Sitting of 13 January 1994

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

  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Crime
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in response to his 27-point plan to reduce crime in the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I have received a large number of representations and comments on my 27-point plan, including one from the chairman of the Police Federation, who said:
    "My message to the Home Secretary is what you have proposed is first-class. It will help tremendously in the fight against crime."
    Mr. Dowd: Will the Home Secretary tell the House why, after almost 15 continuous years of Conservative Government, and within but a few months of his appointment, he felt compelled to introduce a package of such dubious complexity? Does that indicate the indolence and ineptitude of his Tory predecessors or his own desperation in the face of a national problem, which, throughout those 15 years, despite their fatuous pretence to the contrary, the Government have done nothing but exacerbate?
    Mr. Howard: It may take me a little time to work out whether "dubious complexity" is an improvement on a "series of gimmicks". The truth of the matter is that, whatever phrase the Opposition attempt to fasten to the package that I announced, and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which implements it, they could not make up their mind what to do about it on Tuesday—they could not say yes and they could not say no. They simply abstained at the end of the day.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall reading that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said that we should not be hesitant to praise the Government when they got things right? Has my right hon. and learned Friend received any sort of praise or representations from the hon. Member for Sedgefield as a result of those points?
    Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received no praise, but lots of hesitancy. Hesitancy is the watch word of the Labour party.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is no more serious cause of crime than the link between crime and drugs and drug abuse, particularly among young people? Is he aware that the police estimate that, in certain parts of the country, 70 per cent. of crime is linked to drugs, and that last week the Home Office report said that there was an urgent need for a national programme of drugs education and prevention through the country? In those circumstances, why did he take the Tory party to vote against Labour's amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which included precisely that, among other things?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly agree that there is an important relationship between crime and drugs. We must take the influence of drugs on crime very seriously. That is why the Government have introduced into the national curriculum comprehensive education for children in our schools on the question of drugs.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if a suspect refuses to answer a simple question in a police station, the courts should be told and be allowed to take that into account?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be aware of our proposal to enable the courts to draw the appropriate inferences from the silence of those who are asked questions. He will also know that it has been warmly welcomed by the police, the public and the majority of the judges who gave evidence to the royal commission.

    Television (Violence)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he plans to commission into the effects of violence on television and video on children and young people.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We intend to examine the results of research into the viewing behaviour of juvenile offenders which has been commissioned jointly by the British Board of Film Classification, the Broadcasting Standards Council, the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. Pending the outcome of that examination, the Government have no plans to commission further research on the subject.
    Ms Lynne: As research figures show that 118,000 children under the age of 16 saw Child's Play 3, the film mentioned in the James Bulger and the Susan Capper trials, is the Minister in favour of amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a new classification of "unsuitable for home viewing" for particularly gratuitously violent films and videos, particularly as, unlike the Minister, I do not believe that current legislation is operating successfully?
    Mr. Lloyd: We will consider all the ideas that come up, but, as I just said, we want first to see the results of the research which I believe is due in March. The hon. Lady is right to say that we should look at the classifications under the 1984 Act, and no doubt there will need to be a great deal of discussion on that, but we have the strongest law on video classification in the world. It may well be that it could be stronger, but it would be wise to obtain all the information that we can to see how it can be effectively strengthened, rather than giving an immediate reaction to a particularly horrid case about which we all know so much.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on his recent honour, aware that this is a matter of concern not just for parts of the House but for the entire House and the entire adult population of Britain, and that the time has come not for studies but for action to stop child pornography and child violence coming on to the screens at times when children can watch it?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks. He referred to child pornography
    320
    coming on to the screens, but the law is extremely tough against child pornography. It is being strengthened by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. However, what I think he is referring to, about which the great majority of people on both sides of the House and in the country at large are concerned, is the continual diet of violence on programmes of the broadcasting organisations and on videos. The difficulty is that, as I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree, any one particular item will, for most people, do no harm whatever; it is the cumulative effect and the repetitiveness that are dangerous. The law may well be strengthened, but the first line of defence is the editorial good sense of broadcasters.

    Cleveland Police Authority
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the resources available to the Cleveland police authority to fight crime in the area.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Provision for policing in Cleveland in 1994–95 will increase by more than 4 per cent.
    Mr. Mandelson: Is the Minister aware that crime in my constituency has risen by 132 per cent. since the Government came to power, burglary by 148 per cent. and auto crime by 281 per cent., resulting most recently this morning in a tragic death in the town? As my constituents have almost despaired of anything being achieved to stop that crime wave, will the Minister give a clear answer to the question this afternoon: will the Government's new Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill cut crime for my constituents or not? Yes or no?
    Mr. Wardle: First, I join the hon. Gentleman in the regret that he expressed about the death to which he referred. I know that he prides himself on his presentational skills, so it is a pity that he did a disservice to the House. In the year to 30 June 1993, crime fell in the area of the Cleveland constabulary by 2 per cent. The hon. Gentleman has not told the House that, for the current year, Cleveland's police standard spending assessment in-creased by 3·9 per cent., but the county council cut the police budget by 2 per cent. and, in nine of the past 15 years, has not even applied for an increase in its establishment. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question of course is yes.
    Mr. Devlin: Turning to another aspect of the Cleveland police, is my hon. Friend aware of how pleased the police in Stockton are that they are to be testing the new side-handled baton, which they called for and which the Home Secretary was only too ready to grant them? Will my hon. Friend further congratulate the police in Stockton on the greatest fall in burglary rates in Cleveland?
    Mr. Wardle: I happily join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police in Stockton. He is right, too, about the value of the trials of the baton to which he referred. I am sure that both he and the House will be aware that the Cleveland force has done an excellent job. Not only has crime fallen by 2 per cent. throughout the area of the force, but the clear-up rate is better than the national average. Civilianisation is proceeding apace; by the end of

    321
    1992, 100 uniformed officers had been released by civilianisation, and it is planned to release another 40 for operational duties this year.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Whatever may be happening in Cleveland, are not large numbers of constabularies, including Warwickshire constabulary, facing budget cuts—in the case of Warwickshire, of 2 per cent.—as a result of Government policy? Does not the Minister understand that if the Government fail to deliver to constabularies the resources that they require to put officers on the beat, that is a false economy? If we do not provide police with the resources that they need, we will pay the price in higher insurance rates and in the rise in crime over which the Government have presided for the past 14 years.
    Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, provision for police spending will increase by 4·4 per cent. What local authorities do with their budgets, having received their police SSAs, is a matter for them. If some Labour local authorities are willing to spend more on social services and less on their police budgets, that is a matter for them and a matter for which they will be answerable to their electorates.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Gyles Brandreth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Order. Mr. Roy Hughes.

    Police Reorganisation
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with representatives of police committees concerning reorganisation.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Ministers and officials have had many meetings with representatives of police authorities about our proposals for police reform.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister appreciate that delay and speculation about reorganisation are undermining morale in the police service at a time when the police need to be ever more vigilant in the fight against crime? Will he recognise the greater efficiency of smaller forces such as those of Gwent and Dyfed-Powys? Given such efficiency and high levels of crime detection in these forces, is not the message to leave well alone?
    Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall the answer that I gave on 13 May last year to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—that as a result of local government reform in Wales, some changes in the policing arrangements as between south Wales and Gwent are likely to be necessary. Home Office officials have already met the police authorities and chief constables and are making a detailed assessment of the options.
    I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should not be unnecessary delay. That is why the consultations are already under way and, as soon as the detailed assessment is completed, decisions will be taken.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend consider it correct if police authorities undercut the morale of their own police forces by spreading rumours about the ill effects of the new police authority formation, as is happening in my hon. Friend's and my county of Sussex?
    Mr. Wardle: There is a lot of needless scaremongering about the reforms. As my hon. Friend knows, the new
    322
    police authorities will be small, efficient bodies able to focus on key strategic tasks. A statutory obligation will be placed on them to consult locally, to draw up with the chief officer a local plan or strategy, and then to be answerable for that by reporting the results of policing every year.

    Tariff Sentences
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relinquish his powers to impose tariff sentences on those sentenced by the courts.
    Mr. Howard: I set tariffs only in relation to those persons who have received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. I have no plans at present to change that arrangement, but I am still considering the recent report of the Committee on the Penalty for Homicide, chaired by Lord Lane.
    Mr. Madden: Does not the Home Secretary agree that the case of Abdul Qayyum Raja and Mohammed Riaz illustrates the urgent need for decisions on the duration of mandatory life sentences to be left to the trial judge, who is in possession of all the facts and the legal arguments? Is that not better than the Home Secretary's exercising power in an arbitrary and unaccountable way—which, in this case, has extended those two men's sentences far beyond those delivered by the trial judge?
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Of course full weight is given to the opinions of both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, but the final decision in such cases is a matter for the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise the huge support in north Hertfordshire and the country as a whole for tougher sentencing powers to deal with persistent young offenders? If they are locked up, they cannot commit offences. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents that these excellent proposals will not be watered down by the Opposition, in Committee or elsewhere?
    Mr. Howard: Subject, of course, to the will of the House, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We certainly have no intention of watering down the powers, because we appreciate full well that the public need to be protected from the activities of the relatively small number of young offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences. That is why we are introducing these provisions, which we intend to implement as soon as possible.

    Jury-nobbling
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding jury-nobbling; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no recent representations. We are determined that criminals should not be allowed to escape their just deserts because of interference with jurors. As soon, therefore, as the necessary details can be worked out, we intend to ask the House to approve provisions which, if approved, will allow retrials to be held after proven instances of jury nobbling.
    Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Let me add my congratulations on his recent elevation.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nobbling and intimidation of juries, like the intimidation of witnesses, is a serious abuse of the criminal justice system and seriously undermines justice? Does he agree that the weight of prosecution evidence that now has to be disclosed to defence counsel is leading to an increase in the number of such abuses, and that disclosure needs to be reviewed carefully in accordance with what our senior policemen are telling us?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, of course that is true.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that more support schemes for witnesses are needed in the Crown courts to deal with jury nobbling and the intimidation of witnesses? Why are the Government cutting such schemes, rather than expanding them?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong; we are expanding them.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on preparing an order on referral of lenient sentences.
    Mr. Howard: I can announce today that an order will be laid shortly which will extend the Attorney-General's powers with effect from 1 March. The order will bring within those powers offences of indecent assault, cruelty to children and making threats to kill.
    Mr. Oppenheim: If the policy of referring lenient sentences is central to the fight against crime, how seriously should we take the representations of those who like to claim the moral high ground on the law-and-order issue, and who constantly pontificate about the need for the Government to take tougher action on crime, but who bitterly opposed and voted against the referral of lenient sentences? They include the Opposition home affairs spokesman.
    Mr. Howard: The seriousness with which we can take the Opposition's attitude can best be tested by recalling what was said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—then shadow Home Secretary—when the powers were first introduced. He said
    "It is quite wrong that a man or woman should be required to serve the longer of two sentences imposed on them. It is wrong that the obviously political intrusion which this system provides should be introduced into our legal system. It is wrong that the Attorney-General should be subject to the campaigns inside and outside this House."—[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 693.]
    He was followed into the Division Lobby against the measure by all senior members of the Opposition Front Bench and all members of the present Opposition home affairs team, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman does not like to be reminded of those facts.
    Mr. Grocott: In line with his tough view on sentencing policy, what does the Home Secretary think would be an appropriate sentence for the squandering, waste and misappropriation of £21 million of taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a matter for the district auditor. [Interruption.] It is still under consideration by the district auditor and it is a remarkable illustration of the Opposition's attitude to justice that they are anxious to leap in on the basis of provisional representations before the law has completed its course.

    Custodial Sentences
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has conducted into the effectiveness of custodial sentences; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: The research and statistics department of the Home Office regularly publishes material relevant to the consideration of the effectiveness of sentencing, including custodial sentencing.
    Mr. Clappison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the value of custody lies not only in giving the best possible protection to the public from serious and persistent offenders but in improving the effectiveness and credibility of non-custodial sentences by giving a sanction to the courts against those who refuse to comply with non-custodial sentences and who will not respond to them but commit further offences? Are not those who talk about whether prison works ignoring that fact and are they not inviting house burglars, car thieves and the like to cock a snook at the courts?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is precisely because of the point that he has raised that the figures that we derive from our research consistently underestimate the deterrent effect of imprisonment.
    Ms Ruddock: Does the Home Secretary know, however, of the calculation made by the head of research at the Home Office to the effect that it would require a 25 per cent. increase in the prison population to achieve a reduction of 1 per cent. in crime? Surely that would cost in the region of £1 billion. Given the fact that only one in 50 crimes leads to a conviction, would it not be much better for the Government to have a comprehensive crime prevention policy, which would be not only cheaper but much more effective in reducing the rate of crime?
    Mr. Howard: The point that the hon. Lady makes is thoroughly absurd. Of course, most offences and most offenders should not be subject to sentence of imprisonment so to compare rates of imprisonment with all offences committed, as she has done, is of no relevance to the argument. Much more relevant is the research which shows that between three and 13 offences could be prevented for each convicted domestic burglar who is imprisoned for a year rather than sentenced to community service. That is the relevant statistic—why do the Opposition run away from it?

    Elderly People (Attacks)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people aged over 70 years have been attacked in their own homes in 1993.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I regret that the information requested on people aged over 70 is not available from statistics of

    325
    recorded crime. However, data from recent British crime surveys suggest that those aged 60 and over are less likely to suffer incidences of violent crime in and around the home than those in younger age groups.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the circumstantial link between drug addiction and the growing number of cases of elderly women in their own homes who are being badly battered, raped or, in one case, locked in a cupboard, thrown face down and left to die? Does he not think it is time that the House had a full day's debate on drug addiction and the growing number of innocent people made victims because we are trying to prevent silly people taking drugs and destroying themselves?
    Mr. Maclean: Elderly people are vulnerable and they fear crime more than younger people. Many of them are afraid to go out at night for fear of burglary or mugging. There have been despicable and cowardly attacks on old people, which we all condemn and deplore, but statistics clearly show that people under 24 are about 20 times more likely to be victims of crime than those aged over 60. It might seem—although we cannot go only by anecdote—that junkies and others are targeting their own age group rather than the elderly. I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing more research, but whether a debate is held is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Allen: As the Minister has had a couple of days to think about the answer, will he tell elderly people, hon. Members and people watching on television whether the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will cut crime? It is a very simple question. Will the Minister answer today since he could not do so the other day?
    Mr. Maclean: I will tell the Labour party what the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, on which Labour abstained, will do. It will make our criminal justice system the most effective possible, and of course we shall see results. We want cautioning to fall and, following the issuing of new guidelines by my right hon. and learned Friend, it is starting to do so. We want to see fewer police officers behind desks and more on the streets, and with cuts in their paperwork and less middle management that is exactly what we shall see. We want to see persistent juvenile offenders off the streets and in custody and, with our new secure training centres, that is what we shall see, yet that is what the Labour party abstained on. Above all, we want a criminal justice system in which everyone—the public, the police and the courts—can have confidence, and that is the yardstick by which I shall judge the Bill.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that many elderly people fall prey to young violent criminals, including those under the age of 15 who are now subject to the Children Act 1989? Will he confirm that the secure training orders envisaged in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will put such young thugs behind secure bars and locks for the first time, which will give some reassurance to the elderly, who fall prey to them?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which was given a Second Reading on Tuesday and about which the Labour party could not make up its mind, gives courts for the first time the power to send directly to secure accommodation youngsters aged under 15 who have a history of persistent
    326
    offending. That will give some peace of mind not only to elderly people but to many in villages, towns and housing estates throughout the length and breadth of this country and in Labour constituencies. I am not sure how Labour Members will be able to face their constituency executives tomorrow night and tell them that on this major measure, which affects their constituents, they did not know what to do.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers he estimates will be rostered for duty on Sundays as a result of the partial deregulation of Sunday trading.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The number of police officers rostered for duty is an operational matter for chief officers.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister accept that it will be necessary to roster additional police officers, environmental health officers, street cleaners and trading standards officers to police Sunday trading? Who will pay for them?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Association of Chief Police Officers suggests that the resource implications for policing are minimal and manageable. I think that I prefer the police's judgment of the matter to the hon. Gentleman's.

    Neighbourhood Watch
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on neighbourhood watch schemes being involved in street patrolling.
    Mr. Howard: A number of neighbourhood watch schemes already patrol as part of their voluntary crime prevention activities. To encourage such local initiatives, I have asked for a code of practice to be drawn up in consultation with the police.
    Mr. Winnick: Does not the Home Secretary realise how ridiculous and dangerous it is to advise neighbourhood watch schemes to get involved in street patrols? Has not he been told that the police consider it to be very dangerous? Why does not he admit that what he wants is for residents increasingly to use private guards, which is another form of privatisation of the police service?
    Mr. Howard: No. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If anyone really wanted to see the Labour party's attitude towards such matters he should have observed the manifest derision of Opposition Members when I recounted to the House on Tuesday the work being done by Town Watch in Sandwich, patrolling the streets to reduce crime in the area and to escort elderly citizens who want to be taken out at night to visit their friends and neighbours. I went out with Sandwich Town Watch on Sunday night, and I was greatly impressed by what I saw. Such work should receive a tribute from the Labour party, not the derision that we saw on Tuesday. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. There are far too many noisy conversations going on. [Interruption.] Order. The House must settle down now.
    Mr. Paice: Is not it true that people who become involved in the patrolling schemes alongside neighbour-hood watch understand clearly that the idea of people

    327
    patrolling and keeping watch is a major deterrent to those involved in much of the petty crime that besets our housing estates? Is that not the real reason why my constituents in Cottenham, and people in many other places, have become involved in such schemes? They are a means of helping to keep down crime, especially in rural areas. Do they not represent a sensible way forward, alongside the special constable scheme, which is also being widely welcomed in my constituency?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend but such schemes are of use not only in rural areas. I have told the House of my experiences in Sandwich on Sunday night; last Thursday night I patrolled in a similar way with a group of concerned citizens in Washington DC. They said to me, "People behave differently if they know that they are being watched." [Laughter.] That is the principle behind neighbourhood watch.—[interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Howard rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order now.
    Mr. HowardIt is astonishing how reluctant the Labour party is to take seriously the safety of people on our streets and in their houses, and the extent to which the active citizen can make a contribution towards achieving those objectives.
    Mr. Michael: I assure the Home Secretary that he is being watched. Does he not accept that patrolling our streets is part of the job of a constable, which demands training and expertise?
    Our derision is not for those good citizens who, out of fear and frustration, patrol the streets, but for the Home Secretary who fails to support the police. He is putting at risk those who undertake such patrols, and other citizens, too. Why has a Home Secretary from a party that promised 1,000 extra police this year delivered a cut of 224 instead? We hear constant promises of support for the police, but the citizens to whom the question refers would be in bed at night if the Home Secretary would only deliver that support.
    Mr. HowardWe have fully discharged our manifesto promise to increase police numbers. If I have failed to support the police, why did the chairman of the Police Federation say about my speech in Blackpool,
    "My message to the Home Secretary is that what you have proposed is first-class. It will help tremendously in the fight against crime"?
    The people who patrol the streets of Sandwich do so not out of fear and frustration but out of a public-spirited concern for their community that the Labour party will never understand.

    Police
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers will be returned to operational duties by his plans to cut paperwork and to reduce the number of police middle managers.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: That is a matter for chief officers to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of
    328
    their own forces, but my right hon. and learned Friend has made it possible over time for some 5,300 police officers to be redeployed to front-line operational police duties.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell the House what support he has had for the proposals and is he aware of the many forward-looking police forces that are developing computer software programmes, which are now cutting administrative burdens and putting more police officers back on the beat?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has received widespread and enthusiastic support not only for those two reform proposals, but for all his police reform proposals, because they will provide a modernised and more effective organisational structure, allow chief officers the freedom to deploy financial resources as they see fit —whether on equipment, on computer technology or on personnel—and allow for free-standing budgets that cannot be poached by local authorities. More officers with less paperwork will be getting out from behind their desks to the beat on locally focused operational duties. They will help to prevent crime, tackle crime where it occurs and protect the public.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: If the reduction in paperwork is bringing such enormous benefits, why is my constituency of Hampstead and Highgate threatened with the removal of 22 police officers? Surely one of the quickest ways to bring peace of mind to the elderly who are indeed under threat in my constituency is by not only retaining the present number of police officers but increasing it.
    Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Lady will know, the deployment of police in the Metropolitan area is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Judging by the hon. Lady's concern, I am sure that she will support the Bill concerning the police in its passage through the House.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to get to grips with law and order, we cannot always leave it to the police, but must rely on measures such as those introduced by the Home Secretary yesterday and we must rely on the judiciary to give hobnail-boot sentences and not carpet-slipper sentences?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend provides a powerful endorsement of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. He is also absolutely right to point out that it is partnership which matters in the fight against crime and crime prevention between community groups, members of the public and local authorities working with the police.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lift the freeze on police recruitment in the next financial year.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: There is no recruitment freeze. Forces remain free to recruit up to their authorised establishment.
    Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Minister says, but does he agree that although the police are free to recruit, they need to be supported by resources? In his reforms of the police, will the Home Secretary consider that they need

    329
    further resources, will he ensure that those resources are available and, in making those resources available, will he take into consideration the partnership that needs to be forged between the police, the local community and local authorities?
    Mr. Wardle: That is precisely why the police spending provision will increase next year by 4·4 per cent., precisely why 279 extra police posts have been approved in South Yorkshire since 1979—an extra 10 per cent.—and why, since 1979, across the country we have some 16,600 more uniformed police officers.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy of giving chief officers control over the budgets for police officers and civilian staff will enable those chief officers to deploy resources more efficiently in the circumstances of the regions for which they are responsible?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At present, we have an out-dated system by which police chief officers have to express every bid for extra money in terms of additional uniformed posts. Now, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, chief officers will have the flexibility to decide how they spend their budget.

    Operation Cheetah
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost of Operation Cheetah on Merseyside to date; and whether the inquiry is continuing.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Merseyside police expect the total cost of Operation Cheetah to be approximately £2·2 million. The inquiry is now at an end.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Merseyside police committee has expressed concern at the number of hours that have been spent on this investigation? Is the Minister satisfied with the liaison between the Merseyside police and the Crown Prosecution Service?
    Mr. Wardle: In that case, no doubt the chairman of the police authority will make his feelings known, as I am sure he has, to the chief officer. It is for the chief officer to allocate resources and to deploy officers on operational matters. It must be the responsibility of the police to investigate such allegations.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that wherever there is suspected wrongdoing on Merseyside it is entirely right for the police to investigate it?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right and that is precisely what the police did.

    Departmental Efficiency
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of his Department.
    Mr. Howard: Steps to improve the efficiency of the Home Office and its services include market testing, contracting out, computerisation, better purchasing and greater productivity.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole way in which his Department is working now demonstrates the effectiveness of what he is doing and that the new measures which he has announced are exactly what people are looking for?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that he is right. I am gratified by the widespread support that I have received from the public for the measures that I am putting in place. It is a great shame that the Labour party could not support them on Tuesday.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein calling for the clarification of the Downing street declaration is just a sickening attempt by the IRA's apologists to shuffle the responsibility for their evil campaign of terror and fear? Is it not time that they faced up to their responsibilities and grasped the challenge of adopting the democratic path?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many millions of people in this country and throughout the island of Ireland. I welcome in particular the recent statement by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), making clear that he sees no excuse whatever for continuing violence and appealing for people to devote themselves exclusively to the democratic process. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear on a number of occasions, the joint declaration is not an invitation for renegotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have gone to great lengths in this House and beyond it to ensure that the joint declaration is fully understood and we shall, of course, continue to do so. We still await a positive response from the IRA.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister unequivoc-ally condemn the gerrymandering and wilful misconduct which has cost £21 million of taxpayers' money in what his party has described as a flagship council?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say unequivocally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the reported allegations about the council turn out to be true, of course I condemn such activities just as I would condemn malpractice in any council, wherever it occurred. It would be wrong to comment on this case while the auditor is still considering it. The auditor operates independently of Government, has full powers to pursue his inquiries and I have no doubt that he will continue to use them to the full. We should wait and see precisely what the outcome may be. Otherwise, we are in danger of assuming that people have committed malpractice until they are proved innocent. I would think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a barrister, would recognise that that is no way to pass judgment.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister recollect the frequent endorsements that he and his colleagues have offered to Westminster city council, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State for Employment, that Westminster council was one of the Tory's stunning successes and a source of cheer for every Conservative? Taking everything into account, does the Prime Minister think that those endorsements were wholly wise?
    The Prime Minister: I have just made it perfectly clear to the whole House that the district auditor's report contains a number of serious allegations. At this stage, they are allegations. There is now a perfectly proper legal process by which the allegations will be examined in depth and the truth arrived at. The district auditor has been at pains to stress that his findings are provisional. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should wait until those findings are confirmed before he is so swift to judge.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that the matter has now been investigated for four years, and what is revealed is a devastating example of financial corruption and an abuse of power by senior members of the Conservative party? Cannot he at least condemn that?
    The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear that if the allegations are confirmed, I will condemn unreservedly. But, as has been made entirely clear, this is the start of the legal process. Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, most people will prefer to wait until that is completed and not find people guilty until and unless they are proven to be guilty. That is a cardinal principle of British law which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's sharp fall in unemployment? Does he recall that one year ago the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) predicted that unemploy-ment would rise month after month? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to make another such prediction?
    The Prime Minister: Most people would probably settle not for another prediction but for an admission from the hon. Gentleman that he got it wrong again and again and again. I very much welcome yesterday's fall in unemployment, which means that the number of unemployed people has fallen by nearly a quarter of a million over the past year. Of course, it is still too high, but the fall of nearly 47,000 on top of the falls in recent months suggests that we are now seeing a continuing downward trend in the level of unemployment. We are the only western European nation to have low inflation, an economy that is growing and unemployment that is falling significantly.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. There is impossibly bad behaviour today.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does Lord Justice Scott still enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: It was the Government who set up the inquiry and gave Lord Justice Scott the freedom to pursue it as he thinks fit. I have no adverse comments to make on the way that he is doing it.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £20 million contract won by Plymouth-based British Aerospace (Systems and Equipment) Ltd. in December, further boosted by a share in the £50 million contract announced by the Ministry of Defence yesterday? Is that not a fine illustration of defence contracts boosting and sustaining British jobs? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Liberal policy on defence were followed, those defence jobs would simply not exist and many people in the west country would be out of work?
    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, delighted at the contracts to which my hon. Friend refers. It is certainly the case that if the reductions in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition were carried into force, the implications not only for our capacity to defend ourselves but for British industry, not least in the west country, would be very profound. It would be a reassuring change if the Leader of the Liberal party were to say the same thing in the west country as he says elsewhere.

    London Hospitals
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make an official visit to a London national health service hospital.
    The Prime Minister: I shall be making a series of visits around the country, during which I intend to include NHS hospitals, as I have in the past.
    Mr. Corbyn: In his visits around the country, will the Prime Minister undertake to explain to Londoners why more than 150,000 people are on hospital waiting lists? Beds are being closed and wards are being taken out of operation, and one night in Bart's hospital more than 30 people had to sleep on floors or on trolleys because there was not sufficient space for them. Are not the Prime Minister's policies of the internal market leading to more and more closures and losses of bed space as the crisis and the chaos get worse? Is not it time for him to intervene to scrap the internal market and give Londoners the health service which they need, deserve and demand? Is not that a basic right?
    The Prime Minister: We are certainly seeking to give Londoners the health service which they deserve. In addition, we are seeking to improve dramatically primary health care in the capital and that has been evident for some time.
    The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in his catalogue the dramatic reductions in the times which patients wait for hospital treatment. Since the reforms have been implemented, the number of patients who have been waiting for more than a year has fallen from around 120,000 to just over 70,000, and that figure is on a declining trend. The hon. Gentleman will know of expenditure which has been made in his own area's district

    333
    health authority. He ought not to underestimate the work that is being done to improve the health service for all the people who live in London.

    Engagements
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Milligan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work that is being done in Eastleigh to develop a safer door lock for trains? Such a lock could have averted some of the 300 deaths which have occurred during the past 20 years when passengers have fallen out of trains. Will the Government encourage British Rail to invest in the new technology which would not only save lives on the railways but would also save jobs in my constituency?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend may know that British Rail is actively considering the technical feasibility and the cost-effectiveness of the system to which he refers. I know how important the decision is for my hon. Friend, and I know how hard he has worked on behalf of his constituents. British Rail is examining the matter at the moment.
    Mr. Kaufman: On November 10 1992, the Prime Minister, together with the Attorney-General, announced the appointment of Lord Justice Scott to conduct his inquiry. Will the Prime Minister now express his full confidence that Lord Justice Scott is conducting the inquiry fairly, particularly since he is due shortly to appear before Lord Justice Scott? Is the Prime Minister confident that he will be treated fairly by Lord Justice Scott? Will the Prime Minister repudiate the scurrilous attack on Lord Justice Scott by Lord Howe?
    The Prime Minister: I know that it has been a quite noisy House this afternoon, but I seem to recall answering that question a few moments ago. I will reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government appointed Lord Justice Scott to conduct an independent inquiry. It is therefore for him to draw up his own procedures and it is not a matter for the Government to comment on those procedures. I have no adverse comments to make upon those procedures, as I indicated a few moments ago.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued incarceration of Ron Arad is quite unacceptable? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will maintain their efforts to secure his freedom?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that assurance, and we will continue to support efforts to free Mr. Arad. We have raised the case on innumerable occasions with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who may be able to help. On his visit to Israel earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary met members of Mr. Arad's family and assured them that we will continue to do what we can to help. My right hon. Friend gave them our warm sympathy for the pain and suffering which they must feel at present.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that whether or not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic proceeds to interpret, elaborate, explain or, indeed, encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to respond to the Downing street declaration, he will stand by it and that he expects members of Sinn Fein-IRA to cease their campaign completely and indicate that they will lay down their arms so that they can enter the democratic process?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly wish to see them unreservedly and permanently end violence and then enter into exploratory talks that can lead to them taking part in the democratic process. I reiterate again: we are not in the business of clarifying the declaration. The declaration is clear. What is intended by Mr. Adams in his present activities is to seek bit by bit to draw the Government into negotiation upon the joint declaration. That is not on offer to Mr. Adams now. It will not be on offer to Mr. Adams in the future. If he wishes to enter into discussions, he knows how he may do it. He can decide to give up violence. After three months he can enter into exploratory talks. Then he will be able to enter into the democratic talks process itself. That is the route ahead. The only question that needs to be asked is not of the British Government or the Irish Government but of Mr. Adams. Will he stop the violence and enter the democratic process or will he not? Everything else is fudge.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to give us the business for the forthcoming week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 18 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motion on the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme.
WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY—Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order.
Motion relating to the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) regulations.
Motion relating to the Education (Student Loans) (No. 2) regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 20 JANUARY—Opposition Day (first allotted day).
There will be a debate on Accountability and Waste in the National Health Service on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 21 JANUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill.
Mrs. Beckett: As the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is a piece of gerrymandering so shameless as to make Westminster city council look like rank amateurs, will the Lord President withdraw it for debate on Monday and put in its place a debate on the Child Support Agency? As he will recall, there has been neither a statement nor a debate in the House on that matter. He will know, as I do, that there is widespread anxiety in every party represented in the House and widespread dissatisfaction at the changes made so far by the Government, which are regarded by all parties as wholly inadequate. That seems to us to be an urgent subject for debate.
In view of the unprecedented attempt by Lord Howe to undermine the independence and integrity of the Scott inquiry, will the Lord President ask the President of the Board of Trade to come to the House so that he can set beyond doubt on the record the Government's complete dissociation from the statements made by Lord Howe and their undertaking that not only the Prime Minister but no Minister or official of the Government gave Lord Howe any support or had any discussions with him before he made that statement to the Scott inquiry?
May I remind the Lord President that we have repeatedly sought a statement from the Home Secretary on the neglect of voter registration in Conservative boroughs such as the London borough of Brent. That neglect threatens to remove from thousands of British citizens the most basic right in a democracy—the right to vote. Will the Lord President bring the Home Secretary to the House to answer on the matter?
Mr. Newton: On the latter question, the Home Secretary has just been here and no doubt there would have been opportunities to raise that matter with him. I shall bring the right hon. Lady's question to his attention.
As for Lord Howe, I am certainly not aware of any discussions that he had with members of the Government before making his remarks to the inquiry yesterday and I am tempted—as my right hon. Friend clearly said in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage, a few moments ago—simply to refer once again to the two answers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on the Scott inquiry.
On the Child Support Agency, there has been a general welcome for the changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced just before Christmas. There will be opportunities for debate in due course on the regulations required.
I do not accept the right hon. Lady's strictures on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and have no intention of removing it from the list of business.
Sir Dudley Smith: Despite all the pressures that will be on my right hon. Friend during these business questions, does not he think that it would be a good idea to get back to basic content and consider one of the most important things that has happened this week —the summit conference in Brussels over the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union? Does he believe that, perhaps not next week but within a reasonably short time, we should have the opportunity to debate the future of those two organisations and our attitudes towards them?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is certainly right to advert to the great importance of those discussions and he will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the outcome yesterday. On the question of a debate, perhaps I can simply undertake to bear in mind my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I press the Leader of the House on the Child Support Agency? Will he confirm that the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 22 December will require statutory instruments to effect the change and that those instruments will be considered under the affirmative procedure? Does the Leader of the House understand that that matter is becoming extremely urgent and that if he cannot find time for a debate to implement the orders next week, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be looking for a statement during business questions next week to ensure that such a debate is organised for the week thereafter?
Mr. Newton: The Government's appreciation of the need to move speedily, especially following the report of the Select Committee, was well illustrated by the speed with which the statement followed the report. Of course, we shall not seek to delay the necessary measures. I would need to check how they fall between affirmative and negative orders.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My right hon. Friend will know that the persistent question of blight has long been one of the most difficult for any Government to resolve. Given the fact that there are more and more public infrastructure projects, many of which take up to 14 years

337
to complete, and that thousands of people see their property values destroyed by public works, will he consider a debate on that major issue?
Mr. Newton: It seems likely that, given the amount of interest in a number of major projects at the moment and the plans that are well known to my hon. Friend, opportunities for discussion on those matters will occur, but I cannot make a specific promise this afternoon.
Mr. Harry Cohen: As the Government cancelled today's health service debate and put it on the agenda for next Thursday, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to go to Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency before next Thursday, preferably one evening, so that he oan look at and speak to the people in the accident and emergency department who have been waiting for up to 10 hours and perhaps longer for treatment and the other people who are jam-packed on trolleys in the hospital corridors, waiting for a bed? Then the Minister could come to the House on Thursday and explain what the Government are going to do about it.
Mr. Newton: It is not the case that, as the hon. Gentleman put it, the Government cancelled today's debate and reinstated it next Thursday. We offered the Opposition a day next Thursday to replace the one that we found it necessary to take for other business today and they chose to transfer the health service debate that they had tabled for today. Of course, I do not in any way complain about that. On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on a policy initiative that commands support across Dartford, Kent and the United Kingdom—the introduction of a national identity card?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that certain issues relating to that are being examined. I will, of course, bring his remarks to the attention, once again, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Monday's business, may I say to the Leader of the House, without posturing, that in my 31 years as a Member of the House I have never known a more ill-thought-out piece of legislation, from Governments of both parties, than the reforms in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. Frankly, that is saying something. Grave doubts have been expressed about the finance for the proposals, after their factual basis was blown apart by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and by the treasurers, and about their effects on education, particularly following the devastating report from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. In those circumstances, should not we use parliamentary mechanisms to ensure that after the Bill's Second Reading its Standing Committee is at least able to call witnesses for four to six of its sittings? That would establish some kind of factual basis for the Bill. Between now and Monday, will the Leader of the House at least consider that and talk to the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Newton: It would be less than courteous of me simply to reject out of hand the hon. Gentleman's request, but I would not wish to raise his hopes that I or my right
338
hon. Friend the Secretary of State would think it right to proceed down the path that he has suggested. I will, of course, bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my hon. Friend's attention. Otherwise, may I say that the very process of the Second Reading will enable the hon. Gentleman to raise many of those points, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that radio and television stopped using the voice of the actor as a substitute for the voice of the terrorist? If so, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a ministerial statement to be made as soon as possible on the measures that the Government intend to take to prevent the mechanical media from abusing the restrictions imposed upon them?
Mr. Newton: I will bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given the crisis in the national health service, which was described so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), will the Leader of the House consider providing a day in Government time for a debate on it? That would enable every hon. Member to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers exactly what is going on. Is he aware that the Government-appointed members of the trust in my district health authority are proposing to close two hospitals with the loss of 300 beds and goodness knows how many jobs? In fact that, that decision will destroy the health service in Halifax Is not it time that the Government offered the House a del ete on the health service in their time because they have caused that crisis?
Mr. Newton: I do not regard the word "crisis" as a sensible description of the fact that the number of patients treated rose by more than 4 per cent. last year and is expected to rise by another 3 per cent. this year and the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's Question Time, the number of people waiting more than a year for treatment has fallen from about 120,000 to 70,000 since the reforms were introduced.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern that has been expressed by the wool textile and clothing industries at the lack of a decision on tariffs when the GATT round was signed? In view of the in importance of those tariff barriers to our industries, and therefore the people employed by them, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a discussion on them in the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that, in due course, there will be opportunities for further discussion on the generally very successful outcome of the GATT round. I know, however, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will want to look with care at what my hon. Friend has said.
Ms Ann Coffey: Will the Leader of the House arrange time next week for an urgent debate on the British aerospace industry? Is he aware that, yesterday, during trade and industry questions, the Minister for Industry replied to a question on British Aerospace's venture, AVRO, at Woodford? He said:

339
"the general fortunes of this business are improving."—[Official Report, 12 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 162.]
I have heard today, however, that massive redundancies at the Woodford plant will be announced tomorrow. Is not that evidence of the fact that the Minister is unaware of what is happening in the industry? In view of that and of the fact that the GATT negotiations did not resolve the problem relating to indirect and direct subsidy allowable to the British aerospace industry, which puts it at serious disadvantage, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an urgent debate before yet more of my constituents pay with their jobs because of Government inaction in relation to that crucial industry?
Mr. Newton: I am clearly not in a position now to comment on what, from the hon. Lady's initial remarks, I take to be speculation or prediction. However, I can make the point that, since 1979, the Government have provided more than £1·5 billion in support for major aerospace programmes and civil R and D. That is probably greater support than for almost any comparable industry in the country.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the future of NATO, taking account of the meeting of the Prime Ministers of NATO countries this week, so that the position of Poland can be more fully debated than has been the case and so that we may take account of the feelings of expatriate Poles in this country, many of whom live in Ealing and fought in the Atlantic alliance against German tyranny in the war, and who fear for the future of Poland unless it is inside NATO as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's question underlines the request for a debate that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). As I said earlier, I will of course bear that request in mind.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House find time to review the workings of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 in the light of the information that I have sent him about the case of a constituent of mine, Daniel Liddell, who was kicked unconscious and almost killed by thugs in Falkirk? Two of those thugs, Steven McDuff and James Easton, pleaded guilty and were released without being sentenced because the procurator-fiscal got the date wrong for calling them back for sentence. He blamed that on what he said were over-complicated regulations attached to the new Act. George Scott, the procurator-fiscal, said that the reason —
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Connarty: I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will not mind me quoting.
Madam Speaker: Order. Yes, I do mind the hon. Gentleman quoting. These are business questions. The hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail about a particular case. What he should be seeking to do is ask the Leader of the House for a debate on an issue. If the hon. Gentleman would come to a conclusion, I should be grateful.
Mr. Connarty: The procurator-fiscal said that it was caused by stupidity in the drafting of the Act. Therefore, I ask that time is found to review that and find out whether that allegation is incorrect or in fact true.
Mr. Newton: What I think the hon. Gentleman has asked me to do is to find time to undertake a review of the matter. Although I cannot promise to do so personally, I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said today.
Mr. John Butcher: Did my right hon. Friend find it rather curious that so many Opposition Members, who yesterday urged the Prime Minister to bomb the Serbs around Sarajevo, seem to have forgotten their history? May we have a debate on Bosnia so that the House may remind itself of the centuries-old ethnic and cultural links between Serbia and Russia? If Russians were treated to the sight of French, American and British planes bombing Serbia, it would feed the extremists in the Russian Parliament and make life very difficult for Boris Yeltsin. The debate could also provide an opportunity for those who urge the bombing to give an understanding that they will not be the first to condemn our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should British soldiers' wives be widowed as a result of the escalation.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has underlined what my right hon. Friends and, to be fair, numbers of hon. Members, although perhaps not all Opposition Members, have acknowledged throughout, which is the need to take into account a range of important factors, political and military, before jumping into decisions and actions.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Some 15 minutes ago, the Leader of the House announced the business for next week. Will he tell us what specific factor prevented him from announcing the business for two weeks ahead? That is not something for which he needs anyone's permission.
Mr. Newton: If I may say so, what happened yesterday constituted quite a good illustration of the need to retain flexibility at times.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Since later today a distinguished group of colleagues and myself hope to put down an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which will allow the courts to use corporal punishment in place of imprisonment for certain categories of young offenders, could my right hon. Friend be kind and courteous enough to undertake to allow us to debate the matter on the Floor of the House, with a free vote, as many of my, and perhaps his, constituents would feel that that would lie as well with the "back to basics" campaign as some of the other issues that have been treated accordingly?
Mr. Newton: I cannot quite give my hon. Friend that undertaking without giving some consideration to the matter.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House recall the Government White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a partnership for good" released last year which said that there could be many more meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee so that more Scottish issues could be determined in Scotland? Given

341
that, would not it be a good idea to refer the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee and allow Scottish Members of Parliament to determine that subject? If the union really is a partnership, why should the votes of English Tory Members of Parliament be required to gerrymander Scottish local government?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, as ever ingenious and tendentious, raises what he may regard as an interesting point, but one to which I propose to respond with caution. We are in a little difficulty in pursuing proposals, whether of his kind or of those that we might prefer, in the absence of what are known as the usual channels.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon to debate the appalling management of council housing finance in—[HON. MEMBERS: "Westminster!"]—a number of Labour-controlled boroughs in London—in particular, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth, which have been singled out by the district auditor? Is he aware that, in 10 boroughs in London, more than 20 per cent. of the council housing rents remain uncollected, a matter of considerable concern to London and something of which Opposition Members should take notice?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about our attitude to such matters when allegations are shown to be founded, wherever they may occur.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-clay motion 310 concerning the detention of Jamaican citizens at Gatwick?
[That this House deplores the decision of immigration officials at Gatwick Airport on 21st December to detain 190 out of the 326 passengers on charter flight YULE 966 from Kingston, Jamaica; notes that no justification has yet been made for why so many individuals should have been detained or why this particular flight should have been singled out for action on this scale; further notes the failure of immigration officials at Gatwick promptly to notify waiting relatives and friends as to the reason for the delay; condemns the decision to hold 57 passengers overnight, and in some cases for several days, at Campsfield detention centre in acfordshire; is concerned that some of the detainees claim to have been mistreated; notes that there is no evidence that any of the individuals detained were implicated in criminal or drug-related activities; notes that those removed and returned to Jamaica will encounter severe difficulties in ever returning as visitors to the United Kingdom; notes further that the abolition of appeal rights against visitors' refusals in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, leave those refused entry without any effective means of redress against an unfair decision; believes that this incident will severely damage the United Kingdom's reputation abroad as a country which welcomes visitors; believes further that this incident will damage race relations; notes that this incident is symptomatic of the discrimination and lack of accountability in the United Kingdom's immigration system; and urges the Home Secretary to institute a full public inquiry into this case.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that one of the passengers who arrived on the charter flight was a Jamaican woman who had been issued by the British
342
authorities in Jamaica with a visa entitling her to settlement in the United Kingdom, which usually would have meant that she would have been admitted within minutes of arrival? Instead of that, she was kept waiting for 12 hours and, as she was four months pregnant, it is clear that that wait caused her considerable distress.
As the Government have refused even to name the passengers who were deported on Christmas day, or to give any reasons why they were refused entry, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to give an early statement so that he can be called to account for the exercise of brutal state power that took place on Christmas day when 27 Jamaicans were deported back to Jamaica?
Mr. Newton: I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's phrase "brutal state power". I think that he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has written to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about the matter generally and has placed a copy of his letter in the Library. It makes it clear that the immigration service had good reason to pay particular attention to that flight, although each individual passenger was considered individually on merit. There was a delay in completing all the necessary interviews, but an inquiry point for waiting friends and relatives was set up promptly and used by many people. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will wish to look into the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. George Kynoch: Further to the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) to the district auditor's report on Lambeth council issued in May 1993, will my right hon. Friend also consider the alleged goings on in Monklands district council and, taking that into account, seriously consider an early debate on the performance of these Labour councils?
Mr. Newton: I refer my hon. Friend to what I said a few moments ago and to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Following the issue of two sets of district auditor reports in Clay Cross, which I represent, two groups of councillors were debarred from office and surcharged and some of them were made bankrupt. The second team of councillors were surcharged to the tune of £2,000, or a little more, to be paid jointly and severally.
May we have a debate on surcharging, debarring and bankruptcy, so that we may contrast Clay Cross, where people behaved honourably and decently, with Westminster, where £21 milion was at stake and where there was no honour or decency?
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend said during Prime Minister's questions, allegations have been made and will now be examined by due process. Those against whom the allegations have been made have an opportunity to make their case and further consideration can take place in various ways. The sensible course is to allow that process to proceed—not the course that the hon. Gentleman invites me to take.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the activities of Tameside metropolitan borough council, following the

343
investigation on the Radio 4 programme "Face the Facts" this morning, which exposed a company set up to operate the council's nursing homes which has made multi-million pound losses and which is run by Labour councillors, members of their familes and Labour party lackeys?
Mr. Newton: I note that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning is in his place ready to make a statement shortly. I am sure that he will have heard and noted what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Richard Burden: Given the rather idiosyncratic definition that the Leader of the House has given to the term "cancellation" of a debate, would he care to reflect on the impact of the delay in debating the national health service on the delegation that came here today from the Royal Orthopaedic hospital in Birmingham, which is threatened with closure as a result of the Government's health reforms? The delegation comes from a city that stands to lose more than a quarter of its acute beds as a result of the market mechanism.
What confidence can patients and health service staff in Birmingham have that the Government will not find an excuse again next week to duck their responsibility to debate the crisis that they have caused in our national health service?
Mr. Newton: I inadvertently suggested just now that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning was to make a statement shortly—in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to make it.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it depends on whether the Opposition choose to go on behaving as they did yesterday. We had no wish to cancel today's debate; in effect, the Opposition cancelled it by failing to behave reasonably.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: In view of the widespread public interest in the pressure that membership of this House imposes on married life, is not the time ripe for a debate on the hours that the House sits? Can my right hon. Friend confirm reports in the newspapers—or has he perhaps heard it from the Labour party—that the Opposition have welched on their intention to support the reform of our sitting hours and intend to keep us up all hours of the night for narrow party-political reasons?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should direct that question at the serried ranks of former usual channels on the Opposition Front Bench who are looking at me now. I note with genuine regret a report in The Independent today, which states:
"Labour leaders last night confirmed talks between the two sides had collapsed over a recommendation"
about automatic timetabling. The report goes on to say that a senior member of the Labour party who was a member of the relevant Committee said that
"he saw 'no prospect' of the Jopling plan being enacted".
If that is so, I deeply regret it—but it should be made clear more formally by the Opposition if it is true.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I repeat the request for a debate on the divisive and destructive effects of the Child Support Act 1991? If it is not possible to arrange that as a matter of urgency, may we at least have
344
a statement from the Minister responsible for such matters about the particular hardships caused by the disregarding of people with families, both abroad and in this country?
I ask the Leader of the House particularly to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the status of members of the armed forces with a second family based abroad is not recognised in the calculation of their disposable income. People who are putting themselves on the line to support their country find that they cannot afford to support their own children. May we have a statement to clarify the rule that the Child Support Act should encompass all the children of a person, not just a selected few?
Mr. Newton: I hope that none of those involved will regard it as a breach of confidence for me to say that I have already spoken to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who takes a particular interest in such matters. I know that he is aware of the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers and has undertaken to ensure that it is looked into.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) asked about a review of the procedures of the House and the timetabling of all business. I have asked this question a number of times, but let me repeat it: is it not intolerable that the Opposition can effectively block reform simply by leaving an empty chair? Will my right hon. Friend present the Government's decisions on the matter at an early date, so that we can debate and pass the necessary legislation?
Mr. Newton: I do not wish to add to what I said in my earlier answer, but I hope that Opposition Members who are involved in these matters will note what my hon. Friend has said. His remarks reflect considerable frustration among hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: The fundamental duty of the House is to scrutinise Government policy and executive action. Can the Leader of the House, with his special responsibilities, deal with a fundamental problem?
The Prime Minister has announced that the whole fabric of Government policy will be affected by his "back to basics" strategy and that it will permeate all Departments and policies; yet we have not debated it in the House. Given the number of Conservative Members who are confused about the policy, surely it is the responsibility of the Leader of the House to ensure that, as soon as possible, a full day is set aside for a debate on the "back to basics" policy, introduced by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Newton: The House has had substantial opportunities to discuss, for instance, educational matters and standards. Only the day before yesterday, it had the opportunity to discuss fully the Government's criminal justice proposals. Those are important elements in the programme and the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to talk about them.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on facilities in the House of Commons? I have looked very carefully, but as far as I can see there are no condom machines in the House. I realise that their installation would come rather too late for some Conservative Members, but it would probably be welcomed by the more circumspect among us.

345
Alternatively, perhaps we could seek some advice from Mrs. Lorena Bobbitt, who has a very direct way of dealing with members.
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether I can seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on whether that is a matter for the Accommodation and Works Committee, the Catering Committee or the Administration Committee; but it is certainly not a matter for the Information Committee.
Madam Speaker: I should have thought that the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) were in extremely bad taste, but I refer him to the appropriate Committee.
Ms Liz Lynne: It was announced during the recess that in future it may be possible to use the eggs from dead foetuses for in vitro fertilisation. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the subject so that hon. Members as well as the general public can discuss it during the consultation period allowed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, who is well informed about these matters, will be aware of the consideration being given to them and will know that recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will follow in due course. I shall, of course, bring her request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. John Hutton: Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), if there is not to be an early debate on the Government's "back to basics" policy, will the Leader of the House at least arrange for a copy of this important policy to be deposited in the Library so that hon. Members can read it?
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether it is the usual practice to put into the Library a copy of the speech which, for example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made
346
at the party conference, but I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman has a copy because it sets it out very clearly.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I suppose that it is inevitable that the House will, as usual, rubber-stamp the Scottish legislation to be debated on Monday, but, as the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is deeply flawed and almost universally opposed by the people of Scotland, and in view of the fact that it will affect every locality in Scotland, may I suggest to the Leader of the House that it is important that as many parts of Scotland as possible are represented on the Standing Committee which will debate the Bill in due course? The Committee should consist of 25 members at the very least. Will he accept that point, regardless of the fact that there are only eight Government Back Benchers from Scotland?
Mr. Newton: The membership of Standing Committees is of course a matter for the Committee of Selection. I have no doubt that its Chairman will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has the Leader of the House seen press reports suggesting that the 130 river clean-up schemes submitted by the National Rivers Authority and passed to the Secretary of State for the Environment have been reduced to 29?
Is he aware of the tremendous anxiety of my constituents who have been told by the NRA that without Government intervention the clean-up of Stock's beck, a river polluted by dyes and sewage effluent, will have to wait until well into the millennium, until 2005? Will the Leader of the House press his right hon. Friend, who is sitting alongside him, to make an urgent statement on his plans for river clean-ups?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who, with his usual diligence, is in his place, will consider that point.

