Sitting of 17 January 1994

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

    Health Authorities
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with Welsh local government organisations the level of representation the planned unitary authorities should have on health authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I have no plans to alter the present arrangements.
    Mr. Llwyd: How does the Minister square last week's appointment of Mrs. Lynette George to the chair of Derwen health trust in Dyfed with the Welsh Office's recent pronouncement that membership of quangos would be open to all and that there would be wide and extensive advertisement of appointments? Does he accept that the appointment was not advertised in the local newspaper that serves Dyfed, Powys and South Gwynedd and that Mrs. George is the wife of a previous Tory parliamentary candidate in Ceredigion? Does he also accept that the process is a complete sham and is wholly unacceptable to the people of Wales, who are not so easily fooled?
    Mr. Jones: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He should be aware that there is extensive advertising for all public appointments in Wales and that that has resulted in many people putting their name forward for our register of such appointments. I resent his implication about that particular appointment, not least because Mrs. George is well acquainted with health matters and is presently a member of the national health service trust for Ceredigion.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be easier to deal with that question when the Opposition have resolved their differences about the future shape of local government and, in particular, the dispute about the boundary between Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, about which my constituents are extremely concerned?
    Mr. Jones: I know from my hon. Friend about his constituents' opposition to the proposal. I am also aware, as I think he is, of the way in which the imperialist ambitions of South Glamorgan are hotly resented by the Labour parties in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has continuing difficulties in obtaining agreement among his comrades.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister must be cuckoo if he thinks that merely asking people to put their names forward for authorities introduces an element of democracy into the system in Wales. What matters is not the people who put their names forward but the selection of the people who are appointed, and that selection will remain in the hands of Ministers. There is no democratic accountability or relationship with the new local authorities that have been set up, so will the Minister accept that we do not like his system and wish that the people appointed were more accountable?
    Mr. Jones: Accountability never stops because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains answerable at the Dispatch Box to all hon. Members for his actions, including appointments and the activities of those appointed. We welcome recommendations and suggestions from everyone so that we have the broadest choice and my right hon. Friend always tries to appoint the best person to every post.

    Student Unions
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to safeguard Welsh interests on the proposed reform of student unions.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of students at Welsh institutions will be fully safeguarded.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that the excellent newspaper Gair Rhydd which, by the way, features the Secretary of State prominently in this week's edition, will be endangered and will probably have to close as a result of the proposals? What proposals does the Minister have to safeguard the important work of Welsh student unions, which translate so much into Welsh so that there can be equality between the two languages in Welsh institutions? How does the Minister propose that that work will be done in future?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Education Bill does not prevent students or student associations from undertaking any activities, including those that he described. There is no reason why such activities should cease. Students should consider different methods if the Bill prevents them from using such funding. For instance, activities could be funded from personal subscription, fund raising by students or sponsorship from the private funds of universities or colleges, as well as from public funds.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the development of Welsh language courses in colleges in Wales is not a core activity, as defined by the Bill? Does he believe that it will add to the financial burdens of the majority of the 130,000 students in Wales and that the reforms will totally ignore the special characteristics of Welsh further and higher education and will plunge Welsh student unions into administrative chaos?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not agree, because our proposals will not reduce the resources provided for universities and colleges, which will continue to decide for themselves the total funding that they make available for their student

    513
    unions. Clause 22 allows for flexibility in different parts of the United Kingdom. That will permit variations to reflect any differing circumstances, including those in Wales.

    Voluntary Organisations
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The latest available figures at outturn prices for direct and indirect grants are £144·9 million for 1990–91, £182·2 million for 1991–92 and £213·7 million for 1992–93.
    Sir David Knox: Is not that a cost-effective form of public expenditure? By how much has it increased since 1979? How many organisations receive those grants?
    Mr. Jones: I share my hon. Friend's impression of the cost-effectiveness involved. I seem to recollect that during the past financial year, more than 420 voluntary organisations have been assisted in that way and that since the Government came to power, support for voluntary organisations has increased threefold.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that many voluntary organisations, which run village halls and other community centres in Wales, were disappointed last year when no money was made available under the usual scheme. Does he propose to reinstate that scheme for the present year, so that many excellent local facilities can be properly resourced?
    Mr. Jones: We try to consider all applications for financial assistance. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the two-year period, we set aside £2·5 million for the community revival strategy and that, under the strategic development scheme, voluntary organisations will attract 16 per cent. of the total, which is almost £6·5 million.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will adopt to create jobs and to bring down unemployment.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): Low interest rates, the promotion of Wales as a great manufacturing and service centre and low inflation underpin our policies to promote Wales vigorously and get unemployment down, and they are working—in the past month alone, there were 1,800 more people back in work.
    Mr. Jones: With the massive number of 127,000 jobless Welsh people, will the Secretary of State pledge that the Government will protect national and constituency interests in the aerospace industry, bearing in mind the outstanding GATT negotiations and the airbus project? Will he step up his efforts for manufacturing jobs and attack single-parent families less? Will he also work harder to tackle unemployment and engage less in Cabinet intrigue?
    Mr. Redwood: I am promoting Wales vigorously—far more vigorously than are Opposition Members. As a result, a lot of investment is coming to this country and our national policies are working, at a time when unemployment is rising on the continent of Europe.
    514
    Unemployment in Spain is at 22 per cent., in Germany at 10·5 per cent., in France at 12 per cent., in Italy more than 10 per cent., in the United Kingdom below 10 per cent. and in Wales less than 10 per cent. and falling. Of course I will do anything in my power to carry on the recovery in Wales, because we need more jobs and we shall get more jobs by following Conservative policies.
    Mr. Richards: When my right hon. Friend visited Pilkington Optronics in my constituency last Monday, did he get the impression that it was a company bristling with optimism and ideas? Does not that augur well for the future of manufacturing in Wales, which has been helped not least by my right hon. Friend's decision to give the green light to the Rhuddlan bypass?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his kind comments about the bypass scheme. I saw Pilkington Optronics and I saw other companies there at the leading edge of technology, with extremely good manufacturing activities, going for the best in the world and making sure that they win the markets accordingly.
    On Saturday, I had the privilege to see the Welsh rugby team sweep magnificently to victory. It was winning for Wales, just as the industrialists of north-east Wales are winning for Wales. I am sure that all hon. Members present will want at least to send our congratulations to the Welsh rugby team.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: In regard to the proposed reorganisation of local government in Wales, does the Secretary of State appreciate that many employees in that service are apprehensive about their future employment prospects? Bearing in mind the tremendous service that local government has given to Wales for so many years, will the Secretary of State give an assurance to those employees today that their future is secure?
    Mr. Redwood: I can assure the vast majority of people working in local government in Wales that their futures are safe. Their employers will need them even after the change of responsibilities and the introduction of the unitary councils. The vast majority are providing services to the public and they will be as needed in three or four years' time as they are today. However, if there is waste and bureaucracy, we hope that that will be sorted out during the transfer to unitary status. Sensible councils will plan ahead so that they do not need to sack people but can use natural wastage to make the necessary adjustments.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has not the Welsh economy benefited from the inward investment that has taken place because of the low corporate tax regime that the Government have encouraged, because the Government refused to leave the European Community, as advocated by the Labour party in 1983, and because they refused to sign up to federalism and the social chapter, as it advocated in 1992?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that our low income tax rates and our low corporation tax rates have been important in attracting investors to Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. What is more, were there ever to be the type of assembly that Opposition Members seek, with powers to impose extra taxes, laws and regulations on Wales, that would drive those investors away. That is why we do not want such an assembly. We want Wales to be open for business and winning in the world.
    Mr. Ron Davies: It seems that we have a developing tradition of English Members of Parliament who become Secretary of State for Wales being overcome by their own hype. I do not think that any of us in Wales would share the present Secretary of State's views that he made much of a contribution to the marvellous victory that we had on Saturday over Scotland.
    Does the Secretary of State realise how dishonest he is being in ignoring last week's devastating news of nearly 1,000 job losses in Wales, most notably at BP Baglan bay and at Wella in Llantrisant? The continuing pattern in Wales is the replacement of full-time jobs with unskilled temporary employment and, despite wages being the lowest in the United Kingdom, unemployment is more than the national average. The number of vacancies is down and unemployment is falling at a slower rate than in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    If the Secretary of State wants to get back to basics, why does not he start doing the job that he is being paid to do—arguing for policies that will get Wales back to work? Does not he realise that his petty squabbles with the Prime Minister about personal morality are bringing him into contempt and ridicule and that the people of Wales have to pay the price?
    Madam Speaker: Order. If I heard correctly, I understood the hon. Gentleman, in his earlier remarks, to accuse the Secretary of State of being dishonest. I believe that he did so and I should be very grateful if he would amend that comment.
    Mr. Davies: I did not accuse the Secretary of State of being dishonest. If I have done so, I withdraw the remark and apologise.
    Madam Speaker: I am much obliged.
    Mr. Redwood: I am obliged to you, Madam Speaker. The text of my remarks will show clearly that I was praising the rugby players for their victory. The victory was theirs and theirs alone, although the whole of Wales takes great delight in their success. It is my job to lead the Welsh team in the industrial and commercial area to equivalent success.
    Mr. Rogers: What about jobs?
    Mr. Redwood: It was a long question, which included rugby as well as jobs. Of course I saw that some unfortunate job losses were announced over the past month. I also saw many job gains announced. I am pleased to say that the gains outstripped the losses and that unemployment fell. I saw the Royal Opera house announcement, the Calsonic announcement, the Greenberg Glass announcement, the Europressings announcement, the Cardiff Carbides announcement and many others. We need many more such announcements and I will press on to get many more. If there are areas of especial trouble, Welsh Office assistance will, of course, be there in especial quantities.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are currently in employment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: The current civilian work force in September 1993, the latest date for which we have figures, was 1,119,000 people.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the Development Board for Rural Wales has played a key role in defending jobs within its area? Has he noticed, however, that there appears to be a growing disparity between the board's performance in the Montgomeryshire area, where it is based, and its performance in some other parts of Wales, such as my constituency? Has not the time now come for the board to consider moving its headquarters further south?
    Mr. Redwood: I am sure that the board wants to help all the areas for which it is responsible. Its members will see our exchanges today and I trust that it will redouble its efforts in my hon. Friend's constituency. Where the board sites its office is, of course, a matter for it. Again, its members will see my hon. Friend's remarks. Meanwhile, it is a fact that strikes, inflation and interest rates are down, while productivity, output and jobs numbers are up—[Interruption.] Although Opposition Members do not like that, it is the key to our recovery.
    Mr. John Morris: Given the recent announcement that 600 jobs will be lost at BP Chemicals at Baglan, coming on top of the imminent loss of hundreds of jobs at Freemans Cigars, will the Secretary of State now reconsider the Government's decision to downgrade Port Talbot and Neath from development status?
    Mr. Redwood: Assistance will still be available for various programmes in that area. We came to our best judgment at the time and we got an extremely good deal for Wales—a deal on which Wales can go forward and prosper.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Is not the Government's job in the Principality not directly to seek to increase the number of people in work, but to work to build the right economic framework and climate in which businesses may flourish, something which the Welsh Office has been so successful in doing in recent years?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that the main thing that helps to create jobs is the right economic climate, which is why in all my answers today I have stressed that inflation is down and that productivity is up—the right conditions under which business can trade successfully. There is a job for the Government as well. They need, for example, to pay money to clear the land and to lead regeneration schemes to deal with areas that have been damaged, especially by large nationalised industries. It is the Government's job vigorously to promote Wales as a place in which people can manufacture profitably, as many are discovering for themselves.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the scissors effect worked very well on Saturday, the economic scissors effect—by which part-time jobs in service industries are up in Wales while full-time jobs in manufacturing are going inexorably down—is doing to the Welsh economy what the Prime Minister is supposed to want to do to him?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is as wrong in his quotation from the Prime Minister as he is in his general remarks on the Welsh economy. Rather than making a

    517
    good debating point, he cheapens himself by his remarks. Many extra jobs are being created in Wales as a result of our initiatives and those of private investors and they are by no means all part-time jobs or jobs offering lower wages. On my recent tours, I have seen extremely good full-time jobs for men as well as women being added, involving a high degree of skill and good wages.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the dairy industry in Wales.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Dairy farming will continue to make a significant contribution to total agricultural output in Wales. The changes being made in marketing arrangements following the passage of the Agriculture Act 1993 will help to ensure that.
    Mr. Carlile: May I make an effort to investigate a little further the Minister of State's platitude? Does he accept that the future of dairy farming in rural Wales will be extremely bleak unless the Milk Marque co-operative is brought into being soon? Will he undertake to make every effort to ensure that it is operating by not later than 1 April? Will he assure the House that not only he but the Secretary of State are committed to the future support of farmers throughout rural Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Of course we are committed to the future support of farmers throughout rural Wales, especially those in the dairy industry. Of course we are all disappointed that the negotiations, which could have involved a vesting day of 1 April, have clearly shown that that cannot be achieved on that date. Meanwhile, the current arrangements will continue.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that there will be a meeting next Monday between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Milk Marque to discuss that issue? Will he give an assurance that there will be representation from the Welsh Office at that meeting and that it will press for as early as possible a vesting date to remove the uncertainty of the matter? Is he aware that every month that goes by until the matter is resolved means a real loss to the income of dairy farmers?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I can confirm that there will be a meeting next Monday and, as my right hon. Friend has responsibility for agriculture in Wales, he will be one of the Ministers involved in determining the Milk Marketing Board's scheme of organisation. Given my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role, the hon. Member will know that the decision cannot be pre-judged and that, of course, I must refrain from making any detailed comments on matters related to those negotiations.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister should come clean on the matter. It is a question not of the negotiations having failed, but of the Government vetoing the proposals that were put to them by Milk Marque. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that he understands the deeply damaging nature of the decision to reject Milk Marque's proposals. Is not it the case that the Government know that that decision and the decision to cut £25 million from hill livestock compensatory allowances will undermine confidence in the
    518
    future of agriculture, but that they are proceeding anyway because, in their view, public sector intervention in any industry is ideologically unacceptable?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: On that last point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that total support is up, despite the reduction in HLCAs. He has clearly misunderstood what I said. No one has been talking of rejecting the Milk Marketing Board's scheme. Nor did I say that the negotiations have failed. In fact, I said clearly that negotiations were to be resumed on 24 January, next Monday. It is important that whatever new arrangement is made should be in accordance with the Agriculture Act 1993. It is in the best interests of producers, consumers and dairy farming as a whole that we should have the right and proper arrangements.

    Toxic Waste
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding has been earmarked in 1994–95 for the removal of toxic waste deposits from former industrial sites in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Approximately £12 million.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that throughout industrial Wales many people are forced to live alongside sites that contain industrial toxic waste? Is he further aware that many of those sites, such as that at Coedely in my constituency, resulted from the activities of the National Coal Board and British Coal, yet the same directors who are running down British Coal, who are closing mines and who closed the mine at Coedely and others will be allowed to pick the cherries of the industry without having to pick up the cost of the filthy tips? The cost of putting them right will fall on hard-pressed local authorities such as Mid-Glamorgan. When will the Minister stand up for the people of Wales and ensure that money is made available to remove this filth from our landscape?
    Mr. Jones: As I have said, approximately £12 million is available for such measures in the current year. I understand that the specific case of Coedely is a matter for the Welsh Development Agency, for the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Taff Ely borough council and for Mid-Glamorgan county council, which are giving it the most serious consideration and are ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in hand. I remind him that, under the first programme for the valleys, 2,600 acres throughout the valleys of south Wales have been cleared—a record which can compare with the best in Europe.
    Mr. Dickens: What steps has the Welsh Office taken to identify contaminated land across Wales?
    Mr. Jones: The Welsh Office is keenly interested in this matter. It has already conducted two reviews and the matter will continue to receive its closest attention.

    Disabled Facilities Grant
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people in Wales currently waiting for a disabled facilities grant; and how many have waited for more than two years.
    Mr. Redwood: The figures are not held centrally because it is a local authority-administered scheme.
    Mr. Wardell: Will the Secretary of State collect those figures and, when he does so, will he accept that it is not appropriate for elderly people to be discharged from hospital only to find that they must wait two or sometimes three years for a shower or a stairlift to be installed in their property? Will he review his policy, under which he transferred the only mandatory housing grant from the supplementary credit allowance to the basic credit allowance system? The sooner he does so, the better community care will be.
    Mr. Redwood: What an indictment of Labour local government in Wales. I give it more discretion and more money, yet the hon. Gentleman says that it does not meet its targets. The targets are very clear. Someone who applies for such a grant should receive it within six months of a proper application being submitted. I shall give the hon. Gentleman some idea of the amount of money that is involved: in 1992–93, £26 million was made available to local authorities, but they spent less than £10 million under this heading, which is the only statutory requirement in the £26 million block. That is their expression of priorities. They are letting down disabled people in Wales and it is time that they did a better job. For next year, I am increasing the amount of money that I make available for disabled facilities and schemes by £6·6 million and I hope that local government will be with me and will put its money where the hon. Gentleman's mouth is.

    Environmental Priorities
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his environmental priorities for 1994.
    Mr. Redwood: A little change of tone now, Madam Speaker. I see that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is pleased that I am answering this question personally—he wants my personal attention for these important policies.
    My environmental priorities are proper environmental protection, vigorous urban renewal, removing dereliction where it is a scar on the landscape, promoting energy efficiency and sensible planning to preserve the best in Wales while allowing sensible development.
    Mr. Hughes: I was pleased to hear that the last two of the Secretary of State's priorities related to the subject of wind power, which is a controversial matter in Wales. As 10 million homes could be partially powered by wind power by the end of the century and as 200,000 homes are already powered—
    Mr. Rogers: Especially in Southwark.
    Mr. Hughes: Calm down.
    As 200,000 homes are already powered by wind power, will the Secretary of State do all that he can to ensure that the guidelines for wind power development are introduced quickly because, in sensitive areas of Wales and elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom, people are trying to exploit the position to everybody's disadvantage whereas others are proposing good schemes that would be to the energy and personal advantage of the people of Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman delivered, almost with a straight face, a question about wind power which, for the Liberal party, is quite an achievement. After all, the Liberals are experts on that.
    520
    However, I will ensure that we look again to see whether we can produce guidelines that might help in that situation. That could be a productive way forward, but we must be sensitive about the environment in which these structures might be placed. The main problem is the visual intrusion. I have asked the wind power industry to consider ways in which it could improve the structures to make them less obvious on the horizon. I believe that that would help. People are sometimes worried about noise. The structures that I have seen have not been too offensive, but clearly a planning committee must consider the wind noise issue before granting permission. I will see whether I can clarify the matter further in the way that the hon. Gentleman wishes.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State included in his priorities avoiding dereliction and positive planning policies. Is he aware of the anger and anxiety in Morriston about the potential long-term pollution dangers from Cwmrhydyceirw quarry which stem directly from the original planning permission in respect of which the Welsh Office overrode very strong objections from Swansea city council, which was the planning authority? Will he therefore accept responsibility now for what has happened and be ready to compensate Swansea city council if it were to decide to rescind that planning permission and also give the council money to make good the damage that has been caused?
    Mr. Redwood: I should like to send a written answer to the hon. Gentleman because it is a serious question. I believe that I need to research the facts more before I give a straight answer.

    British Geological Survey
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the future of the Wales office of the British Geological Survey at Aberystwyth.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations expressing concern at the proposed closure of the survey's district office at Aberystwyth.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that the Wales office of the British Geological Survey is a significant component in the infrastructure of Wales as it provides important information to local authorities, to developers and to the Welsh Office—when it chooses to ask for it? Does he accept that it is vital for economic development in Wales as it provides information on matters such as energy and mineral extraction? Does he also recognise that it will be impossible to provide that service properly if the archive that is presently located at Aberystwyth is removed from Wales together with the interpretive expertise at that office? Does he recognise that the removal of that office should not be an option? Should not the Welsh Office properly intervene to ensure that the office survives and can develop in future?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the office at Aberystwyth is part of the British Geological Survey, whose parent council is the Natural Environment Research Council, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have made inquiries with my right hon. Friend

    521
    the Chancellor of the Duchy and he will provide me with further information. I am due to see the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who will, I am sure, bring his representations very much to my notice. Meanwhile, I assure him that the mapping needs of Wales will continue to be met by the survey. I understand that those employed at Aberystwyth will, for the most part, be transferred to the centre at Nottingham.

    Arts Council for Wales
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he is making for the Arts Council for Wales for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Subject to parliamentary approval, the council will receive grant in aid of £13·541 million in 1994–95. That is 4 per cent. above provision in the current year.
    Mr. Evans: Did my right hon. Friend see the gloomy prognostications of a mythical Member of the House, who was described in The Western Mail as being the Member for Caernarfon and Ceredigion and Pembroke, North? Will my right hon. Friend underline and appreciate how much of a welcome there is in Wales for the positive announcement that he has just made in place of that mistaken gloom?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to do so. My hon. Friend is correct. The story about a reduction in the Arts Council for Wales grant was totally untrue. As I have said, there will be a 4 per cent. increase. I see the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) brandishing a headline about the Welsh national opera company. I am pleased to tell him that the Arts Council for Wales element of grant will increase by 2 per cent. next year.

    Manufacturing Employment
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many manufacturing jobs there were in the valleys initiative districts in (a) 1987 and (b) at the latest available date.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The census of employment shows that there were 62,300 people employed in manufacturing jobs in the programme for the valleys area in 1987, and 57,400 in 1991, the latest year for which census of employment data are available.
    Mr. Hain: Does not the Minister's reply give the lie to the way in which the Secretary of State is talking up what has been happening in the valleys? It is a devastating indictment of the Government's policy that full-time adult male jobs, predominantly in manufacturing, for which people might earn about £300 a week are being replaced by part-time jobs for which one is lucky to receive £100 a week. There will be a devastating future for the valleys if the policy continues.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and I am surprised at what he says. During that period, the valleys fared better than Great Britain as a whole. There was an 11 per cent. fall in manufacturing employment between 1988 and 1992 in the programme for the valleys area, but in Great Britain, over the same period, the fall was 14 per cent. That is a fair measure of the value of the programme for the valleys.
    522
    As for unemployment generally, I am sure that even Opposition Members will be glad to hear that unemployment is coming down faster in the programme for the valleys area than it is in the rest of Wales and indeed in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Mr. Asil Nadir
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the case against Mr. Nadir.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown is ready to proceed. Mr. Nadir should return to this country forthwith.
    Mr. Winnick: He should indeed, but in view of all the allegations that have been made about the Nadir case, has not the time come for an independent inquiry into all aspects of the case? Of course, such an inquiry would examine the very close relationship between the Tory party and Mr. Nadir. Will the Solicitor-General try to persuade the Prime Minister to ensure that all the moneys that have been donated by Mr. Nadir to the Tory party will be refunded to the creditors? Surely that is the least that the Law Officers should be doing.
    The Solicitor-General: This is very old hat. Calls for an inquiry have been made time and again. An inquiry was fixed. A date was fixed in October for a trial at the Central Criminal court which Mr. Nadir should have attended. He did not attend. He should put his arguments in front of a British jury and let them determine the issue. A British jury should be the inquirers in this issue.
    Mr. Ashby: As the Serious Fraud Office wrongly and improperly got hold of all the defence papers in the Nadir case and had a chance to peruse them, is there any chance that Mr. Nadir could have a fair trial?
    The Solicitor-General: The view that the Serious Fraud Office got hold of all Mr. Nadir's private and personal papers is totally misconceived. This matter has been dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in correspondence with the previous solicitors of Mr. Nadir. There were just a number of papers. They were extracted at an early stage. When Mr. Nadir comes back to this country, the issue will be put in front of the trial judge by the Crown. There really is no excuse for Mr. Nadir staying away.

    Criminal Law
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what are his priorities for the discharge of his duties to enforce the criminal law during 1994.
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General's priority is to continue to work with the Director of Public Prosecution and the Serious Fraud Office to ensure the robust and effective prosecution of criminal offences by the prosecuting authorities.
    Mr. Hughes: Given the provisional findings of the district auditor with regard to Westminster city council last week, the allegations about Wandsworth and, for that matter, the findings with regard to Tameside, will the

    523
    Solicitor-General undertake that it will be a priority for his Department to investigate whether, in addition to any breach of the law that is currently being investigated by the auditor, there has been a criminal conspiracy in any of those places wrongly to spend public money for party political ends?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman should be slow to equate provisional findings with fact. The auditor made it plain that he was minded to find certain things, subject to the respondents being given an opportunity to show otherwise. They will be given that opportunity and will have the possibility of explaining to the district auditor that their behaviour was lawful. It would be wrong to speculate about the outcome. As to the hon. Gentleman's specific request, if he has evidence of a criminal offence, he should place it before the police and the matter will be rigorously pursued.
    Mr. Rathbone: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the difficulties which were identified and reported in the newspapers over the weekend about an important and large drugs case. Can he give some reassurance that there is the necessary co-ordination of activities between the police, the Law Officers and Customs and Excise? In so far as there is a case to be brought, can he be wary of those siren voices which say that indictments must be made in relation to seizures at port of entry? It is extremely important in many instances to allow such consignments to go to their destinations so that we can track down and bring to trial the big boys in such deals?
    The Solicitor-General: This case was dealt with properly. All decisions were taken by Customs and Excise, which is an independent prosecuting authority. The Attorney-General's limited role in the case was entirely proper and in response to an approach from defence counsel. The decision to drop the case against Mr. Charrington was taken by the commissioners of Customs and Excise. Two defendants are to be retried in June. Hon. Members may wish to be circumspect about their comments, bearing in mind the fact that those two cases are sub judice.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the Attorney-General was told all the facts concerning Mr. Charrington? Who was present at the meeting of defence and prosecution counsel, which the Attorney-General chaired? Can the Solicitor-General assist the House as to why a local news agency was urged not to publicise details of the story?
    The Solicitor-General: I am not responsible, nor is my right hon. and learned Friend, for reports in local newspapers. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the matter was properly investigated. As I said, there was a meeting which was requested by counsel for Mr. Charrington. That meeting was chaired by the Attorney-General, and counsel for the prosecution and I were present. The matter was dealt with properly. As I said, the prosecution was taken by Customs and Excise. That Department took all the material decisions about the conduct of the case.

    Lloyd's
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Attorney-General when he has been consulted on prosecutions in the Lloyd's insurance market.
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General has not been consulted about any such prosecutions. He has given instructions that I should deal with any matter in connection with Lloyd's which arises in his Departments.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Minister agree that in Lloyd's recently there has been well-documented evidence of insider trading, criminal activity and fraud, and that the Government have treated the whole corruption of the Lloyd's insurance market with a cavalier disregard which contrasts with the way in which they pursue ordinary citizens who may top up their social security benefits with a bit of part-time gardening or something similar? Are there not two standards—one for the rich and one for the poor?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman addresses me as a Minister. I am a Law Officer of the Crown and I have duties in respect of the public interest which other Ministers do not have.
    The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about Lloyd's. Where there has been evidence of dishonesty, investigations have been rigorously pursued by the regulatory and the prosecuting authorities. The Serious Fraud Office is pursuing two cases which involve Lloyd's and the Crown Prosecution Service is pursuing one.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is extremely important for all hon. Members to consider carefully what they say about Lloyd's insurance market? Clearly, untoward things have gone on in Lloyd's during the past year or two, but there is a particular responsibility on the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to check his facts before he makes wild allegations. Shortly after the general election, the hon. Gentleman released to the press a list of a number of seats where hon. Members were, he said, names at Lloyd's. That list included my parliamentary seat, because the hon. Gentleman had riot noticed that my predecessor had retired. I am not a name at Lloyd's and the hon. Gentleman, despite being made aware of that fact, has refused to apologise either to me or to my predecessor, Sir Peter Blaker.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Neath apparently is not very well informed, but there is not much that is new about that.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid (Population Activities)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the total aid programme is devoted to population activities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): About £28·6 million or 1·55 per cent. of the total aid programme was identified as being spent directly on population activities in the calendar year 1992. There is, in addition, much spent through the multilateral institutions.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government stated in the United Kingdom report to the International Conference on Development and Population that development assistance "remains too low". What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to increase resources and, more importantly, to encourage new donor agencies, particularly in the European Union, where countries have not previously contributed aid in that area?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government continue to encourage the mobilisation of additional resources for population in all suitable international forums, which must include the European Community. My hon. Friend referred to the conference on population, which is in Cairo this year. That provides opportunities for reminding and encouraging greater commitment to population issues.
    Mr. Worthington: Does not the Minister think that the people of sub-Saharan Africa, where the population doubles every 25 years, have the same right to choose the size of their families as do the people of Italy, where the population doubles every 3,500 years?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we want policies which encourage people to reach decisions by choice, not by chance. The purpose of all our policies is to give people, and women in particular, the right information and assistance to come to their own decisions about the size of their families.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that last November the United States State Department established a global action committee? Is he further aware that one of that committee's objectives is to give full access to contraception for all people across the globe by 2000? Does my hon. Friend share that objective and, if so, what percentage of the ODA budget should be allocated towards such a programme?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are always loth to adopt specific targets, but we certainly share the objective which my hon. Friend is encouraging. It is significant to remind my hon. Friend that British ODA aid for population has increased by about 60 per cent. during the past four years.

    Aid Policy
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the main change in direction in the use of the resources available for overseas aid in the year 1994–95.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The priority objectives for the aid programme for 1994–95 were set out in the speech of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development at Chatham House on 18 October 1993, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Pike: In that speech, the Minister for Overseas Development said that the poorest nations were unable to benefit fully under the Trinidad terms and that there was a need to extend and improve those terms. In the year ahead, do the Government intend to do that for the poorest and most needy nations in the world?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is an area of policy in the world in which Britain has always led. We launched the terms in 1990. Eighteen countries, including 13 in Africa,
    526
    have so far benefited. We have also relieved developing countries of £1 billion of aid debt burden. We are continuing to examine debt relief in conjunction with the Paris club.
    Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend agree that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have committed themselves to the Trinidad terms and argued strongly at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the World bank meeting in Washington for not only the Trinidad terms but the extended Trinidad terms, to which the Government are also committed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The British Government, and in particular the two members of the Government to whom my hon. Friend referred, can take the fullest possible credit for the Trinidad terms. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the Trinidad terms himself. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If everything in the garden is so lovely, will the Minister explain why only last week we had an announcement of 47 redundancies of scientific personnel at Chatham? Does he accept that is a direct result of the real cut in overseas aid by the Government, including a cut confirmed in the last Budget? Given that 47 people are to lose their jobs and that some of the poorest countries in the world benefit from their crucial scientific research, where is the Government's strategy for any development for the poorest of this universe?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept that the job losses at Chatham are a direct result of some suggestion that the Government's aid programme is not substantially increasing. It has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past six years. Of course, there will be redeployment within the aid budget and I suspect that that is what is happening at Chatham. I or my right hon. and noble Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him further briefing on that.
    Mr. Brandreth: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read UNICEF's latest report on the state of the world's children? It reminds us that, while much progress has been made, disease still claims some 8 million children's lives each year. That is far more than famine or warfare. Will his priorities include the UNICEF priority of the elimination of disease, especially diarrhoea and pneumonia in children?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British aid programme is concerned with the elimination of disease, with particular emphasis on assistance to the poorest countries.

    Development Assistance
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the current position with the general agreement on tariffs and trade for the United Kingdom programme of development assistance.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We welcome the successful outcome of the Uruguay round, which potentially can do more than anything else to boost economic growth in the developing world.
    Ms Quin: What plans does the Minister or his Department have to examine the position of countries which it is forecast will not do well out of the GATT agreement? I am thinking in particular of African countries south of the Sahara. Is not that something which his Department should examine urgently in conjunction with the Minister's European counterparts? What will he do to make sure that our aid and trade policies complement and do not contradict each other?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The conclusion of the Uruguay round is of benefit to the world as a whole. It is not a zero sum gain. Everyone could benefit from it, including developing countries. However, the hon. Lady has touched on a point that was anticipated. In the short term, some developing countries that are net food importers will have difficulties. The Uruguay round anticipated that difficulty and the agreement includes provisions to assist those countries. The important thing for the developing world is
    528
    that it will have better market access to the prosperous countries of the world and will face lower protection in those countries in domestic agricultural products, which is what the poor world wants to export to us.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it the case that, as a result of GATT, developing countries will be able to increase their exports to the extent that the revenue that they will receive therefrom is greater than the aid programmes of the entire western world and Japan put together? Is not that important, because it will allow those countries to get away from the begging-bowl mentality so favoured by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. Various studies have concluded that the developing world earns three times as much from trade as it does from aid and that third-world countries will benefit to the tune of some $78 billion per annum once the effects of the agreement have worked through.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Kaufman on a point of order.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My point of order arises out of the Prime Minister's evidence to the Scott inquiry this morning, but I raise it with you, Madam Speaker, because it relates to the Prime Minister's dealings with Members of this House and with Government evidence to the Select Committees of the House.
The Prime Minister this morning told the Scott inquiry that he did not know until November 1992 that the guidelines with regard to the embargo on arms to Iraq had been changed four years earlier, in 1988. In a letter to me dated 17 February 1992, the Prime Minister said:
"Let us get the facts straight … Guidelines laying down which types of equipment could be licensed for export, and which could not were first introduced in 1980, were revised and made more stringent in 1984, and were announced to the House by Geoffrey Howe in 1985. The guidelines announced by Geoffrey Howe remained in force until the invasion in 1990 when they were replaced by a total embargo … The guidelines were enforced carefully and strictly through interdepartmental machinery established for the purpose."
The Prime Minister today has confirmed that, in fact, the guidelines were not those of 1985 but were changed in 1988.
I raise the matter with you, Madam Speaker, for two reasons. The first is that, when the Prime Minister was challenged on 16 November 1992 about his failure to inform me in his letter of 17 February 1992 about the change in the guidelines of 1988, he did not say as he said to the Scott inquiry today that he did not give that information because he did not know. Rather, he made it known through 10 Downing street that the information had been given to a Select Committee of the House—the Trade and Industry Select Committee—on 28 January—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the point of order that he wishes me to deal with. Will he now come to that point?
Mr. Kaufman: Yes, of course, Madam Speaker. There are two parts to this point of order relating to you as Speaker of the House.
The first is that the Prime Minister's office announced that the change in the guidelines, which the Prime Minister now denies he knew, was made known to a Select Committee of this House of Commons on 28 January 1992, and that therefore the Prime Minister now appears to be resiling from information given to a Select Committee of the House of Commons which Ministers are required to give in good faith.
Secondly, the Prime Minister failed to give me, as a Member of the House, the information which was available to the Select Committee, not on the grounds that he did not know that that information was available, but on the grounds that everybody knew that that information was available.
The statement made by the Prime Minister at the Scott inquiry today is not compatible with information given to a House of Commons Select Committee, nor is it compatible with information given to me as a Member of the House of Commons. Therefore, at least one of the three statements made by the Prime Minister cannot be true.
530
I therefore ask that you, Madam Speaker, require the Prime Minister to make a statement clarifying the matter for the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: I have no doubt that, when Lord Justice Scott has made his report, there will be ample opportunities to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. In the meantime, the answers that Ministers give to more detailed points arising during the course of the inquiry are a matter for those Ministers.
I do not give procedural advice from the Chair, but I should make it clear that any charge that Members might have been deliberately misled can only be made in the proper form and not suggested in a point of order.
Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that today, in the Jubilee Room in the Palace of Westminster, a meeting was addressed by members of Sinn Fein, an organisation that sponsors terrorism? I would like to express my deep outrage that such a meeting took place. It is—
Hon. Members: Is this a point of order?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is raising a point of order with me.
Lady Olga Maitland: I will come to it.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must come to it now. I am not interested in her emotions about this matter.
Lady Olga Maitland: Is it in order for such a meeting to take place in the Palace of Westminster, when hon. Members have been deeply offended by it and when so many hon. Members have been killed or maimed by the IRA? Would you give guidelines to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that such meetings cannot be held until the IRA ceases its violence?
Mr. David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw attention to the fact that this is the second time that an attempt has been made to hold a meeting to convey the particular information that was conveyed this morning, even though it was published more than a month ago in Belfast? On the first occasion, the Home Secretary issued an exclusion order against the invited speaker on the ground that that person was involved in terrorism. That view was shared by the President of the United States, who banned that same person on the ground that he was directing terrorism at a high level.
In view of the close connection between the meeting and the preparation, instigation and commission of acts of terrorism, is this not a matter of concern to the House?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should be raising a point of order that is of concern to me.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
Madam Speaker: I see that Mr. Corbyn is standing. As the House is aware, it is not my habit to take constant points of order on one issue. As I believe that the hon. Gentleman used his name to book the Committee Room, I must obviously hear his point of order. That will be the last point of order on that issue, because I am ready to respond.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to use this point of order to thank you for

531
allowing us to use that room and to thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for attending the press conference to hear what members of Sinn Fein had to say. I hope that that meeting will hasten the peace process in Northern Ireland.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should draw to the attention of all hon. Members the fact that guidelines on the booking of Committee Rooms are available from the Serjeant at Arms' Office. Hon. Members are entitled to book Committee Rooms in connection with a parliamentary subject, providing the relevant rules and regulations are followed, as I understand they were in this case.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 12 December, you certified that the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill was a matter relating exclusively to Scotland. On Thursday, however, at column 341, I asked the Leader of the House whether that Bill would follow Scottish procedure, whereby the Bill's Second Reading, Standing Committee stage and Report could be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee. He said that he had some difficulty in pursuing that suggestion, because the usual channels of communication had broken down.
If the Leader of the House has a genuine difficulty, does that not change your relationship with Standing Orders 92 and 93, to ensure that matters which you have decided and which relate exclusively to Scotland can be decided by Scottish Members of Parliament?
In The Sunday Times yesterday, Government sources were quoted as saying how many Members of Parliament who will serve on the Standing Committee, and even gave the names of some Members. That is before a vote on Second Reading, and before the Committee of Selection has even met.
There is outrage in Scotland about the idea that Scottish local government can be gerrymandered by the votes of English Conservative Members of Parliament. Can you assist Scottish Members and offer us some protection?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me some notice of his point of order. Actually, my relationship with Standing Orders 92 and 93 to which he refers is not changed. Standing Order 93 makes it clear that only a Minister of the Crown may move to refer a Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading.
May I help the hon. Gentleman further? If he has in mind further scrutiny once the Bill has been read a Second time, may I suggest that he discusses with the Public Bill Office during the course of today the alternatives that might be available to him, because, as he well knows, it is not the practice of the Chair to give procedural advice across the Floor of the Chamber.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a totally different aspect of the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Madam Speaker, may I bring to your attention the problem of Members of this House attending the Scott inquiry? Whereas, when civil servants were being interviewed, I was received with total courtesy at Buckingham gate, the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), had to queue for an hour and a quarter this morning in very cold
532
conditions on the grounds that a place could not be reserved for Members of the House who had given notice of their desire to attend.
Apparently, an agreement has been reached that selected members of the press will be allowed reserved seats. I do not complain about that, but, if members of the press have reserved seats, surely Members of the House with direct responsibilities in relation to the inquiry should also be afforded the courtesy of seats at Buckingham gate.
Madam Speaker: I know nothing about agreements for visitors' or press tickets to the Scott inquiry. I am sure that the House will support me in saying that I have sufficient responsibilities in relation to parliamentary duties in the House, without looking for reserved seats for Members, however important they may be, at an outside inquiry.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me with the procedures that are called into question by a press release issued today by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who is in his place, which has been advised to me by an estimable local paper, the Largs and Millport Weekly News. The press release opens with the words:
"Speaking in the House of Commons debate on the reform of local government in Scotland".
That is presumption beyond belief, because you and I know that, although the hon. Member for Ayr has many talents, second sight is not one of them. Is not that a preemption of your rights, Madam Speaker?
I have no wish to prolong this point of order, so I shall not read the hon. Gentleman's press speech. I have no wish to have him sent away to write another, because I doubt whether his joined-up writing could handle it. The press release goes on to attack other hon. Members—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need go no further. I think that I have got his point. Now, what does Mr. Gallie have to say?
Mr. Phil Gallie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did not have the courtesy to advise me that he was going to refer to me on this occasion. Had he had a copy of the press release, he would have seen that it was clearly embargoed until 10 pm tonight, at which time I could have confirmed whether I had been called to speak. It was my understanding that that was common practice, and that the hon. Gentleman had certainly used such a practice himself.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I can deal with this. I have heard enough.
I deprecate the hon. Gentleman's action, as I would if it were any hon. Member, of any party. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye tonight, he can be absolutely certain that I shall check what he has to say against delivery. Could we not end points of order on that note?
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Do you recall, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) did exactly the same but without the embargo?
Madam Speaker: I have just deprecated the possibility that any hon. Member of any party might do that. It certainly did not happen in my time as a Back Bencher, and I wish that we could get back to those good old days.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), but no doubt its content will arise during the debate.
  3.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Today's debate marks a major staging post in the long journey towards the reform of local government in Scotland. It is right that the journey should be a long one, for the reform of Scottish local government is a major undertaking, which will have far-reaching implications for the people of Scotland. That is why the Government have, over the past three years, carried out the most thorough preparation, research and consultation before laying the Bill before the House.
  There have been two major consultation papers on the structure now proposed, followed by a White Paper. There have been further consultation papers, on internal management, tourism, water and sewerage, the children's reporter service, and costs, and the issues have been extensively debated on the Floor of the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee. Now we have the opportunity for further thorough debate as we take our reform proposals through Parliament and make them a reality. All that is as it should be.
  Local government plays a unique and vital part in the political, democratic and administrative life of Scotland. As a provider—or, increasingly, as an organiser—of services, local government touches the lives of all of us, having responsibility for many key services, including education, social work, housing and many more on which the quality of people's lives depends.
  In democratic terms, local government provides a local focus for people's wishes, needs and aspirations. It is also Scotland's largest employer, employing more than a quarter of a million people and it is responsible for current expenditure approaching £6·5 billion per annum, and capital expenditure of about £1·5 billion. That works out at about £1,800 of total expenditure for every man, woman and child in the country.
  It is essential that an institution of this size, importance and cost should be structured in such a way as to allow it to carry out its functions with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness, and in such a way as to provide Scotland with a source of robust and relevant local democracy. That is why we are debating this Bill today.
  Over the years, the role of local government has inevitably changed as the world around it has moved on. Periodically, it has also been necessary to restructure local government to ensure that it has remained in a position effectively to fulfil its role. Experience clearly shows, however, that the timing of any restructuring is vital. Synchronising the change with the changing external environment is essential if local government is not to fall behind the times and become seriously damaged as a result.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Secretary of State considered whether the gerrymandering proposed in the Bill is worse than the accusations of gerrymandering in Westminster? Lady Porter is accused of gerrymandering only a single council, whereas the Secretary of State is proposing to gerrymander an entire country.
  Can the Secretary of State honestly tell the House that he would have been happy if the leaders of any of the other political parties in Scotland had had the right or the desire to draw their own boundary lines on a local government map of Scotland? Would he have been happy with that process?
  Mr. Lang: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charge, and I look forward to debating such matters further with him in Committee.
  In 1975, the change came too late. The old local government system had reached a parlous state, and the result was that momentum was lost in key services for a number of years on either side of the reform process. There was a widespread recognition of the need for major surgery. It was not for nothing that the very first words of Lord Wheatley's report were:
  "something is seriously wrong with local government in Scotland".
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: I would like to make a little progress first; then I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The evidence is now plainly there that, despite the Wheatley reform, something is still seriously wrong with local government in Scotland. From the time when the two-tier system was first conceived, its long-term validity was called into question. Reporting in 1969, the Wheatley commission, while ultimately recommending a two-tier system, acknowledged that
  "an all-purpose system has obvious advantages. It is simple to understand and to operate … The problems … of ensuring that functions which go together can be properly co-ordinated with one another simply do not arise, because all services are under one authority".
  Those are prophetic words. Reporting in January 1981, the Stodart committee of inquiry into local government in Scotland—on which the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) served—considered existing arrangements less than six years after the introduction of the two-tier system, and found a great deal of dissatisfaction with it, particularly among local authorities.
  The extent of dissatisfaction among local authorities led Stodart to state in his report:
  "We must take note of this early stage in our Report of the substantial body of opinion—not least among some local authorities—which maintains the belief that only the creation of all or at least most purpose authorities throughout the country will produce a wholly satisfactory system of local government."
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Is not the Secretary of State aware of the concern that some of the smaller local authorities that he proposes to set up will not be able to provide the full range of services in, for example, education and social work? A profusion of quangos and local boards will inevitably result from his proposal, which will be expensive and will not provide services efficiently. That is a heavy price to pay simply for the sake of creating a few Tory-controlled councils.
  Mr. Lang: It is right that, if a small local authority may not be able to provide all services at its own hand, it should have access to a neighbouring authority that can assist it. The structure that we are contemplating should enable us to do that.
  In his report, Lord Wheatley said, on precisely the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman:
  "Such a large area"—
  referring to Strathclyde—
  "would offer no educational advantages; it would be administratively unwieldy; and it would raise the question whether, with one education authority covering almost half the population of Scotland, it was really worth while to have local education authorities at all."
  Clearly, therefore, there was anxiety when the present regional structure was set up that education would be handled at too high a level and by authorities that were too large.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State is talking about small authorities. Has he grasped the fact that the smallest authority that he is proposing, to be named East Lothian and Berwickshire, is not wanted by either the people of East Lothian or those of Berwickshire? Can we hope to hear of any concession on that, in view of the overwhelming feeling of the people of East Lothian and Berwickshire that they do not want that type of authority?
  Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill contains a map that is largely unchanged from that in the White Paper, although there is a change affecting Prestonpans, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. I look forward to debating those borders in Committee.
  Mr. George Foulkes rose—
  Dr. John Reid rose—
  Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
  Mr. Lang: I must make a little progress; then I shall happily give way again.
  The issues referred to by both Lord Wheatley and later by Stodart have not gone away over the years, and that is little wonder, for the problems endemic within the present structure are profound. The division of responsibilities within the tiers of the current structure is arbitrary, in some cases it is bizarre, and in many sectors it is far from clear. Not only is the consumer of local services confused; the services that he or she consumes are not delivered as efficiently or as effectively as they should be.
  Beneath its inflated rhetoric, the Labour party has often highlighted the shortcomings of the present two-tier system and the potential for a single-tier structure to remedy them. In its policy document, published in 1990, the Scottish Labour party said:
  "The continuing widespread confusion about what tier carries out what functions undermines accountability. All-purpose councils facilitate the move to an integrated approach to service provision and also decentralisation through a local one-door approach …"
  I absolutely agree with those sentiments.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I wonder whether he can help me. Representatives of Cunninghame district council, including the chief executive Mr. Bernard Devine, have been
  536
  quoted locally as saying that the Secretary of State has ruled out an all-Ayrshire option. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is shaking his head.
  Yet the Minister of State told a deputation that I took to see him from Cumnock and Doon Valley and Kyle and Carrick that the Government would consider all possible options—including the all-Ayrshire option—in Committee and has also said so publicly since. Will the Secretary of State put it on record that all options, including the all-Ayrshire option, can be considered by the Government and by hon. Members in Committee and on Report?
  Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that all options for boundary changes can be considered in Committee—that is what that stage is about. I recall that the original recommendations of the Wheatley commission were for fewer than 50 local authorities, but we ended up with 65, and quite a different map from the one it suggested.
  I am talking about the advantages of a single tier. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman emphasised his view in the House as recently as the debate on the Loyal Address, and that he is among those on both sides of the House who see merit in a single-tier structure.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State's references to Lord Wheatley are particularly apposite. If he is so confident of the virtues of the scheme he is proposing, why has he not established an independent commission, like the Wheatley commission, to judge the merits of his proposals?
  Similarly, if the right hon. Gentleman is pleased with the nature of consultation that has been afforded, why have the Government rejected the responses in East Lothian and north-east Fife, for example, where people have rejected the very proposals that he is seeking to persuade the House about because they do not regard them as an appropriate way to deal with the problems that he has identified?
  Mr. Lang: As I have already explained, the Wheatley commission did not lead to the detail that ended up in the reform carried out in the early 1970s, which departed substantially from what that commission had recommended. Nor do I see any evidence of widespread support and enthusiasm for some of the commission's recommendations south of the border. In 1975, we upgraded the structure of our local authority system to an extent that reduced 426 authorities to 65, and we created a much more coherent structure than that which existed south of the border, so the work is largely done.
  As far as the proposals for Fife, the Borders or any other part of Scotland are concerned, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Lang: No, I must make a little more progress; then I shall no doubt end up by giving way again.
  The commitment to a single tier of local government is generally agreed by all parties, and was included in their election manifestos. What is surprising is how quickly the Opposition parties have reneged on their election promises. However, the present system is flawed and is acknowledged to be so—even by Opposition Members—and those flaws are wide-ranging.
  The system that we have today is unduly and unnecessarily expensive. On the mainland of Scotland, we

