning privacy.
That is what the system is about. We have First Readings, Second Readings and then Committee stages. I want to say in advance that where people can produce words which will mean what I want them to mean— even though they are not the words of the Bill as presently drafted— I shall accept them. At the moment, people who would like to make outrageous, slanderous comments about other people, often do not do so because of the risk of their being brought into court as a result of their outrageous extremism. If some of the cowboy photographers faced the risk of a court action and all that flows from it, it may deter them also.
My noble friend made her brief sound rather more attractive than I suppose it is when she said "shortly" this would be done. I have been in Parliament for 43 years. In some cases in which I have had personal experience "shortly" has meant four, five or six years. What does it mean'? These events take place every day. At the moment Sara Keays is in court with somebody who produced a photograph taken 20 years ago when she was walking down the street in a rather friendly way with somebody, and that picture was taken with her own camera. She is resorting to protect herself from a picture
930
taken with her own camera. As matters stand at present, all she can do is claim the copyright of the ownership of the camera and what came out of it. I believe that she should have extra protection if such a picture. taken with her own camera 20 years ago, is presented in a form which damages her in any way. She is entitled to that protection now; not to wait until "shortly", which may mean anything.
It is because I believe that this matter in no way cuts across what I hope the Government will do and what we all encourage the Government to do, that I propose the Bill today. These provisions can run alongside the government proposals; they will not replace them. It will not mean lots of words in new legislation; it is all there.
I suggest that we use the parliamentary procedures that have been built up, including the Private Bill procedure, to give the matter a Second Reading, and then discuss in Committee whether the proper criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and others can be substantiated. If they can, we drop it. But to give up at this stage means that we are not doing our duty for the many people who are suffering because of the lack of privacy protection today. I therefore urge the House, even at this late hour, to give the matter a Second Reading, so that we can hammer out the differences in Committee. If we can, well and good; if not, that is too bad. Even if the Bill leaves this House, it must go through another place. By then more time will have elapsed, and we ought not to put people in danger of waiting that extra time when we are possibly in a position to prevent it. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for participat-ing in this rather short debate. Because I shortened my speech I may not have made myself quite as clear to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, as I intended to be. It was taking the point that the Bill indicated that knowledge meant that one had protection or did not have protection according to how much knowledge could be shown. I felt it was a difficult point. I used a bad example.
All noble Lords, except, I am sorry to say, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, are agreed as to what should happen to the Bill today. However, the House is very thinly attended. While I should very much regret wasting a lot of time— I think it would be a waste of time having a Second Reading and further proceedings in the House— I feel it appropriate to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  AUNG SAN SUU KYI
  AUNG SAN SUU KYI
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  TURKEY: HUMAN RIGHTS
  KOREA
  KOREA
  KOREA: ALLEGED US AIR WAR EXERCISE
  KOREA: ALLEGED US AIR WAR EXERCISE
  KOREA: PATRIOT MISSILES
  KOREA: PATRIOT MISSILES
  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: PRE- EMPTION
  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: PRE- EMPTION
  NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: US COUNTER MEASURES
  NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: US COUNTER MEASURES
  UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION: UK CONTRIBUTIONS AND PAYMENTS DUE
  UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION: UK CONTRIBUTIONS AND PAYMENTS DUE
  EUROPEAN UNION: EXCHANGE OF SECRET INFORMATION
  EUROPEAN UNION: EXCHANGE OF SECRET INFORMATION
  ACP BANANA REGIME: EC COMPENSATION PROPOSAL
  ACP BANANA REGIME: EC COMPENSATION PROPOSAL
  CARIBBEAN BANANA GROWERS: STABEX COMPENSATION
  CARIBBEAN BANANA GROWERS: STABEX COMPENSATION
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS: UK VOTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR EU CITIZENS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS: UK VOTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR EU CITIZENS
  BAIL HOSTELS
  BAIL HOSTELS
  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS
  CENTRAL LINE: DELAYS
  CENTRAL LINE: DELAYS
  PATENT OFFICE
  PATENT OFFICE
  Mr. JOHN CAHILL
  Mr. JOHN CAHILL
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: REVIEWS AND APPEALS
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: REVIEWS AND APPEALS
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: BAILIFFS' CODE OF PRACTICE
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: BAILIFFS' CODE OF PRACTICE
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: CARE ALLOWANCE RESPONSIBILITY
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: CARE ALLOWANCE RESPONSIBILITY
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION INITIATIVE
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION INITIATIVE
  BANANA PRICES
  BANANA PRICES