Westminster City Council (Auditor's Report)
4.6 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement in response to the question raised during points of order yesterday—whether the Secretary of State has powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to direct the auditor to publish the information that he has obtained in the course of his audit.
The issue arises out of the provisional findings of the district auditor in relation to allegations of misconduct at Westminster city council. Those findings were set out in a statement issued by him earlier today.
The district auditor is, by statute, independent. He is appointed by the Audit Commission to carry out an external audit of a local authority's accounts but, once appointed, he is not subject to direction by the Government or, except in certain limited circumstances, by the commission. He acts wholly independently. This is the most important democratic safeguard. His duties are laid down in statute and amplified in the code of audit practice which is approved from time to time by the House.
One of his duties is to consider objections made by electors against an authority's accounts. In the present case, he received objections in relation to decisions taken by Westminster city council during 1987 on its designated sales programme. It is alleged that decisions taken by the council and expenditure incurred in pursuing those decisions were unlawful. It is alleged in particular that the purpose of the council's policy was to retain political control of marginal wards.
Those are very grave allegations. It is right that they should be treated with the utmost seriousness, but the district auditor has made it clear that his view of the allegations is provisional, and that all the interested parties have an opportunity to challenge that view. If the allegations are proved, I shall have no hesitation in condemning the behaviour. In the meantime, the rights of those accused must be protected. I repeat, none the less, that, if the allegations of unlawful expenditure and wilful misconduct are ultimately upheld, I will condemn that behaviour in this case, as I would in any other, and the law will and should take its course.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked yesterday that I should direct the auditor to publish the information gathered in his inquiries. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning promised that he would take that request away and take legal advice. He has since written to the hon. Member explaining that I have no powers to direct the auditor to do so. A copy of my hon. Friend's letter is in the Library.
I am happy to assure the House that, when the case is complete, I shall consider again the issues that the hon. Gentleman has properly raised to see whether there are any changes that I would wish to recommend.
Mr. Jack Straw: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make a statement in response to my point of order yesterday. Although we believe, as I think he does, that current law on the
348
publication of the report is wholly unsatisfactory, we acknowledge that it exists, and we believe that it should be the subject of an urgent review.
The Secretary of State is already aware that I have made it clear outside the House that the respondents mentioned in the report are of course entitled to defend themselves under due process. He should also be aware, however, that the district auditor who carried out the report said today that
"this was the most wide ranging and comprehensivc inquiry ever conducted by a local government auditor".
Since no one appears to dispute the auditor's description of the events, surely the Secretary of State should now be able to condemn the designated sales policies, lawful or otherwise, which led to hundreds on housing waiting lists and hundreds of homeless people in Westminster being denied houses and homes in Westminster, as Westminster city council mocked their need by boarding up decent homes and then trying to sell them on the open market.
Surely, given the Conservative party's attitude on law and order, it is possible to condemn a crime now without prejudging the issue of who was guilty of committing the crime. Why does not the Secretary of State practise what he and other Ministers preach on the issue of law and order?
Does not the Secretary of State accept that, if the findings are upheld, this will be a case of political corruption and gerrymandering on a scale unknown in modern Britain? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] There is no parallel—Conservative Members had better understand this—for corruption on this scale. If the findings are upheld, it will also show that the Conservative party in Westminster is rotten and amoral to the core, and has abandoned the most basic principles of public morality.
Does not the Secretary of State also accept that his party and Government should bear substantial responsibility for—
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today, on the radio, there was an investigation into—[HON. MEMBERS: "This is not a point of order."] It is a legitimate point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members might let me do my job. If a point of order is raised, I have to listen to decide whether it is indeed a point of order—and let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I hope it is.
Mr. Duncan Smith: It is, Madam Speaker. Today there was an item on the radio about Tameside council, in which serious allegations were levelled against that council on the basis of the district auditor's account. Therefore, I would ask you, Madam Speaker —
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am coming to it. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to urge the Secretary of State to make a statement about the district auditor—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. That would have been a good business question to put to the Leader of the House a few minutes ago, but it is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Straw: The country will see the way in which Conservative Members are so windy about the disclosure of corruption and maladministration in Westminster on a

349
scale that has never occurred before in modern Britain that they try gratuitously to disrupt the proceedings of the House. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Shut up.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of the climate that his Government and the Conservative party have created, they must bear a substantial responsibility for what happened in Westminster? In 1990, the Conservative Government were gerrymandering grant to Westminster, just as the Conservative party in Westminster was seeking to gerrymander housing to gerrymander votes.
Surely the House and the country are owed an explanation—now—of the involvement of senior Conservative politicians and Conservative central office in the designated sales policies in Westminster.
Since the allegations were fully made public by the objectors as long ago as 1989, did Ministers really know nothing of them when, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister's Question Time, in 1990 the present Secretary of State for Employment referred to Westminster council as a "stunning success"? What are we to make of the statement that the Prime Minister made to the House on 21 February 1991, in which he said:
"We should be happy to have Dame Shirley's advice on"
the issue of the poll tax
"or on many other matters"?
He went on to say that Westminster council was
"certainly an example to other authorities and I hope that they will follow that example."—[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 432.]
Did the Prime Minister know what was going on in Westminster when he said that, and, in the light of today's alarming revelations, how many authorities have taken his advice and followed Westminster's example down the road of corruption and maladministration?
Does the Secretary of State believe—I have given him notice of this—that the Secretary of State for National Heritage needs publicly to offer his explanation about the meeting that "Panorama" claimed he attended in 1989, where the designated sales policy was fully discussed? What else did he know about that policy, and what steps did he take to prevent it from being followed?
Does the Secretary of State understand that, in the past 14 years, there has been a most serious decline of standards of probity and public morality, and that measures must now urgently be put in place to prevent such a systematic deception and fraud of the electorate and misuse of public funds from ever happening again?
Mr. Gummer: If we are to take seriously the allegations that have been made, we will do best to confine ourselves to those matters, rather than to use the opportunity for a general rant. I therefore say to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I am taking the matter very seriously indeed.
The auditor's description of events is in front of us, and when those who have been criticised are given an opportunity to make their points, they will no doubt do so clearly, after which the auditor will make his decisions. Other legal remedies will then be available to them.
In the end, if any of the allegations are found to be true, I will, as I have said unreservedly and without distinction
350
between political parties, condemn them, but there is no possible way in which I can comment on bits of the various statements, or indeed refer to references in other documents which I do not have, and which the auditor specifically has insisted that I should not have.
I believe that the House should uphold two specific and clear principles.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Law and order.
Mr. Gummer: The first is law and order.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the second is the right to put one's case and not be judged guilty before one has done so. That second principle is one that the House has always held especially dear.
I have two things to say to the hon. Member for Blackburn about his references to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). First, my right hon. Friend is not mentioned in the document before us. Secondly, I take the same view of my right hon. Friend as I do of the hon. Member for Blackburn —I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is responsible for the policies of Blackburn council, but I would not find it surprising to hear that from time to time he has met members of that council. Unless it suddenly becomes impossible for either of those to be reasonable positions for Members of Parliament, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has anything to reply to.
I must be careful about the length of my reply, but I must tell the hon. Member for Blackburn that he ought to think carefully about the whole history of local government all over the country before he starts believing that he can take a party political view of this.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: First, may I welcome very much indeed my right hon. Friend's robust defence both of due process and of the independence of the auditor? Since he is intent on looking at what lessons may be learnt and on reviewing the legislation governing district auditors, may I ask him to look particularly at the regulations governing the publication of reports, the length of time it takes to produce reports, and the length of time there is between the dates of the accounts to which objections are made and the final investigation by auditors?
May I also ask my right hon. Friend to look at the balance between two different types of accounting? Traditionally, of course, these matters were looked at in terms of financial accounting in order to try to detect, for example, embezzlement. We have moved from there to a position where accounting is very much value-for-money accounting, which of course brings into account much more political judgment and of course value judgments. Is it not therefore important to see that there are guidelines so that the proper process of democratic accountability is not undermined by the accounting process itself? Finally, may I totally dissociate myself from the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)?
It seems to me grossly distasteful that someone who has a Front-Bench colleague who has been a disqualified councillor should speak in such a sanctimonious way.
Mr. Gummer: I shall seek to learn whatever lessons about the conduct of auditors need to be learnt as a result of the case, when such lessons can be learnt without interfering with the due process of auditing or of the law. I shall also take into account what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not expect to do so in such a way as to remove

351
from the auditor his prized possession of independence, part of which depends on his ability to decide what reports he is to make, and where and when.
That is an area of great sensitivity, and I should be loth to make or to recommend any changes that would detract from the auditor's independence. The temptations to rush to judgment are great, but it would be better for all of us if no one were to do so.
Mr. David Rendel: At various times during his statement, the Secretary of State referred to "allegations" and their seriousness. Everybody in the House, and in the country, will accept that the matter is very serious and has been properly investigated. However, surely we have got beyond talking about allegations. We now have findings—admittedly provisional, but none the less findings—by the district auditor. It is much more serious now than it was when they were merely allegations that had not yet been investigated.
The case is especially strong because, as has already been mentioned, the auditor's investigation has been lengthy, detailed and expensive, and therefore gives extra strength to the provisional findings that have been announced. Does the Secretary of State feel that the time has come to make it clear that those are provisional findings and not merely allegations?
There are two sets of people whose rights have been damaged by the failure to publish the full report straight away. First, the people in Westminster, who are facing elections shortly—
Madam Speaker: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am seeking brisk questions and brisk answers. I have heard one question after a long statement from the hon. Gentleman. Will he now conclude with a question?
Mr. Rendel: Does the Secretary of State feel that immediate action is necessary to reform that part of the law which has prevented the district auditor from giving his full report in public now, and ensure that the rights of the people of Westminster and the Members of the House who are also clearly concerned in the matter are redressed?
Mr. Gummer: The reference to the report is based on the words of paragraph 36, which states:
"My Note of provisional findings…does not constitute any decision or finding adverse to any individual."
In other words, the auditor himself does not support what the hon. Gentleman says. I wish that he had read the report more carefully and had seen that my statement had been accurate in that respect.
It is not my decision that the auditor has decided not to print and publish his report. That is his decision, and any determination to force him to do so would seem to be unsuitable in the context of a single case. When the case is complete, it will be perfectly proper for the House to consider that matter on recommendations placed before it.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Bearing in mind the fact that Labour-controlled Hackney council's housing department is surrounded by allegations of corruption and incompetence, that Labour-controlled Monklands council stands accused of nepotism, incompetence and corruption, and that Lambeth council has £173 million outstanding in debt and arrears, is it not unsurprising that the
352
Labour-supporting Tribune magazine has described Labour councils as lacklustre, incompetent, ineffectual and rotten?
Mr. Gummer: I do not believe that it is helpful in the House to rush to judge. Much as I am tempted by my hon. Friend's references, I shall try, if I may use a quote that you, Madam Speaker, know well, to "yield not to temptation". I hope that one or two other people will try to do so as well.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has not the Secretary of State got more than a little cheek to tell us not to rush to judgment on that case affecting a Tory council when, a few years ago, Minister after Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and attacked the Clay Cross councillors because they had the guts to fight the Tory Local Government and Housing Act 1989 long before it went to the High Court? The same was true of Lambeth and Liverpool, and all those who refused to pay the poll tax on principle.
The Secretary of State and this lousy rotten Government will not condemn Westminster council because it is Tory-controlled, and because, throughout those years, the Government were working in harness with it, giving it money—loads and loads of money—to win those safe areas and wards.
The Tory Government stand condemned just as much as Lady Porter and all her mob.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman shows his usual disregard of the facts and desire to make a party political point at all costs. I merely say to him that perhaps he would accord to others the freedoms which he would jealously demand for himself and his own side.
Mr. Roger Knapman: The Opposition parties seem to think that there are some moral issues at stake. Can my right hon. Friend say what sort of morality it is that allows such allegations and accusations to be made before the full report is known?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will agree with me that we should leave the judgments until we have some conclusion as to guilt or innocence. When we receive those judgments, we should condemn unreservedly what needs to be condemned. We should not act before we are so able to do, if we are so able.
Mr. Peter Shore: I understand why the Secretary of State says that he wants to reserve judgment on the serious allegations made against named individuals in the auditor's report, but this matter also raises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out, serious policy issues, the most important to which is the inability of Westminster city council to perform its proper functions as a housing authority and to deal with the scandalous problems of the homeless and those in need of urgent medical priority rehousing.
The Secretary of State must be aware that in London we have suffered for years now, in particular during the past seven or eight years, from the scandal and shame of cardboard city and homeless people lying in the doorways up and down the Strand, only a few hundred yards away. We have to suffer these outrages at a time when hundreds of dwellings that would otherwise have been available for homeless people and people in need of urgent medical

353
priority rehousing have been denied them because of the policies pursued by the council most particularly responsible—Westminister city council.
Incidentally, it is not only Westminster city council, but other councils, including the Stepney neighbourhood council and Tower Hamlets council, that insist on selling empty local authority properties, despite having huge requirements for dealing with homeless people and those in urgent need of medical priority rehousing.
Will the Secretary of State now issue new guidance to local authorities, telling them that, in areas where there are lots of homeless people and people in need of urgent medical rehousing, it is against national policy for them to sell off their homes simply to raise money and for private ownership purposes?
Mr. Gummer: First, the right hon. Gentleman has experience of these things, and he will remember that, when he was doing my job, he was unable to satisfy people on his own side with the housing programmes that he introduced because they were not as good as the ones that we are putting forward.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have reduced to one third the number of people who are homeless at night on the streets in London; that every single one of them every night has a bed provided, because we have seen to that; that we are providing between £70 million and £80 million over the next three years to complete this programme's next stage; and that the voluntary bodies which are concerned in this are supportive of it.
My next point comes hard for me, because it may seem to be a remark favourable to the Liberal party, but it would be an odd argument for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government should extend their controls over local authority decisions and tell two neighbourhood councils that they do not know best how to solve the homelessness problems in their area.
I am rather on the side of those who believe that we should do our best to move further towards subsidiarity, rather than against it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not push me down the road he suggests. I say that in circumstances in which I do not find the housing policy of Tower Hamlets right—I have a number of things that I would like to see Tower Hamlets do differently—but when the right hon. Gentleman uses this occasion to make a gratuitous parliamentary political comment about his local council, he lowers himself.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have appealed to all hon. Members to be brisk with their questions and answers. Many hon. Members are seeking to raise questions.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is against local government finance law to buy votes by refusing to collect rents and council taxes? Is it against local government finance law and other local government laws to buy support and votes by employing one's relatives if one is a councillor? Do we not have to stop Labour councillors from doing that sort of thing?
Mr. Gummer: If there is an activity which is against the law, that would be properly reported to the district auditor, who will take the proper action. I am sure that my hon. Friend is referring to a range of activities, to which many others might be added, which many people would
354
want to think about. But I would not want them to think about those activities without taking due note of the seriousness of the issue that is in front of us.
Mr. John Gunnell: As a member of the Audit Commission at the time that Liverpool city council was investigated and surcharged, I know that the commission took two views which seemed to be relevant, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State would agree.
The first was that every member of the council was entitled to the fullest information about the investigations that were taking place. Indeed, it was the responsibility of the commission to see that all members of the authority in question had the fullest information. The second was that investigations carried out on behalf of the commission which revealed faults should be given the widest publicity so that everyone in local government was aware of what had gone wrong and could learn from those lessons.
In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State think that every member of the council is entitled to the 235-page report referred to in this report and to the fullest documentation? Does he agree that, clearly, the nature of the investigation and what it has revealed should be made public, so that everyone in local government and public office can learn from the events which have occurred? They will then know when someone steps over the line, if anyone does. Clearly, in this case the auditor provisionally thinks that the line has been broken.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman raises perfectly proper questions. First, I can assure him that all Westminster councillors have the full findings of the auditor. Secondly, the auditor has the right at any time to issue what he would call a public-interest report. If he decided that that was what he wanted to do before the end of any investigation, he would be able to do so. Of course, he could do it after the end of the investigation, and that might seem to be the best point at which to do it. It would be entirely up to him to make that judgment. I am sure that he will bear in mind precisely the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in cases of gross incompetence or considerable incompetence by a local authority, in the armoury of the district auditor and the Audit Commission they can only place a report and a recommendation, and that many millions of pounds of council taxpayers' money is being wasted? If the auditor is undertaking a review, consideration should be given to firming up the powers of the Audit Commission for the sake of many residents in areas such as Lambeth, Southwark, Islington and many of the incompetent Labour authorities where he is powerless effectively to act.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend rightly points to the fact that there are many ways in which local residents and taxpayers may find themselves damaged financially, not just by the misuse of powers but by the less than competent use of powers. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be better perhaps to consider the points which he has made after the completion of the proceedings. We may then examine them without prejudice to those concerned.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Has the Secretary of State troubled to request—not force—the district auditor to publish the report? Is the right hon. Gentleman worried

355
about libel proceedings? Is it not true that the auditor has qualified privilege by virtue of his office and that anybody seeking to take action for libel would have to prove malice against the auditor to justify such a course?
Is it not also true that the Government are determined not to have the report published, and that they are determined to do nothing that would give the House and the wider public information? Is that not because they want to try their best to cover up the whole shoddy affair, so we cannot be clear whether Dame Shirley Porter is the biggest crook of the decade or of the century?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic fairness, would accept that it would be better for a decision on that matter to be made by the man who has all the facts at his fingertips. He has gone through 100,000 pages of documentation, and he has produced a large report. It seems to me that it is up to him to make that judgment.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's question would have been that which he has just asked if I, as a Minister, had asked the auditor to change his mind. Would not the hon. Gentleman have asked why, when the auditor had decided to do one thing, I as a Minister had sought to get him to change his mind? I suspect that that would be precisely what the hon. Gentleman would have asked and, what is more, the hon. Gentleman knows that.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that two issues which are raised by a reading of the provisional report into Westminster are the reports of the Poulson affair and the extraordinary examination given by the BBC this morning of the nepotism, gross incompetence and corruption in Tameside? Is it not a fact that the distinguished presenter of "Today" reminded the nation of the way in which Labour councils grossly manipulated their housing policies when he was a local government reporter in the 1950s?
That raises the question whether it is inherently virtuous to establish more responsibility and more resources in the hands of local councillors. Are not more resources needed for an auditing process which is more speedy, regular and comprehensive across all councils, which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) knows are currently primarily under his party's control?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will allow me to excuse myself from answering the first part of his question and come to the points about the changes which he might like. Those are precisely the issues which I would have thought proper to consider with great care when the due process is complete. It is obviously true that anybody looking at the matter would want to consider speed and the ability to audit effectively, and also the way in which such procedures could be made more relevant. Those are precisely the issues which I will examine at a point when those issues would not prejudice the present process.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that the circumstances in Tameside council and the running of its homes are totally unsatisfactory? However, the trustees of the care trust—of which I am a member, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests—and the council asked for independent financial advice as soon as they were aware of any
356
irregularities. When that independent financial advice did point to irregularities, they then asked the district auditor to carry out a full investigation. The district auditor carried out that investigation and his report was published.
Following the publication of that report, the council also published a report since additional information was needed. Therefore, it made every endeavour to get the whole issue into the public domain. Following that, steps were taken by the directors to take disciplinary action. While the whole situation is unsatisfactory, the attempts to clear it up were done with complete openness. I hope that there will be now the opportunity for those homes to be run efficiently.
Mr. Gummer: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make those points. I am sure that he would expect that all those who are involved would have the opportunity to put their case, and to do so without prejudice. I believe that that ought to happen whenever such a situation occurs. That is why I make no comments in condemnation or otherwise about the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, any more than I do about the case about which I made the statement.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has adopted exactly the same approach to this matter as he has adopted towards the case of Hammersmith, and the financial scandals which happened there at a time when Hammersmith council was led by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? Would not the logical conclusion from what we have heard from the Opposition today—
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman made reference to my time as leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council. There was an audit investigation which completely exonerated all elected—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I will try to call the hon. Gentleman if he makes some movement during this cross-questioning.
Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be entirely wrong for the Labour party to condemn the hon. Member for Pendle before the final investigations are known, as what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
Mr. Gummer: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case which is currently before the courts, in precisely the same way as it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the details of a process which has not even reached the first of its public hearings.
Mr. Prentice: The Minister invited the House earlier not to rush to judgment. Is it not the case that, as far as Westminster council is concerned, the Conservatives never make any judgments at all? Was there not a deafening silence at the time of the 15p cemetery deal, and nothing was heard from the Government when Dame Shirley Porter was sacking senior officers right, left and centre?
What will people think of the nauseating double standards of this performance? Is it not the case that we are invited not to pass judgment where the Conservative flagship of Westminster is concerned, but that the Conservatives rush to judgment at the merest tittle-tattle about any Labour authority?
Mr. Gummer: Anybody hearing this exchange would notice that a single standard of judgment—saying that people are innocent until they are proved guilty—has been clearly used by the Government, and by most sensible people throughout the House.
Mr. David Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one definition of nauseating double standards could be a person who has not yet read a report, but makes a judgment on it; who has not yet learned a final legal decision, yet comments on it; who has not yet heard the views of the person who has been criticised, but condemns them; and who has a Front-Bench spokesman who has been disqualified? Is that not a good definition of nauseating double standards?
Mr. Gummer: I would prefer to keep to the details of the report and to try to ensure that the due process is continued.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Does the Secretary of State recall that, eight years ago, 47 Liverpool councillors were at a similar stage in the process with the district auditor? Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that the crime for which those 47 Liverpool councillors were surcharged and disqualified at that time was that they had failed to set a rate on the due date? It was a mistake, and that mistake cost the city council £106,000. Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that nowhere in the report was there any suggestion of corruption, gerrymandering or of improper action, other than ineptitude in setting that rate?
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Secretary of State encourage his colleagues on the Government Front Bench to make the type of comments that were made all the way through the process during which those councillors fought the surcharge up to the House of Lords? Why are his colleagues so reticent about Westminster city council when, for almost two years, they damned Liverpool city councillors over that fundamental error?
Mr. Gummer: I should not like to comment on the nature of a mistake which means that one Misses the date for fixing the rates. I have made a clear statement that, if the allegations were proved true, I would utterly condemn the actions, and I would expect the due process of law to continue to its proper end. I cannot think that any sensible person could say more in the light of what the district auditor says in the document which he has issued today. That is a position which the hon. Member would have expected in any circumstances. I hope that he will take the same position today.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Westminster council remains one of the best housing authorities in London compared with its neighbours, which have a sorry record in dealing with homelessness, dilapidation, arrears and empty properties? Will he confirm that it has never been the intention of Government legislatiion to make it a crime to increase home ownership and improve diversity of tenure in our council housing estates?
Mr. Gummer: I think that I ought to keep clearly to what I said and not make any specific comments about Westminster. I am proud that 1.8 million people now own their homes who would not have owned them if it had not
358
been for the right to buy. The right to buy was fought tooth and nail by the Labour party until Labour Members found opposing it politically so disadvantageous that they had to agree with it. Except for those general comments, I ought to keep myself free of any comments on Westminster.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Regardless of the individual culpability of members of Westminster city council, and bearing in mind the district auditor's findings on the management, control and administration of the housing department of Westminster city council, will the Secretary of State instruct his officials to review the interpretation that the council has traditionally put on its obligations to house the homeless?
Will he bear in mind the attitude of that council over many years, including the period in question, which has been to offload its responsibilities towards the homeless on to neighbouring councils, including my own? Will he show the same regard for the rights of individuals who are homeless as he shows for the rights of Dame Shirley Porter and his Conservative colleagues?
Mr. Gummer: Of course there is a good deal of movement into Westminster from outside. I have already announced that, during this month, I shall publish a consultation document on homelessness. The fact that it is to be published has been welcomed by Shelter and other organisations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to see the terms and conditions under which we shall be operating.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the same rules apply in Scotland? Does the Audit Commission have the power to investigate the nepotism, the jobs for the boys and the allocation of funds on the basis of religion, all of which are so rife in Monklands district council?
Mr. Gummer: I shall have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to be in touch with my hon. Friend on that matter. I think that in general it is true that, if any local elector, ratepayer or council taxpayer feels that there has been some misuse of funds, he can ask the district auditor to investigate. That is the position, and that is what we in the Department of the Environment in England certainly recommend when there is such a complaint.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It would be bad enough if we were dealing only with matters of local government finance and homelessness—serious as those matters are—but we are dealing with matters of gerrymandering and electoral fiddles and fixes. They are not isolated. There are reports which show that 4 million or so people are missing from electoral registers in the United Kingdom. Most of them have disappeared from the register during the period of operation of the Government.
That position should be examined. The reason why we should have the report in front of us is that we as a House should have special responsibility for matters of electoral registration, electoral rights and equity between electoral areas. That is what the report has revealed is wrong, and what we should see the details of.
Mr. Gummer: I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can suggest that a report which he cannot have read because he does not have a copy since the report

359
went only to those whom the auditors suggested, reveals or proves anything. The auditor himself has said that this is a preliminary report.
We in the House have a particular responsibility to ensure equity. On the completion of these processes, no doubt the House will want to examine whatever the final reports say in great detail. One issue which will be of considerable importance is the one raised by the hon. Gentleman. I raised it and mentioned it specifically in my statement.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the director or possibly the deputy director of Westminster city council housing department attended and addressed a meeting at the end of last year of the all-party homelessness group, of which I and many Labour Members are members? He explained many of the difficulties of Westminster city council housing, particularly the influx of people from outside the capital and outside the country.
Madam Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Robathan: I am coming to the question, Madam Speaker.
We were impressed by the speech. I think that that goes for hon. Members from all parties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of Westminster city council in housing homeless people is extremely good and bears comparison with that of any other council in the country?
Mr. Gummer: I have already taken the self-denying ordinance that I will not comment on the history of housing in Westminster.
Mr. Bill Olner: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people will be watching his response to questions on his statement? Is he further aware that his statement and comments and his closing around and cocooning the problems in Westminster—not allegations, but reported facts—will cause much distress to councillors of all political persuasions? There will be distress that he has not more roundly condemned the atrocious goings-on at Westminster city council. There is no doubt whatever that empty properties were boarded up and had steel doors put on them to prevent them being let to tenants. It is an absolute disgrace, and he should know it.
Mr. Gummer: I have said clearly that, if those allegations are true, they must be condemned in the roundest and fullest possible way. However, I do not believe that there is a councillor in the country who would want himself or herself to be condemned on the basis of a statement by a district auditor who has specifically said that it does not constitute the type of findings to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is no good the hon. Gentleman making that point. He is here to defend the rights of individuals to be heard. They must first be heard; then justice may be done. He will join me in ensuring that justice is done.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that several Lambeth borough councillors have been surcharged and disqualified, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)? Is he aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has appointed
360
the hon. Lady to be the Opposition spokesman on transport and London? Does not that suggest a double standard on the part of the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Gummer: At most I think that that is tangential to the issue under discussion.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that we were dealing with "allegations" today? We are dealing with the provisional findings of the district auditor. Is the Secretary of State aware that not one person in this country will believe that he would have made such a softly, softly, approach if he were not dealing with a favoured Tory council at a time when it is led by one so close to the Tory party leadership?
Why does he not admit that, time and again, Labour Members gave warnings in the House about what was going on in Westminster—the sale of cemeteries for 15p and other malpractices—but the Tory Government, including the Secretary of State, were not interested? No doubt they were hoping that the council would be able to get away with it. Now that it has been found out, he has a chance to condemn those malpractices, which are some of the worst committed by a local authority.
Mr. Gummer: I am reminded of the comments of the former Member for Huyton about the hon. Gentleman's judgment. The district auditor himself says:
"My Note of provisional findings…does not constitute any decision or finding adverse to any individual."
I have to keep to what the auditor says if his independence is to be upheld by a House that insisted upon it in the first place. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech in various versions before, and it was as silly then as it is now.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Westminster city council has expressed extreme surprise at the provisional findings of the district auditor and has also regretted the non-publication of the report to the public and the media? Indeed, in a public statement, the council said:
"It would have preferred the subject to be dealt with in an open manner, consistent with the highest standard of probity."
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, as recently as the beginning of this week, the council implored the district auditor to publish this report in full?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for those statements. I still believe that, in defending the independence of the auditor, it is right for the House and for me as the Minister responsible for local government to allow the auditor to use his powers as he thinks fit. When he has done so, and we have come to the conclusion of that process, it would be proper for the House to consider the circumstances and decide whether a better way could be found or whether we wish to confirm the present system.
It is perfectly reasonable for Westminster city council to comment, but the House should remember that the auditor operates under rules that have been confirmed by the House, and that it ought not to change them except at the end of a process rather than in the middle of it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Why do Conservative Back Benchers insist that all councils are innocent until they are proved to be Labour councils? What will the Secretary of State do about the people who have been badly wronged—the homeless and the unhoused in Westminster? We have had a fortnight of allegations and

361
proof of the most dreadful misconduct by members of the Government. When will we hear a single syllable of remorse, humility or penitence from the Conservative side?
Mr. Gummer: There have been one or two cases of Labour councils not reaching the highest standards known to man. Indeed, there are cases in which they have been attacked not only by Conservative Members but by Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman is therefore being a little naive in making that comment.
I maintain that, when the district auditor has specifically said that his findings do not constitute decisions or findings adverse to any person, it would be very odd if those of us who do not have access to the 100,000 pages of documentation to which he has had access should try to second-guess him. I have condemned any action which has been shown to be wrong, and have said that, if the allegations turn out to be supported and are proved, no one will be tougher than I in his opposition to them or his insistence that the law should take its full course.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that up to 9,000 dwellings were designated by the housing committee of Westminster city council and endorsed by it? Does that not suggest that up to 30,000 people who were not thereby housed could be homeless? Does he have the figure for the number of persons involved? If he has not got it, will he undertake to find out from the council the number of people rendered homeless in London or dumped on other boroughs as a result of the matters mentioned in the Magill report?
Mr. Gummer: I have been careful not to be led to discuss the nature of Westminster's housing policies by some Conservative Members, because I cannot see a way in which I could do so without detracting from the independent position that the district auditor has enjoined upon all. I shall therefore do the same in the hon. Gentleman's case as I have done with my hon. and right hon. Friends.
Mr. Ken Eastham: As we understand it, the inquiry has taken four years, and some of the figures published today seem to intimate that £21 million might be involved. It is reasonable to suppose that, with further delays and as time goes on, considerable extra interest will accrue. It is quite possible that the surcharge could even be £25 million by this time next year. Would it not be in the interests of the people who are going to be
362
surcharged to get the matter sorted out, rather than their having to face a bill for £25 million as against £21 million today?
Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that the district auditor has calculated the interest, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that issue is likely to have been drawn to the attention of those concerned on both sides. I think that he will agree that, ultimately, it is up to the auditor and to those concerned to see that the due process of law is carried through, and also that they take such advice as is reasonable for anyone in such circumstances.
Madam Speaker: We now come to the allocation of time motion—
Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, about the conduct of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Earlier this afternoon, during these questions, the hon. Gentleman made a very serious allegation in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), without having given him any notice of his intention to do so.
First, will you confirm that, although it is not a rule of the House, it is an important convention that, when such allegations are going to be made by an hon. Member, notice is given? Secondly, since the allegation was wholly inaccurate, can the hon. Gentleman be given the opportunity to withdraw it?
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Madam Speaker: May I deal with the first question? Of course it is the custom in this House that, when another hon. Member has been named and is not actually in the Chamber, he or she should be given notice. It is not the case when the hon. Member is in the Chamber. In this case, I gave the hon. Member for Pendle an opportunity to answer immediately.
Mr. Nicholls: Further to that point of order and your ruling, Madam Speaker. The second point that I would have made was that in no sense did I make an allegation against the hon. Gentleman. I said that it would have been as wrong to condemn him on the basis of a preliminary report, as it would have been to condemn present council members—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have dealt with that matter.

Points of Order
5.10 pm
Mr. Simon Huges: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were good enough to grant me an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the future of Guy's hospital. In order to prepare for it, I have sought to obtain a document, allegedly a public one, that has been produced by the local hospital trust, and circulated, including to the Secretary of State for Health, called, "The Appraisal of Options for the Future of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital."
Just as the district auditor and his document are accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, so the hospital trust is accountable to the Secretary of State for Health, and the right hon. Lady is accountable to us. There is no other way in which we can hold Ministers and their appointees to the health service to account.
That document will not be released by the trust, which says, "Refer to the Secretary of State." The Secretary of State's office will not release it and says, "Refer to the trust." All I want to know is whether you, Madam Speaker, have made it clear, as you have done in respect of other documents, that, if it is a document on which decisions are to be made by a public body accountable to the House, it should not be circulated partially without being put in the Library of the House or made available in the Vote Office. That would enable not just me but all hon. Members with an interest in this matter and similar ones to study it. I should be grateful for your help to obtain that document.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not given me notice of that point of order, and I have no idea to which document he is referring. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I note that the Leader of the House is on
364
the Front Bench, and I am sure that he has taken note of that point of order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can pursue that matter.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman gave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health notice of his point of order, but I am sure that she will consider it. If I may venture a bit beyond my role, I understand that the rule on documents, if it can be called that, is that, once a document has been quoted from partially, the House has the right to see the whole of it. I would need further guidance on that.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Column 156 of the Official Report for 11 January contains a typographical error about the cost of building the new Abbey Wood Procurement Executive headquarters in Bristol. I raise this as a point of order because I have been in touch with the Editors of Hansard, who tell me that that mistake can be altered in the bound version.
That serious error means that the cost of those headquarters, at £345 million, is being quoted as £315 million, which in itself is £70 million more than that previously quoted. It is a matter of public interest, and anyone who referred to Hansard and did not wait to study the bound volume, which is produced many months later, would be misled. Surely the House should have a better way of flagging up typographical errors so that people who use reference material can obtain the right figures.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to have achieved that effect by getting that point of order into Hansard.

Orders of the Day

  Non-Domestic Rating Bill (Allocation of Time)
  5.12 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill:—

  Non-Domestic Rating Bill (Allocation of Time)

    Committee, Report and Third Reading
    1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this; day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

    (2) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

    (3) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

    (4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall, subject to sub-paragraph (2), forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

    (2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) that successive clauses should stand part of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put the single Question that each of those clauses shall so stand part.
    (3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    (4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournent of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

    Extra time
    3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
    Dilatory Motions
    4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

    Supplemental orders
    5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
    (2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no
    366
    notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Saving
    6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

    Recommittal
    7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
    (2) No debate shall be. permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
    I see no need to detain the House with a speech of great length. In a sense, I need hardly say that I regret having to introduce the motion, since there is no doubt that had we been met with a sensible approach by the Opposition, the Bill could have been dealt with readily in a day, as we had hoped. Nevertheless, I make no apology for moving the motion, because yesterday's performance and, indeed, the Opposition's current stance on all Government business have made it quite clear that their intention is simply to bring about difficulty and delay.
    Had we proceeded as we had originally hoped, we should simply have had a long and boring night of tedious and repetitious speeches in Committee to follow a long and boring day of tedious and repetitious speeches on Second Reading.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Newton: I should like to make a certain amount of progress before I give way.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it true that the judgment on the conduct of the House is in the hands of the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers? On no occasion yesterday was any hon. Member pulled up for tedious repetition. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that the guidance in "Erskine May" was breached, he is reflecting on the conduct of the Chair.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): There is a range of tediousness. The Chair only rules on that which is particularly tedious and repetitious.
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Comparisons with the two previous Non-Domestic Rating Bills, which are similar to the Bill before us, are instructive. The one that followed the March 1992 Budget took 98 minutes to complete its Second Reading and a further 98 minutes to complete its remaining stage—a total of just more than three hours. The second Bill, which followed the March 1993 Budget, took two and a half hours to complete its Second Reading and 20 minutes to complete its remaining stages—just under three hours.
    So far, we have had five and a half hours' debate on the current Bill, and, given that we started today's debate at just after 5 o'clock, we have another five hours to debate its various stages. That means that the Bill will be subject to more than 10 hours of debate—three and a half times more than was required by either of the previous Bills. I do not believe that the charge of unreasonable behaviour against the Government can stand up.

    367
    The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not in his place at the moment, but the comparison that he drew yesterday with the previous Bills does not stand up. He suggested that, because those Bills, which had arisen from March Budgets, were not introduced until after the financial year had started, greater urgency was attached to them. We could have argued it in those terms, but we did not, because exactly the opposite is the case. Once the financial year has started, before it is conceivably possible to implement a proposal, rebilling will take place anyway. As a result of the autumn Budget this year, if we proceed rapidly, local authorities will be in a position to do all the work at once and send out the right bills before the financial year starts. It is entirely sensible, reasonable and desirable that that should be achieved.
    The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) sought at the end of our exchanges last night to make a similar point to that raised by her hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, but she obviously had not taken full account of the consequences of the change in Budget timing.
    Against that background, I do not believe that it would have been reasonable to allow the Opposition to inflict unnecessary inconvenience on the House. Equally, I do not believe that it would have been reasonable to allow the consequences of the further delay, so clearly sought by the Opposition, to be inflicted on local authorities and the business community.
    The motion provides for the remaining stages of the Bill to be completed by 10 o'clock tonight. The form of it means that the Opposition can readily give themselves more time for what they say they need to discuss. All they need to do is to guillotine their speeches on the motion and they will then have more time for discussion on the Bill.
    Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that he has a responsibility other than that of just being a Cabinet Minister? He is supposed to be the Leader of the House of Commons. Is he not aware of the general feeling that the House is being treated shamefully by the Government not simply on the Bill, but on other matters and that that has led to the present non-co-operation through the official channels?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that he has a responsibility to try to mend fences? Given the shameful and contemptible way in which the Government have treated the House in the past few months, is it any wonder that delays such as that experienced last night take place?
    Mr. Newton: I may touch on one aspect of the hon. Gentleman's question later. I do not believe, however, almost by definition, that the House is being treated in a shameful fashion. I do not believe that any Conservative Member believes that and, to be absolutely frank, there are an awful lot of Opposition Members who do not believe that either. They want a more sensible approach to be adopted to the management of business than the Opposition are allowing.
    Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning set out the case for the Bill with admirable clarity on Second Reading. He dealt in detail with the scheme contained in it and described its benefit for many businesses. He also set out clearly the advantages of early enactment.
    368
    For my part, I emphasised to the House on 16 December, when I announced the business for yesterday, that the early passage of the Bill would be advantageous to local authorities and business rate payers both in giving good notice of the level of business rates for the next financial year and ensuring that authorities do not have to send out two sets of bills for the same year.
    It is not a contentious measure, despite yesterday's attempt to pretend otherwise. It is not inherently complex, despite the extensive textual quotations that the hon. Member for Blackburn spun out in his speech yesterday. The House could have dealt with it in a day without difficulty, to the benefit of ratepayers and local authorities alike. It now needs to be carried through in an organised, orderly and sensible way. The motion allows exactly that to happen.
    I now come back to the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised a few moments ago. I think that he used a phrase about mending fences. I acknowledge that it was perhaps significant that, in her remarks last night, the right hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made no suggestion that there had been no attempt to come to an understanding about the Bill. It cannot be said that we got to this position in some dictatorial way without trying to reach an understanding.
    I wrote to the right hon. Lady on 15 December, in a way that I took to be, and certainly intended to be, both reasonable and conciliatory. I set out the case for the Bill. I set out the reasons for wanting to pass it with reasonable speed. I said that it was hard to see why this Bill should require more time than previous similar Bills or why the Opposition should want to cause difficulties for local government and the business community by delayed enactment.
    I made it clear that our judgment was that that could best be achieved by carrying through all the Commons proceedings yesterday so that the Lords could consider it and it could receive Royal Assent by February, in good time for the issue of rate bills in early March. I concluded by saying that I should be most grateful to know whether that would be acceptable to the right hon. Lady and, if so, whether we could be assured of her party's co-operation.
    I make no complaint about the fact that I have not had a formal reply, because the right hon. Lady conveyed her response in another way. I can say only that that could best be described as a clear indication that there was no scope for any understanding of that—or any other—kind or for discussions on how to handle the Bill. So far as I am concerned, it is up to the Opposition to decide whether they want to deal with business in the House in that way. We, as the Government, have to get on with the business. On that I rest my case and commend the motion to the House.
    5.22 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The overriding purpose of Parliament is to hold the Government to account; to make the Government justify and explain their actions and intentions, not for the convenience or interest of Members of Parliament, but on behalf of the people by whom we are elected and for whom we are sent here to exercise our responsibilities. That is why we are here.
    Today, not for the first time in recent weeks, the Lord President referred to debates that have taken place in the House as "yesterday's performance". Let me remind the

    369
    House what yesterday's performance was. It was Members of Parliament making perfectly reasonable legitimate speeches on an item of Government legislation.
    The Government are fast reaching the stage where they do not think that anybody should scrutinise any legislation that they introduce, and that we should all simply touch our forelocks and say, "Yes, guy" and let it go through on the nod. That is not why we are here, and any Member who thinks that is reaching the stage of being unfit to hold office and be a Member of the House.
    I sometimes think that it is difficult during these debates, because the superlatives have so often been used before. I shall say to the Lord President in all honesty that, looking at today's proceedings, I believe that it is possibly the most dangerous guillotine that we have had before the House, certainly in years here, for one simple reason: it is the most pointless. There is no need for it. The Lord President knows that. The Government are playing games, and in so doing they are setting a dangerous precedent.
    The Opposition may be dissatisfied when a Government, of whatever political shade, introduce a guillotine, but hon. Members can normally see why it has been introduced. Usually—indeed, I cannot recall a previous precedent—that reason has been self-evidently connected in one way or another with the legislation under discussion.
    That connection, the purpose of the guillotine, might be thought by the Opposition to be deplorable, but it has always—to my recollection—been serious. I can discern no purpose in this guillotine whatever. I remind the House that the Government chose to curtail the debate at 10 o'clock last night. They did not choose to continue with it, as they easily could have done, just as they chose to rise early for the Christmas recess and come back slightly later than has often been the norm.
    The only conceivable, even political, purpose that I can discern is that the Government might have desired to avoid the debate on the NHS, originally scheduled for today, because they have been avoiding any debate on that issue for a year. The only debates that we have had in the past three years, since 1991, have been held—as was the one a year ago—in Opposition time. It is plain that the Government are anxious to avoid scrutiny of their health policy. If that is their purpose, at least it is one which is unusual in having no connection whatever with the Bill that the Government are choosing to guillotine.
    Before Christmas, the Government guillotined two Bills, each to one day's debate. In each case, the costs involved in that proposed legislation were literally hundreds of millions of pounds. One affected every British employee; the other every British business. It was the Government's action in that respect, as the Lord President and the House well know, which quite rightly led the Opposition to withdraw co-operation from the Government.
    But at least we knew why those Bills were guillotined to a day's debate: they were contentious; they were embarrassing; and, however low and unworthy the purpose, there was at least the purpose that it was convenient for the Government to avoid debate on the Bills.
    Today's guillotine is on a measure that again affects every British business. It deals with one of the most unpopular measures that the Government have introduced during their lifetime. In most cases, the non-domestic rate is unpopular with business, as was the poll tax with the
    370
    public as a whole. The financial implications of each year's non-domestic rating settlement are very important for business, especially for small business.
    The Lord President sought to play down the significance of the Bill. He sought to imply that it was a simple matter which needed no great time spent on it. The Library has pointed out that, inevitably by its nature, the Bill is technical. In particular, the finance for the transitional arrangements, which is enshrined in the Bill, is of great importance to business, particularly small business.
    Already in yesterday's debate, to which the Lord President referred so contemptuously, concern has been highlighted about how a shortfall in the rating pool might in future be dealt with. It is in present-day legislation. The Government are reluctant to write such provisions into the Bill and, instead, are calling on those scrutinising it to place their trust in the Government to act as we would hope and wish. That is not something that many of us are inclined to do these days.
    It is exactly the kind of issue that is normally explored in depth in Committee. It is not only explored, but the answers to that exploration are reassessed over a period. If the assurances given by the Minister during yesterday's debate are unsound, the domestic council tax payer could be hit, or council services could be affected. That matter is of considerable importance now and in the future.
    The Lord President spoke briefly last night and today about the hours of debate that such measures had previously attracted, as though that was all that mattered. What is almost more important than the specific time spent in debate, whether on Second Reading or in Committee, and what the Government are not just ignoring but sweeping aside in the debate, in a most dangerous way, as they did before Christmas, is the correlation between the period during which legislation is in the public domain and still under scrutiny and the hours of debate required.
    Every hon. Member knows what happens in the ordinary process of legislative scrutiny and Committee debate. Ministers are asked questions. They are pressed to give assurances. Sometimes those assurances are thought on the spot to be unsuitable or unsound. But hon. Members take the record of those debates, the meat of those assurances and the answers to those questions back to those outside this place. They have the time to do that and those outside this place have the time and opportunty to give their scrutiny to see whether we are justified in leaving those assurances to stand.
    That is perhaps the most vital part of legislative scrutiny in the House and that is precisely what is being lost when the Government try, as they are doing, to confine all the debates on the measure into one parliamentary day.
    I would not myself have raised the matter, but the Lord President referred to the letter that he wrote to me before Christmas about this measure. He did not, I think I am right in saying, remind the House that the letter was received in the week after the guillotining of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contribution) Bill, not perhaps the most fruitful time to seek agreement from the Opposition to curtailing yet a further measure to a single day's debate.
    I have no quarrel with the Lord President's description of the terminology of the letter. It was in a reasonable and conciliatory tone. He accepted that he called for curtailing of debate into one day, which is not usual, particularly at the start of a Session, with all of that Session before us in which to debate. He did so in a week in which debate had

    371
    already been curtailed to one day on two previous pieces of legislation and he was asking us to agree to the same procedure in the first week back after the recess.
    Nor, I think I am correct in saying, did the Lord President say, when I received his letter saying that this was a non-contentious measure, that we had not seen the Bill. It was only just before the Bill was published, but it had not been published. Therefore, we were being asked to agree to a procedure which depended on our taking the Government's word that the matter was non-contentious without being able to look at any of the print, never mind the small print. But, more important, we were being asked to give such agreement when there had been no opportunity, and there was unlikely to be opportunity, particularly given the impending Christmas recess, to consult outside this place.
    Hon. Members, from all parties know that it is not enough for any Member, however expert, to rely on his or her judgment about the technical detail of Bills such as this. It is an essential part of proceedings in this place that we are given time to consult outside and that those outside this place are allowed to exercise their right to make their point of view known on matters of this kind which raise technical details.
    I say to the Lord President with some regret that it is strongly my view that he had no right to seek the assurances that he sought from me, any more than he had any need to do so. I should have been failing in my duty to the House if I had given those assurances.
    Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to some extent at least, the fact that there has not previously been such a breakdown between the official channels is due to the fact that previous Leaders of the House were obviously devoted to the Government, but they played fair with the House? In particular, I have in mind the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and, long before that, the then right hon. Member for Chelmsford, now Lord St. John of Fawsley.
    Everyone knows that the Leader of the House must be a member of the Cabinet, devoted to Government business. But the Leader of the House has some responsibility, which he does not seem to carry out, to ensure that the Oppositon have a feeling, however controversial a measure may be, that enough time is being given in the Chamber and in Committee fully to examine what is being put forward by the Government. That is not being done at the moment.
    Mrs. Beckett: I accept my hon. Friend's contention —it is what makes the role of the Leader of the House particularly difficult, as many hon. Members recognise—that, historically, the role of Leader of the House has been to exercise his responsibility as a member of the Government but also to exercise his responsibility to the House. It is also the case that those who have built up the greatest respect as Leader of the House on both sides of the House have been those who have visibly demonstrated their concern for the House as well as their understandable responsibilities to their party.
    Mr. Newton: In view of what has been said in the past few minutes and what was said earlier about mending fences, I should make it clear that I thought and intended that the tone of my letter—it did refer to the breakdown of
    372
    the usual channels at the beginning and that is why it was written—made it clear that I was seeking to bring about a situation in which we could do reasonable dealing with the Opposition on uncontentious legislation despite the difficulties that had arisen. That is not only consistent with, but properly consistent with, the role of Leader of the House.
    Mrs. Beckett: I accept the Lord President's word on that matter, but I simply say that, irrespective of the matter of the Bill, if he really thinks that it is not raising difficulties and is likely to ease the return to smoother procedures in the usual channels to ask the Opposition to curtail debate on any measure to a day when there seems to us to be no necessity for that curtailing, the Government are losing touch with what Members expect of reasonable and proper procedures of debate in the House.
    The Lord President referred in his speech today, as he has done previously, to the few hours that the measure has taken in the past. That is one of the points that he made in his letter. However, he did not point out that those few hours were, as I have observed, spread over a few weeks.
    Last year, the parallel piece of legislation was before the House for six weeks and then before the other place for two weeks, even though it was not published until April. Even in 1992, when the general election obviously disrupted the timetable to some extent, the legislation was before the House for four weeks and did not become law until June.
    Yesterday, the Lord President said, and he referred to it in his speech today, that we should have understood that the fact that the Budget was earlier and the legislation was published before the start of the financial year, rather than after, meant that the pressures on its debate were heavier rather than lighter than in previous years. I have seldom heard such a lot of old rubbish.
    Local authorities have told us in terms that they do not need to know that the legislation is on the stocks until, at the earliest, the end of February. It is turning logic on its head to say that there is less urgency about a matter that is published after the start of the financial year than about a matter that is published before the start of the financial year.
    I remind the Lord President that, as my hon. Friend the deputy Chief Whip observed from a sedentary position, in the past these measures have passed through the House by agreement, but they were in the public domain and open to people to scrutinise and check for four weeks in the election year and for six weeks last year. There is plenty of time for that sort of period to elapse before local authorities or businesses need the legislation. I am sorry to have to say that the Lord President's case simply does not stand up.
    We are at the start of a parliamentary Session which started late and we finished early for the Christmas recess. The Government did not even try to go on with the debate yesterday evening when they could have done so after 10 o'clock. They tell us that it was only their consideration for others, for business and local authorities that led them to press this step on us.
    Businesses are none too happy with the curtailing of the timetable for this debate, any more than they were with the curtailing of the timetable for the debates before Christmas, which was also said to be in their interests. As for the notion that the Government care tuppence about the concerns and worries of local government, I imagine that they can barely keep their faces straight at the thought.

    373
    The Lord President will remember that he and I were in opposite positions when the Government introduced massive changes in housing benefit legislation with no concern whatever for the timetable of local government or for its difficulties in implementing enormously complex legislation which deprived many people, including pensioners, cumulatively of hundreds of millions of pounds. The poll tax was introduced practically over the dead body of local government and so was the non-domestic rate to which this legislation refers. We can therefore dismiss with contumely the notion that it was worrying about local government that led Ministers to propose this step.
    I shall draw my remarks to a close because, like the Lord President, I do not want to detain the House. I end by returning to the point that I made at the outset: this is possibly the most dangerous precedent that the Government have yet set in a string of mishandlings of the House. The purpose of this guillotine is entrely frivolous. There is no justification or need for it. No Government have ever shown such disregard for the parliamentary safeguards that have grown up, for good cause, over the years.
    I remind the Lord President—I mentioned this in our debate in the last week before the Christmas recess—that it is only three or four weeks since he and I spoke at a meeting jointly organised by "The House Magazine" and the Hansard Society, where representatives of one of the most important and financially crucial British businesses pressed him to give assurances that the House would conduct its business so that legislation could be properly scrutinised in order that we might avoid legislative error and give people time to take full account of the implications of all legislation.
    The Lord President gave the assurance—since when three Bills have been taken through all their stages in the House, in effect, in three days. This is a pathetic measure, introduced by a pathetic Government.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Like the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I do not want to detain the House. Although one must be thankful for small mercies, we must also take account of what the Lord President said. He said that if we take up time discussing the timetable motion we will deprive the House of the opportunity to look at the amendments.
    I am a bystander in the war of attrition that is going on above my head. I repeat an offer that I have made before: I will happily run between the Front Benches and use my best endeavours to get the usual channels opened up again as soon as possible. It is of course easy for me to sound pious, but I am worried that the House may bring itself into disrepute if the problem goes on too long.
    I can perfectly well understand the frustration expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, if press reports are to be believed, when he decided to implement this period of non-co-operation. I must, however, counsel the official Opposition to be cautious. It is easy to start disruption, but not so easy to stop it. It is not clear to me what the Opposition seek to achieve. If they are trying to give the Government a hard time, I will sign up for that—but I am
    374
    not prepared to sign up if we go so far as to prejudice the sensible scrutiny of legislation. I fear that that may be happening already.
    There must be a temptation for the Government to retaliate vindictively. They must resist that temptation. In the short term, they must take this on the chin and try as hard as they can to get on with business without being vindictive. I must add that the action that the Government took overnight comes very close to vindictiveness.
    It is not in the long-term interests of the House to suffer indefinite disruption, nor is it in the long-term interests of the legislation that we consider or of the public. I believe I am right in saying that every Bill that this House has sent to the Lords this Session has been guillotined. Is that a record of which the Lord President is proud? He may claim that it is nothing to do with him—that it is all someone else's fault—but the situation is serious.
    The House must recognise that if we get into this position early in the new year we will have to think seriously about the new conjunction of the Queen's Speech and the Budget at the back end of the old year. If we do not learn the lessons of this year, there will be more trouble in future years. If the disruption continues, I foresee chaos after Easter, when major Bills come out of Committee and back here for Report and Third Reading. The Government will be forced to impose draconian guillotines on those Bills, and the House will become impossible to manage. Again, I counsel caution.
    Regardless of who is to blame, I cannot contemplate with equanimity measures such as the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill or the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—important Bills affecting thousands of people—being the subject of guillotines. Once this is all done and dusted we will have to step back and better consider how we conduct business in this House. I find it sad that the Jopling proposals appear to have been lost—
    Mr. Cryer: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Kirkwood: People may have differing views about that. I hold no brief for the Jopling proposals as such, but I am willing to talk about any way of improving our procedures. The Jopling opportunity appears to have been lost, however, and that is sad.
    If guillotines are to continue to be as customary as they seem to have become, we shall have to consider seriously the possibility of devolving whole areas of legislation—
    Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I have noticed this increasingly common suggestion that the Jopling proposals are dead and that there is no point in further discussing them. That is true only if it is what the Government are determined to achieve. I am growing increasingly suspicious that that is the end to which the Government's tactics are directed.
    Mr. Kirkwood: That is good news. Both sides are now claiming that it is only the other side that is preventing progress. I must confess that I had given up hope, but I am glad to hear that the right hon. Lady has kept the door open. Our party is certainly willing to continue to try to find common ground—
    Mr. Newton: I ought to make it quite clear that I do not accept the hon. Lady's accusation, and I would be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman found an opportunity to provoke her to make a further intervention in which she

    375
    confirmed that she is willing to engage in further constructive discussion, with a view to implementation of the Jopling report.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I find myself the only channel left open —people are channelling their remarks through me at this point. I shall continue to provide the service at no cost to Government or Opposition. I hope that after the dust settles we will return to the issue and manage some progress.
    I was a little disappointed by the lack of attention that the Leader of the House paid to the guillotine motion itself. I know that it is customary nowadays to use such motions as an excuse for more political debate about the contents of Bills. I for one intend to pay more attention to the terms of the guillotine motions in these debates. I am concerned about some of the new developments incorporated in them. I know that the Lord President spent the hours between midnight and 3 am with his inky pen going through the motion bit by bit, so it was difficult for him to get it right in so short a time. That is precisely why he should not be operating in this way. Nevertheless, paragraph 1(1) takes some justification.
    The right hon. Gentleman said in a casual aside—it happens to be true—that we have until 10 o'clock, so if we stop discussing the guillotine now we will have more time to discuss the contents of the Bill. By tradition, however, guillotine motions have not imposed strict timetables on the discussion of Bills such as this one, because that would prevent hon. Members from voting within the allotted period. The time for the votes is taken out of the time allowed for discussion. I consider that tactic an abuse, but the Government have begun to resort to it with increasing regularity.
    The House should not allow such behaviour to pass without comment. If we are to have timetable motions, the Government must recognise the need to allow the House to express its opinion within the allotted time in a way that does not prejudice further discussion. I consider paragraph 1(1) of the motion objectionable for that reason.
    Paragraph 2(2) is also extremely worrying. The Leader of the House may contradict me if I am wrong, but, as I read it, it means that several clauses can be lumped together for a single vote. The right hon. Gentleman may say that, given that the Bill is relatively small, there is no cause for concern; but the application of paragraph 2(2), willy-nilly, to a 100-clause Bill would mean one vote to dispose of all those clauses at a stroke. I understand the purpose of timetable motions to be to enable the Government to limit the time available for discusion of the various stages of legislation, but paragraph 2(2) prevents clause-by-clause consideration.
    As I have said, this is a small Bill, and in this instance paragraph 2(2) may be of no moment. Nevertheless, I consider that it sets an objectionable precedent. It is new to me, but I have been looking after this side of the business for only a short time: the Leader of the House may say that it was introduced recently. I find it worrying, however, and I believe that, if the Procedure Committee considered it objectively, the Chairman would also be extremely concerned. It has been introduced overnight, without discussion, and the procedures of the House have effectively been changed: we can no longer consider clauses seriatim.
    376
    I have other worries. The Leader of the House should not allow the parliamentary draftsmen to stick in otiose bits of garbage that are of no consequence. When, for example, was the last occasion on which we required the provisions of paragraph 5(1)? When was the last occasion on which a Bill was recommitted? Not within living memory, I bet. It does the House no service to produce such unnecessary and irrelevant verbiage.
    I fear that, if the difficulties between the two main parties continue, more and more Bills will be guillotined. I think that the Procedure Committee should consider a Standing Order setting out the parameters within which Governments can introduce timetable motions, and that we should engage in a full and lengthy debate on what Governments can and cannot do. This motion provides evidence that Governments are incrementally removing powers from the House by imposing timetable motions in a draconian, unnecessary and unjustifiable manner. The House should vote the motion down.
    5.53 pm
    Mr. Derek Enright (Hernsworth): I am not one of the hon. Members who bored the Lord President of the Council so much yesterday—not because my speech coruscated and was laced with wit, but because so many hon. Members wanted to speak and there was so much to discuss that I could not get in.
    Only Opposition Members were speaking yesterday, but these are very serious issues. What worries me is the arrogance of power, which we saw earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Leader of the House is leaving; he has had enough."] Hang on. What worries me is the arrogance of power that allows Governments—or councils, as in the case of Westminster—to think, regardless of the individuals involved, that they can do anything that they want. The Bill involves a fundamental philosophy which must be discussed: the philosophy of democracy.
    In his "Politics", Aristotle said—this is a rough translation—that those parties were best to which everyone brought the booze. Similarly, those Governments are best to which everyone contributes ideas; yet the way in which this tax is organised means the increasing separation of local businesses from their councils. They are no longer a fundamental part of what is happening, and some of us consider that very serious.
    Labour Members engaged in an excellent debate at their party conference. It is a shame that the Lord President was not there: he would have been excited by the speeches about regional government. We strongly believe in devolution and regional government, and we think it deplorable that, since 1979, the Conservative Government have taken more and more power to the centre. They have increasingly decided that Whitehall and Westminster should govern the people—in my case, the people of Yorkshire.
    That is clearly nonsensical. When the people of Whitehall and Westminster—whose experience relates to London—see problems and what they consider to be solutions in London, they send those solutions flying out to the regions, where they are totally inappropriate. We have seen that happen in education: if the Secretary of State has his way, all schools will be accountable to a central body provided and staffed by Whitehall, and appointed by the Minister. We have seen it happen in hospitals, too: increasingly, the Secretary of State has made appointments