  537
  have a superstructure of 53 districts and nine regions. Over the years, with many changes to the pattern of service delivery, the role of many districts has become inadequate and the scale of the unnecessary expense incurred in maintaining two tiers of local government has become more apparent.
  For example, since 1979, as many as a quarter of Scotland's council houses have been sold to their tenants, yet the number of staff employed by local authorities to provide housing services has actually increased in the same period by as much as two thirds, instead of reducing proportionately, We can no longer afford to burden Scotland with a system that produces such nonsense as that. Nor can we allow Scotland to continue to be burdened with a system of local government that is ineffective, unaccountable and shrouded in apathy.
  With two councils for each area of Scotland, there is a weak democratic link between the councils and their communities. One of the malign effects of the two-tier structure has been to blur the identity of authorities in the eyes of the public. It has made councils less accountable and voters more apathetic—the turnout at local elections has been pathetic.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: If the Secretary of State were setting up a single-tier system within Scotland, there would be a great deal of agreement among hon. Members on all sides of the House. The Secretary of State is being extremely disingenuous, however, because he is withdrawing major services from local councils and local accountability and giving them to placemen.
  Is it not simply dishonest for the Secretary of State to pretend that he is setting up a single-tier authority when he is taking water and sewerage away from local authorities, when he is taking the police away, when the reporters department is being taken away and when the further education system has been taken away already? That is not a single-tier system; it is a multi-layer mess.
  Mr. Lang: I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the position that is a multi-layer mess, as he will discover if he comes on the Committee and takes part in the debates about what we propose.
  Against the background that I have described, it would be wrong to delay a restructuring exercise when all the evidence from all sides points to the need for one. Lord Wheatley's commission—I will quote from it again—recognised the need when he said:
  "evidence from all sides convinces us that the structure of local government cannot afford to remain static".
  In 1975, reform had been put off for far too long. To allow that to happen again—by failing to take account of change and to anticipate change in the future—would be a serious dereliction of duty by Government. It would also render a major disservice to local government and those people who use its services. The Bill tackles the flaws that so obviously exist and puts local government on a more effective footing from which to carry out its various functions.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that one thing which has not changed since the last reform of local government is the size and extent of the Highland region, and the fact that local government cannot by any test be regarded as local if it covers half the land mass of
  538
  Scotland? Does he recognise that it is regarded by business men, at least in the Caithness and Sutherland chamber of commerce and others, as being inimical to their economic interests to seek to govern at local level the half of Scotland that is based and centred upon Inverness?
  Mr. Lang: the hon. Gentleman has a point of view which he expresses clearly, but some of his hon. Friends do not hold the same view. Under the decentralisation that we propose, all those services—the vast majority of local services in the Highlands came before from the Highland Region—will now come again from a Highland council, but they will be decentralised in a way which will lead to a much closer link administratively between the council and its local areas. The existing Highland regional council is already doing a great deal of work in preparation for that.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy rose—
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Lang: No; I must make further progress. I will give way later.
  I do not propose today to use up the House's time in describing at length all the provisions of the Bill. With 169 clauses, it obviously includes a great deal of detail, which we will, I hope, debate thoroughly in Committee. I would, however, like to spend a few moments on the principles which underpin our proposals for local government and for water.
  Taking local government first, I have already touched on the support which many commentators have given to single-tier local government over the years. However, I think that it is important to reiterate exactly the three key objectives of the single-tier structure proposed in the Bill.
  First, we want local councils to be strong, and, in local government, strength comes from being accountable. The ability of the public to call their local authority to account—through the ballot box or otherwise—will be improved beyond recognition where all local government responsibilities rest with a single council in an area. More accountable local government means more powerful local government.
  Secondly, we want the delivery of local services to be improved. The fact that one organisation will have responsibility for the full range of services will be a major step forward on service delivery. The benefits of having social work and housing brought under one roof are well known and much anticipated, but many other areas of policy, such as leisure and recreation and education, environmental health and trading standards, will benefit from a single-tier structure.
  Thirdly, we want a less bureaucratic, more flexible and efficient structure of local government. The rationalisation of local government outlined in the Bill will soon start to yield savings—savings which cannot be ignored. That has been confirmed by every submission that we have received from a local authority on the matter, and Professor Percy, chairman of the independent organisation the Local Authority Accounts Commission, stated:
  "In our view, the unitary authority structure favoured by the Government's White Paper on Local Government Reform provides a better way of delivering that service. We believe reform will be effective in the long term, and in the short term, once the legislation is through, all of us must get down to making it work."
  Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of having a single lead authority in charge of the various functions that will be given to local authorities. He knows that he has just embarked on an ambitious care in the community policy. He has placed the social work departments of regional councils, such as the social work department of Tayside regional council, as the lead authorities in charge of that policy.
  The proposed reform will create three different social work departments in the Tayside region. Which of those will be the lead authority in implementing care in the community? Instead of making the system clearer and more accountable, the Secretary of State is taking steps that will make it far less accountable. It will be far less clear who is in charge, who will implement the policy and who will be responsible if it does not work.
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to a very important policy which we have devolved from central Government to local authorities—care in the community. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his understanding of the position on social work, and in his conclusion. The benefit of having social work handled in one unitary authority is that it will be possible to interrelate action on the social work side with action on the housing side. One of the strongest criticisms of the bizarre relationship between the top tier and the bottom tier of the present system concerns the lack of co-ordination between housing policy and social work policy.
  Mr. Kennedy: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), will the Secretary of State clarify how any of the principles that he has just enunciated can be realised in the context of the highlands? The principles will be rendered null and void as a result of the size of the area.
  Will he confirm that Touche Ross based its estimates on average council sizes of 60? That would be a reduction of two thirds in the number of councillors that the Highland region has at present. If the figure is increased to anything resembling the reckonings in the White Paper, there would be more than 130 councillors, which would be more than Strathclyde has at the moment. The Prime Minister described that regional council as a monstrosity. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is a complete illogicality.
  Mr. Lang: The Highland region will still have only a little more than 200,000 people in it. Of course it is a geographically large area, but everyone recognises that Sutherland, for example, with a population of 15,000 or 16,000, could not constitute a single authority in itself, although it might do geographically. I know that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends disagree on the detail of what the Highland region should look like. Our proposal will give the most efficient, the most accountable and the strongest local government that we can create for that very important part of Scotland.
  Mr. Kirkwood: It is obvious from the interventions that the Secretary of State has already accepted that the most burning issue in the minds of most hon. Members is the boundary map at the end of the process—[Interruption.] What does the rest of his speech contain? I
  540
  hope that he will take time to set out exactly how the Committee stage and the subsequent stages in the House of Lords will arrive at the final boundaries.
  Is the Secretary of State aware, for example, that there is now a unitary alternative for south-east Scotland, the Lothians and the Borders? It has been proposed that West Lothian should be a free-standing unitary authority, and that Midlothian and East Lothian should be put together. That would leave Berwickshire in the Borders region, where it belongs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House on Second Reading exactly how he anticipates that these questions, which are vital for hon. Members, will be resolved during the passage of the Bill?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has served on many Committees, and he knows the form. The boundaries are dealt with at an early stage of the Bill. I expect that a Back Bencher, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, will table amendments affecting precisely the areas on which he has just touched. That will enable the Committee to debate the matter and to reach a conclusion. Thereafter, there will be a chance to return to these matters on Report. The Bill then goes to the House of Lords and back to the Commons if necessary.
  We have every opportunity. I look forward to debating these issues, because I acknowledge that the borders and boundaries are important. Scottish National party Members showed clearly during the hon. Gentleman's intervention that not everyone shares his view that those issues are the most important.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: If the Secretary of State believes that his Government are proposing the new, democratic way forward for councils in Scotland, why does he not acknowledge that the proposals for East Renfrewshire council have been utterly rejected by the people? In a democratic vote, 82 per cent. of the people in Ralfston rejected them, 91 per cent. voted against them in Dykebarr and 78 per cent. rejected them in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor. Those figures are in an official document from Renfrewshire district council. If the Secretary of State is determined to have genuine democracy, should he not listen to the people?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to debate that matter further as the Bill progresses.
  Mr. John McFall: I look forward to that.
  Mr. Lang: Yes, I look forward to it, too.
  I recognise that there are concerns about change to a single-tier structure that are signalled in the Bill. I fully acknowledge that there will be a measure of disruption during the transitional period. That is not in itself a reason for not proceeding with the reform. Just because something involves change, it is not an excuse for shying away from it.
  It is the Government's view, backed by many in local government, that the transition is a perfectly manageable process, and that, with early and committed action by local government, the disruption can be minimised. I have no doubt that, given the professionalism of many local government staff, the hurdles which will undoubtedly emerge can be successfully negotiated without undue disturbance to the delivery of services.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who did the Secretary of State have in mind when he referred to the many in local government who back his proposals?
  Mr. Lang: I am referring to many people in local government at official level and at elected level, to all the submissions that we have received from local government, to all the delegations that have been led by Members of both sides of the House who have been to see myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning. The hon. Gentleman will discover, as the Bill progresses, that there is widespread support for single tier—an issue on which his party fought the election on a manifesto that contained such a commitment.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: May I urge my right hon. Friend not to name as requested by Opposition Members all the people who have communicated support for his excellent proposals? Please do not name those people, because many of us want to speak during the debate.
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that quite a lot of the names are already available in the House of Commons Library. We have published our reports on the submissions that we have had in the response to the first consultation paper.
  Mr. John Maxton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: I really must make some progress. This is an important debate, and I have a lot to say to the House.
  A number of provisions have been included in the Bill specifically to aid the transition process. They include clauses that provide for the appointment of a staff commission—clause 12—which allow the establishment of one or one or more residuary bodies—clause 18—and of a property commission—clause 19. The clauses relating to staff and property transfers have all been drafted to allow local government the maximum flexibility in determining the most appropriate arrangements.
  Dwelling for a moment on those provisions, we are fully aware that local government staff represent authorities' most valuable resource, and the Government are concerned to mininise the disruption that staff may face. The great majority of staff, of course, will simply transfer to the new authorities on their existing terms and conditions. We shall be considering carefully over the months, hopefully in discussion with local government and staff interests—if they are prepared to talk to us about the interests of their staff—the arrangements which will apply to those staff for whom there will not be an automatic right of transfer. The staff commission will also have a role to play once its members are appointed, and we will listen carefully to what they have to say.
  Still on the question of facilitating the transition, clauses 55 and 56 provide respectively for the provision of information from the old authorities to the new authorities and for the establishment by existing authorities of joint working committees to prepare for the effective operation of the new authorities.
  It is therefore ironic that, while the Government have taken considerable steps to assist local government in managing the transitional period, and will continue to do so, the very organisation which was established to assist and represent local government—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—has chosen to adopt the posture of the ostrich, bury its head in the sand and be as
  542
  obstructive as possible. Its attitude is short-sighted, short-term and ultimately damaging, not only to local government, but to staff and those who most depend on its services.
  I should like to take the opportunity of today's debate to call on COSLA to decide at its meeting on Friday to call off the policy of non co-operation, in the interests of good local government and the people of Scotland. I know that it is difficult for it to admit how seriously it has miscalculated, and that it must regret its short-sighted posturing and the way in which it has split its members and paralysed its own organisation.
  Its policy has failed, but it is time to look forward, not back. I for one shall not seek to make any political capital from—[Interruption.]—no political capital at all from COSLA's climbdown, whenever it comes. I hope that Opposition Members will urge it, as I shall, to get it over and done with, and to do it now.
  Inevitably, some concerns have been expressed, and I do not dismiss them, but, again, the Government's task is to distinguish them from the often ill-thought-out and generalised protectionism that argues only that the present system is perfect and that any change must by definition be detrimental. I find such arguments deeply unconvincing. They are not arguments to which the forward thinkers in local government subscribe. They frequently seem bound up with the self-preservation of those who articulate them and find little support among other authorities that are thinking seriously about how to deliver efficient and effective services after reorganisation.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister began by saying that he believed in a local focus and local democracy. Why, therefore, is he creating three giant water boards that are neither local nor democratic? As a Cabinet Minister, he voted in favour of a £7 billion green dowry to English water authorities. Will a similar green dowry be given to Scottish water boards, or does he believe only in putting public money in private pockets?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will remember that some adjustment was made to the finances of the Scottish Office when the changes were made in England. I shall deal with the water industry shortly.
  I was mentioning authorities that are looking imaginatively at alternative means of service delivery and are investigating the possibility of co-operation among authorities and between authorities and the private sector. The Bill contains much to encourage authorities to adopt new approaches to service delivery in a range of areas.
  Of particular importance is clause 57, which clarifies the legislation in relation to the ability of local authorities to trade with and provide services on behalf of each other. As the Scottish Labour party has said:
  "All-purpose authorities assist the development of local government as an enabling co-ordinator at the centre of a network of providing agencies … Local authorities should be able to develop their enabling role, frequently acting as the commissioning agency rather than the direct provider of services".
  Again, I wholeheartedly welcome its conversion to our way of thinking.
  Part II provides for the setting up of the three new public water and sewerage authorities and the customer protection body heralded in the White Paper. The first 10 clauses of part II and schedules 7, 8 and 9 establish these new bodies and set out their duties, powers and constitutions.

  543
  The new structure that will be put in place for the delivery of those vital services will achieve two crucial objectives. It will make maximum use of existing resources through economies of scale, and it will deliver necessary new resources on the best terms possible.
  The backdrop to restructuring was described in detail in the consultation paper. The requirements to maintain and renew existing infrastructure and to build new plant to cope with quality obligations are well known and widely accepted and they carry a projected price tag of some £5 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. The challenge outlined in the consultation paper was how to sustain this scale of capital programme without an intolerable cost falling on Scottish customers.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Secretary of State spoke earlier of the importance of accountability through the ballot box. At present, members of water authorities in Scotland are directly accountable through the ballot box. How many of them will be under the proposals in this rotten legislation?
  Mr. Lang: Water authorities will be accountable to me as Secretary of State and, through me, to Parliament. If we were not to make this change and there were to be 28 water authorities, with widely diverging costs for water and sewerage, people would take a pretty poor view of their local authority's handling of their interests if they had to pay almost twice as much for their water.
  I believe that the proposals in the Bill meet the challenge that we have set. They acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed in the consultation that services should remain in public hands and, at the same time, promote partnership with the private sector for the ultimate benefit of the customer.
  Under the Government's private finance initiative, I look to those new public authorities actively to form partnerships with the private sector to provide the new treatment works and other investment that is required. This will happen without the public purse taking the strain. The authorities themselves, however, will remain public authorities directly answerable to the Secretary of State, and through me to the House.
  I call attention in particular to the provisions establishing the customers council. This will be a powerful voice on behalf of the consumer and will exercise a particular role in the setting of charges as well as monitoring service standards. The council will ensure that full expression is given to the principles of the citizens charter in the operation of the restructured services. These proposals are designed to deliver the most efficient and most cost-effective water and sewerage services possible.
  Restructuring was inevitable as a consequence of local government reform, and it has afforded us the opportunity to align water and sewerage services to the demands of the future. The status quo was never a realistic option. Twelve authorities currently deliver services, but multiplying this number to 28 makes no economic sense. We have produced sensible measures in response to circumstances, and we shall vigorously defend them in Committee.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State said that the new boards will be accountable through him to the House. Will he assure the House that, when hon. Members table questions to him, he will answer those specific questions in this House and not duck out and pass
  544
  them back to bodies that are not directly accountable? Will he answer direct questions put to him directly in this House?
  Mr. Lang: We shall answer questions in the same way that we answer them in relation to other comparable bodies. We shall remain accountable in respect of the water authorities as we do with the other bodies.
  The Bill represents a comprehensive and concerted attempt to address the need for local government reform. However, the Opposition are so busy facing Janus-like in both directions that they seem unwilling to face up to any of the real issues. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will today clarify where they stand.
  In the general election, the Opposition supported reform and talked of "powerful, new single-tier authorities." Yet in last November's debate on the Gracious Speech, they claimed that reform was "completely unwanted, totally unnecessary." Which do they really believe?
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he might answer that question.
  Dr. Godman: I will answer that question if the Secretary of State answers a question that I put to him honestly and directly. Because of the Bill's complexity and its implications for every citizen in Scotland, should not the Secretary of State refer it to a Special Standing Committee by way of Standing Order No. 91?
  By that means, now that the Bill has been published, at least those people who are deeply concerned about the Bill and its implications would have the opportunity to express their concerns, which have been expressed to me over and over again in Inverclyde. Will the Secretary of State refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, which would allow interested parties to be cross-examined by hon. Members?
  Mr. Lang: No, we will not, because we have already had nearly three years of consultation on the reform of local government in Scotland. We have had more consultation papers, more submissions, more meetings with local authorities and delegations and others, and more debate in this House on these measures than on any that I can remember in my entire time in Parliament. The people of Scotland now want us to reach a decision.
  From representations that we have received from many Opposition Members, I know their views and how keen many of them are to move on to implement single-tier authorities. However, I want to know more about the Labour party's position.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way at the moment.
  On the one hand, the Opposition call for "powerful, new single-tier authorities", while on the other they claim that they are "completely unwanted, totally unnecessary." They claim that our reforms would strip powers from local authorities. However, the only substantial service that we are transferring, to other public authorities, is that of water and sewerage.
  As I have pointed out, we recently transferred the very important community care service to local authorities. Yet Labour seems to be prepared to contemplate reforming local authorities only if it also sets up a Scottish Parliament

  545
  —and where would such a Parliament draw its powers but from local government? In the shadow of a Scottish Parliament, local government would be a very sadly diminished institution, whether of one tier or two.
  Then there are the costs of reform. We have made our position clear. There will be initial costs which we calculate at less than £50 million net over the first three years and for which we are providing additional resources. Thereafter, net savings will grow and will continue year after year, reaching as much as £1 billion within 15 years. As the main costs are for redundancies, the higher the initial costs turn out to be the higher must be the subsequent savings.
  Of course, as it is decisions by the new authorities that will decide the precise figures, we cannot be exact about them at this stage. However, nor can anyone else. But it is interesting how different perspectives lead to different interpretations of the figures.
  Where authorities—especially Labour-controlled authorities—are making a case for their own retention under the new structure, our figures are suddenly presented as pessimistic—over-estimating costs and under-estimating savings. Only once the element of self-interest is removed, where the motivation is to discredit the reform process, are our figures portrayed as optimistic. All that leads me to believe that our figures are about right.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton and his number-crunching friend the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) are all over the place on costs. On 8 November, the Scottish Labour party published a briefing paper which said that local government reorganisation would cost £200 million. Three weeks later, in The Herald, the hon. Member for Hamilnton said that local government reform would cost at least £500 million. That is a rate of inflation which even the previous Labour Government did not surpass. It would also make nonsense of anything that the Labour party had to say about the costs of local government reform.
  There is a curiosity at the heart of the costs debate. In the Labour party manifesto, which provided for the establishment of single-tier councils, there were no reservations about the costs of reform. Nor have we at any stage subsequently heard any mention of the cost factor in the Opposition's proposals, whether those proposals are just to restructure local government or to set up a Scottish Parliament as well. Yet, oddly, the Government's proposals are, once again to quote the hon. Member for Hamilnton, "extremely costly".
  I would be very interested to know what it is that is likely to differentiate the costs of the Government's proposals from those of the Labour party. The only significant difference that I can think of is that, under our proposals, the taxpayer will not be obliged to bear the costs of the establishment and maintenance of a Scottish Parliament. In all other respects, I would welcome an explanation from the hon. Member for Hamilnton how a policy which, in his hands, is a manifesto commitment, suddenly, when implemented by the Government, becomes "extremely expensive".
  There are, therefore, inherent and fundamental weaknesses in the Opposition's case, which they must address if they are to present a credible case to the people of Scotland. On the one hand, they argue that reform is too
  546
  costly, while on the other they are themselves committed to a concept of single-tier local government and, in addition, a Scottish Parliament.
  They cannot argue that the status quo is an option, if they hold to their earlier manifesto pledge to create "powerful, single-tier authorities". They cannot hold to their manifesto pledge if they claim, as they do, that the reform is "completely unwanted" and "totally unnecessary". I expect that we shall listen in vain today for some straight talking on that matter from the hon. Member for Hamilton.
  Dr. John Reid: I refer the Secretary of State to the most important phrase that he has used so far. On costs, he said that the matter becomes clear only when "the element of self-interest" is removed. Does he not understand that, on such an important issue for the people of Scotland—the tier of government which is nearest to them, which is probably more sympathetic and which is less bureaucratic than any other—it is precisely the self-interest of the Tory party in conducting the investigation and consultation that is at issue?
  Does he not understand that, when a party refuses not only an independent commission, like the Wheatley commission, but even a semblance of independence under a Standing Committee, the people of Scotland have every reason to doubt the objectivity of the exercise that has been carried out? Would it not be better to follow the strictures that the Secretary of State imposed on others, and remove his own self-interest, that of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and that of his party? He might then have a shred of legitimacy in his proposals.
  Mr. Lang: Since the Opposition fought the last election promising single-tier local government and they now regard it as expensive, unwarranted and totally unnecessary, it is the objectivity of the Labour party that is called into question.
  Against the unprincipled and ill-thought-out position of the Labour party, one thing stands out: the Government have acknowledged the problem with the present local government structure. We have defined the problem and we have had the courage to tackle it. The proposals represent a comprehensive and cohesive attempt to get to the root of the structural problems which are currently inhibiting local government.
  I fully expect the Bill to be thoroughly debated, and rightly so. I can assure Opposition Members that we will listen carefully to all the arguments that are presented as it passes through all its stages, but I will do so alert to the weaknesses of the Opposition's case and their failure to present a credible alternative.
  We want to get back to basics in local government. While opposition parties offer only double-talk on single-tier, we want to get on with this much-needed reform. We want local authorities that are local. We want local authorities that have authority. We want local councillors who are at last able to perform the complete function of local councillors. We want local authorities and councillors who can ensure the coherent and efficient provision of all local services in their area. In that way, we shall help to restore a true sense of local community and local identity and give a new impetus to the growth of strong local democracy.
  The Bill will achieve those objectives, and I commend it to the House.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: Over the weekend, I began to wonder exactly how much trouble the Prime Minister was in with his "back to basics" policy. We heard the Secretary of State for Scotland repeat the phrase "back to basics" this afternoon. Yesterday, when I read the Sunday newspaper that said that only the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Health supported the Prime Minister in his "back to basics" campaign, I realised exactly how deep a hole the Prime Minister is in.
  This is a bad Bill. It is bad for Scotland, bad for democracy and bad for local government. It is even bad for the Government, who are apparently in their death throes. The Bill does nothing for the people of Scotland. It will do much harm to them and to their lives. Once it has done that, the people will pay for it with poorer services and the disruption and confusion of local government. They will then pay again through their pockets. The Bill will be an expensive fiasco.
  This reorganisation will be paid for by higher taxes. At the last election, the Government said that they would lower taxes. Higher taxes than we expected will be imposed by those who promised lower taxes but who instead give us higher taxes with every month that passes.
  This is a wholly unwanted and unnecessary reorganisation, and it will be costly.
  Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to climb the ladder of progress in a party that is declining, I will give way.
  Mr. Kynoch: If this reorganisation is unwanted and unnecessary, can the hon. Gentleman explain why, on "Scottish Lobby" on 11 December 1993 he said:
  "The current structure could benefit from a review—a major review"?
  What is it that he now thinks is unnecessary in the way of a review?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman—I hope that this will help his career—precisely makes the point. We want a review. A review is necessary. If a review concludes that changes are needed in local government in Scotland, that is something that the House should properly consider, not this gerrymandering mess dreamed up by a few individuals in the Scottish Office. No independent review has been undertaken. No royal commission has been ordered which would allow the people of Scotland to give their views and to have them considered.
  This reorganisation will be a distraction. It will drive a wedge between the people and those who govern them. It will reduce accountability and increase the rule by that spreading unelected, unresponsive Tory phenomenon—the crony-stuffed quango. It will dramatically centralise power in St. Andrew's house and increase the dead weight of bureaucracy. It is an attack on democracy. Ministers who started by proclaiming it now ignore it. They started by boasting about it, but they will scarcely defend it in public now.
  It is just like the poll tax. Not long ago, the Secretary of State defended and proclaimed the poll tax, which came out of the same stable of crazy ideas. A so-called reform of local government was supposed to be the efficient, cost-effective answer to that continuing rebuff to
  548
  Conservative pride in Scotland, the elected Labour council, but it is now the neglected child of the Government's legislative programme; it has been locked away in a dark room and is now a source of acute embarrassment. Rightfully and justly, the Government are ashamed of this legislation.
  The Government cannot walk away from the consequence of their continual self-serving meddling with the institutions of democracy in Scotland. Twist them as they will—bend, break and remould them as they will try to do—at the end of it all is the ballot box, and the Government cannot and will not escape the message which will come from that.
  On 5 May this year, there will be ballot boxes all across Scotland and people will have the choice: they will give their verdict on this shoddy, politically corrupt, anti-democratic, wasteful and irrelevant piece of legislation, which they will assuredly reject, just as when they get the chance they will reject this rotten, sleazy and shambolic Administration as well.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On 7 September last year, The Herald carried a report in the name of Jack McConnell, the general secretary of the Labour party in Scotland. The report said that the Labour party would be launching a national petition against the proposals the following week, which would take us up to 14 September. When was that petition handed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
  Mr. George Robertson: I have no doubt that the petition on local government will be presented to the Secretary of State. I was collecting signatures for it on Saturday afternoon. The petition will be large and its message substantial. The Secretary of State knows that. He has already received petitions, letters and a chorus of disapproval for what he is doing to local government in Scotland.
  This is some week to be considering the Bill, as it is only four days since the word gerrymandering hit the headlines across the nation. "Unlawful, disgraceful, improper" said one headline in the Evening Standard. Those were the words used by the Westminster district auditor about a policy to sell Westminster council houses to buyers who were likely to vote Tory. What was illegal, improper and disgraceful was the spending of thousands, indeed millions, of pounds to get officers to prepare plans for what, in the words of the district auditor, was
  "the promotion of electoral advantage".
  That is what the Westminster council Tories stand accused of and, if found guilty, that is what they will be surcharged £21 million for.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Westminster is in England.
  Mr. Robertson: The Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland has suddenly discovered some brand new knowledge of geography which seemed to be absent when it came to dealing with the map of Scottish local government.
  Of course, there is another ex-member of Westminster council in the Government—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the man who invented the poll tax and who has now departed to an English Department, as well he might.

  549
  The district auditor for Westminster, John Magill, works for Touche Ross—an organisation that the Secretary of State might recognise. The district auditor condemned the council when he found that
  "the electoral advantage of the majority party was the driving force behind the policy".
  If Dame Shirty Porter ever comes back to these shores and needs some comfort before she shells out her large share of that £21 million surcharge—the amount that she and her pals squandered as they pochled votes in the Westminster city council area—let her read the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and eat her heart out. Here it is: all that she did and more, enshrined in legislation before the House of Commons.
  The District Auditor said:
  "the council was engaged in gerrymandering which I am minded to find is a disgraceful and improper purpose."
  Those words should be repeated, because the Secretary of State for Scotland should be not allowed to forget their full and lasting importance. Today he rejected the accusation that the Bill involved gerrymandering. He said in the House on 14 July:
  "That is not gerrymandering—it is a healthy strengthening of local democracy in all its diversity."—[Official Report, 14 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1000.]
  Lady Porter herself could not have put it better.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), should not take my word for it with regard to accusations of gerrymandering. Let them listen to the words that I quoted in the debate in November. They are the words of Councillor Brian Meek, expert columnist and authoritative sports journalist but one of Scotland's top Tories. He is a friend of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Defence Secretary. He is part of Scotland's Tory establishment. His words and his views must be of some consequence in Scotland.
  Councillor Meek is not a Westminster city councillor. I do not think that he ever was, although his words of praise for Westminster city council in today's Herald may yet come back to haunt him. Two days before the Secretary of State for Scotland denounced the concept or the very thought that he might be gerrymandering, District Councillor Brian Meek of Edinburgh district council told Herald readers:
  "So let us get on to the gerrymandering argument. Did Mr. Lang and his Ministers seek to give their party the best possible chance under the new set-up? Of course they did. Why shouldn't they?"
  Why shouldn't they give an advantage to themselves—the best chance? There it is. Frank, brutal, to the point, no messing. Councillor Brian Meek of Edinburgh district council got it right. Perhaps he keeps on getting it right. Why shouldn't they? The answer to that involves the words "unlawful", "disgraceful" and "improper" in one order or another. In any Government with any shame, decency or honour left, those words would be ringing around the Cabinet room.
  Does any gentle soul—for instance, the innocents among the Conservative Back Benchers about to be condemned to serving on the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill—still care to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is right? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I have no doubt that they will read Hansard before
  550
  they serve on the Standing Committee. Or perhaps they have to commit their offence before they are sentenced on Wednesday at the Committee of Selection.
  Quite a selection of people's names come immediately to mind as possibilities to serve on the Standing Committee. If they read my speech in Hansard and if they believe the Secretary of State for Scotland and not me, let them look at Ayrshire. Let them marvel at the unique cartography that carved Conservative Kyle and Carrick out of that ancient county. Let them gaze with astonishment at the proposed East Renfrewshire council, the gyrations of which go round the Renfrewshire Tory houses and middle class enclaves close to tiny Eastwood.
  In schedule 1 of the Bill, the description of each council takes a mere four or five lines. The description of East Renfrewshire takes up 49 lines—49 stricken lines in which houses, farm roads, cottages, burns and even fields are all identified in statute. It does not require the skills of Governor Huey Long of Louisiana to smell a bright blue rat in that formation.
  So let any of the innocent Conservative Members of Parliament trembling at Westminster council's castigation look at the sheer imagination of the proposed Clackmannan and Falkirk council. Two distinct communities divided by the River Forth and connected only by a bridge are to be carved out artificially and unwillingly from the kingdom of Fife.
  Let the Secretary of State, wriggling away as he is from the charge of gerrymandering, explain the separation of Conservative Helensburgh from—[Interruption.] I can tell the Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary what page it is on. It is on page 117—[Interruption.] I see that the PPS has now been briefed and is reading the page. He should probably telephone the occupants of Nos. 52 to 50 Ben Wyvis drive and check whether they intend to vote the right way so that the appropriate amendment can be moved in Committee, if necessary. No doubt the Secretary of State would look forward to debating that in Committee.
  Let Conservative Members consider the separation of Conservative Helensburgh from Dumbarton or the ludicrous and perverse Balerno corridor, which links West Lothian to Midlothian and East Lothian. Let the Under-Secretary of State explain the removal of Berwickshire from the Borders. Let him say how that nonsense can be described, as the Secretary of State did, as creating areas where there is "an established identity."
  Westhill into Aberdeen; Monifieth and Invergowrie out of Dundee; Stirling and its knife-edge Toryness preserved like some South African homeland—it is the most crudely and shamelessly gerrymandered map of local government that Britain has seen this century. Here in all its nakedness is the real reason for the Bill, for this unwanted butchery of Scottish local government. It is a cynical promotion of electoral advantage, to use the words of the Westminster district auditor.
  The Scotsman puts it well in its new year editorial. It said that 1993's nadir
  "came with the deliverance of a shamelessly manipulated local authority map that spoke eloquently of an administration grown too comfortable with the insolence of office."
  "Unlawful, improper, disgraceful": let those words haunt those who would put gerrymandering into the law of Scotland.
  I have dwelt for some time on the clear partisan motivation behind the Bill because I believe that it represents an outrage and an offence to our elementary

  551
  democratic standards. Yet the faults of the legislation are not confined to the partisan manipulation of the local political map of Scotland. I would make a further point. It is a serious one filled with consequences for the House. The gerrymandering ambitions of the Government are not confined to local boundaries.
  The parliamentary Boundary Commission is redrawing the parliamentary boundaries. It has to ignore the proposed new local authority building blocks. However, the next redistribution will have to deal with the new map. To seek to manipulate the political geography of Scottish local government is offensive enough. But it is easy to see that the party of Dame Shirley Porter and Lady Thatcher has a much more sinister long-term objective to sort out the parliamentary boundaries of Scotland as a whole. That kind of chicanery will be seen even by the faithful in Scotland as unforgivable and unsuccessful.
  As for cost, on which the Secretary of State for Scotland is so defensive, we are told that the justification for the Bill is that the reorganisation of local government will save money. A brand new set of statistics has been delivered to the House this afternoon to prove that crazy point. As we know, the Government have no clue about the cost of what they are doing. Frankly, they care even less. They do so at a point in time when in a few weeks they will ask the people of Scotland, who have extra-large heating bills, to pay VAT on those bills to sort out the financial mess in the nation's Treasury—a mess that the Government created.
  The Government first produced the Touche Ross report, which showed that we would all be financially better off as a consequence of the reorganisation. It was discredited and abandoned within days. Then came new figures, which showed one-off transitional costs of between £120 million and £186 million, but alleged savings of between £22 million and £66 million annually. The Minister with responsibility for local government, the hon. Member for Eastwood, even went so far as to say:
  "What is abundantly clear however is that the proposed reform will pay for itself within about five years and thereafter actually save money."
  The Secretary of State told us across the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons only five days after that article appeared that he was prepared to accept a figure of £200 million for transitional costs. As the total climbs and climbs, it is clear that the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State and all the rest of them do not have a clue about the cost of what they are doing.
  Indeed, the Secretary of State tells us with open and unexpected candour that it is all going to be down to local authorities to make the saving that he is forecasting and which he is to tell them that they must make—as though he can now wash his hands of an exercise that is fundamental to his case, but which is profoundly embarrassing were it to be examined in depth.
  The issue of who will pay is much too more important to be left to the Government's propaganda machine, which only a month ago told us of the Secretary of State's public spending triumph over the Treasury, but which then had to go into full-scale reverse when Sir Russell Hillhouse's memorandum told us the truth of that triumph.
  In November, I showed quite soberly and accurately how the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the most authoritative and reliable source of financial information in local government, had proved that transitional costs could easily be as high as £500 million. There has been no convincing reply to CIPFA's case,
  552
  which was made in February of last year. The chairman of the Accounts Commission, Professor Percy, whom the Secretary of State had the gall to quote earlier, had this to say in the annual report published in September:
  "The Commission believes that there is a need for a dispassionate and professional look at the priorities and resourcing requirements of the new authorities."
  That is true, but the fact is that no dispassionate or professional look has been given to the whole exercise for one reason alone: Government fears about the outcome of any such investigation.
  I have carefully examined all the evidence, not the guesses or the optimistic gambles, but the hard evidence of the promises and the realities behind the Government's obsessional experiments with local government—the abolition of the metropolitan counties in England, the GLC and ILEA. I have examined each one. It is an interesting exercise because, in every case, Ministers claimed that there would be huge savings, fewer people employed and lower wage bills as part of the new set-up. But in every single case, transitional costs were wildly higher than promised. It all costs money, and in no case did it save it. More people were employed than before, and wage bills were appreciably higher in all cases.
  That is the solid evidence to set against the guessses, hopes and completely unconvincing forecasts of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Let me cite just one example, but nevertheless an interesting and illustrative one. Of ILEA, which was abolished in 1990, Norman Tebbit—now Lord Tebbit—said:
  "ILEA … that overgrown, overpriced, overpolitical, underperforming monster will soon be gone, forgotten and unlamented."
  But after education had been put back from one single all-London authority to 13 London boroughs, what happened? In particular, the number of senior officials—administrators earning more than £20,000 a year—rose from ILEA's total of 352 to a new total of 590 in the highest paid administrative category.
  Of course that is the reality. Those are the facts. That is what happens in local government. For example, consider what the Layfield report said about the previous reorganisation in Scotland and what Sir John Banham now warns about reorganisation and the review that is taking place in England and Wales. Those are realities rather than fiction. Sir John Banham warns:
  "The reorganisation is complex. It is messy and picks apart practices developed successfully over almost 20 years."
  There is no way that some effortless and seamless process can be put in place to avoid the transitional costs, which were found unavoidable in every other reorganisation of local government.
  The Government claimed that there would be huge savings on property, which will accrue from the sale of surplus property. But taxpayers in Scotland should be aware of how bogus that prospectus really is. Of course there will be surplus property if the regions are abolished. India street in Glasgow, Tayside house in Dundee, Viewforth in Stirling, and more, will all lose their tenants. Who on earth will buy those properties? Who will rent them? In Stirling, the vacancy in Viewforth will add 60 per cent. to vacant office space. That will be accompanied by a building bonanza in other areas as the new authorities have to build in their own locations to deal with the new functions that they will take on.
  One of the saddest aspects of the whole exercise is the way in which local government services have taken second

  553
  place to the ideology of reorganisation. In the White Paper, education—probably the most important local authority service of all—is dealt with in a mere 15 lines. We have not heard a single word from the Secretary of State for Scotland about education and the implications for it. Social work is disposed of in a mere 12 lines.
  No explanation has been given about how education services are to be supplied when the wide range of services provided by the regions are dismantled. No information has been given to parents of children in special education facilities, about where they are to go in three years' time—only the abolition of the statutory requirement to have an education committee and a director of education. What sort of significant signal is that to the people of Scotland, from a Government who are more interested in money than in the need to maintain and improve educational standards and provision?
  Mr. Kynoch: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State's proposals are going to save money, because he seems to have just said that money is taking precedence over education? If that is so, he is at least accepting that we will save some money through the proposals.
  Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State for Scotland certainly claims that they will save money, but I hope that I have demonstrated and proved that that will not be the case. If the hon. Gentleman is going to climb the ladder of opportunity in the Government—there should soon be plenty of vacancies available for him to climb into—he should make better points than that if he is going to interrupt.
  We get no guidance from the White Paper. We have had little guidance from Ministers, even about social work and the myriad services now threatened by the atomisation of social work authorities. Where are the words of reassurance for the voluntary sector? Why are they now left in limbo? Why is their future and transitional financing not worthy of a single comment or reassurance from the Government? There is something shoddy about the whole exercise, from the inadequacy and dishonesty of the consultative process, through the thinness of the White Paper and to the sheer lack of thinking and guidance which has followed its publication.
  As a consequence of that, and to allow people in Scotland to present their views to their parliamentarians, I will seek to move at the end of the debate that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, it is committed to a Special Standing Committee of the House so that people can make their views known—for example, about concessionary travel and concessionary travel arrangements. In Strathclyde alone, 340,000 old people and 78,000 handicapped people now face a threatened service. What about information on the problems of school catchment areas? What about the future of the trading standards service, or the regional chemist? How will they survive in this era of multiple councils?
  No information has been given. There have been no background studies, no detailed planning, no conceptual frameworks. There has been nothing but the doctrinaire dash for a new gerrymandered structure, subject to no independent review. All of that, as the Accounts Commission says, is to be introduced on a ludicrously
  554
  short time scale. All the time, the Government, like some demented parrot, repeat the message about the need for single-tier authorities.
  Other parties recognise the benefits that might come from some single-tier councils, but never as suggested in the Bill in its ill-thought-out, gerrymandered, back-of-the-Eastwood-envelope way. A Scottish Parliament, with powers over Scottish local government, is needed more now than it ever has been to look at what Scotland's local democratic institutions should be and should do. Never before has the case for a devolved parliament been so strikingly made as by this half-baked reorganisation proposal.
  The next Government, committed as they will be, to a strong Scottish Parliament, responsible for Scottish affairs, but robustly operating within the United Kingdom, will expect that parliament to look urgently at the new set-up proposed in the Bill, if it manages to get through this Parliament.
  The Bill does not propose a single-tier system, except on the map. Boards, joint arrangements and quangos will litter the landscape of Scottish local government. Instructions from the Secretary of State jump out of every page of the Bill, ranging from
  "With the approval of the Secretary of State"
  and
  "the Secretary of State may direct"
  to
  "as may be determined by the Secretary of State for Scotland."
  Just choose any page of the Bill to find such examples. The clammy hand of St. Andrew's house is everywhere, rendering meaningless the very idea of local democracy and accountability on which the Secretary of State has had the cheek to pronounce.
  Why do the Government not stop pretending and admit that political control will not even stop at quangos, but will now deliberately reach deep into the last remaining balance to the centralising obsession of the Government—the locally elected councils of Scotland? This is the era of the quango, and the Bill is the quango charter.
  The proposed three new water quangos are a better alternative to the Government's undisguised ambition to privatise Scotland's water, but none the less they still represent a foolish and unnecessary move away from genuine accountability. One opinion on the proposed set-up for water states:
  "The present water authorities are accountable to consumers and others through the local electoral process. Restructuring will remove that accountability, which must therefore be substituted by adequate statutory safeguards for consumers and others."
  Are they the words of the Labour party, some disgruntled community group or members of a regional council? No. They are the words of the Scottish Landowners Federation, which has written to hon. Members about the proposal. Perhaps its opinion is surprising to some, or perhaps not, because some people in Scotland deeply believe that the creation of super-quangos is wrong for the water supply industry and Scotland. They are willing to speak out, whatever their traditional loyalties may have been.
  The federation even noted:
  "The Consumers Council, which is intended to look after the interests of consumers, will be ineffective and out of touch with local conditions unless amendments are made."
  The one amendment that is needed is simple and it would be effective: leave water alone.