    377
    for political reasons. I can think of no other reason to justify the creation of trusts such as those in our area, which contain not a single Labour sympathiser, although the vote is 80 per cent. Labour. It is an odd situation; it may have come about by chance, but it may have been created deliberately.
    Now there is to be yet another centralisation. The Home Secretary has traditionally governed arguably the worst police force in the country: the Metropolitan police do not compare with the South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire police—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to know how what he is saying relates to the guillotine motion.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has vast experience of local government, having served as chair of the Yorkshire planning committee for four years. Having sat through yesterday's debate, does he agree that it is astonishing that the Minister of State has been unable to explain properly to the House the reason for the fundamental policy shift on the proposed legislation for this year—as opposed to the provisions piloted through the House last year by his predecessor, now Secretary of State for Wales? We are still waiting for an explanation. We oppose the guillotine motion because we need time to listen to the Government's views, so that we can then go out and consult local authorities and local businesses about the proposals.
    Mr. Enright: I, too, find that astonishing.
    Let me explain what I mean about centralisation and devolution. This is yet another example of the way in which taxes have been centralised: centralised business taxation is now taken for granted. That is quite wrong. On the continent, exactly the opposite has been happening. For example, in the mid-1970s, France was more centralised than any other country—schools there all taught geography at the same time and everyone knew exactly what was happening in the schools al any given time. However, with regard to taxes and policies, France has increasingly devolved power whereas here the Government have gathered it all unto themselves.
    Our argument is that the nature of the business tax is fatally flawed. The way in which it is collected and imposed has nothing to do with the services that it is supposed to render. It seems that business taxes should once again be devolved to local councils. One can think of many spheres in which local businesses would be delighted to have it so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that I was chair of planning in West Yorkshire. I recall explaining to representatives of local businesses that we could carry out certain schemes such as pedestrianisation and the building of bypasses on which industry was extremely keen but we made it clear that business would have to pay. It led to constructive dialogue. We did not always agree but at least we kept talking and, by doing so, we knew why the taxes were being raised and what could be done with them. That is no longer the case because now the Government, or nanny in the form of the Minister for Local Government and Planning, knows best.
    Mr. Vaz: Nan.
    Mr. Enright: Nan knows best, indeed. That is not clearly desirable because it is not democratic.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again but he is discussing the substance of the Bill, for or against. We are considering only the timetable motion.
    Mr. Enright: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly not intrude on the time allotted to discussing the Bill. I shall deliberately absent myself because I shall have made some of my substantive points.
    It was important that we should have discussed such issues in Committee last night because they are crucial. By guillotining the Bill—
    Mr. Clive Betts: The points that my hon. Friend is making are relevant not only to his but to all our constituents and they are very important and numerous, as he has amply outlined. So many issues are potentially affected by the legislation that a timetable motion that constrains debate carries the risk of our not being able to discuss thoroughly all the issues that could affect the interests of all our constituents.
    Mr. Enright: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
    One important aspect which we were not able to discuss and which is a further argument against the guillotining of the Bill is the collection of the business tax. We need time to probe the Government's intentions in that respect. At the moment they have helpful district and county councils to collect it for them or, to put it another way, to do their dirty work for them. They do so at a reasonable cost but we hear a whisper—one that we should have wished to probe if there had been no guillotine—that collection is to be privatised. That is a dangerous and threatening situation—
    Mr. Betts: Group 4, will lose a bit more.
    Mr. Enright: Not only Group 4, although we know that it is somewhat spendthrift and difficult to employ. I shall make no more of that because you would quite rightly stop me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Gladstone set up a magnificent civil service to stop corruption. Since that time, the probity and honesty of our civil service has been the equal of any other. It is perhaps worth going through a list of United Nations Governments and asking which of them are corrupt.
    Mr. Vaz: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that yesterday not a single Conservative Member found time to come to the Chamber to debate this important subject although it is Conservative Members who claim to speak for British business? Many Labour Members were prepared to speak on behalf of British business. It is extremely important that we have enough time to discuss the Bill.
    Mr. Enright: I was especially disappointed yesterday that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)— I mention him precisely because he is not here—was not in his place because he is always talking about his diligence in voting and how awful local government is. He is absent I know not where, but I should be grateful if the Government Whips could get him here so that he could be taught about democracy.
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): Could I appeal to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) not to intervene on his hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) at the very moment he is beginning to be interesting? I thought that the hon. Member for Hemsworth was about to embark on a tour of the world beginning with Guinea-Bissau. I should not wish to deny him the opportunity of giving us a perspective on local government there from his experience. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leicester, East could refrain from intervening when his hon. Friend is halfway there.
    Mr. Enright: I shall first give the Minister a lesson in pronunciation. Guinea-Bissau is pronounced "Guinea-Biss-ow"—that is how it is pronounced not only by the locals but by good British chaps and chapesses. The Minister is correct—in Guinea-Bissau the people have the advantage that collection is carried out at the base and everyone has a say in what happens at small meetings in the villages. It is against such a system that the Government are fighting. It is an absolute disgrace that in this century a guillotine is proposed by uninterested people, which cuts to the heart of democracy. I hope that the guillotine motion will be defeated as it deserves to be.
    6.7 pm
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: The Liberal Democrat party spokesman confused me. I do not know where he has been, but I can tell him that the issue began with the Budget and the curtailment of the time allocated to debate it. If he will listen, I shall go further.
    There has clearly been concern about the allocation of time for parliamentary business and scrutiny. A story currently doing the rounds is that the controversial Child Support Agency, for example, will be debated for an hour and a half. I do not know whether Government Back Benchers are happy about that, but I hope that the Lord President will accept it when I say that we do not regard it as satisfactory when a controversial issue is to be debated for only one and a half hours. I am sure that many hon. Members will wish to participate. It is merely another subject on which debate is being curtailed. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, will you please ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to speak through you if he wishes to do so, but to stop heckling me?
    Mr. Kirkwood: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the statutory instrument that is required to introduce the changes announced on 22 December, he should know that if the statutory instrument is introduced under the affirmative order procedure, the time limit is one and a half hours. That has always been the case. There is no time limit on statutory instruments.
    Mr. Cunningham: If that is the case, I suggest that the Minister prepares another Bill and that we hold another debate on the Child Support Agency.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the concern was about the Local Government Finance Bill, not another Bill or an order.
    Mr. Cunningham: I accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was trying to prove that there is insufficient parliamentary time to debate some important issues.
    Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is one of the most distinguished former council members to serve in the Chamber. He was a Coventry councillor for almost 20 years and was the leader of that council for four years. Does he agree that it would have been sensible for the Government to have arranged a proper and appropriate Committee stage—say, in a fortnight's time—which would have given people such as my hon. Friend the opportunity to go back and discuss with local business people, with the local chamber of commerce and with the local authority the enormous and fundamental changes proposed in the Bill? Would my hon. Friend have liked that opportunity to continue the discussions that he has had over the past 20 years in local government in Coventry?
    Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation.
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) would wish to inform the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that he accompanied a delegation from Coventry to talk to me about standard spending assessments earlier this week. The delegation was extremely well informed and we had a constructive meeting. However, the delegation said nothing about the Bill. Its members all knew that if they wished to raise such issues they were free to do so.
    Mr. Cunningham: We were perfectly clear at that stage what we wanted to talk to the Minister about and, as I said to him at the time, we were treated most reasonably. However, being a fairly shrewd character, I added that we must wait and see what emerged from our discussions. That is the point and that leads me back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said and to my reasons for opposing the guillotine. I must tell the Minister that before Coventry city council reached that stage the onus was on it to conduct widespread consultation with, for example, business rate payers. The Minister's own rules and regulations require us, as a council, to carry out those consultations. That is why I am so concerned about the guillotine. There are many issues that affect the business community in Coventry and extensive consultation is required. As the House knows, many small business people are struggling to keep their businesses afloat and if some of those people go under jobs will be affected.
    It is vital that the Bill be given enough time for adequate debate so that we can scrutinise it properly. Legislation has been rushed through the Chamber in the past and discussion has been curtailed. There has often not been adequate consultation or scrutiny of the effects of Bills on public services and on the public in general. People with small businesses in my constituency often come to me because they have difficulty paying their business rates. Clearly those people would expect me to vote against the guillotine, so that their concerns and the issues important to them can be raised in the House—I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
    Another reason for voting against the guillotine is the longer-term effect on local authorities' ability to charge adequate rates and to raise budgets. The Government pass legislation, but they do not give adequate resources to implement it. The Minister says that he may compensate, but he does not say that he will compensate fully. That issue arose last night and it needs further scrutiny. It is

    381
    important to many people, not only to the small business men who pay the business rates but to many local authorities. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister has tried to suggest that because the Coventry delegation managed to arrange a meeting with him on our SSA, yet did not raise the issue of the national non-domestic rate, there is no such issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) was here last night when we heard the Minister reading out comments about the dissatisfaction of the Wolverhampton chamber of commerce with the level of business rates some years ago, when those rates were set locally. But, when challenged, the Minister did not know whether the Wolverhampton chamber of commerce was dissatisfied with this year's business rate levels. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is proof that adequate consultation has not taken place? It is not surprising that we do not yet know the opinion of Coventry chamber of commerce on the national business rate, because the Minister did not know whether there was any problem with the Wolverhampton chamber of commerce.
    Mr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend has touched on the nub of the problem. He will know that the Government were trying to curtail the debate last night and that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who wound up the debate, refused to give way to any of the Members who were seriously concerned, except my hon. Friend himself.
    While we are on the subject of consultation, I ask the Minister when he last consulted the people in local chambers of commerce who represent the small business community—I am not talking about the CBI—and what their views were. That question was not answered last night. That is probably why the Under-Secretary of State would not give way to Opposition Members who wanted to ask questions.
    I am worried about the timetable under which we shall be allowed to debate the Bill. I am concerned for the small business community, because there has been a lack of consultation. We have been given no answers about who was consulted about the business rate and who was not. I am worried, too, about the Bill's other possible effects. The Minister has conceded that he has not yet worked out a formula or procedure for compensating business ratepayers. That was why he rejected an Opposition suggestion about using "may", as opposed to "shall", in the Bill.
    There is extreme concern about the Bill and about the effects of the unified Budget. For the reasons that I have already explained, I shall join my hon. Friends in opposing the guillotine.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on his speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on his wide-ranging contribution to the debate. I assure him that the Leader of the House did not leave the Chamber because he found my hon. Friend's speech boring. Indeed, he left at such an early stage of that speech that he could not have had time to find it boring. Only those of us who stayed and listened to the full speech were in a position to make such judgments.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: One reason why I am here is that I was told
    382
    that this was a wonderful debate and that Labour Members' contributions were excellent and well worth hearing. I am surprised that the Leader of the House is not here to listen to the Opposition's eloquent arguments. The Prime Minister tells us that we must go "back to basics", and I wonder why we do not do that. Why did the Government increase VAT to 17·5 per cent., with 2·5 per cent. going to local government? That 2·5 per cent. should now be taken off and then we might get more common sense out of the Government.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. "Back to basics" could also be interpreted as meaning, "relevant to the subject under discussion".
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that remark, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the subject under discussion is the Opposition's efforts to persuade the Government to listen a little more to what we say about necessary changes to their proposals. I am sorry that the Leader of the House has been forced to leave the Chamber, because I want to comment on some of the things that he said when he opened the debate. The Leader of the House has returned —he has clearly anticipated dangers!
    Every hon. Member knows that the fundamental constitutional role of the Opposition is to oppose. Constitutional law books suggest not that the Opposition might or should oppose the Government but that they have a duty to do so. If I understood the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he agreed with that proposition. It is therefore difficult for Labour Members to understand his argument that there is a means by which the Opposition should carry out their constitutional duty.
    Mr. Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition have a duty not only to oppose but to do so constructively? Labour wished to propose constructive amendments, such as those that appear on the amendment paper, which would strengthen the Bill and make it more acceptable to the business community. The Government have decided not to allow us to help them with the problems that clearly exist in the Bill, which we would have addressed if our amendments had been properly debated.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend developed an argument that I hoped to develop. Notwithstanding his intervention, I shall still try to do so.
    I am glad that the Leader of the House has returned to his place because I wish to invite him to consider some of the comments that he made in opening the debate. The Opposition must decide how to oppose any measure. It is not for a Minister to say what tactics the Opposition should use.
    The Leader of the House laid great store on the fact that previously similar legislation went through in a matter of three hours on one occasion and rather less on another. He should know from his experience that what happened last year or the year before is irrelevant. If a similar measure had been proposed last week, it would not have mattered how long it had taken to dispose of it because Opposition Members are now considering how best to exercise our constructive role in opposing Government measures. That is simply what we are seeking to do.
    I invite the Leader of the House, who is a fair-minded man, to read his speech carefully—not necessarily in a darkened room because I should like him to read what he

    383
    had to say and think about it—away from the excitement of the debate and from the need for the Government to pass the Bill. He said not only that the Government should determine how they manage their business but that Ministers should comment on how the Opposition go about their role of constructively opposing Government measures. If I understood him correctly—I shall give way if he wants to correct me—he was saying that the Leader of the House knows best. I know that he would not advocate a one-party state, but he is suggesting that we might move to that model of so-called democracy whereby the Government can push through measures with a rubber-stamp Opposition whom the Government know will accept what the Government want. We have a vigorous constitution and a vigorous Opposition and it is for the Opposition to decide how much time we allocate to opposing Government measures.
    The motion is the Government's frustrated response to the fact that we have a different opinion about how we should oppose measures from the Government. That is how it should be; we should have a different role from the one that the Government allot to us. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider his approach to the motion because he does not know what is best for the Opposition. It is a dangerous and slippery slope when a Leader of the House introduces such motions and tells the Opposition that the Government know how we should be opposing Government proposals. It is for the Opposition, and for them alone, to decide that.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Clive Betts: Unfortunately, I did not hear the Leader of the House's opening speech because I was busy in a Committee, but I heard his comments last night. He could not have been here for most of yesterday's debate for him to have made the comments that he did, implying that Members were wasting time and not addressing real issues.
    I was concerned about the comments that the Minister made in winding up the debate last night. I read Hansard today to confirm that he said that Opposition Members' concerns were synthetic—or at least that is what his Auntie Flora in Aberdeen would think. I do not have an Auntie Flora to get advice from.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: I know that my hon. Friend does not have an Aunt Flora in Aberdeen, but he has an Auntie Aggie in Sheffield, who has asked me to pass him her best wishes for a very happy birthday today. She is delighted that he is making a speech on his birthday, working on behalf of his constituents.
    Mr. Betts: I thank my hon. Friend and note that he has not led his usual rendering of "Happy Birthday" in the Chamber.
    The Minister said yesterday that the debate had been spurious, which was an ill-chosen forms of words to have used and which he might like to reconsider.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made an interesting point last night when he asked why, if the Government had not been concerned that the issues would not need lengthy debate, they had tabled the 10 o'clock business motion, which they chose not to move.
    384
    I noted that between 5.30 pm and 9.50 pm yesterday no Member chose to speak from the Government Benches. That is their choice. They did not regard the issues as important, but we did.
    Mr. Vaz: I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday. Does it surprise him to learn that while Labour Members were toiling on the Bill, in the absence of Conservative Members, the Secretary of State was dining in the Churchill Room on lamb cutlets?
    Mr. Betts: I was not aware of that, but I am disappointed that the issue is of so little importance to the Minister that he preferred lamb cutlets to the debate.
    The issue could still be resolved if Ministers would address the points that we have raised continually. Yesterday, the Minister gave assurances that appear in Hansard and in winding up he made a clear comment. He said that any shortfall will be made up. If that is Government policy, we merely want that policy put into the Bill. If that were done, there would be no need for additional scrutiny and debate on many aspects of the Bill. While that commitment from the Government is not forthcoming by way of a change to the Bill, we will argue strongly that we cannot be certain that in one, two or three years' time the shortfall will be made up. Of course, we may have a different Government in three or four years. While the Government remain in power, we cannot be certain that, unless that provision is included and the Bill is amended, any shortfall that occurs as a result of the transitional arrangements will be made up by the Government and not by local authorities through increased council tax or by a reduction in local authority services. If we cannot be assured of that, we want additional time for debate and we do not accept the guillotine.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Doug Henderson: For the past two days of parliamentary business—the past three days, if one considers the time devoted to the money resolution on Tuesday—the House has seen the Government show a callous disregard for our democratic procedures and a callous presumption of the intentions of the House by discussing the money resolution on Tuesday before the substance of the Bill was debated.
    The way in which the Government have tried to force through the business is a contempt of the House. They have forced the business through without giving organisations around the country an opportunity to comment on the Bill, having heard the arguments on Second Reading, which would have enabled representations to be made to the Government and to the Opposition, and, perhaps, would also have given organisations the opportunity to suggest amendments.
    The procedure that we are now discussing is completely unnecessary. We are using time to discuss the guillotine motion that we could have used to discuss aspects of the Bill which are important to hon. Members. We are doing that because the Government cannot even carry the support of their own Back Benchers.
    Last night, during five hours of debate, there was only one intervention from one Back-Bench Conservative Member. In past years, all of us have had to listen to Conservative Members endlessly attacking local government and endlessly exaggerating the burdens on rates, yet last night we did not hear a whimper. That indicates either

    385
    that Conservative Members have recognised the folly of their arguments or that they have so little confidence in those on their Front Bench that they are embarrassed to come along and present those same arguments.
    The Government did not have the confidence to continue the debate after 10 o'clock last night, just when I thought that we had reached the point of having disposed of some of the general principles involved in the Bill, and had the opportunity to move on to some of the detail in Committee. I did not like that procedure. The way in which it prevented organisations and Members of the House from making representations during that gap between Second Reading and Committee—either on the Floor of the House or upstairs—was an affront to democracy. Even though it was the Government's procedure, they did not have the confidence to take the argument beyond 10 o'clock.
    That is one reason for such an unnecessary motion this evening. The other reason is one that was advanced by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She made it clear that the sinister reason for the guillotine motion is to kill a possible argument on the national health service. The Government are afraid to come to the House and argue about such an important service.
    On Second Reading, the Government claimed that it was necessary to have the Second Reading in January to meet local authority Treasury billing needs. I accept that, because of a November Budget, it is more sensible to begin dealing with the business rate in January, because it avoids the situation of the past two years, in which retrospective additional costs have been incurred and businesses have become unstable because they have been unable to predict the level of commitment that they would have to make to business rates.
    However, the Opposition's argument is not to do with the calendar timetable. It would have been possible to publish the Bill at the same time and to have the Second Reading yesterday, with a money resolution following it.
    The timetable before the House is unacceptable, because it is undemocratic and unnecessary. It is undemocratic because the money resolution was tabled on Tuesday night, before the issues of principle were discussed on Second Reading. It was presumptuous of the Government to adopt that procedure. As was pointed out yesterday, apart from the poll tax debate in 1991, this is the only time that this Government have had the effrontery to table the money resolution before Second Reading.
    In administrative terms, the timetable is unnecessary to meet the needs of the local authorities. If one communicates with local authority treasurers, it becomes clear that the bills for business rates are not normally sent out until February. I received a document from Birmingham city council, the largest metropolitan council in the country, which showed that it does not send out the bills for business rates until mid-February. Therefore, a timetable that would have taken business beyond the end of January would have been able to meet the needs of a typical council such as Birmingham.
    We do not even need to hear evidence from Birmingham city council, because the document produced by the Department of the Environment and sent to chief executives of local authorities on 30 November, which I cited last night, made it clear that provisional calculations would be made in January. Nevertheless, the Department of the Environment expects authorities to recalculate the amount that they will receive in contributions from the
    386
    business rate between January and March. Even the Department of the Environment has acknowledged that the Bill could have lasted beyond January and still have met the assumption on which it based its regulations.
    We could have adopted a procedure that involved a Second Reading yesterday, a money resolution following it, Committee either on the Floor of the House in 10 days or in two weeks' time, or Committee upstairs. That would have allowed time for Royal Assent to be given—to a Bill which might have been modified in the light of representations and discussion in Committee—in February, and which not only would have met the needs of councils such as Birmingham, but would have met the administrative arrangements that the Department of the Environment anticipated would apply. That would have been a sensible procedure, which would have been acceptable to the Opposition and acceptable to the House.
    Of course, the Bill is not as straightforward as it was in the past year. Government Members who argued that it is essentially the same Bill are quite wrong. Although I was sufficiently courteous to allow the Minister to intervene in my speech last night, the Under-Secretary of State, while drawing a comparison between the Bills of the past year and this year, was not sufficiently courteous allow me to intervene in his speech to correct his misapprehension. He will not be surprised that I shall now take the opportunity to correct that misapprehension.
    Last year's Bill dealt essentially with one issue, which was that business rates should be frozen at the level of the rate of inflation. The arguments were about whether it was appropriate to limit the increases to the rate of inflation. That was discussed on Second Reading, and during the 10-day period between Second Reading and remaining stages, which were taken on the Floor of the House, several different organisations made representations to me.
    This year's Bill is much more complicated. It involves a discussion of the future structure. It raises the question whether there will be further transitional relief in 1995, which is the year after the next revaluation of business rates. It raises the question of what will happen if there is transitional relief. Under the current arrangements, if businesses are given transitional relief, the aggregate sum given in relief is made up by the Government before the rating pool is distributed to local authorities. Therefore, all other things being equal, local authorities themselves neither win nor lose under the current procedure.
    Because of some clauses in this Bill, there is no guarantee that that will happen in future. There is no guarantee that transitional relief will be granted in the first place. If it is granted, there is no guarantee that the sums needed to make up the rating pool will be contributed by the Department.
    Moreover, there is no guarantee that, even if both happen, the Government will take that into account in calculating the external financing limit for local government, which governs the sum given to local government from outside sources. These are important issues that affect the ability of every council to make decisions on their chosen level of provision and to meet that level of provision.
    A further important issue that emerged in representations made to me last year and in preliminary representations by some organisations to me this year is the whole question of who should determine business rates. It seems that, increasingly, organisations over a wide spectrum, from chambers of commerce to the Institute of

    387
    Directors, to councils throughout the country, to many businesses, believe that it is far better that business rates are determined locally than centrally, for all the reasons discussed in yesterday's Second Reading debate. That issue is central to what happens to business rates and the rating pool. Many organisations would have wanted to make repreentations on that, had that been possible.
    I do not want to prolong the debate on this motion for longer than necessary, because we wish to discuss many other important items this evening. The timing of the legislation and the Government's introduction of it without proper consultations through the usual channels are unacceptable to hon. Members, and an abuse of our democracy in this House. They have deviated from previous procedures that hon. Members accepted as reasonably satisfactory.
    This establishes a dangerous pattern of contempt for those workable and tried and tested procedures. The rush with which we have had to deal with the legislation is unnecessary. We could have dealt with it in a satisfactory way, which would have allowed proper representation and discussion, as well as the completion of the Bill in sufficient time for local authorities to make the necessary arrangements.
    Those are only some of the points that my hon. Friends have raised in their speeches this evening. The Government's conduct has been wholly reprehensible and unacceptable, so we shall oppose the guillotine motion tonight.
    6.43 pm
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): Today we have had a continuation of the cabaret which marked yesterday's debate. We have had what I can describe only as the performance of the Tea Room trotters. They are the hon. Members who are called out of the Tea Room to keep the debate going and then dispatched back, no doubt like the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), to eat his bacon sandwich.
    In they come, back they go. They try to make their speeches, and whenever they look as though they are faltering, which is fairly frequently, up pops the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to prompt them and bring them back on track. Indeed, I am surprised that he did not have some visual aids with him to help them. Perhaps he might have had a score card for technical expertise, which I fear would have been fairly low in most cases. Certainly they would have scored higher on artistic impression.
    Dr. John Reid: Get on with it.
    Mr. Curry: That is typical of the hon. Gentleman. He has spent a day and a half not getting on with it, yet he sits there and urges us to get on with it. The Opposition have waffled, wasted time, digressed and completed a little global tour, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is not even concerned about the Bill. That indicates his dedication to duty.
    Then we had the sentimental interlude when it was discovered that it was the birthday of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). We are all glad, and wish him a happy birthday, but if this measure were so
    388
    important, so crucial and so absolutely essential to business, it is a little curious to intervene in the middle of the debate to wish him a happy birthday. But if that is how the Opposition wish to use their time, I am delighted.
    The digression continued when the hon. Member for Leicester, East wished to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been observed eating lamb cutlets.
    Mr. Vaz rose—
    Mr. Curry: I will give way in a little while.
    I was not clear whether the sin was to be eating, whether it was to be eating lamb cutlets or whether there was some implication about the origin of the lamb cutlets. Knowing my right hon. Friend's past, I would be deeply surprised if the cutlets were not English. They may even have been Suffolk lamb cutlets, and no doubt I could have provided him with Yorkshire lamb cutlets. The fact that he was eating lamb cutlets was apparently a material reason for intervening in the debate. I fail to understand quite why.
    Mr. Vaz: I do not understand why the Minister has decided to trivialise this important matter. The point that was being made was that no Conservative Member could be found yesterday to partake in this debate and speak on behalf of British business. Yet the Secretary of State for the Environment, unlike the shadow Secretary of State who opened the debate for the Opposition, instead of coming to the House to listen, spent his time eating downstairs in the Churchill Room. Is that acceptable behaviour when such an important measure as this is being debated?
    Mr. Curry: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend takes such a sensible precaution to ensure that he can effectively discharge his responsibilities in this House, as he has done so admirably this afternoon. Whether or not he has mint on his lamb cutlets seems marginal as far as the debate is concerned.
    Yesterday, too, we had a cabaret. We heard the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stephenson) talking about his chip shops. I shall be delighted to accept his invitation to visit one if he can stick to his guarantee. At one moment, the debate was so gripping that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) felt the need to resort to his worry beads or prayer beads, no doubt praying that Opposition speeches would come rapidly to an end.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Why did the Government feel the need to include paragraph 2(2) in the guillotine motion?
    Mr. Curry: I will ensure that my good colleague has an extremely sound answer to that question.
    There was a sense of deep outrage in the House. The Opposition said that this was an abuse, and that the Government were arrogant. The Opposition were so indignant that, on a measure which was announced before the Christmas recess, they imposed a one-line Whip. That was on the money resolution. The outrage was enough to impose a one-line Whip.
    That one-line Whip also covered the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, to which you will not wish me to refer, Madam Deputy Speaker. That Bill, too, was sufficiently important to merit a one-line Whip. At the end of the day, 59 Members summoned up the outrage to vote against the money resolution.
    Then the Opposition banged on about consultation. Where are these frustrated petitioners? Where is the

    389
    Institute of Directors, which appears to loom so large and so suddenly in the perspective of the Opposition parties? The Confederation of British Industry and the Association of Chambers of Commerce demanded access. Undoubtedly, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, with his rather agreeable mixed hereditament across the river, was pressing to make representations.
    There was not a squeak, not a whimper, not a hint or a sound in terms of representations. [Interruption.] I have checked with my Department. How many representations did we get? We got no representations from local authority associations, the Associations of Chambers of Commerce or the CBI during the consultation period, because they were content with the measure.
    Over the past few weeks, my hon. Friend and I consulted 62 councils on the rate support settlement. All those councils know that we had a wide-ranging discussion. Indeed, some have raised matters that go beyond the SSAs. Not one council wished to raise the subject of the business rate. That is the great crisis of confidence, and it is the great problem which all councils face. It is all fiction from start to finish.
    Mr. Vaz: The Minister misses the point completely. The reason why he has not heard a squeak, as he puts it, from the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and local authorities is that he has not given the House sufficient time to scrutinise the legislation. He knows that there is a fundamental change in this year's proposals. They are quite different from what was foreshadowed last year. He admitted that when he said that there was a change. The House should have the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation, and local authorities, the chambers of commerce, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury, should have the opportunity to comment on it.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will not accept that the essentials of the proposals were published in the Budget on 30 November, the Bill was published on 16 December and the business of the House was announced before the Christmas recess. Labour Members may not have wished to work or do their homework over Christmas. However, others were able to do so, and were satisfied with the proposals.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister is making great play of the fact that he has received representations from local authorities and not one of them said anything about the proposals. The proposals relate to the national non-domestic rate. All that local authorities do is collect that rate on behalf of the Government. Why on earth would the Minister expect local authorities to make representations?
    Mr. Curry: I would expect local authorities to make representations, because Labour Members told me that they were burning to make representations. Who is right? The hon. Gentleman says that they do not want to make representations; the hon. Member for Leicester, East says that they want to make representations. The hon. Member should co-ordinate his time with his colleagues. He should not accuse me of wasting time. Labour Members wasted a day and a half, and they do not appear to like it. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that seated interventions from the Labour Front Bench are helpful to the debate.
    Mr. Curry: Let us look at the needs of local authorities and billing. There are three essential points that I wish to cover: first, the needs of local authorities in terms of the timetable; secondly, the unpredictability of the old business rating system and the arguments for moving to the new system; thirdly, the nature of the Bill and the understandings which I have given the House about what we will do post-1995. I have said it once, and I will say it again shortly.
    A sensible local authority will want to get its first instalments payable at the beginning of April. It must leave its bills to lie for 14 days once it has served them on the businesses which must pay them. The bills, therefore, should go out certainly no later than 10 March. There is printing to be done. Of course, some of that is highly automated. Printing will have to start on 6 or 7 March.
    Local authorities must be sure that they know the scheme which will operate. That means that they need certainty by the third week in February. We have already received telephone calls from councils asking whether they have that certainty: "Because of the actions of Labour Members, can we count on this measure coming through in time for us to prepare our bills?"
    This year, we have the opportunity to get the bills out not merely in proper time but a little early. That is of great help to local authorities and businesses. Let us be clear on this: if we fail to do that, one of two things will happen. First, the bills will go out unamended. That will mean that they have to be rebilled. If the bills go out and have to be changed, there is a complete rebilling run. That means that businesses will be struck with uncertainty again. Secondly, local authorities will decide that they will not send out the bills and will simply wait. That means that there will be an enormous cash flow problem for local authorities. Business rates bring in £1 billion a month.
    The whole history of tax changes in business is local authorities banging on our door complaining about our being late. We now have the opportunity to be early, and Labour Members wish to deny us—
    Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Curry: No. I have given way a great many times already.
    Labour Members wish to deny local authorities the certainty of having the system well in advance and saving money, and they wish to deny business the time to pay.
    The old system was wildly unpredictable, and there were enormous variations. I have some of the figures for the variations in poundage for 1989–90. The lowest poundage was in Chelsea and Kensington, with 122·2p. The average in England was 258·3p. The highest was in Sheffield, which went over 400p in the pound at the time that the hon. Member for Attercliffe was associated with that council.
    Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Curry: I shall give way at the end of this section. Undoubtedly, the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on his methods of creative accountancy and off-budget financing which were practised at the time.
    We saw the following variations and year-on-year increases. In Ealing, the rate for businesses was 57 per

    391
    cent. That went down by 21 per cent. after capping, and it then went up by 28 per cent. in the following year. In Calderdale, the figures were 37 per cent., 2·8 per cent. and 13·9 per cent.; Haringey, 56 per cent. in a year; Hammersmith and Fulham, 44 per cent. in a year; Birmingham, 32 per cent. in a year; and Brent, 30 per cent. in a year. I could continue with the list.
    If the old system was so remarkable—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the Minister wants to refer to those matters, but I need to be persuaded that they are directly relevant to the motion before the House at present.
    Mr. Curry: Labour Members said repeatedly that the old system was excellent and that everyone wished to go back to it. I am merely saying that at the time there was a large number of complaints because of the sheer unpredictability of that system.
    Mr. Betts: Does the Minister accept that the league table to which he referred was one of rate poundage, not a rate product collected per hereditament? Although Sheffield was high on the rate poundage league table, it had very low rateable values. It is the two figures combined which had an impact on business. The Minister did not draw a fair comparison.
    Mr. Curry: I made it clear that I was talking about rate poundage. I spelled out exactly what I was talking about. If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate about financing in Sheffield, I am willing to provide an occasion when we can debate those matters.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not want such a debate.
    Mr. Curry: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed but I bow to your preference.
    The Bill does two things. It is not fundamentally different from the one introduced last year. It is a different Bill, but the idea that it is some radically different Bill is simply not true.
    First, the Bill continues for the financial year which is almost on us the mechanism for compensation which we had in the past. The figures are different, but the mechanism is the same. For future years, if we decide that there must be a means of mitigating increases following the 1995 revaluation, it gives us the means to invite the House to approve such a means of mitigation without primary legislation every year but with an affirmative resolution in both Houses, with adequate time for debate.
    I have been asked constantly about compensation. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I have given a clear commitment that any shortfall which results from new concessions will be made up by the Exchequer in full from national resources.
    The Opposition have made a charade of the Bill and a cabaret of the debate, and it is about time that we got on to the substance. The Opposition do not want to do that, because they know full well that this is a popular Bill which will help business. It is a Bill which local authorities welcome and which is in time, efficient and effective, and I commend it to the House. It is about time that the
    392
    Opposition got on with the real business, and I would ask the House to accept the guillotine motion which is before it tonight.
    Question put:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 302, Noes 231.

    Division No. 65]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Day, Stephen

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alexander, Richard

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Amess, David

    Dicks, Terry

    Ancram, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Arbuthnot, James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dover, Den

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Duncan, Alan

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Atkins, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Eggar, Tim

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Elletson, Harold

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bates, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Faber, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forman, Nigel

    Body, Sir Richard

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    Booth, Hartley

    Fowler, Rf Hon Sir Norman

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bowden, Andrew

    French, Douglas

    Bowis, John

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gale, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Brazier, Julian

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bright, Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorst, John

    Burns, Simon

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butler, Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butterfill, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Cash, William

    Hannam, Sir John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Churchill, Mr

    Harris, David

    Clappison, James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hayes, Jerry

    Colvin, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Conway, Derek

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Couchman, James

    Horam, John

    Cran, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

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

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    393

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jack, Michael

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Richards, Rod

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Riddick, Graham

    Jessel, Toby

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Key, Robert

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knapman, Roger

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sackville, Tom

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knox, Sir David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shersby, Michael

    Legg, Barry

    Sims, Roger

    Leigh, Edward

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lidington, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lightbown, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Luff, Peter

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sproat, Iain

    Maclean, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    Madel, Sir David

    Stephen, Michael

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stern, Michael

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    Malone, Gerald

    Streeter, Gary

    Mans, Keith

    Sumberg, David

    Marland, Paul

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marlow, Tony

    Sykes, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Merchant, Piers

    Thomason, Roy

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thurnharn, Peter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Monro, Sir Hector

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

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tracey, Richard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Needham, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trotter, Neville

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Ward, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waterson, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Watts, John

    Page, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Paice, James

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Whitney, Ray

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Whittingdale, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Pawsey, James

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Willetts, David

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wilshire, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    394

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Fatchett, Derek

    Ainger, Nick

    Faulds, Andrew

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Allen, Graham

    Fisher, Mark

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Flynn, Paul

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Ashton, Joe

    Fraser, John

    Austin-Walker, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Galloway, George

    Barnes, Harry

    George, Bruce

    Barron, Kevin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Battle, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Bayley, Hugh

    Graham, Thomas

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bell, Stuart

    Grocott, Bruce

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Gunnell, John

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Hain, Peter

    Benton, Joe

    Hall, Mike

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hanson, David

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Hardy, Peter

    Betts, Clive

    Henderson, Doug

    Blair, Tony

    Hendron, Dr Joe

    Blunkett, David

    Heppell, John

    Boyes, Roland

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Bradley, Keith

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hoey, Kate

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

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

    Home Robertson, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Burden, Richard

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Byers, Stephen

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Caborn, Richard

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hutton, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Illsley, Eric

    Clapham, Michael

    Ingram, Adam

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Clelland, David

    Jamieson, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Janner, Greville

    Coffey, Ann

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Corbett, Robin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Cryer, Bob

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cummings, John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Leighton, Ron

    Darling, Alistair

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Davidson, Ian

    Lewis, Terry

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Litherland, Robert

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    McAllion, John

    Denham, John

    McFall, John

    Dewar, Donald

    McKelvey, William

    Dixon, Don

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Dobson, Frank

    McLeish, Henry

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McNamara, Kevin

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Madden, Max

    Eastham, Ken

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Enright, Derek

    Mahon, Alice

    Etherington, Bill

    Mandelson, Peter

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Marek, Dr John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    395

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Martlew, Eric

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Maxton, John

    Rooker, Jeff

    Meacher, Michael

    Rooney, Terry

    Michael, Alun

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Milburn, Alan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Miller, Andrew

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Short, Clare

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Simpson, Alan

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Skinner, Dennis

    Morley, Elliot

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Spellar, John

    Mudie, George

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Paul

    Stott, Roger

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Straw, Jack

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Tipping, Paddy

    Olner, William

    Vaz, Keith

    O'Neill, Martin

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wallace, James

    Parry, Robert

    Walley, Joan

    Patchett, Terry

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Pendry, Tom

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pickthall, Colin

    Watson, Mike

    Pike, Peter L

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Pope, Greg

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wilson, Brian

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Winnick, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wise, Audrey

    Prescott, John

    Wortnington, Tony

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Wray, Jimmy

    Purchase, Ken

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Radice, Giles

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Redmond, Martin

    Mr. Alan Meale and

    Reid, Dr John

    Mr. Dennis Turner.

    Rendel, David

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill:—

    Committee, Report and Third Reading
    1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
    (2) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
    (3) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
    (4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

    Conclusion of proceedings
    2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall, subject to sub-paragraph (2), forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

    (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

    (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

    (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

    (2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) that successive clauses should stand part of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put the single Question that each of those clauses shall so stand part.
    (3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    (4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

    Extra time
    3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
    Dilatory Motions
    4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

    Supplemental orders
    5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
    (2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

    Saving
    6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

    Recommittal
    7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
    (2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Non-Domestic Rating Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  Non-Domestic Rating Bill
    Clause 1

      LIMIT ON INCREASE IN NON-DOMESTIC RATES FOR 1994 FINANCIAL YEAR
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out line 27.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

      No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 28 and 29.

      No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2.

      Mr. Vaz: May I say how pleased I am to see the Under-Secretary of State, who has returned to the debate following an absence. One of the interesting aspects of the debate on the Bill has been the lack of interest of the Secretary of State in the proceedings. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was present yesterday and is present today, the Secretary of State has not made a single appearance during the various stages of the Bill and has had to rely on the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State to put the arguments.
      One of the reasons why the Opposition opposed the allocation of time motion on which the House has just divided was that we wished to give the House the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. One of the most worrying aspects of the Bill is the group of clauses that will continue to give special treatment to privatised utility companies —gas, electricity and water. That continues the orders that were made in the Non-Domestic Rating Acts of 1993 and 1992. In particular, it continues the special treatment conferred by article 9 of the British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1989, article 9(3) of the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989 and article 9(3) of the Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1989.
      We have tabled the amendments to seek to remove the special treatment that has been given to the utilities, which have done extremely well as a result of the Government's privatisation policy. That policy has resulted in their being able to achieve huge profits and, as I shall show shortly, to remunerate their chairmen and chief officers with huge salaries. That has been a matter of comment not only outside the House but in the House by hon. Members of all parties. Therefore, it is extremely important to examine the proposals and seek ways in which we can ensure that the overall pool of money that will be made available for distribution to local authorities is as large as possible.
      Conferring special treatment on those privatised utilities will mean, in the long run, that they will not contribute to ensuring that the pool is topped up in a way that Opposition Members and many people and organisations outside the House believe would be fair.
      May I also make it clear, as it has been a matter of comment during previous stages of the Bill, that the Opposition are wholly in favour of the subsidies being given to businesses in Britain. We therefore support the principles of the Bill, in so far as they repeat the principles enunciated during the passage of the 1992 and 1993 Acts.
      398
      Businesses have suffered greatly due to the difficulties caused by the recession, which is shown quite clearly by the fact that the number of businesses approaching local authorities to obtain support through section 49 of the 1989 Act has increased dramatically. The last figures that we have for hardship cases show that, under section 49 of that Act, local authorities paid more than £1 million to support businesses.
      The amendments would ensure that the amount of money that will go into the pool will increase, thereby enabling businesses to ensure that they are able to cope with the very serious recession that has affected the country during the past few years. Because of that recession the previous Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is now the Secretary of State for Wales—came before the House a year ago to ensure that the arrangements continued. That is why the Government are returning for the fifth time in four years to ensure that the amount of subsidy available to local businesses is kept at an acceptable level.
      If the amendments are accepted, the privatised utilities —gas, electricity and water—will be able to contribute a much greater amount to the pool, which will diminish the amount of money that the Secretary of State will have to put in. That would mean an overall increase in the amount distributed to local authorities and would, therefore, assist local councils.
      I hope that the amendments will be accepted. If the Minister needs any enticing, I merely point out that the privatised utilities have done extremely well during the past few years. There can be no better source of information or statistics that hon. Members on both sides of the House can accept than the Library, which has produced for me a note setting out the pre-tax profits of some of the companies to which the Government wish to give special treatment.
      British Gas made a pre-tax profit for the year 1992–93 of £1,054 million and its chairman, Mr. Evans, received £379,000 in remuneration for that financial year. Why on earth should the pool be diminished to give special treatment to British Gas, under orders passed in 1989, when it has made more than £1 billion in profits and its chairman is receiving such a large remuneration? It is certainly a great deal more than that received by Ministers of the Crown or even the Prime Minister.
      Special arrangements are to be provided for the water industry under article 9(3) of the Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1989. How much profit have the water companies made? Last year North West Water made a profit of £247 million; it pays its chairman £238,000 a year. Northumbrian Water made £69 million in pre-tax profits last year and pays its chairman £91,000. Severn Trent Water—the water authority which covers my constituency—made a pre-tax profit of £270 million and the remuneration of its chairman was £179,000. Southern Water made a profit of £119 million and its chairman receives £170,000. South West Water made £93 million and its chairman receives £112,000. Thames Water made £251 million, Welsh Water made £156 million, Wessex Water made £86 million and Yorkshire Water made £139 million. They paid their chairmen £155,000, £156,000, £164,000 and £156,000 respectively.
      Will the Minister explain why special treatment is to be given to the water authorities when their profits are so vast

      399
      and when the amount of money that they made available in remuneration for their chairmen was high last year and I am sure will again be high this year?
      Article 9(3) of the Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989, which I re-read this morning—I am sure that the Minister has also re-read it—shows that special treatment will again be given to the electricity undertakings, which made almost as much pre-tax profit as the water companies.
      East Midlands Electricity made £155 million and pays its chairman £226,000. Eastern Electricity made £183 million and pays its chairman £238,000. London Electricity made £146 million; Manweb, £111 million; Midlands Electricity, £167 million; Northern Electric, £111 million; Norweb, £157 million; Seeboard, £113 million; South Wales Electricity, £87 million; South Western Electricity, £111 million; Southern Electric, £187 million; and Yorkshire Electricity, £156 million. The salaries of their chairmen vary from £226,000 a year to £167,000.
      The Government have given no explanation of why it is necessary to continue this year an order made in 1989. All it will mean is that companies that have done extremely well during the past few years will be indirectly rewarded by the Government. If we set aside the sweeteners and the other support given to those industries when they were privatised and merely look at the support offered because of that special treatment, we see that the amount of money available to the pool will be diminished. Why is it important? It is for the very reason put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on Second Reading. Not one Conservative Member came to the Chamber and spoke in support of Government policy.
      We are so concerned about the effects of the Bill because of the fundamental change that has been made since the passage of the 1993 Act. The clauses making that change take away the duty of the Secretary of State to make good the shortfall and replace it with a power. From the comments of the Minister for Local Government and Planning during the debates on the money resolution and on Second Reading, we know that he is not concerned about the fact that he has not even devised the scheme that will be in place after 1995. He made that absolutely clear. He did not know what the scheme would do, yet he expects the Committee to approve a clause that will give special treatment to companies that have made billions of pounds in the past few years. That is unacceptable.
      No argument in favour of that special treatment was made on Second Reading, and the Minister did not refer to it tonight, although he had the opportunity to do so. All that we have been offered by the hon. Gentleman is the stock phrase used by other ministerial colleagues. He has pushed the official Government line that the Bill must be passed as quickly as possible to ensure that the billing arrangements are established so that local authorities do not suffer.
      7.30 pm
      We witnessed an extraordinary performance earlier, when the Minister failed to allow proper scrutiny of the issue and cast aside our objections. He knows that it is essential that we ensure that local government gets as many resources as possible. The amendment will ensure that they
      400
      receive more resources, certainly more than they did last year in terms of their take from the non-domestic rating pool.
      The Minister should study the number of bankruptcies and business failures that have occurred in the past few years. For the years 1990 to 1993, the number of business failures was 28,935, 47,777, 62,767 and 55,673 respectively. The level of the business rate contributed to the enormous costs facing local businesses. British Gas, the water companies, East Midlands Electricity and Northern Electric, however, have done extremely well, even during the recession—some would say because of the recession. Why should businesses in my constituency and those of other right hon. and hon. Members not benefit from the money made available from the rates pool?
      I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendments are modest. They have been tabled as a means of helping the Minister and the Government through a difficult economic time. They will result in more money being available for the pool.
      The Minister may reply by suggesting that the commitment to the utilities was made in 1989 by one of his predecessors or the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when those utilities were sold off. He may argue that the House must be bound by that commitment. The situation has changed, however, because we have had a recession, which has caused 55,000 businesses to go bust. Those utilities, however, have done extremely well.
      Now is the opportunity to replace the current system with a reasonable course of action to ensure that those who make more are able to pay more. The enterprises that have got away with special treatment should, quite properly, be made accountable for the money that they have made.
      Mr. Betts: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has said about the intention behind the amendment.
      I understand that the transitional arrangements in the Bill will ensure that those businesses that are subject to a large increase in their business rate as a result of a revaluation will be offered some assistance to offset the financial impact of it. The Opposition have made it clear that they have no objection to the revaluation exercise or to the implementation of transitional arrangements that protect businesses that would otherwise suffer a marked increase in their business rate. It must be accepted, however, that a revaluation reflects certain changes that have occurred in the standing of a business vis-a-vis other businesses since the previous valuation. Those revaluations reflect current conditions. The transitional arrangements should act as a cushion against the impact of different valuations on certain businesses, out there in the real world.
      No one has sought to argue that small companies should not be cushioned from the effects of an increase in their valuations. That is right and proper, because many do not have large financial reserves. Many others have suffered tremendously in the past three years of the recession. They should be protected from any sudden increase in their rateable valuation and the new rates should be phased in.
      There is some question about whether larger businesses should be protected, although I accept that, in the past three years, larger businesses in the manufacturing sector have not made profits. Many have simply marked time, while

      401
      others have made losses. It is reasonable that some protection should be offered to them, particularly in the current economic climate.
      The amendment concerns those companies that have done extremely well, even in the recession. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East read out the profits that have been made by the privatised utilities and none of them is in any financial danger because of lower profits. None of them is making a loss.
      When my hon. Friend read out the list of those privatised utilities and the profits that they have made, I thought in particular of those that serve my constituency, Yorkshire Water, Severn Trent Water, East Midlands Electricity and Yorkshire Electricity. The combined profits of those four companies come to £700 million, which is substantially more than the £90 million shortfall that the Government have catered for in the Bill. That profit represents an awful lot of money. Those companies are hardly on the brink of disaster. They are unlikely to be rocked by the effects of a revaluation, however large the rate increase might be. Why then do the Government want to offer transitional arrangements for those utilities? What is the justification for that?
      The Government claim that they have budgetary problems of their own and we know that local authorities face similar problems, so why have the Government chosen to spend money on the utilities, which make excessive profits? Why have they been allowed to get away without paying a proper rateable value according to latest revaluations?
      Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend served for 16 years as a Sheffield city councillor and for five years as leader of that great city. Does he agree that it will be extremely difficult to explain to Sheffield city council and other local authorities that the amount of money available to them has been reduced because the Government are showing favour to their friends in big business by allowing them special treatment?
      Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend puts the argument succinctly. I do not know how I would begin to explain to my local authority in Sheffield and my constituents why they should face reductions in their services, worth between £30 million and £40 million in the next financial year, while the Government attempt to give what can only be described as a subsidy and a hand-out to utilities that already make excessive profits. Perhaps the Minister could help me. It is an obscene waste of public money to introduce legislation that allows those utilities to pay lower rates than the revaluations have deemed that they should pay.
      That is what transitional arrangements do. They do not say that the rateable values are wrong, but simply that business should be cushioned from the immediate impact of what it is deemed proper that they should pay for a period.
      There is no problem with small businesses or the manufacturing industry. I want the Minister to say clearly what would happen to those utilities if the transitional relief was not available to them. Can he name one consequence that would have any impact on those businesses, on the people whom they employ and on the services that they provide to people throughout the country, from not allowing it? I do not believe that he can,
      402
      but he may find many other things that he could do, if the money were available to the Treasury, to help local government deliver better services throughout the country.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It might be helpful if I put the amendment, which is in quite a narrow context, into some perspective. Underneath the inescapable complexities of the drafting, the principle of the relief scheme is simple. Without it, some 360,000 non-domestic properties still in so-called upward transition would be subject to real-terms rate increases next year of up to 20 per cent. for larger properties. For a number of sectors posing unusually difficult valuation problems, principally former public utilities, rateable values are made by the Secretary of State rather than arrived at through conventional valuation. That is the reason why they are in that category. It is not because they happen to be former utilities, but because they present difficult valuation properties.
      For properties of those categories still in upward transition there would have been real rate increases of up to 20 per cent. next year. Clause 1(4) substitutes a limit of 10 per cent. That would ensure that, for the purposes of the scheme, such properties are treated on all fours with other large hereditaments. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said that they were being given special treatment. That is not the case. They are being treated in exactly the same way as every other conventionally rated property.
      Mr. Vaz: The Minister accepts delegations from local authorities all over the country. He was visited recently by a delegation from Leicester, which made a strong case for additional Government funding and resources to make up for the cuts in Government expenditure for Leicester. He knows all of that, and the context in which local government operates at the moment.
      Therefore, how can he justify giving special treatment —that is what it amounts to—through a subsidy to British Gas, which made profits of £1,054 million last year, and to the water companies, which, between them, made £1,615 million last year, and to the electricity companies when, as he knows, ordinary local businesses have suffered because of the recession? The Opposition do not oppose his proposals to give a subsidy to business. We believe that it is important at a time of recession and that is why we did not vote against the Second Reading.
      In the amendment, we are putting forward a proper reflection of what happened in the economy over the past few years. We want the Government to accept, in what is a modest amendment, that those who have done well should not be subsidised, but should be taxed at a proper and appropriate level; a level that they can manage to deal with quite effectively.
      The Chairman: Order. That was a long intervention.
      Mr. Vaz: I thought that we were in Committee.
      The Chairman: We may be in Committee, and an hon. Member may contribute many times. Interventions, by convention, are short and succinct, to put the Minister on the spot, or to ask a question.
      Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Of course I will accept your guidance. I shall take that as a nod that I should interrupt the Minister several times before he finishes.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Baldry: The amendment is in a narrow compass. Essentially, what the hon. Gentleman wants, as he has made clear, is that utilities should be treated differently from other business. We see no merit in setting higher limits on transitional rate bill increases for utilities than for other industrial rate payers. The laws of natural equity expect that every business be treated the same. The extra burden on their customers could be significant in some cases. I shall use as an example the rates bill that the National Grid Company would pay in Wales next year, because businesses within that category are not all privatised businesses as the hon. Gentleman sought to suggest. They include nationalised industries such as British Waterways and organisations such as National Grid.
      Mr. Vaz: It is a narrow point, and that is why we have been careful in the way in which we have tabled our amendments. We have not included the railways rateable values order, because of the difficulties that that organisation faces. We have been specific in selecting in this amendment those utilities that we believe can bear the full rateable value.
      I refer the Minister to the speech by his predecessor at column 855 of Hansard of 27 April when it was accepted that it was the recession that had meant that a new proposal had to be brought forward.
      Mr. Baldry: I am aware that the Opposition have not included the railways. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I was saying, he would know that neither the National Grid nor British Waterways is a railway. But they would come within the context of the amendment. The rates bill that the National Grid Company would pay in Wales next year would be nearly £1·75 million higher if the amendments were accepted.
      It is a narrow point and the Government believe that in equity everyone should be treated in the same way. On those grounds, the Government urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Vaz: It is a sad state of affairs that a Minister of the Crown can argue that British Gas, the water authorities and electricity companies should be treated in exactly the same way as local businesses. As I said at the start of the debate, the Opposition do not oppose the subsidy that is being given. Indeed, we support the additional help for businesses. That is why on the previous occasion when the matter came before the House we supported the principle of additional help to local businesses, as put forward in the Non-Domestic Rating Bill of 1992–93.
      We object to the unfairness that the Government wish to proceed with; an unfairness that was properly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). My hon. Friend speaks with vast experience of the difficulties that local businesses face. As someone who led a local authority, he knows very well the problems that local businesses have, and their difficulties in paying their taxes and, as then, their rates. I am sure that, in the conversations that my hon. Friend had with local businesses as leader of Sheffield city council, they expressed to him their concerns about the level of rates and then the level of uniform business rates that they had to
      404
      pay. The amendment is narrow. It deals with those particular industries. It sets out clearly the fact that we should not give them special treatment.
      Of course, they will be given special treatment, because the whole purpose of the Bill is to give support to those businesses that are in difficulty because of the recession. I refer the Minister to the comments made by his then hon. Friend, now his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He said:
      "Bearing in mind the effects of the recession, the Government decided last year not to add to the burden on businesses."—[Official Report, 27 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 853.]
      There would be no burden on businesses if British Gas, with profits of more than £1 billion, the water companies and the electricity companies, were to pay their fair share of rates; nor would the Government be in any way criticised for making those privatised utilities pay what they should pay. Rather, the public would applaud their decision to make them do so because it would directly benefit the small businesses that have suffered from the recession.
      I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendments. I am not convinced by anything that he has said. Ministers in Committee and on Second Reading have come to the Dispatch Box and read out a few lines prepared for them on the basis of what happened last year. They assume that everything is the same. However, everything is not the same, and everything should not be the same.
      The privatised utilities that have done well should pay more or what is fair because that will benefit the pool. It will mean that the Secretary of State will have to put less into the pool by way of compensating for the shortfall, a promise that he made verbally but has not put in the Bill. That will mean that the pressure on the Government to provide assistance in other areas of policy will be reduced.
      The amendments will help, not hinder the Government. They will paint the Minister and his colleagues as reasonable and fair people who are prepared to allow those who make more to pay more.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      AMENDMENTS OF POWER TO MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR 1995 ONWARDS
      Mr. Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
      '(2) Before making any regulations under section 58 of the 1988 Act in relation to the financial year beginning in 1995 and to subsequent financial years, the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates about the effects of the compilation of new local non-domestic rating lists on hereditaments in each of the following categories—

      (a) factories;

      (b) offices;

      (c) shops;

      (d) warehouses; and

      (e) other hereditaments.'.

      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
      '(3) Before making any regulations under section 58 of the 1988 Act in relation to the financial year beginning in 1995 and subsequent financial years, the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates and those local authorities as appear

      405
      to him to be concerned about the effects of the compilation of a new local non-domestic rating list on the local economy in each of the regions of England set out below and in Wales.
      For the purposes of this section the regions of England are the standard economic planning regions, namely

      (a) the Northern region;

      (b) the North West region;

      (c) the Yorkshire and Humberside region;

      (d) the West Midlands region;

      (e) the East Midlands region;

      (f) East Anglia;

      (g) London;

      (h) the South East region, excluding London; and

      (i) the South West region.'.

      Mr. Henderson: I am always pleased, Mr. Morris, to serve under your chairmanship. You were the Chairman of the first Committee on which I served. The Bill that we were considering had seven or eight clauses. We managed to make progress, but it took us between 30 and 35 sittings.
      Some hon. Members may erroneously have had the impression last night that some hon. Members were elongating their contributions. However, I can assure you, Mr. Morris, and the Committee, that that was not the Opposition's intention. We were making very real points in relation to procedure and the Bill. I hope to continue in the same spirit in Committee and to deal as expeditiously as possible with the amendments that have been selected.
      Amendment No. 4 says that, before regulations are made under section 58, the guts of the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State should, with regard to the Bill's impact on different types of premises, consult bodies which appear to him to be representative of persons who may be subject to non-domestic rates.
      Amendment No. 5 says:
      "the Secretary of State shall consult persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates"
      and local authorities in different parts of the country.
      The changing pattern of business rates clearly has many different impacts. There is the impact of revaluation which takes place every five years and the impact of the way in which any increases are subject to relief which the Government may or may not give to businesses. The impact differs according to the type of business and the region.
      It is important that the Government should consult widely before decisions are made. The starting point differs in different parts of the country and the economic circumstances of businesses vary greatly.
      Most hon. Members will agree that Dun and Bradstreet is a good source of information on the state of the economy in different parts of the country. In other circumstances, there may have been a temptation to have given the House more information from that organisation, but I shall simply say that it has recorded that the number of business failures in 1993 was nearly double those in 1990. However, the impact was different in different parts of the country. Dun and Bradstreet's most recent publication shows that London had more than 9,000 business failures last year, the south-east 13,000, the eastern region 2,000, the south-west 7,000, and so on. One can see the pattern. It is clear that there is a variation in the impact of the recession and in the circumstances in which different businesses find themselves. Those businesses would want to make representations to the Secretary of State regarding their circumstances before the Secretary of State sets limits on
      406
      the general movement in the level of business rates or decides on the case for or against any transitional provision.
      Opposition Members have complained about the procedure adopted in relation to the Bill and the inability of organisations to make their views known, but after I tentatively prepared some amendments which raised a number of issues that concern people, several organisations wrote to me setting out their views on the regional impact of business rates. Those views differ around the country.
      Barnsley chamber of commerce, to which I referred earlier, believes that people in the south have received all the benefit of the Secretary of State's provisions in past years because they have had the largest part of the transitional arrangements. Some of its views have been echoed by, for example, the east midlands chambers of commerce and industry.
      It is surprising that the Government had to admit earlier this evening that they have not received representations. I would not say that my desk has been flooded with representations, but I have had a reasonable spread from around the country.
      The east midlands chambers of commerce say that they do not believe that the north and the midlands have benefited from the Secretary of State's provision in the past. They, too, believe that the south has done better.
      On a previous occasion I mentioned the contribution that I received from Southampton chamber of commerce. It believes that the southern part of the country experienced the worst impact of the 1990 revaluation and that, although some transitional relief was made available, it did not compensate for the increases that businesses have had to face in that part of our nation. Therefore, it believes that the north has done best from the changes that have taken place since 1990.
      My purpose in giving only a flavour of some of the evidence that I have on this matter is to show that different parts of the country have different perceptions of how they have been affected. The Secretary of State would be wise in future, if this legislation receives the approval of the House, before a decision is made on the question of relief, to consult widely regional organisations of one form or another, whether they are based on industrial and commercial associations or whether they are individual organisations. The representatives of these bodies should be consulted to give the Secretary of State a flavour of how businesses are performing and of what the impact of rates increases will be—and hence an assessment of the need for transitional relief. It would be both democratic and wise if the Secretary of State set off in that direction.
      A whole spread of views has been put to me about amendment No. 5. Those views relate to the impact of the changes and to what sort of policies organisations want. They have mentioned, for instance, that they would prefer their local authorities, not the Secretary of State, to make decisions on these matters. They feel that local authorities would be more sensitive to the needs of local industry. They also believe that businesses would be more able to influence the decisions of local authorities and they feel remote from the Secretary of State and unable to have any great impact on his decisions. The onus is now on the Secretary of State to dispel those worries and to show himself open-minded when he takes his decisions.

      407
      8 pm
      Most organisations identify industrial, commercial and retail premises and they often take a regional view of the possible impact on different types of premises. The Government should be aware of the strong feelings that prevail before they take decisions on these important matters. That is why amendment No. 4 was drafted. Many of these organisations may have wanted to make more concrete representations but they have been unable to do so because of the way in which the Bill has been rushed in, but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities tells me that it is aware of the views of various bodies representing sections of industry. If this debate were longer, I would be able to read out much more evidence in support of amendment No. 4.
      I have had some interesting correspondence about the 1995 revaluation from an organisation known as Gerald Eve Research Forecasts, a company that acts as consultant to many local authority associations and major business organisations. In a word, it has many important clients and it has drawn together a number of different views on the projected impact of the 1995 revaluation. The AMA has been given an interesting paper on the subject by Robin Goodchild, who says that the rating changes will have different impacts in different parts of the country. He forecasts a reduction in the burden of rates on central London retailers of the order of 15 per cent., but an increase of about 20 per cent. in the east midlands, and of between 15 and 50 per cent. in the north-west and the north. He predicts that office developments in the east midlands will face a 50 per cent. increase in the burden of rates, while in the north-west and the north the increase will vary between 15 and 30 per cent. He also forecasts a reduction in the burden of rates for some southern parts.
      The consultant predicts increases for all industrial premises following the revaluation, but smaller increases of between 5 and 10 per cent. in London and the south-east, and increases ranging up to 30 per cent. in the east midlands, the north and the north-west. I would expect the Secretary of State, when considering the transitional relief arrangements to apply from 1995, to want to be aware of these views of various consultants and I expect that the local authority associations may want to make their views known to him by way of representation.
      My group of speculative papers written by Gerald Eve includes a number of other views, too. The office of Stephen Tutcher FRICS predicts that the burden of rates will not increase as much for offices in the southern part of the country after 1995, but that there will be an additional burden for offices in the north—a factor which I am sure the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding on transitional relief. I should add that the assessments of the impact of the revaluation vary among the consultants who have assisted local authority organisations.
      My folder contains the views of other consultants on this issue, but I hope that I have established the general point, although if Conservative Members doubt what I say I am quite prepared to enlighten them further with more evidence. I hope, however, that they have taken the point already.
      It is widely recognised that the state of the economy differs in various parts of the country. Likewise, the impact of rates on businesses differs. It is clear that the various consultants who have applied their minds to the detail believe that there will certainly be changes in the regional impact of the rates following the 1995 revaluation. For our
      408
      part, we believe that the Secretary of State would be wise to undertake formal consultation with representative organisations before reaching decisions that will have a long-standing impact on the business community and, in turn, on the economy.
      I look forward to hearing what my colleagues and the Minister have to say on this subject.
      Mr. David Rendel: A fairly small and select class of right hon. and hon. Members who were here for the Second Reading debate are here again tonight. Those in that class will remember that yesterday I opposed an amendment moved on Second Reading by the Labour party. On this occasion, I want to show the even-handed way in which Liberal Democrats act in the House by supporting an amendment moved by the Labour party.
      The fairness of my efforts will become even more apparent when I mention that my support is given in an attempt to persuade the Government that it is in their best interests that the amendment be agreed to. The Conservatives have often claimed to be a party which favours consultation with all sorts of people. Unfortunately, they do not often act in accordance with their words. The result has often been that legislation has been passed which has later had to be reversed—one has only to think of the poll tax legislation, and there are other examples.
      I cannot help feeling that had the Government consulted properly on those occasions, the legislation that they later had to reverse would never have been introduced in the first place. That would have been much to their benefit, not least because of the waste of parliamentary time and of taxpayers' money caused by legislation that should never have been introduced.
      I support the principle of consultation in general, and, in this instance, I think that the Government would be wise not only to consult but to listen to the results of their consultation. They could argue that there is no point in consulting, because—as everyone knows—even when they do consult they never pay any attention to what is said by the consultees; rather than being as cynical as they might be tempted to be, however, I suggest that they consult widely and take note of the responses. I think that they have been granted an opportunity that they should grasp with both hands.
      Mr. Baldry: The amendment would simply oblige the Secretary of State to consult on a statutory basis. I consider it unnecessary. We fully recognise that consultation on matters relating to local government is extremely desirable, and we always engage in such consultation.
      Mr. Vaz: I am astonished to hear what the Minister is saying. He was in the Chamber when the Minister of State replied to the debate on the allocation of time; he must have heard the Minister of State mock the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and local authorities. He also mocked the Archbishop of Canterbury —although you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Morris. He said that he had had no representations from them. The Minister says that the Government wish to consult. To what extent did they consult before introducing the Bill?
      Mr. Baldry: Any reasonable person who reads Hansard tomorrow will see that what the hon. Gentleman has said does not accord with the facts. We have just

      409
      completed the most comprehensive review ever of the methodology for allocating grant to local authorities, which has involved Ministers and officials in numerous meetings with local authority representatives and organisations. Of course, we are always interested in the views of such bodies as the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors.
      We fully understand the need to consult widely on any proposals for the introduction of transitional arrangements following the 1995 revaluation, and subsequent revaluations. I therefore see no need to make the Bill longer by making that a formal duty. Yesterday, we made clear our intention to consult businesses on the effects of the 1995 revaluation by early summer. We also recognise that local authorities will need warning of our proposals, and we will certainly take their views into account.
      I consider our record on consultation on business rates exemplary—as, indeed, is our record on consultation on all matters relating to local government finance. We consulted widely on our proposals for the current transitional arrangements before introducing them in 1990, and we have continued to listen carefuly to the views of individual businesses and their representatives ever since. My officials have regular discussions with members of the valuation profession about the effects of revaluations and the detailed operation of the non-domestic rating system; we also have regular meetings with local authority associations.
      Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister consider it "exemplary" to consult people and then ignore the result of their consultations? That is what happened in the case of the poll tax legislation.
      Mr. Baldry: Whenever Ministers consult widely on matters of public policy, they must ultimately make value judgments; that is their duty. I could consult every shire county in the country about the methodology involved in local government finance, but I could not possibly secure the agreement of all those counties on the relative weighting of the area cost adjustment. All the authorities that benefit from the adjustment want to keep it; those that do not will not want it to continue.
      Consultation does not mean having to accept all that every organisation says: it means listening intelligently, being prepared to consider and being prepared, intelligently, to take on board the suggestions that are made. I believe that this Bill, like previous Bills, is a good example of the Government's willingness to respond to the views of businesses and other consultees about the operation of the business rate system.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. John Gunnell: Has the Minister consulted businesses on a regional basis? One of the advantages of the old system was the fact that such consultations took place at local level. If we accept that the Department's consultations with business cannot take place at local level, surely the Minister accepts that there will be great regional variations in the effect of the measures. Has he consulted the regional organisations of either the CBI or the chambers of commerce? He might receive different messages from different regions, and he might be able to take those differences into account.
      Mr. Baldry: Of course. I am more than willing to take into account representations that might be made to us by
      410
      the CBI at regional level—or, indeed, by local government at regional level. We are intent on ensuring that we secure the best possible system. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by the imposition of a statutory duty on the Government, given that our actions make it clear that we are more than willing to consult widely. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Vaz: The Minister tells us to judge the Government by their actions. I am glad that the Minister of State has returned to the Chamber, because I intend to refer to comments that he made during the debate on the allocation of time motion. He made mocking remarks: I use the word "mocking" advisedly, because I was astonished at his demeanour when he challenged the Opposition on whether people were pressing at our doors and writing letters to make their views known on this important subject.
      The Minister mocked the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the chambers of commerce and local authorities, and threw in an aside about the Archbishop of Canterbury; he said that he did not know whether the archbishop had decided to write a letter about the matter. The fact is that not even the Archbishop of Canterbury has had enough time to consider the Government's proposals. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) tabled the amendments. They would place a duty on the Government to consult a number of organisations and examine the various regions to observe the effects of their rating policy on local businesses.
      The Under-Secretary says that this Government listen intelligently, and are intelligently prepared to take on board representations made by various organisations. When I challenged him about the number of organisations that the Government had consulted, however, he was unable to give me a single example. All that the Leader of the House and the Minister of State have told the House is that the Bill was published on 16 December.
      The Minister implied that, if we had been diligent, we would have spent the Chirstmas period writing to organisations and asking for their comments. That is exactly what we have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North read out a number of comments made by chambers of commerce, selecting letters from Barnsley and Southampton from the pile that he had received; but I have not even had the chance to consult those organisations.
      It is important that the Government accept the amendments. We feel strongly about them because the best way to proceed is to ensure full consultation not only with local authorities but with the regional branches of organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the CBI.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who is a former leader of Leeds city council, has vast experience in this sphere. From his membership of that fine council he knows about the level of consultation required by councils on various aspects of policy. We often hear Ministers from the Department of the Environment lecturing councils about the need to enter partnership agreements with local businesses. All urban regeneration policy is now based on the concept of a partnership between local authorities and the private sector, a partnership which has been spearheaded in places such as Leeds and Sheffield. The amendments have the same aim. They would ensure that the words used by the

      411
      Government for a number of years were put into effect and that there was an attempt to rebuild the relationship between the local private sector, the local authority and the Government. We want to create a climate that will enable local businesses to form an equal partnership with local authorities.
      I recently visited Luton to see the regeneration work being carried out by Luton borough council. Local councillors told me of their initiatives with the private sector. Every few months, members of Luton borough council hold meetings—they call them business breakfasts —with the business community and ensure that they are kept fully in touch with the needs of local business. That is precisely what we are asking the Government to do. We want to ensure that the people most affected by the Government's proposals are properly consulted.
      The Under-Secretary says that it is not necessary to include every duty in the Bill. He says that he is a reasonable chap, is prepared to talk to anyone and attend meetings with anyone as long as he hears various points of view that can help to formulate policy. He mentioned the Government's review of local government finance, but we know where that led—it led to enormous cuts in resources for the rate support grant. The House will look forward to discussing that in the near future.
      The Under-Secretary also said that we did not need to add more clauses to the Bill. The Bill has only four clauses and we are proposing small amendments. There is no reason why the Government cannot accept an amendment to a four-clause Bill, which would mean that the Government would formally consult a number of organisations which could assist them in the discharge of their duties.
      I hope very much that, even at this late stage, the Minister will accept the amendments, as he has not really spoken against them. He accepts the principle behind them, but says that what the amendments suggest will be carried out in any event. It is not possible to predict who will be in the Department in a year's time, or even next week. For example, the then Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who introduced the Bill last year, gave some commitments, but things have changed. We would, therefore, much prefer to have commitments included in the Bill so that it is clear to local authorities and businesses what they need to do to bring their views to the Government's attention.
      I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments and ensure that we make rapid progress.
      Mr. Gunnell: I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) so that I do not offend another hon. Member. My hon. Friend did me the singular honour of describing me as a former leader of Leeds city council, but that was in fact my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). I am a former member of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council and was its leader until it was abolished by the Conservatives. Usually, when an authority is abolished, something similar is substituted for it. West Yorkshire county council consulted thoroughly with the local chamber of commerce and the regional branch of the CBI, but that consultation has not been replaced. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to change that tonight.
      Mr. Henderson: I hoped that the Minister might respond to some of the additional points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), but it seems that he is intent on maintaining his sedentary position.
      I have many times in Committee discussed amendments that have called on the Government, one way or another, to give a legislative commitment to consult various bodies. Many times I have heard Ministers say that they have a great deal of sympathy with the points being made and that they consult in any case, but that they are not prepared to include such a commitment in legislation. It is not good enough for the Government to adopt that attitude on a matter such as this.
      It is important that formal consultation is carried out through the official channels representing interested bodies. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he has a wink and a nod and various chats with friends around the country and that that gives him a clear impression of what is happening in industry and of the views of the industrial, retail and commercial sectors.
      The amendments are necessary because of the, perhaps wrong, perception that people in the business community have about the impact of rates. The Government should try to meet any difficulties and set up a formal consultation process so that no one is in any doubt about the information according to which decisions are reached. However, as the Government are being so obstinate, I feel bound to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      The Chairman: Serjeant, will you investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby and report back, please?
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 94, Noes 295.

      Division No.66]

      [8.27 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Gunnell, John

      Austin-Walker, John

      Hain, Peter

      Barnes, Harry

      Hall, Mike

      Bayley, Hugh

      Henderson, Doug

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Hinchliffe, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hoey, Kate

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Betts, Clive

      Home Robertson, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Hood, Jimmy

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

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Clapham, Michael

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jowell, Tessa

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Leighton, Ron

      Cryer, Bob

      Lewis, Terry

      Cummings, John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McLeish, Henry

      Dewar, Donald

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dowd, Jim

      Mahon, Alice

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Michael, Alun

      Eastham, Ken

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Garrett, John

      Mullin, Chris

      George, Bruce

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gerrard, Neil

      O'Hara, Edward

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Olner, William

      Godsiff, Roger

      Pickthall, Colin

      413

      Pike, Peter L.

      Snape, Peter

      Pope, Greg

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Stott, Roger

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Vaz, Keith

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Watson, Mike

      Randall, Stuart

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wise, Audrey

      Reid, Dr John

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Rendel, David

      Simpson, Alan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mr. John Spellar.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Alexander, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Amess, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Ancram, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dicks, Terry

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dover, Den

      Atkins, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Elletson, Harold

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bates, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Batiste, Spencer

      Faber, David

      Beggs, Roy

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bendall, Vivian

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Forman, Nigel

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Booth, Hartley

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Boswell, Tim

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gallie, Phil

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Brazier, Julian

      Garnier, Edward

      Bright, Graham

      Gill, Christopher

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burns, Simon

      Gorst, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Cash, William

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hague, William

      Churchill, Mr

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clappison, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hannam, Sir John

      Colvin, Michael

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Congdon, David

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Couchman, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Cran, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

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

      Hendry, Charles

      414

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pawsey, James

      Horam, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Richards, Rod

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Riddick, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jessel, Toby

      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)

      Key, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

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

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knox, Sir David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      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

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lidington, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Spring, Richard

      Lord, Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Luff, Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stephen, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stern, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Madel, Sir David

      Sumberg, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sweeney, Walter

      Malone, Gerald

      Sykes, John

      Mans, Keith

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thomason, Roy

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Merchant, Piers

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Milligan, Stephen

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

      Mills, Iain

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Trend, Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Ward, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wells, Bowen

      Norris, Steve

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Whitney, Ray

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Page, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Paice, James

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wilkinson, John

      415

      Willetts, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Mr. Michael Brown and

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Derek Conway.

      Wood, Timothy

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 23 and 24.
      Perhaps it is fortuitous that this issue is being discussed in a Committee of the whole House. It is encouraging to see that Conservative Members have begun to take an interest in proceedings on the Bill. Those of them who had other things to do yesterday evening would have been welcome to join us then and to make their views known on the important issues that affect businesses in their constituencies. Their decision to join us today, and at least to listen to the debate—perhaps even to participate in it —is welcome. Some of the things that I shall say may encourage them to join in the debate. I see a smile on the face of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who is always keen to take part—indeed, he was the only Conservative Member who took part in the debate yesterday.
      This is a key amendment. There is considerable regret among Opposition Members that the Bill is not being debated in a way that would allow representations to be made by interested parties. The clause, and our amendment to it, represent the nub of the Bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make a judgment on how the level of transitional relief should relate to the rating pool and to decide whether any funding from central Government should be paid into that pool to compensate for any gaps caused by the relief that businesses may have been given.
      8.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State have both claimed that if the Government introduce transitional relief they intend to top up the pool and to make good any losses arising. I am not one who necessarily distrusts commitments given by the aforesaid Ministers, but, as has already been pointed out, we can never be sure that they will still be in post by the time the Bill takes effect. Indeed, the Bill will have a long-term effect on business rates way beyond 1995. It is not good enough practice for Ministers simply to give commitments —although I am sure that those commitments will go some way towards warming the hearts of the businesses affected. Parliament is supposed to legislate and if the Minister believes that there is a case for topping up the rating pool, he, on behalf of the Government, should be prepared to say that in the event of transitional relief being granted the Government will top up the pool and add to the amount of public money available for local authorities to meet important needs all over the country.
      If we believe that there should be legislative backing to the Government's intention, it is important to press the amendment so that the commitment will be given and businesses around the country will be assured that the Government do not necessarily intend to reduce the funding available to meet the important needs of the community. If that is really the Government's position, there is a strong case for their accepting the amendment.
      Mr. Baldry: We may have a rather frustrating debate because the amendment does not do what the hon. Member thinks that it should do or that he wants it to do.
      Mr. Vaz: Why?
      Mr. Baldry: Because the hon. Gentleman has sought to explain in his speech what he had hoped that the amendment would do. Anybody who reads Hansard tomorrow will see that that was what he had hoped that it would do.
      The effect of the amendment would be to deny the Government the power to make transitional arrangements after 1995 which included a measure of Exchequer support for businesses facing rate increases as a result of the revaluation. Any arrangement would therefore have to be self-financing, with the cost of any protection for losers having to be borne by the gainers.
      The Committee does not need to be reminded that the 1990 transitional arrangements were originally self-financing. Ratepayers who were potential beneficiaries of the 1990 revaluation had their rate reductions limited to meet the cost of cushioning the effects of increases. Not surprisingly, that was unpopular with businesses and added considerably to the administrative complexity of the arrangements. We listened to the concerns of businesses and that was why we introduced the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992 to provide £1·25 billion of Government support for the arrangements. The Act froze rate increases beyond the rate of inflation for 1992–93, while allowing greater reductions for businesses whose bills were being phased downwards.
      Mr. Vaz: Why will not the Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between what was proposed in 1992 and what is being proposed in this Bill?
      Mr. Baldry: I am concerned about what is proposed in the amendment.
      Further relief worth £550 million was provided by the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993 and, as we have made clear, this Bill provides further assistance. The Bill is entirely consistent with what we have sought to do in the past couple of years in providing support for the business community. The amendment would deny the Government the chance to make regulations giving further relief to businesses in 1995–96 and beyond should that appear to us to be necessary.
      Mr. Vaz: I refer the Under-Secretary to what his hon. Friend said yesterday. I realise that he was not in the House, but at column 197 of Hansard, the Minister makes it quite clear that the scheme to be used has not yet been devised. Therefore, the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) does not mitigate against the scheme because the scheme itself has not been designed.
      Mr. Baldry: That is why I began my comments on the amendment by saying that I thought that we were going to have a somewhat frustrating debate. The amendment does not propose anything that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North suggests, because it would remove the provision which would allow the Government to make the transitional arrangements that are not self-financing. I am sure that businesses would be interested to know if the Opposition were seeking to prevent us entirely from helping businesses with their rates by that means.

      417
      We can always come back to Parliament with further Bills such as this Bill each year, but if the aim of the amendment is to ensure that decisions on any such funding are given parliamentary scrutiny, I can assure hon. Members that any transitional arrangements that we make after 1995 are already required by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. There would be a full opportunity for hon. Members to consider any proposals carefully and there is no question that the arrangements could be used to increase the burden of rates on businesses, so we would not expect the regulations to prove contentious.
      Mr. Vaz: How can the Minister expect Labour Members to accept any of his assurances when we bear in mind the fact that the Bill is being rushed through the House at record speed? How can we accept assurances that we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the complex regulations in the future when he has treated the House with such contempt over the past two days?
      Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman cannot quite keep a straight face when asking that question. As I have just explained, the statutory provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 oblige us to bring the measures before the House. That is a much more practicable way in which to deal with the matters than the administrative complexity and timetabling problems with further full-blown Bills.
      I remind hon. Members that businesses and local authorities will be looking for clear and early notice of any decisions that could affect rates bills. The simpler and faster the procedure, the more easily it is likely to be achieved. Flexibility is therefore essential. An amendment which would remove the provision that allows the Government to make transitional arrangements which are not self-financing would reassure businesses.
      Mr. Betts: The Minister referred to the frustrating nature of the debate. Is not the greatest frustration that he keeps saying that there will be no occasion on which the shortfall in the business rate pool will not be made up by Government? If that is the case, why does not he cut across the Bill and give a commitment to legislate to that effect? What is the problem? There has never been any explanation of why the Bill cannot be drafted to achieve that. Why, if the Under-Secretary does not believe that our amendment achieves that commitment, does not he propose another amendment instead?
      Mr. Baldry: To use a rather legalistic phrase, we have given those undertakings during the debate on occasions too numerous to particularise. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have sought to explain that it would not benefit the business community to seek to proscribe the scheme that we may introduce after 1995 until we have consulted. We have made it perfectly clear time after time that we would not expect council tax payers to bear the cost if the pool had to be topped up. Little short of putting it in bright lights, I am not sure what more we can do. Nor, with respect, do I think that the more times that we say it the more it will impact on hon. Members. It is clear that the whole debate about powers and duties was a spurious debate in an attempt to keep business going yesterday. There is no validity in it and the amendment does not seek to address that point.
      418
      I hope that the Committee recognises that the amendment does not do what it is even intended to do. It would remove the provisions which would allow the Government to make transitional arrangements that are not self-financing and would not be to the advantage of the business community.
      Mr. Henderson: I had some doubts about whether we should proceed with the two final amendments because they deal with matters of fairly general concern which could have been covered partially on Second Reading with the remaining points being taken up on Third Reading. I am glad that I proceeded with amendment No. 6 because we have scratched a surface and exposed a flaw in the Bill.
      If I understand the Minister correctly, he does not accept the sentiment of my argument in support of the amendment. He does not accept that there should be a provision which requires the Government to top up the rating pool in the event of transitional relief being given to certain businesses. He gave a commitment that he would do so next year, but he made it clear that he does not feel required to make such a provision.
      9 pm
      Mr. Baldry: As I said, this is going to be a frustrating debate. The amendment goes nowhere near achieving the hon. Gentleman's intentions. If he is asking me to undertake that if in future there is a need to top up the scheme the Government will do so, if that were the means we used, we have already given that undertaking. My hon. Friend the Minister and I made that clear and anyone who reads yesterday's Hansard will see that undertaking being given on a number of occasions. The amendment has nothing to do with that. As drafted, it simply removes the Government's ability to do exactly that. Indeed, it makes the task that the hon. Gentleman wants us to perform much more difficult. The amendment would oblige the gainers to pay for the losers. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
      Mr. Henderson: I am pleased that the Minister intervened in my speech because he now appears to be clarifying his earlier remarks.
      Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. On a matter which the Labour party has claimed to be so important, I find it outrageous that only one Labour Member is on the Back Benches.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is reasonably new to the House, but he has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "But what he said is truel Order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, whether or not it is true.
      Mr. Henderson: I have always found contributions from Tory Members more helpful before they have their dinner than after it. That has been confirmed again this evening.
      If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that in any future year when transitional relief is given to businesses, any moneys that are lost to the rating pool because of that transitional relief will be made good by central Government finance and that will be in addition to the aggregate external financing limit. I am assuming that I have been given that commitment by the Minister unless

      419
      he again intervenes to correct any misunderstanding. I should be happy to give way to him if he believes that I have misunderstood his position.
      Mr. Baldry: I am not sure how often it will be necessary for us to put this on the record. I had hoped that if we had a sensible debate yesterday it could be accepted first time round. As we did not have a sensible debate and this was the only point that the hon. Gentleman could run yesterday, he is obviously having to make something of it again today.
      Let me make the point again. Let us suppose that in due course we design, as we may well do, a scheme for some future year which is not fully self-financing. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the amendment would make that more difficult, but let us leave that to one side. Clearly, this would leave a shortfall in local authority revenue, which would need to be made up in one way or another. Clearly, it would be inappropriate for the council tax payer to bear that shortfall. In those circumstances, the Government would anticipate making up that sum. That is what we have said time and time again.
      Of course, the most obvious way would indeed be to top up the rating pool by a compensating amount. That is what we have done for the past two years and what we propose to do for 1994–95, but it is not the only conceivable option. For example, we could decide instead to give local government as a whole a larger amount of revenue support grant than it would otherwise receive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course, that would compensate local government by another route, but it would not fall to the cost of either the council tax payer or local government. I am not sure how many more times it will be necessary to make that clear before Labour Members understand the point. I do not think that I can put it more clearly than that. I am sure that any reasonable person who reads Hansard from yesterday and today will see how clearly we have made the point. If the hon. Gentleman takes the matter further, it will demonstrate that this is not a serious debate but merely an attempt to take a bad point further, as was done yesterday.
      Mr. Henderson: I assure the House that this is not an attempt to prolong the debate. Indeed, the debate is guillotined—there is no way that we can prolong it beyond 10 o'clock. The only reason why I am sticking to this point is that I want it to be absolutely clear. Yesterday, there was some confusion about the Government's intention. Even a Tory Back Bencher who came in to listen to a small part of the debate was confused.
      If the Government are so firm in their response—I welcome their response, which has clarified their position —it would be better if they wrote that into the Bill. I assure the Minister that I will be watching to see what happens next year if transitional relief is granted. In subsequent years, if I am in the same post, I will be watching from this Front Bench. If I am on the Back Benches, I will still be watching.
      Councils around the country will be watching to see that there is no camouflage by the Government in an attempt to reduce the amount of the revenue support grant before the announcement on transitional relief is made, only to restore it to what councils would have had to compensate for the relief given to the rating pool. If transitional relief is
      420
      granted, I hope that the pool will be topped up by a genuine increase in resources which will be made available to councils by the Exchequer through the Department of the Environment.
      My exchange with the Minister demonstrates the importance of having a gap between the Second Reading and the Committee stage so that there is more time for representative organisations to lobby Members of the House and for hon. Members to examine perhaps in more detail the implications of the wording of any amendments that they table. That demonstrates the point made by Labour Members in this debate. Based on the commitment given by the Minister, and based on some of the doubt about the wording of the amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Order for Third Reading read.—
      [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
      9.8 pm
      Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I was taken aback because I knew that Labour Members were anxious to give the Bill a profound scrutiny and I had not expected such rapid progress. Undoubtedly, debate on the technical clauses is proceeding apace on the trains heading out of London tonight.
      This is an excellent Bill, which is in time. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has forgotten his notes."' I can manage without notes, thank you very much.
      The Bill will enable local authorities to get bills out on time, which has not happened for various reasons in previous years. It is to the benefit of business, particularly small business, and it helps those in areas which are worst affected. The Bill continues the Government's pledge to moderate what was a difficult transition following the re-rating in 1990.
      The Bill also looks to the future, and we know that there will be a new rating in 1995. That will be based upon facts which are being collected at the moment, and if that creates turbulence, clearly we will have to tackle it. The Bill gives us the means to do so. When we do that, we will put before the House the measures which we will take. Any shortfall in the financial pool will be made up from public funds. The Government have made that clear, and I have made that clear before.
      In the past, the Opposition have been happy to welcome and support the Bill and, in practice, they do not have it in their heart today to oppose it. I think that Opposition Members know that it is right and necessary to create help for small business. It is important that the parties should be seen to be united on the matter, which is of great importance. The measure is opportune and the help is necessary. The small businesses which we are talking about in the centres of towns—particularly in London and the south east, which are the areas worst affected—will welcome the measure. Local authorities will welcome it, as will the business community and its representatives. It is important that the measure be right and in time. We have ensured this and I commend the measure to the House.
      9.12 pm
      Mr. Henderson: Proceedings have moved with such alacrity that hon. Members can forget where they are on the detail of the Bill.
      The Opposition are concerned about the way in which the Bill has been dealt with in the House. We are happy that the question of business rates has been dealt with earlier in the parliamentary cycle and we are happy that Second Reading took place in January. We are not happy, and we are extremely worried, that the Government forced through the measure without due concern for the representations which might have been made by concerned parties on the impact of the Bill. All along, the Opposition have been intent on making sure that the democratic processes take place in the House—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has been in the House for two days on the Bill. He is trying to make his Third Reading speech, and there is a lot of frivolity on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps they would like to listen to what my hon. Friend is saying.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have noticed the frivolity. If that is the case, I am sure that the Minister will listen to what the hon. Gentleman says.
      Mr. Curry: It is very rare that we derive frivolity from the hon. Gentleman. On the few occasions we do, we are most grateful for it.
      Mr. Henderson: It is so pleasing to see Government Members with smiling faces for a change. When T see frivolity among Ministers, I begin to wonder who it is that they are talking about who raises laughter and humour among them. It is pleasing to see that there is still lightness among Government Members.
      We said yesterday on Second Reading that we wanted to conduct real arguments about the Bill, and that is what we did. It was not the wish of the Opposition that a guillotine motion be moved. The 10 o'clock motion was not moved last night because the Government neither had the confidence of its Back Benchers to proceed with the Bill, nor sufficient confidence in themselves to face the arguments in a session which may have lasted for a few hours.
      The way in which the Bill has been dealt with in Committee demonstrates that the Opposition made the arguments expeditiously and moved through the Bill expressing our opposition. We have done so in a way with which the procedures of the House have coped easily. It has taken no more than about two hours to deal with the Committee stage and Third Reading since discussion of the guillotine motion finished.
      The matter could have been dealt with yesterday if the Government were intent on dealing with all stages of the Bill in one day. Our position is that it negates many of the democratic processes in the House and in the country to deal with the Bill in one day. But if the Government wanted to deal with the Bill in one day, it would have been possible for that to happen. The reason why it did not happen was the Government's lack of confidence and because they wanted to scupper some of the debate that
      422
      might have taken place today on the national health service. They were frightened to come to the House to deal with that matter.
      I know that you will want me to dwell on the Bill rather than the Government's fear of the House of Commons, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition support the purpose of the Bill. We recognise that transitional relief needs to be granted to businesses because of the way in which the current structure of business rates has been introduced and the way in which transitional relief has been granted.
      Business will judge whether the size of the relief is appropriate in the circumstances this year. Business will be extremely disappointed that it has not had full consultation with the Government on the economic circumstances that it faces and on what relief might have been helpful.
      Many of us are suspicious of clause 3 of the Bill. Although the Government confirmed in Committee earlier this evening that if transitional relief were given, the rating pool would be topped up in a real sense, they are still opposed to putting that commitment in the Bill. That demonstrates to the House that the Government will not necessarily increase the aggregate external financial limit to take into account any need to top it up because relief has been given.
      The Opposition will not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill because we want to see business in Britain receive the relief which it believes at least partly helps it in the present difficult economic circumstances. However, democracy in the country and in the House would have been better protected if, through the usual channels, the Government had dealt with the Bill in a sensible, workmanlike way—the way in which the matter has been dealt with in past years.
      The Bill is much more complicated than the legislation of the past two years. It deals with structural, not merely financial, issues. That is why the matter needs much wider debate than in past years. It would have been better if the Government had been able to take account of representations that might have been made by organisations throughout the country and by Members of Parliament.
      9.23 pm
      Mr. Betts: The debate has been important because it has allowed us to raise in the House the real fears about the finance of local government and the part that the business rate plays within that. It has allowed hon. Members to draw attention to the fact that, because the business rate has been centralised and because central Government have taken over raising that rate and fixing the poundage, the amount of local finance that is directly under the control of local authorities has been substantially reduced. That has led to the problem of gearing.
      The impact on the council tax of any increase in expenditure that a local authority wants to undertake, within the cap limits that the Government lay down, is multiplied several times because the council tax, which is the only part of their revenue in which local authorities have flexibility, is only a small part of the revenue available to local authorities. If the business rate were transferred to local authorities, that situation would be substantially amended and that would be to the benefit of the local authorities, democracy and accountability.
      During the debate, we have been able to explore the reasons for the Government's decision to take over control

      423
      of the business rate as part of their general approach—taking powers from local authorities and restricting their freedom of operation, including the freedom to provide local services that their communities vote for and want to be provided.
      We have had a substantial discussion of the Government's intentions and of whether we can believe and trust ministerial assurances given now that if there are shortfalls in the pool of business rate money, because of transitional arrangements introduced by the Government, they will automatically compensate local authorities for that shortfall and will ensure that council tax payers and the recipients of local services will not be in any way disadvantaged because of the effects of those arrangements.
      Throughout the debate, Opposition Members have tried to persuade Ministers to realise that an assurance given now may not be worth anything in two years' time if circumstances or Ministers change. We simply cannot take on trust that that assurance will always be honoured. We have, therefore, invited Ministers to change the legislation to include the word "shall" instead of "may". That seems a very small change.
      If Ministers keep telling us that they have no intention other than to compensate local authorities for any loss in the pool because of transitional arrangements, why do they not write that into the legislation? That question has been asked many times, but I have not heard a clear and simple answer. Only a few moments ago, the Under-Secretary of State sought to explain that, as the transitional arrangements were not fixed and could vary from year to year, the legislation could not include a commitment to compensate in a particular way for any losses because of those arrangements. I simply do not accept that and he did not explain why it was the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did."] No, it was a non sequitur. A Bill could prescribe compensation for local authorities and contain a commitment to compensate while not prescribing the form of transitional arrangements. The two are not linked.
      The Under-Secretary did not explain why the fact that the transitional arrangements were not prescribed in the legislation meant that no commitment to compensate could be written into it. However, he also let the cat out of the bag. Throughout the debate, Ministers have implied that compensation will be provided by the Government topping up the pool, as they intend to do in 1994–95 when £90
      424
      million will be paid in directly. The Government have given the impression that future compensation will always be provided in that way.
      However, the Under-Secretary of State said something else. He said that compensation, to make up any loss in the business rate, might be given by increasing the revenue support grant to local authorities and that that would have no impact on council tax payers or the recipients of council services. He is absolutely wrong, because revenue support grant is paid out under a different system and by different allocations from those of the business rate. The latter is paid on a per capita basis, while the revenue support grant is paid out according to the standard spending assessment system; the two are not the same. If there were another £90 million shortfall in the pool and the Government made it up by compensating local authorities through a £90 million increase in revenue support grant rather than compensating the pool directly, the total impact on local government would be the same, but the impact on each authority would be different. That means of compensation would, therefore, have a consequence, which is what we have been arguing throughout. We want an assurance that that will not happen to be written into the legislation.
      Furthermore, when the Government tell us that there is a £90 million shortfall in the pool because of their transitional arrangements but they will not top it up because they have already given that sum of money in the revenue support grant announced in the autumn, how do we know that that is the case? The Government could come along at any time and say that they do not need to top up the pool because they have already included £90 million, or whatever the sum is for that year, in the previously announced revenue support grant.
      Frankly, that is not transparent. The Government will be able to claim that they have carried out their commitments as promised, but will merely be pretending that the compensation has been paid. It is difficult to accept ministerial assurances tonight when we know that they could devise a future system that made it unclear whether those assurances had been met.
      It would have been much simpler if the Government had accepted, right at the start, the need to include in the Bill a promise always to compensate for any shortfall by topping up the pool. If that had happened, the debate could have been concluded many hours ago. The Government could have got their way, but, equally, local authorities and the recipients of their services could have been assured that future transitional arrangements would not adversely affect their council tax or the services that local people receive.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Compensation)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  9.25 pm
  Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): This is the fifth occasion on which I have detained the House on the question of entitlements to compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 for those with properties alongside the existing designated railway routes to the channel tunnel. I hope that this will be the fifth and last occasion on which I shall do so, which I am sure will be a relief to the House and will be a not inconsiderable relief to myself.
  The designated rail routes are for passengers and freight through Kent on the Maidstone East line and the Tonbridge line running up to Waterloo, where the new international terminal has been constructed. In addition, there is a designated freight route going from Tonbridge through Surrey to Redhill and round the south and west of London.
  I am raising this issue again tonight for two reasons. First, because it has a real immediacy. We are now some four months away from the opening of the channel tunnel. There is no doubt that when it is opened in May, those with homes alongside the designated freight and passenger routes will suffer considerable deterioration in their living and, in particular, their sleeping environment. Many of those lines are lightly used during the night, if at all. With the gradual build up of channel tunnel traffic, particularly freight traffic during the night, it is possible that individuals will find the channel tunnel international freight trains going past their bedroom windows approximately once every 15 minutes during the night hours. Therefore, we are talking about the real prospect of a considerable deterioration in those people's environments.
  The position that they face is unhappily one that will continue for the foreseeable future, because the new high speed line is still years away from construction. Even after that, in accordance with Government plans and statements, the overwhelming proportion of freight will continue to travel on the existing designated channel tunnel rail route to which I have referred. It would be very surprising therefore if there was not some impact on the property values of those homes alongside those designated routes, which is why compensation is now a matter of such immediacy.
  I raise this issue for a second and even more crucial reason, because having examined most closely the legal background, I am in no doubt that the legal basis on which Ministers previously made statements about the application of the Land Compensation Act to this issue was incorrect. My first reference point for that opinion is the previous full debate that we had on this matter on 19 June 1991, when I moved what was new clause 16 to the Planning Compensation [Lords] Bill. I endeavoured, along with some of my hon. Friends, and I am glad to say with the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench and members of the Liberal party, to secure new powers to enable compensation to be paid in the circumstances I have outlined.
  My right hon. Friend, in responding to that debate, said:
  "Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which deals with compensation for depreciation in value due to various physical
  426
  factors, quite expressly excludes, in section 9(7) situations in which there is an intensification of an existing use. Therefore, it cannot apply if the amount of traffic on a road or a railway line increases.
  As hon. Members will know, it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments to make a clear distinction in this respect between the construction or alteration of public works and the intensification of use of existing works. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing made the fair point that the substantial and increased use of the existing railway line constitutes a new service and that that, combined with the work on the channel tunnel, constitutes a qualification tinder existing legislation. I understand the argument, which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on behalf of his local borough. However, that is not the legal advice given to the Department of Transport."—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 345–6.]
  My right hon. Friend left the House with a clear view that the Department's legal advice was that there could be no application of injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act to the properties alongside the designated routes to the channel tunnel.
  I have harboured some considerable doubts about the validity of that interpretation, and in recent months the local authorities concerned, at my instigation, have sought counsel's opinion on that issue. Counsel has been instructed, and a leading planning and compensation barrister, Mr. Gregory Stone, at Gray's Inn, has furnished an opinion on that point, which I have with me this evening, and from which he has given me his permission to quote.
  Mr. Stone is in no doubt that it is going to be possible to claim injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act 1973 in the context of the substantial reconstruction and alteration of the existing designated rail routes to the channel tunnel. I shall first put the basis of his legal argument in my own words—no doubt somewhat inadequately—but will then give the House the benefit of the exact quotation from his opinion.
  The statement of my right hon. Friend in the debate in June 1991 was in relation to section 9(7) of the Act, which reads as follows:
  "For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that references in this section to a change of use do not include references to the intensification of an existing use."
  That reference must be seen against the three heads of claim under which injurious affection can be claimed, which are detailed in section 9(1). Those heads of claim are listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). We can leave aside paragraph (a), because that relates to claims in relation to highways, about which we are not concerned here. Claims under paragraphs (b) and (c) can both apply to railways.
  Head of claim (c) reads:
  "there has been a change of use in respect of any public works other than a highway or aerodrome."
  The House will appreciate that the use of the phrase "a change of use" in head of claim (c) effectively makes it impossible, because of the qualification in section 9(7), to make a claim under that head.
  However, the critical point is the wording of head of claim (b), which reads:
  "any public works other than a highway have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used".
  The critical point is that the phrase "a change of use" does not appear in head of claim (b) and therefore claims under (b) are not qualified by subsection (7) to which the Minister referred in his June 1991 speech.
  Now I shall give the House the benefit of Mr. Gregoty Stone's opinion on the crucial point. He summarises succinctly and in proper legal form what I have just said in two key paragraphs of his opinion. He says:

  427
  "Section 9(7) of the 1973 Act has led to the mistaken view that the intensification of use of existing lines preclude claims for compensation being made. That construction of the law has been stated in debates in Parliament.
  However, Section 9(7) of the 1973 Act states only that references in the Section to a change of use are not constituted by intensification of an existing use. That leaves open claims being made under Section 9(1)(b) namely that 'Public works other than a highway have been reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered after they have been first used.' That head of claim has nothing to do with changes of use."
  On the basis of that opinion, it would appear to be clear that, under head of claim (b), it would be possible to make claims for injurious affection compensation in relation to the depreciation of property caused by the public works in connection with the designated rail routes to the channel tunnel.
  It will not be difficult, in court if necessary, in test cases if necessary, to demonstrate that the types of public works that have been carried out on the designated routes fall firmly within the terms of head of claim (b)—in other words, reconstruction, extension or otherwise altered.
  Those of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who know in detail what has gone on on the designated routes—the electrification, the alteration of the track, the removal of sharp gradient bends, the resignalling, the altering of bridges, the construction of loop lines—the alterations that have gone on the length and breadth of the track, quite apart from the construction of a new international terminal at Waterloo and the extension of the line at Cheriton under the channel on to the continental railway system, will know that any barrister will have the utmost ease in demonstrating that the scale of the works that have been carried out is fully within the ambit of head of claim (b).
  Sir Keith Speed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficult travelling conditions that our constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) have experienced during the past two years on the Kent coast lines, which have led to extreme unreliability, have been part and parcel of the massive reconstruction of points, upgrading of traffic and all the rest? The level of performance that has been achieved on the Kent coast lines is proof that an essentially brand new line has been built.
  Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend's point is entirely correct. The huge dislocation from which our constituents have suffered, including being bussed between stations, reflects the magnitude of the reconstruction and alteration work on the designated routes.
  A very different legal construction has quite properly been put on the key question of the application of the Land Compensation Act to those who have the misfortune to live alongside the designated routes. I am glad to say that British Rail now seems to have conceded in principle that compensation may be payable. Having given every impression, rather like the Department of Transport until quite recently, that no compensation would be payable, BR now appears to have taken fresh legal advice and to be back-tracking on the issue.
  I have been in correspondence with the chairman of British Rail, urging him to advise members of the public on their legal rights—rights given to them by this House. Just before Christmas, I received from Sir Bob Reid a copy of
  428
  a new leaflet that BR has produced in which it endeavours to set out its response to the issue of compensation for those alongside the existing routes.
  Sir Bob was kind enough to write to me and thank me for suggesting that BR produce such a leaflet. When I read the leaflet, however, I was not the least bit enthusiastic about its contents. It appears to me that BR does not start from the standpoint of advising people on their legal rights; it seems much more concerned with dissuading them from seeking compensation and with throwing a wet blanket over everyone who might be considering seeking compensation from British Rail.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, on behalf of my constituents and many other people in Kent, I entirely agree with all his points? His argument takes us forward considerably, and I am especially glad to hear him focus on this unsatisfactory leaflet from British Rail.
  Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I should like to develop the point a little more, to show just how unsatisfactory the leaflet is.
  British Rail highlights only the negatives. For example, in paragraph 5 BR says, in respect of what might constitute a basis for compensation:
  "Parliament has not defined what constitutes an altered development in the case of a railway, but in British Rail's view such works as the relaying of track would not be a new or altered development leading to a successful claim for compensation, just as resurfacing a road does not qualify."
  The House might reasonably expect that, having stated what, in its view, does not qualify for compensation, BR might then go on to say what would qualify. On that point the leaflet is wholly silent—there is no reference to the hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure on reconstructing the line and on upgrading it to make it suitable for channel tunnel trains. There is not a mention of all the alteration, reconstruction and extension that provide the basis for the head of compensation.
  In paragraph 6 of the leaflet, BR refers to the need for the householder to demonstrate that his house has been affected by the physical effects of the new public works in a way that depreciates the value of the property. One might have expected British Rail to try to help householders by setting out the physical effects that Parliament had in mind when using that expression. Not a bit of it. The BR leaflet is wholly silent on the point, even though, in the Land Compensation Act, the physical factors are set out well in section 1(2): noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting—they are all there in the legislation. Again, the leaflet remains silent. Perhaps the fact that we received a leaflet at all constitutes a success, but it is a very unsatisfactory leaflet, designed to put people off and give them the least possible encouragement to take advantage of their legal rights.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to do two things. First, I know that he is the last person who would want a statement about the legal position, which, in my view, is unsustainable to remain on the record. I hope that, when he has had time to reflect on what I have said, to read Hansard and to consult his legal advisers, he will return to the House and make a clear statement about the legal position relating to properties along the designated routes, against the background of the Land Compensation Act. I am sure that

  429
  he will want to do that, rather than allowing what he said on 19 June 1991 to stand as the Government's sole observation on the legal aspects of the matter.
  Secondly, I ask my right hon. Friend to instruct British Rail to return its first cockshy at a leaflet to the drawing board, and to produce a document that sets out compensation rights fairly and properly. The current leaflet is a pitiful piece of paper. We are talking about the legal rights provided by existing legislation passed by Parliament; it is incumbent on what is still a nationalised industry, answerable to a Government Department, to advise people fully and frankly about their rights. I urge my right hon. Friend to speak firmly to British Rail, and make it issue proper advice.
  If those two things are done, we will have gone a long way towards providing an equitable base on which to deal with this important issue, which directly affects a number of properties. Those properties will certainly be affected seriously once the channel tunnel trains start to run. If we take such action, we shall have properly discharged our responsibilities to our constituents.
  9.49 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)rose—
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I understand that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has given the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) permission to speak.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I asked the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for permission to speak, having been given an unexpected opportunity to raise the similar anxieties of my constituents about the blight that the proposed route will cause, and the need for compensation. I agree with everything that he has said: he clearly speaks for all hon. Members whose constituents live on the route. I am grateful to him for relaying to us the detailed opinion given to him by Mr. Gregory Stone, which we shall all want to study thoroughly.
  I shall not delay the House too long, because I spoke about the matter in an Adjournment debate on 2 April 1993. However, I hope that the Minister will clarify a couple of points relating to compensation, and to the procedure whereby the House of Commons will give its mandate for the route. The procedure raises the issue of delay, which of course has an effect on blight, which in turn affects compensation.
  When I raised the issue in the House on 2 April 1993, the Minister for Transport in London clearly said that the issue would be dealt with as a hybrid Bill. There seems to be some confusion about that, so I should be grateful if the Minister for Public Transport would confirm that it will indeed be dealt with in a hybrid Bill.
  If that is so, is it not a fact that the House will not be able to give the Bill a Second Reading until 1995? That is my understanding, as the Wharncliffe rules would apparently apply. By the time we had gone through all the preliminary procedures, the House would not be able to deal with the issue until then, which would compound the blight and anxiety of those who live along the line of route. We need to be told exactly what the ground rules and the procedure will be.
  430
  In preparation for my comments this evening, I referred to the Adjournment debate secured on 29 October by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). On that occasion, the Minister for Public Transport said:
  "On the question of surface sections of the route, property seriously affected during construction and operation of the rail link, not just that actually required permanently or temporarily, may also be included within the zone safeguarded once the final route has been announced."—[Official Report, 29 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 1160.]
  In a few weeks, or perhaps days, the Minister will announce the line of route. If it is to be safeguarded, he must say whether constituents who live near it will be able to receive some form of immediate compensation. I believe that blight already exists, but once the route is announced it will certainly increase immediately and become fixed. It would be grossly unfair to wait until Second Reading or Royal Assent to make compensation available.
  One other issue needs clarification. In The Daily Telegraph of 4 January, I noticed a surprising but nevertheless comprehensive report on a proposal by Central Railways to produce an alternative link route from the midlands, skirting the west of London, passing through central London and leading to the channel tunnel, via, I believe, Croydon, using track parallel to existing routes and tracks ripped up as a result of the Beeching cuts. The report seemed to say that the idea was being given credence by the Department of Transport. I have no objection to that, but one must ask, where is it going to end?
  The report suggested that there was private funding, which might mean that compensation would be available sooner to anyone affected by this line of route and that the alternative route might have less impact in terms of property blight. I am surprised that there has been no further utterance from the Department of Transport about that report, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to rectify that.
  I must acknowledge that the Minister of State has kindly agreed to meet me, representatives of my local authority and the residents involved next week. I therefore do not want to go over old or bitter ground now, because that would not be fair to the House or to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing, who has given us the opportunity to debate this issue tonight. Can we be told, however, whether there will be a hybrid Bill? Is it the case that the House will not be able to begin to deal with this issue until 1995? If that is so, Royal Assent could clearly be as far away as 1997 or 1998.
  Once the Minister has announced the protected line of route, will compensation be immediately available to people whose property falls within it? Is Central Railways' proposal under serious consideration, and if so, how shall we decide between these two routes, bearing in mind the procedures for dealing with the matter in the House?
  9.54 pm
  Sir Keith Speed: I shall be brief.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on initiating the debate. He has done a great service to people in Kent, Essex and London who will be affected by the route.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister knows more about this matter than probably any Member apart from those with constituency interests. I pay tribute to him for his courtesy, patience and detailed knowledge in acquainting himself with the facts. He has been sympathetic to our representations.

  431
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing was right about British Rail's leaflet. We live in the age of the citizens charter, which has been one of the Government's better initiatives in recent months. Under the passengers charter, we are now aware of the reliability and punctuality of services and the fact that, if they fall below a certain level, compensation is payable as of right.
  What is Missing is a charter for those who are affected by the proposed channel tunnel developments. That lacuna must be filled quickly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, a proper and detailed pamphlet should be made available to those who will be affected for the next 10 years along existing lines, with trains going via Maidstone or Tonbridge from the channel tunnel into Waterloo, and after that by the construction of the new high-speed rail link.
  British Rail and the Government could be much more positive. British Rail and, as privatisation proceeds, Railtrack should make positive proposals to ensure that account is taken of the interests of people who are not legally qualified and who are not chartered surveyors, but who know that it is difficult to sell their homes and that they will suffer from the increase in noise on the new railway.
  What has happened on lines from London down to Folkestone via Maidstone and Tonbridge is rather like what happens when a trunk road is upgraded to a motorway. In that light, I hope that the Minister will be positive and will ask the British Railways Board, while we still have one, to be as positive as the excellent citizens charter.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: May I add my congratulations to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) to our right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on his positive approach? As I said in an intervention, his specific focus on the legal aspect of the matter has taken us a long way forward. We look for action from British Rail and from my right hon. Friend the Minister on the issue.
  Three rail lines run through my constituency that are directly affected by these changes. A number of my constituents are extremely worried because they are unable to sell their homes. The problem will continue over the next few years and, once the lines are used more intensively, long into the future for those who wish to move because of retirement or a change of job.
  We all appreciate the frightening situation, and the sleepless nights that people suffer, when their major asset is damaged as deeply as those properties are. It seems to me that, in all equity, quite apart from the compelling legal arguments, it is essential that the House, and the Government that I support, should appreciate the problem, alleviate the difficulties for the individual families affected, and give them the option of finding a way through.
  The intensification of use will be of benefit to the whole country, enabling us to be properly linked with the European Community. That is a benefit for Britain, but the result of it is a major disbenefit —
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Mr. Wolfson: The individuals concerned suffer a major disbenefit affecting the personal capital asset of their home as a result of a benefit that will accrue to the whole country. It is surely not unreasonable that compensation should be available to those individuals.
  I am afraid that the record of compensation in Britain for people whose property has been compulsorily purchased or adversely affected by development is not good. We are mean in providing money for people. That has been true for many years; I have raised the issue many times in the House, and did so in Committee when we were airing the issues on the original channel tunnel legislation. All the evidence suggests that, if we were more generous, public works would be finished faster, and less delay would be caused by objections.
  In individual instances, people ask for reasonable protection against the adverse effects of increased use of the lines, such as noise and vibration. Where such protection cannot do the job and the house remains blighted, with its capital value heavily damaged so that it cannot be sold, or can be sold only at a knockdown price, I should feel a great deal more comfortable if people could claim compensation, and British Rail gave them the necessary information to do so. More importantly, the people affected would feel more comfortable, too. Although we return to this issue often, and make such slow progress in resolving it, I hope that tonight we shall see a real move forward.
  I emphasise again why we are so concerned and why there is a particular problem with the Kent lines. At least two of the lines in my constituency now have very little traffic, and until recently have had minimal traffic at night, whereas the freight trains will be heavy and noisy, and will roll at night.
  That situation is exactly comparable to the problems that people who live near airports suffer—and we have introduced strict controls on night flying. The noise of a railway line is similar to that experienced as an aeroplane takes off or lands, with quiet periods in between. That is more disturbing than the continuous rumble of motorway traffic, yet we are doing nothing for people who face that problem. I have been into people's homes, and they have explained the situation. They do not make that up; it is real, and it is our duty to do something about it.
  10.3 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for introducing this subject yet again. He has done a service in allowing us to focus our minds again on the important issue before us, and some progress has been made.
  I have no problem at all in accepting the requests that my right hon. Friend has made of the Government: to consider carefully the legal advice which he has received, commissioned by the local authorities, for the Government to reflect with their own legal advisers and, in consultation with British Rail, accepting what my right hon. Friend has laid before the House. That will be done: it will be done promptly and thoroughly.
  I also accept the second part of the request, that I should return to the House as promptly as possible with a clarification of the issues. I have absolutely no hesitation

  433
  whatever in accepting what my right hon. Friend has said. If he studies the record, my right hon. Friend will be aware that, where there is clear and powerful argument—for example, about the channel tunnel route and the control of fares in the privatised railway, a debate in which my right hon. Friend participated—he will accept that the Government are not unresponsive. Where clear arguments are marshalled and where there is a case to be answered, the Government are not reticent in answering properly and fairly.
  Before dealing with the substance of the debate, I shall respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), and then deal specifically with the Land Compensation Act 1973.
  We shall shortly be making an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link route that it is proposed to safeguard. Of course, that will be only the route chosen for the preparation of the Bill and the seeking of planning permission. That announcement will come at the end of a long, thorough period of consultation—unprecedented for the construction of a new railway line, and, dare I say it, for a new road.
  I can confirm that, once the route is safeguarded—the act of safeguarding will follow shortly after the announcement of the route, as there are some legal steps to be taken to safeguard it—a purchase scheme will apply to those houses that will be directly affected by the route. That scheme will affect those houses which will have to be acquired—if not compulsorily, then purchased voluntarily —and those houses which will be substantially affected by construction. There will be a scheme, and Union Railways is funding it so that it is commenced promptly. That is only equitable and fair.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock asked me whether it will be a hybrid Bill. It will be. Once an announcement is made of the route, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will ensure that preparations begin promptly to prepare the Bill. We have said that we hope that the Bill will be ready at the commencement of the next Session. However, the timing of its introduction depends not on myself or the Secretary of State for Transport, but on collective consideration by the Government. We have always said that we want the private sector to comment on the Bill. We have made it plain that that does not entail reopening a safeguarded route.
  With regard to the Central Railways group, the newspaper to which the hon. Member for Thurrock referred quoted me incorrectly. The Department of Transport does not endorse or promote or support any individual proposition. If the hon. Gentleman has the chance to read the information document which is being circulated in the City to raise money by that group, he will realise that we have issued an even-handed comment on the proposal and indicated the procedures that it must go through before construction can start.
  The points raised about the channel tunnel rail link by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing are well founded. I am attracted to the idea of an appropriate stage to ensure that, in plain English, we can convey to those who will be affected by the new route what their rights will be and how they will be affected. For example, there are rights under the voluntary purchase scheme, to which I have just referred, there are blight provisions in the law, compulsory purchase rights., the insulation of properties and availability of compensation,
  434
  because the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 apply to the construction of a new railway line. The suggestion is valuable, and I shall certainly reflect on it.
  The main issue concerns the use of the existing railway lines. I am well aware of the problems of those whose properties abut the line. It is not just physical abutment: in the open countryside of Kent and Surrey, although not necessarily in London, the impact of the noise will be felt over a considerable distance. No one denies that. I have gone to listen at night to the effects of the existing passenger trains. No one doubts their effect, let alone that of the freight trains that are to run.
  It is important for Ministers and, indeed, officials at the Department of Transport continually to put themselves in the place of a householder whose property will be affected. This is a direct personal matter. Sometimes it can become the most important issue in a person's life and in the affairs of a household.
  In answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), the Government must proceed with close adherence to the principles of equity, even-handedness, prudence and clarity. I hope that we shall be able to sustain that endeavour in what we seek to achieve over the coming years in relation to the existing lines and the new routes.
  Perhaps I could remind the House of what is proposed for this year. By the end of the year, it is envisaged that there will be up to 11 trains in both directions using existing railway lines on their way from Wembley, through which the freight trains will have to pass, to the channel tunnel. That is a maximum of 22 trains per day. They will use either the Maidstone East line or the Tonbridge line.
  At night—I am defining night as between 11 pm and 7 am—it is estimated that there will be about five trains in total using the Tonbridge line and four the Maidstone East line. I am attempting not to minimise the problem but to put the matter on the record. On present estimates, it will not be until the year 2005 that the capacity of the tunnel for 35 freight trains a day will be utilised. Of course, the estimate may well change.
  We accept my right hon. Friend's understanding and interpretation of the Land Compensation Act 1973. He has drawn attention to the fact that the key provision is section 9(1)(b). His comments and counsel's opinion, which he has read into the record, will be studied carefully. Now that the debate has focused properly and narrowly on this particular issue, it will receive Ministers' close attention.
  In past debates, my right hon. Friend has raised the issue of giving the Secretary of State a per Missive power. As I recall it, that was the subject of the debate in June 1991. A separate issue concerned introducing an administrative, non-statutory scheme. Now the debate is focused on the existing law and the protection afforded under it to individuals.
  British Rail and the Department acknowledge that, under section 9(1)(b), it is open to individuals who believe that they are affected to apply for compensation. That is not the issue, because I certainly accept that as a point of principle. The question is to what extent that applies. There is a question of the information provided to individuals; the leaflet now provided by British Rail was cited. I do not wish to comment on the legal interpretation of the law tonight, and my right hon. Friend was kind enough to invite me to reflect on that, which I shall do.
  In the leaflet cited, claims under section 9(1)(b)—I assume that that is the correct reference—prior to 1 April

  435
  1994 should be made to the British Rail Property Board and after that to Railtrack. That is what the document says. It must be acknowledged that the courts ultimately will interpret the legislation. But there is more to that than merely the Lands Tribunal interpreting a specific provision. British Rail has sought to make a clearer statement of the position, and I shall take on board the criticisms and comments made.
  I shall conclude by concentrating on the mitigation measures that have been undertaken. I understand that my right hon. Friend has always concentrated on the property acquisition and compensation for injurious affection issues, rather than the mitigation measures. Nevertheless, they are important.
  British Rail has introduced continuously welded rail, which is certainly more environmentally friendly. It has ordered class 92 electric locomotives to haul the freight on existing rail lines. The locomotives are subject to some delay, because the manufacturers have run into problems. I am not blaming the manufacturers. It is a fact that class 92 locomotives will not be running when the channel tunnel opens for freight. Quieter freight wagons will also be used.
  The noise barriers which I have looked at will make some difference. Fifty barriers are proposed-30 in Kent, five in Surrey and 15 in Bromley. Those barriers are being erected under arrangements whereby British Rail and the local authority concerned both plan and then finance the construction of them. As for the local authorities concerned, the Department of Transport has provided supplementary credit approval for the local authority share of that programme.
  The barriers, which are 2m high, are effective. I have listened to the difference in noise, and the barriers reduce the noise by up to half. It is common practice in France and West Germany, and in other countries, to have noise barriers not only for passenger train noise mitigation but for freight mitigation. That is the situation as far as the barriers are concerned. I hope that other boroughs which are affected will take up the offer made by British Rail to co-operate jointly in the installation of such barriers.
  Mr. Roger Sims: I know that my constituents in that part of Bromley to which my right hon. Friend referred will be extremely pleased to hear what he has said. I must declare an interest, in that the line runs only a few yards from my house. Could my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the character of the barriers? If they
  436
  have a noise-dampening effect, that is ideal, but presumably there is a danger that they may have some intrusive environmental effect. Are we talking about concrete barriers, or about trees? Could my right hon. Friend tell us a little more?
  Mr. Freeman: The barriers are wooden, and have been appropriately treated. If my hon. Friend or, indeed, any other hon. Members would like to see the Union Railways demonstration barrier at Staplehurst or the barriers erected by rail freight distribution in co-operation with local authorities at other locations—for example, Paddock Wood—we can certainly arrange that.
  The barriers are environmentally acceptable, but any barrier is an intrusion. Anyone who has seen the concrete barriers in some continental countries might find them intrusive. Of course, there are ways in which the noise can be mitigated other than by barrier. I have already referred to a number of ways concerning the design of the locomotives, the wagons and the track. Kent county council has a non-statutory programme for insulating isolated properties which are not protected by noise barriers. I welcome that.
  In September this year, we hope that it will be possible for rail freight distribution to demonstrate to all Members of Parliament who have constituents whose properties are affected that trains can be run along the route in Kent and Surrey, and in London boroughs, with the new class 92 locomotives and the full weight of the freight wagons. I will ensure that invitations are sent to all those with constituencies that are affected. We will continue to monitor the noise effects of the introduction of the new freight services when they begin to run.
  There have been predictions of the noise impact, but it is important to measure the reality against the predictions, and the programme will continue. I re-read both debates, which were fraught and difficult, the first in June 1991 and the second, which I think was in July of the same year. I said at that time that the matter would not go away, and that it would require the attention not only of the Government but of the rail operators until a sensible conclusion was reached.
  I believe that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing has said tonight will be helpful. It will carry the debate on a stage, and it will focus the minds of those in my Department. Above all, it will focus my mind.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are made to ensure that special advisers to Ministers in his Department do not have access to the kind of information, and are not involved in the type of business, that would be likely to create suspicion of impropriety in relation to subsequent employment.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday 14 December 1993 at column 561.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who, other than Ministers, have individually allocated cars from the Government car service; and at what cost for each person.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government car service currently provides some 30 cars which are made available to Departments for first call use by individuals, in addition to the cars on which Ministers have first call. A number of these cars are provided for security reasons, but the majority are used by senior officials of Permanent Secretary or equivalent rank.