  555
  If we needed an example of what rule by Tory quango can mean, we need look no further than the continuing cover-ups in the saga of Greater Glasgow health board. A man appointed as general manager, with the full backing of the Secretary of State and Ministers, a Tory to the hilt, was sacked after the health board was told that the Secretary of State had lost confidence in him. That dismissed man was then appointed to an unadvertised, specially created new job, on a salary of £80,000, on three conditions of which we are now aware—no talking, no suing and no cashing of a cheque for more than £40,000.
  The Tory chairman of the board was then hung out to dry, to take the blame. We then found that even the top civil servant at the Scottish Office has been the subject of leaks and smears from unofficial, unattributable briefings. All the time the Secretary of State and the Minister of State apparently knew nothing, were told nothing and are blameless.
  Mr. Lang: In the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman has been free and easy with his smears and innuendos on this matter. I understand that he has written to the Prime Minister and to Sir Robin Butler. I hope that when he gets their replies he will be as willing to seek a platform as public as this one on which to apologise for his behaviour.
  Mr. Robertson: I will, of course, apologise, but I do not believe that there is anything to apologise for. I just wish that Ministers would tell the people of Scotland the truth about this affair.
  In December, during Scottish questions, the Secretary of State responded to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and said:
  "I am satisfied that Mr. Fyfe was told repeatedly that he could not and should not seek to terminate Mr. Peterken's employment and make an offer of a financial settlement to him.—[Official Report, 8 December, 1993; Vol. 234, c. 304.]
  On 1 December, however, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie told the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—I was present—that on 8 July he approved an approach by the national health service executive in Scotland to the Treasury relating to a package to sever Mr. Peterken's employment with Greater Glasgow health board, which would have amounted to £185,444.
  That was submitted with the knowledge and, in Lord Fraser's words, "the support" of his Department and him. The Secretary of State says that he has been assured that Mr. Fyfe was told that he could not make that submission, but in the Select Committee Lord Fraser seemed to contradict him flatly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We would all like to know the answers to those questions. Is Lord Fraser telling the truth? Is the Secretary of State telling the truth? The House and I will note, and, I dare say, a wider audience outside will also note, that the Secretary of State chooses not to answer those questions. The significance of that will be noted.
  Why can Ministers of the Crown not take responsibility for what they knew was happening, or carry the can for what they should have known was happening, in their Department? Frankly, there seems to be no honour left in being a Minister of the Crown in the Government.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State seems to suggest that he knows what Sir Robin Butler's answer will be. My hon. Friend knows that I, too, wrote to Sir Robin Butler, who characteristically replies very promptly. On this occasion, however, there has been no reply from the
  556
  Secretary to the Cabinet. In those circumstances we are entitled to ask some searching questions, as my hon. Friend has done, about the role of the civil service in this matter.
  Mr. Robertson: That omission disturbs me as well, because I have received no acknowledgement of a letter that the Secretary of State says he knows was received by Sir Robin Butler. I wrote to Sir Robin as head of the home civil service and I am therefore surprised that the Secretary of State—as a Cabinet Minister and a politician—should imply that he seems to know how Sir Robin will reply to me. Perhaps that further deepens the mystery that continues to surround events at Greater Glasgow health board.
  This is a wretched Bill, which is of no value to anyone in Scotland, except the handful of people who see a future for the Conservatives north of the border. It follows a long line of follies perpetrated by the ideologues of Scottish conservatism. English Members and perhaps even those who represent Wales should be ware, because those same peddlers sold them the poll tax. The sales pitch was hauntingly similar to that used to sell this monstrosity.
  The Government said that the poll tax would be cost-effective and fair. They sold it on the grounds of its efficiency and its power to do good for local democracy. It turned out to be an obscenity. The Opposition said just that when they floated the idea, when they introduced it and when it was transferred, after one dramatically unsuccessful year in Scotland, to England and Wales. Now everyone on the Conservative Benches knows that what we said about the poll tax was right and true, and possibly even underestimated its effects.
  I warn Tory Members who see this as just another innocuous, if over-large, Bill to abolish Labour regions in Scotland to think again. A tide of anger will rise in Scotland as people grasp the enormity of the costly damage that the Bill will inflict on services, jobs, taxation arid democracy. The poll tax should have warned and wakened up the Conservative party to the madcap Scottish agenda, which rarely stops at the English border.
  We shall use the Bill's progress through the House to fight a measure that is profoundly bad for Scotland and for democracy. We shall strike the first blow in the Lobbies tonight, but the real body blow will be in the ballot boxes of 1994.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, let me say that it is clear that a number of Members are anxious to contribute to the debate. If everyone makes a reasonably short speech, it should be possible to allow everyone who has so far indicated that he or she wishes to speak, to contribute.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. George Kynoch: I welcome the Bill. Listening to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been most entertaining. It was quite something to see such inconsistency throughout his speech. He said that the proposals were intended purely to save money but that they were costly proposals. I hope that he will explain to his electorate and mine why he is scaremongering as usual when we are trying to achieve a more cost-effective and efficient form of local government in Scotland.

  557
  The Bill is large and detailed. I thought that it contained 167 clauses but am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State corrected me in his speech, saying that it contains 169 clauses, covering a vast array of local government matters. During the summer since the publication of the White Paper, the proposals and what they mean for my area have been discussed at length in my constituency. The Bill's general principles have been widely accepted. Although the general public in my part of the world recognise the significant benefits under the existing council structure, they seek streamlining and rationalisation of local government, and improvement in it, and good value for money in local services.
  The duplication that occurs between the two tiers in the existing structure, particularly in planning, is not only confusing but aggravating to many constituents. I note at my constituency surgeries that the region often goes one way on planning and the district goes another. It is important that they go in the same direction and have a sense of purpose. The Bill clarifies and simplifies. It provides lines of responsibility within local government and a greater opportunity to act strategically.
  I welcome the recognition of the clear difference between cities and rural areas. For far too long, part of the aggravation between districts and regions has occurred because cities' interests differ greatly from those of rural areas. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to introduce individual city authorities and I hope that those will come as soon as possible.
  Reinforcing what my right hon. Friend said, I find it strange that we face such vehement opposition. He has already referred to the Labour party's pre-election policy document. Labour Members say that there is widespread confusion, that the functions carried out by the various tiers of local government undermine accountability and that all-purpose councils are needed. So why do they oppose the Bill? What are they scared of?
  Why must their proposals for a single-tier authority be linked with an even more costly Scottish Assembly? In proposing a single-tier authority and a Scottish Assembly,, they fail to mention to the electorate, who are extremely interested in such matters. It came to light during the election campaign that they accepted that a Scottish Assembly was likely to cost the Scottish electorate at least 3p in the pound extra in taxation. The Labour party seems intent on walking away from that fact. That is a differential between north and south of the border.
  The Labour party is doing the Scottish general public no service by its opposition and by urging the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities not to co-operate. Is COSLA not co-operating because it fears for jobs within local authorities? Let us face it, the Bill is about rationalisation, streamlining and providing more efficient services. Sadly, that means that certain jobs will go, as functions will be better achieved with fewer people. COSLA should direct its efforts towards the people who employ it rather than the people whom it employs. Scottish taxpayers are interested in seeing more efficient and less costly local government.
  The Liberal Democrats smile happily when I discuss Labour opposition. I wonder whether they will smile when I read their 1992 Scottish manifesto—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that they have read it. Had they done so, they might not have opposed the Bill, because it clearly said:
  558
  "We will: reform and strengthen local government, reducing it to a single tier. We will introduce a single-tier of local government, to deliver most of the services currently provided by districts and regions."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "More, more.'] I shall give Liberal Democrat Members more. The manifesto went on:
  "This will end the confusion about who is accountable for what and bring local government effectively within the reach of the local citizens".
  Yet the Liberal Democrats oppose the Bill. Their manifesto clearly proposed changing to a single-tier local authority and doing all the right things but, when the Government propose a Bill, they oppose it for the sake of opposition.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. He takes the view that local government is all about enabling service contract delivery and compulsory competitive tendering and reducing the role of councillors to compliance contract observation. The Scottish Liberal Democrat manifesto encapsulates the idea that local democracy and local government are an essential element in the democratic process. That is the difference between the Tory party and the Opposition.
  Mr. Kynoch: I want to see good local services but the aspects that the hon. Gentleman mentioned do nothing to degrade local government service delivery.
  Scottish National party members also smile when I discuss Labour party opposition. Mr. George Leslie, former local government convenor of the SNP, said in The Scotsman on 1 October 1992:
  "The SNP believe that the single-tier structure will be the most effective."
  As far as I am aware, all the parties appear to want single-tier local government. So what are we arguing about? We should be agreeing on single-tier local authorities.
  Mr. Graham: We have heard the hon. Gentleman's views on the Labour party, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. Why did not the Government appoint a royal commission on Scottish local government so that we could see what people felt? We could probably have trusted that judgment and would not have had this gerrymandering by the Government.
  Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and should be interested to know whether, were it ever elected to power, the Labour party would hold a royal commission before setting up a Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) talk about a commission to ascertain the requirements of the Scottish people, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Labour party is particularly unable to identify what the Scottish people want, which is, above all, single-tier local government and the abolition of Strathclyde?
  Mr. Kynoch: I certainly believe that the vast majority of people in Scotland want to see the end of Strathclyde as soon as is physically possible.
  On the issue of transition, I understand my right hon. Friend's logic in not wanting regional councillors to have to serve for six years. However, I must admit that I would prefer the 1994 elections to be postponed—
  Mr. Kirkwood: I bet you would.
  Mr. Kynoch:—but not for the reason that the Opposition presume.
  I should prefer them to be postponed because we need a meaningful transition, and to ask a regional councillor to serve for only two years would not be satisfactory. A councillor who has already served a four-year term might not want to serve the full six years but it is unreasonable to ask a new councillor to serve for only two years. I should have preferred it had my right hon. Friend been able to find a way to obtain sufficient agreement to pass quickly legislation that would enable the council elections to be postponed until 1996.
  Further to the issue of transition, reference has already been made to the use of assets and I hope that optimum use will be made of them. I also hope that many buildings occupied by councils may be used in the new structure.
  I am aware that the previous local government reorganisation involved an increase in costs, mainly due to a significant increase in salaries. I am therefore pleased that that issue is being dealt with and that employees will get a fair deal out of the transition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recommended a staff commission, which will look after employees' interests, and the transfer of contracts to the new authorities should ensure that there will be some continuity. The Bill also provides that he can establish a body to examine excessive salary increases as it is exceedingly important to ensure uniformity throughout Scotland.
  I wonder whether the Bill goes far enough and whether the controls are sufficient. I refer my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland to Monklands district council. I was very concerned to read of the alleged goings-on in Monklands. An article in The Scotsman of 17 December 1992 stated:
  "Councillors are accused of using their position to ensure friends and relatives are shortlisted for jobs at every level within the council. A system of pink and green applications is alleged to have enabled recruiting officers to favour certain applications".
  The Guardian of 5 January 1993 also reported:
  "At least 22 close relatives of Labour Scottish councillors have secured jobs within the Council".
  Has my right hon. Friend been approached by either of the Members of Parliament representing Monklands with, suggestions that the issue should be covered in the Bill to ensure that there are adequate controls and that priority will not be given to any particular group of people when staff are recruited for the new councils? The Labour party held its own inquiry into Monklands and The Herald of 5 March 1993 reports that Mrs. Ann McGuire, the chairman of the Labour party's Scottish executive, admitted, on the "jobs for the boys" allegation, that
  "the Council could be open to criticism at the level of involvement that the councillors have in the selection procedures at the lower echelons of council officials".
  I do not expect my right hon. Friend to respond immediately, but I hope that, during our debates on the Bill, he will seriously consider the provision of adequate controls to ensure that such goings-on do not occur in the establishment of the new council structures.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a qualified lawyer, so we are entitled to expect him to speak with greater clarity than that. What exactly is he saying is wrong at Monklands district council? If he is saying that there is something wrong with the selection procedures, and if a senior officer of the Labour party is saying that steps will be taken to put
  560
  it right, why is the hon. Gentleman demanding legislation? I do not understand his point; perhaps it is the cheap point that was made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, when challenged about Westminster council, said that it was a matter for the local authority, not the Crown. I think that the Secretary of State will give exactly the same reply this afternoon.
  Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying but the Opposition are again trying a whitewash. I am concerned to ensure that there is no favouritism—
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kynoch: No, I will not. I have already given way and shall not do so again.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman who is speaking is not giving way.
  Mr. Hogg: It is because he has not got a point to make.
  Mr. Kynoch: I must also correct the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether I am flattered to be called a lawyer. In fact, I came from business and was a mechanical engineer by profession, not a lawyer. I have finished with that issue but I should like confirmation that it will be considered as the Bill passes through its various stages.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kynoch: No. I shall now deal with the Bill's provisions for decentralisation.
  Decentralisation is clearly of particular importance for rural authorities and I speak as someone representing a rural constituency. I understand my right hon. Friend's arguments for having a large rural authority surrounding a city in order to provide a counterbalance to ensure that the authority is large enough to provide local services in a proper and cost-effective way. I also greatly welcome his recognition that one needs decentralisation for the proper delivery of local services. I hope that, under decentralisation, he will still be able to use as much as possible of the existing local government structure.
  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsiblity for local government in Scotland is quoted as saying that he recognises the benefit of community councils and their contribution to consultation in the new council structure. Community councils have served a useful function locally as advisory panels for local government and I trust that they will continue to play an important role under the new structure when we shall have larger rural authorities.
  I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Hamilton had to say about water. He appeared to be worried about cost and the delivery of service but also said that water services should be left as they are. If by that he means that we should leave water services with the nine existing authorities, I fail to understand him because, as I understand the Bill, those authorities will cease to exist and will therefore not be able to manage any water authority. If, however, he believes that water services should be turned over to the 28 proposed authorities, that is a different matter. However, 28 authorities would be far too many to ensure the uniformity that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
  Clearly, there will have to be significant capital expenditure in the water industry in the next 10 to 15 years. I can see that nowhere more than in my constituency

  561
  where, due to the success of oil and the development of the north-east, Aberdeen local services—for example, sewage treatment plants—are bursting at the seams and desperately need renewing to cope with developments in the area. I hope that the funds will be more readily available through the use of private finance as a result of the structures that my right hon. Friend has proposed. I welcome the provisions in clause 80 to introduce capital from the private sector. The Bill means a partnership between public organisation and private finance and should be of immense benefit to consumers.
  I would be wrong if I did not mention rural areas and the representations that I have received from the Scottish Landowners Federation, which is concerned about the welfare of its members—many of whom are my constituents—who live and work in rural communities. It wants to ensure that they are not hard done by because of the cost of implementing water services in the countryside. Obviously, I welcome the setting up of a customers council, which will protect the interests of consumers. I hope that representatives on the council will recognise the needs of those who live in rural communities and the countryside.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate from the Back Benches you sensibly and rightly asked hon. Members to be brief. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has been talking for 20 minutes and has a lot of paper left in his hand. Do you have no power to ask him to draw his remarks to a halt?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The short answer is no.
  Mr. Kynoch: I am trying to talk as concisely as I can about a comprehensive Bill that has important implications for my constituents and the people of Scotland. If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not interested in dealing with serious matters, that is up to him.
  I hope that other aspects of water will be dealt with in Committee, in particular the legal framework for installing new water mains, which is also of interest to my constituents. I recognise that controls are necessary and that the controls built into the Bill are clearly better than the previous ones, but I hope that there will be detailed consideration of the matter in Committee.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in saying that such detailed matters are for Committee? We are discussing the principle of the Bill. Surely you have the power to draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. He is going to be on the Committee anyway, so surely he can raise such matters then and talk only about the principles of the Bill now.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly true that we are dealing with the principles of the Bill. Normally one allows reasonable latitude for hon. Members to make particular points, but I remind the House that it is true that we are dealing with the principles.
  Mr. Kynoch: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to keep to the principles of the water provisions in the Bill rather than the detail, which will obviously be discussed at great length in Committee.
  During the summer, boundaries were the major topic of conversation in my constituency. This is a significant Bill, which will have much more import for the people of Scotland and to ensure that it works well, it is important to get the fine details right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows only too well that I have approached him and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for local government concerning two boundaries within my existing constituency and part of that of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
  Under the parliamentary boundary reform, it is proposed that that area will come within the constituency that I represent. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has said that such matters will be debated in full in Committee. I hope that he will listen to rational arguments and that we can get those matters rectified. As suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in previous debates on the subject, I shall ensure that amendments are tabled to enable proper discussion of those subjects.
  Regardless of what Opposition Members say about cost—their arguments seem to be totally inconsistent as they go for single-tier authorities, but do not tell us what the cost would be—I believe that the Bill is good for the people of Scotland and for local government in Scotland. I hope that we can get it through as quickly as physically possible.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute so early to the debate. I hope that the temporary Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) will forgive me if I do not follow all his arguments, although I agree with him on one matter. He said that he did not want elections for the region to be held in 1994, and I can well understand that. If I were an hon. Member serving on the Conservative Benches, I would not want elections for anything in 1994, 1995, 1996 or at any time this side of the turn of the century.
  I can well understand why he does not want elections, but he will have to face them. There will be elections for the region and I am sure that, when the people of Scotland are asked how they view the Government's conduct, they will not hesitate to give the reply that they have given so consistently over the years.
  In common with all my colleagues in the official Opposition and the other Opposition parties, I am less than impressed by the Government's proposals in the Bill. Nothing that I heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon lessened my fears for the future of Scotland's local authorities. It seems that the aim of local government should be to provide efficient services on a cost-effective basis within a democratic framework, but none of those objectives is dealt with or met in the Bill.
  The question that remains to be asked is why we are having the reorganisations at all. The answer is clear. The Conservatives have failed to win councils or parliamentary seats in Scotland and they propose blatantly to fix things. The charge that that is gerrymandering is entirely valid. I think that all hon. Members would accept that redrawing boundaries for Scottish local government is difficult. It is not easy to marry the concentrations of population and the geography, but there is not a shred of evidence that those

  563
  considerations have ever been dealt with by the Tory Ministers who drafted the plans. It is all too evident that the proposals' aims are political and owe nothing to the provision of effective, cost-effective or democratic local government.
  That fact is best illustrated by referring to my constituency. It is proposed that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth should be included in the new North Lanarkshire authority, but the area has not been a part of Lanarkshire at any time in its history. Cumbernauld was in Dumbartonshire detached—it was not part of main Dumbartonshire.
  Before borough status and the last reorganisation in the mid-1970s, services were provided by Dumbarton county council. After the formation of Strathclyde regional council and the district council of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, services other than district services were provided by the Dumbarton division of the regional council—I suppose that one could describe that as the county council continuing.
  More recently, social work provision moved to Monklands and health services were provided through the Lanarkshire health board. However, my constituents would have preferred their health provision to come from the Greater Glasgow health board. That is said with no disrespect to Monklands general hospital, or any other Lanarkshire hospital, or to the health provisions of the Lanarkshire health board, but is simply a reflection of where people come from.
  They come from the city of Glasgow, and Kilsyth has a long historical attachment to Glasgow's hospital service. Lanarkshire and the towns of Motherwell, Coatbridge and Airdrie have never been associated with the provision of local government services for my constituency. Moreover, those locations are not easily reached by public transport from Cumbernauld or Kilsyth. It goes without saying that my constituents do not use—
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not want his constituency to be linked with Monklands?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I am certainly not saying that. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my case, I will make positive arguments for its being part of Dumbartonshire. I pointed out that historically we are part of Dumbartonshire. [Interruption.] The proposal is not to put Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in with Monklands; it is to create a North Lanarkshire authority.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House knows my views about seated interventions.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to jump up and down—I think that that is the trouble.
  The obvious new authority for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth would be the council that was identified in the White Paper. That was the point to which I referred earlier. I think that the hon. Member hails from Dumbartonshire.
  Mr. Robertson: Motherwell.
  Mr. Hogg: We had better get that right, just for the record. The hon. Gentleman represents Aberdeen, South and may not be altogether familiar with Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and its location, but the obvious new authority for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth would be the council that was identified in the White Paper as East Dumbartonshire. That used to be the name of the constituency that I represented
  564
  here a long time ago—the constituency that I originally represented in Parliament. In that authority we would continue to be part of the geographical and administrative area to which we have always related.
  The community has been excluded from East Dumbartonshire because it would distort the Government's aim to produce a Tory-dominated council. To that end, they have decided to create East Dumbartonshire and exclude not only my constituency but part of Strathkelvin which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and that part of the council area in Strathkelvin which is represented on the regional council by the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Councillor Charles Gray. Strong representations have been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West for that area to be included with Strathkelvin when it goes to the new East Dumbartonshire.
  The area of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, currently the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council area, would be better placed in that authority and it would be better if that authority were given its correct name of Lennox. That is the view of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council. It is the view of the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth as revealed in a parliamentary answer that was given to me recently. There is overwhelming public support for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth being part of the new East Dumbartonshire authority, and no consent whatever from the public for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth to be part of North Lanarkshire.
  I will now discuss the services of local government. I think that the Government's proposals pose a serious threat to the continuation of the excellent services that we have enjoyed from Scottish local government. I can honestly say—I think that it goes for most of my colleagues—that we rarely hear complaints about Strathclyde regional council and the provision of its services. It is a first class, well managed, well run local authority. That is equally true of the district councils that have the difficult task of administering, in the main, the housing function.
  Throughout the 15 years that I have served in Parliament and Strathclyde regional council and the district councils have been in existence, I have not encountered serious complaints about the administration of the authorities. On very few occasions have I had to fall out with those authorities in any major way. That has not been my experience and I am confident that my colleagues would support me in that.
  I believe that the Government's proposals seriously threaten many of the major services of local government. I shall refer only to education—the service which is most threatened by the Bill.
  The Government's education policy in Scotland has failed. It has not secured public support. If it had, we would have opted-out schools, but we do not, because parents did not consent to that. They have not consented to the eccentric and somewhat radical ideas that have gained currency elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because they know what is good and what works. They know that education authorities such as Strathclyde regional council have not failed them and that they have dealt well with the difficulties foisted on them by the underfunding that has been such a feature of the present Government.

  565
  I believe that the Government will do what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) hinted at. Scotland will be abused in much the same way as London has been abused, in educational terms.
  Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hogg: I believe that the post-Inner London education authority situation, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, will be the experience of Scottish parents if we allow the Bill to be passed. I am certain that in Scotland or among the Scottish media it will not be popular to draw parallels with London, but the experience in London has not been good and the proposals that are before us have much in common with what has happened here in the metropolis. I am certain that the people of Scotland do not wish that to happen to them and that they are right to reject the proposals.
  Much research has been carried out for me into what has happened with ILEA and I will make that available to my hon. Friends who will serve on the Committee. I hope that they will be able to use that material to expose what will happen if we move from the democratic control of elected councillors serving as an elected education authority to the type of diluted quango proposed by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. Stewart indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not think that he has read his own Bill. If he reads it—which I recommend that he do, because he might be frightened at some of the things that he discovers—he will discover what the Government propose for education, which is a dilution of democratic control. It is a dilution of parent power, and it is quite deliberate.
  The Under-Secretary is doing it because the other policy, for which school boards were designed and opting out was designed, has failed and been rejected. No one agrees with him on education policy and that is why the proposals are before us today. It is one of the reasons why we are having a reorganisation of local government which no one in Scotland asked for and no one in Scottish local government argued for, but which the Minister thought was necessary to bolster a situation in which his policies had been rejected. That is why this is happening.
  We shall lose control over major services such as education and social work. There will be a diminution of council—
  Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: Of course.
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am genuinely puzzled by what he is saying. It is clear from the Bill that education and social work remain the responsibilities of the new authority.
  Mr. Hogg: I am not surprised that the Minister is puzzled. Puzzlement seems to be his permanent condition. Is he really saying, however, that very small local authorities will be education authorities, with all the complex services that such authorities operate, and that they will be able to make the specialist provision that we enjoy in the Lothian region and the Strathclyde region? Is he really saying that the tiny minds of Eastwood, who
  566
  would be operating the tiny authority of Eastwood, will really be able to do that? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is arguing?
  Mr. Stewart: The education authority with the best record in terms of the number of pupils going on to higher and further education is Western Isles.
  Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that that point illustrates very much. It obviously pleases the Minister, who is sitting looking awfully pleased with himself for having made that point. I am not sure that the point is worth making. Western Isles cannot be compared with great industrial conurba-tions such as Glasgow, in which education is administered by Strathclyde regional council.
  To draw an analogy between an education authority with the complexities of Glasgow and Western Isles is fatuous. I am surprised that anyone who takes responsibility for Government policy in this area should make such a foolish point. The Government's proposals enjoy no respect among the people of Scotland. No support for these policies is expressed anywhere.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has a certain entertainment value.
  Mr. Gallie: Is the hon. Gentleman's mail bag as packed as mine is with representations from district councils throughout Scotland urging support for their case for becoming single-tier local authorities? If he is receiving such representations, will he withdraw his comments?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I cannot say that I am receiving such mail. By the Government's admission, the overwhelming majority of the more than 4,000 letters that the Secretary of State and I have had from my constituency oppose the Government's proposals for local government reform, oppose the proposal that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth should be part of North Lanarkshire and support the proposal that we should be part of a new Lennox authority. On that note, I end my speech. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: This is the third occasion on which we have debated the reform of local government in Scotland on the Floor of the House. Despite the three debates, one statement in the House and one debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, the Opposition still seek to deny their past commitment to single-tier authorities. They continue to opt out of the real debate and they still fail to grasp the issues and the arguments involved. We saw that today when the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) had to pad out his speech by ranting about Westminster city council and by rambling on about the Inner London education authority and the Greater Glasgow health board. None of that had any relevance to the Bill.
  The Opposition's approach is interesting. When we debate cost, for example, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) formulates his attack in a sophisticated way. He thinks of a number, adds a nought and then multiples it by a factor of anything between one and 31, depending on which day of the month it happens to be. If that does not get him a headline, he adds another nought. He goes on until someone, somewhere—anyone, anywhere

  567
  —picks up his press release and gives him a headline. He then smirks with satisfaction, not realising that out there, no one—not even his own party's council groups—believes him any more.
  As we have heard before, Dundee district council, which is Labour-controlled, predicts savings of £1·8 million. Dunfermline district council, which is Labour-controlled, predicts savings of more than £8 million from the proposed reforms.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Any hon. Member could produce a precedent of a single education authority that has been turned into a dozen education authorities and could then show that the number of officials above a certain level has increased by a factor of about 75 per cent. Why is that irrelevant to the present debate?
  Mr. Robertson: I shall answer that question if the hon. Gentleman stands by his manifesto commitment to return to single-tier authorities. Is he trying to say that the way in which we propose to achieve single-tier authorities will be more expensive than the way that he proposed? Throughout this debate and our debate last summer, the Opposition have sought to deny their previous commitment to this policy. The hon. Gentleman has just displayed that.
  When we debate boundaries, the hon. Member for Hamilton and his party are all over the place. On the previous occasion on which we debated the matter on the Floor of the House, he told us that he believed that commuter communities—those were his words—surrounding cities should be in the same unitary authority as their city and he used Dundee as an example. He now screws up his eyes. If he looks at column 210 of the Official Report for 22 November 1993, he will see it all there.
  That is not what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is saying about Aberdeen and it is certainly not what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is saying about Glasgow. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton, in agreeing to this diversity of approach, is quietly accepting what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been saying since last summer—that to be genuinely local and properly sensitive, there can be no one solution that is correct for all parts of Scotland. Uniformity of principle does not demand uniformity of approach.
  Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman and I share a surname. Surely the hon. Gentleman can share the same standard. If he quotes me, he should quote me accurately. In relation to commuter communities, I said:
  "In Tayside, despite the changes announced by the Secretary of State today, Dundee city has still lost some of its major commuter communities in Monifieth and in Invergowrie. That leaves the city to pay the hefty bills for services provided to those people who are now taken out of the city boundaries."—[Official Report, 22 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 210.]
  That point related specifically to Dundee, which I mentioned in my speech today. Where is the general principle that the hon. Gentleman is now beginning to develop as a policy?
  Mr. Robertson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is saying—I shall gladly give way to him again—that communities should be with their city. Why is that to be relevant to Dundee, but not to Aberdeen? That is the point that I am
  568
  making. You are all over the place. You are saying one thing for one city and quite another for another to try to suit your argument—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that remarks are addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. Robertson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  It is in Labour's opposition to the Bill in general that we see its complete disarray. The grand campaign of non-co-operation by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, about which my right hon. Friend talked, was first on, then off, then on again with refinements, then off, and then on again with refinements. It is now expected to be abandoned by the end of the week. We must not despair.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton tells us that, he still has an ace to play. He tells us that to breathe new life into the campaign against the Bill, he plans to motivate a vast army of angry Conservative Back Benchers from English constituencies who, we are told, believe it or not, are fearful of their seats because of the reform of Scottish local government. According to the hon. Gentleman's line, they will, together with Opposition parties, amend, wreck and finally defeat the Bill.
  Looking around me today, I have to say that it would have been nice if there had been some more English colleagues here to listen and perhaps to take part. I see no vast, angry army, whom the hon. Member for Hamilton hopes to employ. My hon. Friends show by their absence from this debate that they are far more prepared to take the leadership of my right hon. Friend than they are to take the words of the hon. Member for Hamilton.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has noted the absence of his English colleagues. Would he say that that is a qualification for them to then serve in Committee?
  Mr. Robertson: I am saying that English colleagues who are not here are behaving as we do when purely English business is being discussed. We tend to do other things and then return to the Chamber.
  I return to the point about Aberdeen and north-east Scotland. On publication of my right hon. Friend's consultative document and the subsequent White Papter, the responses from Aberdeen and from the north-east poured in, from all the district councils, the regional council, the Conservative council groups, individuals and other interested bodies.
  When listening to Opposition Front-Bench Members, as they fulminate and demonstrate against my right hon. Friend's proposals, one must ask whether the hon. Member for Hamilton is the shadow Secretary of State for all of Scotland or just for the part of Scotland from which he comes and in which his party is especially strong—Strathclyde and Midlothian.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton must realise that, if he aspires to the great office of Secretary of State, he must be prepared to back all of Scotland and not simply that part of our country with which he is most comfortable. His attitude seems to be, and his speech confirmed it, that he will fight hard for Strathclyde and Lothian and damn the rest. It is notable that he had little to say about anything north of Edinburgh.
  The response to what my right hon. Friend is proposing for Aberdeen is best summed up by a quotation from one of the submissions:

  569
  "In short, local government in Aberdeen can be improved by re-establishing the city as a unitary authority. This would promote a more efficient, accountable, economical and responsive local administration and service delivery."
  That letter was not from me, but from the Labour group of the city of Aberdeen district council which was unanimously adopted by the council's Labour group, Conservative group, Liberal group and two Scottish National party councillors.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who is not in his place, has also gone on the record as saying:
  "There will certainly be a great satisfaction at the restoration of a single-tier authority for the city of Aberdeen."
  Perhaps the feeling in Aberdeen was best summed up by the Press and Journal, which carried this headline the morning after the publication of the White Paper: "Aberdeen Achieves Goal".
  Outside the city, an Aberdeenshire council is proposed, which, while large enough to act as a counterbalance for the new city authority, is also of a size which will allow it to be genuinely local and to be accessible and accountable to those who depend on it for their services. My right hon. Friend has again responded to many of the fears and concerns of the smaller district councils in the Grampian region, which were rightly concerned with the principle of accountability and the question of sensitivity in dealing with local matters.
  For example, Kincardine and Deeside district council's response stated:
  "Specifically, a combined Gordon/Banff and Buchan/ Kincardine and Deeside unit would be acceptable"
  and said that such an authority
  "would not reflect local loyalties and allegiances. (There is little in common between the residents of say, St. Cyrus, and Huntly or Peterhead)."
  My right hon. Friend's proposals address those concerns. The larger authorities, in terms of land area, must be instructed to come forward with detailed plans for decentralisation and dispersal throughout the authority area, which will further help to alleviate many of the fears.
  There has been concern over my right hon. Friend's plans to include the suburb of Westhill in the new Aberdeen authority. Much nonsense has been talked over its similarity with other places such as Banchory, Ellon and Inverurie. Those who have made such statements obviously do not know the geography of the area. The extent of the present district council boundary, measured as the crow flies from Aberdeen's town house, the accepted centre of the city, is 9·7 milses north-west at Hatton of Fintray, 9·75 miles west at Leuchar Moss and 9·5 miles south-west at Moss-side, while the most westerly point of the community of Westhill lies some 8 miles from the town house, comfortably in the radius of the present district council boundary. In road terms from the town house, Dyce is 7·1 miles away and is already inside the city boundary and Peterculter is 7·3 miles and is already inside the city boundary, whereas Westhill is only 7·2 miles away—nearer to the town house than Peterculter.
  The city of Aberdeen district council's Labour group acknowledged those facts when it said in its response:
  "Portlethen and Westhill function to a significant extent as dormitory suburbs of Aberdeen. In social and economic terms they are very much part of the overall activity patterns of the city. Their location, close to the existing boundary distinguishes them from other settlements in the Aberdeen area (ie Ellon, Banchory,
  570
  Stonehaven, Inverurie) where the effect of factors such as distance enable those communities to be more self-sustaining and identifiable in their own right."
  In all the debates since the publication of the White Paper, I have heard no one deny that the people of Westhill look to the city of Aberdeen and none deny that their focus is the city.
  It is to the city that the people of Westhill go in their thousands to work each day. The Westhill people go to Aberdeen to catch a long-distance bus or train, for their weekly shopping, their entertainment, to eat out and for their leisure and recreation. To get to Aberdeen, they travel on the upgraded A944, which has been part-dualled to cope with the volume of traffic.
  Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find our tour of Aberdeen interesting, but I thought that you ruled earlier that this is the Second Reading of a Bill which covers a bigger part of Scotland than Aberdeen. I hope that you will ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us more of his views on the rest of Scotland after what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly true that we are debating the general principles of the Bill, but during such a debate, there is no reason why hon. Members should not use illustrative examples if they so wish. It must be for the Chair to decide whether the balance is right. I am sure that all hon. Members will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will know that, unlike him, I am a real Aberdonian; born and bred in the city and the son of a distinguished Lord Provost. I am sure that he would agree that my qualifications for asking him about Aberdeen and the surrounding area are not to be challenged. I am interested in what he says about all those areas. Would not that be a case for Eastwood being part of Glasgow?
  Mr. Robertson: I knew that somewhere, somebody sitting on the Opposition Benches would fall into that trap. Westhill is a tenth of the size of Eastwood. There is no parallel whatever. A portrait of the hon. Gentleman's father hangs with distinction in Aberdeen town house, which is soon to be the home of an all-purpose city of Aberdeen authority, about which I am sure he will be delighted.
  The A944 has been part-dualled to cope with the volume of traffic from Westhill to the city centre. Inverurie, on the other hand, can be reached only by an A class road into Aberdeen or by travelling on a number of tortuous B and C class roads. It is also worth noting that on 10 January, the Bluebird bus service increased its off-peak service between Westhill and the city centre in response to customer demand.
  The case for the inclusion of Westhill into the city has been supported by Councillor Geoff Hadley, the former independent convenor of the Grampian regional council and no friend of the Government. In the Press and Journal on 9 September, he said:
  "During the 25 years since Aberdeen County Council fell in with the developers … Westhill has grown and been variously described as a garden suburb, dormitory town and satellite town—all terms which imply a population shunted between home and work locations.
  But this is not simply about commuting. I would guess that perhaps 90 per cent. of Westhill residents' activities associated

  571
  with work, cultural affairs, social events, sports, shopping and so on relate to the Aberdeen city locus. Few will look to Inverurie or other towns in Gordon District for promoting their lifestyle.
  Given this, is there not a certain illogicality in the declared reluctance of Westhill residents to become part of Aberdeen?
  If local government is to be wholly local, Westhill being no further from the city centre than Dyce or Peterculter lends weight to a logical—if reluctant—acquiesence to the Government's proposals for a merger."
  Mr. Kynoch: I do not think that this is the place to debate such matters—that would be in Committee—but will my hon. Friend tell the House, for the benefit of those who do not know where Westhill is, the distance between Westhill and the nearest housing in Aberdeen city and what lies between there and Westhill?
  Mr. Robertson: A more useful parallel for my hon. Friend to draw is that the commuter suburb of Peterculter, in his constituency, is 7·3 miles from the city centre and that Westhill, not in his constituency, is 7·2 miles from the city centre.
  At present, the existing Grampian region gives the people of Westhill some say in the affairs of Aberdeen on a number of, although not all, important issues. In April 1996, all that will change. If Westhill remains outside the city, residents will be left as the poor relations with no democratic input into a city which plays such a large role in their everyday lives. They deserve representation in the city.
  Today does not mark the end of the debate on local government reform, but it marks an end of the beginning. My right hon. Friend's proposals offer a new era in the affairs of local government in Scotland—strong, accountable and powerful unitary authorities—yet, at the same time, those councils will, by their very nature, be sensitive to local needs and responsive to local requirements.
  That is a stark contrast to what is on offer from the Opposition: an Edinburgh assembly plundering the power of local councils, to grab it and to take it to Edinburgh. It would have denuded town halls in Scotland of their power and centralised it at Calton Hill, thus taking decision making away from the people, rather than empowering the people through one councillor and one council. Two visions of Scotland's future are on offer. I am happy and proud to support the vision of my right hon. Friend, which the people of Scotland will endorse.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: It will have been noted how the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), in his infinite wisdom, patronisingly told the people of Westhill what was best for them, despite the fact that, in a house-to-house survey 98 per cent. of them said that they want to remain part of a rural authority. That attitude should come as no surprise from a member of a party whose Government are proposing a Bill to dictate, to patronise and to tell us what is best.
  This is the biggest Scottish Bill since 1979, but it is one of the most disreputable Bills that I have seen since becoming a Member. Rather than being a well-designed vehicle to bring about a smooth reform of local government, we have a hybrid between a bulldozer and a parliamentary omnibus.
  The Bill contains six different measures that could have merited separate legislation—reform of local government; a fundamentally changed structure for water and sewerage
  572
  services; important detailed provisions on local government finance; important changes in the organisation of the function of the reporter to the children's panel, which has scarcely had a mention so far; significant changes to the legislation on road tolls; and important detailed provisions on the reform of tourism—an important part of the Scottish economy which, because of the nature of the Bill, will scarcely receive the adequate consideration that it requires.
  Each of those issues could be appropriately dealt with by a Scottish Parliament. The Bill, combined with the Government's proposals to smuggle in sweeping reforms of the police and prison administration under the cloak of English legislation and their failure to find time to legislate for proposals in the White Paper, "Scotland's Children", shows how ill served Scotland's legislative interests are by the current arrangements of the House.
  If they were here, Conservative Members for English seats would not countenance a full domestic agenda for one Session being cobbled together in one Bill, and if that would not be good enough for them why should Scotland's legislation be treated in such a second-rate manner?
  The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 was in Committee from early January until May. This Bill requires just as much time and I trust that the Government will make a commitment this evening to secure it.
  The Bill is further tarnished by the procedures that have led to the proposed changes in local government structure, which are taking place only 20 years after a Conservative Government undertook the last reform. On that occasion, reform took place against a background of a royal commission and broad consensus. Today, there has been no overall view of local government and of its role and functions and no independent proposals on boundaries. Uncertainty exists among local authority employees about their future conditions of employment and whether they will have jobs—it would be welcome if the Minister could confirm that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to staff who are faced with dislocation as a result of the reforms. Above all, there is no consensus. That is no basis for the stable reform of local government.
  Perhaps the most disreputable aspect of the Bill is the profoundly anti-democratic thrust of its provisions. Should its provisions pass into law, the Government's talk of reviving the dynamism of local democracy will be seen for the fraud that we know it to be. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury expresses concern about the cynicism that he claims is now attaching itself to our national institutions, but he should not be surprised. His name appears on the Bill as a supporter.
  What can be a more cynical gerrymander than the provisions that describe the new East Renfrewshire local authority? One wonders whether the Chief Secretary has looked at them. For example, schedule I mentions
  "the southern curtilages of No 43 Ben Lui Drive, Nos 52 to 50 Ben Wyvis Drive and northwards along the western curtilages of Nos 20 to 16 of the said Ben Wyvis Drive".
  I want to know what has happened to Nos 22 to 48 Ben Wyvis drive. I am pleased to see the Chief Secretary standing at the Bar of the House. He should pay careful attention to schedule I if he wants to know why the population are rightly cynical of the Government's proposals.
  Much has been made in the debate, and will be made in Committee, of boundaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my hon.

  573
  Friends who represent highland constituencies and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) have expressed deep concern about the proposals that affect their areas and appear to take no account of local opinion. The same applies to residents of Westhill, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
  Such matters are critical to people who want to identify with their local community—and one hopes that even at this stage the Government will recognise the importance of that—but it will hardly matter where boundaries fall if local government has been stripped of its ability to govern. The Government have already introduced 150 measures to take such power from local communities and put it in the hands of central Government and the Bill goes a long way to completing that neutering process.
  More than 180 provisions in the Bill extend the power of the Secretary of State to interfere in the decision making of locally elected councils. The phrase
  "The Secretary of State may by order"
  or words to similar effect, appear more than 70 times in the Bill and more often than not are subject to negative procedures. In addition, the Secretary of State can issue guidelines or directions in a further 47 instances to change, to block or to compel council decisions and in a further 65 instances the Bill is littered with open-ended phrases like
  "as the Secretary of State thinks fit"
  or "as he considers appropriate". Such powers tear the heart out of local democracy and are wholly inimical to what the Liberal Democratic party stands for.
  The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) quoted from the Scottish Liberal Democrat manifesto for the last election. I am pleased that he did. I regret only that more voters in Kincardine and Deeside did not vote for our proposals. My party believes in reforming and strengthening local government, but this Government are interested only in reforming and substantially weakening it.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the argument against a Scottish Parliament advanced by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is undermined by my hon. Friend's point about the number of times that the Secretary of State proposes to intervene and direct local authorities? The purpose of a Scottish Parliament would not be to take power from local authorities but to make the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office accountable to the people of Scotland, about which the Conservative party does not care because it cannot win the support of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend sums it up concisely. He will share our party's belief that local government should allow local people the power and opportunity to shape and influence their local communities with minimal interference from outside, from a Scottish Parliament or from the Secretary of State, and to be subject only to proper regard for the law and human rights and, ultimately, to the accountability of the ballot box.
  What sticks in my craw as I read the Bill is the Government's arrogant underlying assumption that only a Tory Secretary of State will ever exercise the Bill's powers. That belief might stretch credibility today, but before Conservative Members vote for the Bill I hope that
  574
  they will contemplate the possibility of a Labour Secretary of State having the kind of powers that are contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when a Labour Secretary of State proposed to reorganise local government, he set up a royal commission and put on it Miss Betty Harvie Anderson, a Tory Member of Parliament, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)? That was the proper, democratic way to reorganise local government. I hope that he will give credit to a Labour Secretary of State for doing that.
  Mr. Wallace: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a factual point for which I readily give credit. That path should have been pursued in this instance.
  Perhaps Conservative Members will read page 17 of the Bill and the proposed new section 62B to be added to the 1973 Act. What in that section would stop a Secretary of State of a different party considering that the local government functions of west central Scotland should be discharged jointly by a joint board comprising Dumbarton and Clydebank, East Dumbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, West Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and City of Glasgow councils? The whole of Strathclyde region could be recreated. Indeed, any other region could be recreated as a result of the powers which the Bill gives to a Secretary of State. There is provision for statutory consultation, but that is unlikely to save the day if the standards of consultation operated by the present Scottish Office team were to be adopted. I hope that Conservative Members will think carefully about that before they vote to give such unfettered power to the Secretary of State.
  Is it the Minister's intention or that of the Secretary of State to appoint persons other than elected councillors to the joint boards? How does the Minister expect the party balance to be established on those boards? While joint boards are less acceptable than directly elected authorities, they are nevertheless preferable to quangos. As might be expected from a Department which has an insatiable appetite for quangos, the Bill creates its fair share of them. The Scottish Office should learn lessons from quangos.
  Having listened to the exchanges between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I believe that the House should be concerned by the clear and apparent discrepancies between the answers given to the Select Committee by Lord Fraser and the answer given by the Secretary of State in the House. I am also concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State appeared to know the contents of a letter from the head of the home civil service to the hon. Member for Hamilton. Perhaps the House should be informed of the protocol when an hon. Member writes to the head of the home civil service. Is he being tampered with and expeced to bow to political pressure? As that famous phrase in a magazine states, "I think we should be told." Very important constitutional points arise on that matter.
  The Bill has its fair share of quangos. Not only is the supply of water and sewerage services to be removed from elected and accountable control, but the consumers watchdog is to become a committee of the Secretary of State's appointees. Those appointees will be paid to be members of that committee and will receive expenses. In addition, they may receive compensation if a term of office expires early. They may receive pensions, allowances and

  575
  gratuities. I believe that democracy would render the delivery of those services more accountable and that the ballot box is probably a cheaper watchdog than cumulative paid jobs for the boys and girls as proposed in the Bill.
  I have several specific questions about water and sewerage services. Is the accrued capital debt of the regional and islands water authorities to be written off and a green dowry given to the new water authorities as was the case when the English water services were restructured? Surely our domestic consumers should receive the same kind of benefits. Indeed, our business consumers should also receive those benefits. How can they compete equally with English competitors which have had the benefit of water supplied by companies whose debts have been written off?
  While clause 54 places restrictions on the ability of existing authorities to enter into contracts that exceed £1 million—and if they go beyond 31 March 1996 the limit will be £100,000—unless approved by the successor body, where does that leave the status of undertakings given by a number of water authorities to the Secretary of State two or three years ago with regard to an extensive programme of capital investment required to meet European Community requirements?
  While there is dismay across Scotland about the responsibility and accountability for those services being taken from elected people, there is deep scepticism in the islands areas about the reforms of water and sewerage. Problems relating to the delivery of those services are complex and there is little confidence that a remote bureaucracy will be able to understand them.
  When Orkney's water was previously supplied by the North of Scotland water board, there was an underestimate by a factor of five of the daily consumption of water by cows. That could make a huge difference to the supply and engineering of water services. We have no guarantee that similar mistakes will not be made again. Different charges that can be made in different circumstances are of particular concern. What safeguards are to be offered, not just to the islands areas, but to remoter rural parts, that they will not be charged heftily by authorities which have the power to charge differentially?
  While the islands authorities do not change—apart from the fact that the title "islands" becomes a geographical description rather than a council description—it was much easier when we had a generic term to describe those authorities to adapt legislation and devise solutions to meet different circumstances. I accept that on some occasions the Government did that with regard to FE colleges and the provision of housing for teachers in remoter areas.
  The ability to make distinctions to meet particular circumstances may be lost when those authorities are like every other council. The Montgomery committee endorsed the success of the islands areas and urged the Government to "consolidate, develop and extend" their powers. The Bill takes them in the opposite direction. If the islands authorities make specific points during the progress of this legislation, I hope that they will receive sympathetic attention from the Minister and his officials.
  The islands authorities persuaded me to support single-tier authorities and the policy of my party involves single-tier authorities, as has already been said in the debate. We are generally disposed towards such authorities, but not to authorities that are motivated purely by partisan and political reasons. We see such authorities within the context of a Scottish Parliament. As my hon.
  576
  Friend the Member for Gordon said, those authorities will not suck powers away from local government. They will take the powers of this Parliament to deal with Scotland's domestic affairs and place them where they can be properly, adequately and democratically accountable.
  We want that decentralisation of power from the House to a Scottish Parliament. We do not want to support a Bill which continues the trend of centralisation. Nor do we wish to support local authorities that will continue to be elected by a corrupt electoral system which weakens the accountability of the councillor to the people he represents. For those reasons my right hon. and hon. Friends cannot support a Bill which will lead to the emasculation of local democracy in Scotland.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I begin by apologising unreservedly for apparently breaking parliamentary procedures with regard to a press release. I will make sure that that does not happen again. Should I become aware that any other Member so transgresses, it will be drawn to the attention of the Chair. As a relatively new Member, I thought that I had grasped parliamentary procedure. Obviously, that was not quite the case.
  Having said that, I did take my seat on the right side of the House when I first became a Member—unlike the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who, I understand, did not quite manage to do so. However, having heard the hon. Gentleman's disorientated remarks, I understand how that occurred.
  The Bill is one of the most important and long-awaited legislative measures for Scotland. People in Ayrshire have never been happy with the Strathclyde scenario. Strathclyde was a local authority misnomer: there was very little local about it.
  The target set by all the candidates in the 1992 election in my constituency was to get rid of Strathclyde and to move towards single-tier authorities. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench colleagues have driven towards that target.
  Having heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I hope that his colleagues, who will vote against Second Reading from loyalty tonight, will consider local interests and local involvement in Standing Committee. I hope that they will work in Committee to make the Bill an excellent one for people throughout Scotland.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen to the views that will be expressed in Committee, which may logically justify amendments. Over recent weeks, I have had many contacts with local authorities from north, south, east and west. I have had contacts with Gordon, Renfrew, Argyll, the Lothians, Dunfermline, Cunninghame, Kyle and Carrick, Kilmarnock and Loudoun. They all supported single-tier local government for Scotland. That contradicts the views expressed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in particular.
  We should drive home the message that, if people with responsibility or even influence in COSLA opt for non-co-operation, the people they will damage most are council tax payers—the people who will elect whatever local authorities are established in future—and COSLA's actions will be long remembered. When the poll tax—the community charge—was introduced, people in local

  577
  authorities encouraged non-compliance with the laws of the land. That attitude has rebounded in a most horrific way on many hon. Members' constituents.
  I hope that there will be a constructive debate in Committee. Part I, schedule 1, will be considered very early in Committee. I can certainly see much—[Interruption.] Nobody has sought to correct anything that I have said today. I regard that as total agreement with all I say.
  As for Ayrshire, I am perfectly happy with the current proposals. To an extent, they coincide with the views expressed by all Ayrshire Members at the time of consultation. I wanted a separate south Ayrshire—a Kyle and Carrick. That was recognised in the Secretary of State's proposals. In the main, it appeared that other hon. Members from Ayrshire wanted an all-Ayrshire authority. The Secretary of State has democratically recognised those representations and, as closely as possible, has met the combined views of all Ayrshire Members. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) knows very little about Ayrshire.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I shall give way very shortly.
  I consider that I am the only Ayrshire Member who speaks for local interests in Ayrshire. On that basis, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to modify his plans and create a third local authority, as opposed to the planned two, in Ayrshire. Already, the wishes of Kyle and Carrick have been recognised, with the intended creation of south Ayrshire. I shall offer no change to part I on that point.
  There is no reason why recognition should not be given to the wishes of the people of Cunninghame and their elected representatives to allow a free-standing Cunninghame under the banner of a north Ayrshire authority. That would allow the wishes, as I understand them, of Kilmarnock and Loudoun councillors to have an east Ayrshire or a central Ayrshire authority set up, linked with Cumnock and Doon Valley.
  Cumnock and Doon Valley councillors preferred an all-Ayrshire authority, but I understand that my proposal is their second preference. Given the lack of support for their idea, they would no doubt be relatively happy with my proposal.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am getting a bit confused. The hon. Gentleman says that one authority or two authorities are just the same, but he is now in favour of three authorities, whereas originally he was in favour of two, which was the same as one. I must say that I find that very confusing.
  However, I will not accept the hon. Gentleman misrepresenting what other people think. It is absolutely clear—I spoke today to the convenor of Cumnock and Doon Valley, the leader of the district council—that my council supports an all-Ayrshire authority—first, second and third choice. Will the hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that that is the case? He has misrepresented the council. Will he accept that that is the second, third or fourth that he has made tonight?
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman's confusion is not new. I consistently find him in a state of confusion in respect of every issue. If he had listened carefully, he
  578
  would have heard me acknowledge fully that the first preference of Cumnock and Doon Valley councillors is for an all-Ayrshire authority. That cuts across other Opposition Members' requirement that a Strathclyde authority be maintained.
  I acknowledge that Cumnock and Doon Valley would like an all-Ayrshire authority, but, quite honestly, even the confused Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will recognise that he cannot have second, third and fourth preferences that are all the same—it is not logical. However, that does not surprise me.
  I ask all Ayrshire Members to back Ayrshire local authorities. Perhaps Opposition Members will support the amendment that I intend to move in Committee, given the opportunity. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) would listen, he would know that I referred to "the amendment that I intend to move in Committee, given the opportunity" I am not trying to second-guess anyone. It would be helpful if Opposition Members would open their ears and listen a bit more.
  Let us consider some of the representations that have been made. I am sure that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) will join me in backing the representatives of Argyll district council, who certainly want to go along with the Secretary of State's proposals. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) seemed to suggest that the citizens of Helensburgh do not desire to join Argyll. He should listen more to public opinion in Helensburgh. People in Helensburgh very much identify with Argyll. It would do the House well to pick up that point.
  Mr. McFall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I now make a plea for the people of Luss. The community council, which has made strong representations, wishes to be linked with Argyll, and asks for that matter to be taken on board. I commend the measures, which extend the involvement of community councillors. They have played a tremendous role in recent years. I hope that community councillors will extend their involvement in the years ahead.
  Mr. McFall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have been talking about issues which affect his constituents.
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman talks about confusion. I have never heard the hon. Gentleman comment on the issue affecting Helensburgh. If he went to Helensburgh and listened to the people there, he would find that the implications of the local government reorganisation in respect of education, social work and transport greatly concern them.
  Only today, The Herald pointed out that the unsubsidised return fare from Helensburgh to Glasgow is £9, but, because of the passenger transport authority, the subsidised fare is £4·50. When the burghers of Helensburgh realise that £4·50 is being subsidised by Strathclyde every time they go to Glasgow, they will think again. If anything, the local government reorganisation is about services and the quality of services. That message will get through to Helensburgh and Luss.
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. As many hon. Members hope to catch my eye, lengthy interventions will not assist.
  Mr. Gallie: I must agree that quality of service is all-important. However, I must point out to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that the passenger transport executive will continue under the remit of the Bill, and it will continue to assist his constituents in Helensburgh. When I look at schedule 1 to the Bill, I see some illogicality in the west/mid Lothian situation. I recognise the strong feelings that have come through from Dunfermline.
  I will not necessarily get involved in the details of the Bill, but I shall certainly listen with keen interest to the views expressed in Committee by Labour Members. Bearing in mind that this is a local government Bill, I shall certainly listen to the local input from places such as Dunfermline, Cunninghame and Gordon.
  Mr. Brian Wilson rose—
  Mr. Gallie: I see that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) wishes to intervene. [Interruption.] Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene. I shall cover a few general issues. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is changing his mind again. One minute he wants Strathclyde; the next minute he wants Cunninghame; then he wants an all-Ayrshire authority ; then he wants to intervene; and then he does not want to intervene. If he wants to get up, he should carry on.
  Mr. Wilson: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman's press release of that well-rehearsed paragraph will not be accompanied by actions. I will not get involved in his ravings about constituents other than his own. The people in Cunninghame can sort out their problems without his attempt to influence matters or to make party political capital out of them, so I shall leave that aside.
  I shall pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) about the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. Recently, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said that the problem with the Ayr-Glasgow service, which is certainly the busiest commuter route outside London, is that not many people use it. He now tells us that the Strathclyde passenger transport executive will continue as before. Obviously, he has studied the workings of passenger transport executives in England, where a precepting system fails to operate because the PTEs depend on contributions from individual local authorities.
  Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the proposed passenger transport executive will have access to the same level of funding as the Strathclyde passenger transport executive has at present? If he cannot give that assurance, he cannot give an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. A few moments ago, I said that many hon. Members were hoping to catch my eye, and suggested that long interventions do not help. Obviously, that fell on deaf ears. I hope that future interventions will be brief.
  Mr. Wilson: Without an assurance that the proposed passenger transport executive will have access to the same level of funding, the hon. Member for Ayr cannot give
  580
  constituents any assurances about investment, rolling stock or anything to do with the Strathclyde passenger transport executive.
  Mr. Gallie: Obviously, I shall listen with interest to what Ministers say on this issue in Committee. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not prepared to make promises that I am certainly not in a position to fulfil.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: Yes. I have to say that, if I constantly give way to hon. Members, that will extend the length of my speech.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He made an important statement before the previous intervention. I understood him to say that he wants to be a member of the Committee, and we welcome that. He also said that he is willing to listen to representations.
  Bearing in mind that the Standing committee may have a Government majority of one or perhaps two members, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take representations from local groups and county councils in areas such as Berwickshire which think that they are getting a rough deal from the Bill, seriously consider them, and follow with his vote if appropriate amendments are made?
  Mr. Gallie: As I have said all along, I intend to listen carefully to the debate. I shall attempt to persuade Ministers along the lines of my feelings, and at the end of the day I will take a combined judgment with my colleagues about the way in which the Bill should proceed. [Interruption.] There is nothing odd about that. I have given an undertaking to listen to representations. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is well aware of the procedures of the House. I shall apply pressure in any way that I can to influence Ministers along the lines of my beliefs.
  My interest in the matter is to ensure that people in Ayrshire get their just desserts. That is my intention, and it will be my overriding priority. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I have given him an undertaking that I will represent the views of the people.
  When I examine the wider aspects of the Bill, some matters concern me a little. I am happy that the police authorities in Scotland will be maintained at their present size. I am a little concerned about funding, especially as we have seen the constant underfunding of the police service in Strathclyde recently. I should like to hear something from my right hon. Friend about funding arrangements for the police.
  I fully agree with the single-tier option for social work. The link between social work and housing is important, and at present there is a massive gap. I believe that social workers and those in housing management find it difficult to bridge that gap under the current arrangements. I look forward to the future when the Bill comes to fruition and the gap is no longer there.
  I commend clause 78, which provides that councillors who fall behind in their payment of council tax should declare that and cease voting in council affairs. The matter was raised during debate on the non-payment of the community charge. I welcome that provision in the Bill. Perhaps we should extend the provision to Members of Parliament; we should not simply pick on councillors.

  581
  I welcome clause 38, which relates to the designation of trunk roads. I should like to think that the Secretary of State will take a liberal view on this matter in the future and bear in mind the need to give trunk road status to the A77/M77 into the centre of Glasgow. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
  Another important aspect of the Bill is domestic rate capping. The right of the Secretary of State to determine the levels of non-domestic rating poundage is important for the business community. Domestic capping is also an essential element. I should like to think that local authorities will act responsibly in the future. Capping may well be a useful facility in the early days of the council, when there could be a move towards inflating expenditure in the hope that the Government will take the blame for restructuring the local authorities.
  I am puzzled by some of the comments made by Labour Members about the cost of the reforms. When we are reducing the number of local authorities from 62 to perhaps 30 or 35—no one knows the final number, because we are still debating the matter—there seem to be areas where savings can be made. I am not the only person who feels that way; local authorities in Dunfermline, Cunninghame, Kyle and Carrick, Argyll and all over Scotland feel the same way. They have presented their case, which shows savings. That supports the arguments of the Secretary of State.
  It is worth noting that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said at one time that the measure would cost £400 million to £500 million. That figure has been moderated to about £200 million, which is broadly in line with the Secretary of State's statements, which suggest that the costs will be about 120 million to 196 million. At last the hon. Gentleman has a figure with some reality about it and that, if nothing else, is to be commended.
  I am looking forward with some relish to April 1995, when the electorate will be able to give their commendation to the Bill by going to the polls to elect councillors to become involved in the new local authorities.
  Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of some flexibility. Therefore, will the people who took part in the survey in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) get the chance to remain within Renfrew district council?
  Mr. Gallie: I said a few moments earlier that it is my understanding that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to genuine constructive comments in Committee. That did not really need to be said, as I recognise that my hon. Friend takes great regard of what people say to him. It could be that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered; whether they are justifiable or not is not for me to say. The points should be raised, and I am quite sure that they will be taken into consideration.
  I have not spoken about water, sewerage or a number of other issues. The proposals for water and sewerage are in line with the presentation that I made in response to the Secretary of State's consultation paper. I have no difficulty in living with the three public authorities, and I am glad that the Scottish Office listened and recognised the strength of feeling throughout Scotland on the privatisation of
  582
  water. Scotland did not want it, and the Secretary of State has recognised that. I believe that the public authorities provide a reasonable way ahead and I commend the Bill, but it needs a wee bit of amending here and there.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I wish to spend a few minutes on the position of my constituency before moving as rapidly as possible to that of Strathclyde regional council, on which my view is entirely opposite to that of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
  Some people refer to the wonderful days of one-tier local government in Scotland but in fact before 1975 only the four cities had one-tier local government while the rest was a mixture of district and county councils and boroughs. There was no golden age of one-tier local authorities in Scotland. In 1973, the Wheatley Commission put the bulk of my constituency—Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen—into Glasgow district council. I understand that a decision for a separate council for those areas was lost by just one vote, so in a sense there is a historical injustice because those areas campaigned for a council at that time.
  I oppose the Bill and I make no bones about that. Realistically, and like every other hon. Member, I have a constituency interest to look after. My having a view on whether the Bill receives its Second Reading is no worse than, for instance, Glasgow district council having a view on what should happen if the Bill receives Second Reading.
  I acknowledge that the Minister with responsibility for local government has recognised that there is a community position in Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen which is different from those areas being a part of a big city council. I am grateful for that, and it would be unfair not to place that on the record. The disadvantages of one-tier local government without a Scottish assembly or Parliament would apply in the same way to a local council for Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen as to any other council in Scotland, and my campaigning for such a council does not mean that I am ignoring the difficulties. In population terms, the addition of other former Lanarkshire areas to Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen would bring the area up to the population size of Eastwood or Stirling, but that is a matter for a later stage.
  It is a measure of the desperation of the people in the former Lanarkshire part of my constituency to stop the erosion of their community spirit that they would be prepared to take on a one-tier council. The White Paper stated that King's Park and Toryglen should go into south Lanarkshire, along with Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen. I opposed that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) rightly opposed the inclusion of King's Park in that council.
  I opposed the inclusion of Toryglen as it has always been a part of the city of Glasgow and I regarded it as my duty as a Member of Parliament to make sure that the people of Toryglen should not be included in a council in which they had no interest. Others might pontificate and make gestures, but I did my job as a Member of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that I was partly responsible for his change of mind about King's Park.
  A referendum was carried out by Glasgow district council in the areas concerned. If one added the votes from King's Park and Toryglen, the area would have voted

  583
  against its inclusion in south Lanarkshire. When the former Glasgow areas were counted separately from the former Lanarkshire areas, the result was 53 per cent. for inclusion in south Lanarkshire and 47 per cent. against. I asked Glasgow district council not to put the question in such a raw fashion, but to give the people the choice of voting for a local council. In my opinion, the majority would have voted for a local council. If they could not get that, I believe that they would have preferred the status quo of Glasgow district council.
  Unfortunately, a Tory and a Labour councillor attacked the council's spending on Cambuslang and Rutherglen. That resulted, in my opinion, in a negative vote for the south Lanarkshire proposal. There is no doubt that Glasgow district council shot itself in the foot. Unfortunately, we are now landed with a situation where the Government can rightly say that the people in my constituency voted for inclusion in south Lanarkshire but I would argue that they voted for that only because they were not offered a better choice.
  There is a separate identity in Cambuslang and Rutherglen. While people there are certainly no better than Glasgow people—because people are people—they have a different identity and I make no bones about that. We must look at the gerrymandering aspect of what the Government have done, because it is certainly gerrymandering: the Government want to make sure that the Tory enclaves are kept so as to allow Tory councillors to win elections. The Government have totally avoided the issue of costs in the debate. The Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities analysed the Touche Ross costs and clearly exposed them as false.
  The joint boards are undemocratic, which brings me to the thrust of what I wish to say. A while ago, the Prime Minister referred to Strathclyde regional council as a monstrosity. That caused deep offence, not just among political people but among the people of Strathclyde and especially among people who gain from the services provided by the council. I am proud to have been a Strathclyde regional councillor to have contributed in a small way to the council's record in delivering services. I agree that it is not the small local borough so beloved of people in Scotland, but it delivers services to residents and that is what matters.
  Another aspect that the Government have not addressed in any of their propaganda is Strathclyde regional council's record of achievement in Europe. Many people take the view that Europe sits there with plenty of our money but that we do not get a fair share back. If everyone followed the example of Strathclyde region and got some of our money back from Europe, we would be a great deal better off.
  Strathclyde region has secured £260 million from the European development fund. In addition, it has obtained £90 million in grants from the European social fund. That provided 67,000 training places and helped Strathclyde firms to take on an additional 28,000 employees. If that type of positive approach to Europe were taken by every other council in Britain, never mind Scotland, the financial, economic and employment base of the country would be far better. If Strathclyde goes, the people of Britain and Scotland will lose the progressive, innovative policies of that regional council.
  Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Ayr, one issue that has not been addressed is the concessionary travel scheme for pensioners. More than
  584
  400,000 concessionary travel cards are provided for elderly and disabled people, giving them subsidised travel across the region. Before 1975 there was no record of two councils under the old system reaching agreement on a travel scheme. That illustrates what happens if there are too many councils spread about when it comes to implementing and organising a travel scheme. The travel scheme is a first-class example of Strathclyde's reputation for delivering services to people.
  Under the Government's proposals, the various services for which Strathclyde council is now accountable will be hived off to unelected boards, including Strathclyde joint police authority, the Mid-Western and South-Western fire authorities, the west of Scotland water authority, the Scottish water and sewerage customers council and so on. Democracy and accountability will be removed in a series of services. There is no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State will make sure that Tory placemen and placewomen will make up those boards.
  With the reduction in size of authorities, especially Strathclyde, there will be a loss of strategic overview of service provision. The closer we get to the elimination of Strathclyde regional council from Scotland's local authority life, the more some of us react in horror. I make no apology for speaking about my area. When I envisage my area without the influence of strathclyde regional council, I see a nightmare.
  What has taken place is a disgrace. The Government have no mandate for what they are doing. There has been no royal commission. In a democracy it is wrong for any political party to set political boundaries. The point was rightly made earlier that local government reorganisation will in turn impose political boundaries on the parliamentary constituencies. The Bill has all the hallmarks of a rotten borough Government who have been in power too long, are too complacent and believe that they will be re-elected time and time again. The public will react.
  I do not take the view that we have lost and that the Bill will sail through Committee and the House. There will be united opposition against the Bill in Committee. If the Government think that the Bill will have an easy passage, they have another think coming. We shall fight it tooth and nail to save not only Strathclyde but the whole of democratic Scottish local government and to put an end to the dictatorship of St. Andrew's house under the Tories.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), I look forward to the day when there is a public reaction to what the Government are doing. The sooner it comes, the better.
  Today is hansel Monday—the day in the old Scots calendar on which employers gave their employees a gift, a good meal and a day off. Sadly, today the Secretary of State for Scotland—our colonial governor—has not heard of hansel Monday. He bears no gifts. He is starving our local authorities of funding and powers, and is trying to write off real local authority accountability within our communities.
  The Secretary of State should try to link tradition with modern-day needs and dump the Bill. The sooner he does so, the better. My objections to the Government's proposals are deep, and are founded on the principle that democratic government should be the norm, not the

  585
  exception, in Scotland. The Government are inflicting the Bill on Scotland with minimal consultation and even less support. The Bill will be bulldozed through the House and Committee, using the votes of English Tory Members who have no electoral mandate in Scotland or any particular knowledge of Scotland.
  The empty Benches behind the Secretary of State—empty even of Scottish Tories, apart from one—show how little the English Members who will appear in the House at 10 o'clock and force the measure through know or care about Scotland. Those self-same English Tories will be packed on to the Committee to bulldoze the measure through against the wishes of the Scottish people. That is not what democracy should be about, however the Bill is dressed up.
  The House of Commons claims to be a United Kingdom Parliament. The Under-Secretary has often said it. He has often said that every hon. Member has a right to speak on any issue. But the Bill is oppressive and clearly unfair to Scotland. It does no credit to the Westminster system when democracy is crushed by the Executive, who use a whipped Parliament to force through measures which do not reflect the wishes of the Scottish people.
  However the Bill is dressed up, it is an attack on democracy. The Scottish electorate rejected the Conservatives and their proposals. The majority English population were never even asked about the proposals. Yet English Tory Members will be herded through Parliament, and the legislation will be passed using the Government English majority.
  The proposals on water command the support of no more than a tiny minority of Conservatives in Scotland—a tiny minority of a tiny minority. Yet the Bill is about to be whipped through Parliament with minimal change. Scotland is already being run by far too many non-elected quangos hand-picked by the Government. If the measure is passed, Scotland will have proportionally the fewest elected representatives in the whole of Europe. That is what the Government are doing to us.
  The Bill not only erodes our elected local government system by reducing the number of freely elected councillors, but seeks to replace those elected councillors with a handful of nominees hand-picked behind closed doors by the Secretary of State. The Bill also gives the Secretary of State a massive new batch of delegated powers. The most frequently used phrases in this pathetic Bill are "the Secretary of State will make an order", "the Secretary of State may make regulations", "the Secretary of State shall" and so on. The Bill is not a decentralising measure. It empowers the Secretary of State, not local authorities.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong and powerful case, with which I certainly agree. Where does his party stand on the formation of new authorities and small authorities? He said that power will be handed over to the Secretary of State. That will be facilitated by the formation of single-tier authorities in existing districts. Does his party oppose giving single districts multi-purpose status?
  Mr. Welsh: I wonder what the trap is that the hon. Gentleman seeks to lay. The question should be solved by looking at the communities of Scotland. The last Labour
  586
  Administration solved the problem by creating the Wheatley commission, which undertook surveys and checked what the population wanted. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Rowntree Trust report, which tells us that actual size is not important. Therefore, we can fairly look at communities. That is where I take issue with the Government. Their Bill is based not on communities but on a gerrymandered map.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman tells me what the Rowntree Trust thinks, but it would be a great help if he could tell us what the Scottish National party thinks. Is it or is it not in favour of single-tier local authorities founded on existing districts?
  Mr. Welsh: I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. Angus district authority should be such an authority. I can name others, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  Mr. Hogg: Yes.
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman plays the Tory game in his own way. The authorities should be based on—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks questions and then does not listen to the answer. If the Bill was based on communities, the problems would be sorted out.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: What about Moray?
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman makes the point. Fine, that is no problem.
  The Bill does not empower local authorities. It takes power away from them and from the House. There is a mass of European secondary legislation and general secondary legislation sloshing through this place which is not properly scrutinised by anyone who has been elected to the House. Yet the Bill will add massively to that number, because it gives the Government and the Secretary of State massive powers to regulate. It will not be properly scrutinised. I do not call that democratic.
  The Tory minority Government in Scotland are introducing a new word to the political dictionary—"langocracy", which means Government by and through the Secretary of State. In the langocracy system, the Secretary of State rules everything. What he does not control directly will be run by non-elected, hand-picked quangos of his choice. In Lang's land, if one does not get the vote of the people, ignore them: take over their assets, appoint one's own people to run things and use one's own inbuilt English majority to bulldoze it through. That is langocracy. That is how Scotland is now governed. It has nothing to do with democracy. The Secretary of State is acting as a governor-general.
  The Bill is littered with extra legislative powers for the Secretary of State, with the Greater Glasgow health board situation now being writ large throughout the country. The points made earlier about that, with the House not being able to get at the truth, are a lesson well worth learning and a matter of which the population of Scotland should be well warned if the Bill is implemented.
  The Bill is not an enabling measure for local government. It is disabling. Nor is it a decentralising measure. It gives the Secretary of State massive new powers, and means that central Government will take decisions about daily services in Scotland, which should be the preserve of locally elected councillors. The window dressing of decentralisation schemes shows the power that is being taken away. What use is a council office to a town,

  587
  which probably had one anyway, when the councillors who are elected by it, are reduced in numbers and powers? That would simply be more window-dressing from central Government, who are notorious for their secrecy and lack of true consultation.
  Even the decentralisation schemes are subject to centralised scrutiny by the Secretary of State. I find it objectionable that the Government intend to take billions of pounds of water assets—public assets—in our water and sewerage industries and grab them for the use of unelected, unaccountable quangos, which are only the first stage to eventual privatisation, in which private pockets will benefit.
  But then again, that Tory Government invites quango nominees to private fund-raising dinners and pretend that that is perfectly normal and that the invitees are disinterested, non-political spectators. That situation reeks of the goings-on at Westminster, to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) alluded earlier.
  The water industry's capital assets were not created by central Government. The figures of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities show that central Government contributed only 0·03 per cent. to them. They are public assets, paid for over generations by local taxpayers, who now find democratic control removed and replaced by a Greater Glasgow health board system over which they have no say and absolutely no control.
  I want the Minister to tell us how democracy will be advanced by those quangos. Will public accountability be increased? How can there be greater scrutiny when Scotland's billions of pounds of water assets will be controlled by two, perhaps three, football teams, all hand-picked and nominated by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Their meetings will be held behind closed doors. What is democratic about that? It goes against all the words he used, and shows the basic hyprocrisy of the Government and the hypocrisy contained in the Bill.
  According to the Bill, local government does not even need to have an education committee. That becomes understandable if the Government are planning enabling councils and not service-providing councils. That perhaps gives the Government's ultimate game away, because the Tories obviously hope for massive school opt-outs, and the break-up of Scotland's national system of education.
  That figures, because the Secretary of State has never been taught in a Scottish school or university. Most of his pals pack their kids off to private schools as soon as they can. I do not think that Cambridge Footlights happened in Scotland, apart from the Edinburgh festival.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Apologise.
  Mr. Welsh: What was the other public school in England? I need hardly apologise for that.
  If that is the Government's attitude, and if their end product is not to put an education committee in the Bill, I thoroughly disagree with that, given Scotland's traditional importance attached to education.
  The boundaries are clearly pochled to suit Conservative party political convenience. I could have used the word "gerrymandered", but "pochled" sounds more appropriate. There has been little or no attempt to match boundaries to communities—far less, real consultation. The motive is plainly gerrymandering. In a two-party electoral system, the Tories now find themselves the third—often the fourth
  588
  —party. Their response is change the rules to change the results. With revelations about Westminster council, gerrymandering, like telephone canvassing, seems to have become a tried and tested Tory technique.
  My objection is that the Bill is based on hypocrisy. The Government state that Strathclyde region is too big, too bureaucratic and remote, and that therefore it must be demolished. Yet they do the opposite when it comes to creating three monster unelected boards to run water services. On their own argument, if Strathclyde region is "too big and remote", why are they creating the giant Western area water board and running it with 11 hand-picked appointees?
  The old Soviet Union would have been quite proud of that centralist dictatorship, which no doubt the Conservative Kremlinists are now introducing. When the Soviet Union has abandoned such a system, it is an irony that it has now been foisted on Scotland by English Tories forcing the Bill through Parliament. While England gets a Commission and thought-through boundaries, Scotland gets a rush job. The last time the Tories visited that on us was when we had the fiasco of the poll tax.
  No matter what happens in the Bill, when the Government bulldoze it through, Scottish local government will continue, because of the expertise of the officials and councillors who run it. It will be despite—not because—of this ill-thought-out and disgusting Bill, which I hope the House will oppose.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Brian Donohoe: I must declare an interest in the debate and in the Bill. The interest is of someone who passionately believes in the ethos of Scottish local government, and who is appalled by these proposals. The Bill is the latest in a long line of legislative sledgehammers that the Government have sought to use on Scottish local government.
  There are a great many reasons why the House should not be debating the matter today. Indeed, the Secretary of State should have had the good sense to stop trying to push through the proposed legislation some months ago, when it became obvious that, even among Scottish Tories, there was no consensus on the reform.
  Despite the worst efforts of Ministers to rubbish Scottish local government, it is clear that there is no justification whatever for reforming it at this time, barely two decades after the Wheatley commission debated the matter at length and produced a blueprint which had the broad support of all Scotland's political parties.
  Despite the black propaganda campaign pursued by the Scottish Office, the Scottish people have refused to allow themselves to be conned into believing the Tory party, which has spent the past 14 years destroying Scottish local government and which has minimal representation on Scottish councils. They do not believe that the Government can be trusted with the future of Scottish local government. The Bill clearly demonstrates, as have other events not a million miles from this place, the political prejudices of a Government determined to pursue a party political interest before the interests of the people as a whole.
  My hon. Friends have referred to the Government's hidden agenda on a whole range of legislative issues. Through the Bill, the Government have changed their attitude fundamentally. They have decided to adopt the not-so-hidden agenda and to parade their political bias to

  589
  create Tory rotten boroughs across Scotland. The Bill cynically carves out Tory safe havens in Perth and Kinross, Stirling, Eastwood and, of course, in Ayr. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has said, Ayr has now become known in Ayrshire as Gallielee.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the different size and range of authorities throughout Scotland. Has he seen the document entitled "The Future of Local Government in Scotland", produced by the Labour party? It states:
  "As the first criterion of any reform, there is no one solution for all parts of Scotland."
  Mr. Donohoe: I would not argue with that. I am arguing about gerrymandering to create unfair electoral areas, particularly in Ayrshire. When Gallielee was created, it literally meant the promised land to one Conservative Member, until the deliberations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission, got in the way. Perhaps because of that, I understand that even the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is now opposed to the Secretary of State's proposals for as they affect Ayrshire. That clearly suggests that there is no obvious consensus on the Government Benches on this matter.
  Gallielee will, none the less, be followed by Fairbairnlee, Forsythlee and Stewartlee, because the local government boundaries outlined in the Bill show how the new structures have been gerrymandered. It has been done to maximise the number of Tory-controlled authorities and try to minimise the number of Labour-controlled ones.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that such political criteria are not those on which Lord Wheatley would have based his reforms. They are unique to Tory Administrations.
  Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House for an hon. Member to give way to another hon. Member should he name him in his speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) to decide whether he should give way.
  Mr. Donohoe: Party political prejudice should never be allowed to dictate the structure of local government, because political bias is no basis for good local government.
  The Government's central argument in favour of the Bill is that money will be saved and the extent of bureaucracy will be minimised. That was outlined in a report conveniently produced for the Scottish Office by the management consultants, Touche Ross. The report's arguments have been taken apart by costings produced by many organisations in Scotland, which have demonstrated how subjective and irrelevant that report is.
  No detailed assessments of the claimed savings were offered in the report. Let us compare those supposed savings with those that Strathclyde regional council currently makes from economies of scale. It spends approximately £60 million each year on fuel. Because of its size, and only because of that, it can negotiate with British Gas, Scottish Power—I am sure that the hon.
  590
  Member for Ayr would be able to tell us about that—British Coal or whoever to make savings of 18 per cent. on fuel costs. Next year, that will result in a saving of £11 million.
  The council has bulk purchasing power because of its size. Because of that, it saves approximately £20 million per annum when purchasing other products and services. That means that it makes a total saving of £30 million each year. Compare that with the new authorities, as proposed in the Bill, which will find themselves paying between 10 and 20 per cent. extra for products and services. That will add £50 million each year to the costs of those new authorities. I should like to know from the Secretary of State whether those costs were included in the Touche Ross report. Are they part of his justification to initiate the reform of local government?
  According to the Bill's financial memorandum, savings of between £22 million and £66 million per annum will be gained from a structure of 28 unitary authorities. Even if that is to be believed, no mention is made of the continuing costs I have mentioned, which will cancel out, at a stroke, the Government's supposed savings.
  In stark terms, the proposed reorganisation can lead only to more cuts in council services. That effect on vital services to the community will be devastating. On top of those cuts, proposed cuts of £330 million have been made in council spending for the years 1994–97. That will decimate Scottish local government, it will cause further hardship and it will pile further misery on the public who rely on good-quality services.
  We have already seen the disgraceful decision of the Scottish Office to press ahead, three years early, with the wind-up of the Irvine development corporation. That is a direct consequence of the Government's reform of Scottish local government. It is clear that that decision was motivated purely by the Scottish Office's need to generate income from the sale of Irvine new town's assets in order to try to offset the costs of local government reform.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Irvine development corporation; he should reflect on the efforts of Cunninghame district council, a number of years ago, when it was Labour-controlled. It attempted to persuade the then Secretary of State to give it the powers of that corporation. Surely, under the Bill, those powers are on offer to the local authority?
  Mr. Donohoe: That is my reading of the decision. Irvine new town area and Cunninghame will be deprived of £17 million as a result of the winding up of the development corporation, so the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will happen.
  When the Secretary of State launched the White Paper, he did not even mention the decision to wind up the Irvine development corporation. The launch was followed by a sham consultation, which ignored the views of thousands of new town tenants. They will now be forced into choosing a new landlord, with all that that means for their tenancy rights and rent levels. People are already bearing the brunt of the Secretary of State's reforms.
  The Bill also proposes, almost as a sideline, major reforms to Scotland's water and sewerage services. The transfer of those services to new boards means that their public accountability will be further eroded and that their operation will come under the influence of the Scottish Office. It is sad that that reform is apparently included as

  591
  one of the etceteras referred to in the Bill's title. Everyone relies on those essential services for their daily existence. They have billions of pounds of assets, and they employ tens of thousands of people, but they are not worthy of separate legislation.
  It seems that Ministers are simply more interested in trying to bury the issue of water and sewerage services in order to limit any further damage to the Government. It is clear that the Government's plans for the water and sewerage system is one step on the road to their eventual privatisation, according to the model used in England and Wales. Again, that reform does not command public support in Scotland, and it is irrelevant to the needs of the Scottish people.
  As someone who has first-hand experience, as a Member of Parliament for Ayrshire, of the blundering bureaucracy caused by the Government's national health service reforms, as implemented by Bill Fyfe through the Ayrshire and Arran health board, and of Ayrshire Enterprise's roundabout improvement programmes, which begin to look more and more irrelevant to the economic well-being of Ayrshire, I know that the last thing that Scotland needs is more boards and more Government appointees, on the model proposed by the Scottish Office.
  Government by boards and quangos is never a substitute for directly elected and directly accountable local councils. If the Secretary of State is keen to cut red tape and to abolish bureaucracy, he should turn his attention to the NHS trusts and the local enterprise companies which he set up, rather than concentrating on local government, which has proved its worth in terms of delivering good public services.
  It is clear that there is no justification for the reforms outlined in the Bill. There will be no savings or public support for the reform of local government and, even if those two factors were met, there is no case for reforming local government on the basis of a party political agenda that seeks to gerrymander new council boundaries for the Tory party's political gain.
  Local government is too important an issue for one party to manipulate for its own ends. The Secretary of State should note that and withdraw the Bill, before the House wastes any more time debating legislation that would be better known as the 'Local Misgovernment etc. (Scotland) Bill'.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is right to say that the Bill's title is a bit of a misnomer. If the Government had a shred of honesty left, they would describe the Bill as the Demolition of Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, because that is the hidden agenda behind it.
  The Government do not believe in local democracy or genuine local government because they see those as a threat to their power base, so they are out to destroy what little local democracy remains in Scotland. Their ideal council would probably meet for an hour once a year to dish out contracts to Tory cronies in the private sector and then retire for a liquid lunch.
  I do not support in every respect the existing system of local government. It is not perfect, and I am not alone among Opposition Members in expressing a preference for a single-tier system of councils, directly elected by and
  592
  accountable to the people. But that is not what the Bill proposes. It proposes not a one-tier system but a weakened two-tier and, in some areas, three-tier system consisting of, first, greatly weakened councils; secondly, joint authorities that will administer many of the important functions in many areas; and, thirdly, in all areas, non-elected quangos to administer the important services of water, sewerage and drainage.
  Some of the councils will not be big enough in terms of population and revenue base to provide efficiently for some of the important services, such as education, social work, the police and the fire brigade. I note that the chief executive of Central regional council, Douglas Sinclair, referred to that at a weekend conference. One of the councils to which he obviously referred was Stirling, the third smallest council proposed for mainland Scotland. If the Secretary of State is really determined to split Central region into two, surely it would be more logical in terms of population balance, community ties and transport communications for Clackmannan to be linked with Stirling rather than Falkirk.
  There are no prizes for guessing why the Government rejected that option. It would probably lead to two Labour-controlled councils in that area and the Government are determined to do everything in their power to retain a Tory enclave in the Stirling area.
  If the Government reject the claims of gerrymandering, whether it be in central or other parts of Scotland, why were they so afraid to refer the whole matter to an independent commission? This is the first time in living memory that such a major restructuring of local government is proposed by central Government with no input from an independent body. In the absence of a Scottish Parliament, the severe democratic deficit that already exists in Scotland will be deepened by the Bill.
  I warn the Secretary of State that the way in which the Government propose to force the Bill through Parliament will bring the Government into further disrepute and further expose that democratic deficit in Scotland. It will also reinforce the growing view among the Scottish people that the way that we are governed is an undemocratic farce.
  Reference has been made to what will happen at the end of Second Reading at 10 o'clock tonight. Look at how empty the Government Benches are now. At 10 o'clock, hon. Members will be drafted in on a three-line Whip—
  Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Canavan: No; I shall not give way because I am making a point.
  If the vote were left to hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, we would win by an overwhelming majority, but the Government Whip will simply crack the three-line Whip and in will come hordes of Tory Members representing constituencies south of the border who have not listened to an iota of the debate. They do not understand the legislation and their constituents will not be affected by it, yet they can use the system to outnumber us in the vote. Government Whips will also draft hon. Members representing constituencies south of the border on to the Committee, which will deprive Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies of an opportunity to represent the interests of our constituents on that Committee.
  That farcical procedure reinforces the case for a Scottish Parliament but, sadly, the Government do not believe in

  593
  democracy for Scotland, whether at parliamentary or at local level. The Government's model parliamentary structure is to retain a unitary, over-centralised Westminster Parliament. Until recently, their model local council was Westminster city council, along the road. Look at its track record. It sold off graveyards for a few pence and then misused £21 million of public money to sell homes and buy votes.
  Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, compared the activities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and those of Lady Porter. My hon. Friend was being a wee bit unfair to Lady Porter, because she misappropriated £21 million of public money to gerrymander the city of Westminster whereas the Secretary of State for Scotland is hellbent on misappropriating almost £200 million of public money to gerrymander the whole of Scotland. The Secretary of State is, in fact, a bigger villain than Lady Porter and, if there were any justice in this country, action would be taken against him to recover any public moneys misappropriated in the way that he intends.
  Recent events have caused the stench of corruption to emanate from the Government. The Bill is part and parcel of that corruption which is a symptom of terminal decline. However, the Government's days are numbered and, if they do not listen now to the views of the elected representatives of the people of Scotland, they will have to do so when those views are expressed in the ballot box. Later this year, the people of Scotland will give the Government a double whammy at the local elections and the Euro-elections, which will be the forerunner to the knockout punch. The sooner that comes, the better for the interests of the people of Scotland and all the other victims of this discredited, corrupt and totalitarian Government.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: I have sat here all day waiting to speak and I am very disappointed about the way in which the debate has been conducted. Some hon. Members spoke for 15 or 20 minutes and then intervened on other speakers, although many hon. Members were still waiting to be called. What I have to say will not take long because a great deal of time has already been wasted.
  I have had the experience of serving on an all-purpose authority and on Strathclyde regional council. I served Glasgow city for a long time and I know what can happen when Governments intervene. The Secretary of State for Scotland kept mentioning Wheatley and other hon. Members have referred to the disgraceful stance adopted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and its policy of non-co-operation. I do not blame COSLA, but hope that it will continue to oppose the Government's proposals. The Secretary of State quotes Wheatley, Stoddart and other commission reports but he does not believe in commissions. COSLA echoes the sentiments of every local authority in Scotland—no one wanted reorganisation.
  Strathclyde is a very large regional council. I know what that means because I represented the corporation of Glasgow for three years. Strathclyde has a population of 1·5 million and the area of about 66 acres that I represented had 125 public houses and 75 betting shops. Yes, we
  594
  needed a commission to examine such planning. The Wheatley commission was set up in 1966 but did not report until three years later, in 1969. Other commissions and committees, such as those headed by Baines, Maude and Paterson, also examined management structures.
  How can you expect Strathclyde region or Glasgow district council to respect the Government's proposals? Let us consider what those bodies had to deal with: pupil-teacher ratios, a declining population—[Interruption.] Look at that gang sniggering, especially the bespectacled fellow—the Government Whip—the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). He does not know what hardship is all about, but we saw the poverty and the Rachmanism in Glasgow where your Tory comrade neglected properties. Millions of pounds had to be spent to clear up the mess, and that is what will happen again.
  The Government say that one of the reasons for reforming local government is the size of the Strathclyde region—but it is also Labour-controlled. The Government have no control in Scotland. The handful of Tory Members present will be able to vote and to uproot and disrupt council members throughout Scotland. Those people have dedicated years to trying to provide better services. For example, social workers in Strathclyde changed the adoption rules and made it possible for youngsters to live with families, access for the disabled has improved in general and homes for the handicapped have been opened. The pupil-teacher ratio, which the council inherited, has been improved in slum areas such as parts of Glasgow.
  I am worried about Glasgow because its population has fallen to 663,000 and the Government want to reduce it further. By rigging the boundaries, they hope to reduce it by a further 47,000. The Secretary of State talked about consultation but the people of King's Park and Toryglen voted 90:10 against becoming part of South Lanarkshire.
  If the Secretary of State is serious about reforming local government in Scotland, he must examine why the Wheatley commission was established. Do we want to go back to the 1920s when the Government were telling local authorities to go bankrupt? Any reform must be viable, cost-effective and able to deliver services.
  If Glasgow is to survive, there must be a social-economic balance. We cannot provide education and all the other services from a population of 663,000. We must take into account the privileged areas such as Bearsden, Newton Mearns, Bishopbriggs and Milngavie. People from those areas probably travel into the city two or three days a week to work but they do not pay anything towards the city. If the city is to survive, the Secretary of State needs to widen boundary.
  Touche Ross was chosen to investigate the cost, but the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy disagreed with one aspect of its findings. CIPFA said that the on-going savings would be £49 million whereas Touche Ross estimated that they would be £120 million. Strathclyde believes that the savings would be minus 17 per cent., and it should know what the services cost.
  The Government have yet another figure, so something must be wrong somewhere. Government say that the transitional costs could possibly be £120 million to £196 million but, taking into account the on-going savings over a five-year period, they arrive at a figure of £310 million to £330 million. How can we discuss the reform of local