  The cost per car varies according to the level of service provided. The average annual cost per standard car and driver is some £47,000.

  Water Mains
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of water mains are planned to be replaced by each of the water companies in England in 1994 because of poor water quality.

  Mr. Atkins
  The length of water mains which water companies plan to replace for water quality reasons in England during 1994 is estimated to be 1,100 miles. In addition, companies plan to reline approximately 1,380 miles. Replacement or relining may be carried out for reasons other than improvement in water quality, such as the structural condition of mains and to improve water pressure; replacement for those reasons usually also results in an improvement in water quality.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on local government finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend announced his proposals for the local government finance settlement for 244
  1994–95 on 2 December. During the consultation period on those proposals, which ended on 10 January, we received representations from 134 local authorities and their associations and from 18 hon. Members. In addition, we have met some 30 local authorities to discuss the settlement and will be seeing further authorities this week. My right hon. Friend will present his final decisions shortly.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration was given to the option of permanent monitored dry storage of spent nuclear fuel as a nuclear waste management option in arriving at his judgment on THORP.

  Mr. Atkins
  The dry storage of spent nuclear fuel was addressed in the waste management section (paragraphs 98–108) of the decision by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of an application from British Nuclear Fuels for authorisations to discharge radioactive wastes from the Sellafield site. Copies of the decision document are in the House Library.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the basis for his conclusion set out at paragraph 131 of his decision document on THORP of 15 December that the increase in costs of the Nirex waste repository would not jeopardise the economic viability of THORP.

  Mr. Atkins
  An estimate of the impact of a 10-year delay to the Nirex repository is given in section 6 of appendix 3 to the BNFL document, "The Economic and Commercial Justification for THORP", which was made available for public consultation. It is evident that such a sum would not jeopardise the commercial gains shown in that appendix.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the advice notes and other information made available to his Department, along with interdepartmental correspondence, by(a) the Department of Transport, (b) the Department of Trade and Industry, (c) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (d) the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and (e) the National Radiological Protection Board as part of the consultation process on THORP referred to at paragraph 20 of his decision document on THORP of 15 December.

  Mr. Atkins
  No, other than copies of the advice from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the National Radiological Protection Board which have already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when British Nuclear Fuels made available to his Department or to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a full version of the Touche Ross accountants report on the projected profitability of THORP; and what assessment was made of the robustness of the report in coming to the conclusion on the economic prospects for THORP as set out as paragraph 133 of his decision document on THORP of 15 December.

  Mr. Atkins
  No such report is, or has been, in our possession.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax valuations in each district council area in North Yorkshire have been(a) received and (b) settled; and of those settled how many resulted in a reduced council tax valuation.

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 31 December 1993, receipts and settlements of proposals to alter the valuation list for each billing authority in North Yorkshire are as follows:

  Billing authority

  Received

  Settled

  Craven

  2,621

  374

  Hambleton

  2,724

  496

  Harrogate

  4,745

  872

  Richmondshire

  1,613

  210

  Ryedale

  2,980

  509

  Scarborough

  2,775

  488

  Selby

  2,702

  498

  York

  1,425

  484

  Statistics relating to settlements which have resulted in a lower council tax banding are not available centrally.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will introduce legislation to protect hedgerows.

  Mr. Atkins
  When parliamentary time permits.

  Sweetloves Reservoir
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to investigate whether North West Water Ltd. is acting in accordance with its statutory duties in relation to Sweetloves reservoir.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 Janaury 1994]: North West Water does not consider that its plans for the redevolopment of Sweetloves reservoir are in conflict with its statutory duties in respect of conservation and recreation. I will write to my hon. Friend about the case.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Budget Contributions
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of member states' net contributions to the EC Budget, after the United Kingdom rebate, in respect of the calendar year 1993; and what is his best estimate, in respect of calendar year 1994, of member states' net contributions to the European Union budget for that year, on the basis of the latest draft proposed EU budget, after taking account of the latest estimate of the United Kingdom's rebate for 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  EC budgets provide estimates of member states' gross contributions including the abatement of the United Kingdom's contributions. They do not, however, give a breakdown of each member state's expected receipts from that budget: this information becomes available only after the year in question, in the annual Court of Auditors' report on the implementation of the budget. The latest report, covering 1992, was published on 16 November 1993.

  Civil Service (Management Functions) Act
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what delegations have been made since the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act received royal assent on 17 December 1992; to whom those delegations were made; and what were the main conditions that were attached to them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table lists delegations made under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 to date. In some cases, for staff appointed by statutory office holders, Ministers were statutorily required to give consent to terms and conditions of service. For such staff, delegation has been effected by waiving that requirement, subject to the conditions attached to the delegation.

  The first five delegations in the list apply generally across the civil service. The delegations relating to pay apply only to particular departments and agencies as shown in the table.

  In total, Departments and agencies employing over half of all civil servants will have assumed responsibility for their own pay and grading by April 1994. I expect other such delegations to follow in 1995 as further Government agencies and Departments bring forward proposals for their own pay and grading arrangements.

  247

  List of Delegations made under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992

  Delegation

  Nature of Delegation

  Recipients

  Main Conditions

  1. Delegation of Minimum Recruitment Criteria

  Authority to set appropriate eligibility criteria (so far as they relate to knowledge, ability, professional attainment, aptitude or potential) for recruitment to non-scheduled grades in respect of members of the Home Civil Service.

  Ministers in charge of departments and statutory and certain other office holders.1

  Managers must: (i) ensure that their recruitment systems consistently deliver recruits who are appropriate to their needs and who are able to do the work required in the grade to which they are appointed;

  (ii) maintain and make use of adequate records of their recruitment activities and the performance of successful candidates to demonstrate that (i) continues to be met; and

  (iii) observe Civil Service Management Code rules on age limits.

  2. Delegation of Personnel Management: Travel

  Authority to determine in respect of Home Civil Servants:

  Ministers in charge of departments and statutory and certain other office holders.1

  Departments must ensure that the most efficient and economic means of travel is used, taking into account the cost of travel and the cost of subsistence and savings in official time.

  (a) the class of travel that maybe given to staff traveling on official business in the United Kingdom and overseas, and to staff and members of their household where departments have discretion to offer concessionary travel in the United Kingdom and overseas; and

  All costs arising from the exercise of this delegation must be met from within agreed resources.

  (b) the conditions under which financial assistance with overseas journeys is given in respect of staff and members of their household.

  3. Overseas Accountable Entertainment Allowance

  Authority for determining the hospitality allowances to assist members of the Home Civil Service serving overseas.

  Ministers in charge of departments and statutory and certain other office holders.1

  All costs arising from the exercise of this delegation must be found from within existing cash and running costs limits.

  4. Delegation of United Kingdom Relocation Expenses.

  Authority to determine the rules on the expenses that may be paid to members of the Home Civil Service who permanently transfer to another office (or move on appointment) within the United Kingdom and who move their homes, or who incur additional travelling costs, as a result.

  Ministers in charge of departments and statutory and certain other office holders.1

  The terms offered in exercising this delegation must be cost effective compared with the alternatives and the expenditure must be found from within existing running costs and cash limits.

  The expenses must be based on reimbursement, must not provide for betterment and must not go beyond what is provided by other employers. There are limits on advances of salary and equity loss compensation.

  5. Delegation of Rent for key staff who occupy government owned residential properties.

  Authority to determine a departmental/agency rent.

  Ministers in charge of departments and statutory and certain other office holders.1

  The rent must be consistent with the market rent that the key member of staff and his or her family would reasonably be expected to pay at the same or similar location for accommodation which met their normal requirements.

  The rent may be adjusted if it is necessary to encourage staff to transfer to a key post, or attract new staff to a key post, or to retain existing staff.

  Any additional expenditure which results from exercising this delegation must be found from within existing running costs and cash limits.

  248

  249

  Delegation

  Nature of Delegation

  Recipients

  Main Conditions

  6. Delegation of pay and certain pay-related conditions of service.

  Authority to determine pay and certain pay-related conditions of service of civil servants below the Senior Open Structure (with the exception of retirement and redundancy, the reinstatement and re-employment of persons in the service and the redeployment of staff between departments). Agency Chief Executives are also excluded from the scope of the delegations.

  Ministers in charge of departments and statutory officeholders,1 as appropriate, for the following organisations:

  (i) The recipient must continue to comply with certain sections of the Civil Service Management Code.

  Employment Service Fire Service College Inland Revenue Ordnance Survey Valuation Office Agency

  (ii) Changes made to terms and conditions must provide value for money and be made in a way which does not jeopardise essential public expenditure safeguards.

  1 The statutory and certain other office holders are:

  First Parliamentary Counsel

  Government Actuary

  Director General of Fair Trading

  Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies

  National Debt Commissioners/National Public Works Loan Commissioners

  Director General of Telecommunications

  First Crown Estate Commissioner

  Director, Office of Gas Supply

  Director, Office of Electricity Regulation

  Director, Office of Water Services

  Director, Serious Fraud Office

  Chief Inspector, Office for standards in Education

  Director, Intervention Board

  Commissioners for the Board of the Inland Revenue

  Commissioners for Customs and Excise

  Director of Public Prosecutions

  Registrar General, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys*

  Chief Charity Commissioner, Charity Commission*

  Registrar General, General Register office (Scotland)*

  Executive, Health and Safety

  The Service, Advisory and Conciliation

  Those marked with a * received only the delegation in respect of Minimum Recruitment Criteria.

  Enterprise Zone Buildings
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about schemes which enable investors to get up-front tax relief on investments in enterprise zone buildings which they can subsequently sell without any clawback of that relief.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Capital allowances are available to the owners of buildings in enterprise zones and of industrial buildings elsewhere. Where a building is sold within the first twenty-five years of its life, a balancing adjustment is made which brings the tax relief into line with the actual depreciation. In this way any excess tax relief given can be recovered. There is, however, a defect in the capital allowances legislation which enables the owner of a building effectively to dispose of his interest through the granting of a long lease without triggering any recovery of excess allowances. This is a weakness of which some taxpayers are aiming to take advantage.

  We propose to bring forward legislation at Committee stage of the Finance Bill which will rectify this defect by imposing a balancing charge when a building on which capital allowances have already been claimed is leased for a capital sum. The new rules will apply to capital sums received by a taxpayer in respect of a relevant interest in a building which he has acquired on or after today.

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government guarantees loans received by the private sector from the European investment bank.
  250
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 16 December 1993]: The Government do not operate a guarantee scheme for private sector borrowers from the EIB. However, the Government do have a residual responsibility in respect of guarantees which it provided under a former scheme, which was discontinued in 1985. The residual contingent liability resulting from this scheme is now diminishing, and will ultimately disappear, as the loans guaranteed are progressively repaid.

WALES

  District Elections
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in which areas elections will take place during 1994 for those district councils in Wales which hold elections by thirds.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Elections will take place in Swansea, Newport, Port Talbot and Rhondda on Thursday 5 May 1994.

  Domestic Gas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the estimated number and proportion of homes in Wales connected to gas mains supply.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information provided by British Gas, Wales, is published in table 5.13 of the Digest of Welsh Statistics No. 39, 1993. The number of domestic customers was estimated as 807,300 at December 1991. This represented 68 per cent. of dwellings in Wales.

  Housing Revenue
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make his housing revenue account subsidy determinations for 1994–95.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I made the determinations on 12 January and have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  I have confirmed an average guideline rent increase of 7.5 per cent. (3.5 per cent. in real terms), with a minimum increase of £1.50 and a maximum of £2.90 per week. I estimate that the average guideline rent increase will be £2.19 per week and the resulting average weekly guideline rent £31.30.

  For management and maintenance allowances, I have confirmed an average increase of 4 per cent. per dwelling overall, which will continue to be distributed through a system of targets reflecting authorities' relative need to spend. I estimate that this will raise the average allowance to £824 per dwelling, an increase of £31.

  The rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowances are the assumptions to be made for subsidy purposes. It is for councils themselves to set their rents and decide how much to spend on management and maintenance within their legal obligations.

  I have placed in the Library of the House estimates of the rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowance for each authority.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to include provisions within the prospective legislation on deregulation which would alter the current powers available to local authorities to impose restrictions on the night-time movement of heavy goods vehicles within their area.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Details of the contents of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will be made available in the usual way when the Bill is introduced later this month. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been considering whether restrictions on the night-time movement of heavy goods vehicles can be administered in a less bureaucratic way without reducing the environmental protection the restrictions offer.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what basic technical characteristics of the THORP reprocessing line and associated facilities have been submitted to EURATOM; what particular safeguards provisions for the THORP reprocessing line and its asssociated facilities have been agreed with EURATOM; and on what dates in each case(a) information was first provided to EURATOM and (b) those agreements entered into force.

  Mr. Eggar
  Such documents on safeguards arrangements are confidential to the parties concerned. A general description of the interaction between BNFL and Euratom in agreeing safeguards arrangements for THORP was given in the paper, "THORP: The Route to a252
  Safeguardable Plant", presented at the 15th European Safeguards Research and Development Association (ESARDA) symposium in Rome in May 1993.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the methodology adopted, including reference to any expert sources outside his Department, by which he came to the conclusion to offer the departmental advice on the economics of THORP to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, referred to at paragraph 128 of the decision document on THORP of 15 December.

  Mr. Eggar
  The advice given by my Department to my right hon. Friends was prepared by reference to materials contained in the publicly available consultation documents.

  Superconductivity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research into superconductivity is currently being sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department is currently supporting four collaborative industrial research projects in high temperature superconductivity. Total costs are £3,215,231 and grant of up to £1,607,615 has been offered.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet able to inform the House of the final outcome of the negotiations with the European Communities on the designation under the structural funds of objective 2 and 5(b) areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Commission announced on 21 December its proposed list of areas for objective 2 and the proposed population ceilings for objective 5(b).

  For objective 5(b) areas, the Commission proposes to designate areas with a population coverage of 2.816 million in the United Kingdom. The precise geographical boundaries are expected to be finally determined by the Commission by the end of next week, but will certainly include large parts of South West England, East Anglia, Northern England, Wales and Scotland. Once the Commission's final decision is known I will provide the House with a list of the areas.

  For objective 2 areas, the Commission announced a proposed initial list of areas. The United Kingdom area on this list are listed at the end of this answer. The Commission will announce its final decision shortly, but it is unlikely to differ from the initial list. The definitive list will be published in the Official Journal and will give a fully detailed breakdown of the eligible areas, down to ward level where necessary.

  The Commission's decisions mean that more areas of the United Kingdom than before will now be eligible for European funding. More than 24 million people live in areas that will be able to claim under objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) of the structural funds and the United Kingdom continues to have the highest population coverage under objective 2. Despite this advance, however, the Government regret the Commission's failure fully to reflect our national priorities in its final decisions for objective 2 areas—in particular, the case for much greater coverage of urban areas.
  253
  United Kingdom areas on Commission's list for objective 2 County/Region and Eligible travel-to-work area (TTWA)
  Central

  Alloa (part)

  Falkirk (part)

  Glasgow (part)

  Stirling (part1)

  Cheshire

  Liverpool (part)

  Widnes and Runcorn

  Wirral and Chester (part1)

  Cleveland

  Whole county

  Cumbria

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Whitehaven

  Workington

  Derbyshire

  Chesterfield

  Mansfield (part)

  Worksop (part)

  Devon

  Plymouth (part1)

  Durham

  Bishop Aukland

  Darlington (part1)

  Durham

  Hartlepool (part)

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (part)

  Sunderland (part)

  Dyfed

  Llanelli

  Swansea (part)

  Fife

  Alloa (part)

  Dundee (part)

  Dunfermline (part)

  Kirkaldy

  Gibraltar

  Whole territory

  Greater London

  London (parts of the Boroughs of Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest)

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton and Bury (part)

  Manchester (part1)

  Oldham

  Rochdale (part)

  Wigan and St. Helens (part)

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenney (part)

  Merthyr and Rhymney (part)

  Newport

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  Humberside

  Doncaster (part)

  Grimsby (part)

  Hull (part1)

  Scunthorpe (part)

  Kent

  Thanet

  Lancashire

  Accrington and Rossendale

  Blackburn

  Bolton and Bury (part)

  Burnley (part1)

  Liverpool (part1)

  Pendle (part1)

  Rochdale (part)

  Wigan and St. Helens (part1)

  Lothian

  Bathgate

  Edinburgh (part1)

  Falkirk (part)

  Mid Glamorgan

  whole county

  Northumberland

  Alnwick and Amble (part1)

  Morpeth and Ashington

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (part1)

  254
  Nottinghamshire

  Mansfield (part)

  Nottingham (part1)

  Worksop (part)

  Powys

  Aberdare (part)

  Swansea (part)

  Shropshire

  Telford and Bridgnorth (part1)

  Wolverhampton (part)

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff (part1)

  South Yorkshire

  whole county

  Staffordshire

  Birmingham (part1)

  Burton-on-Trent (part1)

  Stafford (part1)

  Stoke (part1)

  Walsall (part1)

  Wolverhampton (part1)

  Strathclyde

  Ayr

  Cumnock and Sanquhar (part)

  Dumbarton

  Girvan

  Glasgow (part)

  Greenock

  Irvine (part1)

  Kilmarnock

  Lanarkshire

  Tayside

  Arbroath

  Dundee (part)

  Dunfermline (part)

  Tyne and Wear

  whole county

  Warwickshire

  Birmingham (part1

  Coventry and Hinckley (part1)

  West Glamorgan

  whole county

  West Midlands

  Birmingham (part1)

  Coventry and Hinckley (part)

  Dudley and Sandwell (part)

  Walsall (part)

  Wolverhampton (part)

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford (part1)

  Castleford and Pontefract (part)

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  1 Denotes those areas where only part of the TTWA within the county-region is designated. Elsewhere the designation of part of a TTWA refers to the whole of the part of the TTWA falling within that county-region. Note that many TTWAs straddle county-region boundaries.

PRIME MINISTER

  GCHQ
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with trade union leaders on 20 December 1993 regarding trade union recognition of GCHQ

  The Prime Minister
  I met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss trade union membership at GCHQ at their request, following a series of discussions they had held with officials. I explained that the Government's overriding objective remained to ensure the maintenance of continuous operations at GCHQ necessary for the protection of national security. In that context it was necessary also to ensure that the staff were not subject to potential conflicts of loyalty.
  255
  Against that background, however, I indicated that the Government were prepared to enable the Government Communications Staff Federation, the registered trade union for GCHQ staff, to affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions, subject to conditions to guarantee its continuing independence. This would have allowed the staff of GCHQ to be represented in discussions between the Government and the unions on matters affecting the civil service generally in a way in which they are not at present. The national trade unions have indicated that they do not regard this as acceptable. There are no plans for further meetings, but the Government remain willing to discuss any further proposals that the unions may wish to put forward.

  Engagements
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what were his official engagements for Wednesday 12 January.

  The Prime Minister
  I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, in addition to my duties in this House.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

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

  Petitions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of responses to parliamentary petitions; and if he will review current practice.

  The Prime Minister
  Individual Departments respond as they see fit to parliamentary petitions. I have no plans to review current practice.

TRANSPORT

  Worcester Parkway Station
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail or Railtrack about the possibility of establishing a Worcester Parkway station in the light of the decision to run additional Birmingham to Cardiff trains without stopping at Worcester, Shrub Hill.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am aware of the idea of a Parkway station for Worcester but I have had no direct discussions with British Rail or Railtrack on the subject. This is a matter for those organisations to consider and any detailed proposals should be sent direct to them.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the information provided to the Secretary of State for the Environment assessing the criticisms made of the safety of nuclear transport, indicated at paragraph 135 of the decision document on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, published on 15 December.
  256
  Mr. Key
  It is not Government practice to publish such inter-departmental correspondence.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he proposes that British Rail's accumulated debt due to the construction of Waterloo international station and the other infrastructure works carried out to provide for the operation of international rail services through the channel tunnel should be paid off.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are at present considering how British Rail's existing debt liabilities should be allocated to the successor bodies which are to be created in the restructuring of the railway.

  MOT Test
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish in the Official Report the date on which he intends to re-introduce the smoke emission test as part of the annual MOT test for motor vehicles; and if he will make a statement on the ways in which the new test differs from the previous one.

  Mr. Key
  The metered check of smoke is to be reintroduced into the MOT test on 1 February 1994. The procedure has been revised slightly to reduce the number of test cycles to which each engine is subject, and to reduce the amount of time that an engine spends at maximum revolutions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what consideration he has given to an application relating to an exhibition on "A Voice For Laryngectomees," to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 7 March to Friday 11 March.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Globe theatre to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall, during the week commencing 7 February.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 7 February to Friday 11 February.

HEALTH

  Referrals
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances it is permissible for a trust hospital to give general practitioner fundholders a discount on NHS prices in return for private patient referrals.
  257
  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the target percentage for registered disabled employees within the Department of Health and NHS management executive; and what is the actual percentage of registered disabled employees.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service, in common with other employers, is subject to the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts of 1944 and 1958. No specific target has been imposed on NHS employers supplementary to the provisions of these acts.

  The latest figures, relating to June 1992, are in the April 1993 edition of the Employment Gazette, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  NHS Communications Network
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to establish a new NHS national communications network service; and what costings have been made.

  Mr. Sackville
  In March 1993 the national health service management executive and regional general managers agreed a strategy for implementing NHS-wide electronic networking facilities. Up to 1996 this comprises a common policy for the management of data exchange between computers, telecommunications in the NHS and

  Central Fund—Expenditure on Fluoridation 1985–86 to 1992–93

  Regional Health Authority

  Financial Year—Figures are in £'000s

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  —

  3

  38

  —

  55

  —

  —

  113

  Trent

  —

  105

  —

  8

  —

  245

  54

  535

  North West Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  Oxford

  —

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  251

  385

  936

  300

  —

  —

  135

  North Western

  20

  —

  10

  10

  —

  —

  42

  11

  Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  Mersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  102

  Note: Figures include funding towards feasibility studies, reports and or capital costs of schemes.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those water companies that have no fluoridated potable water supplies 'Within their geographical boundary.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All water supplies contain some natural fluoride.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she received the report of the departmental advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes; when and how she expects it to be published; what requests for it have been declined; and if she will place a copy of it in the Library.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 15 December 1993 at column 720. No requests for the report have been declined.
  258
  the rationalisation of mobile radio communications, principally those used by the ambulance services. From 1996 it is expected there will be increasing technical integration of all apsects of NHS-wide electronic communications.

  The business case for implementing a national spine to connect regional data networks has been approved. Work is in hand to connect all regionwide data networks by late 1994.

  Agreements have been made with Mercury Communications and British Telecom which will provide immediate multi-million pound savings to their NHS customers. Further analysis of telephone usage and requirements locally in the NHS is planned for 1994. Preliminary work indicates this should lead to additional significant savings.

  A study examining the business case for the provision of mobile communications in the NHS is planned to report in April 1994.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the schemes of water fluoridation that have resulted from Government encouragement; and what forms that encouragement took in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Since 1985 the Government have provided financial assistance for fluoridation schemes to the regions shown in the table.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Injuries at Work
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reconsider the rules on repayments to his Department by workers in receipt of injuries at work awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The compensation recovery scheme will be amended to take account of the statutory sick pay changes announced on 1 December. No other amendments to the scheme are planned.

  Occupational Diseases
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the Government propose to respond to the European Commission recommendation of 22 May 1990 concerning the adoption of a European schedule of occupational diseases.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government's response to the recommendation was sent to the Commission recently.
  259
  Copies have been placed in the Library. We are pleased to take the opportunity to explain arrangements for compensating, reporting and preventing occupational disease.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will announce how housing benefit transitional payments will be treated in April.

  Mr. Burt
  We have always made it clear that housing benefit transitional payments, which were introduced in 1988, will be reduced as increases in other benefits make them less necessary. We have therefore decided on a flat rate reduction of £1.00 per week in these payments for the year from April 1994. As a result, the vast majority of recipients will still gain overall in cash terms from the April uprating of other social security benefits.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the additional amounts payable in housing benefit resulting from the reductions in planned spending under the heading "DOE Housing" in table 5B.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95".

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 17 December 1993]: Expenditure on housing benefit is influenced by a wide range of factors not all in the control of the Government. Owing to this, no estimate has been made of the effect on housing benefit expenditure arising specifically from the changes in planned spending under the heading "DOE Housing" in tale 5B.3 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95, although there is expected to be an overall reduction in housing provision of £250 million and £100 million in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996.

SCOTLAND

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of perinatal mortality in each of the last 10 years; and what plans he has to commission research into reasons for variations.

  Mr. Stewart
  Perinatal mortality figures for the years 1983–1992 are as follows:

  Number

  Rate per 1,000 births (live and still)

  1983

  696

  10.6

  1984

  718

  11.0

  1985

  656

  9.8

  1986

  673

  10.2

  1987

  594

  8.9

  1988

  594

  8.9

  1989

  553

  8.7

  1990

  574

  8.7

  1991

  582

  8.6

  1992

  597

  9.0

  The introduction of the Stillbirth (Definition) Act 1992 on 1 October 1992 reduced from 28 to 24 weeks the gestational age at which a baby is officially recognised as stillborn. Early terminations of pregnancy between 24 and
  260
  28 weeks, which were formerly treated as "miscarriages" for statistical purposes, are now being classed as stillbirths and have been included in the statistics for 1992.

  Compiled on the same basis as the figures for 1983 to 1991 the number of stillbirths in 1992 would have been 562, representing a rate of 8.5 per 1,000 births and demonstrating a continuing downward trend.

  Research into the causes of perinatal deaths has been continuous since 1977 when the Scottish perinatal mortality survey was set up. In 1982 the Scottish perinatal mortality review advisory group was established to look into the causes of perinatal deaths on an ongoing basis and to offer advice on ways in which the incidence might be reduced further. Its work will be enhanced shortly with the appointment of a professional co-ordinator.

  Patients
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland of the in-patients discharged in 1992–93, how many went straight into(a) nursing homes, (b) supervised residential accommodation, or (c) were looked after by a member of their family.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not centrally held. During the period between April 1992 and March 1993 there were 788,857 discharges from NHS care in Scotland. Of that number 644,105 were home discharges. This figure includes transfers to sheltered housing, eventide homes, residential and nursing homes for which no separate figures are available.

  Housing
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much from(a) grant, (b) consent to borrow and (c) capital receipts, will be devoted next financial year to the eradication of dampness and condensation in (i) council housing stock, (ii) owner-occupied stock and (iii) housing association/Scottish Homes stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the housing plan system introduced earlier this year central resource planning assumptions totalling £400 million on the housing revenue account and £123 million on the non-HRA were advised to local housing authorities to assist them in planning their capital programmes for investment in public and private sector housing in 1994–95. Authorities were asked to give priority to tackling condensation and dampness, as well as below tolerable standard housing and homelessness, within their capital programmes. These capital programmes are currently under consideration. Scottish Homes is also giving priority to tackling condensation and dampness in both housing association and their own stock. It is for local authorities and Scottish Homes to determine how to allocate the resources made available to them.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long it will take at the current rate of funding of district councils' housing revenue account and non-housing revenue account of capital programmes to(a) eradicate dampness and condensation and (b) refurbish to modern standards housing in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All local housing authorities have been asked in preparing their housing plans and housing capital programmes for 1994–95 and
  261
  beyond, to develop a strategy for tackling damp housing in their areas, including setting quantified targets which can be used as a basis for assessing progress. The resource planning assumptions advised to local authorities provide them with a framework within which to plan for tackling dampness, condensation and refurbishment.

  However, housing capital allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for local authorities themselves to decide how best to deploy the resources available to them to meet local housing needs, including the need to deal with dampness and condensation and to refurbish houses to modern standards.

  Acute Services Strategy, Tayside
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his consideration of Tayside health board's acute services strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Like other health boards in Scotland, Tayside has had to review its long-term requirements and pattern of future service provision in the light of new developments in clinical techniques and technology and of improvements in efficiency.

  An estimated £30 million will be needed to achieve the changes proposed by the board for the extension of Ninewells, new community hospitals in Forfar on the Whitehills site to replace the outdated facilities at Forfar infirmary, and Montrose to replace Montrose infirmary.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has considered the proposed changes for services in Tayside and has approved the health board's proposals in total.

  In Dundee, trauma services are currently split between the Ninewells and Dundee Royal infirmary sites and people are transferred between the sites. By extending Ninewells hospital it will be possible to accommodate all services on one site and replace the functionally unsuitable accommodation at Dundee Royal infirmary. The transfer of services to Ninewells and the subsequent closure of Dundee Royal infirmary is supported by all medical staff, and is an opportunity to allow all trauma services to be provided on one site, alongside the support specialty and diagnostic services that are required by trauma patients, therefore avoiding the need for individuals to be transferred between the two hospitals, to receive appropriate care. The Dundee General Hospital Trust is currently examining the level of capital investment which will be required to effect this change. My right hon. Friend expects to be able to approve the required capital investment in the near future.

  In Perth and Kinross, Tayside health board has sought approval to close Meigle cottage hospital. In this case my right hon. Friend has listened carefully to the arguments put forward by Tayside health board and others who have commented. The board has argued that by concentrating resources in this area at Blairgowrie, which has a larger site and wider range of facilities, it will be able to offer an enhanced level of patient care than it can at present. Local concerns focus on accessibility and loss of a valued local service.

  It will, however, be possible to maintain local services and improve their integration by transferring services from Meigle cottage hospital to the Blairgowrie site. Moreover
  262
  the transfer of services from Meigle to Blairgowrie will allow the health board to apply resources more effectively to enhance patient care.

  The boards proposals for Angus focus on the establishment of new community hospitals in Forfar and Montrose. In Forfar the proposed hospital is on the Whitehills site and would allow the centralisation of services in Forfar on one site. Services currently at Forfar infirmary and the Fyfe Jamieson maternity home would transfer to Whitehills and these hospitals would close. In Montrose the new hospital would replace services currently at Montrose infirmary.

  My right hon. Friend supports these proposals and has therefore asked the health board and Angus Trust to prepare proposals for a community hospital at Whitehills to replace the outdated facilities at Forfar infirmary; together with proposals for a new Montrose infirmary. In the meantime Tayside health board has sought approval to transfer maternity services from Fyfe Jamieson maternity home to Whitehills with immediate effect; and to close Fyfe Jamieson. The service available to women will be the same as that available currently at Fyfe Jamieson. It will however operate from fewer beds because current occupancy rates are lower and will be staffed mainly by community rather than hospital midwives; 24-hour midwife care will continue to be available when required.

  My right hon. Friend will announce his final decisions on the proposed new hospitals at Forfar and Montrose, and on the capital investment to be made at Ninewells, once detailed costings are available. Taken together these developments represent a major investment in health care in Tayside and an opportunity to ensure that the future pattern of care is appropriate to new developments in clinical techniques and technology.

  Quangos
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of all former hon. Members who since 1979 have been appointed to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: No former Members of Parliament who ceased to be Members of the House in 1987 and 1992 currently hold appointments on bodies for which my Department has responsibility. The information held centrally by my Department does not show whether appointees were Members of this House during earlier Parliaments.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of all former British representative members in the European Parliament who since 1979 have been appointed to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The information held centrally by my Department does not show whether appointees were former Members of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of all individuals who are or were
  263
  members of the House of Lords who since 1979 have been appointed to any quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The information covers the Scottish Office bodies listed in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies''. The information is at 1 September 1993 and does not include appointments as justices of the peace, appointments to children's panels or appointments which expired before that date, details of which are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information covers appointments held by present Members of the House of Lords. The following members of the House of Lords hold appointments on Scottish Office bodies: Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden is a member of the board of trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland; his appointment runs from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1994. The right hon. the Lord Cameron of Lochbroom is the Chairman of the Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee; his appointment runs from 1 February 1991 to 31 January 1996. Lord Goold is a member of the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust; his appointment runs from 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1996. Viscount Thurso is a member of the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace (Scotland); his appointment runs from 30 May 1991 to 15 May 1995. The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres is chairman of the board of trustees of the National Library of Scotland. The appointment runs from 14 November 1990. All these appointments are unsalaried.

  Mr. Laurence Peterken
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, on how many occasions the solicitor to the Secretary of State for Scotland was present at meetings involving Greater Glasgow health board or its chairman and the NHS Scottish Executive when the subject of Mr. Laurence Peterken was discussed.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The solicitor to the Secretary of State for Scotland or a representative from his office was present at three such meetings.

EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the estimated first year budget set aside by his Department for authorising the new access to work scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The 1994–95 budget allocated to the first year of access to work is £12,600,000.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the proportions of full-time male manual workers, full-time male non-manual workers and all full-time male workers with earnings, excluding overtime, of less than £203.07 per week in (i) the West Midlands metropolitan county, (ii) Hereford and Worcester, (iii) Shropshire, (iv) Staffordshire and (v) Warwickshire for 1993;
  264
  (2) if he will list the proportions of full-time adult manual workers, full-time adult non-manual workers and all full-time adult workers with earnings, including overtime, of less than £203.07 per week in (i) the West Midlands metropolitan county, (ii) Hereford and Worcester, (iii) Shropshire, (iv) Staffordshire and (v) Warwickshire for 1993;

  (3) if he will list the proportions of full-time male manual workers, full-time male non-manual workers and all full-time male workers with earnings, including overtime, of less than £203.07 per week in (i) the West Midlands metropolitan county, (ii) Hereford and Worcester, (iii) Shropshire, (iv) Staffordshire and (v) Warwickshire for 1993;

  (4) if he will list the proportions of full-time female manual workers, full-time female non-manual workers and all full-time female workers with earnings, excluding overtime, of less than £203.07 per week in (i) the West Midlands metropolitan county, (ii) Hereford and Worcester, (iii) Shropshire, (iv) Staffordshire and (v) Warwickshire for 1993;

  (5) if he will list the proportions of full-time female manual workers, full-time female non-manual workers and all full-time female workers with earnings, including overtime, of less than £203.07 per week in (i) the West Midlands metropolitan county, (ii) Hereford and Worcester, (iii) Shropshire, (iv) Staffordshire and (v) Warwickshire for 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is as follows:

  Full-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with gross weekly earnings below £203.07 at April 1993

  Including overtime (per cent.)

  Excluding overtime (per cent.)

  Manual men

  West Midlands MC

  21.9

  34.7

  Hereford and Worcester

  36.8

  51.2

  Shropshire

  30.2

  49.8

  Staffordshire

  31.1

  46.3

  Warwickshire

  24.0

  35.1

  Non-manual men

  West Midlands MC

  12.9

  14.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  13.2

  14.8

  Shropshire

  15.8

  18.5

  Staffordshire

  17.5

  20.7

  Warwickshire

  13.0

  16.8

  All men

  West Midlands MC

  17.4

  24.4

  Hereford and Worcester

  25.4

  33.7

  Shropshire

  23.9

  36.1

  Staffordshire

  25.0

  34.7

  Warwickshire

  18.1

  25.4

  Manual women

  West Midlands MC

  76.9

  80.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  78.7

  87.2

  Shropshire

  81.5

  86.2

  Staffordshire

  74.0

  79.6

  Warwickshire

  77.0

  85.1

  Non-manual women

  West Midlands MC

  40.4

  42.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  44.5

  46.0

  Shropshire

  54.9

  56.3

  Staffordshire

  51.2

  52.4

  Warwickshire

  44.4

  46.7

  265

  Including overtime (per cent.)

  Excluding overtime (per cent.)

  All women

  West Midlands MC

  47.2

  49.7

  Hereford and Worcester

  52.0

  55.0

  Shropshire

  61.3

  63.5

  Staffordshire

  57.7

  60.1

  Warwickshire

  51.7

  55.3

  Manual adults

  West Midlands MC

  30.8

  42.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  44.6

  58.0

  Shropshire

  39.7

  56.6

  Staffordshire

  40.5

  53.6

  Warwickshire

  34.6

  45.1

  Non-manual adults

  West Midlands MC

  25.4

  27.1

  Hereford and Worcester

  27.9

  29.5

  Shropshire

  34.6

  36.7

  Staffordshire

  33.1

  35.3

  Warwickshire

  26.5

  29.7

  All adults

  West Midlands MC

  27.5

  33.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  34.8

  41.2

  Shropshire

  36.8

  45.6

  Households where the head of household or their wife is claiming unemployment related benefits1

  Standard regions

  Spring 1989

  Spring 1990

  Spring 1991

  Spring 1992

  Spring 1993

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  South East

  225

  3.3

  202

  2.9

  297

  4.3

  452

  6.4

  508

  7.0

  Greater London

  131

  4.8

  115

  4.2

  155

  5.7

  214

  7.7

  250

  8.8

  Rest of South East

  94

  2.3

  87

  2.1

  142

  3.3

  238

  5.5

  258

  5.8

  East Anglia

  20

  2.5

  23

  2.9

  33

  3.9

  36

  4.2

  51

  5.8

  South West

  57

  3.0

  48

  2.6

  82

  4.3

  116

  5.9

  134

  6.7

  West Midlands

  115

  5.6

  80

  3.9

  137

  6.6

  162

  7.8

  170

  8.2

  East Midlands

  81

  5.2

  62

  3.9

  88

  5.5

  96

  5.9

  94

  5.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  120

  6.1

  93

  4.7

  110

  5.5

  140

  6.9

  128

  6.3

  North West

  166

  6.6

  139

  5.4

  150

  5.9

  178

  6.9

  175

  6.7

  North

  98

  7.9

  83

  6.6

  84

  6.6

  83

  6.6

  89

  7.1

  Wales

  65

  5.7

  55

  4.8

  64

  5.6

  70

  6.0

  68

  5.7

  Scotland

  137

  6.9

  109

  5.3

  124

  6.0

  128

  6.2

  125

  6.0

  Northern Ireland

  62

  11.8

  65

  12.4

  57

  10.8

  58

  11.0

  58

  10.3

  UNITED KINGDOM

  1,147

  5.1

  960

  4.2

  1,226

  5.3

  1,519

  6.5

  1,599

  6.8

  Not seasonally adjusted.

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will list for each London borough the number of households and the proportion of all households claiming unemployment benefit for each year since 1989.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available since, the only source able to provide this information at household level would be the Labour Force Survey, and this is unable to provide estimates for London boroughs due to its sample size.

  Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of entrants to the business start-up scheme who were receiving income support immediately previous to entry remained in business for at least 18 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 16 December at column 858.
  266

  Including overtime (per cent.)

  Excluding overtime (per cent.)

  Staffordshire

  36.4

  43.7

  Warwickshire

  29.6

  35.6

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he will list for the United Kingdom and by standard region, including Greater London, the number of households and the proportion of all households claiming unemployment benefit for each year since 1989.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is individuals who claim unemployment benefits. Estimates from the Labour Force Survey of the number and proportion of households where the head of household or their spouse is claiming unemployment related benefits are given in the table, for each spring since 1989. Those claiming unemployment-related benefits consist of those claiming unemployment benefit, income support on account of being unemployed, or national insurance credits.

  Retail Staff (Violence)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive guidance on violence to staff in the retail sector will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The expected date of publication is June 1994. This date is dependent on the result of an external consultation exercise which is shortly to be undertaken.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the reasons for the Health and Safety Executive's failure to produce guidance on risk assessment and other publications on electricity at work in hotels, violence to staff in the retail sector and the cost to the British economy of work accidents and work-related ill health.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The Health and Safety Executive has produced

  267
  considerable guidance on the principles and practice of risk assessment. General guidance on testing of portable electrical equipment has been available for some time and specific guidance for the hotel industry is due to be published shortly. Guidance on violence to staff in the retail sector is due to be published in June and a detailed report on "The Costs to the British Economy of Work Accidents and Work Related Ill-health" will be published in February 1994.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated total cost to the Health and Safety Executive of the review of health and safety regulations being conducted by the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: Estimates of the total cost could only be provided at disproportionate cost, but the costs are being met from within the Health and Safety Executive's overall resources within the context of the Health and Safety Commission's role in rationalising and modernising health and safety legislation.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many letters have been received from businesses complaining about the cost of complying with health and safety legislation, in response to the open invitation issued by the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission on 28 October.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: The Health and Safety Commission has issued an open invitation, primarily through the trade press, for evidence on both the benefits and costs of health and safety regulations to be submitted by the end of January 1994. The Commission had by 11 January 1994, received 70 contacts from businesses. Businesses and other organisations are also playing an active role in the review of regulation by taking part in case studies and surveys.

  Workstart
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of how positive outcomes under the workstart pilot schemes compare with those achieved by TECs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Evaluation of the workstart pilot schemes is continuing. It is however already clear that those pilots run by training and enterprise councils need to work closely with the local employment service to maximise positive outcomes under workstart.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to begin a survey of the ethnic origins of members of the reserve forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no firm plans, at present, to survey the ethnic origins of members of the reserve forces. In the light of experience gained from the present survey of members of the regular forces, the possibility of extending ethnic monitoring to members of the volunteer reserve forces will be considered.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints of racial discrimination have been made by armed services personnel in respect of service in the armed forces in each year since 1976; and how many of those complaints were upheld.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information about complaints of racial discrimination by Army and Royal Air Force personnel is available from central records only from 1988 and is given in the table. Complaints of racial discrimination by naval personnel are not recorded centrally at present, but the Royal Navy plans to introduce a recording system early this year.

  Complaints made

  Complaints substantiated

  1988

  4

  1

  1989

  4

  1

  1990

  3

  0

  1991

  3

  0

  1992

  8

  2

  11993

  27

  1

  1 1 January 1993 to 20 December 1993.

  2 2 Four complaints remain under investigation.

  Equipment Contracts
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take to cancel contracts with Gebrǘder Junghans of Germany, AS Raufoss of Norway and Fratelli Borletti of Italy, following the evidence given at the trial of Mr. Gordon Foxley.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 24 November 1993]: As I announced on 23 November at column 309–10, no new contracts will be placed with the companies implicated in the Foxley case until all the facts have been investigated. The scope for recovering money paid by the firms to Foxley is also under investigation. We do not propose to terminate the small number of existing contracts with the companies, which were all placed some years after Foxley's retirement from the Ministry of Defence.

  Orders
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of orders placed by his Department in the last 10 years with(a) the firm Fratelli Borletti, (b) the firm Gebrǘder Junghans and (c) the firm AS Raufoss; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 26 November 1993]: The value of orders placed by MOD in the last 10 years with the companies concerned is:

  £ million

  Fratelli Borletti

  2.1

  Gebrǘder Junghans

  16.7

  AS Raufoss

  15.0

  Total

  33.8

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Support
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the EC plans to spend in the current financial year on its agricultural policy; and by what percentage this has changed over the past five and 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  The 1994 budget for the common agricultural policy (EAGGF guarantee) has been set at 36,465 mecu (£27,703 million), some 53 per cent. of the EC budget as a whole. This represents increases of 41 per cent. and 99 per cent. over expenditure in 1989 and 1984, respectively. As a proportion of total EC expenditure in 1989 and 1984, the CAP (EAGGF guarantee) represented 63 per cent. and 67 per cent. respectively.

  Allergic Reactions
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the operation of the regulations for the labelling of food products containing peanuts and other foodstuffs known to be capable of causing fatal allergic reactions.

  Mr. Soames
  I am, of course, aware of the tragic circumstances that lie behind my hon. Friend's question and would like to express my sympathies to the family concerned in his constituency and to all other families who have suffered accidents of a similar nature.

  People who are affected by allergies or are intolerant to certain foods know what to avoid and generally do so successfully. In this, the food labelling rules help them since pre-packed foodstuffs have to carry a list of ingredients on the label which they can consult. But for very real practical reasons the detailed labelling rules do not apply in catering outlets. A simple tightening of the application of the labelling rules is therefore not the real solution to this problem and we must seek other answers.

  I have therefore today written to the chairmen of the principal trade associations involved in the manufacture and retailing of foodstuffs containing nuts, including the caterers, to ask them to meet urgently with my officials to discuss practical ways of ensuring that all involved are aware of the significance for some consumers of the use of nut ingredients in products and to establish a system whereby information about the use of such ingredients flows down the food chain so that it cyan be made available to consumers especially at catering outlets..

  I will keep my hon. Friend in touch with the progress and results of these discussions.

  Days at Sea
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for a new decommissioning scheme following the judicial decision in respect of the days at sea restrictions.

  Mr. Jack
  I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply that I gave on 14 December at column 596 to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South- East (Mr. Hicks). As I explained then, decommissioning formed part of a package of fisheries conservation measures upon which, following our decision to suspend implementation of
  270
  controls on days at sea, we are having to review the way forward. I am not yet able to announce the outcome of the review.

  Sheep Dips
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on the health risks of organophosphate sheep dips.

  Mr. Soames
  I have received a number of representations on this subject. On 1 December my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the steps that would be taken by the Government, following recommendations from the veterinary products committee.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to announce her decision on organophosphate sheep dips.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 1 December the Government response to advice from the veterinary products committee on the use of organophosphate sheep dips. This reponse identified a number of recommendations from the committee which would be followed up. Further announcements will be made in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Witnesses
  Brandreth
  4. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the intimidation of witnesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received a number of representations on this issue. I am determined that witnesses should be properly protected. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will add to the remedies provided in the existing law by creating a new offence of witness intimidation with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with police organisations and police authorities the present policies and arrangements in regard to the work of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and I have accepted the proposal of the recent study on administrative burdens on the police that a joint performance management mechanism should be established to monitor the performance of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, so far as they are related. Discussions have recently taken place on how best to implement the proposal. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service will participate in this work.

  Illegal Drugs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department is undertaking to ascertain the link between illegal drug use and crime.
  271
  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is currently examining the results of a number of recent studies. These include the 1992 British Crime Survey which contained questions on drug misuse and a separate study of the lifestyles and economic behaviour of drug misusers. Further research on drug misuse and crime is planned for later this year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made by the Metropolitan police in the war against drugs.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Metropolitan police give a very high priority to the fight against drugs and it has had a number of notable operational successes. For example, operaton Welwyn in the King's Cross area and operation Tean, in the Stoke Newington area, specifically targeted at some of the worst affected areas of London, have resulted in the arrest of more than 300 drug dealers to date.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from magistrates on his proposed changes to the criminal justice system.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no formal representations from the Magistrates Association following the announcement that he made on 6 October, but some magistrates have written to me as individuals indicating their support for that package or particular elements in it.

  Jury-nobbling
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plan to deal with jury-nobbling.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on wheel clamping on private land.

  Mr. Maclean
  In considering what, if any, action it may be appropriate to take our aim is to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheelclamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures being taken to control genuine parking problems.

  Police
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the changes in police establishment levels since April 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is contained in the replies given to questions from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 24 November 1993 at cols.54–56 and from the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 16 December 1993 at col. 788.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. Ottoway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his response to the Sheehy report on police pay and responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given at column 152 on 25 November to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

  Car Thefts
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of car thefts recorded(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1979 there were 309,245 recorded thefts of motor vehicles in England and Wales.

  In the latest 12-month period for which figures are available—July 1992 to June 1993—the number of thefts was 614,560.

  Bail (Crime)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deal with those who commit crimes while on bail.

  Mr. Maclean
  In last year's Criminal Justice Act we required the courts to consider the fact that an offence had been committed on bail as an aggravating factor when passing sentence. The current Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains a range of measures to reduce the risk that such offences will be committed, including the removal of the presumption in favour of bail in all cases where a person is charged with an offence triable on indictment which was allegedly committed on bail.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of Government policy in relation to juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Maclean
  The legislation necessary to implement our policies for juvenile offenders is before the House in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Political Parties (Funding)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he is considering for changes in the law concerning the funding of political parties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such proposals.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to lay an order concerning the Attorney-General's right of appeal against lenient sentences.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) earlier today.

  Young Criminals
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the custodial arrangements for children under the age of 12 years who are convicted of murder or other criminal offences.

  Mr. Maclean
  Children under the age of 12 who have been convicted of murder are subject to the mandatory sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Children of this age convicted of manslaughter may also be detained under section 53. My right hon. and learned Friend, who has responsibility for the placement of all children detained under section 53, makes the decision about where such children should be placed. In practice, children of this age are invariably held in secure establishments within the child care system.

  Justice and Home Affairs Co-operation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, by what means and to whom he has made proposals for future parliamentary oversights of matters discussed at an inter-governmental level arising from title VI and articles K.1 to 9 of the treaty on European Union; and if he will publish them as a Command document.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's proposals for parliamentary oversight of work carried out under title VI of the treaty on European union are set out in memoranda in similar terms submitted to the Home Affairs Committee and to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities in February and March 1993 respectively. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) gave oral evidence on this subject to the Home Affairs Committee on 21 April 1993, and I gave oral evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities on 15 June 1993. The memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee was placed in the Library of the House by the Committee on receipt. The House of Lords Committee has now published its report and the memorandum which I submitted to it.

  Life Sentences
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been released for each year since 1969 after serving sentences of life imprisonment for murder; and how many have reoffended.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is drawn from the offenders index and is shown in the following table.

  Table: Persons first released on life Licence1 after a conviction of murder, 1972–1991, and the number of these who have been reconvicted of a 'standard list'2 offence by the end of 1991

  Year

  Number of persons first released

  Number of those released who were reconvicted by end 1991

  Total 1972–91

  1,068

  229

  1972

  23

  7

  1973

  25

  10

  1974

  34

  6

  1975

  37

  14

  1976

  59

  21

  274

  Year

  Number of persons first released

  Number of those released who were reconvicted by end 1991

  1977

  50

  16

  1978

  73

  20

  1979

  64

  21

  1980

  31

  11

  1981

  60

  16

  1982

  82

  26

  1983

  86

  17

  1984

  54

  10

  1985

  54

  11

  1986

  40

  5

  1987

  48

  8

  1988

  57

  4

  1989

  71

  6

  1990

  64

  —

  1991

  56

  —

  1 More information is published annually in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin, the most recent being HOSB 3/93, Life Licensees and restricted offenders reconvictions: England and Wales 1990.

  2 Mainly indictable offences but includes some summary offences such as assault on a constable and cruelty to or neglect of children.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder have themselves been murdered either in prison or after release since 1969.

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

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Dr. Robert Spink, dated 13 January 1994:

  INMATES SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT WHO HAVE THEMSELVES BEEN MURDERED

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about which persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder have themselves been murdered either in prison or after release since 1969.

  The information available from centrally held records relates only to deaths in custody from 1988 to date. One such death in 1993 was found at the coroner's court to be an unlawful killing and is still under investigation. There were no others during the period 1988 to 1992.

  Prisoner Escorts
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) prisoner officers will be freed from escort duties in the Metropolitan police district as a result of the service being contracted out to Securicor Custodial Services Ltd.; and how the time of the officers so released will be used.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Approximately 335 full-time equivalent prisoner officer posts are engaged on court escort and custody duties in the Metropolitan police district. The phased loss of a total of 250 prison officer posts is planned during the first year of the court escort and custody service in the Metropolitan police district. These posts will be those currently employed on court or escort duties at the prison establishments affected. The aim is that posts will be lost through natural wastage and transfer and that there will be no redundancies.

  The remaining 85 posts will be retained at London prisons where they should enable regime improvements to

  275
  take place. The Metropolitan police will similarly have a phased reduction in staffing of 271 police officer posts and 47 civilian staff posts by 1996–97. It is for the Metropolitan police to decide on the use of the time of its officers freed from this responsibility.

  Deported Jamaicans
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a full inquiry into the events surrounding the detention of passengers from Kingston, Jamaica, at Gatwick airport on 21 December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No, but I have written to the hon. Member and placed a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the means of redress available for those refused temporary entry as visitors, following the abolition of the right of appeal against visitor's refusals in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A passenger who holds a current entry clearance at the time of refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor has a right of appeal before removal. It is open to a passenger without such an entry clearance to seek judicial review of the decision to refuse him leave to enter.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my prerogative in so far as it relates to the succession of peerages, should not stand in the way of consideration by Parliament, during the present Session, of any measure that may be introduced providing for an amendment of the law relating to hereditary peerages".

Nuclear Generation: Policy Review
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs asked Her Majesty's Government:
How their promised review of nuclear generation policy will be carried out and when the detailed conclusions of the review will be made known to Parliament.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have received a considerable number of representations both on the areas which the nuclear review should cover and on the way it should be conducted. The Government are carefully considering those representations as part of their preparatory work on the review and will announce the terms of reference as soon as possible.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that the importance of the topic in economic and environmental terms, coupled with the strong feelings that the subject always arouses, point to the need for an authoritative and open inquiry designed to secure the widest possible acceptance?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. That is why it has taken so long to come to a conclusion on the terms of reference.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in view of the fact that the question of the development of THORP is likely to form part of the review that the Government will be holding—and certainly representations on the subject are likely to come before them—would it not be possible, even at this late stage, to defer putting THORP into operation until after the review has taken place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it would be nice if I could answer the noble Lord in a positive way; but, of course, I cannot do so because the terms of reference have not yet been decided.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, will my noble friend remind his colleagues when they are coming to a
226
conclusion on the matter that the nuclear industry now rivals the oil industry as a job provider in the country and that, at present, there are in the region of 50,000 people employed either directly or indirectly in the nuclear industry? Will he further remind them that approval in due course of Sizewell C would provide a further 20,000 jobs?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is precisely because of the importance of the nuclear industry that the Government are receiving representations from so many people on how the terms of reference should be set up.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are really no other alternatives in the immediate future for providing the energy that we need, except by way of nuclear power, and that whatever people may say it is the cleanest way of doing so?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no doubt those will be the kind of questions that the review will be able to answer.
The Earl of Haisbury: My Lords, can the Minister say who will be eligible to give evidence to the committee? For example, would I as a party to the building of nuclear power stations be eligible to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at present many letters have been received by my department from MPs, various organisations, private companies, public concerns, environmentalists and individuals. Of course, there would be nothing wrong in the noble Earl being part of those representations.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the damage being caused to the nuclear industry—that is, to both generators and constructors—by the long delay? Further, will he do all he can to expedite the completion of the review and its publication?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords; everyone would like the terms of reference to be decided upon as soon as possible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am not quite clear as to why the review is taking place. Will it be affected in any way by the court decision today—won, I think, by Greenpeace and the Cheshire County Council—which insists that there should be a public inquiry before the THORP plant opens?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that review is an entirely different review and is not connected with this Question.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the review, whenever it takes place, will look at the use to which the £1.35 billion, received by Nuclear Electric through the nuclear levy paid by every electricity consumer, has been put? Is he aware that that money, which was intended to be used for inherited liabilities such as decommissioning. reprocessing and waste disposal, is instead used by Nuclear Electric to subsidise current operations and to compete unfairly against other fuels?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall make sure that the representations which the noble Lord has just made are fed into the review process.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether the terms of reference will be sufficiently widely drawn for a broad review of energy policy to take place, in particular with regard to the electricity industry because that is linked with the nuclear industry? Will he bear in mind that I understand that there is a possibility that the electricity industry may be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Would it not be extremely difficult if two similar reviews were to take place at the same time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is because of the delicate balancing nature of such questions that the Government are taking their time in deciding what should be the terms of reference.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the nuclear power industry has at its foundation the production of material for nuclear weapons, and bearing in mind also the stated objective of the two largest nuclear powers in the world to abolish and get rid of nuclear weapons by the end of the century, will the Government take those factors into account in their review?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I repeat that the terms of reference are still to be decided. Yet again, that is one of the representations that I shall feed into the process.