  595
  government when there are four or five different figures? The variation in the figures is one reason, Secretary of State, why you need to abandon the proposals.
  There is a ham-and-eggs situation and the Government will fail. You will keep people up all night, disrupt every local authority in Scotland and throw people out of jobs, all because you have not taken enough time or given the issue the necessary thought. We are not necessarily against reform, but you should at least have shown the regional and district councils the courtesy of evaluating exactly the work that they had done.
  However, you went in with a sweeping brush and swept aside people who had dedicated themselves to serving the council for 18 years. All of a sudden, their jobs have gone. Of course they are worried. COSLA is also worried and is right to do what it can. No hon. Member believes, Secretary of State, that you intend to keep the water—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman keeps using the word "you". The Chair is not responsible for any of the policies.
  Mr. Wray: Secretary of State, no hon. Member will agree that the Government do not intend to take water services out of public control. How much money will be invested'? About £5 billion will need to be spent on sewerage and water throughout Scotland. What is total investment now? I read in a paper that about £2·5 billion had been put up front; we are talking about £5 billion or so. What price will the taxpayers, ratepayers and electors of Scotland pay for that generous amount to be handed in to get the percentage from the boards that will run water services? We see it as privatisation of the water industry by the back door.
  Secretary of State, you should look twice and consider the state of the water industry in England, the corruption in that industry and where money was invested in that industry. It was not invested in water and sewerage; it was invested everywhere else. The only people who paid for water privatisation were the electors. I hope that, when you pass the Bill, you will ensure that it is honest and fair to the electors of Scotland.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is not in his seat. I tried to intervene earlier when he made an outrageous attack on council members from Monk lands. We have heard enough accusations in this place from hon. Members who do not come up with any proof of their allegations; they will make them in here, but will not open their mouths outwith this place. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here to hear my rebuttal. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He is here."] I apologise. I did not see the hon. Gentleman sneaking in from the side.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to certain practices, on which I cannot comment. He talked about patronage. He should consider the fact that Conservative Members who were defeated at the last election have been looked after by being given Government jobs and the chairmanships of boards and quangos. The wives of present and retired Conservative Members are appointed to trust boards and health boards. That seems to contradict what he was concerned about earlier.
  Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have realised that I quoted
  596
  allegations that were reported in several newspapers. Also, I talked about a Labour party inquiry and its findings. Does he disagree with the Labour party's findings, which accepted that there were goings-on that were not reputable?
  Mr. Hood: The hon. Member now says that he was only quoting allegations. He obviously does not know much about them. I am not in a position to comment—I do not know much about them either. If he is concerned about patronage, however, he should consider the patronage that has been dished out by his party and he should not criticise others unfairly.
  I see that the Secretary of State is smiling. I had a smile on my face myself when, at the end of his speech, he referred to "back to basics". He reminded me of a good lawyer speaking to a bum brief: the local government reforms are unwanted and unnecessary.
  What is good about the Bill is its title: Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. I would support anything that aimed to improve local government, local democracy and local services. We could have a good debate on how to achieve that, but that is not what the Government intend.
  Historically, local government has always protected communities against the excesses of central Government. Perhaps that is why, when this Government were first elected in 1979 under Mrs. Thatcher, they were obsessively opposed to local government. They wanted to have their way, to dictate to local government and to prevent it from providing and setting services for local communities. Historically, Labour authorities have always been able to provide those services. It is difficult today for Labour or other authorities to protect communities from the policies of this Government. Not satisfied with that, the Government are making a further attack on local government and local democracy.
  Conservative Members have said that this is a decentralising Bill. Far from it; it is very much a centralising Bill. The Government are obsessed with centralising power. We should consider the position in western Europe—and in eastern Europe, where all the moves towards democracy involve decentralising power down to the people and communities. From day one in 1979, the Government have been centralising power in the hands of a few individuals. Power is not being centralised in Parliament; to say that we are Parliament and that we run the show is a load or nonsense.
  There was hypocrisy on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Some hon. Members—I shall not refer to them as the Prime Minister did, when he questioned their parenthood—were against the loss of sovereignty in this place. They said that power must not be centralised in Brussels, or in Europe, and that we needed decentralisation. They talked about subsidiarity, down to the nth degree of where democracy is. What was meant was down to Downing street and its policy unit: they would not let people have a say outwith that.
  As my hon. Friends have said, we are not against change, but we want change for the better. No legitimate change will improve local government unless its first step is to form a Scottish Parliament. That would decentralise power. Surely the way to protect democracy is to pass decisions down to the nth degree. I am proud of the policy of my party, because one of its first acts in Government will be to deliver decentralisation to the United Kingdom, not just to Scotland and Wales. That is what we mean by

  597
  people's power. One of the farces on television used to talk about power to the people. That is what democracy is about.
  With whom will the power to provide services reside in Scotland? Will it be with the councils and councillors? Certainly not. Will it be with communities and council tax payers? Will they be able to hold people accountable to them? Certainly not. Will it be with unelected, unaccountable Tory-placed quangos? Yes.
  We talk about unitary authorities and single-tier authorities. We are not talking about single-tier government. We are talking about replacing the present second tier—the regions, which are elected bodies—with unelected quangos. We are talking about the power that the Secretary of State cannot get through the ballot box in Scotland, so he is taking it through Westminster and vesting it in St. Andrew's house. The powers of the regions will be taken by a governing party which has only nine or 10 seats out of 72 in Scotland. That is not democracy or decentralisation and that is not what we want in our democracy.
  Plenty has been said about Strathclyde and not merely here tonight. I remember when the Prime Minister went to Scotland and made a speech pledging support for the exchange rate mechanism—we were kicked out seven days later. In the same speech he said that the Government would get rid of Strathclyde. What has Strathclyde done to be so hated by the Government? My grandfather was a trade union official and he used to tell me, "Son, when the bosses attack you, you're obviously doing your job." Strathclyde council should be damn proud of the fact that this Tory Government are attacking it. It certainly means that it is doing something to upset the Government, so it must be doing its job—preserving services and defending the interests of its electors and of our constituents and communities.
  We cannot ignore the fact that the Government's motive for attacking regional councils—Strathclyde in particular—is the same motive that drove them to get rid of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils: that they were all Labour-controlled. The truth is that what they cannot win through the ballot box they intend to get through their policies. It is nothing short of dictatorship.
  The education provisions of the Bill worry me greatly. I have a 14-year-old child, who is getting a damn good education out of Strathclyde regional council—an excellent education—as do tens of thousands of other children. What about education for the under-fives? The Prime Minister has been converted to that cause and says that it is now Government policy.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Back to basics.
  Mr. Hood: Yes, we might even get back to the basics on education.
  Strathclyde spends £42 million on educating 25,000 children under five. That is not something that it should be condemned for—it should be praised. Who will provide community education? The Bill contains no mention of that. Small authorities, whether in Eastwood or elsewhere, cannot make the economics of scale. What about the 45,000 pupils with special needs? I am seriously concerned about the effects of the Bill on education. The Government's real motive for the Bill is that they are again
  598
  being driven by dogma. The new local authorities will have to force schools to opt out because they cannot afford to provide an adequate education system. They will be forced to abdicate responsibility and accountability for our kids' education.
  I am also worried about social work. Hon. Members often mention the housing aspects of social work and the two must be linked, but it is not merely about housing. When we talk about social work we are talking about livelihoods, about protecting people and about life itself. One cannot leave social work to the fancy rhetoric of buying services. Social work is about trying to help the very needy, those with social problems, socially deprived families and offenders when they come out of prison. The Bill will not help.
  What about voluntary organisations? My constituency covers more than 500 square miles and thousands of my constituents are involved with voluntary organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, but they need financial support from the community. Members of Parliament and councils are not always there to do the work that is done by that much-needed service, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. Our voluntary organisations will be run on a hope and a prayer and my guess is that they will be severely damaged.
  Mrs. Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was born and bred in his constituency and still have contacts there. He is talking about community care and looking after the elderly. Is he aware that Cornhill house will be closed next year and that no additional members will therefore be accepted into that community? The alternatives are Beattock or Lamancha in Lothian. That is totally inappropriate for the families and the people of the area who are deeply concerned about their elderly parents.
  Mr. Hood: Absolutely. I am well aware of that problem and I am making representations on the subject. It is not helped by the financial constraints that have been placed on local authorities. The care in the community provisions cause us great concern. The Government have dumped that policy on local government and now they are saying, "It's your baby." They are walking away and washing their hands of it as they have done all too often.
  Public transport policy is also worrying. I mentioned the size of my constituency. As it covers more than 500 square miles, roads and transport feature strongly among the services needed by such a community. The statistics are provided in an excellent brief from Strathclyde regional council. As is probably always the case, negative news gets better coverage than positive news. Strathclyde has an excellent record on transport and roads. I am sure that hon. Members often write to the council to complain about this, that and the other, but its record on some things is excellent, especially on transport. Who will provide travelcards and help with bus fares in the constituency?
  I was a local councillor in Newark—now it is Newark and Sherwood—in the east Midlands, where I was a member of a hung council. The power went to and fro. We were in opposition, then we would be in government for six weeks, but would have to resign and let the Tories take over again and so on. I remember negotiating with four independent farmers—who usually voted Tory. They put us in power to set up a travelcard scheme under which we paid half the fare. The scheme had a tremendous impact and was a great service to the community. It did not merely

  599
  provide a worthwhile service for the elderly and disabled but had a large impact on employment. We have heard from the Government about some of the consequences for employment. They are running away from reality if they do not realise that the Bill will have majjor consequences for employment. There are 400,000 travelcard holders, which means 400,000 people using local transport. If the scheme goes, many jobs with that excellent service will go, too.
  The council also has—I speak again as a rural member of Parliament—an excellent dial-a-bus service. When one cannot walk a hundred yards but one can get a bus down into the local town to do a wee bit of shopping and have a wee bit of a day out, it means a lot. One can travel by that bus from Biggar, where the mother of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) lives. She probably tells her daughter that she votes for the Scottish National party, but I daresay that she will vote Labour and not tell her about that. It is a great service to a community. All those services are put at risk by the nonsense and gerrymandering of the Bill.
  Then there are the great problems of rail transport. Carstairs is in my constituency. Sadly, the railway has been run down over the years. We keep arguing and writing to the Minister. I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is in his place. He has had loads of letters from me and my constituents about preserving the excellent service to Carstairs.
  We also need to extend rail services into the rural community because we have to provide sustenance for rural communities, not just for travelling for leisure, but to improve the opportunities for travelling to and from work. I fear that if the excellent rail services that are provided by Strathclyde regional council go, as they may well do, in whatever form they come back it will not be up to the present standards. That would have a devastating effect on our community.
  I have taken the opportunity to mention but a few of my objections to the Bill. I will resume my seat by saying that it is a bad Bill from a gerrymandering, bad Government.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: Having been a councillor for 16 years on Midlothian county council and, after the Wheatley report, a regional councillor in the Lothians, I was aware of the prior organisational problems of local authorities. I object, however, to the Secretary of State for Scotland stating that the consultation was equivalent to the Wheatley inquiry. It is an insult to Lord Wheatley and it is not factually and historically correct. Had there been a Wheatley-type inquiry, many of the anomalies in the Bill would have been eradicated because common sense would have prevailed. Hon Members should not blame Wheatley for what happened to local authorities after his inquiry because much of the Wheatley report was ignored and it was changed in the House before it was implemented.
  The reorganisation of local government in Scotland and especially in my region, the Lothians, is not top of the priority list of people who are in need and it is certainly not top of the priority list of Scotland. There is a great desire for a greater say in the autonomy of Scotland and for a Parliament in Scotland. Conservative Members have repeatedly said that the Labour party had in its manifesto that we were in favour of a one-tier authority, after the placement of a Parliament in Edinburgh or in Scotland as
  600
  a whole, because there would be debate, discussion and inquiries and everyone could be consulted about the type of local authority that would suit their region. The excuse has been made that a one-tier, all-purpose authority simplifies the role oflocal government to the people. It may do so in theory, but I do not think that that is what has motivated the Government.
  The Bill is a bit of a farce and it is stripping the responsibilities away from the local authorities.They will lose the police, fire, water and drainage services, in some areas they will have to have joint education authorities and they must come together for strategic planning. We are back to the bad old days when they used to hire the McEwan hall for strategic planning. I went there with the local authorities in the Lothians area. If there were strategic planning matters there was a whole delegation from burghs and God knows where. We had to have a whole host of people.
  The chairmen of the quangos will be appointed by the Secretary of State, which certainly does not add to local autonomy or democracy. When I heard the Government saying, "We shall make them accountable to the ratepayers," with rate capping and all the Government's other activities, financial or otherwise, I remembered when we stood by our rates and were voted either in or out of office because of the rates. People were well aware that they either got services or they got no services and low rates. They could pick whatever person they wanted if that was the policy—and many of them did.
  The interference with the autonomy of local government is unbelievable. It is centralisation gone mad. If hon. Members do not believe me, I refer to a letter in The Scotsman on Friday, not from any radical left-wing group but from the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation. They say that the Government are undermining democracy in the police service because a chairman will be appointed by the Secretary of State to talk about, interfere and, yes, take instructions on what type of policing is carried out. In other words, there will be a centralised situation. The letter states categorically that they are very unhappy and that the Government should rethink all aspects of that plan.
  Mrs. Ewing: From a sedentary position I mentioned the fact that the Secretary of State appeared to attack that today in The Scotsman. That seems wrong, given that there has been no consultation about that piece of legislation.
  Mr. Clarke: Who else can the Government annoy? They have annoyed the Prison Officers Association lately. Now it is the police. I wonder who else will be alienated by the Government. There is no one left. I do not know of anyone who has not been alienated by them in some respects.
  The geographical hybrids suggested by the Secretary of State pertaining to my region, Midlothian—West Lothian and East Lothian or part of East Lothian and the amalgamation of that part is impractical and, in our opinion, unnecessary. This corridor of eight or nine miles—I call it the Rifkind-Lang enclave—is nothing to do with Bosnia but to do with a Tory enclave separating us geographically from Midlothian and the Pentland hills and it is nonsense. Everyone knows that West Lothian has a partly developed new town with a population of 49,000

  601
  people, and that the biggest town in Midlothian is Penicuik which is three times smaller. Where do we base our headquarters? Where would be the geographical lead, bearing in mind that the nonsense of people having more access to local government would be turned on its head if the plans were to go ahead?
  In the past, Midlothian county council had its headquarters in Edinburgh. That will not be helpful to the people in terms of fostering local identity in the community. I suggest that it is a non-runner. West Lothian has a population of 146,000 people and is a reasonable size. If one takes Mid and East Lothian—the whole of East Lothian—into account, one has a population of 165,000 people, which is also a reasonable size. The policy could work only if we put Berwickshire back into the Borders, where it belongs and where it wishes to stay. I hope that the Secretary of State and others will take cognisance of the feeling generated in that part of Scotland.
  It is proposed that there should be an East Lothian and Midlothian trust health board, which will extend across the area about which I am talking. The present education area is acceptable and does not need to extend into the Borders. Our mutual borders connect anyway.
  One of my worries, which I am sure is shared by everyone, is the cost of the changes, and the burden on the taxpayers and especially on the ratepayers. If we do not get the formula right for the people, they will bear an unnecessary burden for many years. If we do not get it right, we shall lose services. It is said that some can go to another authority, or that authorities can amalgamate. Can they? What price will be paid? How jointly will decisions be made? How much coercion will there have to be? How much priority will the people who have to go cap in hand receive?
  One example of the nonsense talked here today was the proposal for the amalgamation of West Lothian and Midlothian, and for the amalgamation of part of East Lothian with Berwickshire. The Secretary of State must listen to common sense, and I hope that he will. He kept saying that various matters would be dealt with in Committee. I hope that the Committee will not be a secret service Committee and that matters will not be dealt with clandestinely. I hope that the Committee will be given time, and that every aspect covering every area in Scotland will be given the same priority.
  The people of Scotland look to us to salvage something that makes sense out of the Bill. Scoring points off one another will achieve nothing. However, one or two anomalies have cropped up. What will happen in areas in which the local authority is the largest employer? Are local authority employees still barred from taking office? Will the vast proportion of the population in rural areas be barred from taking office because they are employed by the local authority?
  When do we intend to start paying councillors a salary? When do we intend to stop the nonsense of giving them so-called "expenses"? We treat them like messenger boys. Councillors are responsible individuals. If the Government can give fees to people on quangos who have not been elected, they can give proper salaries to councillors—and I mean proper salaries. People who would otherwise
  602
  consider standing for office may not do so because they cannot afford it, because they see that there is no career for them and because their pension rights will not be protected.
  Are our councillors to be old-age pensioners or Tory wifies who happen to be married—[Interruption.] I use the word "wifies" because I am referring to women who are married to rich gentlemen who are too busy to take office themselves. Are those the councillors we want? Are we to have councils that meet on a part-time basis in the evening—pseudo-community councils with no proper responsibilities? Is that what we are aiming for? No. We want responsible, dedicated men and women. We have such people now and many have made severe financial sacrifices to do their jobs. It is no laughing matter. It is a serious business. Those issues should be considered along with the reorganisation. If it is a proper reorganisation, they will be considered. I wish the Committee all the success that it deserves and I hope that we shall not face the prospect of, as some of my hon. Friends have said, a gerrymandered, blinkered and ideologically bigoted reform.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I support the Government's proposals for reorganising local government in Scotland, because local government is important, whether it is in Scotland, in England or in Wales. Local government costs about £80 billion per annum. We must ensure that we are getting value for money and that we have efficient structures in local government, whether in Scotland, in England or in Wales.
  Many of us are concerned about bad authorities, wherever they are. We all rise to make points in the House when we hear about bad authorities. I know that many people in the Monklands area will be pleased to see the demise of that local council under the Government's proposals. The council's practices are thorougly undesirable and should be condemned by all hon. Members.
  Mr. Wray: Does the hon. Gentleman feel the same way about the misdirection of £21 million in Westminster, which is being investigated now, as he does about Monklands?
  Mr. Shaw: I can honestly say to the hon. Gentleman that, if anything were proven in Westminster, I, along with everyone else, would condemn the situation. However, nothing has been proven at present; there is a series of allegations.
  The position in Monklands has been written about and accepted widely. The provost's son, daughter and son-in-law are employed by the council. The brother-in-law, son and son-in-law of the leader of the council are employed by the council. The former provost, who was the election agent for the Leader of the Opposition, has his brother employed by the council. Another councillor has his daughter and sister-in-law employed by the council. Another councillor has his wife and nephew employed by the council.
  Another councillor has his cousin, his brother-in-law and his sister-in-law employed by the council. Another councillor has his wife, his daughter and, it is believed, six other relatives employed by the council. I have not mentioned another four councillors, each of whom has a relative employed by the council. In total, about 25 close relatives of councillors are employed by Monklands council.

  603
  That employment was more than a coincidence; it did not happen by accident. There was a system of pink and green forms. The general citizenry of the area got pink forms, whereas the families of councillors got green forms. As a result, they were efficiently employed, more quickly than anyone else.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Shameful.
  Mr. Shaw: It was a disgraceful practice. My hon. Friend says it was shameful. It was such a bad practice that even the Labour party, when pressed by many of the local ward committees, instigated an inquiry and a report. The Labour party, in what was seen by many to be a substantial whitewash, could not help but say that the procedures operated by the council left councillors open to criticism.
  There has been far more than just openness to criticism. Everyone says that it is disgraceful and shameful for so many councillors to have been able to get jobs for so many of the close members of their families. People feel, therefore, that local government reorganisation in that area of Scotland will be of immense benefit if it does away with the practice of nepotism in employment.
  There is also concern about the planning regulations in the Monklands area. Some 14 rules in the local plan were breached by a developer. 'This was no ordinary developer; it happened to be the leader of the council. He breached 14 rules in his own council's local plan—an amazing state of affairs. Many other developers cannot understand why their planning applications are turned down while the planning applications of the leader of the council are approved with such speed and such ease, even when they breach 14 rules in the local plan.
  People in the Monklands area are also anxious that local government reorganisation should prevent financial abuse. They were worried when the council leader had a property acquired by the council at a very good price. They were worried when that councillor went on to invest the proceeds in a business that resulted in a Scottish Development Agency loan and in the Government having to write off £44,000.
  They were worried about a councillor being in a position of such power and about how council structures could result in that position of power, enabling a nursing home to be developed and enabling a £2 million project to be developed. The taxpayer, the council tax payer and the ratepayer lose at every stage of the development of that £2 million project.
  Mysteriously, companies lose money and go into liquidation and we find that the council loses money on the way as a result. These are strange affairs, which I hope will yet yield a proper investigation and a police inquiry.
  We also find that there has been a £20 million bias to Coatbridge away from Airdrie in the expenditure of recent years in Monklands district council. Therefore, the proposed new council, hopefully, will have less political bias in the area, and, in consequence, the citizenry of Monklands, West and Monklands, East hope that they will have a better authority to manage them than they have at the moment.
  We are also concerned with the structures of local government and the way in which it can have an unreasonable, unrealistic and nonsensical control over officers. Every local authority elected official needs a certain control over its officers.
  604
  There is concern about how, in the Monklands area, the council leader managed to walk away with a £1,000 cheque, which he paid into a personal bank account, when the cheque was issued by the council to a local builder. It is staggering that such an incident could occur and for the council officers to say that it was their fault, when the leader of the council picked up the cheque himself and paid it into his own bank account.
  Why are the council officers taking the blame for something that is nothing to do with them and when it should be the responsibility of the council leader? Again, we must question whether a proper inquiry and investigation of such matters are taking place.
  We must also be concerned about the degree to which councillors such as those in Monklands can engage in loss-making projects. The heritage centre and various other projects in the Monklands area are losing the council vast amounts of money. The projects have not been properly discussed at council meetings. Those discussions have taken place behind closed doors. The local Labour councillors do not encourage discussion of those loss-making activities, despite the fact that most of the top-ranking Labour councillors are involved with the boards of directors concerned. The affairs of those companies are carried on in secrecy, well away from the council.
  The citizenry of Monklands get to hear about the losses only when they are reported in the local newspaper, which at one stage, pushed by the Labour leader, the council was thinking of suing. In the end, through its columns, the newspaper persuaded the citizenry of the area to object to it, and consequently persuaded the Labour group to withdraw its approval of the Labour leader's litigation funded by the council. That was appalling, and no way in which to run a council or a local authority in Scotland or elsewhere.
  My final concern about the way in which the local authority in the Monklands is run under present regime concerns housing repairs. It was well established that certain houses in the area were having repairs carried out. The repairs were allegedly completed and a grant was claimed from the Government on the basis that work was allegedly done. However, the work was not done, it had not been completed and improper pressure was put on certain people to sign that the work had been done. There needs to be a thorough investigation into that matter before Monklands council passes into a new authority.
  There is no question but that the people of the Monklands area want to see a new council, and that they will be pleased with the changes that the Government are proposing. They want to see the Bill enacted, and I hope that it will not be delayed in Committee.
  My constituents in Dover, and the people of Scotland, need to see radical change in local government in England, Wales and Scotland, so that we can get better value for money out of our local authorities. We are all appalled by what has gone on in Monklands, where the local authority is badly run by bad Labour councillors; they should be ousted from control of that Labour authority.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West arid Inverclyde): Tonight, we are discussing one of the most irrelevant Bills. It is being foisted on the people of Scotland and is utterly unnecessary. We are fiddling the

  605
  future of local government and finance when Britain is suffering from the burden of a £50 billion debt, which has been created by the mismanagment of the Government. We will not see a good proposal for local government from such a bad central Government.
  I was a councillor for the Renfrew fourth district council—a small fish in local government, but near to the local people. I was a councillor for Strathclyde regional council, which was big local government, but not bad. I remember the day when I spent my time in Strathclyde and felt that I was contributing something worthwhile and that the services provided by Strathclyde were among the best provided by a local authority in Great Britain.
  The Tory party's hatred of local government in Scotland is due to the fact that they cannot win enough seats there. They have not managed to win the confidence of the people of Scotland, so they see Strathclyde as big and bad because they cannot control and manipulate it, and because they are not the people involved in delivering good services to the community.
  The Prime Minister said that Strathclyde was a monstrous authority. He should get "back to basics" and make a wee study, and he will find that, throughout the years, his Ministers were telling folk all over the world how good Strathclyde regional council was. The past two Secretaries of State for Scotland regularly said how good Strathclyde was.
  However, the symptomatic problem with the Tories is that they have never supported local authorities anywhere where a council has been elected by the normal electoral method, such as the Greater London council, which they abolished. One of the proposals for Scotland will clearly abolish Strathclyde and is obvious gerrymandering to anyone who has some knowledge of local or central Government. The editorial of The Herald said:
  "basic or not—against local government. The main aim has been fairly obviously to dismantle Strathclyde region, despite its record of responsible behaviour during the years of Conservative government."
  The Minister knows that that newspaper is not a Labour party organisation. It may not be a Tory organisation either. However, it is certainly spelling out the message to the Government that gerrymandering is not on, and that the Government's whole aim is to abolish Strathclyde.
  As I said, the Prime Minister called Strathclyde a monstrosity. I remember the days of monstrous local government in Scotland, when there was a move to abolish it and make local government more accountable to the public. It was reorganised, and very small local authorites were abolished which were never in a position to provide many of the services which we now receive. The Minister knows well that I served on the Renfrew fourth district council, which was too small to deliver services.
  That reorganisation went down the right road. Strathclyde is a good authority and it is also on the right road. However, I do not believe that anything should just be left to roll along. I believe that improvements should always continue to be made, and that reviews should always be made. We are continually reviewing our own lives, so there is no reason why we should not keep improving local government and ensure that there is district machinery.
  Strathclyde was a moderate council. It certainly was an innovative council. Its deliberations were always
  606
  moderate, and it never sought confrontation with Government, be it Labour or Tory. It aimed to deliver the best possible services for the people it represents. It was a flagship Labour authority. I am proud to have been a Strathclyde councillor and to have served under some of the greatest local councillors, such as the late Dick Stewart, an amazing man who dedicated his life to improving our society.
  What pleasure do the Government take from setting up a gerrymandering local government boundary? There will be a change of Government. A Labour Government will be elected, and they will repeal the damage that has been inflicted by this Government.
  The other night, I sat here trying to take part in a debate on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, which the Government had guillotined. People and businesses in Britain wished the Bill to be fully debated, but the "back to basics" policy came into play, and the Leader of the House decided it was back to bed for Tory Back Benchers. I understand that Tory Whips were phoning around to ensure that all the heads were on the right pillows. I am sure that they had a problem finding some of them.
  We had a great folk singer who sang of the Dunlopillo in the sky. Many Conservative Members will be spending their time with a Dunlopillo in the sky and we shall be in government, because they will be rejected by the electorate, especially in Scotland.
  The Government are putting us back to the wall. Scotland has good local authorities, with some wonderful characters and hard-working men and women, who have served them for many decades. Their experience, voices and opinions have been cast to the wind. Many Tory and Liberal Members have objected to this proposed reorganisation.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Name them.
  Mr. Graham: The hon. Member wishes me to name them. I will ring them up after the debate and print their names in an early-day motion.
  The Government are in a big enough mess without making a mess of local government in Scotland. We have had Iraq gate, and Westminstergate, and now we have Langgate. It is a big gate. I assure the Minister that the Bill will be exposed to the people of Scotland as a measure that will lead to bad, costly government. The people of Scotland will beg Labour to repeal it and to return to the common-sense government that they have been used to for the past 20 years.
  The previous Prime Minister was going to abolish quangos. What did we see? They nearly filled Wembley with quangos. We have thousands of quangos, costing millions of pounds. In future, in Scotland we shall nickname them not quangos but "Langos". Asil Nadir may be over in Cyprus, but the Secretary of State's paid-for Tory boys will be getting a wee bit of dross to fill their buckets and to ensure that the Tory party gets some funs to put up a wee bit of a show at the local elections.
  I do not want to take up all the House's time. I believe that the Government's policy on local authorities, especially in Scotland, is fatally flawed. The Secretary of State made a very sweeping remark: that the people of Scotland do not like their local authorities. Renfrew district council asked a neutral, professional organisation to conduct a survey on its behalf. Its findings of satisfaction were: refuse collection, 86 per cent., street cleaning 47 per

  607
  cent., libraries, 85 per cent., parks and open spaces, 63 per cent., and swimming pools and sports centres, 73 per cent. Overall, 62 per cent. of folk felt that their services were all right. Renfrew district compares well with other district councils in Britain.
  Mr. Gallie: Given what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Renfrew district council, may I assume that he will support its plea to become a single-tier authority as opposed to Strathclyde's position?
  Mr. Graham: I wish that I could propose what I would like to see for local government in Scotland. It certainly would be a million miles from this. It would suit the needs of the people I represent.
  Renfrew conducted a postal poll, to which 79·5 per cent. of people responded. It covered Ralston, which is part of the Paisley, North constituency, Dykebar, which is part of the Paisley, South constituency, Parkhead, Neilston and Uplamoor, which is in the Minister's constituency.
  In Ralston, 82 per cent. of people voted to stay with the council. Ralston has always had a Tory councillor, so one would not expect 82 per cent. of its people to reject the Government's boundary proposals. In Dykebar, the figure was 91·2 per cent., and in Parkhead and Neilston, which is in the Minister's constituency, it was 78·5 per cent.
  What an indictment of the Government's gerrymandering of the boundaries. Ordinary men and women call it gerrymandering. They have seen through the Government. They have seen through the Tory party's plans to decimate our local identities.
  The Secretary of State will reap the harvest at the next general election, but before that there will be the European elections. I am sure that we will wipe the floor with the Tories in Scotland. There will be none left.
  I conclude by referring to an article in the The Herald by Claude Thomson, who covered local authority matters for many years. He is a journalist who is respected by hon. Members on all sides of the House. In that article, Mr. Thomson wrote:
  "All but the most ardent opponents of regionalisation acknowledged that Strathclyde has performed much better than the authorities it superseded."
  The article concluded:
  "When the definitive history of Strathclyde comes to be written setting out not only its successes but its admitted shortcomings I have no doubt it will stand proud comparison with whatever succeeds it."
  Even at this late stage, I call upon the Tory party in Scotland and on Tory Ministers to turn back and listen to the will of the people in Scotland, to return to sanity and to leave us alone.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. During my time in the House, I can hardly think of another piece of major legislation in respect of which the speeches from the Government Benches were so pathetic and desultory in their attempt to present a rational case. In the Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw) we had respectively the bland, the bizarre and the plain bonkers. If they represented a selection of the cases that can be made for the legislation, it reflects very poorly on the Bill.
  The false premise on which the Bill proceeds is that somehow we are returning to single-tier local government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen
  608
  (Mr. McAvoy) and others have said, there never was single-tier local government in most parts of Scotland. All the Government's problems flow from that falsehood. The attempt to balance what cannot really be balanced produces the difficulty in providing authorities that are acceptable to the great majority of people in Scotland.
  If an authority is small enough in geographical terms to be viable, the population is often not in keeping with that. For example, in the highlands there is a small population in a huge geographical area while there is a perfectly viable, and perhaps too big, population in Ayrshire for a single-tier authority. As a result, with the kind of balance that the Government are trying to strike, local government services and the places from where they are administered would be taken further away from the people who are represented. That is certainly true of my constituency.
  For example, if an all-Ayrshire local authority had district council responsibilities, the centre of that authority would be much further from the people than at present. The same criticism applies to the north Ayrshire authority that the Government suggest for my constituency.
  There is nothing new about the dilemma. It is precisely the dilemma that the Wheatley commission examined almost 30 years ago. That commission was faced with the fact that a plethora of authorities had been created by the forces of history. These included district and town councils, royal burghs and county councils. While there was clearly an unevenness of pattern, what had to be maintained from the system was the fundamental principle of two tiers. Some services were best delivered at the level of a large authority while other services were best delivered by a small and more local authority.
  I am not expressing my personal views here with any force. However, if I had been starting with a clean piece of paper, I would have believed that there was a case for giving more powers to even smaller authorities than are proposed. Some very local responsibillities should best be decided at a local level. There should perhaps be more of a role for community-type councils.
  I grew up in Dunoon which had a town council. That was an appropriate level at which to decide some matters which were of intense and burning interest to that community and to that community alone. Other decisions were taken at a county council level. That was a form of two-tier local government.
  However, before this ridiculous legislation was proposed, no one suggested that there should be a pattern of uniformity throughout Scotland in respect of which everything would be decided on a single-tier local government level. That is the basic fallacy from which all the other problems flow and that is why there is so much opposition and resistance to the proposals in Scotland.
  I believe that the status quo should be maintained. The status quo works reasonably well and it has a high degree of acceptance among the population in the area that I represent. Where does the obsession to change the way in which things operate at the moment come from? Was it a wicked socialist plot to set up the Scottish regions originally? Of course not. The legislation that is now being undone was passed by Parliament barely 20 years ago under a Conservative Government. There are still some Tory Members today who voted for the legislation which created the regions.

  609
  In the interim, a much more partisan type of Tory Government has emerged for whom it is anathema that there are authorities which are Labour-controlled and also deeply effective.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the status quo and why it should remain. If the status quo is so perfect and so right, why did the hon. Gentleman's manifesto refer to a return to single-tier authorities? Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he supports a Scottish Assembly?
  Mr. Wilson: I support a Scottish Assembly because my party supports a Scottish Assembly. That view was part of the manifesto. The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. We contemplated single-tier authorities because there was going to be another layer of government in Scotland and therefore the concept of two-tier government was going to be perpetuated. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in comprehending that. Just because the brief states that he should ask that question does not mean that the question is very good.
  Dr. Godman: The gerrymandering nature of the proposals is plainly demonstrated in the treatment being meted out to the proposed East Renfrewshire council and what is going to happen to Inverclyde district council. Thirty thousand people signed a petition which I presented to the Minister just three months ago. Those petitioners begged to have Inverclyde as a unitary council, but that was totally ignored by the Government.
  Mr. Wilson: Again, that is the problem which Conservative Members purport not to understand. Of course there is no contradiction in what I have said. The vast majority of people in my constituency and, I suspect, in my hon. Friend's constituency, are not clamouring for the reform of Scottish local government. They wish to maintain the status quo; they appreciate the status quo. Of course they will take up defensive positions if change is forced upon them. In Ayrshire, and in Cunninghame specifically, given the option, the great majority of people would maintain the status quo. The more they realise what they are going to lose, the stronger their opinion will become. But if the status quo is not an option, of course, some people would support an all-Ayrshire authority.
  As I have set out to demonstrate from the first day the measure was announced, if the other options fail, a viable case for Cunninghame is supported on a cross-party basis. But the one thing that nobody supports is what the Government are putting forward. That is the key point. There is overwhelming support for the status quo and there is support for other possibilities, but there is no support for what the Government are putting forward. I have repeatedly put that point to the Minister, with all-party support from the council chamber and from every walk of life in my constituency. I hope that that point will eventually be brought to bear.
  I wish to go smartly through two or three points and raise a particular interest, which is the future of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive and the absolute folly of what is being done in respect of public transport in Strathclyde. It is one of the issues that will begin to press home upon even the most mindless Conservative Members. People have to appreciate what they have in
  610
  order to become angry about what is being taken from them. In Strathclyde, we have the best suburban transport system in the British isles and one of the best in Europe, and we have it because we have a visionary local authority which has the scale and the resources to develop it, invest in it, and put serious backing behind it. If we fragment the basis of that system we will fragment the system itself and it will wither on the vine.
  There are now two threats pressing upon the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. One is the pri"atisation of British Rail which, if it were not for the additional grant for which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has agreed to be a conduit from the Department of Transport, next year alone would add £5 million to fares purely for the reorganisation costs of privatisation. The Minister indicates assent. In the long term, rail privatisation will be a deeply serious threat to the PTE concept. In addition, we have the crazy breaking up of the foundation on which the PTE is built.
  I can only briefly explain the point, but it is important to have it on the record. If, under the legislation, a PTE continues, but does not have power to precept constituent local authorities, it will be only as strong as its weakest part. That problem is faced at present by PTEs in England.
  Let me give a brief example, mainly from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). Recently, she and I attended the reopening of an old railway line, which has been closed since the Beeching days, in the north of Glasgow, serving communities which can particularly benefit from having such railway services. I am sure that my hon. Friend will confirm that they are already benefiting from them.
  The only organisation that could do that was the Strathclyde PTE, which put the money into reopening stations. It was able to do so because it is a unitary body. In future, in order to make such investment decisions to give stations back to the people of Possil, Summerston, Ashfield and Maryhill, the executive would have to have the agreement of councils in east Renfrewshire, Milngavie and Bearsden—all over the shop. They would have to say, "We are prepared to commit resources which are not going directly to the communities that we represent."
  I do not believe for one moment that, if that system had been in place, we would have had the wonderful electrification system in Ayrshire. I do not believe that we would be reopening stations at Whitletts and in other parts of Lanarkshire. I do not believe that there would be cross-subsidisation 'between successful Ayrshire lines, for instance, and routes in Lanarkshire which are inherently loss-making but which provide a social service. All that is being put at risk by the legislation. That is a real liberty to take with something which works so well.
  At present, most of the anger about the legislation—let us be realistic; the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is not the talk of the steamie—comes from groups within Strathclyde who realise the damage that will be done and who are apprehensive about the implications. There are people who are most impinged upon by specialist services. There are people who rely on special needs education and on specialist social work services. There are people who benefit from specialist educational services. Those people are beginning to realise the great threat that exists.
  However, there is a very big category of people who are next to realise what will be done. Pensioners and others who rely on concessionary fares in Strathclyde will realise that that system, too, will be dependent on the weakest part

  611
  of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. There is no prospect of maintaining a unified concessionary fare system if the legislation is passed.
  I shall speak briefly about the county in which I spent the first 20 years of my life. I want to put something on the record because I may not participate in future debates on the Bill. It may be time for Argyll to be floated off. If that is the wish of Argyll, so be it. In passing, I shall give the Minister a history and geography lesson. Helensburgh is not in Argyll. It never was and it never will be in Argyll. The Minister can draw as many lines on the map as he wants, but he will never change that essential fact.
  No one should ever underestimate what Strathclyde has done for Argyll. My late father worked for Argyll county council until his dying day. Until that day, wage negotiations for officials were a matter of seeing a local councillor; people who did industrial and manual work did not have proper clothing, much less proper wages and conditions; roads were third rate and single track; and education and social work provisions were all on the cheap.
  Strathclyde has taken Argyll and its services by the boot-straps in the past 20 years, and a great many people in Argyll who will never vote Labour in their lives appreciate that. To denigrate what Strathclyde has done for Argyll is to denigrate the memory of people such as the late Geoff Shaw, who worked himself into an early grave ensuring that every part of Strathclyde had an equal deal—Labour and Tory; rural and urban. That is why Strathclyde was founded on such a firm basis.
  I shall make my next point because I am sure that it will not be the centrepiece of future debates on the Bill. Clause 138 of the Bill is worth a mention. It has only two lines, which state:
  "On and after 1st April 1995 no shootings, deer forests or fishings shall be entered in the valuation roll".
  In the midst of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a reorganisation of local government which few people want, in the midst of money being squandered in all directions, there is only one cash break. Only one group of citizens will be handed money as a result of the Bill: the owners of shootings, deer forests and fishings, who will no longer be entered in the valuation roll.
  I shall say one thing about Tory Ministers. They never forget their class basis; they never forget where their support comes from; and they never forget their role as political wing of the Scottish Landowners Federation. It adds farce to the general insult of the legislation that, while there are so many poor people and those who need housing, communications, social work and education, the only ones who will get a monetary handout under this Bill are the owners of shootings, fishings and deer forests in Scotland.
  9.7 pm
  Dr. John Reid: I am grateful that I am able to speak tonight because this debate transcends the normal details and, dare I say it, the minutiae of politics in Scotland. We shall have to live with the results of the legislation that we pass in the next few months. More than that, the Government will have to live with the results for many years to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, it may not be the talk of the steamie, the clubs, the pubs, the buses or the football grounds at present. But as with the poll tax, there will be an increasing awareness as the practical
  612
  implications of the Bill dawn on people, and they will lay the blame at the feet of those who introduced it despite all the evidence against it.
  In the few minutes that I have been given, I shall make three main points. The question of cost has been covered effectively by most hon. Members who have spoken tonight. Frankly, I do not believe what Ministers said—that the net cost will be only £50 million. I do not believe what Ministers said not only because it goes against everything that they said previously. We do not have to look in the crystal ball; to gauge the costs involved we need only examine the history books. The examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) illustrate the vast costs which have been involved in the Government's previous escapades.
  Democracy has been mentioned this evening. Let me simply say that it is astonishing that Tory Members have managed to do a complete U-turn. They are about to rid Scotland of regional and district authorities which have served Scotland well. We are not talking here about the GLC, the bete noire of the Tory party. Names such as Geoff Shaw, Dick Stewart, Charles Gray or Bob Gould in Strathclyde have not dripped from the lips of the antagonistic Tory central office, and those people have not been branded as being part of the loony left. They have been credited during the past two decades, even by Conservatives, as practical, common-sense and down-to-earth politicians.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson indicated dissent.
  Dr. Reid: I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. There is no historical justification for the Conservative party getting rid of structures which have served Scotland well. There is no justification on ideological grounds either, because the Government came to power promising two things to their supporters. They promised to roll back the state and to extend choice. I put it to them tonight that no Government this century—Tory, Labour or Liberal—has rolled the state on more, or has centralised more, than the present Government. That is part of the tradition which the Government have maintained.
  When Conservative Members shout about centralising socialist Governments, let them look at what they have done. They have rolled over trade union democracy and over ordinary individual rights. They have excluded people from the electoral register and have linked the right to vote to the payment of a tax—something outlawed by the American constitution 200 years ago. The measure is but one more step in that direction, because the Government are taking powers away from local government. Whether it is the police, water or sewerage, services will no longer be accountable to people who are, in turn, accountable to the electorate.
  Choice is another slogan of the Tory party, although we have now learnt to be rather cynical about Tory party slogans. How is the choice of an old-age pensioner to travel extended by the taking away of concessionary fares? How is the choice of my constituents who live in parts of Uddingston and Viewpark extended by the creation of a new education authority which prevents them from sending their children to either St. John the Baptist school in Uddingston or Uddingston grammar school? That is because we now have a plethora of education authorities instead of a major education authority.

  613
  In terms of strategy, someone said to me at the beginning of the process that this was a stupid Bill introduced by people who knew little about local government. I think that that is wrong. This is anything but a stupid Bill from a partisan Tory point of view. It certainly does not come from people who know little about local government. It is a crafty and clever Bill from people who understand local government because it is a Bill which gerrymanders.
  The Bill creates local authorities with a population of over 300,000, but also creates one in greater Eastwood and in East Renfrew with a population of 86,000 people. That authority has less people than my parliamentary constituency. The whole plethora of local government apparatus will be created for 86,000 people in the local government area of the constituency of the Minister at the Scottish Office. I refuse to accept that that is a result of anything other than a crafty and clever gerrymandering operation for partisan and biased party purposes.
  That is my final point, and that is why it is so important that the Bill be rejected by the Scottish people. It lacks legitimacy. It does not have a structure which has been designed by an independent boundary commission, or which has resulted from a study by a group such as the Wheatley commission. It does not have the legitimacy of the parliamentary boundaries which have been drawn up. The areas of the authorities have been drawn up by the Conservatives themselves.
  The proposals will be rejected because this is not government of the people of Scotland, by the people of Scotland, for the people of Scotland—it is local govenment of the Tory party, by the Tory party, for the Tory party. The Government demean themselves by doing that, but they do not demean the people who will have to operate under that local government, and that is why it will be overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: One thing is obvious tonight. The Tories have taken a terrible drubbing in the Chamber. For many years we have not seen a set of Conservatives so unconvinced by their arguments giving such a pathetic performance to the House. The brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was in sharp contrast with the brittle and unconvincing speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We must surely be reaching a stage at which the untruths which are peddled throughout the country about the wisdom of the Bill are beginning to sink home even with some Conservative Members.
  We have heard some excellent speeches by my hon. Friends. They talked about the new towns shambles, which is to continue as part of the local government reorganisation. The Government have promoted unconvincing figures for the cost of reorganisation. We have heard from my hon. Friends about the need for a Scottish Parliament to bring sanity to politics in Scotland and tackle the democratic deficit.
  We had a vintage speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). He not only entertained the House but spelled out clearly
  614
  the concerns of ordinary people in his constituency. His experience is mirrored by the experience of Scottish Members from throughout Scotland.
  The remarkable thing about the debate today is that we are dealing with a thoroughly bad Bill. The time of the House is being wasted by a Government who are no longer in tune with the reality of the Scottish people and their understanding of "back to basics". Indeed, we have a set of Ministers so divorced from that reality that we face three months in Committee dealing with a Bill that will do nothing for the aspirations of ordinary Scots. Indeed, the Bill will be fundamentally damaging to their aspirations.
  The Bill is not about improving the effectiveness of government in Scotland. That was made evident in the speeches that have been made tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said earlier, the Bill reeks of political intentions. It is naked in its intent; a shameless effort by Ministers, Conservative Back Benchers and certain of their Tory supporters in Scotland.
  It is important to put on record again the reasons why we shall fight the Bill every inch of the way. First, the Bill is of course about gerrymandering. Following the debacle of Westminster and the unfolding controversy in Wandsworth no one can dispute that the Bill is about gaining party political advantage, using taxpayers' resources and creating for the first time the alien concept of safe havens in Scottish politics. It is disgraceful. It goes far beyond any knockabout that we want to see in the House of Commons. The Bill is deeply damaging to the interests of democracy, but, unfortunately, that is the nature of government in Scotland in 1993.
  The second reason why we shall fight the Bill is that the Government wish to create the context for privatisation of Scotland's water and sewerage services and take the first steps towards it. It is difficult to find appropriate words to describe such a ludicrous and silly measure. It will do nothing for the quality of life in Scotland and the quality of water and sewerage services. It will do everything to satisfy the zealots who still occupy Conservative party headquarters in Scotland and, dare I say it, to promote some of the right-wing lunacy that we see from Ministers.
  There is another issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said that if the Government start to meddle with local government boundaries they will then be involved in parliamentary boundaries. That is an unforgivable step. It will mean that the concept of local government will be devalued. We lay the blame fairly and squarely on the Government. The Bill aims to ensure that the word "enabling" will start to become part of the vocabulary of Scottish local government. "Enabling" sounds innocuous, but it is about contracting out, privatisation, centralisation and undermining the fabric of the collective ethos of local government, which has been developed in Scotland since the early 1920s.
  We have talked today about quangos. After the Peterken and Fyfe fiasco in Glasgow, who on earth would want more Tory placemen and placewomen to pack out the administration of essential services in Scotland? Our last concern is another matter that the Government may shrug off. We are about to embark on preventing 300,000 employees from participating in local government. If the Government do nothing else, surely they do not want to disfranchise one in six of the Scottish work force and one in 10 of the electorate by proceeding with the proposed

  615
  crazy reorganisation, without taking on board the genuine concerns of people who not only work for the community but want to contribute in a variety of ways.
  Those are our concerns. We have talked about the fact that the politics of that is the overriding consideration for the Government. Why do Ministers want to joy-ride through £7·5 billion worth of expenditure in Scotland every year, 300,000 employees and, of course the valued services that are given to nearly 5 milion consumers? As my hon. Friends have said, the services—often life and death services—are provided imaginatively, represent value for money, are cost effective and delivered by councillors and officials who care, in sharp contrast to the group of mean-minded Conservatives who simply want to denigrate every effort in which they are involved to satisfy their own political whims. It is disgraceful that the House should have to witness such disinterest in attacks.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has said, as has the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), that he intends to target English Tories on the Standing Committee, and forecast that some of them might be persuaded to rebel to save Scottish local government. In view of our experience this evening—none of them have appeared in order to listen to the arguments—does the hon. Gentleman think that that is a realistically viable strategy or one that is likely to be successful in the Standing Committee?
  Mr. McLeish: I accept that none of the potential recruits to be dragooned into the Committee is before us today, but I remind the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that we shall try to persuade Tories; we shall not go into chambers and do secret deals with them under the pretext of putting Scotland first.
  It is sad that the reorganisation will not put an extra policeman on the beat in Scotland, when the Government have presided over the biggest explosion in crime this century. It will not put an extra house in any district council in Scotland, when more than 100,000 people are homeless every night in Scotland under the Tories. Of course, it will not put another teacher in the classroom, where pupil-teacher ratios are still far too high to have the quality of education that we want to see.
  We talk about "back to basics", but it is interesting that the Government are willing to put this Bill before the House yet are not willing to introduce a child care Bill. Their irresponsibility could be putting children at risk in our communities. For most Scots, "back to basics" should have a higher priority than the political shenanigans that we see from the Government. It is clear that, for the Tories, "back to basics" means trying to enhance their political advantage whereas most Scots want to see decent services provided by people who matter.
  It is evident from the debate that—the Secretary of State should be aware, even though he is completely out of touch—the proposals are not supported by the people. The proposals have been abused by the media, ridiculed by the Opposition, exposed by academics, barely tolerated by the business community and opposed by COSLA. [Laughter.] What more must a democracy do before Conservatives take that seriously? Conservative Members are laughing away, but there have been other developments in Europe where people have fought for freedom and real choices. Conservative Members may laugh but, at the end of the
  616
  day, there are some very powerful reasons why we should always want to value democracy first and not indulge in the kind of gerrymandering and contempt that we see.
  As my hon. Friends have said, the Government do not learn lessons easily. In his exposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton talked about gerrymandering. I do not want to touch on that matter other than to return to a loony authority that we now have in Scotland called Kyle and Carrick. I shall talk more about that in a minute. But what is the case? What can the Under-Secretary of State say to justify the massive upheaval in Scotland? There is no case. We have not heard one. The Secretary of State is quite happy to talk about the public being confused, about the need to respect old loyalties to counties and about waste and duplication. The real agenda, however, is the new enabling authority role, which is linked with the question of privatisation. We know what that means.
  We benefited from the Wheatley commission, because it was set up to consider one part of local government in Scotland which was not working. It was clear that that structure had to be studied, root and branch. In 1973, I was privileged to enter that system and to serve 14 years in local government. Today the position is different, because there is no consensus. I accept that there is a point in considering the idea of single-tier authorities and other options, but the Government have plucked out of thin air their idea, which mirrors entirely their political aspirations. To talk about Wheatley in the same breath as the Government's proposed reorganisation is utterly ridiculous and contemptuous.
  One argument that we have stressed tonight is the need for constitutional change. The Opposition have argued convincingly on many platforms that we need a Scottish parliament. We have no doubt that if there was a Scottish parliament, of Scots and by Scots, we could propose a local government reorganisation for Scots without being entrapped by the cosy clique of Conservatives in Scotland. That clique has been trumpeted in Parliament by Ministers.
  If one accepts that there is consensus in favour of constitutional change, one has to ask why the Government are not prepared to subject their ideas to an independent commission? If I had a case to make, I would be quite happy to put it to the test. Why does the Secretary of State not have the guts to put his gerrymandering proposals to an independent commission? The answer is clear. The Government know that if their proposals were put to any objective test, they would simply fail. No one will demur from that answer. Conservative Members are slouching on the Benches, but they know in their hearts that they are trying to pull off a political wheeze. [Interruption.] I know that I am being extremely charitable. It is clear that the Government are in trouble.
  What about the costs involved? Earlier, the Secretary of State tried to suggest that we were in some difficulty about the costs. We have never seen so many back-of-envelope calculations. The Scottish Office has produced documents that have been simply ridiculed in a modern democracy. It takes an extraordinary degree of unprofessional gerrymandering of figures to arrive at the mess that the Government have produced. Will that reorganisation cost £100 million or £200 million? The Government have then tried to make us believe that it will save £1 billion. How many people in the Chamber have ever seen any savings made from any reorganisation of the post-war period?
  Mr. Gallie: Has not the hon. Gentleman, like me, received many submissions from district councils across Scotland, suggesting that they could make considerable savings if they were single-tier authorities with full responsibility for the range of local authority tasks?
  Mr. McLeish: The simple answer is no. The costs are an essential and important part of argument. The Secretary of State has conceded, however, that it is a difficult process. If it is so difficult, my hon. Friends and I are willing to concede that, but why on earth are the Government tramping about the country suggesting that the initial costs will be £200 million and that savings of £1 billion will be made? That is ludicrous. No one believes that claim, so the Government have a problem.
  Those hon. Members who represent English constituencies and who will serve on the Standing Committee must heed a warning. We have heard a lot about Tory tax increases. It is one of the "back to basics"—they want to tax people more. If the gerrymandered reorganisation for Scotland proceeds, it will simply mean that council tax payers will pay more and more for a reorganisation that they do not want, from a Government they simply despise. That action is illogical and irrational. I must warn those English Members who will serve on the Committee that they will be enacting something for Scotland that they would not have the courage to enact for their own constituencies.
  Another issue for debate is emerging in which I am sure the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) will be interested. A booklet has been produced by the south Ayrshire authority.
  For hon. Members who are not aware of what that is, it is the Kyle and Carrick district council at work. The document may be in contempt of the House because the district council has outlined a timetable for proceedings. It has named the day on which the proceedings will start in Committee and given some other information.
  Mr. Stewart: That is more than I know.
  Mr. McLeish: The Under-Secretary of State says that that is more than he knows. We want to know who is preparing information for that council. The provost is nicknamed "the Ayatollah"—a new example of the loony right.
  The hon. Member for Ayr will be interested to know that the issue was discussed at a seminar on Sunday. That is interesting, but what is really illuminating is that the council has described what it wants to do after May 1996. It talks of "minimalist south Ayrshire" and uses the word "outsourcing", which basically means that it will privatise everything that moves within its authority. Finance, law, administration and information technology skills will be "outsourced". It will outsource planning, roads, estate work and leave all the development to local enterprise councils. It will privatise environmental health and outsource housing and social services. It will opt out every school and get consortia to run every other service.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  The document highlights what the debate is all about—creating puppet councils that are run and administered by the Scottish Office, to which the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State can send willing underlings like the hon. Member for Ayr to do the Government's
  618
  business. It is unbelievable, and we shall ensure that the document has a wide circulation to let the people of Scotland know what is happening.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me because I have not seen the document. However, I am delighted that a local council like Kyle and Carrick is forward-looking enough to look into the future, see what is good for its council tax payers and try to envisage the opportunities that lie ahead instead of behaving like the Opposition, who bury their heads in the sand, believing that money grows on trees and that services can be pulled out of the air. Kyle and Carrick is looking forward—good on it.
  Mr. McLeish: "Good on it" sounds more like a football chant. The document talks about ensuring that party advantage is secured so that Strathclyde regional council does nothing in the wind-up. The hon. Gentleman said that he has no access to the document. He can have access to it after the Divisions because we shall ensure that it has a wider circulation.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware that Kyle and Carrick district council has already started that process? After a meeting at which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was present, it proposed to cancel a tender for cleansing and refuse collection, which still has two years to run and was given to in-house contractors. While those discussions were taking place, the provost of Kyle and Carrick council had at least two—perhaps three—secret meetings with a Spanish-based private company that wishes to take over that tender. That is what we shall face under the new privatised Tory councils.
  Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. On 11 January, Glasgow's The Herald carried an article entitled
  "Refuse Row to be Raised in Commons".
  I am pleased to say that, unlike the hon. Member for Ayr who speaks to the press before he speaks to the Commons, I have suggested that that matter will be raised.
  Conservative Members may laugh at a document produced by their colleagues but my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is right to say that the council's actions are illegal. A £3 million contract with two years to run is being torn up and the zealots who now run the authority will bar their in-house team from bidding. To show that Tory contempt exists not only in the House, the provost at that meeting confirmed that he had had private discussions with Spanish contractors.
  Why do not Government Front-Bench Members drag in that Tory convenor and tell him that the attempt to bypass compulsory competitive tendering is not on? The Secretary of State has not said anything. Once again, there are double standards—what is good enough for some authorities in respect of CCT is not good enough for the Tory's new flagship authority, the loony right Kyle and Carrick district authority.
  We are worried that the reorganisation process will allow councils to be manipulated. If there is one area that sums up the predicament it is my region of Fife. The scenario is this: Scottish Office advisers or Ministers suggested that Stirling must be a single-tier authority because an ex-Westminster city councillor, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), was advising them. They then had to decide how to achieve that end.

  619
  First, they decided to chop up Central regional council. Fair enough, but if they did that they then had to decide what to do about Falkirk and Clackmannan. They decided to link them together, but some bright spark in the Scottish Office realised that there was a river between them and that they were not linked. Hey presto, a genius said that they would take Kincardine out of Fife and provide the necessary link. How on earth can that be described as a logical, sensible or sensitive way to reorganise anything? We shall certainly be discussing such issues in Committee.
  I conclude by dealing with two issues which give us great cause for concern. The first is quangos. The Government may rubbish people's concern about government by quango. None of my colleagues wants placemen running the key services but, if it happens, the quality of life for people in Scotland will be diminished. Our preliminary analysis of the Bill suggests that more than 100 new bodies—statutory and non-statutory boards and quangos—will emerge, and the creation of three super-quangos is an insult built on an injury. To try to bring about privatisation in such a corrupt manner is bad enough but to suggest that it is taken out of local authority control and given to super-quangos is worse.
  The Bill also deals with water, but the Scots do not accept the Government's proposal. They do not want a further acceleration of quango government, but they want a debate about services. I began my remarks by dealing with services, and I shall conclude on that point.
  The Government are ignoring the pressing needs of child care, education, transport and social work. We need investment in those key areas. We are lagging behind Europe and other parts of the developed world because we are pursuing the wrong agenda. If the Secretary of State feels that he wants to do something constructive in his remaining few years in that post, he would be well advised to tackle the issue of services.
  What annoys the Scots is not only everything that I have described but the way in which Ministers are undermining the collective ethos of Scottish local government. We believe in community and in individualism being developed, nurtured and promoted, and we believe in aspirations being realised through the idea of community and collective provision. The Government are trying to trample those ideas into the dust as they progress with their political agenda.
  We shall not rest after the Bill has been given a Second Reading. We shall ensure that the Government have a bruising battle in Committee and that they are exposed on every front. Our objective remains the derailing of the Bill. We shall have success as the Government move towards the next election but, if we do not, we shall have success when there is a Labour Government. Tonight we shall vote against this daft, dangerous and divisive Bill and ask the Government to scrap it now.
  9.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): When the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) opened for the Opposition he made a number of forecasts. Before the debate he made a forecast, which was carried in the Sunday Times on 12 December, in which he said:
  "Labour is hoping to recruit right-wing Tories in an attempt to wreck the progress of the Scottish local government bill."
  The article continued by saying that they would be targeted, the offensive would be co-ordinated and there
  620
  would be discreet discussions. I have checked with my hon. Friend the Whip, who looks less than panic-stricken at the possible gain of right-wing Conservatives in the Labour Lobby tonight. The hon. Gentleman's forecast is about as accurate as many of his other forecasts about the effects of this admirable Bill.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was in his usual ebullient form. He referred to Fife and local government costs and it is therefore worth reading the odd excerpt from Fife regional council's submission on the matter.
  Mr. McLeish: I am not the leader now.
  Mr. Stewart: I appreciate that, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman has got around to reading the document from Labour-held Fife regional council, which said:
  "We welcome the opportunity to put forward a positive and well argued case for the continuation of local government services based on a single Fife authority."
  That is what the Government have also concluded in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central also talked about costs and said that he did not believe the Government's figures.
  Mr. McLeish indicated assent.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman confirms that that is his belief. I am sure that he must believe the figures of his own Labour-held regional authority.
  Mr. George Robertson: Why?
  Mr. Stewart: Because I can tell him what they are. The authority concludes—it has nothing to do with the Government as they are the authority's conclusions—that the savings over a 15-year period, discounted, would be no less than £42·4 million, and that is for only one proposal. I am happy to say that I see no reason to dissent broadly from the conclusions that Fife regional council reached on savings.
  Dr. Reid: I know that the Minister is a fair man. On the ground of fairness, will he give us the estimate made by Strathclyde of the extra costs involved?
  Mr. Stewart: I shall deal with the costs more generally later. I was referring to the hon. Member for Fife, Central and simply reminding him of the savings talked of by his Labour-held authority.
  Opposition Members seemed to be in great difficulty in deciding what their policy was. The hon. Member for Hamilton spent a considerable time talking about Westminster, which is not exactly affected by the Bill. He believes in a Scottish Assembly, where he would be the Secretary of State for Scotland, where he would have no responsibility for Scottish local government but would have a residual responsibility, as a member of the Cabinet, for local government in England. Perhaps he is just practising hopefully for that day when he earns £70,000 a year, or whatever Cabinet Ministers earn, for having no responsibilities in Scotland whatsoever.
  What is Labour party policy? I suggest that it appears to be this. For the sake of argument let us assume that Labour were in Government. First, there would be a constitutional Bill to set up a Scottish Parliament which would take two years. A local government commission would have to be set up and would produce its report after a certain period at work. The Scottish Assembly would then take some time

  621
  to look at the report's findings and draft legislation. That would be followed by a Bill, which would have to complete its passage, and the introduction of a new local government system.
  I have worked out how long that would take, on the tightest reasonable time scale. It cannot be done before April 2004 because of the complexities involved in setting up a new Assembly—legislation, an independent commission and more legislation.
  Mr. McLeish: No.
  Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it could be done faster, perhaps he could let me know. Labour party policy therefore means 10 years of uncertainty over the future of local government in Scotland.
  Opposition Members have said that there is massive sustained opposition to those policies in Scotland. They have spoken about the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and its opposition. We were promised a mass lobby from COSLA on the date of the Second Reading. I have now discovered that COSLA sent a letter to all authorities saying that, unfortunately, it could not organise a mass lobby after all. That demonstrates a less than total commitment to sustained opposition to the Government's proposals.
  Many hon. Members have referred to local government boundaries.
  Dr. Godman: With regard to the proposals for Renfrewshire, why are the people of Inverclyde treated so differently from the people living in the proposed East Renfrewshire council area? What do the Government have against the idea of an Inverclyde council? Does it not make better sense to have three councils in Renfrewshire?
  Mr. Stewart: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he implied, I think, in his comments that the representations that had been received from Inverclyde—I met an all-party delegation from the council, led by him—had not been considered. Let me make it clear, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have consistently said that detailed changes will be fully considered in the right and proper place—in Committee.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I asked the Secretary of State a question earlier and I think that he slightly misunderstood me.
  The boundary changes are crucial to hon. Members on both sidea of the House. Can the Minister confirm, first, that the Government are prepared to concede substantive changes on some of the boundary issues? Secondly, as I was trying to say to the Secretary of State earlier but did not get across properly, if individual Members table individual amendments applying to individual boundaries, that has a knock-on effect in other parts of the country. Therefore, if the Government wait until the whole of schedule 1 is debated to take it all away and think about it again before they bring back proposals for change, we need to know the ways in which the Government will deal with any substantive changes to the boundaries that they may have been prepared to concede in Committee.
  Mr. Stewart: I also met a delegation from Berwickshire, led by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot forecast
  622
  today the outcome of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on the Bill. We will carefully consider substantive amendments that are put forward by the hon. Members who serve on the Committee. I cannot make a commitment, but it is worth recording that the proposals for the previous reorganisation of local government in Scotland were substantially changed as the Bill passed through its stages. We will therefore consider carefully the representations that are made by hon. Members.
  Mr. Salmond: A few seconds ago, the Minister referred to the year 2000 when he was discussing the Labour party's proposals.
  Sir David Steel: The year 2004.
  Mr. Salmond: I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman must consider that to be a reasonable period for forecasting in terms of the Bill. Can he therefore, for the House tonight, rule out any move towards water privatisation in that time scale to the year 2004?
  Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that the Government have no proposals for water privatisation in Scotland. He could not have been clearer.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have naturally raised a range of detailed points about the boundaries of individual authorities. My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) did not appear to hold a unanimous view on one aspect that they raised. I have no doubt that such points will be fully discussed in Committee.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) for recognising that, in relation to King's Park and Toryglen, the Government had responded to the representations made by him and by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) also referred to boundaries. He made the general point that it is impossible to have efficient small education authorities.
  I can answer that point best by reading a quotation from the Committee debating the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in 1973:
  "Let me tell the Government that local interest in education is understandably intense, probably more intense"
  than in housing.
  "the education service should, in our view, be responsive to this interest. If, in order to get this responsiveness it was necessary to move housing from region to district, it is worth while taking education out of the hands of a very large authority and giving it to a smaller authority."
  I shall repeat the last phrase for the benefit of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)—[Interruption.] I am grateful for hon. Members' appreciation. To repeat:
  "it is worth while taking education out of the hands of a very large authority and giving it to a smaller authority."—[0fficial Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 1 February 1973; c. 205.]
  The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth referred to my view, which is identical to that, as twaddle, or some similar word. I suggest that he have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He expressed precisely those sentiments, which I have just quoted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside referred to costs and to staffing. He said that, on the

  623
  previous occasion on which local government was reorganised, there was widespread concern about increased salaries for senior staff in local government. I tell him—this relates directly to costs—that we are determined to prevent excessive salary increases and golden handshakes. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State, if necessary, to appoint a body to examine excessive salary increases and to recommend reductions.
  The Bill also contains powers designed to discourage people from accepting redundancy when they know that they will be re-employed by a new council. In those circumstances, the council in question could be obliged to repay the compensation to the Secretary of State. Those proposals will be widely welcomed as giving my right hon. Friend the power, if necessary, to ensure that some of the excessive increases that occurred on the previous occasion are not repeated.
  On costs, my hon. Friends have rightly pointed to the many individual district councils that have identified substantial savings from their unitary status. Other estimates within the world of local authorities, including Strathclyde, do not reflect those figures. I point out to the Opposition that, according to the whole range of estimates given by Labour-held authorities, large and small, the authorities say that under a unitary system they could provide services cost-effectively.
  That is true even of authorities as small as Clackmannan, which is Labour held. A delegation from that authority, led by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), came to see me. The delegates argued that Clackmannan could provide all services, including the specialist services, cost-effectively. How was that council able to do that, the hon. Member for Fife, Central may ask. How could such a small council conceive of being able to supply the specialist services? Its members told me, "Minister, we would be an enabling council. Minister, we have no hang-ups about getting specialist services from other councils. Minister, we have no hang-ups about getting specialist services from the private sector."
  That was the view of the Labour-held Clackmannan district council. That suggests that the thinking of many councils in Scotland is miles ahead of the thinking on the Opposition Front Bench. Many Labour authorities in Scotland have recognised that local government increasingly has an enabling role and that they may not only supply services by their own hand but use other means of delivering services. As I have referred to the hon. Member for Fife, Central, I shall give way.
  Mr. McLeish: On an important issue concerning Falkirk and Clackmannan, will the Minister tell the House whether Kincardine will be moved, even if people there wish to stay in Fife, to complete the utterly ridiculous gerrymandering of two parts of one, so-called unitary authority?
  Mr. Stewart: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to confirm that he supports Fife regional council's figures on the massive savings that will occur as a consequence of the implementation of the Government's proposals. I have no doubt that his detailed question will be raised during Committee, where it will be fully considered. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not expect me to say anything other than that.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister think that a small authority could have put together the financial package that brought Motorola to Bathgate? Would that have been possible without the Lothian region?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, absolutely. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that industry does not set up in areas with small authorities? That is nonsense. The lead organisation for encouraging inward investment in Scotland is Locate in Scotland and it will work in partnership with local authorities, which will have continuing industrial powers, as they have at present.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I have only two minutes left and I must continue.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Kincardine and Deeside and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) specifically mentioned community councils—an aspect of the Government's proposals which has not received widespread attention. I can confirm to my hon. Friends and to the House that community councils will have the right to be consulted on local planning issues on which we have indicated to the local authority that they wish to be consulted. They will also have the right to be consulted on the schemes which authorities draw up on decentralisation services. We regard those schemes as extremely important. Part of making local government more local is unquestionably local community councils having a right and proper role. The Bill will confirm that firmly.
  I should like to make one point absolutely clear to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke)—[Interruption.]—who asked about the—
  Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. All night, the Government Benches have been empty because there has been hardly an English Member present. Now, they have all come in to vote the measure through against the wishes of the Scottish people and they are making so much noice that we cannot hear the end of the debate. Will you, Madam Speaker, ensure that those Conservative Members are quiet? They have not listened to the debate yet they are now going to vote for the measure against the wishes of the people.
  Madam Speaker: Would the House come to order and hear the Minister's last few remarks?
  Mr. Stewart: Hon. Members asked about representation on joint boards and the hon. Member for Midlothian asked about the police. All members of joint boards will be local authority representatives.
  No coherent policy has been proposed by the Opposition in this important debate. By contrast, the Government have proposed clear, coherent proposals to make local government simpler, more accountable and more cost-effective and to make local authorities local and give them real authority in Scotland. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 277.

  Division No. 68]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Alexander, Richard

  Amess, David

  625

  Arbuthnot, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bates, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Horam, John

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  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)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dicks, Terry

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Eggar, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  626

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knox, Sir David

  Sackville, Tom

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, Sir David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Needham, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tredinnick, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Viggers, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Paice, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Patnick, Irvine

  Watts, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Yeo, Tim

  Riddick, Graham

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  627

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainsworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)

  Enright, Derek

  Allen, Graham

  Etherington, Bill

  Alton, David

  Evans, John(St Helens N)

  Anderson, Donald(Swansea E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Anderson, Ms Janet(Ros'dale)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Field, Frank(Birkenhead)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Barnes, Harry

  Foulkes, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Fraser, John

  Battle, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bayley, Hugh

  Galbraith, Sam

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Gapes, Mike

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blair, Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon(Dunfermline E)

  Gunnell, John

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

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Menzies(Fife NE)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman(Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander(Montgomry)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David(South Shields)

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Eric(Midlothian)

  Howells, Dr. Kim(Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy(Newport E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hutton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cook, Robin(Livingston)

  Jackson, Glenda(H'stead)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Helen(Shef'ld, H)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn(Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne(B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim(Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd, SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan(Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Charles(Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

  Kennedy, Jane(Lpool Brdgn)

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

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil(Islwyn)

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lestor, Joan(Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  628

  Livingstone, Ken

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Radice, Giles

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Randall, Stuart

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Raynsford, Nick

  McAllion, John

  Redmond, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Dr John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rendel, David

  McFall, John

  Richardson, Jo

  McKelvey, William

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McLeish, Henry

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahon, Alice

  Salmond, Alex

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Milburn, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Murphy, Paul

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wallace, James

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Walley, Joan

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wareing, Robert N

  Olner, William

  Watson, Mike

  O'Neill, Martin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Patchett, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Worthington, Tony

  Pope, Greg

  Wray, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Purchase, Ken

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing
  Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills)),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. George Robertson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 315.

  Division No. 69]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Austin-Walker, John

  Alton, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barnes, Harry

  629

  Barron, Kevin

  George, Bruce

  Battle, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bell, Stuart

  Godsiff, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blunkett, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Hain, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Hall, Mike

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hanson, David

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Harvey, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Harry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cox, Tom

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cryer, Bob

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Keen, Alan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Darling, Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Denham, John

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dowd, Jim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McAllion, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Enright, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Etherington, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Faulds, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mahon, Alice

  Foulkes, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fraser, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Garrett, John

  Martlew, Eric

  630

  Maxton, John

  Rogers, Allan

  Meacher, Michael

  Rooney, Terry

  Meale, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Michael, Alun

  Rowlands, Ted

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Salmond, Alex

  Milburn, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

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

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Snape, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stott, Roger

  Olner, William

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Patchett, Terry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dennis

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler, Paul

  Pike, Peter L.

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pope, Greg

  Wallace, James

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prescott, John

  Watson, Mike

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Welsh, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Randall, Stuart

  Wilson, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Winnick, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rendel, David

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Richardson, Jo

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Atkins, Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Butler, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bates, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Bendall, Vivian

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Churchill, Mr

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Booth, Hartley

  Coe, Sebastian

  Boswell, Tim

  Colvin, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Congdon, David

  631

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Horam, John

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

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

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dykes, Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Elletson, Harold

  Knapman, Roger

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evennett, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Faber, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lidington, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lightbown, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Luff, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, Sir David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garnier, Edward

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Merchant, Piers

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hannam, Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nelson, Anthony

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heald, Oliver

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  632

  Page, Richard

  Stephen, Michael

  Paice, James

  Stern, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stewart, Allan

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sumberg, David

  Pawsey, James

  Sweeney, Walter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sykes, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Riddick, Graham

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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walden, George

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Ward, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Willetts, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sproat, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Steen, Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill accordingly committed to a Standing Committee.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That at this day's sitting the Motion relating to Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill [Ways and Means] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
  The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 208.

  Division No. 70]

  [10. 31 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bates, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Ashby, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkins, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Baldry, Tony

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brazier, Julian

  633

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Hannam, Sir John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Conway, Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Horam, John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Faber, David

  Legg, Barry

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  634

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Merchant, Piers

  Soames, Nicholas

  Milligan, Stephen

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mills, Iain

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Spring, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sproat, Iain

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stephen, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Norris, Steve

  Sykes, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Paice, James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thomason, Roy

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pawsey, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tredinnick, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rathbone, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Robathan, Andrew

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Watts, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Whitney, Ray

  Ruddock, Joan

  Whittingdale, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sackville, Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Willetts, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shersby, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Berts, Clive

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Blunkett, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Alton, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

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

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burden, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Battle, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cann, Jamie

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  635

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hardy, Peter

  Coffey, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Bob

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Home Robertson, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Darling, Alistair

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

  Hoyle, Doug

  Denham, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dixon, Don

  Hutton, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Illsley, Eric

  Dowd, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Eastham, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Janner, Greville

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Jowell, Tessa

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Foulkes, George

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Galbraith, Sam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Kirkwood, Archy

  George, Bruce

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Terry

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gordon, Mildred

  McAllion, John

  Graham, Thomas

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Gunnell, John

  McKelvey, William

  Hain, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Hall, Mike

  Maclennan, Robert

  636

  McMaster, Gordon

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McWilliam, John

  Radice, Giles

  Madden, Max

  Reid, Dr John

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Rendel, David

  Mahon, Alice

  Richardson, Jo

  Mandelson, Peter

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Martlew, Eric

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maxton, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Meacher, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Meale, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

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

  Milburn, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Miller, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Turner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wallace, James

  Olner, William

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watson, Mike

  Parry, Robert

  Welsh, Andrew

  Patchett, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wilson, Brian

  Pope, Greg

  Winnick, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Purchase, Ken

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the provisions (other than any provision authorising payments out of the National Loans Fund) of the Act; and

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling guarantees given by him for the discharge of any financial obligations in connection with sums borrowed by any water and sewerage authority established by the Act; and

  (c) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making loans to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.—[Mr. Stewart.]

  10.43 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Parliamentary longevity as a Member of the House does not, of itself, entitle me to suppose that I can offer better, more balanced judgments than parliamentary colleagues who have been here for less than thirty-one and a half years. On the contrary, on many matters the judgment of colleagues who were elected for the first time more recently may be more valid for the early 1990s.
  However, parliamentary longevity entitles a man to do one thing, which is to warn and sound warnings. As one who went through it last time, I warn the House that the price of upheaval in local government is colossal and far greater than anyone suspects before the event.
  Incidentally, money may not be the most important element in the price. Upheaval in local government anaesthetises action; initiative is stifled; decision makers are understandably less immersed in decisions of policy than concerned with their own future; and progress in helping the public is slowed down and often grinds to a halt.
  My hon. Friends, many of whom have experience in local government, know what happened last time—many officials and councillors were simply distracted from the job of helping their constituents and ours.
  Unpicking Lothian region would disadvantage my constituents and especially my most disadvantaged constituents, those who depend on the social services.
  Unpicking Strathclyde—dare I say that it was a friendly neighbour?—would be a monumental task. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), who was the Strathclyde convenor for social work, knows better than any of us how difficult and costly such an intricate operation would be. We must therefore ask ourselves whether it is worth the candle. Often my hon. Friends would give a resounding no.
  We are discussing the money resolution and I wish to go into some detail. I hope to be on the Committee and, if so, I shall certainly pursue the money aspect. At exactly 4.23 pm—we can check it in Hansard—I understood the Secretary of State to say that the net cost would be less than £50 million over three years. If I am wrong, the Minister
  638
  will interrupt me, but I think that I heard correctly. How can that be reconciled with Touche Ross's estimates and with the Bill?
  Page ix of the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, which deals with part V, states that the transitional costs of part I are estimated at £120 million to £196 million, offset by savings of £22 million to £62 million. Touche Ross estimated transitional costs and ongoing costs and savings for each of the four options. Its estimate was nearest the 24-unit costs and would mean transitional costs of £194 million on annual savings estimated at £120 million. Those figures are disputed by the regional councils, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The equivalent Strathclyde regional council figures for the 24-unit option were transitional costs of £439 million and ongoing costs of £14 million.
  First, what is the difference between the Touche Ross estimate and the Government's estimate? Secondly, do the Government dispute the details that they have been given of the Strathclyde estimates?
  I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to interrupt to clarify the position. I can see that notes are being passed. We are talking about the money resolution. Ministers introduced the Bill, so they should be able to give us the information off the top of their heads if they know what they are talking about.
  Frankly, I do not think that the Government have begun to understand the matter and that is the trouble. Incidentally, before putting too much trust in Touche Ross I would go through the CIPFA criticism, which states:
  "This area is essentially complex and much 'guesswork' is required but having taken specialist advice on the question of early retirement and redundancy, Touche Ross concluded that the package offered to employees would be a 'redundancy' package and therefore no early retirements other than those related to the reductions in staff numbers would occur. Given that 26% of employees are aged 50 or over, this is an optimistic assumption and"—
  this is emphasized—
  "seriously understates the potential costs associated with this item. Changes in status, remuneration, location and activity will affect an individual's choice and could lead to a significantly greater number of staff leaving the service than that assumed by Touche Ross."
  Frankly, I must tell Ministers and their civil servants that I believe that local government treasurers know a great deal more about the subject than they do. I do not think that the Scottish Office is in command of the figures, which are guesswork. CIPFA and people such as John Lindsay—who have done the work—are far nearer the financial realities than the Scottish Office. I have been a Member of Parliament for thirty-one and a half years and I have absolutely no confidence in the financial management of the Scottish Office in this subject, although I have always been friendly to civil servants.
  No Labour Member of Parliament in his right mind would suggest that there should never be a change in local government. In the early 1960s, my first Secretary of State Jack Maclay and his successor Michael Noble were driven to the conclusion that there had to be a fundamental reflection on local government structures. Tom Fraser, Peggy Herbison, Willie Ross and Jo Grimond shared that view. So did most local authority heavyweights of all parties, elected councillors and officials in the local government service.
  The result was that most people looked forward to the all-party consensus-seeking group, which we know as the

  639
  Wheatley commission. It was agreed by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), the late Betty Harvie Anderson and by Ames Imrie. It was a serious attempt to make some sort of constructive proposal.
  This time round it is totally different. Can the Secretary of State tell us where the demand for change is coming from? We all heard him say that many people supported his point of view. I interrupted to ask whom he had in mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Allan Stewart."] That is it: the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). Other than the hon. Gentleman, with his mad local fixation, who wants it? That is what it is about and it is totally frivolous.
  I repeat to the Secretary of State what I told him in his room, when he courteously invited anyone who had not been called to speak in the debate that took place in Edinburgh. He will recollect that my last words to him at that time were a request to go along the Corridor to the other place to seek out his noble Friend Lord Campbell of Croy and ask him about his experience. Lord Campbell of Croy will tell anyone that he laments greatly that his whole time as Secretary of State was vitiated by the fact that the Government had got into the mire of local government reform. Everything else that he wanted to do was swamped.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State did as I advised him, but he would have been wise to do so. I warn him that for years to come any type of initiative in Scotland will be torpedoed by the fact that everyone is thinking about their positions in local government reform. It is only human.
  Mr. William McKelvey: It is happening already.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs says that it is happening now. I am afraid that it has started. The anaesthetic has started to work. That is a great pity. Not only is it a pity, but it seriously affects those whom we represent.
  I have another question—not that I have had much success in getting any answers so far. I shall ask a specific question about the most costly item of all. If I briefly give some views, I had better say first whose views they are. They are the views of the Scottish School Board Association, the Scottish Parent Teacher Councils, the Forum on Scottish Education, the Catholic Education Commission, the Church of Scotland Education Committee, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland—Mr. Sandy Watson, its chairman, put the document together—the Educational Institute of Scotland, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers, which is not exactly a Labour organisation, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association and UNISON Scotland. At the end I shall ask about the costings in relation to education:
  Those organisations say:
  "The costs of change are unjustified at a time of government restrictions on local government funding generally, and when the education service is faced with substantial additional cost factors over the next few years.
  The Minister for Education has been advocating 'consolidation, stability and partnership' for the Education Service, but the proposals on local government reorganisation threaten stability, introduce more change, and possibly remove the notion of meaningful partnership."
  640
  I confess straight away that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was instrumental in helping to set up the committee, but those are views far, far wide of those of my hon. Friend, who speaks on education on behalf of the Labour party. It represents every serious education organisation in Scotland and it goes on to say:
  "The implications for services have not been thought out properly. Education—a universal service with more than 50 per cent. of all local authority expenditure—is dismissed in two small paragraphs and fewer than 200 words in the White Paper.
  There are dangers in concentrating only on detailed, practical implications—which are, of course, important—and losing sight of the current strategy for change in education and local government."
  The document concludes:
  "There is strong concern about the nature of the decision-making process (which compares unfavourably with that of the Wheatley Commission and with the process adopted south of the border) and about the lack of proper consultation on issues which are of fundamental importance to the people of Scotland. The signatories to this document call for a Royal Commission on Scottish Education"—
  and let us remember who the signatories are.
  "The implications for education have not been thought through and warrant more detailed consideration."
  What thought has been given to the education costings? [HON. MEMBERS: "Absolutely none."] My hon. Friends on the Front Bench say "absolutely none". That is not only their view; it is the view of the bodies that I listed so carefully and slowly to the House. Surely there should be some answer to them?
  Will a serious response be given at an early stage in the Committee to the directors of education or, better still, to the organisations themselves? If the Government were sure about the Bill, they would have given a serious response some time ago. If the Government were sure about the Bill, they would have given a proper answer to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. They would have given some answer to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives.
  I am glad to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here tonight. I know, from being a guest of the Norwich Labour party, that she was extremely highly thought of as a Norfolk county councillor. Why are not we in Scotland having at least the discussion and the care that is being taken over the reorganisation of local government in England? Why should we be different? The right hon. Lady knows very well from her experience as a Norfolk county councillor about the difficulties of local government reform.
  I tell the English Members who will be members of the Committee that they should not regard the Scottish Standing Committee as a political penitentiary. I ask them to raise their heads from their constituency correspondence. If they listened, they might start to warn Ministers of the troubles that are likely to be caused by the Bill. Let us remember where the poll tax started.
  I offer my committed support to my hon. Friends in their efforts to oppose the Bill in Committee.
  I heard a lot this afternoon about the Wheatley Commission and about Lord Wheatley's views. On what would have been the late Lord Wheatley's 86th birthday, I wish that certain people would not attribute to him views that he certainly did not hold.
  11.1 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The House always listens with great respect to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Apart from the fact that he has been here for 31 years, we know that he always speaks with great sincerity and knowledge. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here. The hon. Gentleman said that the extra cost caused by reorganisation would be £50 million over the next four years. That is a massive sum. It is almost as much as the EC spends every day on dumping and destroying food. To that extent, it is an enormous amount.
  The House will also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who appears to have had a Front-Bench position thrust on him. We wish him every possible success as a Whip, because he has waited for so long.
  Having been a councillor many years ago in Glasgow, I am well aware that a single-tier local authority—only cities were single-tier authorities then—involves less spending. When two-tier administration was introduced in Scotland, there seemed to be ample evidence that there were increased costs, more bureaucracy, more officers and more confusion. To that extent, although I believe that we must listen carefully to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that, for Mr. Average, there are cost benefits and satisfaction benefits in having a single-tier local authority.
  I hope that Scottish Office Ministers will listen carefully to this important point. Since going to Southend, East as a Member of Parliament, I have had lots of experience of making representations to Ministers and to Departments. I sometimes find that those representations are treated rather casually. Sometimes we feel that they are treated in an off-hand way, and sometimes we gain the impression that no one is listening.
  I made representations on the Bill about expenditure on behalf of the residents of King's Park. We know that they are well looked after by the excellent hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I simply put forward the views of local residents in a brief letter. I wish to record that, in all fairness, not only did I receive a satisfactory reply, but two Ministers came to talk to me and not only showed courtesy, but wanted to know the arguments, the background and whether there was a good case. I was delighted to see in the revised Bill that, instead of King's Park being put into Lanarkshire, which the local people did not seem to want, it has been returned to Glasgow.
  Having had limited experience of making representations on behalf of four or five old friends in King's Park, I genuinely found that the attention, courtesy and consideration given by the Scottish Office was an example of government. I feel that the Government would be on an even stronger basis than they are according to the opinion polls, if other Departments and Ministers showed the same consideration and expenditure as the Scottish Ministers.
  It is not my habit to stand up and pay compliments, but I genuinely feel that, although I am sad that I am no longer a Scottish Member of Parliament, even though the proposals may be politically unacceptable to some people in Scotland and even though some of the policies may be criticised there, they have a most courteous and attentive Secretary of State and excellent junior Ministers.
  642
  Irrespective of what happens in politics, I hope that the excellent tradition of the Scottish Office will continue. I pay credit to it, and I wish that all Ministers in all Departments acted in the same way.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: That was an interesting view of the Scottish Office, from Southend. I must tell the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that those of us who have to deal with the Scottish Office day in and day out and month in and month out on behalf of our constituents, see it in a different light. Knowing the genuine interest that the hon. Member has had in Scottish affairs in the past, I wonder whether the Secretary of State may like to consider offering the hon. Gentleman, as he has expressed interest in the money resolution, a place on the Committee.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): indicated assent.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I see that the Secretary of State is indicating his willingness to do so. Since, unlike most of the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues from Scotland, he has experience of serving on a local authority in Scotland, he may be able to bring some rather unusual wisdom to the Committee.
  If the Bill goes through, it will cost not only the Treasury but many of our constituents very dear. I listened to most of the debate on Second Reading, and I must endorse the concerns expressed by a whole range of right hon. and hon. Members following the representations which we have all had from our constituents about what the reforms will cost them. There are not only the transitional costs and the upheaval to consider, but the extra costs that will arise from watering down the high-quality services that they enjoy at the moment.
  I have received a large number of letters from the parents of disabled children who require specialist education that is now available to them under the auspices of the Lothian regional council. They are understandably concerned that they will have access to that kind of specialist education only if East Lothian goes to Edinburgh as a result of a sort of second-hand contractual arrangement between different local authorities.
  Then there is the small matter of all the people who depend heavily on concessionary travel and the excellent service that makes it possible for my constituents in the Lammermuir hills and around the coast of East Lothian to travel throughout the region, to visit relations, to go shopping and to go to hospitals with the benefit of a proper, comprehensive, concessionary travel system. I fear that that system will not be available to them under the kind of fragmented local authority system that the Government are proposing.
  I am interested to see the list of sponsoring Ministers on the face of the Bill. The Chief Secretary of the Treasury is one of the names printed. I saw that he paid a fleeting visit to the Chamber during the debate. It must be a "back to basics" Bill if he is supporting it. He is joined by the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for the Environment and, mysteriously, for Wales, and the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). There is no guilt by association for the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who has managed to be

  643
  missed off the list of guilty people sponsoring the Bill. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary realises what he is letting the Treasury in for by endorsing the Bill.
  I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said. He referred to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and to the work undertaken by the director of finance of east Lothian district council, John Lindsay, who knows much about local government finance. On behalf of CIPFA, he and his colleagues have carefully considered the Bill.
  It is very difficult to see how the Government and Touche Ross make the figures add up. They do not make sense. I shall give one or two examples that have been drawn to our attention, on which we have not received proper replies from Ministers.
  What about the projected costs of planning and economic development? Touche Ross has calculated that savings ranging from £58·4 million at the 51 unit level to £75·1 million at the 15 unit level—so we can assume that it is thinking of savings of about £60 million—could be made from planning and economic development.
  As the Scottish Office calculation of grant-aided expenditure for development in 1992–93 for regions and districts was £68·3 million net—the source for that figure is the Scottish Office publication on grant-aided expenditure for 1992–93—it will be interesting to know how savings of as much as £75 million will be made from a combined regional and district service that costs £68 million. Something does not add up, and it has not been explained. It is an example of how the Touche Ross analysis has been shown to be seriously flawed.
  The big issue has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—transitional costs. Every time any Government service is reorganised, it costs more than anybody anticipated. Extra costs are always involved in changing staff, structures, corporate identities, maps and everything else. I see that the cost of winding up existing authorities has been estimated by Touche Ross to be £88 million over five years before inflation, whereas experience elsewhere shows that expenditure on this item could amount to 3·7 per cent. of current expenditure—£275 million. That is crucial to any sensible cost analysis of this upheaval. We have not had proper answers to those questions.
  I am baffled how the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can associate his name with the Bill, because anybody in the Treasury must be able to take a pretty jaded look at the figures produced by Touche Ross, the figures being postulated by the Scottish Office and the wildly optimistic ideas proposed by the Under-Secretary to justify this dotty gerrymandering operation.
  Of course the transition will be very costly, and in many cases it will give rise to more expensive, less efficient services. Nowhere could that be clearer than in the local authority that the Government propose to serve my constituents. They are proposing to split East Lothian in two and to float off one bit that happens to have a majority of Tory councillors and add it to part of the Borders region, Berwickshire, which has a few Tory councillors, in the hope that they will produce between them a Tory-controlled local authority. It is pretty blatant. There is no other reason for the proposal.
  In order to carve out that bizarre boundary straddling the Lammermuir hills, with only one all-weather road linking the two parts of that proposed local authority, the Government suggest a local authority that will comprise a
  644
  population of 75,000 souls. That would be the smallest mainland local authority in Britain. It would be an all-purpose local authority, running the whole range of services, including social services and education. It would have a sparse population in a large area that is naturally divided by a range of hills. It would have a very small tax and population base. Of course the proposal will be expensive.
  If the Government pursue that demented idea, my constituents will be saddled with an extremely expensive range of local authority services. They will be paying very high council tax bills, and they will probably receive poorer quality services.
  The Treasury will have to pay more, and that means that the taxpayer will have to pay more, as a result of the costs of transition. There will also be a range of other costs. At the end of the day, our constituents will be paying higher local authority taxes for worse services. I do not know how the Government have the brass neck to introduce this kind of legislation to the House, but I suppose that nothing should surprise us nowadays.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I commend the considered, thoughtful and quite excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Conservative Members should take on board his point about the breadth of opposition in Scotland to the measure. The Bill is not simply opposed by political parties on the Opposition Benches. It is not just opposed by local authorities in Scotland. Opposition to the Bill is much wider.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred to Mr. Sandy Watson, the chairman of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. I met Mr. Watson and Mr. Peter Bates, the chairman of the Association of Directors of Social Work. They made exactly the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made earlier. They said that voluntary organisations, parents' bodies, the Churches and all those who benefit from local services in Scotland are 100 per cent. opposed to the Bill. They will not understand why Conservative Members chose to vote down an opportunity for them to have a say in the Committee stage of the Bill when they voted against committal to a Special Standing Committee.
  Conservative Members must accept that, because they have a majority in the Chamber and can railroad through whatever legislation they choose, in the end that is bound to rebound against them if they continue to ignore the democratic opinion of those who send us to this House in the first place. That is particularly apposite in this debate.
  We must remember that the party in government won only 25 per cent. of the vote in Scottish constituencies at the last general election. The results of an opinion poll will appear in the Scottish press tomorrow which will show that the current standing of the Conservative party in Scotland is just 15 per cent. Even those who supported the Government at the last election are turning away from them because of measures like this which the Government are railroading through the House.
  By ignoring that public opinion, the Government simply undermine public confidence in institutions like Parliament. In the long run, they will undermine the longevity of this Parliament by taking such a cavalier attitude to those we represent.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the highlands, the previous Conservative party parliamentary candidate in my constituency leads the campaign against the Government's proposals in Caithness? Is he also aware that another former Conservative candidate, Mr. John Young, has also joined that campaign and rejects the Government's proposals most vociferously? Not only are non-party people opposed to the measure: Conservatives are also against it.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. The last education committee of Tayside council to consider the measure passed a resolution unanimously, with the support of Conservative councillors, which expressed concern about the implications of the measure and its impact on education, particularly on Catholic education.
  If the Minister and his Back-Bench colleagues believe that they can continue to ignore the opinions of just about everybody in Scotland and do as they like to the Scottish people and even to their own supporters in the Conservative party, they are in for a very rude awakening when the measure eventually winds its way from the House and into the real world outside.
  I should like to refer in some detail to some financial aspects of the Bill—in particular, staff who are likely to be rendered surplus to requirements as a result of the move to single-tier authorities. I am speaking about headquarters staff in regional councils—for example, staff in administration, finance, property and planning departments People who work in such departments in regional councils are likely to be declared surplus to requirements as a result of the Bill.
  I will give way to the Minister on this point. If staff are rendered surplus, made redundant or given early retirement as a result of the Bill, will the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply? If they take employment with authorities, will the same wages and conditions of employment apply in their new jobs? That is an important issue, and it is worrying people who work for local authorities, but we have had no guidance from the Government.
  Equally, we must also consider severance payments to staff who are declared surplus. Upon privatisation, there were generous severance terms for people who worked for the gas industry, the Thames water authority, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the South of Scotland electricity board, and, in the Post Office, telecommunications. Will similar severance schemes be available to local authority staff who have to quit their jobs as a result of the Bill?
  If the Minister thinks that he is likely to achieve savings to the public purse from the sale of regional council property which is no longer required by the succeeding authorities, he should consider the situation in Dundee at the moment, and Tayside house in particular. The freehold of that building belongs to Tayside regional council, but the condition of the building is such that it requires significant expenditure to bring it up to a proper standard. As the Minister knows, the market for office accommodation in Dundee is very slack indeed, and the likelihood that the local authority will be able to make any saving from the sale of Tayside house is virtually non-existent.
  If the Minister has worked into his calculations that he is going to make savings from the sale of buildings such as
  646
  Tayside house, he had better think again. He will know from his friends elsewhere in the Government that Customs house in Dundee, which the Government spent more than £1 million to refurbish with a view to selling it, remains on the market. Nobody wants it. Given that track record, the property savings which the Government claim to arise from the Bill are almost certain not to occur.
  The motion makes available to the Secretary of State money with which to finance borrowings by water and sewerage authorities. The point of the argument on Second Reading was that the Government would not privatise Scottish water companies. Of course, they had to say that, given the massive opposition to privatisation in Scotland: fewer than 1 per cent. of those who responded to the consultation process supported privatisation.
  We now have three quangos set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In effect, they will offer the private sector contracts to design, build, operate and control services. The private sector will then be in complete control of water and sewerage operations in Scotland. It will set the prices, and it will make profits from water and sewerage services in Scotland. What we have is privatisation.
  The very heart of the Bill is flawed; there is an inaccurate analysis. Perhaps there was a deliberate attempt by the Government to mislead their own supporters and Back-Bench Members, saying that they would not privatise water services when they were doing so but are keeping the fact behind a public sector smokescreen. That flaw runs through the whole Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friends have indicated that they would like to intervene in this short debate, so I shall leave it there.
  The Government must take on board the fact that their majority in this House does not give them the democratic right to destroy local government in Scotland. If they proceed with the destruction of local government in Scotland, they will pay the ultimate political price for it.
  11.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I shall try to answer as many points as I can in this short debate. Undoubtedly, hon. Members will raise these and similar points in Committee.
  Ministers listen to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) with great care. We all appreciate his experience and knowledge in this specific area, and we look forward to his contributions in Committee. The concept of the Chief Secretary not knowing about the costs of the Bill must bring a slightly wry smile to one's face, because the Treasury takes a keen, and right and proper, interest in all areas of public expenditure. I can confirm that the Treasury has been rightly involved in all the calculations of costs.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: We are not saying that the Scottish Office has not told the Chief Secretary the cost of the reform; we are saying that the Government have not told the Chief Secretary the truth about the costs. Indeed, they have not taken on board the real costs of local government reform.
  Mr. Stewart: The Government have fully taken on board the real costs of local government reform. Hon.