Transport Research: Contracts
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many contracts for transport research they have let out to bodies outside the Department of Transport's Transport Research Laboratory, and what are the names of the bodies concerned and the fees charged in each case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Department of Transport has let 84 contracts for transport research to bodies outside the Transport Research Laboratory since the current system for managing research was introduced in April 1992. The contracted bodies include consultants, research and higher educational institutions, and other government departments. Details of the contracts requested are being provided in writing to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: My Lords, I apologise to the House for addressing it through a heavy. cold which has suddenly descended upon me, but the matter which I wish to raise is urgent. I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he tell the House who, under the Government's proposals for privatising the Transport Research Laboratory, will be responsible for interpreting, assessing and monitoring the flood of those individual contracts which will come in, because they
228
cannot just descend higgledy-piggledy on the Minister's desk? Will he also tell us who will fund the long-term, high-quality research which the TRL does and which produces much greater economic benefits for the country than short-term profit-making contracts?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the same person or institution will fund long-term research in the future as it does today; namely, the Department of Transport. As it did in the past, it will do in the future; that is, it will assess the strength of the research projects. There is a great deal of difference between having the projects of only one person to assess and having a number of competing people who are putting forward different tenders for the work that one wishes them to undertake.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while I yield to nobody in my admiration for the Transport Research Laboratory and the quality of its work and should like it to continue into the indefinite future, is it not the case that over the country there is an extremely wide number of schemes for road improvements and the like in which contracts for applied research are absolutely essential if their value as accident prevention or traffic promotion programmes are to be assessed? Is there not room in that field both for the excellent work of the Transport Research Laboratory and for an extremely wide number of research projects?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. There is room in this field for a wide range of research institutions, including the one which we are discussing, higher education institutions and so on. In fact, they have always been used to some extent, either directly by the department or indirectly by the TRL. Therefore, I agree with my noble and learned friend. I believe that we shall improve the service that the department—and, therefore, the taxpayer—receives by having competition in this field.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that he would send a letter to my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn. Will he place a copy of that list in the Library so that noble Lords can see it? Does the Minister accept, as my noble friend said, that it is not sufficient merely to have the research? It is the interpretation of that research which is extremely important. Many other countries, including the United States, are extremely envious of the impartiality of the TRL. Could we not have at least the three years promised by the Secretary of State in which the laboratory would run as an agency to see how the other bodies which are to carry out research blend in with it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that of course I intend to place a copy of the list in the Library so that other noble Lords can read it.
To refer to his other points, as I said yesterday, I do not believe that, just because a body is in the public sector, that necessarily makes it entirely objective. Conversely, because a body is in the private sector that

229
does not mean that it is not objective. Consultancies of all kinds can be found in every part of the private sector and they give the kind of service that their customer demands, otherwise the customer will go to another supplier.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is there not something to be said for continuing the integrated research which has taken place at the research laboratory over a long period of time with a great deal of success? Is there not a danger that, with the fragmentation of the research effort, the research laboratory will not be as effective in the future as it has been in the past?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, we do not believe that to be the case. However, it is one of the matters to which we have asked the consultants to address themselves and, as I explained yesterday, we are currently studying what they have to say. We asked them to make sure that in their report they covered the question of the future needs of the department for research and development facilities.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister say on what date the consultants' report will be available to this House?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said yesterday, the Government are currently considering the consultants' report. When we have finished that procedure we will, as we promised, make the report available—and I made the qualification yesterday that this would be without any commercial-in-confidence material which it may contain—first to the trade unions, with whom we will then hold discussions about what we propose.

Financial Institutions: Commission Disclosure
3.21 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to require insurance companies and other financial institutions selling pension and life insurance policies to declare the commission and other initial set-up costs to the investor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, following a report by the Director General of Fair Trading, the Treasury required the Securities and Investments Board last July to bring forward proposals, for the disclosure of commission and, where commission is not payable, equivalent charges. Draft new rules on the disclosure of commission and other matters, including disclosure of the effect of total charges and expenses, were sent to the Chancellor before Christmas. The Government welcome SIB's prompt and thorough response and are studying the draft rules carefully.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Can he say whether the Government broadly support the proposal put forward by the SIB in its consultative paper? In particular, will the Government support the proposal made in paragraph 4 that investor protection must come first in any new arrangements that are made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give my noble friend the assurance that the Government do broadly support the proposals from SIB. That is why we asked SIB to bring forward its report on the four aspects that we had some queries about last summer. Obviously, there are matters of detail that we would like to consider; and we shall come back to the issue when we have considered those particular matters of detail.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's first response to the Question, which was a very good answer and will be welcomed by many people. What is the position if the investor, despite what the Minister said, is denied the information outlined in the Question? Can he indicate what an investor may be able to do in those circumstances?
Lord Henley: My Lords, after the new rules come into effect, which should be in July this year, with various transitional arrangements taking effect in January of next year, it will be a matter for the investor to go to the appropriate self-regulatory body to seek redress.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, do the new rules envisage that these policies would be avoidable at the option of the investor unless the commission and set-up costs are truly declared? Is that the concept of the rules?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure quite what point my noble friend is making. Our concern was that some of the existing rules could be significantly anti-competitive and could not be justified by the need for consumer protection. That is why we directed the Securities and Investments Board to bring forward specific proposals on these issues and in particular to provide appropriate consumer protection.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is possible for the Government to take action on the scandalous situation in which many people were persuaded by false promises to desert their occupational pension schemes and to join some bogus, scheme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another matter that the Securities and Investments Board will be looking at in due course. It is important to put this matter into perspective. Something of the order of 5 million personal pensions have been taken out. We believe that that is an enormous success. However, it is possible that half a million people could be affected. The next steps are very much for the Securities and Investments Board, with the life industry, to investigate those transfers very thoroughly, define the standards for sales and devise remedies. They have been asked to do that by July. It will then be up to them to do any further work that is

231
necessary on cases involving contracting out of SERPS, though here SIB has no evidence of systematic compliance problems.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the programme he has just described as a success has resulted in 3 million people out of that 5 million ending up with pension entitlements which have deteriorated as a result of their following the Government's advice? Is it not clear that the high commission and start-up costs associated with private pension plans are one of the reasons why 3 million out of those 5 million people, according to the Department of Social Security, have made such losses?
Are the Government aware that the efficient operation of a competitive market requires the widest dissemination of accurate and comprehensive information? Will the Government now establish an independent body to advise the public in advance of their taking out policies of the true costs and true security of public and private pension plans? To follow on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have to compensate those 3 million current and future pensioners who have suffered serious losses as a result of the Government's policies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Lord has said. The Government's personal pensions policy has been a striking success. As I said, some 5 million people, mainly young and mainly without access to employers' occupational schemes, took out those personal pensions. As a result they are now taking an active interest in their pensions arrangements, which they were probably not doing previously. We shall continue to promote an active pensions market in which people have choice between personal pensions and occupational pensions, whether final salary or money purchase schemes. We shall continue to offer what advice is necessary to all those in the pensions world, as the Department of Social Security does at the moment; and we shall continue to promote that successful story.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, are the Government in a position to say whether the proposals currently under consideration require primary legislation or secondary legislation? If the changes under consideration require primary legislation, will the Government undertake to further it in the next Session's programme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give my noble and learned friend the assurance that no legislation, whether primary or secondary, will be necessary.
Lord Desai: My Lords, are the Government happy that the Personal Investment Authority seems to be suffering from the withdrawal of co-operation by insurance companies? Will the Government, either through the Securities and Investments Board or independently, do something to make sure that self-regulation is not sabotaged by the behaviour of insurance companies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there has in fact been one resignation from the Personal Investment Authority. That is obviously a matter for regret. Membership of the PIA is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, it is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board's judgment as to whether the public interest will be adequately represented when recognition of the PIA is sought in due course from the SIB.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, will my noble friend take the point of my noble and learned friend who sits in front of me a little further? If there is to be no legislation, what sanction will there be in the event of a policy being issued contrary to the rules which have been set up? Will it be valid? How could such action be punished? How could it be avoided? How could rights be given under such a policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would be a matter for the SIB to set up the new rules under its delegated powers under the 1986 Act. It will then be a matter for those who feel that they have suffered as a result to go to the appropriate self-regulatory organisations to seek the appropriate redress.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I am totally sympathetic to the openness which the Question seeks. Has anyone offered the Minister a method whereby an insurance company, or an insurance company's agent, can adequately calculate the initial set up cost of a single policy in a manner that is equitable? If such a method has been devised—I very much doubt it—does it make any sense to put the expense for the insurance company against the income stream of an insurance broker? Are we not in danger of good intentions producing rather poor results?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I very much hope not. What we seek is openness so that the personal investor can see exactly what he is buying, make comparisons in the open market and make a fair decision as to which is the appropriate policy, should there be one, that he wishes to buy.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that had the arrangements now proposed by the SIB been in force, the problem that arose recently over the transfer of pensions would have been minimised?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think my noble friend is correct. I repeat what I said earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. The figure is only half a million out of a total of some 5 million people who we believe are affected. As I said, the next steps are a matter for the SIB.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, following the noble Viscount's question, does the Minister further agree that had the amendments proposed by the Opposition to the Financial Services Bill been accepted by government, they would have provided the protection that is now proposed, and this problem would not have arisen?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was trying to put the point in perspective. It is possible that some half a million people have been affected out of a total of some 5 million people who have taken out personal pensions. I know that the noble Lord resents that. However, some 5 million people have taken out personal pensions to their own advantage and benefit.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that without the sanction of enforcement there is no appropriate or adequate safeguard? As my noble and learned friend asked, this surely must be a matter of legislation. Without legislation, there is no protection. With respect, on the face of them, the proposals that he advances appear to be manifestly unsatisfactory.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept what my noble friend says. What he is implying is that self-regulation does not work. I should have thought that what I have said in my Answer, what has happened as a result of the Office of Fair Trading report and what the SIB has done have shown just that: that self-regulation does and will work.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, although the DSS figures are higher, will the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to compensate the 500,000 people, on his own admission, for following the Government's advice and losing their significant pension rights?
Lord Henley: My Lords, where non-compliance with regulations has damaged individual investors, those responsible will take remedial action.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in the light of that statement by the Chief Whip, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that the Statement was placed in the hands of the Opposition at precisely 3.31 p.m. To give the Opposition any opportunity to speak to Statements of this kind we must have better notice. Will the Leader of the House please take up with the department the reasons why the Statement was delayed in its transmission to your Lordships' House?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I am sure that everyone did the best they could. However, I take the point that the noble Lord makes. I shall look into the matter and seek to ensure that it does not occur again.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Statement deal with the problems of the Westminster City Council?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord had better wait for the Statement.

Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Billl 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 Campbell of Croy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Intelligence Services Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Secret Intelligence Service]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert:
("where it is substantially").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the activities of the Intelligence Service are more accurately targeted. The amendment ensures that those activities are focused on the substantial economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
The work and function of all three secret services should be clearly defined and properly focused to avoid abuse and to ensure that the services are both efficient and effective. Clause 1(1) allows a wide remit for the Secret Intelligence Service. It is therefore necessary to ensure that subsection (2) is properly focused. In its current formulation, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) allows the service to act in some cases using means which are otherwise unlawful even when there is the possibility of only minimal impact on the wellbeing of this country. I refer, for instance, to allowing interference in another sovereign territory in order to seek a perhaps not significant order for a UK company. As drafted the clause allows the service to disrupt the activities of a pressure group in another country wishing perhaps to impose sanctions or conditions on trade. Groups in the United States wishing to impose the MacBride principles of equal opportunities for Catholics in employment in Northern Ireland come to mind.
The amendment ensures a proper prioritisation in the use of scarce resources so that relatively trivial economic benefits are not pursued using heavy-handed covert methods. The amendment prevents possible abuse. I beg to move.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: The amendment weakens the Bill and narrows it to an unacceptable

235
degree. International intelligence, like international crime, is a seamless robe. It will almost inevitably have a beneficial effect on the country if our intelligence activities abroad can deter, for instance, the Russian mafia or indeed our old friend the original mafia from pursuing their operations. It is never possible to say in intelligence as in politics that events in a far-off country have nothing to do with us. In such fields as international terrorism or smuggling, there is bound to be a knock-on effect.
I feel strongly that in order to exclude instances of the kind the noble Baroness cited we risk making it impossible to do the really important things. And, believe me, they are important. We can be sure, with the requirements put on it by the JIC and Ministers, that the service has enough on its plate not to pursue trivial matters.
Lord Bridges: The last words of the sentence in the Bill to which the amendment relates are "United Kingdom". I wish to return to a matter I raised at Second Reading. The words "British Islands" in Clause 1(1) (a) are widely understood in Ireland, both north and south, as excluding them. The point was carefully dealt with by the noble and learned Lord when he replied to the Second Reading debate. He said that the correct definition of the phrase the "British Islands" is to be found in the 1978 Interpretation Act which defines the phrase as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The noble and learned Lord's final words were:
"anyone who wishes to enlighten someone who has questions about that matter can do so with confidence".—[Official Report, 9/12/93; col. 1074.]
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. I was trying to make the rather broader point that anyone who reads this Bill after it has been passed should understand where the Secret Intelligence Service operates. At present, because the phrase is not defined in the Bill and the reference to the 1978 Act is not inserted, it could be widely misunderstood in Ireland. Perhaps I should be rather more specific than I was at Second Reading. The present wording of the Bill, to someone having perhaps doubtful intentions towards Her Majesty's Government, could make it appear that the Secret Intelligence Service was operating in Northern Ireland. We have only to study the recent statements of certain persons like the president of Sinn Fein for example to see how likely it is that an Act passed by Parliament, with the best of intentions, could be misinterpreted by people and cause considerable political misunderstanding between the British and the Irish.
I had thought of putting down an amendment but it seems to be a matter which the Government are perfectly capable of dealing with at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. I therefore renew my request to the Government to look again at the matter which is small in itself but which carries the risk of a political misunderstanding that I believe to be real. That misunderstanding could easily be avoided by the insertion of an appropriate phrase, preferably a definition requiring only a line of print.
236
The noble and learned Lord made the point that the purpose of the Interpretation Act is to save a line of print and to give greater legal clarity. Those are admirable objectives. But we must not lose sight of the other broader problems to which I referred.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Before I come to the amendment, perhaps I should say a word about what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said. The way in which Acts of Parliament are drafted is a matter of judgment, but where we have the benefit of a general Interpretation Act, defining a particular phrase, there is much to be said, for the purposes of consistency, for using the phrases as they are defined.
I understand the noble Lord to say that people who wish to mislead may seek to suggest that the phrase "the British Islands" in the Bill has a different meaning from the one it has in the Interpretation Act. As I said at the end of the Second Reading debate, I think it would be possible to correct that, if such a suggestion were made, by reference to the Interpretation Act. However, I understand the point which the noble Lord makes and although it is not directly related to the amendment, I have noted it.
As the noble Baroness explained, the amendment is intended to limit the scope of the purposes for which the Secret Intelligence Service may exercise its functions with regard to the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Again, there is something to be said for consistency in these matters. I remind your Lordships that the reference to economic well-being also appears in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Service Act 1989 and met with the approval of this House in both cases. The wording is carefully drafted to reflect the language of the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention recognises the interests of economic well-being without further qualification as a proper reason for interference with an individual's private and family life, home and correspondence.
The noble Baroness is anxious to prevent trivial matters engaging the attention of the service. I suggest that the Bill contains safeguards. It provides many safeguards in respect of the activities of agencies: an independent commissioner, a tribunal to consider complaints, and an oversight committee of parliamentarians. As my noble friend, who has great experience of these matters, said, it would not be wise to limit unnecessarily the proper activities of the agencies beyond those safeguards and the functions laid out in the Bill, particularly by introducing the subjective wording proposed in the amendment. There is no question of the agencies operating without certain restraints but care must be exercised so as not to impose needless fetters which would prevent their operating effectively when that is clearly in the United Kingdom's interests. Of course, as my noble friend said, it may not always be possible to say what extent of damage is in question at a particular time.
The phrase put forward in the Bill is fairly clearly precedented in subject matter closely akin to that before

237
us. I venture to suggest to the noble Baroness that she may decide, in the light of that explanation, not to press the amendment.
Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may pursue the matter for a moment longer. The noble and learned Lord kindly said that he had noted the point I made. Would he be so kind as to go further than that? Would it be possible for him to consult some of his right honourable friends who are responsible for our policy towards Ireland, such as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and possibly also the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, to see whether they think the point has any merit and whether a small amendment might be introduced by Her Majesty's Government at a later stage in the passage of the Bill? If the noble and learned Lord could kindly go so far as that, I think that it might save us a great deal of trouble later on.
The Lord Chancellor: Of course, I am in the business of doing my best to save us trouble, and anything I can do to save your Lordships trouble I am certainly willingly do.
Baroness Blackstone: I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, had to say. She claimed that the Secret Intelligence Service never pursued trivial matters. If that is the case, then I cannot see why she should oppose the amendment, which refers to the economic well-being of the UK and to matters which are substantially in our own interests. If the amendment were put on the face of the Bill, it would not affect the service's work, if it never pursues trivial matters anyway. I understand what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says about the desirability of consistency with other legislation. However, I venture to suggest that perhaps it would be desirable if the other legislation were also amended in order to provide those safeguards.
The noble and learned Lord also claimed that the whole Bill is to provide safeguards. I must repeat what I said. It seems to me that Clause 1, on the functions of the Secret Intelligence Service, is very widely drawn. The purpose of the amendment is simply to focus more on what its functions ought to be. I have no wish to provide needless fetters, but I do not believe that what I propose would be needless fetters, particularly in the light of what the noble Baroness said.
I shall take the amendment away, reconsider it and perhaps come back at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("serious").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 7. As in the case of Amendment No. 1, these amendments are designed to ensure that the activities of the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ are rather more accurately targeted. The amendments would ensure that activities directed at the prevention and detection of crime are restricted to the protection of the United Kingdom from threats which would have a serious effect on law and order.
To repeat what I said earlier, the work and function of all three secret services should be clearly defined and narrowly focused to avoid abuse and to ensure that the services are both efficient and effective. Clauses 1(1) and 3(1) allow a very wide remit for the Intelligence Service and GCHQ. It is therefore necessary to ensure that subsection (2) of both Clause 1 and Clause 3 is properly focused. In paragraph (c) of each subsection the current formulation would allow the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ to act in some cases by the use of means which are otherwise unlawful merely on the basis of having some possibly minimal effect on the wellbeing of this country; for instance, allowing interference in another sovereign territory in the detection or prevention of serious crime, but crime which has no relevance to the United Kingdom.
Paragraph (c) of the subsections gives specific consent to interfere in other sovereign states in order to deal with serious crime. The Bill does not require the consent of that sovereign state before that assistance is given. That power to intervene is not restricted to criminal activities which would affect the United Kingdom, but, as the Bill is currently drafted, includes crimes which are completely unrelated to the interests of the UK. Furthermore, the definition of serious crime provides insufficient protection. Serious crime is nowhere defined in this Bill. The nearest equivalent definition might be that of a "serious arrestable offence", as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That definition is very wide and could include the loss of a small amount of money to someone who was poor, or serious injury to only one person.
Like the previous amendment, the amendments are designed to ensure proper prioritisation of scarce resources, as well as to prevent possible abuse. I must remind noble Lords that we are talking about some £900 million worth of public money, which is the aggregate spending on these services each year. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I listened very carefully to the first debate today because I was anxious to see how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would expound the Government's thinking on this matter. I must say that I am left with some anxieties. If we can go "back to basics", we find that in Clause 1 we are told the functions of the security services. They are set out generally in subsection (1)—and they are set out in very wide terms. Let us look at paragraph (b):
"to perform other tasks relating to the actions or intentions of such persons [persons outside the British Islands]".
That covers a very wide range of possible activity. It is so wide that quite clearly the Government have understood that some limitation has to be imposed on it. Perhaps it is not surprising that some of us would like to ensure that that limitation is not either too wide or too vague.
When one considers the proposal that the limitation is "anything outside serious crime", it becomes quite important to consider what might fall within the category of serious crime. Something depends—does it not?—on the context in which the expression is used. One could imagine the chairman of a bench of magistrates saying: "This illegal parking is becoming

239
serious". Is that a serious crime? My noble friend suggested that we might look to see what is the construction of the expression "serious arrestable offence" in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I would certainly not be in favour of people who commit serious arrestable offences going undetected. But we are deciding whether these are matters so serious that they should be pursued not by the police but by the security services. An indecent assault can in certain circumstances, if it becomes an act of gross indecency, be a serious arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. However anxious we might be to track down the perpetrators of gross indecencies, are we seriously suggesting that it should be part of the functions of the security services to track them down? If the intention of subsection (2) is that some limitation should be placed upon the very general words of subsection (1), one is left with a note of anxiety about the width of the words which are being used.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that there are other safeguards in the Act. If I have understood it correctly, I am not certain whether in any individual case there are safeguards which would go to the construction placed by the intelligence services upon their functions. The first and obvious safeguard is that in certain circumstances people who will carry out certain activities require a warrant from the Home Secretary. But unless what they propose to do entails interference with property or wireless telegraphy within the country, or will take place outside the country, they do not require a warrant. I do not wish to anticipate future debate, but that safeguard does not seem to meet the case which we are now considering.
The other safeguard is the existence of the tribunal. However, as I understand it, the tribunal can consider only whether the services have reasonable grounds for carrying out a particular activity. That again does not seem to address their construction of their functions. It may be said that if one cannot challenge their construction of their functions, then it does not matter what goes into subsection (2), because they can do virtually as they like. But I hope that all of us give them credit for trying, so far as they can, to remain within their statutory functions as defined here, and for acting in good faith. If they are to address those limitations on their functions, then they ought to have guidance which is reasonably precise and which is reasonably narrow. For those reasons I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider the points made by my noble friend.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: It is helpful that, although serious crime is not defined in the Bill, there is a definition of serious crime in Section 10(3) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the same definition would apply to the Bill, although it is not incorporated. There the definition is any crime which:
"involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; or … the offence … [is one] for which a person … of
240
twenty-one and has no previous convictions could … be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
The Lord Chancellor: First, subsection (1) of Clause 1 sets up the authority and functions of the Secret Intelligence Service. The basic point is that, having directed attention under paragraph (a) to providing information, and so on, and under paragraph (b) to performing other tasks, it is under the authority of the Secretary of State. That is the primary responsibility and control of the activities of the service.
The purpose of subsection (2) is to specify or target more closely the way in which those functions may be used. I suggest that a general phrase such as "serious crime" is a good phrase to use in that connection. The subject matter to which my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick referred is close to that, but this function is more international in character than is the interception of communications. Therefore it is right that a general phrase should be used here without specific further definition.
The previous amendment sought to introduce the word "substantially". The word "serious" appears to me to have that kind of content which is sufficient to make it clear that the business of the service is not to deal with trivial matters but to deal with matters which would be regarded objectively as serious. Therefore, I suggest that it is a reasonable phrase to use in focusing the activities or functions of the service so far as crime is concerned.
The second branch of the amendment focuses on serious crime or serious effect on law and order in the United Kingdom. I can well understand that the noble Baroness wishes to prevent the Intelligence Service and, in respect of a later amendment GCHQ, from wasting resources in following up the concerns of other countries and their governments, but it is important to remember that these days crime is not a strictly national activity. Far from it, in many of its worst manifestations it is international in character. If one focuses too closely on effects in the United Kingdom, the result might well be to prevent the services from supporting foreign governments in, say, seeking to prevent traffic of illicit drugs outside the United Kingdom.
One could not be certain where such illicit drugs might land up. They might well be sold on the streets of London or some other city or town in the United Kingdom. But that might not be known at the stage at which it was desirable to disrupt the traffic in the foreign country. It might well be that if the formula were restricted in the way proposed on this aspect of the amendment, a very useful operation to prevent the drugs arriving in this country would be prevented because it could not be said with any degree of probability at the stage at which the disruption had to take place precisely where the drugs might eventually land up.
Therefore, I believe that it is not satisfactory that the agencies should be required to show as a matter of strict limitation of their function that an activity would have a serious effect in the United Kingdom before being able to act, although it is quite clear that the agency would not be interested simply in helping other countries with their concerns except in so far as there might be some consequence more generally for us.

241
This particular restriction might also have the effect of preventing the agencies from using information within their knowledge which, for example, might prevent a serious terrorist incident in another country. If, in the course of its work, the agency acquires information which points to something of a terrorist kind likely to happen in another country I should have thought it perfectly reasonable and to be expected that if the use of that information could prevent terrorism in that country the agency should be entitled to supply it to the country in question.
As I said, serious crime is increasingly conducted on an international level by transnational organisations. The Committee would not wish our agencies, given the opportunity, to be prevented from taking action against such organisations, even when they are not currently operating in the United Kingdom, although they might well do so at some later stage in their activities. That would be the effect of the second branch of the amendment proposed.
As I said, I believe that the term "serious crime" is sufficient in itself as a basis for focusing the functions of the Security Service. It was used without further definition in the 1989 Act and has served in that way. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that it is important that there should be reasonable focus as the foundation for the functions and objects of the service. But it is right, where the nature of the agencies' functions are as we have described, that the definition should be in fairly broad terms and that we should rely upon the agencies to operate those broad terms in a reasonable way. It is in that aspect that I referred to the other controls that exist on the activities of the agencies when I gave my answer to the first amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am slightly puzzled by the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the definition of "serious crime". He said that it is a good phrase. I do not dispute it. It is a perfectly reputable phrase. But it seems to me that it is not a terribly good phrase if it is left undefined in a Bill of this kind.
Contrary to what the noble and learned Lord said, "serious" seems to me to be a rather subjective word. It could mean anything, depending on who you are and your view of what constitutes serious crime. I was very grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in that connection.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, could tell the Committee why the definition in the 1985 Act—I believe that it was the Interception of Communications Act—should not be used in this Bill. I was puzzled by his comments on that. Surely it would be better if we were to have a clear definition on the face of the Bill. Perhaps he could answer that question before I come back to the second issue.
The Lord Chancellor: The mention of serious crime in this Bill refers to serious crime anywhere. The definition to which my noble and learned friend referred
242
was concerned with serious crime basically under the legal systems of the United Kingdom. It is more difficult to give a definition in any kind of technical terms which is intended to apply internationally.
Baroness Blackstone: I am afraid that I do not follow that argument. I cannot see why the definition should not apply to the activities of UK agencies, whether they operate in the UK or overseas.
Perhaps I could turn to the second issue on whether we ought to confine these activities to threats to the United Kingdom. It seems to me that we ought to do so. If I may say so, I felt that the example given by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, with respect to illicit drugs and the drugs trade was perhaps not a terribly good one. I entirely accept that crime is not a strictly national activity and crosses national boundaries. However, the illicit drug trade is always a potential threat to law and order in the United Kingdom. Therefore it is an area of criminal behaviour which would be covered even if the amendment were accepted.
The noble and learned Lord's second example related to the investigation of terrorism in a foreign country which had nothing to do with the United Kingdom. He suggested that if we came across evidence of such activity, we would clearly want to investigate it. I wonder whether or not that is so. Perhaps we would simply wish to inform the appropriate agencies in the other country. Do we want the secret intelligence agencies of other foreign powers to investigate terrorism in the UK? I am not sure that we do. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could answer those points.
The Lord Chancellor: In relation to the first matter, I was seeking to answer a question rather than to deploy an argument. My point was that the serious crime in question may not necessarily be a serious crime in the United Kingdom, though it may be in other countries. Therefore a definition under the legal systems of the United Kingdom would not be appropriate.
In relation to the second point, and in the light of the request of the noble Baroness, I should perhaps add that I said, for example, that if agencies had information which, if properly used, could prevent a serious terrorist incident in France, surely the noble Baroness would not wish to prevent the agencies making that information available to prevent the act of terrorism. If the amendment on that second branch is accepted, that would be its effect. Therefore, the amendment would be inconsistent with her wishes for the utility of the agency. It is not so much that the agency would be following up the matter as part of its own objectives; but it may possess information which would help to prevent a serious terrorist incident. Surely it would be right, in the interests of humanity, for that to be made available for the purposes of preventing such an incident happening.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall take the amendment away, read what the noble and learned Lord said and consider the matter further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Finance Act, 1982
4.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement in response to the question raised during Points of Order yesterday; namely, whether the Secretary of State has powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to direct the auditor to publish the information he has obtained in the course of his audit. This issue arises out of the provisional findings of the District Auditor in relation to allegations of misconduct at Westminster City Council. Those findings were set out in a statement issued by him earlier today.
"Madam Speaker, the District Auditor is, by statute, independent. He is appointed by the Audit Commission to carry out an external audit of a local authority's accounts. But, once appointed, he is not subject to direction by the Government or, except in certain limited circumstances, by the commission. He acts wholly independently. This is a most important democratic safeguard. His duties are laid down in statute and amplified in the Code of Audit Practice which is approved from time to time by this House.
"One of his duties is to consider objections made by electors against an authority's accounts. In the present case he received objections in relation to decisions taken by Westminster City Council during 1987 on its designated sales programme. It is alleged that decisions taken by the council and expenditure incurred in pursuing those decisions were unlawful. It is alleged in particular that the purpose of the council's policy was to retain political control of marginal wards.
"Madam Speaker, these are very grave allegations. It is right that they should be treated with the utmost seriousness. But the District Auditor has made it clear that his view on these allegations is provisional and that all the interested parties have an opportunity to challenge that view. If the allegations are proved then I shall have no hesitation in condemning the behaviour. Meantime, the rights of those accused must be protected. Nonetheless, Madam Speaker, I repeat that if the allegations of unlawful expenditure and wilful misconduct were ultimately upheld, I will condemn that behaviour—in this or indeed in any other case.
"Madam Speaker, the honourable Member for Blackburn asked yesterday that I should direct the auditor to publish the information gathered in his inquiries. My honourable friend the Minister for
244
Local Government and Planning promised that he would take this request away and take legal advice. He has since written to the honourable Member explaining that I have no powers to direct the auditor to do so. A copy of my honourable friend's letter is in the Library. I am happy to assure the House that when this case is complete I shall look again at the issues the honourable gentleman has raised to see whether there are any changes I would wish to recommend".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. To those thanks I add my congratulations to the noble Earl on his first appearance in this House as Minister for the Department for the Environment. However, perhaps I may add a note of sympathy to those congratulations in that the first task of the noble Earl in this House is to open up this extraordinary can of worms.
Since being on the Front Bench I have dealt with Statements in this House for a number of years. However, I have never had to deal with a Statement as extraordinary as this one. Is the noble Earl aware that any noble Lord who wishes to read what Mr. Magill, the District Auditor, said in regard to those in control of Westminster City Council at the time, needs only to go to the Library to read today's Evening Standard. He will find the following comments:
"I am minded to find as a fact that the electoral advantage of the majority party was the driving force behind the policy of increased designated sales … the council was engaged in gerrymandering … there is a loss or deficiency in the council's accounts caused by … wilful misconduct".
That is not provisional; it is simply a statement by Mr. Magill, the District Auditor, in the report which is apparently available to the public at large but about which the Government have not chosen to inform your Lordships.
Will the noble Earl accept that a number of Ministers supported Westminster City Council in that "gerrymandering"? For instance, Mr. David Hunt, the Employment Secretary, described the council as a "stunning success" and,
"a source of cheer for every Conservative".
That arose through Conservative Central Office in March 1990. Mr. Kenneth Baker, former Tory Chairman, said that the council had been led,
"with verve by Shirley Porter … With spirit and imagination [she] had cut back expenditure but improved services".
Will the noble Earl further accept that we on our side, particularly in the cases which have been of most embarrassment to my party—Lambeth and Liverpool—have always been rigorous in rooting out fraud and malpractice in local authorities wherever they may occur? I hope that the noble Earl will tell us that if there has been any malpractice, if the Westminster Tories have been caught with their snouts in the trough, cooking the books, if they have used residents' and taxpayers' money for their own electoral advantage, then, however they may try to cover it up, the Government will be equally rigorous in pursuing them.

245
If that is not the case—this is what the issue is about—I will tell the noble Earl, having given him my congratulations on his new post, that his life in the new post will be a source of constant and extreme discomfort.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister has a welcome to his new position from those on these Benches and also sympathy for having to deal with so difficult a subject on his first day in it. I believe that this is a very sad day for government. It is a sad day for all government because this kind of allegation, this kind of publicity, can only bring politicians—all politicians—into disrepute. It is a particularly sad day for local government. I, my noble friends and many other noble Lords wish to support local autonomy. We do not wish to give central government or anyone else any excuse for intervening and taking over what local authorities are doing even if there is a certain frisson when the authority concerned is the Government's own flagship authority.
There has been an inevitable immediate reaction on the part of those concerned at Westminster to deny the allegations made, probably on the basis that if there is no defence, one must be quite offensive about the situation. Indeed the current leader of Westminster Council is quoted in the Evening Standard tonight as saying that the policy was highly popular and successful and that Westminster would keep on offering council homes for sale to buyers other than its own tenants. That perhaps needs no comment. The reaction on the part of the objectors to what has happened—the complainants—is also quite sad and perhaps predictable. They are reported as carrying banners and chanting. The chant was "We've won, we've won". I do not know that anyone has won out of this sad episode.
Certainly those who have not won are those who were not provided with homes by Westminster Council when they should have been, those who were entitled in every moral sense to the use of those housing units which were kept void and boarded up, which were not made available to tenants and which were eventually sold. Vigorous efforts have been made by local authorities, and central government goes on reminding local government that it should not leave properties empty. There is a homelessness problem in this country. I should like to hear from the Minister what the Government will do to provide housing for those who have been displaced by their political friends down the road.
We are told that the district auditor's views are provisional. I may have missed something in the Statement but I am not sure what happens now. I hope that the Minister can give us some idea of the timetable. The Statement says:
"If the allegations are proved".
That is the term used. I wonder what is meant by "proved". I assume it can only mean that the district auditor is not given cause by the reaction to his provisional report to change his mind. It cannot mean "proved" in the sense of a criminal prosecution or indeed civil proceedings for defamation. I am confused by that term.
246
The Evening Standard also states that the auditor added—I am not clear whether this is in his provisional short report or whether it was made in a statement—
"I have a duty to certify that the amount of that loss or deficiency is due"—
from the individuals concerned. Can the Minister tell us whether that certificate has been issued, or is there some provisionality about that?
Can the Minister also tell us what he believes the appropriate procedure should be in such a case? Is it really satisfactory for us to have a provisional report at this stage when surely the district auditor has given those who are the target of the allegations an opportunity during the investigation to make their case?
These allegations are so serious and the matter has gone on so long. Not only is the cost concerned so great but the cost of the investigation is so great. Does the Minister not agree that Westminster residents now have the right to know all that the district auditor takes as his view? Is it right that we should wait longer? I believe that the complainants and those who are the targets of the allegations have an interest in sorting out this matter extremely quickly in everyone's interests by well before 5th May. Does the Minister not agree that the chances are anyway that this will come out? We have the report in the Evening Standard. I cannot believe that the report will not be published pretty fully somewhere fairly quickly. If the Secretary of State does not have the power to direct publication, can he not at least give a view as to whether that would be appropriate? In other words, would it not be more dignified for all concerned to publish now?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their remarks. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for congratulating me on being posted to the Department of the Environment, where there is much to be done and where I shall be extremely happy. At the same time naturally I very much regret leaving Northern Ireland—and not because I have to take up this Statement. I can assure the noble Lord that I shall not be—indeed I shall never be—placed in a position of extreme and constant discomfort. That is not my style.
I should like particularly to say a few words about the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. As the noble Baroness said, these are grave and serious allegations. But in the same breath I would say that everyone in your Lordships' House would agree that those who are criticised must have the right of reply. As I have already made clear in the Statement, if the allegations are proven, then of course Her Majesty's Government will unreservedly condemn the behaviour. Furthermore, I think your Lordships would agree that perhaps the most important principle is that a person is innocent until he is proven guilty. In that vein the conduct of this case will continue, as has already been done over some years, to be taken in a totally independent and impartial manner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the auditor has invited representations before he reaches a final view. He has said that, if he then stands by his current provisional views, he will apply to the High

247
Court for surcharge and, in the case of the councillors, disqualification. The noble Baroness asked about the timing. The timing is as is set out in the report. Those who are accused will have the chance to make statements either orally or in writing by the end of July. To go further into what has happened would simply not be appropriate. It would be supposition and speculation and I do not wish to go into that this afternoon.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question about the actual status of this provisional Statement, as I understand it has been called. I am very gravely disquieted at what I read. I understand that grave charges ought never to be made unless the persons accused have the right to rebut them. I understand that the right of the accused in the present case to rebut the charges has yet to be made. We are told in this Statement that they will have an opportunity to do so. I would like to know what is the actual status of the present situation.
I know that I am very ignorant about these things, but I am deeply concerned about what has happened. What would one think of a judge who, halfway through a case, said that he was minded to find the accused guilty, but that the accused would have an opportunity to make his defence? What would one think of such a judge? How does this present situation come about and what is the situation with which we are faced? We are entitled to be told about it. I hope that I shall be forgiven for pressing my noble friend to try to explain where we stand in terms which I can understand in my ignorance of the present procedure.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I naturally bow to the great experience and knowledge of my noble and learned friend on matters like this. I accept that he has asked a most apposite question. But my understanding is that the auditor had legal advice on what he can say. He has not published any information and that is what is prohibited. The current Statement is a summary of the provisional view.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am a resident of Westminster. Can the noble Earl say whether the auditor's report contains anything concerning the alleged gerrymandering over the sale of the cemeteries? The noble Earl may be aware that Westminster City Council sold some cemeteries in the City of Westminster for 5p to an offshore Panamanian company. This caused great distress to those who had loved ones buried there. There was such a scandal that in the end the council was obliged to buy them back for several million pounds. The offshore-based company made a very large sum of money. But those of us who are ratepayers of Westminster had to pay for it. I wonder whether any question of corruption arose here and whether it is a matter which should have been investigated. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl whether the district auditor's report—his investigations were obstructed all along the line by Westminster City
248
Council, but the truth comes out in the end—will contain anything about the cemeteries? That is another matter which requires the utmost investigation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the first point I wish to make to the noble Lord is that the Government have not seen the report and are not allowed to. It is an entirely independent, impartial affair. As regards the cemeteries, I do not believe that that is germane to the arguments we are hearing this afternoon.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise for having arrived late. Following the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, I ask the noble Earl this question: did the district auditor see the councillors and others against whom these serious findings have now been made? It is a simple "yes" or "no" answer and I shall be grateful to know what it is.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am now able to say that I am in a position to answer the question. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the answer is yes.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, as an elector of Westminster, can my noble friend say whether the procedure which has been followed in this case has been the usual one or unusual? Is the district auditor behaving as normally happens, or is this something quite different?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the auditor has behaved in a totally usual and normal way.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm to the House that we are really in a situation where the district auditor has made his provisional charges and has discussed them with those against whom they are laid, and that the Government are not able to see the report he has made but that the Evening Standard is?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware of what is in the Evening Standard. Whatever is in that paper is entirely speculation.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, for the sake of argument let us assume that this is a really serious offence. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench: should we not then say to ourselves that we are taking these "serious offences" miles more seriously than any other country would in Europe? Lamsdorff got away with murder; France is corrupt up to its eyeballs and the Italians and the Spaniards are the same. Noble Lords opposite may mock, but it is quite a compliment to them that they have not yet understood it. They are complaining about a standard of integrity which may be low by our standards and we must keep it as high as we possibly can. That is why it is reasonable that we should go into it. Perhaps when the noble Lords opposite listen to what I have to say they might not mock because they might even find themselves agreeing with it.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords opposite have listened very carefully to what my noble friend has said. I have also listened very carefully.

249
I entirely disagree because these are very grave and serious situations. They have to be examined carefully, independently and impartially.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in listening to the Statement I gather that the auditor's report is treated as the auditor's allegations? Surely the position is that the auditor makes a report and that is that. What provisions are there in the Local Government Act, and in the Acts appointing the Audit Commission and the rest of them, for the issue of provisional reports? I simply do not understand this. It is either a report or it is not.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is purely a report of his provisional views. I believe that the noble Lord will find the authenticity in the 1982 Act.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it appears from what my noble friend said that the allegations are very serious and also that at some stage they will be subject to proof. Does it not follow that this matter is sub judice and that we should not pursue it too closely?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, while I understand what my noble friend said, technically they are not sub judice. The allegations are certainly not proven until and if that happens.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the Statement, the district auditor's report and the questioning have been about what has happened. If the Westminster City Council continues acting in this way in future whose responsibility is it to say, "Stop it"?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is entirely a legal matter. In the present circumstances I believe that it would be extremely unwise—if that were happening at the moment—for it to continue to do so. It is entirely a legal affair.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the procedure in this case is exactly the same as in other cases which received a tremendous amount of publicity? Having followed the case I have in mind, will the noble Earl agree that it is a great pity that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, did not make the speech that he made earlier today?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not quite certain what the noble Lord means precisely by that. However, I can say that whatever my noble and learned friend says, it is nearly always totally correct.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may explain—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, since my name has been mentioned, perhaps I may say that I made no speech whatever. I asked a question because I wanted to know what the position was.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, then it is a great pity that the noble and learned Lord—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow the Minister to answer?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I understand and completely agree with the point that he made.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, as the Minister was not aware over the detail of what I was asking him, perhaps I should tell him that I interpreted the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsharn, as seeking to ascertain whether or not the district auditor had acted the same in relation to this matter as in relation to all other such matters. The noble and learned Lord implied that a mistake had been made and that the district auditor had not been acting normally. Does the Minister agree that such points, implying that things are not in order, would have been better made when the other cases to which I have referred were before the House?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the district auditor has carried out his duties precisely as qualified by the Act.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister For help? Are there not two questions: the first involving the right-to-buy policy, which is a political decision and not, as such, open to any charge of illegality—people may disagree with it, but that is another matter—and the other question relating to misappropriation of funds? The help that I ask is this: I have read the Evening Standard and, as far as I can see, there does not appear to be evidence that any of us have yet seen relating to the very serious charge of misappropriation of funds. Looking at this objectively, surely it is fair to say that in that sense the report is provisional because it is fundamental that those charged with misappropriation of funds should be able to defend themselves before we even debate on the basis of presumed guilt.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that my noble friend would agree that in these circumstances it would be completely improper to pursue with any interest or in any possible way the content of the report.
Lord Howell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while some of us understand that the people concerned must have the right to be heard and to defend themselves properly and that the technicalities of the law should be observed—we know that nobody has yet been charged, which makes this a very odd procedure—there is nevertheless one conclusion that we can draw at once? I refer to the vital importance of maintaining a robust political life in this country, including all political parties. In a sense, is it not the case that the packing of quangos with people from one party and the Government's constant attacks on local government, especially on councils with a political complexion of which they disapprove, have led to the public immorality that we are discussing today? Is it not time for the Government to draw the proper conclusions on that broader principle while waiting for the individual cases to be determined?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in this case, that which must remain robust is the law.

Intelligence Services Bill [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("(3) In fulfilling the above functions the Secret Intelligence Service shall respect and uphold the following principles—

(a) the rule of law is paramount;

(b) the means of investigation must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat;

(c) the more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority should be to authorise its use;

(d) except in emergencies, less intrusive techniques must be preferred to more intrusive ones.").

The noble Lord said: This is another attempt to try to spell out in more detail than is done at present in the Bill the way in which the intelligence services should function. I think that it is important that they have clear principles within which to work; that the services should work within the law; that the use of particular techniques is proportionate to the threat; that more grave methods require authorisation from higher up within the service and, finally, that the least intrusive techniques are used where possible. Those do not seem to me to be principles which are either earth-shattering or which would make it more difficult for the services to perform their functions and to behave in the way in which Clause 1 sets out.
It is interesting that when the Royal Commission that was set up in Canada to look at the security services published its report, Freedom and Security Under the Law, in 1981, it suggested the principles which are contained in this amendment. These principles are missing from the Bill at this stage. Indeed, it is difficult to find any other principles openly stated in the Bill or implicit in its provisions.
It is possible to set out the principles which should inform the work and the organisation of the security services. They can be easily outlined and this amendment attempts to do that. The Bill gives no indication of what actions of the service are acceptable, what laws can be broken or for what purpose any laws can be broken, particularly the domestic laws of other countries. In practice, while the service will not have the resources to carry out highly intrusive operations for trivial aims—I entirely accept that—the amendment will not unduly affect its work. However, it introduces the important concept of proportionality—in other words, it says, "These are the principles which should guide the way in which the service should operate". They are benchmarks—unreasonable ones, in our submission—against which the way in which the service operates can be judged.
Ultimately, the acceptability or otherwise of the operations of an organisation such as the Secret Intelligence Service, has to depend—does it not? —on whether or not what it does is publicly acceptable. In our
252
submission, those principles set out the basis upon which that acceptability can be gained by the service. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment which also stands in my name. I hope and believe that it is common ground that in fulfilling the functions that are very broadly defined in Clause 1 the service will always act in accordance with the principles set out in the amendment. As I read them, those principles reflect the principles contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The advantage—and also the disadvantage, according to one's perspective—of including those principles in the Bill would be that the activities of the service would be much more likely to be the subject of judicial review in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
As I shall explain later in relation to another amendment, that is exactly what happens in Israel in relation to its secret intelligence service. It is open much more to judicial review. That is a very effective safeguard against any possible abuse of the great powers enjoyed by the service. It would ensure compliance with the proportionality principle in the convention.
The Government will no doubt be reluctant to contemplate the possibility of effective judicial review of that kind, but I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will at the very least be able to assure the Committee that the Government fully accept the principles contained in the amendment and that they accept the need to take effective steps to ensure that the service acts in accordance with those principles and not otherwise.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, explained, the amendment seeks to apply a specific set of principles to the carrying out by the Intelligence Service of its functions. The principles are general, but the terms in which they are expressed have been derived from the Canadian report to which the noble Lord referred. The principles in themselves are laudable, but they have, essentially, and, where appropriate, been taken into account in the preparation of the Bill as a whole. Accordingly, we believe that the right way to deal with this matter is to see whether the principles have been put properly in place in the Bill.
Let me deal with each of the principles in turn. The first refers to the paramountcy of the rule of law. As I sought to explain on Second Reading, it is of course the Government's intention, in placing the SIS on a statutory footing, to underline that the service, as with the other agencies, is answerable and authorised under the ordinary law of the land. That is the development which the Bill has taken forward. I believe that to the extent that it does your Lordships have welcomed it. The fact that the Bill deals with the SIS and the other agencies in that way shows that the ordinary law of the land, as modified by the Bill, will regulate the affairs of the service. There is nothing in the Bill which puts the SIS, or indeed either of the other two agencies, outside the law.
The SIS is under the control and authority of the Secretary of State who himself must answer to Parliament. The Bill provides for a senior member of the

253
judiciary to act as a Commissioner with powers of review of specific powers given to the Secretary of State. That is in accordance with the Convention on Human Rights and the way in which it has been found suitable to operate in this area in the past, I believe successfully.
There are mechanisms for complaint and redress provided for in the appointment of a tribunal. Taken together, those measures reflect a comprehensive and proper statutory framework of control. To state the paramountcy of the rule of law, therefore, is to add something that is unnecessary, because that is precisely what the Bill is doing.
The second principle is that the means of investigation must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat. Let me remind the Committee that the SIS is not itself based primarily on threats, nor is it an investigative service. Where, however, the Bill allows for physical intrusion in the warrant provisions in Clauses 5 and 6, it provides crucial safeguards. The Secretary of State may authorise such action only if he is satisfied that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means. He must also think it necessary for the action to be taken on the grounds that it is likely to be of substantial value in assisting the SIS, or the other services, in carrying out their functions.
A proportionality test is required in Clause 7. That clause allows the Secretary of State to authorise certain acts outside the British islands but only if he is satisfied that there are arrangements in force to secure that, for acts done in reliance on an authorisation, their nature and likely consequences will be reasonable having regard to the purposes for which they are carried out. That is stating well the principle of proportionality in its application to this subject matter.
The third principle states that the more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority should be to authorise its use. As I have already sought to make clear, any entry on or interference with property in the UK requires the express authority of the Secretary of State. Similarly, the Secretary of State's authority is required for acts committed abroad by the SIS which might incur liability under the extraterritorial provisions of UK law. It is not clear from the amendment what authority is envisaged beyond that of the Secretary of State, but it is clear on the face of the Bill that nothing less will do for this kind of intrusive activity. We have gone to the highest authority for all such authorisations in this area; namely, the Secretary of State.
The last principle refers to less intrusive techniques being preferred to more intrusive ones, except in emergencies. In a crucial respect the Bill as drafted is more demanding than the amendment, if it stood by itself, would allow. The Bill allows for no lesser standards in the event of emergencies than in ordinary times for any of the relevant provisions (Clauses 5, 6 and 7) except that in urgent cases senior officials can, but still only with the express authority of the Secretary of State, sign the necessary warrant or authorisation. So far as concerns the last principle, the Secretary of State's authority is required in all circumstances.
254
The Government believe that, where appropriate and taken as a whole, the Bill makes proper provision for the substance of the amendment; in other words, instead of just leaving these as principles stated separately from the structure of the Bill we have proceeded in the Bill in accordance with the principles. I believe that, on the whole and in the context of our method of legislating, that is the wise way to proceed.
I hope that in the light of those explanations the Committee will feel that while we subscribe to the principles as stated, the correct way to give effect to them in our legislation is in the way that I have sought to explain that we have done.
Lord Bridges: I sympathise fully with the motives lying behind the amendment, which I am sure are those for which we all have respect. However, if such provisions were inserted into the Bill they might prove difficult to apply in practice. I shall take them one by one. First:
"the rule of law is paramount".
It is not stated whose law we are talking about; whether we are talking about the law of this country or the law applicable where the operation may be taking place. The laws may not say the same thing. That in itself is one of the difficulties which applies when entering into legal responsibility of any precise kind in relation to these activities.
The second item provides:
"the means of investigation must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat".
It is difficult to know what that means in practical terms. Confronted with a grave threat, it would seem clear that the resources devoted to encountering and countering it should be greater than otherwise, but that the means should be proportionate. I am not sure how one can precisely relate those two things.
The amendment then refers to:
"the more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority should be to authorise its use".
Techniques are not easy to classify in terms of intrusion. I do not know whether it is more intrusive to insert a microphone into someone's house or to tap a person's telephone. I would regard them both as intrusive. I can see that the more delicate an operation the higher the authorising authority should be, or the greater the embarrassment if the operation goes wrong the higher the authority should be, but I am not sure that intrusiveness is a tool which we could apply effectively here. Well-intentioned though the amendment is, it would be difficult to apply in practice. I hope that the noble Lord will, on reflection, withdraw the amendment.
Lord Richard: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will, I know, understand when I say that the argument which runs, "It is already in the Bill, so you don't want it, do you?" is always equally countered by the argument, "Well, if it is already in the Bill, what is the objection to putting it in again?" In other words, it is a circular argument. I wonder whether I can try to break it.
The noble and learned Lord expressed some sympathy with the purpose of the amendment and for the principles set out therein. He then went on to tell us

255
that we do not need it in the Bill because it is already there if the Bill is analysed with the degree of precision which he then applied to it. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, says, again, that he has great sympathy with the object of the exercise but difficulties with interpretation and that therefore it is not perhaps entirely appropriate to be put into an Act of Parliament. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider whether the Government—if they will not have it in the Bill—would be prepared to make a statement at some appropriate stage saying that those are the principles by which they, the Government, anticipate that the SIS should and, indeed, would operate; namely, that the rule of law should be paramount, that the means which they employ should be proportionate to the gravity of the threat, that the more intrusive the technique the higher the authority should be which authorises its use, and that except in emergencies less intrusive must be preferred to more intrusive techniques.
If the Government say that they accept those issues as principles, even if they are not prepared to see them enshrined in legislative form in an Act of Parliament, the Intelligence Service will know the parameters within which it should operate, the country will know the principles upon which the Government consider the Intelligence Service should operate, and Members on this side of the Committee will be more satisfied than if we receive nothing but a general expression of sympathy with our motivation, which is all that we have had so far. In order to give the noble and learned Lord an opportunity to consider the proposal, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I have no wish to hold up the progress of the Bill or to oppose it. I wish simply to use parliamentary procedure to clarify an issue. Clause 1 relates to Clauses 8, 9 and 10, which deal with the commissioner, the tribunal and the committee. They will adjudicate—that may be the wrong word—on what is contained in Clause 1.
Clause 1 (1) (a) and (b) and (2)(a) provides that the Secret Intelligence Service shall:
"obtain and provide information relating to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands; and… perform other tasks relating to the actions or intentions of such persons… The functions… shall be exercisable only… in the interests of national security, with particular reference to the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom".
Defence intelligence services within the Ministry of Defence have the same responsibilities and functions as the Intelligence Service. Everyone knows that the RAF, in which I served and for which I was once a Minister, successfully operates abroad obtaining information about possible enemy aircraft, their engines, size, range and so forth. Therefore, they are performing much the same function as that laid down in Clause 1. Where would one find the recognition of their existence,
256
functions and powers? If those are not available or written down, and if those services must act as provided in the Bill, must they get the SIS to act on their behalf?
I know that it does not occur now but, as I said on Second Reading, some years ago the Army intelligence service strayed over the line. There is no question that the information it was gathering, which was nonsense, could not possibly be contained in any powers. I do not believe that such instances happen today. But who checks on that with regard to the security services? How can we be sure that such an instance will not happen again? Why is not the defence intelligence service included in Clauses 8, 9 and 10 of the Bill? The issue is relevant at this stage in terms of functions. We are laying down functions in respect of the Secret Intelligence Service but not in respect of the defence intelligence service. Perhaps its functions are laid down elsewhere. If so, where would I turn to find them?
The Lord Chancellor: My understanding is that the Bill is concerned with the security and intelligence services. The activities undertaken, for example, by the Armed Forces in support of the security and intelligence agencies are therefore covered by the Bill. According to my understanding, the defence intelligence service is concerned with the analysis of information. It is not a security or intelligence agency and is not covered by the Bill.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, two strands apply. In so far as any activity of any branch of the Armed Forces is in support of these agencies, that activity is covered by the Bill. However, the defence intelligence arrangements concentrate more on the analysis of information received than on gathering the information. Therefore, that department of the Ministry of Defence is not a security or intelligence agency and is not covered by the Bill.
I hope that Members of the Committee will allow Clause 1 to stand part of the Bill and that the noble Lord considers that I have given a satisfactory answer to his question.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Chief of the Intelligence Service]:
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) When considering the disclosure of the records referred to in subsection (3)(a) above the Lord Chancellor shall consult with the Chief of the Intelligence Service and the Secretary of State before any such records are disclosed to the public but such records shall be so disclosed as soon as their disclosure would no longer threaten national security or the national interest.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would establish a procedure under which documents originating in the secret services could be considered at a suitable time for release to the public under the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. It relates to documents originating in the Secret Intelligence Service. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 27, which relate to GCHQ and the security service respectively.
There is an unusual background to documents which originate in the secret services. I believe that none, or hardly any, has been officially released in peace time since 1909 when the secret service came into existence.