  647
  Members have referred to the Touche Ross report. Not only did we have that report: there were comments on that report, which we have taken fully into account in the figures that have been published. Figures for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They relate to the Touche Ross figures as amended in the light of consultation. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) suggesting that the Government should not have taken into account the comments that were made on the Touche Ross report? Of course we took them into account.
  The estimates for a 15-year period are that the costs will be between £128 million and £196 million with annual savings estimated in the range of £22 million to £66 million. It is sensible to put forward a range, because much will depend on the decisions of individual authorities.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked me about the allowance for surplus buildings with regard to a specific building in Dundee. We have been extremely conservative—
  It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 122

  Division No. 71]

  [11.28 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amess, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Clappison, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkins, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Congdon, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bates, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bendall, Vivian

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

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Day, Stephen

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Booth, Hartley

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dicks, Terry

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Elletson, Harold

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Butler, Peter

  Evennett, David

  648

  Faber, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luff, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclean, David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, Sir David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Needham, Richard

  Hague, William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Norris, Steve

  Harris, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Page, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  649

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spring, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stern, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whittingdale, John

  Sykes, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wilshire, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

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

  Tracey, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.

  Trend, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

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

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Etherington, Bill

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Betts, Clive

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hood, Jimmy

  Darling, Alistair

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Davidson, Ian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  650

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, William

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Patchett, Terry

  Ingram, Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rooney, Terry

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mahon, Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Wallace, James

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Watson, Mike

  Martlew, Eric

  Welsh, Andrew

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Meale, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Michael, Alun

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Milburn, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Miller, Andrew

  Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. John Spellar.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the provisions (other than any provision authorising payments out of the National Loans Fund) of the Act; and

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling guarantees given by him for the discharge of any financial obligations in connection with sums borrowed by any water and sewerage authority established by the Act; and

  (c) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making loans to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.

  Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill [Ways and Means]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient—

  (a) to authorise the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required for them for the exercise of their functions, nor otherwise payable by them under or by virtue of any provision of the Act;

  (b) to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State, otherwise than in repayment of any loans made by him, in consequence of any provision of the Act; and

  (c) to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State in repayment of loans made by him to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

  11.40 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I have not spoken in the debate so far, and certainly I shall not serve on the Standing Committee. That gives me the opportunity to say a few words about the parts of the Bill that deal with water and sewerage, to which the motion refers.
  Paragraph (a) authorises the Secretary of State
  "to direct a water and sewerage authority"—
  hon. Members should remember that there will be only three in the whole of Scotland—
  "established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct"—
  Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I object to the hubbub being created by English Tory Members at the Bar of the House. Will you warn them that if they do not leave the Chamber they will be asked to serve on the Standing Committee?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman is right: there is quite a noise going on, not only at the Bar of the House but in the rest of the Chamber. I hope that hon. Members will note what has been said.
  Mr. Maxton: As I was saying, the Secretary of State is authorised to direct one of those three authorities
  "to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
  The Bill will take all water and sewerage powers away from local authorities, many of which have had such powers for a very long time. Glasgow, for instance, has had the water supply to Loch Katrine for well over 100 years. Now the Government are removing all that from Strathclyde region and putting it into the hands of a quango whose members will, presumably, be placemen of the Secretary of State—his Tory friends. Presumably they will be paid substantial salaries. The Government are taking away from the local authorities many assets that are not necessarily directly related to the supply of water or the disposal of sewage.
  Much of the land owned by local authorities that will be affected by the water provisions comprises some of the most beautiful countryside in Scotland—certainly in Strathclyde region. Loch Katrine, for example, is a very beautiful part of the country, as anyone who has sailed up it will confirm. I do not know whether the boat still travels up the loch, but it certainly used to.
  According to clauses 93 to 95 of the Bill, the boards will have the right to sell off any land that they consider to be
  652
  surplus, or do not require for their functioning. If that is the case, the Secretary of State can instruct those boards to hand all the money over to him. He is then obliged to add it to the Consolidated Fund, which means that it becomes part of the general money that the Government spend on various items.
  The people who will not receive any benefit from any sale are those who have paid their local rates and taxes over the years to purchase and develop the land for the water and sewerage services. If the boards sell off parts of the beautiful Scottish countryside to developers for tourist purposes—perhaps cheap, shoddy hotels will be shoved up, offering all sorts of leisure activities, which the local people do not particularly want—the local authorities will be unable to do anything about it. Even if they tried to refuse planning permission, the developers could appeal to the Secretary of State, who presumably would overrule those local authorities.
  Some of the most beautiful countryside in Scotland will be under threat as a result of the Bill. The money gained from any sale of such countryside will not be—
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Here comes an experienced salesman.
  Mr. Maxton: Yes. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is an expert on selling things.
  The land will be sold off, but the people to whom it rightfully belongs, the Scottish people, will not get any benefit, because the money will eventually be added to the Consolidated Fund. That money will then pay for the services of the constituents of those hon. Members who voted for a Bill that will gerrymander local government in Scotland. Because of the terms of the Ways and Means resolution, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to take money from the new boards, arising from the sale of land, and not to use it for the benefit of those who originally paid for that land.
  The resolution also states that boards should pay the Secretary of State
  "sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
  I presume that the "exercise of their functions" includes the salaries of board members. Can the Minister tell us what sort of salaries will be paid to the chairmen of the new boards? What will each board member receive?
  Mr. William McKelvey: Perhaps £80,000.
  Mr. Maxton: That is a large amount. Presumably the chairmanship of a board will be a part-time job. It will go to some business man or lawyer friend of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill should be known as the Stewart Memorial Bill, as it was designed to save his seat. He will appoint his friends as chairmen of the new boards and their salaries will have to come out of the money put aside for the "exercise of their functions". A local authority committee on water and sewerage would not pay itself the sort of salaries that the new boards will command.
  What is most dangerous about the resolution is the way in which it gives the Secretary of State power to push public opinion towards accepting, or at least being prepared to consider the eventual privatisation of water. It gives him the power to take such sums "as he may direct". He may therefore say to the boards, "You are to pay me X amount." That will mean that the charges set by a board just to maintain its services to its customers and to pay off

  653
  its debt will be forced up. The Government are hoping that, as the boards have to undertake investment to bring water and sewage up to EC standards, and as the Government have the power to force charges up as high as they want, Scottish people will see their water charges rise and, with a little propaganda, will eventually say, "Well, we don't like it, but if water were in private hands it might be cheaper because the companies could sell things off and operate differently from the boards."
  The most dangerous part of this Ways and Means resolution is the power that it gives the Secretary of State to take whatever money he wants from the new boards, forcing the boards to put up prices and, as a result, pushing people into accepting privatisation. I do not believe that the Scottish people will ever want water and sewerage to be privatised, as they made clear when the Government issued their consultation document on the matter. They made it so clear that the Government had to back down. Whatever some people may say, I believe that the Government were intent on privatising water and sewerage until they felt the weight of opinion not just of the Labour, Scottish National and Liberal Democrat parties but of their own supporters in Scotland. They then had to back down.
  Instead, the Government decided on a halfway house. This Ways and Means resolution is part of that halfway house and I shall vote against it when the time comes tonight.
  11.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: This resolution is yet another increase in central Government powers and contradicts yet again the Government's claims that it is a decentralisation measure. Through the resolution, the Secretary of State is taking more control to himself.
  The resolution authorises
  "the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct".
  That is compulsion. The water board will have no control or say over its finances, which proves yet again that those quangos are simply the creatures of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The resolution also provides for the authorisation of
  "payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State … in consequence of any provision of the Act".
  Once again, the Treasury grabs the cash and the only cash that it can grab comes from consumers of water services in Scotland. Everyone must use those monopoly services on a daily basis.
  In future, the benefit of any payments for water services will be snaffled by the Treasury and surpluses from water services will benefit not the consumer but the Government. That is neither just nor sensible, but it is now being built into the Bill. It fits in well with the pattern which the Government have introduced into Scotland. For example, billions of pounds of North sea oil revenue have bypassed Scotland and gone straight to the Treasury, and Scotland has had little benefit.
  It adds insult to injury if the Treasury now wants any surpluses produced by water services to bypass Scotland. They will be swallowed up by the Treasury instead of being ploughed back into improvements for consumers who created that money in the first place. Water and sewerage services are essential, monopoly services. People
  654
  have no option but to use water services and therefore no option but to contribute to any surpluses which the Treasury would take to itself.
  England and Wales received billions of pounds in the form of a green dowry but, apparently, that will not happen in Scotland. The Government would rather use Scottish public money to further their ideological objectives than to clean up Scottish water. National Audit Office figures show that when the Government privatised water services south of the border all the national loans fund debt incurred by the water industry, which totalled about £5,028 million, was written off.
  In addition, with great munificence, the Government authorised an additional cash injection in English and Welsh water of £1,499 million in December 1989. Overall, the green dowry that the Government quickly gave for the privatisation of water services in England and Wales amounted to some £6,527 million. I notice that the Secretary of State has been quick to avoid answering the question whether there will be any such debt write-off in Scotland.
  In England and Wales, additional water privatisation costs of £131 million were incurred by the Department of the Environment. They included the costs of underwriting, customer share incentives and consultancy fees, and they were paid by the Government without a second thought. An additional £240 million was incurred in financing water privatisation, but it was excluded from the Department of the Environment's costs. It involved the flotation and privatisation costs of the Water Services Association and the water authorities, which came to £166 million, and—
  Sir Anthony Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it relevant to the ways and means resolution? He is talking about water privatisation in England. We are debating a narrow resolution. Surely the hon. Gentleman's speech should relate to Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman was saying. If I thought that he was out of order, I would have ruled accordingly.
  Mr. Welsh: I welcome the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who represents an English constituency. This is the first time he has shown his face in the Chamber throughout the debate. He has voted against Scottish wishes and interests without having heard the debate, which is ludicrous. His presence enables me to make a point: hon. Members who, like him, have not received one vote or any mandate in Scotland will serve on the Committee and force through a measure against the wishes of the Scottish people. I welcome the hon. Gentleman if he wants merely to listen to the debate.
  The fact that the Government paid the sums that I have described as a green dowry in England and Wales but are not considering the debt burden on the Scottish water boards is relevant to the resolution. I remind the hon. Gentleman of more, although smaller, amounts: £166 million was paid to the Water Services Association; £10 million was spent on preparing legislation and establishing the new regulatory system in England and Wales; and restructuring costs amounted to £64 million.
  About £7,000 million of public money was used by the Government to sweeten water privatisation in England, but

  655
  what is happening in Scotland? Silence. Are we to have a similar debt write-off? Will all, some or none of the debt in Scotland to be written off? I remind the Minister that £700 million of Scottish taxpayers' money was used by the Government to sweeten privatisation in England. Similar amounts should be made available to write off the water boards' debts in Scotland. It would make a difference by helping service provision and freeing cash to improve water quality, which is essential.
  To judge from the silence of Ministers, however, it appears that there will be no green dowry for the Scottish water boards and no capital debt write-off. I would that it were otherwise, and I should be happy to let the Minister intervene to tell me that it is otherwise. I have put the same question to the Secretary of State time after time but I met only silence. The Government were happy to hand out public money for private purposes in England, but the Secretary of State will not say whether they will give a similar deal for the publicly controlled Scottish water boards. Is it Government policy to use public money for private profit and private purposes only in England and Wales?
  Greater powers and more centralisation to the Secretary of State are contained in the resolution, as well as much unfairness to those who will have to contribute to any surplus that is produced by the water boards because water is a monopoly service. Any surplus made by the boards should be used for service improvement—for improving the infrastructure, for investment and for lowering prices to Scottish water consumers. That is what I want. What customers in Scotland pay in, because they have no option, should be returned to them in the form of services or improved infrastructure. I do not see that in the resolution. I see greater centralisation and the Government taking even greater powers, instead of a fairer deal for Scottish water consumers and water services.
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: First, I must admit to having a deep suspicion of the Government and would like to enquire of them the purpose of paragraph (b), which does not mention water and sewerage authorities but says "any sums" and
  "any provision of the Act".
  To me, as I have a suspicious mind, that might read like a catch-all asset-stripping provision. The fact that it does not refer to water and sewerage means that any money realised from anything that is sold off can be put in to the Consolidated Fund and, in fact, returned to the Treasury.
  If that is the case and paragraph (b) does not refer only to the water and sewerage authorities, as the Government see it—they do not believe in the sort of authorities that the Labour party and other parties would support, but in what they call minimalist authorities—there are so many assets to strip among everything that local authorities hold. Local authorities' buildings, which they have said will become surplus, could be sold off and the proceeds returned not to the local authority but to the Consolidated Fund, via this part of the resolution.
  If the Government wish to put up for sale profit-making services, they could put that revenue into the Consolidated Fund. Even the houses held by housing authorities could be sold because the Government have a stated ambition to increase the number of private houses in Scotland. If
  656
  paragraph (b) does not refer only to water and sewerage, they could also force the sale of authorities' housing assets and give that money back to the Treasury.
  Hon. Members may say that that is ridiculous and that the Government would not do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will remember Hamilton college of education, which was sold cheap to form a private school. That is what the Conservatives want—they want the country to be run by the private sector, regardless of how much it costs the individual in additional charges. They are chasing an ideology that could lead to tremendous asset stripping.
  We heard of the minimalist council of south Ayrshire and I know of the ambitions of the Conservative Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Minister of State, Department of Employment, for his authority. He wants a minimalist council that will sell off its assets. If they have only a few meetings a year to hand out contracts, they will not require buildings or be responsible for running any services and they can get rid of all the assets.
  I warn the Government that, if that is the case, unless clause 23 merely pays lip service to devolution of power and to decentralisation of delivery of service, it will require a fantastic input of assets. I know that the clause is written in such a way that the Secretary of State can decide what is and what is not devolution. It may mean that there would be a token gesture. If paragraph (b) can be interpreted as an asset-stripping provision—I hope that it would not be—they will have nothing left to have their devolved services delivered from.
  I should like the Minister to make it clear whether paragraph (b) refers only to water and sewerage authorities or whether it is a catch-all provision which would allow sums for any sale of any assets from any of the new local authorities to be returned to the Secretary of State and through him to the Consolidated Fund.
  If it concerns only water and sewerage authorities, it is important to re-read the words of paragraph (a), which states that those authorities will pay the Secretary of State any
  "such sums as he may direct".
  I ask hon. Members to think of a parallel to what may be happening with the water and sewerage authorities, which was so eruditely described by other hon. Members. For example, the Post Office is controlled by very much the same sort of provision. The Treasury can instruct that any sums can be returned to it, as it desires. Although the Post Office is a profit-making organisation—I think that it donated £60 million to the Treasury last year—it has been instructed under the new financial controls to return £160 million to the Treasury next year. The result was a penny on the postage stamp rate—to pay for a direction by the Treasury to return moneys to the Treasury.
  This clause appears to be similar—a clause whereby the Government could instruct that the water charges would he increased, not for the purpose of investment in improved water, nor for the purpose of investment in water infrastructure, nor for the purpose of better sewerage, cleansing and dealing with effluent from industry or the domestic user, but merely to give money back to the Consolidated Fund to aid the Treasury's attempt to gather in moneys to keep the deficit down.
  One might say that it might not make that much money, but £160 million is all that the Government are demanding from the Post Office. If they think that it is worth putting

  657
  a penny on the postage stamp to obtain money for the Treasury, it would not be beyond the bounds of imagination for the Government to force up water charges by simply telling the water boards that they want more money to be returned to the Consolidated Fund and to the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State said earlier that if people faced the prospect of doubled charges for their water to pay for investment in the infrastructure required in Scotland they would not be so happy with water charges. That is not the case. If people knew that the doubled charges would go to the democratically controlled local authority to improve water and sewerage services, they would be happy to pay a doubled charge.
  Under the Bill, however, they could be forced to pay doubled charges merely for the purpose of returning money to the Scottish Office—money which would then, presumably, go into the Consolidated Fund or be taken as part of the income to the Scottish Office so that the direct grant from the Treasury for Scottish services would be reduced. The clause is laden with dangers for water consumers, because it can mean a burden of increased cost that is not reflected in the improvements that we know to be necessary in the water and sewerage infrastructure of Scotland.
  I wish the Secretary of State to give us some assurances that he will not use the clause for that purpose. His silence will be taken as an admission that he is already thinking along those lines—that it will be a money cow which can be milked because when he has the boards they can be made to pay him sums of money and the cost will then be passed on the consumers with no real benefit to them. We need an explanation of what seems to be a tiny piece of the legislation but is laden with dangers for the consumer and for democracy in Scotland.
  12.7 am
  Mr. John Home Robertson: There is always a bit of mystery surrounding Ways and Means resolutions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has extended the mystery surrounding this one by giving us his interpretation of paragraph (b), which takes us beyond the duty being imposed concerning the application of funds from water and sewerage authorities. He has read that paragraph by itself and he may be right to do so. He may well be right in suggesting that it creates scope for the application of funds from a range of different functions and services provided by local authorities and gives the Secretary of State even more power to direct local authorities to dispose of assets or to make profits and to syphon off money by those means into the Treasury.
  It appears that the main purpose of the resolution is to make provision for the Secretary of State to direct the new water and sewerage authorities to pay to him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said earlier, the new water and sewerage authorities will be straightforward creatures of the Secretary of State for Scotland, Clause 64 tells us that the water and sewerage authorities will be
  658
  composed of between seven and 11 persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of that authority.
  One might like to think that that would mean that a load of plumbers would be nominated by the Secretary of State to be members of the water and sewerage authority. However, let us consider one example of a body appointed by the secretary of State for Scotland, which is chaired by someone whom the Government regard as having the requisite knowledge and experience to discharge that function. The Historic Buildings Council for Scotland is chaired by no less a person than the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who is well known for his interest in water and things liquid in Scotland.
  I fear that such authorities will not be accountable to people in Scotland; they will not be primarily interested in providing a quality service to people in Scotland. They will be there, like every other quango nominated by the Scottish Office nowadays, to exercise the political will of the Scottish Office.
  That development raises one or two alarming prospects. Under the resolution, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct the bodies that he has nominated to apply their moneys in certain ways. That could, as already suggested, be a softening-up exercise leading in the direction of the privatisation of water and sewerage services.
  In that case, if would be perfectly consistent with that ethos for the Secretary of State to direct the nominated bodies to start making a profit, rather than just breaking even, providing a service and balancing the books, and in doing so, providing a quality service to water consumers all over Scotland. He could direct them to start making a profit so that he could take the money out of their trading account and apply it back to the Treasury—another form of indirect taxation on people in Scotland. The Secretary of State should come clean about that and tell us whether that is what he had in mind when he tabled the resolution.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether this is a matter for you. I have been carefully studying the monitors which some of us, even with our failing eyesight, can read in the Chamber. I noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was speaking, his name was written in large letters. I have been watching carefully for the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I cannot read it. It is impossible to read because it is in very small letters. Fortunately, I am in the Chamber so I know who is speaking, but those who may not be able to read the monitors outside because of the small letters may not know that my hon. Friend is speaking. Does the matter fall within your remit, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to refer the matter to the Broadcasting Committee.
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend's point of order—
  Mr. McAllion: That is why the Chamber is so empty.
  Mr. Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend says, that may be why the Chamber is so empty; people do not know that I am speaking. I am tempted to give my hon. Friend the

  659
  Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) a long and boring explanation of my long and boring name. The length of my name is the reason why it appears in such small print on the monitors. I must not be diverted from the narrow terms of the resolution.
  I have expressed my concern that the Secretary of State may take advantage of the terms of the resolution to direct water and sewerage authorities to seek to make a profit so that he can use them as a vehicle for taxation. I am all the more worried when I look at clause 100, which provides for water metering. Water metering has been experienced in the Isle of Wight and in parts of England. Many water consumers have found themselves in terrible difficulties because of spiralling charges for water and sewerage. it may not be just a break-even exercise. First, the Secretary of State may direct the authorities to make a profit so that they can pay money into the Treasury, which is a matter of great concern.
  The second point that worries me, almost as much as the first, is that, as well as trading profits, the water and sewerage authorities will have capital assets in abundance in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said, assets build up over many years as a result of the enterprise, public concern and investment of local authorities. My hon. Friend referred to Loch Katrine. One could list a whole range of lochs and reservoirs and the land surrounding them all over Scotland.
  We must consider not only the land surrounding those lochs and reservoirs, but the sporting and recreational rights that go with them. In my constituency, Lothian regional council water and drainage department has a number of reservoirs and lochs for which there are quite good fishing rights and on which people enjoy sailing. It is straightforward for any citizen to pay a reasonable charge for a day's fishing on those reservoirs or to go sailing on them, which makes all kinds of sense as part of the public service and the public assets to which the public have access.
  I fear that Ministers may say, "Ah, those lochs and reservoirs have a capital value. We could direct our new nominees on the quangos"—in this case the new East of Scotland water authorities—"to sell off the public assets and to reduce public access to fishing on those lochs and reservoirs." Already, I have had experience of what happens when certain types of developers and private operators become involved in land holdings in different parts of my constituency.
  Traditionally, on the boundary of my constituency, people have walked up to the highest point in the Lammermuir hills on open moorland, not bothering anybody. A couple of years ago, somebody from Hampshire I think bought the estate and has instructed the estate staff to begin turning people off the land. I fear that that will also happen on and around the lochs and reservoirs which are currently operated by our local authorities, where people have access to fish, sail or do anything that they want in and around those beautiful areas in the hills and uplands of Scotland.
  We can see the fences going up, the gates being closed with signs saying, "keep out, private property", the higher charges for access and sporting rights in those areas and people being denied the right of access to the hills and uplands of Scotland. That would be a scandal, but it would be possible under the terms of the Ways and Means resolution. Clause 95 makes it clear enough:
  660
  "a new water and sewerage authority may dispose of land held by them in any manner, to whomoever and for whatever purpose they wish.
  Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a new water and sewerage authority shall not dispose of land under subsection (1) above for a consideration of less than the best that could reasonably be expected to be obtained on the open market."
  The Secretary of State will direct the authority to go for as much as it can whenever it sells assets. It is all about privatisation and benefits to the highest bidder.
  Mr. Maxton: If the local authority wished to purchase some land to put it into a country park or for the enjoyment of the people who live in that area, it would have great difficulty in finding the price to pay for land. However, if a private builder wished to build bungalows on the site of Loch Katrine, presumably because he would be able to pay the market price, he would be able to do it.
  Mr. Home Robertson: That would be the ultimate irony—public assets in the hills created as a direct result of the foresight, planning and investment of local authorities and their ratepayers, poll tax payers and council tax payers over the years, being taken out of the local authority sector and handed to central Government quangos as laid out in the Bill and then sold to the highest bidder.
  Local authorities may well find themselves trying to buy back their own property to protect the rights of their citizens to have access to the hills and to go fishing on their lochs and reservoirs.
  This is far from a technical resolution. What is being provided for is part and parcel of the thrust of the legislation, and it stinks to high heaven. That is why it is right for us to debate it and to vote against it.
  12.19 am
  Mr. John McAllion: This must be an important debate. At 12.20 am, it has attracted more Conservative Members representing English constituencies than any other stage of the Bill. I am delighted to see them in the Chamber and I look forward to the informed contributions that they are likely to make to a debate which I hope will be prolonged because we are dealing with issues that are central to the people of Scotland. I should not want Parliament to skate over the motion without giving it due consideration.
  As a number of Members are present from English constituencies who do not have wide experience of Scottish local government issues, especially of the way in which water and sewerage services are delivered in Scotland, it may be as well to help them by explaining the process to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) does not have much knowledge of these matters either, so for his benefit and that of Tory Members perhaps I should explain that water and sewerage services are delivered by elected local authorities and that the Scottish people want them to continue to be so.
  When the Government put out for consultation the proposal that they should take water and sewerage services from local authorities and give them to quangos, area water boards or privatise them, they received a massive response. I understand that no fewer than 4,733 submissions were received from individuals and organisations in Scotland.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: My hon. Friend is offering an excellent explanation to English Members. He said that the Scottish people want water to continue to be provided by local water authorities, but it is not good

  661
  enough to say that the Scottish people want it. He should explain what percentage of the Scottish people want it, because opinion polls showed that more than 90 per cent. of Scottish people opposed the Government's proposals.
  Mr. McAllion: I was about to point out to Conservative Members the seriousness of supporting a proposal that is overwhelmingly opposed by the people of Scotland, including Conservative supporters who have no time whatsoever for the changes that are being pushed through the House.
  Of those 4,733 submissions, 4,057 came from private individuals and only 676 from organisations. Of all those responses, only five supported the change from local authorities to privatised water boards, of which four were from companies interested in taking over water and sewerage services in Scotland. Another submission came from the economic affairs committee of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association. That can hardly be said to have democratic support in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) is right. The most recent opinion poll showed that 95 per cent. of the Scottish people oppose the Bill's proposals for water and sewerage services. Indeed, so unpopular is the Bill making the Conservative party in Scotland that it is beginning to become less popular among Scottish people than Michael and Kevin Kelly are among Celtic supporters.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray a little wide. He must stick to the subject that is before us.
  Mr. McAllion: Michael and Kevin Kelly can be blamed for many things, but not for the privatisation of water and sewerage services in Scotland.
  Under paragraph (a) of the Ways and Means motion, the Secretary of State will be given the power
  "to direct a water and sewerage authority…to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
  I should be interested to hear from the Minister what sums will accrue to the new water and sewerage authorities which they do not require for the exercise of their functions.
  The new water authorities are to be area water boards and public boards appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It will be their function to deliver water and sewerage services. However, they will not carry out those functions themselves. In the main, they will appoint private sector agents to deliver the services. Those agents will design, build and operate the water treatment plants that are necessary to provide those services.
  As I understand it, there will be a contract between the area water board and the private sector agent which will pay the private sector agents for carrying out the work on behalf of the area board. The cost of that contract will be met by the levy of a water rate that will be paid by the consumers of water and sewerage services in Scotland.
  The consumers—the Scottish people—will be asked to pay for a service delivered to them by private sector organisations over which they have absolutely no democratic control. They will not control the appointment of the private sector bodies that will deliver the services.
  662
  Similarly, they will not control the appointments to the water boards that will appoint the private sector companies to deliver the services.
  It is clear that paragraph (a) is deeply undemocratic in the way in which it delivers water and sewerage services in Scotland. Those who vote for the motion had better keep that in mind.
  The water rate that will be levied to pay for the contracts and to pay for the services will not be collected by the private sector agents. It will not even be collected by the area water boards. The rate will be collected by the new single-tier councils. I assume that the area boards will authorise the councils to collect only as much money as is required to pay for the contracts that have been agreed with the private sector agents.
  I do not assume that the area boards will be allowed to instruct the single-tier councils to collect more than is required to pay for the water and sewerage services. If they could be instructed to collect more, the area boards could create a surplus for themselves by charging people too much for those services. That would be a form of taxation.
  If the Secretary of State is saying that, if he came across an area board collecting more than the sum required to pay for the services being delivered, he would instruct the area board to return that surplus to the consumers who had paid for the services, that would be one thing, but that is not what the Secretary of State is saying in paragraph (a). He is saying that, if he comes across an area board that is charging too much for the services that it is delivering, he will simply require that board to return the surplus money to him. As I understand it, that money will go into the Consolidated Fund.
  In other words, according to the motion, the Secretary of State has the opportunity to impose a further form of taxation on the Scottish people by allowing his appointees on area boards to charge more than they need for the services and to hand the surplus to the Secretary of State for his own purposes.
  The other possibility is that the contracts agreed between the area boards and their private sector agents might be too generous. That might allow the private sector agents to make too generous profits from the operation of the contract by charging too much for the services provided. If the Secretary of State came across private sector agents making too much profit from the contracts agreed with the area boards, I would expect him in all decency and morality to instruct the area boards and private sector agents to return the surplus to the people who are paying the water rate. Of course, that is not what he says. He says that he wants any surplus for himself. He wants it to go back into the Consolidated Fund—yet another form of taxation.
  More likely, the Secretary of State will ignore the fact that private sector companies and area boards are ripping off water consumers in Scotland and will let them get on with it. The only people who support the Tory party in Scotland are the type of people who would rip off the Scottish people and charge them too much for services.
  Another problem arises. Ever since the poll tax was introduced in Scotland, a tradition of non-payment has arisen. Even the council tax, which has met much less resistance in Scotland than the poll tax did, still suffers from the problem that people are getting out of the habit of paying their bills. There is resistance to paying bills.
  What will happen when an area board employs a private sector deliverer to provide water services in its area, when

  663
  there is a levy to pay for that service, when the single-tier local council is collecting that water rate, when there is non-payment and a consequent shortfall in the money going to that responsible area board and it does not receive the money to pay to the private sector agent to deliver services? Is that why we have paragraph (b)? It states:
  "to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State, otherwise than in repayment of any loans made by him, in consequence of any provision of the Act; and"
  Is the purpose of the Consolidated Fund to make up the shortfall to the area boards so that they can pay the private sector agents, as agreed in their contracts? If that is the case, it is a convoluted and unnecessary way of organising the delivery of water and sewerage services in Scotland. Surely it would be much easier to let local authorities carry on delivering those services in the efficient and economical way that they have done throughout the existence of regional councils since 1975.
  Nobody has complained that water and sewerage services were not good enough, that they were not being delivered properly, or that they cost too much—quite the opposite. People in Scotland understand that water and sewerage costs in our country are far cheaper than they are in England and Wales because they have not been privatised. If they were privatised, the immediate effect would be to push up the cost of water and sewerage services.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am following my hon. Friend's argument very carefully, but I am rather worried. He has said that some people have difficulty paying their bills. He says that the motion could bring about a situation in which we could have artificially high charges for water. Does my hon. Friend foresee the possibility that the government might introduce consequential legislation which would provide for the cutting of domestic water supplies in Scotland, which would be a horrifying prospect?
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend raises an important issue which, at least to my knowledge, has not been touched upon this evening. There have been repeated statements by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he does not intend to change the law in Scotland on the illegality of disconnecting domestic users from water and sewerage supplies. I am sure that he does not propose to do that.
  However, if the situation that I am describing arises in Scotland and if the cost of water and sewerage services is so high that some consumers cannot afford to pay and, as a result, do not pay, and the single-tier authority collecting the rates cannot collect the rates from those individuals and a shortfall then accrues to the water board and it cannot pay for the contract that it has taken out with the private sector, someone has to pay. Either the general taxpayer will pay out of the Consolidated Fund, as outlined in the motion, or the Secretary of State will change the law in Scotland and allow the disconnection of domestic consumers from the water and sewerage supply, as is allowed in England and Wales.
  The Government continually tell us that this is a unitary Parliament which presides over a unitary state and that what happens in one part of the country happens in any other part of the country. They do not like to carry that argument too far when it comes to water disconnections because it is too embarrassing for them. However, it will
  664
  come to that if they are faced with a level of resistance which damages the ability of water boards and private sector agents to deliver the sewerage service.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I offer the hon. Gentleman a third option and that is to do what is becoming increasingly prevalent in England and Wales—self-disconnection through the introduction of water metering. That seems to be the road down which the Government are moving. In England and Wales, the Government are allowing people to disconnect their own water and sewerage service. That is why it is important to strengthen the provisions in the Bill so that self-disconnection will not be allowed in Scotland.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) pursues that point, I must point out that the terms of the Ways and Means motion are fairly narrow. Although passing reference may be made to other matters, this must not develop into a full-blown debate about disconnections.
  Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point to make, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about the reference to the Consolidated Fund in paragraph (b) and asking the Minister to clarify whether any shortfalls that may accrue from non-payment will be met by the Consolidated Fund or, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has suggested, by the introduction of metering. Effectively, that would be the introduction of self-disconnections for Scottish domestic consumers.
  Perhaps that is not a matter of grave concern to Tory Members because their constituents are already subjected to such deprivations, but it is a matter of concern for Labour Members because our constituents are protected by Scottish law at present. We want to ensure that that position remains and no move is made by the Government to change the law in that respect.
  Mr. Maxton: I come back to the phrase "exercise of their functions" in paragraph (a), to which my hon. Friend referred. I wonder whether that covers the cost to local authorities of collecting water charges. Presumably the collector of the money will have to carry out any disconnections, not the water authority. Labour-controlled local authorities could be forced to disconnect people from their water supply, although they have no control over that supply at all.
  Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As I understand the motion and the substance of the Bill, collection of water rates will not be one of the functions of the water and sewerage authorities. That function is being allocated to the new single-tier councils, which will have nothing whatever to do with the provision of water and sewerage services.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there may well be a level of resistance to paying water rates to the new area boards. But that will not be a problem for area boards because the responsibility for collecting water rates will lie with local authorities. Local authorities will get the blame if they have to pursue non-payers through diligence and through the courts, the sheriff, warrants and so on.
  One of the Government's great arguments about the measures contained in the Bill is that they make things clearer and more accountable. We cannot imagine another situation in which it is not clear where accountability lies other than the one referred to by my hon. Friend.

  665
  My final point relates to paragraph (c):
  "to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State in repayment of loans made by him to any water and sewerage authority".
  I should like the Minister to explain what those loans are likely to be. We know that, once the water companies in England and Wales were privatised, they quickly moved away from solely providing water and sewerage services and diversified into other areas of economic activity. They became involved in waste companies and leisure activities.
  As my hon. Friends have said, there is a great danger that the land, rivers and lakes associated with water and sewerage authorities will be quickly divested by the new water boards and sold to private sector companies, which can then exploit them for profit by putting up fences and gates, denying access to the public, and increasing charges for fishing, walking and sailing on the lochs. That is a serious issue which the Minister must explain to the House before the resolution is passed.
  The measure has met almost complete opposition from the people of Scotland. It will have a deleterious effect on the way in which people pay for their water and sewerage services. Indeed, costs will spiral upwards until they match those in England and Wales. Disconnections will occur and metering will be imposed on people against their will.
  Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend has not mentioned the cost of collection. At the moment, collection is carried out by regional councils, whereas presumably under the new arrangements there will have to be a separate department to deal with the collection of those water and sewerage charges. That will mean that a separate finance department and separate arrangements wil be needed for collection and billing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will mean a substantial increase in administrative costs?
  Mr. McAllion: Very much so. We are not simply dealing with the taking away of water and sewerage services from regional councils where regional councils are left in place. Those regional councils have finance departments and have the means of collecting council tax at the moment. Another part of the Bill relates to the abolition of regional councils and the break-up of finance departments and of the systems for collecting taxes and water rates. Those systems will not be in place in 1995 or in 1996.
  The water rates will have to be collected by the new local authorities, many of which may not be in a position even to collect their own council taxes. Those authorities will then be expected to collect water rates on behalf of the area water boards as well. I had a meeting this morning with some officials of Tayside regional council. They said that they cannot see for a number of years any system coming into operation which effectively would collect the council taxes or water rates that are due as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill.
  The Government are inflicting upon the Scottish people an exercise in political gerrymandering. The proposals will also bring absolute chaos to the provision of local government services and to the collection of the costs of those services. The Government had better understand that, before they progress with the Bill. Irrespective of the political implications of the Bill, the sheer practical chaos
  666
  which will be caused by the attempt to make the Bill work will make the poll tax look simple indeed. The lesson has not been learnt.
  The Government got themselves badly burned over the poll tax and I thought that, having done that, they would never return to any madcap scheme such as is tied up in the Bill. There are few Tories left representing Scottish seats in the House. I predict that, once the measure begins to bite in Scotland, there will be even fewer in the future.
  12.43 am
  Mrs. Irene Adams: We are not seeing tonight the Government's concern to provide water services in Scotland. Instead, this is a fit of pique by the Government because of the response to the proposal to privatise water in Scotland. The Minister himself received an horrific reply from his constituents, with some 15,000 of them saying that they wanted nothing to do with water privatisation. Ninety-five per cent. of the people of Scotland have said that they want nothing to do with it.
  The Government now, in a fit of pique, have decided that they will have privatisation by one means or another. The phrase in the resolution which concerns me is
  "pay him such sums as he may direct".
  That one phrase covers all tonight's debates on the matter. The boards which the Secretary of State will appoint, or the lackeys whom he will appoint to the boards, will then be directed to
  "pay him such sums as he may direct".
  When will the Secretary of State decide what those sums are to be? Will the decision be taken first, or will he see what the board has left at the end of the financial year and then take that sum? What will come first—the chicken or the egg? Will he tell the boards what amount they must have left over? Will the boards then have to decide how they are to raise that sum and how will they come to that decision?
  Will the boards be asked to sell off the very asset that the people in Scotland have warned them not to sell off—the water itself? Will we see the sale of Loch Katrine? Will the boards then be instructed to rent it back to supply water to the people who have paid for it in the first place? Who will make that decision?
  The Tories have never provided water out of the goodness of their hearts. One of the first water companies in my consitituency was set up to provide water not for the common people but for bleaching the cloth in Paisley, a textile town. While the company was providing water for bleaching the cloth, people were dying in typhus epidemics because of the dirty water supply. That is a position to which we could well return under the provision that the water boards must pay the Secretary of State such sums as he may direct. Where will that stop? What will be the ceiling of the sum that he may direct and how will it be collected?
  Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Government are doing the same thing to the Post Office? It is required to pay such sums to the Secretary of State as he may direct. That is crippling the service and making it more difficult for the Post Office to improve its services. It is perhaps paving the way for the privatisation of the Post Office. In the same way—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you have rightly said, this is a narrow motion. Has not the hon. Gentleman deviated into an irrelevant matter?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that I can manage without the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to come to a conclusion. I was about to say that the Government were paving the way for privatisation of the Post Office. That may well be what they have in mind for water and sewerage in Scotland.
  Mrs. Adams: If the Bill does not open the door to privatisation, it is certainly providing the key to that door. It is providing a means whereby the boards will have to raise such moneys. The boards appointed by the Secretary of State will have no choice but to sell off their assets and will force prices up so much that they will price themselves right out of the business of providing water. All that they will then do is set themselves up as an intermediate body which buys back the water that they have sold off and then provides it to the people who have paid for it in the first place.
  We see yet another hidden tax in the Bill—yet another means of the Secretary of State raising funds by the back door. Those funds will go back into the Consolidated Fund so that once more he does not have to give money from that fund to provide services in Scotland. It is a double measure. First, it gives him the key to the back door to water privatisation, which was so overwhelmingly rejected by people in Scotland. Secondly, it allows him to raise yet further funds to go back into his own coffers.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: When my hon. Friend looks at paragraph (c) of the Ways and Means motion, does she find it remarkable that there should be provision in Scotland to repay over a period certain loans, at the whim of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when, at the time of the privatisation of the water industry in England, the majority of the water authorities' outstanding loans were wiped out?
  Mrs. Adams: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The loans were wiped out in the main when the water industry was privatised in England. But no provision is made to wipe out loans when the water is provided by boards in Scotland. I presume that we shall see such a provision when we get the back-door water privatisation.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is a fit of pique. The Secretary of State has determined that he will privatise water in Scotland by one means or another. As he cannot do it directly because of the reaction in Scotland when privatisation was first proposed, he now intends to do it indirectly. He will put such a price on water that the boards will price themselves out and will be forced to sell all their assets. The people to whom they sell the assets will set the price at which the water is sold back.
  Mr. Connarty: The Secretary of State said earlier that people would not take kindly to having their water charges doubled if that was to pay for the increase in water and sewerage quality that is required in Scotland. Paragraph (c) requires a responsibility for the repayment of loans; paragraph (a) provides for a completely new charge of any sum that the Secretary of State wishes to charge. It is as if local authorities had taken a power not just to borrow the
  668
  money to pay for improvements, but to start giving profits to pay for other services. This is an additional water charge for local authorities.
  Mrs. Adams: I entirely agree.
  The Government refused to accept that people in Scotland did not want to be privatised. They have tried by every means possible to make that come about. I think that they will receive the same response as last time: people will not be fooled. People in Scotland are very concerned about the lack of democracy that we are seeing again here. Not only is the Secretary of State appointing yet another quango; he is deciding that he will milk this quango dry—that he will set the charges. We have no means of knowing what he means by "to pay him such sums"; what sums are we talking about? Will he set them at the beginning of the financial year, or will he wait until the end and see what sums the board has? If the Secretary of State sets the goal first, the price of water services in Scotland may well double.
  People in Scotland might not object to that if they received those services—if they were assured of a clean water supply and the renewal of sewerage systems that are currently failing desperately. They would not mind if they knew that all the money was being ploughed back into such services. But, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, metering may result in self-rationing: people will simply turn off their water supplies, because they will know that at the end of the week they will not be able to afford the bill. Where will that stop? Where will the price increases stop, as a means of bringing money back into the coffers—such sums as the Secretary of State may determine?
  The Secretary of State must tell us exactly how he will go about this and when he will determine what sums will be involved. Will this happen at the beginning of the boards' financial year? Will the boards be expected to sell off assets to pay
  "such sums as he may direct"?
  Does that simply mean assets such as the land around the water, or does it mean the lochs themselves? Before the Secretary of State goes any further, he must answer all those questions.
  12.54 am
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: According to the well-known saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Where is the demand for this measure? The truth is that people in Scotland are delighted with water and sewerage services.
  I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is present. I listened with interest to his remarks on the money resolution, when he paid tribute to the excellent way in which he had been treated by some of his Scottish Front-Bench colleagues.
  According to an opinion poll in tomorrow's Glasgow Herald, 15 per cent. of the Scottish people now support the Conservative party. That figure is higher than it should be. The hon. Member for Southend, East may have felt nostalgic about his time as a Conservative Member for Scotland, but I am sure that he cannot remember any other time when Conservative support was as low as 15 per cent. People must ask why.
  Mr. McAllion: Was my hon. Friend present when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that he was extremely sad that he no longer represented a