257
That has been due in part to the fiction which was maintained until recently that this country does not exercise spies in peace time.
A number of interesting documents from the Second World War were released some time ago. I have in mind the documents relating to the Enigma transmissions. Documents which come from the secret services can often be found in the Public Record Office in the files of other departments, in particular those of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. Until recently no document originating in peace time was considered for release.
In 1967 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, laid clown a blanket edict that all documents originating from those services could be closed without submission to any higher authority. That led, I am afraid—and I speak as a historian and therefore must declare my interest—to the retention in the department of origin not only of individual documents but of whole files containing many thousands of papers purely on the ground that there were in their midst one or two documents with perhaps a passing reference to a security or intelligence matter. Even the inclusion of an item on the distribution list of a paper from the Foreign Office could mean that that paper was closed indefinitely. All papers relating to it, and all papers bound with it in the same file, were also closed. I found such instances frustrating in writing, for instance, about mandatory Palestine in the 1970s. Often documents relating to intelligence matters in 1945, even after hostilities had ended, were available to the public. It appeared that for the sake of bureaucracy the war continued until 31st December 1945. No relevant documents dated 1st January 1946 and after have been released. I believe that when the edict expired it was renewed by my noble and learned friend in February 1992. I hope that at some stage my noble and learned friend will be able to indicate the status of that edict which, as I understand it, states that secret service documents should, or may, or can be retained in their department of origin.
I agree with those who say that those documents are in a special category. They cannot simply be considered as others are under the the 30 year rule and released with a cursory glance unless there is nothing very sensitive about them. I am ready to accept that it would be impossible to lay down a fixed term at the end of which those documents should be released, whether it be 30, 50 or a 100 years. I am told that there are documents from 150 years ago relating to the Falkland Islands which are closed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I would not quarrel with that because the national interest demands that they be closed. But I have noticed with great interest that recently documents of the joint intelligence chiefs have been released. I should be glad if my noble and learned friend would indicate by what procedure those documents were released. Did he authorise their release? Did they come before him? Were they released by the Prime Minister or through another procedure? I am not aware of any procedure which, in the normal course of events, would have allowed their release, happy though I am that they were released.
258
To be more specific about the amendment under discussion, some noble Lords may feel that it would be better to leave this sensitive matter well alone, that documents can be released under the Public Records Acts and that perhaps the least said about this the better. On the other hand, I argue that it would be helpful if we could have a procedure under which documents could be considered for release. I believe that my noble and learned friend is the key to that procedure. Under the amendment he will have the deciding voice in whether a document of a secret nature should be released at the end of 30 years, 50 years or whatever. He is the person who should decide.
With respect, I do not believe that it would be right to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the chief of the secret service because it would not be right to leave that person as the judge and jury in his or her own court. In other countries, in particular the United States, the matter is allowed to come before a judge. I have to say that while there are some who believe that to have been an unmitigated disaster the Central Intelligence Agency, of whom I have inquired, has indicated to me that this is something it can well live with and that it is not a disaster—indeed, that it is now a matter which is part of the American Government's procedure under the Freedom of Information Act.
I hope that I shall be seen to be suggesting a middle way. By putting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in charge of this decision I hope that we are not being over-restrictive in leaving the matter entirely in the hands of those who are interested in it—the services themselves —or handing it over to the courts, which would be the freedom of information track. I should be very happy if my noble and learned friend would consider it in that light.
There are various reasons for taking carefully and seriously the question of the release of secret service documents. I suggest that it is right for those who work in those services—dedicated people as they always are, but who are nevertheless tempted sometimes to feel that they work in a very special category of public service and who are occasionally tempted, as has been indicated by the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Merlyn-Rees, to overstep the mark—to know that they may be brought before the bar of history at some appropriate time. I certainly found this while researching a book about secret intelligence service operations in Albania from 1949 to 1953. Those were operations which led to very heavy loss of life of innocent people in Albania. I believe that there is a case to answer for saying that certain decisions were taken on an improper basis. Whether it is too early to release such documents I would not be in a position to judge, but. I hope that somebody will take the matter under consideration in due course.
Perhaps a more important reason for having a procedure for the release of documents is that it enables the successes of the secret services to be made known. In this world I would suggest that success breeds success. If it is thought that our secret services are efficient, work well and produce results, they will find it easier to obtain sources of information, to obtain recruits, and to work with the services of our allies,

259
particularly those of the United States. We all know of the disaster that occurred in intelligence co-operation between ourselves and the Americans in the wake of the Philby affair. It took very many years before that debacle could be forgotten on the American side and before full co-operation was allowed to resume. The successes that we have had since then—I am thinking in particular of the Gordievsky affair—have contributed to the recovery of our reputation.
I hope that noble Lords will consider this to be a matter that needs to be addressed, that is perhaps not fully addressed in the Bill as it stands, and that the amendments I have proposed provide a balance making as they do the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the final arbiter of the release of documents. The amendment asks the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consult the Secretary of State before reaching his decision. I believe that under existing legislation he is also entitled to consult the Secretary to the Cabinet. On that basis, I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: From these Benches we have great sympathy with the amendments. Indeed, we should like strongly to support them. There is very little that I wish to add. The case for these amendments has been eloquently and carefully explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, as well as being interestingly illustrated.
It seems to us that where the disclosure of records would no longer threaten national security or the national interest they should be made available. We also accept the procedure that is being proposed by the noble Lord that this should be in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rather than those of the head of the Secret Intelligence Service. It is in the national interest that future historians of international relations should be able to gain access to such records in order that we can better understand our past. I say this as an academic as well as the Front Bench spokesman on foreign affairs.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: From these Benches, we warmly and strongly support the amendment. I can explain why in a sentence. It is one from the great American jurist, Justice Louis Brandeis, who said:
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most effective policeman".
The Lord Chancellor: I suppose it is right that the Lord Chancellor should bring both sunlight and electric light into the arrangements so far as is possible. I believe it is fair to say that my noble friend's amendment runs very much along the lines of the Public Records Act 1958. Section 3(4) of the Act provides that records may be retained after the 30-year rule,
"if, in the opinion of the person who is responsible for them",
they ought to be retained for "administrative purposes" or "any other special reason". The Lord Chancellor has to be informed of the facts and give his approval.
For example, as regards the present arrangement in relation to security records, the person responsible for them (which may be the director or the Secretary of
260
State, depending on the precise status of the record) would need to have a view about whether or not they should be retained. However, that view would not be final; the Lord Chancellor has to be informed of the facts and give his approval. That is basically the procedure which my noble friend Lord Bethell has in mind in his amendment. Therefore, from that point of view, the amendment is not required because it seeks to achieve what the Public Records Act already provides.
However, there are some practical matters that I should like to mention in relation to the matter. Both I and my colleagues have made some changes in the operation of the arrangements in recent times. As my noble friend said, so far as concerns security and intelligence matters, my predecessor, Lord Gardiner, gave a blanket approval to the withholding of such records. As has been said, in February of last year I approved the continuation of that blanket. It is important to note that the blanket approval is permissive and not mandatory. Generally speaking, so long as national security and intelligence records are still sensitive, I am content that they should be retained.
The mere fact that that blanket permission has been given does not mean that records covered by it may not be released. Departments and agencies that have such records are required to keep them under review. It is because of that review procedure that some of the records—indeed, many of those to which my noble friend referred—have been recently released. Many more are currently under review.
Over the past 18 months significant progress has been made in reviewing and releasing previously retained records. They included a block of pre-1909 miscellaneous intelligence-related papers, the first tranche of the SOE archive and, again, for the first time, a collection of wartime GCHQ intercepts which were released directly to the Public Record Office. All Joint Intelligence Committee records which have been cleared for release, from its inception in 1936 to August 1945, are now in the Public Record Office. More releases are in the pipeline. In addition, papers reflecting the product of the agencies' operations are reviewed as part of the normal procedures and are released if they are no longer sensitive.
It is in the latter connection that we have made some changes. Under the White Paper on open government published last year, records retained by departments for other than administrative reasons are subject to regular review—that is, at least every 10 years—and, in the same way as closed records, are subject to the test of "actual damage" caused by release. In other words, the authority that has been given to hold them is subject to the condition that they be regularly reviewed and if, on review, there is no evidence that actual damage would occur as a result of their being released (and the actual damage is focused in the White Paper in more detail than I need give at present), the document is to be released.
I can assure my noble friend and those Members of the Committee who supported his approach to such matters that, when the sensitivity of a record has been passed, that record will be released at the first opportunity on review. As I said, that is at least every 10

261
years. One should not underestimate the administrative task of reviewing such records. There are very many of them. I have an officer in the Public Record Office who liaises with the departmental record officers. The latter are primarily responsible for carrying out the review, but the criteria that they adopt in doing so are set out in the White Paper. The officer in the Public Record Office, acting on my behalf, is responsible for ensuring that the policy in this connection is undertaken.
Accordingly, I believe that what my noble friend has sought to achieve by way of the amendment, and the other amendments to which he referred, is already being achieved under the present arrangements. Of course, the Lord Chancellor has the final word. I am glad to know that my noble friend thinks that that is a comfort and that the same is true of the noble Baroness opposite and of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The fact is that in America they have somewhat different procedures. It is not for me to say whether they be better or worse, but they are certainly different and fall against a different background. It is true that such matters are referred to a judge but the Lord Chancellor is himself a judge.
The present situation is satisfactory and reasonably flexible. I believe that we have recently been able to improve quite considerably on the standard test by reference to which documents are released. In his researches, I hope that my noble friend has already found a practical result of the latter. I believe that he will find even more practical results of it in the immediate future. In the light of those explanations, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mayhew: Perhaps I may just intervene for a moment. While I have the greatest sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I can also pay some tribute to the recent changes made by the Government in the field. The noble and learned Lord will recall that we debated quite recently the question of the Public Record Office. We all carefully studied the new White Paper on the release of documents. The noble and learned Lord may also recall that I asked him then whether there could not be a perfectly safe release of the files of an organisation called the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office. It is a secret department, committed successfully to a worldwide anti-Stalinist propaganda crusade in the late 1940s and 1950s. At that time the noble and learned Lord replied that he had reviewed the case for the release of those papers in 1992, but that he regretted it was not possible to release them.
However, using my rights under the White Paper, I made my appeal to Mr. William Waldegrave under the new principle of "actual harm" which could be caused by the release of such papers. The latter, in accordance with the Government's new policy, referred the matter to Mr. Douglas Hurd. The day before yesterday, I received a courteous letter from Mr. Hurd informing me that he had decided to authorise the release of the papers. I believe that that fact will come as news to the noble and learned Lord.
Having said that, I revert to the amendment. It may sound ungracious, but I wonder whether the idea of
262
having a slightly broader decider of such matters is not right. I do not think that we should have a single judge as in the United States, but surely the person who decides whether or not such public documents should be released should be judicial, yes; experienced, yes; patriotic, yes; and, reliable, yes; but should be as far removed from the political scene as possible. It should never be for government to decide. Ministers are by definition the most self-interested people that one can imagine in that field because the papers concerned may be from their own department and may reflect badly on their department. They may reflect badly upon the department of a fellow Minister. The further one gets away from Ministers in this field the better; and it is quite possible to do so. No matter how distinguished, honourable and judicial the Minister may be, I maintain that the final decision on such matters should be non-governmental. On that point, I part company with the amendment while I support wholeheartedly the principle which the noble Lord enunciated.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord's kind invitation. The procedures which I explained, which we have set in place, have produced the results to which he referred because, as I mentioned, it is for the Minister or person responsible for the documents in the first instance to decide whether or not they may be released. As a result of a review of those documents, under the new test published in the White Paper, my distinguished colleague, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has decided that the documents to which the noble Lord referred are no longer sensitive.
I believe that it is a practical arrangement which will bring good results. I do not believe that it is right for us to seek to amend the generality of the Public Records Act in the course of a discussion on the Intelligence Services Bill. Therefore, my noble friend' s amendment is more appropriate than the rather more generalised suggestion which the noble Lord made. But my ultimate position in relation to this matter is that the present arrangements are very much in accordance with the proposed amendment.
Lord Bethell: It is indeed good news that the documents relating to the anti-Stalinist information committee have been opened to the public. I am well aware of the considerable participation of the noble Lord in that work. While kept secret, that work played a great part in the struggle against Stalinism in the late 1940s.
I am reassured to some extent by what my noble and learned friend said. I have noted with satisfaction the more positive attitude of senior Ministers and of the services in the past year or two, which has enabled a number of documents which had been kept secret for many years to see the light of day.
I wonder how, in practical terms, my noble and learned friend will be able to ensure that those documents originating in the services will be reviewed and will come before him for possible release and eventual placement in the Public Record Office We are

263
talking about documents that in some cases are 80 years old. I do not know what is the volume of them. It may be that my noble and learned friend is able to indicate that or will write to me about it. But there must be a vast body of such material and I am told by someone who knows about those matters that there is a great shortage of people who are sufficiently cleared and under budget to do what is called the "weeding" of them. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to do what my noble and learned friend suggested in a period of, perhaps, 10 years.
Therefore, were my noble and learned friend to accept the amendment, it would provide a spur to the Lord Chancellor of the day to ensure that documents are looked at properly within a reasonable space of time and that if disclosure of documents were no longer contrary to the public interest or to national security, then he would release them. It is not a question of wishing to release them but rather that it would be his duty to release them. Does my noble and learned friend see any merit in that?
The Lord Chancellor: The practical consideration to which my noble friend referred is important. In the White Paper the Government have undertaken—various departmental Ministers are responsible for the resources which they devote to it—that those documents should be reviewed on, at least, a 10-year cycle. I believe that that takes place and, as I say, an officer of the Public Record Office as well as the departmental record officers have responsibility in that area.
We have said that if there is no harm to be done by disclosure, the document is to be disclosed. Applying that to the circumstances of this case, that is what the amendment does. With great respect to my noble friend, I do not believe that it adds anything to the strength of the present arrangements, particularly as he has indicated that the main obstacle is the practical one of weeding out—that is, conserving what needs to be conserved and letting the rest go. That operation requires a degree of competence and the Government have undertaken that that should be done. As I said, my noble friend has already seen some of the results and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, saw yet another yesterday. I hope that those results will continue to flow and impress.
Lord Bethell: I am greatly reassured. As I understand it, those documents from the services which are now releasable will all be reviewed and released by the Lord Chancellor of the day within a maximum of 10 years. That is fair enough. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [The Government Communications Headquarters]:
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No.8:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) In fulfilling the functions specified in this section, staff at GCHQ shall enjoy trade union rights in accordance with Convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation.").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that it would be useful to spend a little time explaining what the amendment is about and why I believe it to be particularly important. As Members of the Committee will know, GCHQ employs a number of civil servants working on secret spy communications. For a very long time such staff had been permitted, indeed encouraged under the system of industrial relations then in force, to belong to autonomous national trade unions. There was a well-established and efficient consultative apparatus.
However, all that was changed quite suddenly on 25th January 1984 when, without consultation, the Government announced new conditions of service that were imposed immediately. Their effect was that staff would no longer be permitted to belong to national trade unions.
I was a member of the TUC General Council at that time and that arbitrary action prompted immediate protests and demonstrations. It was widely seen in the trade union movement as a breach of international labour organisation conventions. As we saw it, it was also a breach of UK legislation which provides specifically for individuals to belong or not to belong to a trade union.
It should be noted that the ban related not only to representation by a trade union but also to actual membership. The Government's reason for taking that exceptional step was that it was necessary on grounds of national security. I do not recall that any evidence was ever produced to justify the ban on those grounds. There was no evidence whatever that membership of a national trade union inclined individuals towards security breaches or induced them to spy against the UK on behalf of other countries. Indeed, the cases on record of convicted spies appear to indicate that they tend to be non-union people. I refer particularly to the case of Vassall who was convicted of spying. He always refused to belong to a trade union. Incidentally, I believe that he was a member of the Conservative Party, but that is another matter.
In my view, the reason advanced was a slur on millions of trade unionists who are genuinely patriotic and devoted to the defence of their country. However, the Government were able to persuade the European Commission on Human Rights that that reason had motivated their action and provided justification.
However, the ILO took a very different view. The Committee of Experts decided that the ban on trade union membership at GCHQ was a breach of ILO conventions which the UK Government had ratified. It is useful to look at the notes issued by the ILO Committee of Experts in regard to the relevant conventions. They say that an important aspect of the right to organise is the protection afforded to workers and trade union leaders against acts of anti-union discrimination. That can take several forms. Article 1 of Convention 98 establishes in general terms that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. It provides that such protection shall apply more

265
particularly in respect of acts calculated to make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership, or cause the dismissal or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of trade union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours. The notes say that it follows from those provisions that workers must be adequately protected against anti-union discrimination both at the time of taking up employment and in the course of their employment relationships. The notes also indicate that public employees should have adequate protection against discrimination. Convention 87, to which our amendment refers, specifically includes the right to join and to form unions. It seems to me that both those conventions have clearly been breached by the actions of the UK Government in banning trade union membership among staff at GCHQ.
Therefore, it is not surprising that trade union rights at GCHQ have become something of a cause célèbre for the trade union movement. Numerous representations have been made to the Government. At the last TUC it appeared that some progress was being made. A report was made to the effect that the Government were in touch with the Civil Service unions and appeared willing to make some move towards an amicable solution. I must say, however, that the solution of a non-independent staff association is certainly not acceptable. Nor would it be in conformity with ILO conventions to which reference has been made. Meantime there is still a core of the staff at GCHQ who resent the fact that their rights have been taken away and who still remain trade unionists at heart if not in actuality.
I have to tell the Government that their actions in regard to GCHQ are not at all popular. Ever since the ban the TUC has held demonstrations and marches in Cheltenham where GCHQ is situated. I have been to a number of those demonstrations. I have joined the marches through the town. I have always been pleasantly surprised by the amount of local support we receive. That is in Cheltenham, once but perhaps not so much recently regarded as a Conservative bastion. People on the pavements have been genuinely sympathetic and supportive. This issue now has a 10-year history. Is it not time to bring this sorry chapter to a close?
Before I came to your Lordships' House this morning, I had some discussions with the TUC. It transpires that there was a meeting with the Prime Minister on 20th December but I regret that no agreement was reached. As a result, the TUC has written again to the Director General of the International Labour Organisation to complain about the situation at GCHQ.
That is an enormous pity because, looking at the letter, it would seem that the only barrier that still exists is the belief held by Ministers that a conflict of loyalties must exist if national trade unions were allowed to have members in GCHQ. The trade unions then asked the Prime Minister if there were any assurances that they could offer which would remove the anxiety about conflict of loyalty from ministerial minds. The Prime
266
Minister indicated that he could not think of any. No doubt Sir Robin Butler, who is head of the Civil Service, would have indicated if he could think of any. He readily acknowledged, however, that the trade unions had shown good faith and determination to bridge the gap and thereby reach an agreement.
As I said earlier, this issue has now been outstanding for 10 years. There will be another demonstration, in which I shall again participate, in Cheltenham on the 29th of this month, when the 10th anniversary will be celebrated. I would hope that we could celebrate it by being able to tell the trade unionists who come to the meeting that the Government have seen the virtue of what we have been saying for so many years and have decided that trade unionists at GCHQ should have the rights indicated in our amendment. If that is not so, I am afraid that once again we shall be marching through Cheltenham and once again, no doubt, attracting a great deal of public support. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I rise to support the amendment, to which I also have put: my name.
The right to freedom of association with others is a basic constitutional right in a democratic country such as ours. It includes the right to form and join trade unions. The work done by GCHQ is of great importance and involves handling secret information which is vital to national security. I understand and accept that it may be necessary to forbid industrial action which endangers the work done at GCHQ, but the ban is very much wider than that. It extends to mere membership of a tirade union as distinct from a staff association.
I had the privilege of representing the Civil Service unions in their unsuccessful challenge to the ban before the European Commission on Human Rights where the Commission took a narrowly legalistic view of the claim. The ban applies to all GCHQ staff, however junior in grade or menial in function—cleaners and catering staff, clerks, typists, engineers and managers alike are all banned from belonging to any independent trade union. The ban runs directly contrary to the policy of successive governments since 1947, when GCHQ was set up, to encourage membership of national unions among staff at GCHQ, to recognise such unions where appropriate and to negotiate with them as representing the staff.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has already indicated, the Government's action 10 years ago was taken unilaterally with no consultation with the unions represented among the staff at Cheltenham or any other trade union organisation. The first intimation of the Government's move was when the then Cabinet Secretary read to the general secretaries of the Civil Service unions the text of a statement 10 minutes before the Foreign Secretary made his Statement to Parliament. The Government's actions were quite unprecedented, as were the means employed. The workers' rights were removed by certificates issued under provisions of the Employment Protection Acts and by legal instruments made under the Royal prerogative. Those powers have never before been used to deprive workers of any kind of their right to belong to a trade union.

267
Staff at GCHQ have always been subject to stringent duties of loyalty, confidentiality and secrecy under the criminal and civil law as well as under their professional codes of conduct, and it has never been suggested that they have broken those legal or professional duties. On the contrary, they have displayed a high devotion to duty. That was particularly highlighted, for example, during the Falklands campaign, when their contribution was invaluable, as the Government acknowledged at the time.
GCHQ staff and their unions regard the Government's actions as casting a wholly unjustified slur across the work of the staff and the responsible role of their unions. The slur is the suggestion that by belonging to an independent trade union their loyalty to the nation would be somehow undermined.
The Civil Service unions, as I know, have always accepted that the Government have the power and the duty to determine what are essential intelligence services and to take such action as is necessary to protect the security of the nation. The unions have made it quite clear to Ministers that they were and are entirely willing to meet the Government's needs to ensure the complete protection of national security within GCHQ against any possible impairment. They have also informed the Government that they would consider any amendments to collective agreements, or any extra provisions required to maintain the essential intelligence services at GCHQ, while at the same time preserving the right of staff to join a union of their choice, which is the most basic and long standing of all trade union rights.
As we have just heard, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts have concluded that the unilateral action taken by the Government to deprive the staff at GCHQ of their right to belong to a trade union was not in conformity with ILO Convention 87. The Council of Civil Service Unions has responded positively to the ILO's recommendations. However, far from accepting the recommendations, the Government continue to threaten to dismiss trade unionists at GCHQ if they do not sign away their rights to belong to a trade union; and those who refuse to accept the Government's diktat have been penalised in a variety of ways.
The Committee of Experts of the ILO is a particularly valuable source of impartial and objective interpretation of the meaning of the various ILO conventions. In 1985 and in 1989, the experts drew the Government's attention to their failure to meet the minimum international standards. However, the Government have remained unmoved by the moral authority of the ILO to lift or modify the ban.
I believe that it is deeply regrettable that the Prime Minister has recently rejected a sensible compromise compatible with the legitimate aims of protecting national security. The ILO's criticism is well founded. The blanket ban on union membership is wholly disproportionate; and after 10 years it is time that the Government properly recognised the fundamental right
268
of staff at GCHQ to join a national Civil Service union in accordance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom under Convention 87.
If the aim of the amendment is not accepted by the Government, the United Kingdom will face inevitable humiliation and ignominy in June when the ILO will surely adopt the special paragraph procedure whereby the Government's failure to comply with the rulings of the ILO supervisory bodies will be singled out for mention in a single paragraph of the report of the committee on the application of standards—something that I believe has never happened in the history of this country.
Lord Moyne: If ever there was any point to the ban—perhaps there was 10 years ago—that point was connected with the existence of the Soviet Union, of Soviet communism and the danger (which may have been small but was perceived) that influences from that area might affect the unions. I believe that it is now unnecessary to extend that ban because the Soviet Union has collapsed.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: We have heard two distinguished speeches from my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They have set out the complete case on the issue. I wish to add to what they said.
Perhaps noble Lords will forgive the personal reminiscence. As I sat here, I calculated that it is 65 years since I joined my trade union. I have been proud to be a member ever since, and to have achieved the honour of life membership of such unions as the National Union of Mineworkers, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers Union and others. I am proud to speak up as a trade unionist. I wish to address the Committee today as such.
I wish the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to understand that this is an issue of principle. We have discussed the matter today, correctly, on a pragmatic basis, but it is an issue of principle. That is why the matter will not go away. That is why this Government, or some other government, one day will have to concede the issue.
I fear that one of our difficulties is that governments who have been in power for too long, as this one has, dig themselves deeper into attitudes of complete obstinacy from which they are unable to change their minds. I say to my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we are battling at an impossible door. I do not believe that the Government will give way on the issue. That only confirms my view of the Government's obstinacy and their unreasonableness towards concession on this principle.
The Civil Service as a whole has served all governments extremely well. There has not always been the same attitude to trade unionism in the Civil Service. My noble friend Lord Houghton will recall that when the tax clerks at the beginning of the century tried to form a trade union, they asked modestly whether they could come and see those in power over them. The reply was, "if you're not satisfied with your wages"—I believe that they were about 23 shillings a week—"you may find another job". That reply did not deter my noble

269
friend Lord Houghton or those associated with him. That attitude has persisted up to the Second World War. In the First World War, the Civil Service formed the Civil Service Rifles. My noble friend was a drill sergeant in the Civil Service Rifles. I cannot imagine anything worse than having my noble friend as a drill sergeant, but we all survived in our various capacities!
However, we intend to stick to this issue of principle. It is offensive that a man or woman is not allowed to join a trade union of his or her choice when such action is perfectly legal. That is the issue. It will not go away; it will be a permanent blot on the record of this Government —heaven knows, they have enough already—if it is not removed. Just as in the earlier days the 1927 Act required a Labour Government to remove that blot in 1946, I fear from what has occurred so far that it will take another Labour Government to repeal this legislation and to permit members of GCHQ to be members of trade unions.
I have followed the discussion. I cannot think of any further concession that the unions could make to the Government after that sad and wrong business in the early 1980s (which has now been lived down by what has occurred since, in the Falklands War and elsewhere). I cannot envisage what other guarantees the unions' side could give to the Government that would ensure the continuance of work at all times in all circumstances, whether or not there was a national emergency. The unions have given every conceivable guarantee. The leadership which took over from those few who handled the situation in the early 1980s has given those guarantees.
I say this to the Government. I much regret that that legislation was a rush of blood to the head two or three years after the incident occurred. Mrs. Thatcher pushed the measure through. I have never challenged the noble Baroness's capacity to secure her objective. It is always the objective that I found difficult to stomach. The Government have had to carry on with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, then decided. It is known that there are differences of view in official circles about the matter. It is known that many people will be willing to concede that everything has now been done that could satisfy any reasonable Government or Minister about the situation. It is known that many people in official circles would welcome the removal of this blot of refusing an individual the right to belong to a trade union.
I make one more appeal to the Government. I do not expect to receive a satisfactory response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I wish him and everyone else to know that the issue will not go away. We shall continue to work at it until the blot is removed. If the Conservative Government wish that blot to remain on their record, so much the worse for them. But if they were wise, the Government would remove it straight away.
6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: There is another view. I greatly respect what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said; and it is worth thinking about what GCHQ is doing, what it is at and looking at it from that view. I had the privilege
270
of being responsible for what was then the naval unit which, in the 1960s, did some of the work which GCHQ does now. With the formation of the Ministry of Defence and abolition of the Admiralty, there was an arrangement by which all signals intelligence would be taken over by GCHQ.
I remember that we talked about the effects of that and how it might go. I do not suppose there is any record of it, and the Committee will have to take my word for it. We discussed what would happen with the new system of making all civil servants responsible to GCHQ and not under Admiralty control and whether or not they would have to have a trade union. We wondered whether, in the nature of the work that GCHQ has to do, it would be an easy situation for people who had to do the job.
The problem is—and there is no question of loyalty to the country and the points mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—there is always inevitably the potential between employers and the organised trade union for a conflict of loyalties. That potential is not important for the activities within a company if the relationships between the management and its own union representatives are good. Where the problem starts to raise its head is if the union is a national one conducting a national campaign of some kind in which it asks its members in companies not directly connected to the issue to come out, for whatever reason. That is not so easy now as 10 years ago because of the legislation which has been passed in the meantime, but it is still a possibility. That situation means that such individuals —and I have talked to many and have employed some—have great difficulty in deciding whether they should be loyal to managers or loyal to the trade union.
One of the features of the work that GCHQ does is that sometimes—one might say always—continuity of activity is vital for the interests of the management. Thus, if there is a suggestion—as there was for GCHQ, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mentioned at col. 1075 of Hansard for 9th December 1993—where pressure to engage in industrial action was coming from outside and not within the organisation, then one wonders whether what is being done is not right.
I honestly believe that there are situations in which, with that kind of activity at GCHQ, there may be a threat. I have to say to my noble friend that this has nothing to do with whether the Soviet Union is a threat to us. The whole point of the Bill concerns any threat that may come at any time in the future.
One has to ask whether we have to have the kind of protection that we do if there is no threat of conflict of loyalties from an internal trade union within this country. If that threat is a possibility—and it may have nothing to do with what is going on at GCHQ itself—then it is better that the situation we have at the moment should continue. I certainly think it would be most unwise to put the proposed subsection in Amendment No. 8 into the Bill, to provide it in this legislation. I am all for discussion between the TUC and the Government to see whether there is a modus vivendi whereby the union could say: "All right, under certain circumstances we will not press our members in GCHQ

271
to come out, even if we are trying to do that with everyone else". I do not know whether they have said that. I received the impression from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that they had. In that case, there is a good argument. However, it must be extremely firm, as firm as the IRA not using bombs at all, and they will not do that yet. Therefore, the amendment is certainly not suitable for insertion into legislation like this.
One final point is that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that a staff association would not do instead for the members. I had the happy privilege in the early 1970s of being director of an industrial training board with trade union, employer and educational bosses on the board. When I arrived, there were about 50 or 60 employees, though the number grew later on. I asked whether we had an organisation for talking to staff. I was told no, we did not. I said: "Then you'd better find out what they want." So we gave the employees the option of not having one, and I would not let them do that; but that is neither here nor there. We asked whether they would like a staff association or a trade union; and by far and away the majority, if not all employees, said that they wanted a staff association. I asked why and they said, "Because then we would not be subject to pressures from outside the organisation". That was the situation ab initio in 1969. I put it to my board, and the trade union members were horrified and said: "You can't do that, it's totally against all the rules". So we had to have a trade union, although the staff did not want it.
I have no doubt that when the staff built up to 400, they probably then wanted a trade union, but it is possible for people not to want pressures from outside which they do not need. I therefore hope that the amendment is not pressed.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The amendment and the debate taking place raise two issues. The first is the right of a man or woman to join a trade union of his or her choice. The second is the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of the importance of the particular job and of continuity. Those are not entirely separate; but for the purposes of discussion, we ought to try to look at them separately.
On the first issue of joining a union of one's choice, the arguments for the amendment and the case for the principle of the amendment have been made again and again from the Benches opposite—not least during the debates on the Employment Bill last year. That is, the right of individuals to choose to which union they shall belong. To that end, the Bridlington principles themselves were destroyed as a means of achieving the objective of ensuring to an individual the right to choose to which union he would belong. That was the Government's emphasis. Again and again they emphasised that the right not to join a trade union—to which they attached importance—was, in their view, matched by the right to join a trade union. They held a balance between the two. That is what the amendment is about—the right to join an independent and autonomous trade union, not to join a union of the Government's choice.
272
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has remarked that he was impressed by the so-called liberal—I apologise to the Benches on my right—employers who put their right hands on their hearts and say: "You can join any union you like, so long as you like the union I like". That is what the Government are saying to the staff of GCHQ. They are saying: you can join a union or a staff association, but we will not recognise any other. The Government are going well beyond the point of saying: you can join a union but we will not recognise you. They are saying what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would never have said to his employees. They are saying: you shall not have the right to associate with people who belong to another trade union, no matter whether you belonged to that union for many years before coming to GCHQ; no matter whether you see your future as being involved in work outside GCHQ for which that union would be appropriate; no matter whether you merely wish to join the union to get the benefits which are provided by that union, short of negotiating your wages and conditions; if you refuse and associate with people in another union, you will be sacked.
The Government said that at a time when even members of the Armed Forces were not deprived of the right to join a trade union of their choice. At that time, as we pointed out to the then Prime Minister, many members of the Armed Forces who were perhaps about to leave the service had, as had been the adopted practice, joined trade unions before leaving so that when they moved out into civilian life they would continue as members of that particular trade union. It was no good to them in terms of their membership being recognised for negotiating purposes by the Army, the Air Force or the Navy. But they had the simple right to have a trade union membership card in their pocket without being discriminated against.
The argument for the basic right—as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, the principal right—to join a trade union is surely in itself overwhelming. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, there are other considerations.
As I accepted in the discussions with the then Prime Minister, the Government, as the employer, must have an assurance that this critically important job must and will be done. Arrangements can and have been made to ensure that. One instance is in the case of the fire service. As a result of the present agreement, which was negotiated, I believe, in 1977 (my noble friend, Lord Callaghan, will remember it very well indeed), the idea of taking industrial action has in practice disappeared—although I have been worried on occasions to see that the Government have even contemplated undermining that particular arrangement. That is one instance. The offer made at the time by the Council of Civil Service Unions was designed precisely to meet that argument, and to meet the problem rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and others. It was designed to give an assurance that employees in GCHQ would act with due consideration for the national interest and would act responsibly.
We are rightly told that rights must always be accompanied by responsibilities. I accept that. It is equally true that responsibility should also be

273
accompanied by rights. Here is another case where trade unions are criticised half the time for acting irresponsibly, and the other half of the time are denied any responsibility. Men and women are being told—and comparisons have been made this afternoon that come near to it—that the mere fact of joining a trade union, of combining with their fellow men and women and belonging to a trade union, casts a shadow over them in terms of potential treachery. As has been said already, and I repeat it from my own experience, the patriotism and loyalty of people who work for GCHQ has never been, and cannot be, in question.
I could understand it if the Government say, and emphasise, that this job is so important and critical that it needs to be continually undertaken and that there must be rigid requirements relating to the operation and conduct of the people concerned. It is reasonable that on our behalf the Government should make that assertion. I claim that the unions concerned, and more importantly the employees in GCHQ, have demonstrated their ability and their willingness to meet that demand. We are talking here of a basic right. It is a right which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has so well demonstrated, is valued throughout the whole of the civilised world. It is the right of men to combine to pursue their legitimate interests. The importance of this amendment is that it meets both questions that have been raised in the mind of the Government historically, and indeed more recently. Above all, it meets the question as to whether people can be trusted to be members of trade unions and to continue to act responsibly. The amendment is important not only for its own sake. It is important because it would put beyond doubt the sincerity of the view, asserted by the Government, that men and women have the right to join independent unions of their own choice. As has been said already, the Government's acceptance of this amendment would restore Britain's standing on the international scene.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: This is the second time that a Conservative Government have taken retaliatory measures against the Civil Service trade unions and have failed to relent on the action that they took, based on fear and divided loyalties, during two periods of industrial disputes.
I was present in the Memorial Hall in Farringdon Street at the end of April 1925 and in 1926, when the General Strike became a reality in British trade union history. At the end of that dispute, some government fears about divided loyalties in the Civil Service took hold of their attitude towards the Civil Service. In 1926 some naval staffs at Devonport had strong affiliations with industrial workers of comparable occupation. The Trades Union Congress was claiming the loyalty of industrial trade unions in that particular field on that particular occasion. The only people who went on strike in the Civil Service at the time did so feeling a sense of loyalty to the industrial workers outside. They took unofficial action (not at the request of the union), and it was that which sparked off the strike. Winston Churchill, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer and in charge of Civil Service affairs at the time, said that the
274
action at Devonport raised grave issues of divided loyalties in the Civil Service. On that occasion the Government did not ban the members of the unions from joining a Civil Service union. They banned the unions themselves. They excluded Civil Service unions from any association with outside bodies that contained industrial workers upon whose loyalty the trade union might have to rely.
At GCHQ it was not what happened but what the Government feared might happen. I regret to say that their fear of what might happen was fuelled by the foolish, random threats that were made by the general secretary of one of the unions at that time. I clearly recall what I considered to be the dangerous use of threats to bring into a dispute the sacred activities of intelligence staffs. That was the fear then. It was not necessary to take action because those fears never materialised and never would have done so. But on both occasions retaliation against the Civil Service took place.
On the first occasion the Conservative Government did not relent. The provisions of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, which threw the Civil Service unions out of the general trade union movement, were not reversed until 1946 under a Labour Government. For 20 years they were kept outside association with organisations of professional workers. Any organisation that had anything to do with conditions of service was barred from a relationship with the Civil Service. Certificates of approval had to be obtained in order to join the union at all.
Why did the Government stick to that for so long? Why are they sticking to GCHQ for so long? Times have changed. It is true that on the first occasion 20 years had transpired after the General Strike. An entirely new world had dawned when the war was over. But there was a serious flaw in the Government's thinking to have regarded it as something to retain indefinitely.
So here we are again. There ought to be strong hope at this time of the Government deciding to start afresh. But the experience to which I referred gives very little substance to hopes of a change of mind and a more liberal approach to the situation. There never was any fear that was worth the Government taking the action that they did.
I beg the Government to get rid of their grievance. I have used my best endeavours with those who were responsible at the time and others since. So far I have failed. It is time for the Government to restore their confidence, which was so rudely withdrawn from that section of the Civil Service. It is a slight on subsequent entrants to the service and on those who were serving at the time. For heaven's sake, let us get rid of it! Otherwise, it will rest with the next government—which will be a Labour Government—to repair the situation left behind by the retaliatory measures of the Conservative Government.
Lord Tebbit: There are just two points which do not seem to me to have been made sufficiently clearly so far in this debate. I say that with every respect to the extremely distinguished Members who have taken part already. The first point is that whatever "guarantees"

275
may be given by the present leaders of trade unions or the trade union movement as a whole, and however copper bottomed or solemn and binding they may be, there is no way in which they can be regarded as absolutely enforceable. Surely, there can be nobody in this Chamber more acutely aware of that than the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
A second point which it seems to me has been missed—and an outsider, not familiar with these matters, who is listening to this debate might not be aware of it at all—is that this is not a case where GCHQ is a stand alone business. GCHQ is not an employer. The employer is Her Majesty's Government. Civil servants are not being told that they may not join a trade union. What is being said is that if one is a civil servant who wishes to belong to a trade union, one may not work in that particular part of government. That is a very different matter.
I see that the noble Lord smiles. But it is a distinctly different matter. In just the same way Her Majesty's Government do not say that government employees cannot be civil servants but that members of the armed services should not be members of a trade union. That is the acute difference.
What is asked by those in favour of this amendment is not that civil servants should have a right to belong to a union. That right is there. They are saying that trade unionists should have the right to work in a particular part of the government service. It is a different matter.
Surely, if, in the judgment of those involved, there are some parts of the government service where those who work should not be members of a trade union, it is not so much a great issue of principle as one of practicality and judgment. As I said, it has to be judged particularly against the background that whatever the goodwill of those involved who give solemn and binding undertakings, those solemn and binding undertakings are simply not bankable.
The Lord Chancellor: It is clear that this is an important matter. I wish to approach it on the basis of the principle on which the Government's attitude rests. I should like to make it as clear as I can that there is no suggestion whatever that individual members of GCHQ were in any way disloyal or that there was anything in the nature of treachery or any idea of that sort.
The problem is not that trade unionists were thought more likely to be spies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, mentioned in the course of her opening remarks. That is not the problem. The problem which faced and faces the Government is that in their view—I believe that most Members who have spoken also accept it—it is essential for the continued protection of this country that GCHQ operations should be continuous. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Moyne that that is true whether or not there is a threat from the Soviet Union. It is essential that the continuous operation of GCHQ should be guaranteed.
As I mentioned at Second Reading—it is right that I should mention it again—from 1979 to 1981, considerable disruption occurred at GCHQ with the loss of some 10,000 man-days in total. Because of the
276
experience of that disruption, the Government concluded that the change to conditions of service for staff at GCHQ was indeed necessary. In other words, the reason Was to secure the continuous operation of GCHQ; and the action was taken in the light of the experience of the discontinuity in that operation over the period between 1979 and 1981, amounting to 10,000 man-days in total. The view of the Government—I do not understand that any Member who has so far spoken dissented from this view—is that disruption at GCHQ would pose a great threat to the country's security.
The staff at GCHQ are represented by a staff federation. It is registered as a trade union and proved itself effective with membership comprising well over half of the staff at GCHQ. It is therefore not right to imply that GCHQ staff are unrepresented and at the whim of management.
As I said at Second Reading, discussions recently took place between the unions and officials, and the unions then met the Prime Minister to discuss the matter. The Prime Minister set out the substance and outcome of the meeting in a Written Answer today. As that is important in the context of this debate, I shall set it out. The Prime Minister said:
"I met representatives of the Civil Service unions to discuss trade union membership at GCHQ at their request following a series of discussions they had with officials. I explained that the Government's overriding objective remained to ensure the maintenance of continuous operations at GCHQ necessary for the protection of national security. In that context it was necessary also to ensure that the staff were not subject to potential conflicts of loyalty".
The conflict of loyalty in question is that between a request not to work at GCHQ and the need for its continuous operation. It is nothing to do with treachery or disloyalty in that sense. The Prime Minister continued:
"Against that background, however, I indicated that the Government was prepared to enable the Government Communications Staff Federation, the registered trade union for GCHQ staff, to affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions subject to conditions to guarantee its continuing independence. This would have allowed the staff of GCHQ to be represented in discussions between the Government and the unions on matters affecting the civil service generally in a way which they are not at present. The national trade unions have indicated that they do not regard this as acceptable … There are no plans for any further meetings but the Government remains willing to discuss any further proposals on the subject that the unions may wish to put forward".
I turn to the International Labour Organisation. I am aware of the view of its Committee of Experts on the matter. The Government do not accept that Convention 87 can be viewed in isolation from Convention 151, which relates specifically to employment in the public service and makes allowances for exactly the situation at GCHQ. Convention 151 was adopted expressly because of earlier disputes about the application of Convention 87 to the public service. In considering the amendment it is the Government's view that rights in accordance with ILO Convention 87, read in conjunction with Convention 151, do indeed exist at GCHQ.
That point, which the Government made to the ILO, is one which was recognised by the European Commission of Human Rights in January 1987 when it

277
considered the admissibility of an application by the Council of Civil Service Unions in respect of the Government's action at GCHQ.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, reminded us, on that occasion the unions had the benefit of his great expertise as an advocate and therefore one can be certain that the Commission was apprised of every possible argument that could be used in favour of the application that was being put forward. The noble Lord was inclined to suggest that, as the Commission did not completely accept his submission, it proceeded on a rather legalistic basis. However, when one loses, one perhaps sometimes holds a less generous view of the quality of the judgment than one would hold in other circumstances.
In its ruling, which rejected the application, the Commission noted that it was,
"confronted with a special institution, namely GCHQ, whose purpose resembles to a large extent that of the armed forces and the police insofar as GCHQ staff directly or indirectly, by ensuring the security of the respondent Government's military and official communications, fulfil vital functions in protecting national security".
I believe that that accurately reflects the role of GCHQ. It is one of the security and intelligence services and forms an integral part of the UK's organisation for defence and national security. As is made clear in the Bill, the Armed Forces play an integral role in GCHQ operations and many of the functions of the civilian staff of GCHQ are identical with those of the service personnel. A technical point therefore arises on the application of the amendment in that, in view of the definition of "GCHQ" in Clause 3(3), it would include units of the Armed Forces.
Finally, the Bill is primarily about the functions, purposes and oversight of the intelligence services. Following the parallel of the Security Services Act, it does not set out to cover matters such as conditions of service. I wonder, therefore, at the appropriateness of singling out one specific aspect of conditions of service at one of the agencies in this way for inclusion in the Bill in the way that the amendment seeks to do. However, my primary reason for inviting your Lordships not to accept the amendment is the reason of principle which I explained at the outset; namely, the essential character of continuity of operations at GCHQ.
In the light of those considerations I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. If it is pressed, I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will indicate whether or not he agrees with me, in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that there would be nothing to stop the solemn and binding undertakings—which the noble Lord referred to as being "not bankable"—being reduced into a collective agreement; being given contractual force by agreement between the unions and the Government, and therefore being fully enforceable in court by an injunction if necessary.
The Lord Chancellor: I have been asked for advice on matters of this sort long enough not to be willing to give it without seeing the terms of the document in question. The Prime Minister's Written Answer
278
indicates that any further proposals on the subject that the unions may wish to put forward may be considered. I would be content that legal advice other than my own should be taken on any document that may be submitted in furtherance of that objective.
Baroness Turner: I am disappointed with the response of the noble and learned Lord to the submissions made from this side of the Committee, not only by myself but by a number of other Members who spoke in the debate. First, the noble and learned Lord referred to the disruption in 1979–81. I simply echo what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Houghton; that times have changed. Not only that, but the Government introduced their own legislation. It is true that I do not like it very much, but that legislation makes the whole business of calling industrial disputes much more, difficult for unions and involves balloting members and so forth.
Moreover, with regard to the assurances given by the unions (they were forthcoming from the Civil Service unions under the auspices of the TUC) the Prime Minister was asked whether there were any assurances that could be offered which would remove the anxiety about a conflict of loyalty. Therefore, the unions themselves are willing to bend over backwards to meet the Government's fears on the issue of GCHQ's continuous operation.
It was made clear from this side of the Committee that the Civil Service unions are willing to accept that GCHQ is a special case and therefore assurances in regard to continuous operation should be and have been forthcoming. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated, they could be enshrined in a collective agreement which could be made enforceable. The whole point about the offer that has been made to permit the staff association to apply for membership of the Council of Civil Service Unions is not felt by the TUC or the unions concerned to be an adequate response. I quote again from the letter I had from the TUC:
"It is the trade union view that this does not extend to the employees concerned any guarantee of a right to choose freely an organisation to represent them".
We have had a very good debate on this issue. I feel, as the Committee will well understand, very strongly about it. There is an important point of principle at stake here. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has spelt that out very clearly. I therefore wish to take the view of the Committee.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Airedale, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Hamwee, B.

Brimelow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Haskel, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ennals, L.

Howell, L.

279

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Jay, L.

Nicol, B.

Jeger, B.

Ogmore, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Kagan, L.

Rea, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Richard, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mayhew, L.

White, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Aldington, L.

Leigh, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Lyell, L.

Arran, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mersey, V.

Bridges, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L.

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cadman, L.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newall, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Reay, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Romney, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dormer, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Stewartby, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Flather, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gisborough, L.

Tebbit, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thatcher, B.

Goschen, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Thurlow, L.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hayter, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hertford, M.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hood, V.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Howe, E.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wynford, L.

Kenyon, L.

Knutsford, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.49 p.m.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [The Director of GCHQ]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Warrants: general]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: It is with some trepidation that I enter into such an erudite subject as the Intelligence Services Bill, on which few of us are qualified to speak. But I believe that many of us are qualified to speak on the subject of drafting. Clause 5(1) starts with the most horrendous double negative:
"No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section".
Responding to the first amendment today, my noble and learned friend said that the way in which Acts of Parliament are drafted is a matter of judgment. Unintentionally no doubt, he made a rod for his own back, as far as I am concerned, in saying that.
I would like to ask what the horrendous phrase actually means. My first thought was, "I should hope not, indeed." My second and probably more mature thought was: does it mean that entry and so on shall only be lawful if it is so authorised or indeed that entry, and so on, shall be unlawful unless so authorised? It occurred to me that other Acts of Parliament could be involved here where authorisation under this Bill would not be necessary but nonetheless the activities contained in Clause 5(1) would still be legal. Can my noble friend help me and consider whether it would be appropriate to seek a happier and more elegant method of drafting the introduction to the clause?
The Lord Chancellor: I would be sorry to make a rod for my own back if I could avoid it, and I doubt if I have done so on this occasion. I believe that the drafting is as neat a way of expressing the underlying idea as can be devised. The problem is that there are plenty of entries on to property which are perfectly lawful. There are entries on to property which can be authorised in all sorts of ways.
In order to give effect to a warrant one wants to have a situation which prevents the entry being unlawful as a result of the warrant being given. I cannot think of any better way of expressing it than that chosen. I know that my noble friend is critical. If he can suggest a better way of expressing the same idea and without unnecessary words, I shall be happy to consider it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Authorisation of acts outside the British Islands]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 22, at end insert:
("(9) The Secretary of State shall report to the Intelligence and Security Committee once a year on the number and general description of all acts authorised under section 7 in the previous year.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the committee is properly informed about all authorisations of illegal acts. The whole point of setting up a special parliamentary committee is to make the work of the intelligence and

281
security services more accountable. Accountability to Parliament is necessary because, first, agents of the state who act on its behalf must be subject to adequate control by the elected representatives of the people. Secondly, the three services must be accountable to ensure that the quite considerable sums of public money spent on them are efficiently and effectively used and not wasted. I regret to say that secrecy can easily encourage inefficiency.
Thirdly, decisions about invading the privacy of others and acting outside the civil and criminal law should not be made by people who have a monopoly of information, who know that they need not share their knowledge and who thus have power without responsibility. Fourthly, accountability and openness can promote public trust and understanding of the reasons for the need to have services of this kind.
It is an essential part of the function of the committee to oversee the work of the intelligence services. The authorisation of activities under Clause 7 by the Secretary of State is likely to involve some of the most controversial issues. It is therefore important that the committee has sufficient information in order to carry out this important task. The lack of any requirement that such authorisation should be agreed by any independent mechanism such as a court makes scrutiny by the committee all the more important.
On this side of the Chamber we have some doubts that the committee will be able to exercise adequate monitoring of the three services because of the controls on its access to information about those same services. In the United States, Canada and Australia, reforms have been introduced over the past decade which give greater accountability than that proposed by this Bill.
If a better scheme is possible in those countries, surely there is no reason why it would not work here, too. The Bill imposes no real controls on how the Secretary of State should exercise his or her discretion. The provisions in the Bill imply that the members of the committee cannot be trusted with sensitive information. I assume that members of the committee will be carefully selected and that they will be people of responsibility who can be trusted with such information. The fact that they are not to be trusted with sensitive information is contrary to the position of the commissioner who has free access to all information. I beg to move.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Under Clause 8 the commissioner will be reviewing all the warrants issued by the Secretary of State. The amendment therefore confuses two sets of functions—those of the commissioner and those of the committee. Moreover, the amendment would be a threat to the need-to-know principle. The committee is there to look at expenditure, administration and policy, not at delicate operations. I cannot stress too much that to extend its powers in the manner proposed cannot but have an adverse effect on the readiness of delicate sources, both actual and potential, to risk their identities becoming known and in many cases their lives being put at risk because the ring of secrecy has been unnecessarily widened. Need-to-know really matters.
282
In any dictatorship—and many still survive—intelligence on its undisclosed intentions is among the requirements Ministers will place on the service. An official or a member of the local services, or someone close to the dictator, will have right of access. The activity which he or she carries out on our behalf could very easily put them in breach of the law; for instance, in providing official documents. As in the case of a source reporting from inside a terrorist organisation, his life could be forfeit on discovery. It is vital that such sources feel that identities will be known only to the smallest possible circle. In the United States, which has been cited, one of the serious ill effects of the system of oversight—although the DDO, which is the CIA equivalent of the SIS, reports only at intervals on covert operations and not on sources and methods—has been the chill factor. Major sources were frightened off by the fear of leaks, and liaison services, whose co-operation and trust is vital to many operations abroad, ceased to confide and co-operate. In this dangerous world we really cannot afford that.
7 p.m.
Lord Richard: I rise only because I was slightly provoked by something that the noble Baroness just said about the composition and the functions of the Intelligence and Security Committee under Clause 10. I may as well raise it now so that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can deal with it. If I heard her correctly, the noble Baroness said that the function of the committee was only to examine expenditure, administration and policy—not operations. For the life of me, I do not see how one can consider the administration and expenditure of the service without knowing at least something about the sort of operations upon which it is spending its money. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could clear up what on the face of it seems a difficult ambiguity. If the provisions mean what the noble Baroness says that they mean, I fear that we may have to table some additional amendments on Report.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may reply to that. I think that I said that the committee would not be responsible, as the commissioner would be, for operational sources and methods—that is, the detail.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that it is important in this Bill, particularly having regard to its specialised subject matter, to notice that there are three distinct provisions for oversight: the commissioner, the tribunal and the committee. The commissioner, who will be independent and a high judicial officer, will review warrants and authorisations. The tribunal will, again, be of a high quality of impartiality and will investigate complaints. The business of the oversight committee of parliamentarians will be to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the three services. The oversight committee will have all the information that it needs to fulfil that function. Schedule 3 makes that clear.
The extent of the information that will be required in order to fulfil that function is a matter for which, ultimately, the Secretary of State has responsibility in connection with ensuring that information which is

283
withheld is withheld only if it would not be proper to hand it over to an ordinary Select Committee. The level of detail that will be required in that connection would need to be judged in accordance with the circumstances. However, I think it highly unlikely that the very detailed information which would identify sources, for example, would be part of that. The number of persons having access to information which could identify and therefore put at risk the lives of sources would have to be strictly limited.
The commissioner has responsibility for reviewing the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers to give authorisations and to issue warrants. The Bill therefore empowers him to have unlimited access to information, including operational information, in order to fulfil that function. I believe that that is a sensible and effective division of functions between the commissioner and the committee.
The Bill provides that the commissioner makes an annual report which is laid before Parliament. The committee, which will consist of parliamentarians, will therefore see the annual report which the commissioner will lay before Parliament on the discharge of his functions, which will include his review of the Secretary of State's giving of authorisations. Therefore, I venture to suggest that the amendment confuses two distinct means of safeguarding the oversight of the activities of the agencies and the relevant activities of the Secretary of State. It is right that the commissioner should have responsibility for his area. The general remit in relation to expenditure, administration and policy should be for the committee. In connection with that, it will receive the commissioner's report which is laid before Parliament. That is the information on that matter which it is proper that the committee should have. Accordingly, and in the light of those considerations, I invite the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may press the noble and learned Lord on this point. Looking at the wording of the amendment, is he saying that the Intelligence and Security Committee would not be entitled to receive once a year information
"on the number and general description of all acts authorised under section 7"?
Such information is given to the commissioner. I do not see how the Intelligence and Security Committee can consider the policy, particularly on the issue of warrants or unauthorised acts, unless it is entitled to receive the information which is referred to in the amendment. In other words, is such information to be solely within the purview of the commissioner or is it open to the Intelligence and Security Committee to receive such information as well? If that is so, I submit that the overview is too compartmentalised.
The Lord Chancellor: The way I see it is this: the detail in relation to authorisations and warrants is a matter for the commissioner. The commissioner then makes a report upon that in which he will no doubt comment, so far as is necessary, upon the policy underlying the granting of those warrants. That report will be available to the committee which can make
284
known such views about it as it wishes. It will receive the report which the commissioner has made having seen the full details. That seems to me to be a satisfactory arrangement which does not in any way unduly compartmentalise the information. However, in this connection, it is important that the information is not unnecessarily distributed. When the commissioner gathers the information that he requires for his purpose, he will make his report upon it which will contain, I should think, all that it is necessary for the committee to know in respect of the policy which governs the granting of those warrants and authorisations.
Baroness Blackstone: If I understand him correctly, I think that the noble and learned Lord is saying that the committee will receive a report from the commissioner which will set out the kind of information that we are asking that the committee should receive
"on the number and general description of all acts authorised under Section 7".
I think that I have understood that correctly.
It seems to me, however, that it might be helpful if the committee were to get that information direct from the Secretary of State when it needs it. It is difficult to have oversight over expenditure if one does not have direct information in the broadest possible terms—I am not asking for great detail on matters such as methods, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred. However, I say again that information is required in the broadest sense. The amendment refers to,
"the number and general description"
of such acts. I am a little bemused about why, if such information is to be included in the commissioner's report, it cannot go direct to the committee from the Secretary of State.
I should like to make it clear that we on these Benches accept the need for such information to be strictly limited, and that we accept it should not be unnecessarily distributed. However, I think I am right in saying that, as presently drafted, the Bill proposes a very small committee of only six people. That is hardly a very large number of additional people to whom such information should be distributed. As I said earlier, I assume that they will be carefully selected.
I do not wish to press the amendment but will reconsider the matter between now and the next stage when we may want to return to it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [The Commissioner]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) Any reports made to the Prime Minister by the Commissioner shall at the same time be made to the Intelligence Services Committee referred to in section 10 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: As I said on the previous amendment, it is an essential part of the committee's function to oversee the work of the Intelligence Service. The current provisions in the Bill imply that the members of the committee cannot be trusted with sensitive information. That is contrary to the position of the commissioner who, as we have already agreed, is

285
entitled to free access to all information. His or her report will provide essential information to the committee members who should be able to see it.
I assume from what the noble and learned Lord said on the previous amendment that he will have no difficulty in accepting this one. There is a real danger that the committee will be unable to have any influence on any of the three services if there are to be draconian controls on its access to information about the services. But I understand from what the noble and learned Lord said last time that such controls will not exist because the committee will be able to have access to the commissioner's report, which will provide that information. I hope that on this occasion, which will be the first time in this Committee, the Government can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness. The effect of the amendment, as she has explained, would be to give the committee automatic access to all reports made by the commissioner to the Prime Minister, including material which the Prime Minister would be entitled to exclude before presentation to Parliament under Clause 8(7). Clause 8(7) provides that the Prime Minister may exclude material if it appears to him, after consultation with the commissioner, that it would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the SIS or GCHQ. There is a similar provision for the Security Service in the Security Service Act.
The essential point that I sought to make in relation to the previous amendment was that we have tried to take care to establish clear, proper and separate roles for the commissioner and the committee. Those roles are set out in Clauses 8 and 10 respectively. By virtue of the commissioner's role, which has to do with a review of the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under Clauses 5 to 7, and essential matters affecting the tribunal and its work, the commissioner must necessarily have unfettered potential access to the entirety of the services' work and record. That must, as appropriate, include access to crucial operational details. It might well be that the commissioner would think it right, in his report to the Prime Minister, to make specific reference to precise operational detail about which he thought the Prime Minister, as responsible ultimately for the Security Service and the Intelligence Service, should know. However, the committee's position is different. The business of the committee is to scrutinise the expenditure, administration and policy of the three services. As I said, that remit is distinct from, although complementary to, that of the commissioner.
In order properly to do its job, the committee does not need —I believe that this was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on the previous amendment—to have the same level of access and the same detail as the commissioner. Therefore, to reflect the different access that the respective roles of commissioner and committee require, the Bill contains detailed provisions in Schedule 3 governing access to information by the committee.
The commissioner's report, as I said, might well find it necessary to refer to the detail of a current operation.
286
Automatic disclosure of that information to the committee might well not be appropriate. It does not necessarily mean that in some circumstances it might not be able to obtain it, but the amendment would make that automatic. Accordingly, the Government consider that it is entirely appropriate that the commissioner should report directly and only to the Prime Minister who carries the ultimate responsibility for protecting national security, and that the report to which the committee would automatically have access would be the commissioner's report, as presented to Parliament, subject to the excisions which the Prime Minister could make under Clause 8(7).
7.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: I am sorry to intervene again on this point, but I had thought that on the previous amendment we had this reasonably clear. I am not sure now whether we have. I thought that on the previous amendment the noble and learned Lord told us that the commissioner would send a copy of his report, at least on the generality of the issues, to the committee. I gather from what he is now saying that he did not believe that to be the position. We are not asking that the commisstoner should send to the committee every part of his report on detailed operations that he makes to the Prime Minister, but I do not for the life of me see why he should riot report to the intelligence committee once a year on the number and general description of all acts authorised in the previous year under Clause 7. I thought that on the previous amendment the noble and learned Lord was accepting that there should be that kind of general report, which is what we were asking for on the previous amendment, but that it should come from the Secretary of State and not the commissioner.
The Lord Chancellor: There may be some confusion. My understanding of Amendment No. 12 is that it wants any reports made to the Prime Minister by the commissioner to be made at the same time to the intelligence services committee referred to in Clause 10. That is the whole report. There may be detail in that, in relation to the operational matters, which it is not appropriate to hand out to the committee. I believe that the noble Lord accepts that. If he accepts that there may be detail in the report made to the Prime Minister which is not appropriate to go to the intelligence services committee, then the amendment does not work because it requires the whole report to be sent to the committee. Therefore, what the noble Lord is saying, while it might be acceptable, is not what the amendment asks for.
Lord Richard: No, with great respect it was the previous amendment. The only difference is that it should be the commissioner instead of the Secretary of State who sends it. I thought that the noble and learned Lord was accepting that on the previous amendment. If he is saying that he cannot accept the amendment which demands that all the detailed reports should go to the committee, but that he will accept that the commissioner's report on the generality of the issue should go to the committee, I am content to leave it there, and no doubt suitable drafting can take place between now and Report.
The Lord Chancellor: What I am saying, and I hope that it is clear, is that the commissioner's report goes to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can make excisions for reasons given in Clause 8(7). The resulting report, subject to the excisions, will go to Parliament. Therefore the committee will receive it because its members are all parliamentarians. That is what I said in answer to the previous amendment. So the general report, subject to the excisions, will be available to the committee, in accordance with the arrangements made, because its members are all Members of Parliament. No doubt other matters may have to be raised, but that is the essential of it. Therefore the committee will receive the commissioner's report in so far as it is appropriate for Parliament to receive it, subject to the excisions. That is what I said on the last amendment. I believe that what I am saying on both amendments is consistent.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not want to pursue this matter much further other than to say that there must be some anxiety in a Bill that is designed to make the services more accountable, including more accountable to Parliament, that the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, has carte blanche to take out of the commissioner's report anything he wishes, therefore denying the carefully selected members of the committee of Parliament the opportunity to see what it seems to me they should be able to see if the services are to be accountable and they are to have proper oversight of the expenditure of these services. However we will look again at this issue and come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Investigation of Complaints]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 19, at end insert ("and
(c) whether any information collected should now be destroyed because it is no longer necessary for national security to retain it.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the tribunal can consider whether material collected on individuals or organisations either by the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ needs to be retained or whether it can at an appropriate time be destroyed without any damage to national security. At present the Security Service keeps its records on individuals for ever. That was made clear in the 1991 report of the Security Service Commissioner. The Security Service tribunal has absolutely no power to order the destruction of the files. This anomaly will be introduced by the Bill for both the intelligence services and GCHQ.
Perhaps I may give a particular example. In 1985 there was evidence from an ex-member of the security services, Miss Cathy Massiter, that Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman, former General Secretary and Legal Officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties respectively, had been subject to surveillance for a long period of time. Following an application to the European Commission of Human Rights by Liberty, then the National Council for Civil Liberties, the
288
commission found a breach of Article 8, the right to privacy, and of Article 13, the right to an effective remedy.
The Government then produced the Security Services Bill 1989. Following an application made by Miss Hewitt and Miss Harman in July 1981, the new Security Service tribunal rejected their complaint stating that it had no jurisdiction to investigate any complaint concerning the retention of files on the two women. An application to the High Court for judicial review failed and the court said that the 1989 Act did not allow it to review the tribunal's decision.
In the commissioner's annual report he commented on the problem of retention of files and explained the procedure. However, he was clearly unable to do anything else about it. A further complaint was made to the European Commission of Human Rights but in September 1993 the commission decided that it was inadmissible. Thus information collected on these women—one who is now a Member of Parliament and a member of the Shadow Cabinet, and the other who is a well-known public figure, Deputy Director of the Institute of Public Policy Research and the Deputy Chairman of the Commission on Social Justice—will be kept indefinitely with no legal controls on who has access to it.
Can it really be acceptable that information that was collected through the surveillance of individuals should be retained for ever in all cases? Surely it should be legally possible for the tribunal to investigate the need to retain files in cases such as this. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: This amendment would extend the tribunal's responsibilities to include the review of records held by the SIS and GCHQ with a view to deciding whether they should be retained or destroyed. While I understand the anxieties underlying this amendment, I suggest that it is both unnecessary and undesirable.
Paragraph 8(1) (a) of Schedule 1 already provides that the tribunal may order the destruction of records where it has investigated a complaint and found that the SIS or GCHQ acted unreasonably in respect of an individual. Where the records have arisen as a result of unreasonable acting in respect of an individual, the tribunal has the power to order the destruction of the records. The Secretary of State has a similar power by virtue of paragraph 8(3). I believe that this is what is appropriate and what deals with the heart of the matter as explained by the noble Baroness. I believe that it would be inappropriate to broaden the tribunal's responsibility or power in this respect.
In his annual report for 1991 the Security Service Commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, commented on his investigation into the records policy of the Security Service. He noted firstly that it was the policy of the service to retain records indefinitely on the basis that they might become of relevance at some time in the future. He pointed out that each case must be justified on its merits. I believe the same argument must hold true for the SIS and GCHQ. It would be very difficult to be sure that a particular piece of information had no longer, nor was likely to have in the future, any national security

289
implications. That is assuming that it has been reasonably acquired, because the power of the tribunal comes in in cases where information has not been reasonably acquired.
He also noted that with the establishment of the tribunal it was important that those records which had previously been destroyed as irrelevant or unnecessary should now he retained. For example, it may occasionally happen that the Security Service opens a file on a person or organisation in error; that is to say that after an initial period it becomes clear that the individual or organisation should not have been classified as subversive or a terrorist or whatever. However, the file should be retained so that in the event of a complaint full information may be given to the tribunal to allow it to consider whether the agency had reasonable grounds for instituting investigations. In Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's words:
"It does not follow that because the temporary file is not converted into a permanent one, or the Service decides that an error of categorisation has been made, that the original inquiries were not justified. It seems somewhat ironical that the Service now retain such records which it does not require for its own purposes and which it would otherwise have destroyed. But it is plain that they must now do so".
That is in order to give the tribunal the necessary material to investigate this if the matter should arise.
The standard of record keeping by the Security Service was commended. While the SIS and GCHQ have not yet been required to hold records in any particular format, the legislation requires the heads of the agencies to put in place arrangements for ensuring the proper handling of information. I understand that work on reviewing in-house records arrangements is already under way and I am confident that similarly high standards will apply.
In my submission, the power that the tribunal has in paragraph 8(1) (a) to order the destruction of records is appropriate and it would be inappropriate to broaden the tribunal's responsibility or power in this particular respect. I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Before deciding whether to press the amendment I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord one question. I was a little unclear about it and perhaps he will forgive me. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that all files must be kept in perpetuity just in case a complaint is made at some later date? He appeared to be saying that at one point in his response.
The Lord Chancellor: I was quoting what was said by the commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, in relation to the Security Service. He stated:
"It seems somewhat ironical that the Service now retain such records which it does not require for its own purposes and which it would otherwise have destroyed. But it is plain that they must now do so".
For precisely how long is not dealt with. He did not say "in perpetuity", and therefore nor did I, but that is what I read.
Baroness Blackstone: Surely it would be a little ironic if somebody complained not about the original surveillance but about the fact that information that had been acquired about his private life were to be kept for
290
ever and ever, even though there was no reason on the grounds of national security for retaining it, simply in case he might make a complaint. I find that hard to comprehend.
May I also ask the noble and learned Lord whether it will be possible for the tribunal to hear a complaint simply that files have been retained on an individual? That would be the nature of the complaint. Are they allowed under this legislation to hear such a complaint? I am not quite clear about that.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The grounds on which the tribunal exercises its power is contained in Section 9 of the Bill. The tribunal is
"for the purpose of investigating complaints about the Intelligence Service or GCHQ in the manner specified".
The complaints are in no way narrowed by that particular clause. In other words, any complaint is a proper matter for the tribunal. Procedure for dealing with the complaint is set out in Schedule 2, in particular in paragraph 3.
In my view, it follows that the sort of complaint which the noble Baroness has indicated would be covered by the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the question would be whether or not the service in question had acted unreasonably in respect of the individual in connection with the information.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say whether that is really the position in the light of what one finds in paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1? Paragraph 10(1) says:
"No complaint shall be entertained under this Schedule if and so far as it relates to anything done before the date on which this Schedule comes into force".
I wonder whether that would exclude the kind of case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has referred, where there has been an improper retention of personal data at a date before the schedule came into force. Perhaps I have missed something.
The Lord Chancellor: I was talking about the general nature of the complaint rather than the particular date on which it happened. I said that a complaint of that type was covered because there is no restriction on the type of complaint.
So far as the point on paragraph 10(1) is concerned', the example which the noble Baroness gave would refer to retention of the record at the time that the complaint was being made. Presumably that would be after the date on which the schedule would come into force. So I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is again yes.
Baroness Blackstone: I am reassured by the answer to that question. Clearly, this is a difficult and complex area and I do not wish to press the amendment this evening, but I should like the opportunity to look at it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn, and I suggest that the Committee stage resumes at 8.20 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.34 to 8.20 p.m.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 18, at end insert:
("( ) 8. The Tribunal shall submit details of every determination made by it, its reasons for the determination and the relevant background papers, to the Intelligence Services Committee.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the committee is aware of the nature and details of the complaints made to the tribunal about the Intelligence Service and GCHQ. So that the committee may be able to consider the workings of the two services, it must know what complaints have been made and how they have been dealt with by the tribunal. While the vast majority of complaints to the Security Service Tribunal appear to be unjustified—that information comes from the annual report of the Security Service Commissioner—they are not all misconceived and some complaints will, presumably, illustrate more general problems in the functions and working of the services. I am sure that that information will be very helpful for the work of the committee. The amendment is a very simple one. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The amendment, like others we have dealt with, risks confusing the functions of the tribunal and the committee. The tribunal is responsible for investigating complaints and may therefore need access to very detailed operational information in some situations. On the other hand, the committee has access in terms of later provisions to the information that it needs in order to fulfil its functions. It is by no means clear that it would be necessary for the committee to have information in the detail that the tribunal may require.
In my submission, the proper arrangement is for information to go to the committee under its arrangements with the head of agency having responsibility for deciding whether sensitive information may be released to the committee. Then, of course, the Secretary of State would have the power to decide if he wished to allow information to go forward.
The effect of the amendment would be that a fairly broad category of case would bypass the above procedure. The committee has no role in relation to complaints against the agencies for which adequate alternative arrangements exist under the Bill. Those arrangements include the responsibility of the tribunal relating to complaints received about the activities of SIS and GCHQ. The legislation is framed in such a way as to enable such complaints to be properly and effectively dealt with. As I said at the outset, it would be confusing to require, as the amendment does, the detail underlying the decisions of the tribunal to go to the committee.
I have no doubt that what lies behind the amendment is the feeling that the committee may not receive all the information that it requires under its own procedures. In my submission, the arrangements for information to the committee are appropriate. What is proposed would really confuse the arrangements for the tribunal with
292
those for the committee. In the light of those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I understand exactly what has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the different functions of the committee and of the tribunal. However, underlying the amendment may also be a concern that the tribunal should give reasons for its determination. I have in mind reasons not only to the complainant—a matter which arises later—but also reasons so that an oversight committee, without necessarily having the relevant background material, at least understands the basis of the determinations made by the tribunal.
Leaving aside the question of the different functions of the tribunal and the committee, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could assure Members of the Committee that the tribunal will give a reasoned decision to whomsoever that decision goes, setting out the full basis of it so that one can understand how the analogy with judicial review is being applied.
The Lord Chancellor: The duties of the tribunal are set out in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which reads:
"Where the Tribunal determine under paragraph 3 above that the Intelligence Service or, as the case may be, GCHQ did not have reasonable grounds for doing what it did, they shall—

(a) give notice to the complainant that they have made a determination in his favour; and

(b) make a report of their findings to the Secretary of State and to the Commissioner".

Therefore, so far as concerns the complainant, what he or she receives in such a case is a determination statement that there has been a determination in his or her favour. Members of the Committee will see that if the tribunal does make such a determination it has various powers set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 under the heading of "Remedies".
The tribunal is not required to give any more than notice of its determination. It is difficult to see how reasons could be given without the background on which the reasons rest. In such an area, the idea that reasons could be given which are consistent with the nature of the Intelligence Service and GCHQ—and, indeed, the Security Service, in relation to the other Act—is quite a difficult one. I do not believe that it would be at all desirable, in general, for reasons to be given. I would not have thought that the amendment is intended to cover that point. The idea behind the amendment is that the reasons should be submitted to the intelligence services committee, but not to the complainant. Therefore, I believe that the purpose put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, would not be covered by the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may be forgiven for rising to speak again. I can well understand why the individual complainant in this exceptional area might need to be deprived of the reasons for an adverse decision. However, if there is to be an oversight committee which is worth its name, it seems to me that it would need to know what was going on in a general sense in the area of individual complaint, as well as in regard to other matters. It is within the ring of secrecy

293
because its six members are worthy of being trusted in that way. It seems to me desirable that they should receive the reasoned report of the tribunal as a matter of form, though perhaps not the background material because that might contain some operational and sensitive matter. However, at least the reasoned report should go to them. Otherwise, one is setting up an oversight committee rationed in a way that will make for dispute and conflict between that committee and the other bodies involved thereby frustrating the very object of the Bill in that respect.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not altogether follow that argument. As the Bill makes clear, the oversight committee has the responsibility for the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service. Where there are complaints, there may be some question that infringes upon policy. In that situation, the information relevant for that purpose will be available to the committee under its own arrangements. At present, I do not see that anything further would be gained in the way of information to the committee by the effect of the amendment. The reasoning under which a complaint is either sustained or rejected will usually depend upon details of the operation. Therefore, to give any kind of sensible reasoning, one would have to narrate, in some shape or form, the underlying detail about the operations. I cannot see that those reasons can be given in the abstract. Therefore, if one seeks to achieve the aims underlying this amendment, there is a risk that it will only give rise to confusion.
It is true that the committee is within the ring of secrecy, but as my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth explained, one of the important aspects of the matter is the need to know. Although a person may be within the ring of secrecy, if he does not need to know he should not be informed. As the noble Baroness said earlier, it is true that there are only six members, but when it comes to giving out information six is quite a large number. I believe that the principle which would be generally acceptable is that those members should know only if they need to know. Therefore, I submit that it would not be right that details of a particular operation, which would underlie the reasoning in respect of a complaint, should be given as a matter of a course to the committee.
Therefore, I believe that the whole structure of the Bill is that each of the three oversight authorities, as I would call them, has its own particular responsibilities and the arrangements for giving information to the three authorities are dove-tailed with the responsibility for the particular oversight that that authority has.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for making it clear that information on complaints about policy will be passed on to the committee. Can I assume that complaints about expenditure and administration will also be passed onto the committee and, indeed, information about the decisions which the tribunal has reached about those matters? Since those matters are clearly within the remit of the committee, it should have oversight of them.
The Lord Chancellor: It is clear that where a matter of policy is the subject of inquiry and operational details are not required, the information underlying that would be available under the arrangements for the committee. If a question of policy is at issue then the necessary information to support that, and to enable consideration of it or an investigation to be made, would be available.
The only restriction that one must have in mind in that regard is the possibility that sensitive information may underlie it and the procedures set out in the schedule would apply. But where it is a question of policy, obviously it falls within the ultimate remit of the committee and the necessary information, subject to sensitivity, would be made available.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry to press the noble and learned Lord but I really wanted to know whether information on complaints made about unnecessary expenditure or inefficient or ineffective administration would be made available to the committee, since those matters are very much within its remit.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that it would depend to some extent on what the committee asked for. I assume that the committee would be interested in any matter which affected expenditure, policy or administration. Therefore, it would be extremely natural for its members to ask what, if any, complaints had been made about administration. I know from my experience that one way in which one exercises a degree of administerial oversight is to know what are the complaints that have been made against a particular organisation for which one has responsibility. I should expect the committee to ask for that information. I can see no basis on which it would be refused, except that the level of detail might be different for the committee compared with the tribunal or the commissioner. The particular filters for that are set out in the schedule relating to the committee. Therefore, this is a general answer which applies to policy, administration and expenditure.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Perhaps I may make this duet into a trio. It seems to me that the tribunal is concerned with complaints. The first paragraph of Schedule 1 states that:
"Any person may complain to the Tribunal if he is aggrieved by anything which he believes the Intelligence Service or GCHQ has done in relation to him or to any property of his".
If the answer to the tribunal's investigation is a determination in the complainant's favour, the point seems to be met because paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 empowers the tribunal to make an exception to the rule not to give reasons in cases of reports where a determination is made in the complainant's favour. I suggest that that is so far, so good.
Where the tribunal takes a decision not in the complainant's favour, there are good reasons of the kind outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to why it may be contrary to the public interest and national security to give those reasons. Of course, there may be two reasons why the tribunal has decided not to uphold the complaint: either because the activity or the operation complained of never happened or because, if it happened, it was reasonable and

295
necessary. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it may be undesirable to disclose the reasons in the latter case. It may equally be contrary to the public interest to disclose why the tribunal has made its decision not to uphold the complaint, whether that is because the complaint is entirely without foundation in that the event did not happen or whether it is the case that though it happened it was permissible.
Baroness Blackstone: I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not responding to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. I suspect that that is because we have jumped on to Schedule 2 and the next amendment.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier, the amendment is not concerned with giving information to a complainant. It is concerned with giving information about the work of the tribunal to the committee. He was quite right in saying that what lies behind it is some anxiety that the committee, which after all is being set up in order that these services should be more accountable, should have all the information that it needs. I do not believe that there is any confusion about roles.
In leaving the amendment, I am perfectly aware, as I am sure is the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the committee does not hear complaints. That must be for the tribunal. The point is that if it is to have proper oversight of the work of these services, it would surely be helpful if it could have some information. Perhaps we should come back at the next stage with a more tightly drafted amendment in order to provide the committee with some data on the number of complaints made, and the general nature of those complaints. That would provide some indication of whether the services are carrying out their work properly or whether they are behaving in a way that is improper. That is exactly the sort of oversight in terms of policy that the committee ought to have.
However, at this stage I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Tribunal]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) If after the conclusion of its investigation the Tribunal considers that it can reveal the reasons for its determination to the complainant without damaging national security it shall, after consulting the relevant service or GCHQ, do so.").
The noble Baroness said: We now come to Schedule 2 and to the issue of what kind of information the claimant should be given. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the complainant is given as much information as possible about his or her complaint consistent with national security. I emphasise the proviso that it should be consistent with national security because I am perfectly happy to accept that there will be many cases in which it would be very difficult to give the complainant details about the reasons for a decision.
The present proposals in the Bill are for the tribunal to hear complaints. However, one of the problems in
296
relation to complaints in this area is that for obvious reasons most people will never know whether they are under surveillance. If they did know then perhaps the services would not be undertaking their work effectively. Therefore people will not know whether they are under surveillance and will not be in a position to complain.
Obviously, for the right to complain to be truly effective, and thus to comply with Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the individual has to be aware that his or her rights have been violated. In Germany, for instance, the authorities are obliged to inform the individual who has been phone-tapped as soon after its termination as is reasonably possible save where that would prejudice the investigation. In many cases, however, I suspect that disclosing information about the surveillance after the operation will not prejudice the investigation or national security.
By way of contrast, the tribunal procedure is completely secretive. Cases will be heard in secret and without a hearing. The complainant has no access to any information, even if disclosure of information would not affect national security. Without access to any information about the case before the tribunal, the complainant is in a somewhat difficult position to argue his or her case properly. The so-called remedy is therefore of rather dubious value. It certainly does not comply with the safeguards contained in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the circumstances, it is perhaps hardly surprising that since the 1989 Act was set up no complaint has ever been upheld by the tribunal. The Interception of Communications Tribunal set up to deal with telephone tapping in 1985, which has provided the model for the tribunal in both this Bill and the 1989 Act, has an equally "perfect" record.
However, the amendment does not go nearly so far as to require the complainant to be given access to information about his or her case at the time of the complaint. It simply asks the tribunal to review the reasons for its decision. Under the Bill as presently drafted the decision eventually made does not give any indication of what was ascertained by the tribunal, only that a determination was made for or against the complainant. No reasons are given and the complainant is in no position to judge whether the tribunal properly and fairly considered the case or whether it simply acted as a rubber stamp for a decision of the service itself. I do not want to sound cynical and I very much hope that the tribunal when it is set up will never do that; but the complainant will never know whether it does such things.
While in many cases the disclosure of such information might prejudice national security, in some cases it will not. However, even in those cases no further information can be disclosed. Surely in such cases it should be possible for the tribunal to reveal to the complainant the reasons for its decision. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I can understand that from the point of view of the complainant it may be thought desirable that reasons for decision should be given.

297
However, we have to recollect the nature of the subject matter with which we are dealing here. One of the anxieties expressed at Second Reading which underlies the way in which we have approached the matter is that voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont; namely, that if it is to be effective, this must remain a secret operation. The need to secure that is an important part of the way in which the provisions of the Bill have been structured. We remain committed to ensuring the continued security of the operations of the agencies.
For that reason it is vitally important that information about the operations and procedures of the agencies is not inadvertently divulged. Security would be jeopardised if complainants who were properly the subject of SIS or GCHQ inquiries were told of that fact. On the other hand, if the practice were to be introduced of informing only those complainants against whom no action had been taken it could clearly be inferred that complainants who were not so informed had been the subject of action by an agency. That would be very detrimental to the security of the operation. Accordingly, in the Government's view almost any practice of disclosure to a complainant would in the long term damage national security. That would render the amendment dangerous if it were effective. However, as I have explained, the reasons for the determination cannot be given to the claimant as a matter of general rule without damaging national security.
In dealing with security issues, it is often too complex to begin to differentiate between when it is safe to disclose particular pieces of information and when it is not. I believe, therefore, that the only way of safeguarding the integrity of the system is to ensure that all complainants are treated in the same way, even where there are no specific security reasons in an individual case why the reasons for determination should not be disclosed.
I am extremely sorry that the noble Baroness is of the view that the arrangements that we have made do not guarantee a proper examination of the complaint. The whole purpose of the arrangement for looking into complaints is that the tribunal should be of high standing, qualification and integrity. When one considers the nature of the qualifications required and the nature of the people appointed under the previous legislation, it will be seen that the confidence of the complainants is invited on the basis of the standing of the tribunal in question. In my submission, that is an appropriate way to secure an effective answer for complainants. The fact that no complaints have been sustained so far is, I hope, a proper tribute to the way in which the services which have been the subject of investigation so far are carried on.
Because we have gone for a very high standard of tribunal, I believe that it is possible to say that complainants should have confidence in the system. However, they cannot be given reasons for specific decisions affecting them on the grounds that I have given.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope that complainants will have confidence in the system. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is more
298
difficult for them to have confidence in the system when such hearings have to be heard in secret and when, at the end of such a hearing, if their complaint is not upheld they are given absolutely no information as to why that is so.
I am sure that well qualified people of integrity will be appointed to the tribunal. Nevertheless, if a complainant's case has been rejected there must remain some doubt in his or her mind that it has not been adequately considered. It is unsatisfactory to have no idea why the case has been rejected.
The noble and learned Lord suggests that reasons cannot be given because doing so might damage national security. However, written into the amendment is a proviso that where giving reasons would damage national security the complainant cannot be informed of them. The point of the amendment is to inform the complainant in cases where such information would not damage national security.
I am a little disappointed in the noble and learned Lord's reply. However, I do not press the amendment at this stage and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 10 [The Intelligence and Security Committee]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("six") and insert ("nine").
The noble Lord said: This short amendment is in part a probing amendment designed to obtain from the Government the reason why they chose a committee of six. I suppose that the Government can ask, why should they not choose six. However, this is to be a parliamentary committee. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know, in this building there are certain understandings—I put it no higher—as to the composition of such committees regarding how many members are from the governing side of the House, how many from the Opposition and how many from another Opposition party. Given the necessity for such a balance—however hard one might try I suspect that such considerations would inevitably come into the making up of the committee—I believe that six is a little on the low side. To do the job properly, I believe that a somewhat larger figure is needed. We therefore suggest a committee of nine. I beg to move.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: I wish to make a short intervention based on my experience in these matters Amendment No. 16 proposes nine instead of six from Members of Parliament for the Intelligence and Security Committee. With a total of nine or six, each member will probably have two or three confidential assistants. Therefore, if one multiplies the number of members of the committee by two or three, it is probable that a fair proportion will not be experienced in these matters. Consequently, I wish to emphasise how important it is to keep down the numbers of those privy to certain most secret matters.
It is so easy to let slip information and to make disclosures which are damaging to the national interests. I remember the case of a young lady who was rather carelessly recruited into the secretarial staff of an intelligence organisation. The inevitable happened and

299
certain secrets were disclosed. When she was rebuked for her errors, she burst into tears and said, "I had only joined the intelligence organisation in order to be interesting at dinner".
Different people have different temptations and the possession of highly secret information is often a temptation for people to boast about their importance. Therefore, I think it prudent, but not essential, to keep the numbers of people privy to these secrets as low as possible. Looking back further in history, it was a Prime Minister who in another place during a debate disclosed that the Russian codes had been successfully broken. The result was that years of work were completely destroyed and everyone had to start again. It is so easy to be prudent in arguments about these matters. Therefore, I believe that it would be proper to keep the number as low as can be politically acceptable.
The Lord Chancellor: As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, we have chosen six and he has turned that number on its head and suggested nine. I respectfully subscribe to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, that the number of the committee should be kept as small as possible, having regard to the nature of its work. We have adopted that principle. We felt that six was the right number having regard to the different considerations that would have to apply in selecting people to serve.
The interests of political parties in the other place and in this House would have to be taken into account, as also would the factor referred to by my noble friend Lord Vivian at Second Reading. With the experience available in the House, we and the Prime Minister wish, in association and consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, to try to bring that experience to the committee. In the light of that, and having regard to the balance, it seemed to us that six was a reasonable number.
The chairman of the committee is provided with a casting vote. So the fact that it is an even number is not inappropriate. It is also right to say that it would be extremely useful if this committee were to act as a committee with a common purpose. The risk involved in increasing the number is disproportionate to the advantage to be gained. As the noble Lord said, there is always a risk that someone will inadvertently let slip something that might be of vital importance to the lives of people involved in those agencies. The more people we have, the more the risk of a slip occurring.
In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said about the nature of the committee, it is worth mentioning that, due to the special nature of the committee's work which will involve highly classified material in significant amounts, it will be necessary that meetings of the committee should be held with secure arrangements for storage of the material involved as well as for the security of committee members' conversations. Therefore, suitable accommodation and facilities will be made available in the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office will also provide vetted staff to support the committee.
300
The arrangements approved by the Secretary of State mentioned in Schedule 3 to the Bill will also include guidelines on such procedures as the handling of classified documents. Obviously provision for the cost of the staffing has been made within the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum particulars.
Although I understand that it is always difficult to argue convincingly for a single figure in a situation like this as being right, I venture to suggest that the principles which I have outlined and which have been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who has great experience in these matters, are support for the view that the lower figure of six as being adequate to service the committee is correct. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord may feel able not to press his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Richard: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not be surprised when I say that I do not find his defence of the figure six very convincing. I am bound to say that the picture which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, summoned up, of two or three confidential assistants going with us from committee to committee, is pleasant but, in my limited experience of your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, it is not exactly consonant with reality. Would that I had two or three confidential assistants or researchers and would that my noble friends, who are not here, had two or three confidential assistants and researchers. I do not think that that is a serious objection.
Nor do I think it a serious objection to say that we only need six rather than nine when we consider who the six will be. Presumably they will be hand-picked by the Prime Minister from people with experience in the field who, by definition, can be trusted. I suppose that even Prime Ministers make mistakes from time to time. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, told us, even Prime Ministers let things slip. However, in the normal course of events one would have thought that the kind of people who would be put on the committee would be those whom one could trust. So I am not convinced, but in all the circumstances I shall not press the amendment tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 40, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and insert:
("(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions and shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (6) below.
(6) If it appears to the Committee, after consultation with the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ, as appropriate, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the Services or, as the case may be, GCHQ, the Committee shall exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament.
(7) In the event of disagreement between the Committee and the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ as appropriate, as to the matters which should be excluded from the Committee's report, that dispute shall be resolved by the Prime Minister.

301
(8) Any matters not in the annual report as a result of subsection (6) above shall instead be included in a report by the Committee to the Prime Minister.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 incorporates a group of amendments which hang together. The object of the exercise is simple: it is to try to ensure that the committee's report is presented directly to Parliament. I believe strongly that if the committee is to function in the way that the Government intend it to function, there must be a direct link between it and Parliament itself. One of the objects of the exercise, after all, is that Parliament shall be more satisfied in the future than it has been in the past with the way in which the security services operate. If that is so, I think that Parliament must have confidence in the way in which the committee makes its report. Therefore a system in which the report goes, first, to the Prime Minister who sanitises it and then lays whatever may be left before Parliament, I should not have thought would be a system which would command a great deal of confidence in Parliament itself.
I also take strongly the fact that it is important that sensitive information should he excluded from the report. Therefore, the proposals suggest that the committee's obligation should be to make its annual report to Parliament. But if it appears to the committee, after consulting with the director general of the Security Service, the chief of the Intelligence Service or the director of GCHQ, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the services or GCHQ, then the committee should exclude that matter before laying the report before Parliament. If there is a dispute between the director general of the Security Service, as the case may be, and the committee, that should be decided by the Prime Minister.
Thus, in a sense what one is getting is prime ministerial intervention in order to preserve the integrity of the services, but getting it as the report is going direct to Parliament rather than it going to the Prime Minister first and then on to Parliament.
If the proposals were to be accepted, it would put the committee under a duty to consult the heads of services before reporting. It would give the Prime Minister the right to adjudicate in any subsequent dispute over whether matters should or should not be in the report. But basically it would be seen to be a committee that had the obligation to report directly to Parliament. I think that that is important. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: So far as the net result of these operations is concerned, it will be much the same. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, wishes the committee's report to go direct to Parliament after such excisions as the committee may agree with the heads of the services, and, failing agreement, as decided by the Prime Minister. So an intervention is provided for between the committee and Parliament in any event. I should have thought that it would be best that the full report of the committee, without limitation and without pulling any punches whatever, should be sent to the Prime Minister. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would allow, ultimately, the report to go to Parliament and the addenda that had been omitted to go to the Prime
302
Minister. It appears right that, since the Prime Minister has overall responsibility for intelligence and security matters, it is to him that the committee should be required to report so that he can take any appropriate action.
Subsection (5) of Clause 10 empowers the committee to report direct to the Prime Minister both annually and at any time. The amendment would mean that before the annual report reached the Prime Minister its content would be subject to discussion between the committee and the heads of the agencies. That would expressly include consultation over matters directly relevant to the functions of those agencies. I suggest that it would not be appropriate for the agencies to be involved in helping to decide what might or might not be excluded from any such report before it reaches Parliament. Because of the very special and sensitive nature of the work of the committee, and the fact that its members will be chosen by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and taking account of other views as well, it can only be right that the link between the committee and the Prime Minister should be a direct one. The importance of that should be recognised as such by the committee, and indeed by parliamentarians as a whole. I am sure that the heads of the agencies also see it that way.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister would want to keep to the minimum the excision of any matters deemed prejudicial to the work of the agencies. As the person ultimately responsible for the work of the agencies, he is surely best qualified to do that, taking such advice as he thinks proper. Ultimately it is his decision, without any requirement upon him that he should consult any particular person. I believe it proper that he should have the power of excision, and not the heads of the agencies or the committee; and that he should have sight of the full report before it is made available to others who are outside the ring of secrecy.
As I said, there is very little difference in practical effect between what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggests and what is in the Bill, except that the noble Lord's amendments deal primarily with the annual report and involve the heads of the agencies in consultation about excision. I believe that the direct route, the one that will deal with the matter in the most efficient way, is the one proposed in the Bill. It gives the whole report as the committee determines it, fully, without pulling any punches and without limitation, to the Prime Minister, leaving it to him to decide whether any part of it requires to be excised before going before Parliament.
I suggest that it is not wise to provide as a necessary consultation at that stage that the heads of the agencies should be involved. For those reasons, while I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, seeks to have a direct link to Parliament, I believe that the link to Parliament that we have proposed is as direct and efficient as the circumstances allow. Even on the noble Lord's amendment, there is a stage between the committee and Parliament in which the Prime Minister would ultimately have the power of adjudication. For

303
those reasons I hope that the noble Lord may feel that the Bill as it stands, although different in a minor way from his proposal, is still effective.
Lord Richard: We are back to the argument that we had earlier this evening. If it does not make very much difference, why on earth can the Government not accept it? The noble and learned Lord says that he does not think it wise that the committee should consult the heads of the services. Why not? Frankly, it would seem thoroughly desirable that it should consult the heads of the three services, and that the committee and the heads of the three services should be on close terms, if at all possible, if this system is to work and the overseeing committee is to function properly. It seems highly unlikely that a situation would arise in which the heads of the services and the committee agreed that part of the report should be taken out while the Prime Minister said that it should remain. I suspect that the main argument should be in the other direction. The committee will want stuff to be included. The director general of the service will say no, he does not think it ought to be included, and it will then go to the Prime Minister for determination.
I believe that the Government under-estimate the importance of an overt link between the committee and Parliament. If there is to be confidence in the way in which the committee operates, the link has to be open, and it has to be generally accepted by everybody that the responsibility of the committee is primarily to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister. I accept that there have to be safeguards, and the safeguard is set out in the proposed amendment. But in our view the primary responsibility of the committee should be to Parliament and not to the Government. I feel that the noble and learned Lord under-estimates the importance of that link in the way in which he treats the amendment.
I do not expect to get any further with this matter tonight; but I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the Government will seriously consider this matter between now and Report stage. It is a point on which I feel strongly, as do other people. In all those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may say one word on Clause 10 in order to put down a marker. In view of the discussion that we had earlier about the powers of the committee to examine only expenditure, administration and policy, it may be that we shall want to come back to those words at Report stage. If they are to be given the restricted meaning which at one stage tonight I thought they might well be given, we might like to look at the matter again. If, having read what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said tonight and they do not have such a restricted meaning as intimated by his noble friend Lady Park, we may not come back to the matter.
Clause 10 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): If Amendment No. 18 is agreed to, I cannot call the next amendment, Amendment No. 19.
Schedule 3 [The Intelligence and Security Committee]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 13, line 11, leave out from ("disclosed") to end of line 14.
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we are also considering Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. To simplify the issue, this group of amendments recasts the provisions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 on page 13 of the Bill. If those amendments were to be accepted, paragraph 3(1)(b) would read:
"inform the committee that it cannot be disclosed because the Secretary of State has determined that it is sensitive information and should not be disclosed."
In other words, the responsibility for deciding that information should be withheld from the committee should be placed firmly on the Secretary of State and not on the head of any of the individual services.
As I understand it, in other countries that type of reform has been introduced and it has given significantly greater accountability than that proposed in this Bill. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that there is not much point in setting up a committee unless one can be sure that the committee will have some information on which it can do its work. Merely to give the directors of the services the right to withhold information because in their opinion it is sensitive, frankly does not make a great deal of sense. To use the words of the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not think it would be wise to do it in that particular way. Indeed, it would be wiser to put the responsibility where it ought to lie, which is firmly on the Secretary of State. If he determines that matters are so sensitive that they should not be disclosed to the committee, let him say so. That is the object of the amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I listened with care to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I am not sure that I understand exactly why he believes that the amendment would be an improvement on the current wording of the Bill. I doubt whether these amendments would do anything to improve the free flow of information to the committee.
Under the Bill as it stands, the heads of agency will already have the power to disclose information even when they consider it sensitive, if they believe that it is safe to do so. They do not have to go to the Secretary of State each time they want to disclose information. In addition, the Secretary of State may order disclosure by overruling any decision of the agencies to withhold information—paragraph 3(3).
The effect of the amendment would be to make the Secretary of State solely responsible for the decision on whether to withhold information from the committee (and presumably to limit his ability to withhold information to that specified in paragraph 4). The Secretary of State of course retains overall control of, and responsibility for, security matters and the work of the agencies. In fact, if the amendment were accepted it would be unlikely to make much practical difference to

305
the information made available to the committee, except perhaps in one respect which I shall mention in a moment. It would however have the paralysing effect of requiring the Secretary of State to see a mass of paper in order to allow him to make proper decisions with regard to disclosure.
In passing, I should perhaps point out that the amendment leaves untouched paragraph 3(4), which provides that the Secretary of State may not make a determination on national security grounds alone, and not unless it were information which he would normally withhold from a departmental Select Committee. That is contradictory to the amendments proposed. The amendments also leave paragraph 3(2) in the schedule. That would probably become redundant if the head of the agency no longer has the power to withhold information.
I suggest that, as a practical matter, the head of the agency will be the first point of contact for the committee when it requires information about one or other of the services. He or she will be best placed to answer any queries which the committee may have, or, in the light of his or her knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, to recommend that certain information should be withheld because it is sensitive. We hope and fully expect—which hope is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—that a strong working relationship will develop between the committee and the agency heads and that the committee will be able, on the basis of that contact, to gain valuable insights into the work of the agencies. It would therefore be counterproductive to cut across that.
As I mentioned earlier, the head of agency's power to withhold information is limited and subject to review by the Secretary of State who may overturn a decision to withhold information. One effect of the amendment would be to remove that second check or review of the initial decision to withhold information from the committee. However, in reality it would be unrealistic to expect the Secretary of State to make all decisions about disclosure without advice. The heads of agencies have more familiarity with the day-to-day workings and details of the services and are best placed to assess the bulk of the information. They would naturally advise the Secretary of State on what information should be withheld. It is possible that more rather than less information would be withheld under the system proposed. It therefore seems desirable to have on the face of the legislation the criteria which will apply. That is fully in keeping with our policy of increased openness and in no way lessens the information made available to the committee. It simply ensures that certain sensitive and operational details remain within the smallest possible ring of secrecy.
As the Bill stands, the head of the agency has the power to disclose information without any trammel. The results of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord will mean that the decision of whether or not to withhold information will always be that of the Secretary of State. I suggest that it will be much easier to have an arrangement under which, if the head of the agency has no objection, the information will go forward. The Secretary of State's attention will only be required in
306
respect of information which the head of the agency decides should not be given to the committee. The Secretary of State will therefore be in the position of dealing with information where the first decision has been the other way.
For those reasons, the free flow of information is better served in the way the matter is put in the Bill. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Richard: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord did not understand my explanation. Perhaps I may reciprocate by saying that I did not understand his. If one looks at the Bill, as amended, if information is to be disclosed to the committee, there is no problem. Under paragraph 3(1) (a), if the heads of the services are asked to disclose either the whole or part of any information, they will arrange for it to be made available to the committee. There is therefore no problem if he says, "Yes, you may look at it". The problem arises when he says, "No, you can't". In those circumstances, one would have to go to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then decide whether or not it should be disclosed.
In terms of the flow of information to the committee, if there is no problem about withholding the information, it could work with the normal arrangements as between the head of the service and the members of the committee. It is only when there is a problem with withholding the information from the committee that the difficulties arise. Under the Bill as framed the decision to withhold can be taken by the head of the service. I do not think that is right. If it is a parliamentary committee which is responsible ultimately to Parliament, even under the Government's proposals, the person who should decide what should be withheld from the committee should be the Secretary of State and not the head of the service. That is the basis of my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps the difficulty of understanding between us is focused because if the director decides that the information cannot be disclosed because it is sensitive information, that can be overruled by the Secretary of State.
Lord Richard: I take that out.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that, but I am trying to explain that under the Bill as it stands a decision to withhold information by the head of the agency is not final. The Secretary of State can arrange that it be disclosed even if the head of the agency has thought that it should not be.
Lord Richard: No.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps the noble Lord will look at paragraph 3(3). It states:
"Information which has not been disclosed to the Committee on the ground specified in sub—paragraph (1)(b)(i) above shall be disclosed to them if the Secretary of State considers it desirable in the public interest".
Therefore the Secretary of State can overrule the head of the agency's decision to withhold on the basis that the information is sensitive. Thus it is not correct to say, as

307
I understood the noble Lord to say—I hope I understood correctly—that the head of the agency could decide to withhold the information and that that would be conclusive. That is not so in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Richard: That is certainly true if the Secretary of State considers it desirable in the public interest that that which has been determined by the head of the agency to be withheld should nevertheless be disclosed. I accept that in terms of sub-paragraph (3). I take out sub-paragraph (3) in my proposed amendment, as the noble and learned Lord will know. But what is the purpose then of paragraph 3(1)(b)(i)?
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of paragraph 3(1) (b) (i) is to give on the face of the statute the kind of criteria that one would expect the head of the agency to use in deciding to withhold information. In other words, it is not just a carte blanche. He does not just say, "I don't want this information to go forward". The idea of the definition of sensitive information is to provide on the face of the statute the criteria which he is bound to apply. The head of the agency is bound to apply those criteria if he is going to decline.
Of course he can, notwithstanding that it falls within the criteria, still supply it. But it is an important point, in trying to help the free flow of information, that Parliament should lay down reasonable criteria for withholding information which can be overruled by the head of the agency himself or herself if he or she so decides—if he or she considers it safe in the circumstances—and can also be overruled by the Secretary of State even if the head of the agency says no. I suggest to the Committee that the idea of having criteria expressed in this way on the face of the statute for refusal to disclose as the only ground so far as concerns the head of the agency is a benefit which is lost by the amendments proposed by the noble Lord.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: I do not want to keep bobbing up and down. For the life of me I do not quite understand why, if the director of the agency does not have the power absolutely to withhold, the matter ends up with the Secretary of State. Why should it not end up with him anyway without first going through the head of the service? As regards the criteria which the Secretary of State would employ under my amendment he would be confined to the sensitive information which is set out in subparagraph (4). He would withhold it if he determined that it was sensitive information and should therefore not be disclosed. If it is to end up on his desk anyway, I do not see the purpose of the interposition of the chief of the service.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: When I had a certain responsibility in these matters I would have liked the idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the matter should be dealt with by the Secretary of State. I was quite surprised to see in the Bill that the Government have gone further than that and allowed the directors of the services (M, C and P, or whatever they are) to deal directly with the committee in these matters.
308
That is one of the more attractive features of the proposal as described in the Bill; namely, that the intelligence and security committee will have direct access to the heads of the services on these matters and will be able to ask the experts at first hand why they are withholding information or feel that the information must be withheld. If I had been a Member of the Opposition I should have taken the money and run.
Lord Richard: Under our proposals they would still have that. Initially the contact will be between the head of the agency and the committee. Paragraph 3(1) (a) still applies. It is when there is a dispute between them which cannot be resolved that it should be settled by the Secretary of State. So I believe that we have already taken the desirable objective which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, believes the Opposition should take.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Under the noble Lord's proposals there would not be much of a dispute with the heads of the services since they would say that the information must be withheld and the Secretary of State would be wheeled in at once. Therefore, this healthy argument which he foresees does not seem to be provided for in his proposal.
Lord Richard: I do not believe that we are going to resolve this matter tonight. With the leave of the Committee I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 13, after ("opinion,") insert ("or in the opinion of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 23 are to be considered together. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained during Second Reading that the addition of an oversight committee of parliamentarians is intended to increase the confidence of Parliament and the public, while providing proper protection for our national interests by effective and responsible intelligence and security services.
Taken together these three amendments are designed to give effect to those improvements and commendable aims. If parliamentary and public confidence is to be increased I believe that it is essential for parliamentary oversight to be really effective, and seen to be effective, in meeting an important public interest and protecting against any possible future abuse of power. It is central to the proper operation of a system of parliamentary oversight that there should be no unnecessary interference—I believe that that is common ground—with the flow of relevant information to the committee whose members are within the ring of secrecy.
The Government now seek sweepingly broad powers in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 for the Secretary of State to prevent the committee from having access to any information—I repeat, any information—even if it relates to the expenditure, administration or the policy of the services, and even if it is not about any operational matters at all. If such powers are used unnecessarily then they will be beyond any effective

309
judicial protection or review. I firmly believe that if Parliament confers such sweepingly broad powers on Ministers it is likely to frustrate a central aim of the Bill.
The only limitation which the Bill now places on these blanket powers of override is to block the flow of non-operational information. That is contained in paragraph 3(4) of the schedule. That precludes the Minister from blocking information unless it is of the kind which he would think it proper to withhold from a departmental Select Committee in another place. That is a purely cosmetic limitation without any real substance, referring as it does to the practice obtaining when the intelligence and security services were immune from effective parliamentary oversight or scrutiny. It is an illusory limitation without any clear standard or criterion for withholding the free flow of information. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is important that the criteria should be as transparent as possible on the face of the Bill, but they are not.
Since the role of the committee is confined to examining expenditure, administration and policy as distinct from operational matters and since the definition of "sensitive information" in paragraph 4 of the schedule is massively wide—and perhaps properly so—I find it difficult to understand why the Secretary of State could ever reasonably need such sweeping powers to block even non-sensitive information directly relevant to the committee's work.
So far, none of the amendments has had any luck, but I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could give some hypothetical examples to show why such wide powers are being sought. I have tried to think of some and, frankly, I have failed. I accept that there may need to be a power of ministerial intervention in addition to the wide powers given to the heads of the three services under paragraph 3(l) of the schedule to override their professional judgment that information should be provided to the committee. I accept that, but I believe that the Minister's powers to override them and to block information should be carefully tailored to real needs.
I propose that the Bill should be amended by Amendment No. 19 so as to extend to the Secretary of State the power that the Bill proposes (in paragraph 3(1) of the schedule) to give to the heads of the three services. It is a power to prevent the oversight committee having access to information if the information is sensitive, as defined in paragraph 4 in very wide and imprecise terms. That would enable the Secretary of State to exercise the same powers as the heads of the services but, by virtue of my Amendments Nos. 20 and 23, not to enjoy a blanket and absolute power to withhold non-sensitive information.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested that an increase in the oversight of the services might be harmful to their effective operation. He sought to answer my reference to experience in other countries by referring to the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, as an intelligence service which has not been subjected to a great deal of parliamentary oversight but which is still enormously effective.
310
Since Second Reading I have consulted Mr. Dan Meridor, a member of the Knesset, Minister of Justice in the Likud government between 1988 and 1992, and a former Cabinet secretary. He is a member of the Knesset foreign affairs and defence committee. That committee and its various sub-committees exercise a great degree of oversight over Mossad and the other Israeli intelligence and security services. Mr. Meridor has advised me that, although the matter is dealt with by an extra-statutory regime in Israel, those sub-committees, and other external bodies, such as the state controller, receive a great deal of non-operational information about the services, and that there is no question of Ministers needing powers to block information of the kind now sought to be blessed by Parliament in this Bill. According to this experienced and tough-minded recent Minister of Justice, the Israeli intelligence and security services have developed a relationship of trust with the foreign affairs and defence committee and its sub-committees in their oversight capacity. They are forthcoming with information other than operational information. What is more important, the services are subject to effective judicial review by an active Supreme Court of a kind unheard of in this country. There is a growing understanding in the Government themselves that immunity from effective scrutiny and supervision is a thing of the past. I hope that the Government will think again about whether one needs the Secretary of State to have blanket powers of this kind effectively to block information which is not operational. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has informed us, to some extent, about the nature of the arrangements in Israel and has pointed out that they are non statutory. The arrangements that we propose are, from the point of view of our legal system, the better for being statutory. Accordingly, I believe that there are other aspects of the structure in Israel which makes it possible for some form of judicial review to take place which are not applicable here. To some extent they are related to the concept of fundamental laws which are steps towards a written constitution.
The problem that we have is that we are seeking to lay down statutory powers, and where the powers are to be statutory it is right that they should be reasonably well specified. The noble Lord suggested that paragraph 4 of the third schedule does not provide a convincing restriction on the power to withhold information in paragraph 3(1) (b) (ii). In my submission, it is an extremely important and effective restriction. It. provides:
"The Secretary of State shall not make a determination under sub-paragraph (1) (b) (ii) above with respect to any information on the grounds of national security alone"—
that is an important restriction—
"and, subject to that, he shall not make such a determination unless the information appears to him to be of such a nature that, if he were requested to produce it before a Departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons, he would think it proper not to do so".
That relates to the general practice of the departmental Select Committees of the other place and not the practice in relation to a particular committee. That is a general and published practice which applies to all departmental Select Committees. I cannot think of a

311
better restriction on the Secretary of State's powers than that; in other words, he has to treat this committee for all purposes, assuming that the information is not sensitive, as if it were a departmental Select Committee so far as concerns the giving of information.
The relevant guidelines on those matters are contained in a letter from the Lord President to the chairmen of Select Committees. It includes matters such as advice given by a Law Officer, matters which are sub judice, private and personal information given on a confidential basis and legislative proposals unless they have already been made public. It seems to me that it is right on the face of the statute to use a general restriction of that kind which applies generally to departmental Select Committees in the other place which might be changed from time to time, according to the committees' requirements, but it would be impossible under this procedure to make special arrangements for this committee. Therefore, it is the general rules for departmental Select Committees generally which are to apply. That is a considerable restriction on the Secretary of State's general power.
Accordingly, I submit that in the light of the circumstances and the subject matter of this legislation, the free flow of information guaranteed by statute under this set of provisions is considerable. The idea that the second part of paragraph 4 is empty or illusory, or whatever expression the noble Lord used, is without foundation. The departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons work well as regards receiving information and I have not heard many complaints about that. Therefore, I believe that this is a good criterion to apply to the general power of the Secretary of State in this connection. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that explanation, which I found helpful. I shall consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 13, line 45, at end insert:
("(2) No information will be regarded as sensitive if that information is already in the public domain.").
The noble Lord said: This is a short amendment and I have hopes that the noble and learned Lord will smile favourably upon it. It is an obvious amendment which provides that:
"No information will be regarded as sensitive if that information is already in the public domain".
It is difficult to see how if something is already in the public domain it can nevertheless remain sensitive and ought therefore to be withheld from the committee in accordance with the terms of the Bill. The issue of whether sensitive information is or is not in the public domain has exercised a number of people and jurisdictions over the years. One does not need to go
312
into the matter in great detail, but no great harm would be done to the Bill if we declared specifically that information which is in the public domain should no longer be regarded as sensitive. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill as proposed contains definition or criteria for determining whether information is sensitive. I do not believe that a particular criticism has been made of those criteria. However, the amendment seeks to add an overriding criterion in the opposite direction. It provides that:
"No information will be regarded as sensitive if that information is already in the public domain".
It is difficult to believe that if information is in the public domain the committee will not have it. Therefore, what is the point of requiring the information to be produced to the committee? If information is already public in that sense, the committee will be none the wiser or better informed by obtaining it additionally from someone else.
The question is: what is meant by information in the public domain? If some imaginative writer produces a story about the operations of the security service which is portrayed as being true, is that information in the public domain? If by chance he strikes it so lucky that there is a corresponding operation going on in fact, will that make that information any the less sensitive?
To the extent to which the amendment does what I said first it seems to be self-evident; if the committee has the information already there is not much point in withholding that information from it. If this amendment is to have any sense at all it must have some other purpose than that. Therefore, it is essential to examine what is meant by "information in the public domain".
I would just ask one or two questions. Is speculation in the press about an alleged leak of information information in the public domain; or allegations in a book; or a public assertion by an individual; or a statement by a Member of Parliament under the privileges of Parliament? If the information is given by someone with authority, it might have quite a different character from mere speculation. It is important that we should have clear criteria for this. The criteria which we have in the Bill for sensitive information are clear, and I would suggest to your Lordships that this particular criterion going in the opposite direction will have the effect of muddying the waters and introducing a very distinct ambiguity into an area which, in the interests of the free flow of information, should be clear.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Richard: I am disappointed. It seems to me that the phrase "in the public domain" is one that is reasonably well known. No doubt even judges will have heard of it from time to time; and, like other phrases in the English language, no doubt it will be capable of construction by judges from time to time. Speculation in the newspaper will no doubt continue to be speculation in the newspaper. I do not think trying to categorise at this stage what the phrase "in the public domain" means will help the Committee very much. Nor do I see how it will cause any confusion in the categories of sensitive information which are already set out in the Bill. This is

313
not attempting to muddy the waters so far as what is sensitive information is concerned; it is attempting to say in respect of one set of information what is not sensitive information.
I should have thought that over the past decade the Government might have accepted that when information, even in this area, got into the public domain it was probably better that they should cease treating it as being sensitive in any shape or form.
I recognise that at this hour of the night it would not be consonant with the practices of the House that I should divide the House on the matter, but I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Government to consider whether or not it would not be appropriate for them to take some opportunity in the Bill, since we are considering the whole operation of the security services, to make it perfectly clear once and for all that in the view of the Government if something is already out in the open it should not be treated as sensitive and secret thereafter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation and consequential amendments]:
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Lloyd of Berwick had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 25, after first ("Act") insert ("the Interception of Communications Act 1985").
The noble Lord said: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that my amendments are destined to have even less luck than those which his amendments have had, and those proposed by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I have been advised that my proposed amendments are out of order as they are too far removed from the purposes of the Bill as set out in the Long Title, so the amendment will not be moved; but I would welcome on the Motion that the clause shall stand part the opportunity to explain what my problem is.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the hour is very late. Therefore, I shall be very short in my remarks. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out on Second Reading that the Bill now before the Committee is based very closely on the Security Service Act 1989. It does for the SIS and GCHQ what the 1989 Act did for the Security Service. However, the 1989 Act was itself very closely based on the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (known colloquially as IOCA). It was the latter which led the way in this part of the law. The other legislation has followed at intervals of four years.
My concern is that, by the Bill, we may inadvertently be introducing or creating a conflict between the terms of this legislation and those of the 1985 Act; or, if not a conflict, at least an inconsistency. It is difficult to explain the nature of the inconsistency without Members of the Committee having the 1985 Act before them. But, very briefly, Section 6 of the 1985 Act
314
provides that before the Secretary of State can issue a warrant there must be in existence an arrangement whereby intercepted material—such as tapes of telephone conversations and copies of letters that have been intercepted in the post—is destroyed as soon as that material is no longer necessary for the purposes set out in Section 2(2) of the 1985 Act.
Section 2(2) of the 1935 Act, and more particularly paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), are in almost identical terms to those contained in Clause 2 of the Bill and also Clause 3(2) (a) (b) (c). In other words, they cover the familiar trio of matters which derive originally from the relevant article of the convention on national security, economic well-being and the prevention or detection of serious crime.
So far there is no problem. But in a very recent decision of the Appellate Committee of this place (in the case of Regina v. Preston), it was held that the prevention and detection of crime does not include the prosecution of offenders who have been detected. Accordingly, intercepted material, however compelling it may be, cannot be retained for use at a subsequent trial. It must be destroyed as soon as the criminal has been detected. Members of the Committee may feel that that is not a very sensible result to have arrived at, but that is what Parliament provided in the 1985 Act.
The arguments which led the Appellate Committee to its conclusion were numerous. However, one of the main arguments was the contrast which was drawn in the 1985 Act between the prevention or detection of serious crime in Section 2(2) of the Act and the words,
"for the prevention or detection of crime, or for the purposes of any criminal proceedings",
as found in Section 45 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, and as amended by the 1985 Act. The absence of the latter words,
"for the purposes of any criminal proceedings"
was held to show that Parliament cannot have intended that the product of interception should be used at a subsequent trial. Indeed, Section 9 of the 1985 Act seems to make express provision to that effect, although the language is very obscure.
If one then turns to the Bill, the position is very different. In the first place, there is no overall exclusion in the Bill such as one finds in Section 9 of the 1985 Act. Secondly, the arrangements which must be made by SIS and GCHQ before a warrant can be issued are not so restricted as they are in the 1985 Act. Thus, Clause 2(2) (a) (iv) enables the SIS to disclose information for the purpose of any criminal proceedings, which are the very words absent from Section 2(2) (b) of the 1985 Act and the absence of which was held to be crucial in Regina v. Preston. One finds those same words in Clause 4(2) (a) which state:
"or for the purpose of any criminal proceedings".
Moreover—and this is perhaps even more significant—paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 amends Section 2 of the Security Service Act to include those very words for the first time. My anxiety is that such words should be included also in the 1985 Act. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the 1985 and 1989 Acts.
The effect of Clause 2(2) (a) (iv), if I understand it correctly, is that information obtained by the SIS can be made available to the Crown Prosecution Service and

315
will be admissible as evidence at a subsequent trial, as will information obtained by GCHQ and information obtained by the Security Service by the process which is commonly known as bugging, since that is the effect of the amendment of the Security Service Act in paragraph 1 of the schedule.
In a typical terrorist case—typical under the national security heading—if the security service had powerful evidence obtained from bugging, that evidence would be admissible at the trial of the alleged terrorist. My view is that that would be plainly right. I ask what possible reason there could be for excluding information which the Security Service has obtained not by bugging but by telephone tapping? What distinction can there be between the two? Exactly the same consideration should surely apply. I am concerned that that inconsistency between the 1985 and 1989 Acts will lead to trouble, as all inconsistencies invariably do.
I had intended to say more but as my amendment is not in order, perhaps I have already said too much. In every other country of which I have experience—the United States, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia—information obtained by telephone tapping is admitted as a matter or routine at a subsequent trial. In a recent survey carried out by the Security Service, one country expressed astonishment that we do no have the same provisions.
I know that a great deal of care has gone into the preparation and drafting of the Bill but my impression is that the failure to bring the 1985 Act in line with the 1989 Act, as it is to be amended by the Bill, must be due to an oversight. I have reason to believe that the Security Service would very much welcome an amendment to those Acts. Therefore, I hope that the Government may be able to find a way to bring the 1985 Act in line with the 1989 Act.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble and learned friend indicated his anxiety. It is beyond doubt now that under
316
the 1985 Act, the result is as my noble and learned friend said, having regard to the decision of this House in Regina v. Preston.
The provisions in the 1985 Act were intended to maintain the complete secrecy of the system of organised interception. It was considered that the system could be irreparably damaged as a method of protecting national security and dealing with serious crime if that secrecy could be breached. In some cases even to allow somebody to discover that he was the subject of interception might make it impossible to pursue an investigation. Anything which disclosed the pattern of use of interception would also be damaging. Those points were made by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw when this House considered the Interception of Communications Bill.
It is probably right to say that it is not an oversight that this particular matter was not dealt with in this Bill. This Bill deals not with the interception of communications but with the Security Service, the SIS and GCHQ. It is for that reason that my noble and learned friend has been advised that the amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. One of the arts of legislative provision is to make the scope of the Bill reasonable from the point of view of the amendments which can be made. This was certainly not a matter of oversight.
The point stands, and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for drawing attention to the matter. I have no doubt that it will be noted in the responsible quarters. I shall certainly see that it is. And perhaps we can be allowed to wait and see what, if anything, results from that.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his response.
Clause 11 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  WELSH OFFICE: MENTAL HANDICAP STRATEGY
  WELSH OFFICE: MENTAL HANDICAP STRATEGY
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 20–21 DECEMBER 1993
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 20–21 DECEMBER 1993
  EC: VOLTAGE HARMONISATION
  EC: VOLTAGE HARMONISATION