  669
  Scottish constituency? My hon. Friend should tell him that the people of Cathcart are not at all sad that he is not their Member.
  Mr. Hood: I was present, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East had his tongue in his cheek when he said that. These days, there is not much future in being a Conservative in Scotland.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend may not be aware that, before the hon. Member for Southend, East became the Member for Cathcart, he was a member of the old Glasgow corporation. One of the great prides of that corporation was its water supply and waterworks, including Loch Katrine. When the hon. Gentleman was a councillor, I am sure that he took pleasure in sailing across Loch Katrine, because councillors had the right to do so. That privilege will no longer be available to the elected members who represent the new future Glasgow authority.
  Mr. Hood: If the hon. Member for Southend, East lived in Glasgow, I doubt that he would support the motion. I am sure that the same could be said of a great many other Conservative Members.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I certainly did not take advantage of all the perks on offer to councillors, which were scandalous: that was a thing for Labour councillors to do.[Interruption.] May I offer a little advice to the hon. Gentleman? I must tell him and his colleagues, who are moaning and shouting, that if they had a good argument and put it nicely and constructively to the Secretary of State, he would accept their case. I did just that to save King's Park from the indignity of being part of Lanarkshire. Why not try that? Opposition Members should ask the Government nicely, reasonably and sensibly to consider their case. They might be amazed at the results.
  Hon. Members: Just like Maastricht.
  Mr. Hood: I would be flabbergasted, absolutely amazed or any other adjective that the hon. Gentleman might like to use. Will the Government withdraw this nonsense of the Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Please."] After all, 95 per cent. of the Scottish people do not want it. Will they please withdraw it? That suggestion does not seem to work.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East made an unfortunate remark about councillors' perks. These days, there are not many of them. In 1974—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the motion will bear the interpretation of councillors' expenses that is put upon it.
  Mr. Hood: I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  May I just say that, when a councillor attended a meeting of a water board in 1975, he received a £10 attendance allowance. In 1993, nearly 10 years later, councillors who attended such meetings barely received £10. To suggest that councillors still receive great perks is nonsense. One of the great disasters of local government is the fact that proper remuneration is not offered to those who are supposed to be accountable to the electorate for a council's work.
  Mr. Wray: The Secretary of State got it wrong when he said that he would get half the required £52 million from the private sector. To date, he has received £2·5 million. The boards that will be established will do the same as the health boards: they will sell off all their assets and make the ratepayers pay for anything to do with water.
  Mr. Hood: We have heard much from the Government about how the private sector will be funded. One has only to think of Crossrail, the channel tunnel and all the other wonderful projects to see that they have not come up with the goods.
  Since I came to the House in 1987, a short time ago—it sometimes seems a wee bit longer—these motions have always confused me. They are always ambiguous. We have been asked to pass a measure that gives the Secretary of State a range of powers with which we do not necessarily agree. The measure is open-ended and allows him to do as he likes, without real accountability to the House.
  Paragraph (a) says:
  "to authorise the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
  What are "such sums", how are they worked out, and who will decide? Will there be an equation for working out that sum? Should we not be told what those sums are before we pass this measure? A few weeks ago, a money resolution mentioned "something like £4·6 million" but we did not know what the "something like" was. What does the term "such sums" mean?
  This resolution will create a water tax that will provide revenue for the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, it will go into the Treasury's Consolidation Fund, not into investment to provide better services. Almost two years ago, the Government promised us all that they would not increase taxes. They told us that they were about cutting taxes but, as soon as they were re-elected, their policies were all about tax.
  I need not remind the House that the Chancellor has admitted that the measures introduced by him and his predecessors were equivalent to a 7p increase in income tax. The Government used to say that the Labour party would spend, spend, spend. This Government tax, tax, tax, but they do not necessarily spend.
  Mr. Pike: Does paragraph (a) mean that, if the motion is carried, water authorities in Scotland will be asked to produce not only income for investment and for their revenue expenditure but additional income for the Government's Consolidated Fund? As my hon. Friend says, it is a new source of indirect taxation.
  Mr. Hood: That is exactly what I was trying to say.
  Mr. Connarty: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the laws that govern the raising of funds for local authorities contain a clause that says that a local authority shall raise sufficient funds for the provision of its services. In the High Court judgment against Stirling district council when I was leader, the High Court judges said that that should be interpreted to read "only" sufficient funds as are required for the provision of its services.
  Does my hon. Friend not find it rather strange that the Bill says that this will have the boards raising more than sufficient funds—it states this clearly—

  671
  "required by them for the exercise of their functions"?
  Is it not an oddity that this Bill provides for the raising of additional sums other than those required for water and sewerage delivery? It should be explained by the Secretary of State, and possibly even withdrawn, so that they raise only sufficient funds for the purposes for which they are set up.
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which was the second point that I was going to come to.
  I am pleased to see the Secretary of State now sitting in his place. The hon. Member for Southend, east said that, if I asked you nicely, you would respond much better to our representations. The hon. Member for Southend, East even suggested that, if I asked you nicely to withdraw this ridiculous proposal, you might do so.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman talking to me nicely—I can do nothing about it.
  Mr. Hood: I am sure that if I asked you nicely, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might consider it.
  Will the Secretary of State consider withdrawing this ridiculous measure which 95 per cent. of the people of Scotland do not support? [Interruption.] That is as nice as I can be. If hon. Members do not think that that is nice, they have not seen me being nasty. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) mentioned English Members, and I am thankful that one or two have arrived since I began to speak.
  Much has already been said about Strathclyde. As a Member of Parliament, I have had my moments with many departments within Strathclyde regional council, but one of the most satisfactory departments with which to deal is the water and sewerage department. If one rings it about a problem, one gets an almost instant response. In addition, it provides a considerably cheaper service than any in England and Wales. It provides an excellent service at almost half the cost of that elsewhere, but we are discussing a measure that will destroy it all.
  I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmon), but he made a valid point. He said that, at this stage, the Secretary of State was not talking about introducing legislation to cut water supplies, but I am sure that metering will lead to it. It has happened with electricity, so it will undoubtedly happen with water.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the taxation on water and sewerage authorities is set too high by the Government, it is likely that many more people will be disconnected? Such a method of taxation is likely to result in far more disconnections than would conceivably be the case otherwise, and is it not regrettable?
  Mr. Hood: It is certainly regrettable and we should be taking action to impress on Ministers, preferably before they have gone too far, the true results of what they are proposing.
  The resolution also deals with the area boards. I have already mentioned Strathclyde, and the excellent brief states that a west of Scotland water authority will have between six and 10 members. We are told that taxes or levies, whatever one wishes to call them, will be placed on the boards, and I wondered who would take part in the negotiations.
  There must be two sides in a negotiation; one represents one interest and someone else represents the other. If a
  672
  member of a quango involved in the negotiation is also to decide whether one has a job, it makes the job of negotiating much easier. If the local authority represents the community, one expects it to resist the Secretary of State and argue its corner, but the result would not be the same if the area board was a quango appointed by the Secretary of State. If there is any disagreement, the Secretary of State will do what he did with the health boards—someone else will be appointed.
  We have also heard about the consumer's interest, so let us consider the customers council. One would think that the customers council would look after the interests of the consumer and I am pleased to see that our expert on consumer affairs is here to listen to the debate. Who appoints the customers council?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Member that that does not relate to the motion.
  Mr. Hood: I was explaining the contradictions in the negotiations between area boards and section (a) of the ways and means resolution.
  Mr. Davidson: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the words in paragraph (a):
  "being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions"?
  The Secretary of State could decide not only who to appoint to the board, but how much they should be paid. Presumably he would also be able to amend that payment during their time on the board.
  By using that part of paragraph (a), presumably he could point out that the amount of money received by members of the board was not really required, and could therefore threaten them with a drastic reduction. That would give him another power: to compel them to agree with his evaluation of how much they should be paying in tax.
  Mr. Hood: I think that we are hearing the analogy of the carrot and the stick—patronage or the sack. In fairness, I must come to the Secretary of State's defence for a moment. His history is not one of the stick. It is quite an enjoyable experience being sacked by the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office, because one is well looked after. When I was a miner in the pits, if anyone got sacked they were down the road with a part of the pay that they had earned on that day. If someone is sacked by the Secretary of State, they can get £80,000, a pat on the back and a wee mention in the new year's honours list, so he has a good track record of looking after his cronies.
  To return to the resolution, because I have been tempted away, Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth of the matter is that patronage is a worrying feature. The vagueness of the resolution and the powers it seeks are also worrying.
  Mr. Connarty: Is there not a more worrying dichotomy in paragraph (a)? If one of the functions that they have to exercise is investing in water and sewerage infrastructure and if the Secretary of State has an instruction, as is the case with other departments—the Post Office, for example—to find funds and such sums as he decides, he will be tempted not to place on the authorities the type of functions that we would wish, such as improvement of and investment in the infrastructure and in sewerage and water systems. That would lead not to more money to pay for those investments but to spare money, which would be returned to the Secretary of State. Those are the sort of grand pressures involved—the choice between investment

  673
  and paying back money on investments and giving back free money to the Secretary of State for some other purpose set by the Treasury.
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. May I refer to the earlier debate about the cost of the reform? Perhaps some people in the Scottish Office think that they will understate the cost of the reform and make up for the deficit and additional costs by putting less hidden tax on the water consumer.
  I am trying to come to the close of my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] My hon. Friends are so kind.
  We are being asked to pass a resolution that gives powers to the Secretary of State—or whoever holds that office—and to faceless people in the area boards, and we are told that the customers council will look after consumers' interests. No Conservative Member has suggested that we will provide a better and cheaper service to the consumer. I hope that the Minister will try to answer those questions, among others, when he has an opportunity to respond to the debate.
  Where will the real negotiation take place? Will it take place in Scotland, with the area boards with the Secretary of State? Will it take place in representations from the customers council, appointed by the same people—the same cronies who probably go to the same meetings at night and the same parties? Even worse, will all the decisions be taken in the Treasury, just across the road?
  Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that many of the decisions will be taken at social functions of the Conservative party? Is he aware that there have been many occasions on which appointees to health boards and the like have been with Ministers at party political functions on behalf of the Conservative party? Does he believe that it is a grave danger to the system of the water industry that might be established, that the appointments would not be above board; that they would be conducted solely within the ranks of a fund-raising event for the Conservative party?
  Mr. Hood: That concern is not limited to the Bill. It has been expressed about much legislation that has passed through the House since I have been here. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have sat doing your excellent duty and listened to many concerns about that in special ways and means motions.
  It is a bit of a cheek, is it not? I heard the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) speaking about 22 members of a council that employs 2,000 people as if it was a large number. The we consider what happens in appointments to boards—to health boards and to that enterprise board, to that local enterprise company—all patronage, all placepeople. When we talk about "back to basics", is it not back to common values, decency, things that one can trust? Is that what "back to basics" means? How can one trust the judgment of a person who is there to so-called represent one on a customers council or a health board, if that person is there by the patronage of a political appointment?
  Surely, if we talk about decentralisation, whether it be in the case of health boards or whatever, we should have democratic elections—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—communities represented by people who are accountable to the community. Surely that is the way forward.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to take off again and is leaving the order far behind.
  Mr. McAllion: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hood: Of course I will.
  Mr. McAllion: Perhaps I can bring my hon. Friend back to the motion before the House, and direct him back to schedule 7 to the Bill, which deals with appointments to the new area water boards. We find in schedule 7 that the Secretary of State has been empowered not only to appoint up to 11 members to those area boards, but to pay them such remuneration, such reasonable allowances, such compensation, such pensions, allowance and gratuities, as he and the Treasury think fit. In other words, among the sums which are required to carry out their functions in terms of the order is the function of the Secretary of State paying off his political friends by appointing them to the boards with big fat salaries, big fat remuneration and big fat allowances in return for political loyalty to him and his party.
  Mr. Hood: Again my hon. Friend emphasises the vagueness of the measures. We could be talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds. We could be talking about millions of pounds. I could mention the recent fiasco—I do not want to dwell on it—of the Glasgow health board, and talk about the amounts that it has cost there. That was with one person only. There will be 12 people per board, and we do not know how much they will be paid.
  I do not think that it is unreasonable for Members of the House who come here to pass legislation to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whatever Secretary of State it is in a measure such as this, what sum is involved. What will he pay the people who will be on those boards? What is wrong with asking that?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does that hon. Gentleman accept that, if we privatised water in Scotland, as we have done in England, we should do away with all the political patronage, which I think is quite shocking? Why do we not go the same way as England and go for water privatisation? We should then get rid of all the political patronage.
  Mr. Hood: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that one is better burnt than scalded. Are we being asked not to be scalded, but to be burnt? I pay twice as much in water rates for my one-bedroom flat in London as I do for my house in Scotland, where I get better, cleaner water. Yet the hon. Member for Southend, East recommends that we should go down the road of privatisation, despite all the troubles that is has brought to England and Wales. If the people of England and Wales were given the choice of going back to public ownership—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is broadening the debate. Some of the interventions are helping the hon. Gentleman in that respect, but they are not helping the Chair.
  Mr. Hood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Pike: The resolution refers to other money. Could that reference be based on the assumption that the water authorities in Scotland will take action similar to that taken by North West Water? It does more to improve the water quality and to make profits in Kuala Lumpur than it does in the north-west.
  Mr. Hood: That is obviously a great concern.
  Conservative Members have accepted that the resolution is important. There are more hon. Members discussing the resolution at 1.21 am than there have been since 3.30 pm.
  Mr. Home Robertson: English Members may be flocking into the Chamber because of the implications of the resolution in connection with clause 102. It provides for the supply for use outwith Scotland. It provides for the export of publicly owned water from Scotland for sale south of the border in England. Under the resolution, discriminatory charges could be applied on water that is exported south of the border. It could be subject to directions by the Secretary of State. More money could be raised from the exported water, which would be a tax on the people of England. I might think that that was a good idea, but I am not sure that Conservative Members would agree.
  Mr. Hood: I am sure that my hon. Friend heard the excellent speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others. They made the point that English and Welsh Members should beware. They will not escape the consequences of their party in England and Wales if the Government are allowed to get away with their proposals.
  Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be yet another Conservative fund-raising event? There was discussion between officials of Scottish Enterprise and officers of the Conservative party about the possibility of piping Scottish water to England and Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned Kuala Lumpur. Given that the channel tunnel is about to be completed, the scope for the export of Scottish water to the continent is considerable. Levies could be put on that water by the Secretary of State, which could price Scottish water out of the French and German markets. 'That would be a decision by the Secretary of State which would affect Scottish exports, which all of us would deprecate.
  In my constituency, the Scotch whisky bottling industry is an important part of the local community's economy. If the whisky was to be marketed jointly with Scottish water—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member is given to overlong interventions.
  Mr. Hood: I think that my hon. Friend made a good point.
  Mr. Ingram: Would my hon. Friend accept some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) and relate them to the gas pipes that currently run all over Europe? If gas were not flowing through those pipes, water could flow in a reverse action. That could take water from Scotland as far as Siberia with some of the extensions that have been made in the gas distribution network, so we could easily find ourselves exporting water to Kuala Lumpur.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I suggest that he does not follow that path but returns more closely to the resolution.
  Mr. Hood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for rescuing me. I was trying to work out gas and water going different ways, and gave up.
  676
  Genuine concerns have been expressed about the power that the resolution vests in the Secretary of State. Even as hon. Members have expressed those concerns, the Secretary of State has been either studying the problem or he has nodded off. He is obviously studying the problem. I hope that, before the House rises, we may get a response. I do not think that that is unreasonable. The point that I made earlier about the appointments to the area boards and its ability to seek the power to pay remuneration, pensions and so on should be addressed. We should be given an idea of what those salaries would be.
  I can remember, as I said earlier, the Tory members of Parliament who were defeated at the last election. I used to be represented by a Tory Member of Parliament when I lived in Nottingham for a few years. He was the Member for Sherwood, Andy Stewart, a farmer from Strathavon. I bumped into my former Member of Parliament, a congenial chap with whom I have quite a fair relationship. I said, "Hello, Andy, how are you doing?" And Andy said: "I'm busy. I'm the chairman of the agricultural board." I said, "Very good, Andy, well done."
  One can bet a pound to a penny that the chairman of the agricultural board is paid a lot more after being kicked out by his constituents in Sherwood than he was when he was their Member of Parliament. In 1987—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the time to engage in extensive reminiscences. The purpose of the resolution is much narrower than that.
  Mr. Hood: I apologise if I transgressed from what I originally wanted to say. However, there is an inference of the powers being sought by the Secretary of State in the resolution, of which I gave an example.
  Mr. Gallie: Which was irrelevant.
  Mr. Hood: It was not irrelevant. Such information should certainly be supplied to the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the amounts that may be payable to the officers of the water board in those circumstances and tell us his view on how that compares with the amounts presently paid to elected councillors who presently sit on the boards of water boards?
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must tell him that, again, this is going wide of the resolution.
  Mr. Hood: Much to your disappointment, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am coming to a close.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does not the hon. Member think, even as a socialist, that, if we sold our water with the same success as we sell our whisky, it would be of great benefit to his constituents and to all the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Hood: I was in Athens a few weeks ago with my Select Committee, and was pleased to learn that Greece imports more Scotch whisky than any other country in Europe. I am sure that it would import Scottish water if it was available. Water privatisation and area boards are not necessary for that, when local democracy controls services.
  I hope that the power sought in the resolution is given to the Standing Committee, because when the Government

  677
  are proposing measures that do not have the support of 5 or 6 per cent. of people in Scotland, it is important that they give the facts and figures to back up their argument. We have already shown that the Government's assessment of the costs of the Bill is much lower than its true cost. We suspect from our discussions tonight that they may use a water tax to meet the deficit. If the Secretary of State and his Ministers disagree, they should come up with the facts.
  Mr. Home Robertson: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 73(7), which deals with charges schemes? It says:
  "A new water and sewerage authority, in making a charges scheme and the Customers Council and the Secretary of State in considering whether to give approval to such a scheme, shall endeavour to ensure that no undue preference is shown, and that there is no undue discrimination."
  The charges scheme will include a surcharge—a tax—that is supposedly subject to the consent of the customers council and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is it not incestuous for the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell the new water authorities to impose a surcharge on water so that he can put money back into the consolidated fund while posing as the safeguard of the public interest in preventing water charges from going too high? Is it not odd that he is trying to have it both ways?
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual excellent way. We have heard similar concern tonight, but if the Secretary of State knows the sums that he is seeking to spend, he should let the House know. If he does not know, he is incompetent and should not hold his position. I have my own views and disagreements with the Secretary of State, but I believe that he has the figures, and we should know what they are. If he cannot give them tonight, I am sure that my hon. Friends in the Standing Committee will pursue the matter.
  1.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have reminded the House, this is a—
  Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been waiting since 3.30 pm to make a contribution. Would it be appropriate for me and my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Canavan) to be called before the Minister replies? Is not that the normal procedure in debates of this kind?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. The Minister has been asked a number of questions and he will now have the opportunity to reply.
  Mr. Ingram: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to come into conflict with you in any way, but I have sat through the whole of this debate. I left the Chamber briefly to get something from the Library as a result of what was said during the debate and I wanted to make a contribution in relation to that. Although I recognise your powers, I feel that there are matters that remain to be raised which the Minister should be required to answer. I would welcome your ruling on that point.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have ruled that it is within the discretion of the Chair. Many hon. Members have intervened and have had an opportunity—
  Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order on that matter. I have made the point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear all points of order at once.
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the debate continue after the Minister has spoken?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, it can.
  Mr. McAllion: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the debate is allowed to continue after the Minister has made his contribution, will he be allowed to answer the points made subsequently and to re-enter the debate at that stage?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That can be done only with the leave of the House.
  Mr. Foulkes: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister is not allowed to reply, would it be possible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the motion is tabled, to reply to the debate? My hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, for Falkirk, West and I have points to make. It would be unacceptable if those points could not be dealt with. It looks as though the Government are trying to railroad through this rather important measure.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to decide who will speak on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. Stewart: As you have rightly reminded the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very limited motion. May I consider first the key criticism of the motion, namely the surrender of surpluses by the water boards to the Treasury. That is a standard form provision to ensure that, where genuine surpluses are generated, they are properly available to the public sector as a whole.
  In all cases, of course, the needs of the industry will have the first call on revenue.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No, I want to explain the motion.
  The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) asked about the meaning of
  "such sums as he may direct"
  and whether the normal financial regime would include such sums. I assure her that that is not the case. They will not be a key element of a normal financial regime. The provision will deal with a wholly exceptional situation should that arise.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) asked about the possibility of the motion allowing assets owned by local authorities to be taken from them. I assure him that that is not the case. The motion contains no provision that would enable the Secretary of State to require authorities to dispose of assets.
  Hon. Members have raised many other points related to the motion to which we will no doubt return as the Bill progresses through the House.

  679
  This is a standard motion, there is nothing particularly controversial about it, and I therefore commend it to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Qustion put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 49.

  Division No. 72]

  [1.39 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Faber, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  French, Douglas

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Gallie, Phil

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garnier, Edward

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gorst, John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Booth, Hartley

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Hague, William

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bowis, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brazier, Julian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Bright, Graham

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harris, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Clappison, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dicks, Terry

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dover, Den

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan, Alan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Elletson, Harold

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  680

  Lightbown, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Luff, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stewart, Allan

  Merchant, Piers

  Streeter, Gary

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mills, Iain

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Norris, Steve

  Trend, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Page, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Paice, James

  Walden, George

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Watts, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Richards, Rod

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mr. Andrew Mackay and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Barnes, Harry

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  McAllion, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McFall, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  McLeish, Henry

  Davidson, Ian

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dixon, Don

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Maxton, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Olner, William

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pike, Peter L.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Graham, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Home Robertson, John

  Wallace, James

  Hood, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Welsh, Andrew

  681

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Jim Cunningham.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly.
  The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 49.

  Division No. 73]

  [1.50 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Alexander, Richard

  Faber, David

  Amess, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forth, Eric

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Atkinson, David (Bout'mouth E)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Gale, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Gallie, Phil

  Baldry, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gorst, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Booth, Hartley

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Boswell, Tim

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bowis, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Harris, David

  Bright, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hawksley, Warren

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Heald, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Hendry, Charles

  Butler, Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cash, William

  Horam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clappison, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jack, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Congdon, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Conway, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

  Key, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, Sir David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dover, Den

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Duncan, Alan

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Dunn, Bob

  Lidington, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Maclean, David

  682

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Spring, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stephen, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Stern, Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Stewart, Allan

  Mills, Iain

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Sykes, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Norris, Steve

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

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Pickles, Eric

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Ward, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Watts, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Richards, Rod

  Whittingdale, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Willetts, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wilshire, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Sims, Roger

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  McAllion, John

  Barnes, Harry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Canavan, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Connarty, Michael

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maxton, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Michael, Alun

  Dewar, Donald

  Olner, William

  Dixon, Don

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dononoe, Brian H.

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Salmond, Alex

  Foulkes, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wallace, James

  Graham, Thomas

  Watson, Mike

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Wilson, Brian

  Home Robertson, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy

  Wray, Jimmy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ingram, Adam

  Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Jim Cunningham.

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient—

  (a) to authorise the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions, nor otherwise payable by them under or by virtue of any provision of the Act;

  (b) to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State, otherwise than in repayment of any loans made by him, in consequence of any provision of the Act; and

  (c) to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State in repayment of loans made by him to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  REHABILITATION SUPPORT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6625/93, relating to the European Commission's proposed rehabilitation support programme in developing countries; and supports the Government's policy towards the proposed programme.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  FISHING FLEETS (CAPACITIES)
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6888/93, relating to the capacities of fishing fleets in the Community, and 7378/93 and ADD 1, together with the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19th November, relating to the Transitional Guidance Programme; notes the Court of Auditors' criticism of Community expenditure on decommissioning; notes the measures taken by member states under their guidance programmes; and endorses the Government's view that, in order to conserve fish stocks, a combination of measures designed to regulate fishing effort is required.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  Question agreed to.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Alan Howarth be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Anthony Coombs be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Newspaper Ownership
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  2.1 am
  Mr. Richard Page: Let me begin my expressing my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, who will reply to the debate, and my regret that it is not taking place several hours earlier. Unfortunately, the peculiar and arcane procedures of the House must take their course.
  I hope that I am pushing an open door tonight. I am well aware of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage at today's lunch, when he addressed the Media Society on cross-media ownership; I have obtained a transcript of his words. I believe that the door is beginning to open, but I hope that what I say tonight will help to push it a little further ajar, allowing some recognition of the changes that have taken place in the world of the media. I hope that those changes will be reflected in the ownership of the various bodies that have an opportunity to provide the British public with news and entertainment.
  I often feel that parliamentary legislation is somewhat similar to fighter aircraft. My hon. Friend may think that a rather peculiar analogy; but building a fighter plane means first having to design it—which means a lot of work on the drawing board—then building the prototype and testing it. Eventually, after a successful test, the designer decides to move into production. As soon as that first fighter comes off the production line, it is out of date, because a more modern version is waiting on the drawing board.
  The same could be said of the Broadcasting Act 1990. When it was at the design stage, it was up to date; almost as soon as it became an Act, it was out of date.
  I served on the Committee that considered the original Telecommunications Bill of 1983 and the subsequent 1984 Act. That legislation split the Post Office from British Telecommunications and allowed BT to operate in the private sector, along with the newly created cellular network and Mercury. At that time, none of us realised the speed at which the development of information technology would take off. We knew that we would change the scene, but we did not know that everything would alter at such a rate.
  When we considered the Broadcasting Bill, none of us knew that satellite television would succeed. Murdoch was brave enough to invest millions of pounds in it every week, but there was hardly a queue forming to take over and compete in the satellite market. Only one other competitor then existed, but it soon fell by the wayside. Murdoch has now succeeded in that market.
  At that time, there were few radio stations. One could listen to pirate stations, such as Radio Caroline; now there are more stations than one can shake a stick at. The same can be said of the cable companies. In 1990, the cable franchises were not taken up and only one half-viable franchise was operating in the United Kingdom. Now Britain has been cabled and those companies are taking a bigger share of the market. They are also moving into the voice telephony market. We have witnessed the growth in the development and use of fibre optics. If we allow BT to

  685
  use the twisted pair of wires that go into each home to provide further media communication, the market will expand even more.
  When the Broadcasting Bill was enacted, the measures contained in it were reasonable. The game has changed, however, and the world has moved on. We must catch up. It is clear that the Government's policy for the media has, for understandable reasons, been unable to keep pace with the technological and cultural changes that have occurred.
  It is imperative that state regulation does not harm the health of a vibrant United Kingdom industry. I therefore warmly welcome the broad review that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 3 Janaury and the thrust of his speech to the Media Soceity today. Nevertheless, I am concerned that changes must be made sooner rather than later, which is the theme of my speech.
  Such is the pace of change in the industry, and the rate of advance of overseas competitors, that we do not have the luxury of a long gestation period. In just three years, the cross-media ownership provisions of the 1990 Act, have, frankly, become antiquated. At that time, it was thought reasonable to leave the ownership of satellites open, while placing restrictions on terrestrial broadcasting. As my right hon. Friend has said, then there was not a long queue of entrants to the satellite market.
  The growth of new means of communication has begun to leave terrestrial services almost literally stuck in the mud. It is no longer tenable for their development to be artificially restricted. Newspaper owners are being prevented from making the investment that would bring about the important synergies. My greatest concern is that, although we have now reached a point when there is a broad acknowledgement of the need for our industry to be updated, there is no real sense of urgency.
  The conflict in the Gulf provided the American Cable News Network with a golden opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of modern communication media. More recently, 60 ft yachts sailing around the world have been able to relay film from among the icebergs of the southern oceans straight to United Kingdom viewers, using digital compression. When one thinks of the length of time that it took for film to be relayed from the Falklands on to our television screens, some 10 years ago, one appreciates that the new developments are nothing short of miraculous. Those examples show how information technology has brought news and comment to the British people, in a manner undreamt of a few years ago.
  Why should international media companies with full access to those technologies be allowed to transmit to the British people, whereas our newspaper industry is restricted to, at most, a 20 per cent. stake in any venture based on cable? Our newspaper industry is the envy of the world. It may not be the apple of the Government's eye at present, but I can think of nowhere else where individuals have such choice. However, for reasons that have no relevance in 1994, those newspapers are prevented from taking a serious part in the communications revolution that is under way.
  In most other industries, the United Kingdom is a model of liberalisation to its European partners. It is strange, therefore, that we should choose to be more restrictive when it comes to certain aspects of the communications industry. Having led the way in enabling the provision of
  686
  cable services, we risk allowing that technological lead to dwindle away by refusing to allow the communications industry to evolve on the established base provided by our newspapers.
  It is clear common sense that the benefits of integration between media sectors should not be denied to the industry. But, beyond that, the experience of recent years has shown that technological change and the growth of overseas competitors will wait for neither a lengthy review nor a slow implementation of liberalisation.
  In a world where the creation of a global product that can be marketed to the largest possible audience is so important, the creation of media groupings will bring broad competitive advantages. It would be unwise to prevent United Kingdom newspapers from becoming the hubs of modern United Kingdom media groups. If we do not act to allow that desirable development, I am convinced that the decision will be taken for us, with the media industry that provides services to the British public becoming increasingly foreign dominated and owned.
  On the other side of the coin, the development of our newspaper industry will be restricted, providing a service in a highly competitive market where there will be an increasing number of desirable alternatives. Restricted circulation will lead to mergers, closures and reduced customer choice—the very opposite of what we wanted to achieve.
  The United Kingdom has a media ownership restriction brought on by information technology advances that have bypassed sectoral regulations. My Adjournment debate is entitled "the future ownership of newspapers", because I believe that, if the regulations are not relaxed, the number and spread of newspapers will be reduced. Why cannot television companies hold satellite licences from the Independent Television Commission—only 20 per cent. of a firm's shares? If a British company buys a television station anywhere in the world, why will it be disqualified from classification as a United Kingdom independent television producer? Even Associated Newspapers' 20 per cent. ownership of Westcountry means that it cannot become an independent producer. Why does national commercial radio restrict newspapers and holders of TV franchises to 20 per cent?
  From 1 January 1994, the United Kingdom has the most liberal regulatory regime in Europe for foreign investors but the most restrictive for domestic United Kingdom competitors. Changes are needed quickly.
  2.14 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on securing the opportunity to raise this most topical and important subject, and on his extremely well-informed and persuasive speech. He has raised some very important questions.
  Last month, during the debate on the new ownership order, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage said that the Government would be keeping the ITV company ownership rules under review, and that they would consider the wider issues of cross-media ownership. Earlier this month, my right hon.

  687
  Friend announced that the Government would be reviewing the rules that restrict ownership between newspapers, television companies and radio stations.
  The increasing convergence of technologies arid the recent developments within the international media market suggest that it is now right to re-examine the framework within which United Kingdom media companies are operating. Tonight's debate is therefore most timely.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the review has been conducted as a joint exercise by several Government Departments, including the Departments of National Heritage and of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. The two lead Departments are the Departments of National Heritage and of Trade and Industry. Each will take the lead in the aspects of the review which fit most naturally with their wider responsibilities. Other aspects of the review will be carried out jointly.
  The Government have invited, and would greatly welcome, contributions to the review from those operating in the various industries likely to be covered by it, and from others with an interest in developments in the media generally. Contributions should be sent by 25 February to Mr. Paul Wright, the head of the broadcasting, film and sport group in the Department of National Heritage.
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 was an important step towards deregulating what had hitherto been a highly regulated industry. It was part of the Government's general policy of trying to remove unnecessary burdens on the operation of commercial enterprises. The aim of the Act was to increase diversity, choice and competition in the provision of broadcast services. It also set out to create a new pattern of broadcasting, making it easier to introduce many more new services.
  The Act has enabled a huge range of services to be licensed. At one end of the scale, there are the terrestrial television services available throughout the United Kingdom and the new national independent radio services. At the other end, there are local delivery services to bring television and radio services to groups of 1,000 or more homes, via cable or microwave systems, and restricted service licences, which allow local events to be covered by temporary radio services in a limited area.
  The main development in the United Kingdom broadcasting market since 1990 has been the growth in the number of satellite and cable services, and the growing audiences for them. The Independent Television Commission has licensed more than 70 such services. There has been heavy investment in new cable distribution systems, and cable companies are now offering telephony as well as programme services to their subscribers.
  Meanwhile, the more established media interests, especially the press, are becoming concerned about the limited scope for expansion in their traditional spheres of activity, and now want to take part in the growth of new media services. The present regulations relating to cross-media ownership under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the subordinate legislation set out to limit the cross-ownership of larger established media interest and to prevent undue concentrations of media ownership in the United Kingdom.
  The policy reflected not only the objectives of creative diversity and competition in the provision of services but the importance of having different, independent sources of news, information and entertainment, and thereby maintained freedom of speech and expression. Those
  688
  principles remain very important. However, we need to consider whether the current regulations are inhibiting the growth of broadcasting and other media activities.
  Broadcasting is changing from a national and highly regulated activity to an international market. Services produced in one country can already be broadcast directly to audiences in other countries by cable and satellite. With new digital technologies, many more channels will be available. Five hundred television channels has been suggested as a possible figure by the end of the decade.
  To fill those channels will need a lot of material. Some of it will come from well-established sources, which include television and radio programmes, films, videos, music, computer games, home shopping and information of all kinds from a variety of sources, including newspapers and news agencies, gathering information from all over the world.
  Many services will provide output aimed at clearly defined audiences. There will be specialist services as well as those for sections of the general public. In the foreseeable future, people should be able to choose from a wide range of information, entertainment and education, to which they will have direct access. They will be able to pay for items as well as for whole services. Traditional broadcasting, with schedules of different types of programmes, may be a small part of that multi-media work.
  A great deal has been written during the past few months about the convergence of broadcasting, telecommunications and computer technologies. At this stage, there are uncertainties about which of the many technical options will be taken up by the public and emerge as the market leaders. Successful developments may not be the most technically advanced. They are perhaps more likely to be those that people find easy to use and which evolve most naturally from their present modes of receiving information, entertainment and education. However, we can be confident that some of the services will he interactive and that there will be profound changes in the present methods of distributing material of all types.
  Those changes in the methods of distribution are likely to result in changes in the formats of the material to he distributed. There are already some systems which allow people to decide which of several camera angles they wish to select when watching a television replay of a sporting event. Information, which in the past would only have been available in a printed form, is already available on audio and video cassettes and discs. Computerised encyclopedias include not only capabilities for sophisticated searching of the contents, but also complex visual images and sound extracts, for example extracts from speeches or pieces of music.
  It is quite possible that we will be able to receive the latest news in our homes when we want it, in a form which combines written text, sound extracts and moving visual images. It could be a combination of a newspaper and magazine, radio or television news bulletin. People will be able to select which sections they wish to receive and in which form.
  It is obvious that, if maximum advantage is to be taken of the developing opportunities, it makes sense to think in terms of developing multi-media services, which can use the various means of production, communication and distribution, either separately or together. It that is to be done effectively, it may well make sense to develop partnerships between those now operating in different sectors. Major media organisations are already combining

  689
  in groups of linked enterprises, with partners in different countries, to co-operate in media production and distribution both nationally and internationally. We want to ensure that there are no unnnecessary restrictions to prevent United Kingdom media organisations from playing a full part in those developments.
  Some of the developments have happened much more quickly than we expected a few years ago. That is why the Government believe that it makes sense to take a wider look at the present restrictions on cross-media ownership.
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, the rules restricting joint ownership of ITV companies, Channel 5, radio licences and newspapers are contained within schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and in the Broadcasting (Restriction on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, and the 1993 amendment. The Act and the Order also limit the holdings of newspapers in broadcasting services.
  National newspaper proprietors are limited to up to 20 per cent. holdings in Channel 3, Channel 5 or local radio licences, but there are no restrictions on newspaper proprietors holding in non-domestic satellite services or licensable programme services. Local newspaper proprietors may not hold more than 20 per cent. in channel licences, which serve an area that is significantly the same as that served by the newspaper. Nor can the proprietor of a local paper hold more than 20 per cent. of a local radio or cable television licence serving an area that is significantly the same.
  Links between local newspapers and local radio stations are in practice often quite strong, but extensive cross-ownership might—I stress that word—increase the risk of local media monopolies in the independent sector. Those are among the issues that we shall want to consider. We shall also wish to review the joint ownership of ITV companies, the ownership provisions on radio stations and ITN and the provisions on newspaper mergers and the Fair Trading Act 1973. Indeed, it should be made clear that the review will take a very broad look at all cross-media issues.
  We must keep an eye on wider European developments. In December 1992, the European Commission launched a Green Paper on pluralism and media concentration in the internal market. The Commission set out suggestions for
  690
  the way forward, from doing nothing to much greater harmonisation of approach throughout the European Union. Plurality of ownership does not necessarily result in increased choice for viewers, listeners and readers. Equally, experience in the United Kingdom during the past 20 years suggests that, even where there is some concentration of ownership and control, there continues to be some variety in the strands of output whether by newspapers or broadcasting channels.
  On the other hand, there is understandable concern about too great a dominance by a group or small number of groups of media interests. For example, hon. Members have in the past often expressed anxiety about the position of News International in the United Kingdom, as well as News Corporation worldwide.
  Concentration of media interests can restrict access in a number of ways. It can, for example, limit the choices available to those who wish to advertise goods and services. It can increase costs by limiting competition. Concentrations of ownership could also restrict freedom of expression, making it more difficult for those with unpopular views or new ideas to reach the public. The review will have to take full account of those anxieties. We do not underestimate their importance.
  The next 10 years are likely to be a period of rapid evolution. We want United Kingdom media industries to expand in the United Kingdom and overseas, but that expansion must not be achieved at the expense of viewers, listeners and readers at home. People in the United Kingdom are used to home-grown, original broadcast programmes and a wide variety of newspapers and magazines. That should continue.
  The review will reconsider cross-media ownership issues in the context of fundamental changes that are taking place in the media industries throughout the world. The review will consider the current ownership restrictions for broadcasting and the press, to see whether the current rules do or do not strike a satisfactory balance. The review will take into consideration the need for diversity and choice for audiences, while encouraging the United Kingdom interests to play an active part in national and international markets.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in his Department since 1990–91.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government car service—GCS—provides cars for Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers. Increases in GCS charges since 1990–91 are due to the following factors:

  (i) GCS prices for its standard service were increased by 12 per cent. from 1 July 1990 and again by 10 per cent. from 1 January 1991;

  (ii) the basis for provision of a protected car was also changed. Prior to 1 April 1992, GCS purchased the base car while the user Department funded the one-off cost of protection. From 1 April 1992, GCS charges for a protected vehicle were increased by 54 per cent. to take account of the full cost of providing a protected car, amortised over its five-year lifespan;

  (iii) Value added tax on GCS bills increased from 15 to 17·5 per cent. on 1 April 1991.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  When IT services are contracted out by a data user, the contractor and the user will be subject to the application of the data protection principles and to the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, as provided for in the Act. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Sudan
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sudanese Government on the question of human rights violations in southern Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We take every suitable opportunity, both bilaterally and in concert with our European Union partners, to express our concern to the Sudanese authorities at reported abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout Sudan, including the south. We have also raised our concerns with the leaders of 352
  the SPLA factions. We were active earlier this year in securing the appointment of a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation in Sudan. At the United Nations General Assembly, we co-sponsored a hard-hitting resolution, commending the work of the special rapporteur, which was passed in plenary by 111 votes to 13.

  False Imprisonment
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider taking steps to ensure that British citizens wrongly imprisoned abroad receive adequate compensation from the Governments responsible.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Claims for compensation against foreign Governments must be pursued through their courts. Under international law, a Government will not consider espousing a claim on behalf of an individual while other legal channels remain open. Even after the claimant has exhausted all available legal channels, we would need to consider all the circumstances of each case before taking such a course.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes to implement the land mines protocol and ban the export of anti-personnel land mines by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has always adhered to the United Nations weaponry convention, protocol II of which lays down rules for the responsible use of land mines. We signed the convention in 1981 and hope to ratify it later this year.

  We are not contemplating additional measures to cover the export of anti-personnel land mines from the United Kingdom. We have not produced or exported antipersonnel mines for some time; and we believe that our current stringent controls on the export of defence equipment, which includes controls on all mines, are sufficient to stop the sale of these weapons to countries which may use them irresponsibly.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with his German counterpart and at the next EU Foreign Affairs Council the implications for EU export control and non-proliferation policy of the recent conviction of the owners of RO-SCH Technology GmbH of Kaufbevren of exporting carbon fibre centrifuge rotor tubes for uranium enrichment in contravention of the Federal German Foreign Trade Act.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. I do not intend to raise this issue. The action of the German authorities is a matter for that sovereign state.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to put to the second preparatory committee meeting of the fifth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to be held in New York from 17 January.
  353
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the second preparatory committee meeting, we shall be working to ensure that decisions are reached on outstanding procedural and administrative matters relating to the 1995 nonproliferation treaty extension and review conference. Our policy is to secure the unconditional and indefinite extension of the treaty in 1995.

  EC Social Development Fund
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent changes in the organisation of the Council of Europe's social development fund; and if he proposes, in the light of these reforms, that the United Kingdom should now participate in the fund.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Following allegations of irregularities in the operation of the social development fund, a number of measures were agreed on by the member states, designed to ensure greater rigour and transparency in the management of the organisation and the proper care of public funds.

  There are no plans for United Kingdom participation in the fund.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what terms will be offered to expatriate civil servants currently based in Hong Kong on the resumption of sovereignty by China; and what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of these arrangements.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Two White Papers of 1954 and 1960 set out our obligation to Her Majesty's overseas civil service—HMOCS—employed in overseas territories upon the ending of British sovereignty. These obligations include provision of a compensation scheme and a sterling pension protection scheme. Draft schemes have been prepared for consultation with the Hong Kong HMOCS association. The cost of these schemes will be known when they have been finalised.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of his submission to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers concerning the rights to enter the United Kingdom of citizens of Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Dominica, The Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Kiribati, Lesotho, the Maldives, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made no submission to the European Commission or the Council of Ministers about the rights of the citizens of the countries listed to enter the United Kingdom.

  The European Commission has, however, made proposals to determine the list of countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external
  354
  frontiers of member states. When these proposals have been received formally from the Council secretariat they will be made available to Parliament in accordance with normal scrutiny arrangements.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Governments of Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Canada, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Kiribati, Lesotho, the Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, Zambia and Zimbabwe on changing the status of their citizens with regard to entering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no consultations with the Governments of the countries listed about changing the status of their citizens with regards to entering the United Kingdom. Entry into the United Kingdom for these nationalities, and others, will continue to be governed by the immigration rules.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings he has given to the Governments of each of Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Canada, Dominica, The Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Kiribati, Lesotho, the Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa, Zambia and Zimbabwe about the continuing rights of their citizens to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwelth Affairs has given no undertakings to the Governments of the countries listed about the continuing rights of their citizens to enter the United Kingdom. Entry into the United Kingdom for these nationalities, and others, will continue to be governed by the immigration rules.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those Council of Europe conventions and agreements which the United Kingdom has not signed or ratified; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for not doing so.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has neither signed nor ratified the conventions or agreements set out in the table. The reasons for not signing or ratifying vary. The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  European Convention on Compulsory Insurance Against Civil Liability in Respect of Motor Vehicles (1959)

  Agreement Relating to Application of the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1962)

  European Convention on the Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced or Conditionally Released Offenders (1964)

  European Convention on the Punishment of Road Traffic Offences (1964)

  European Convention Providing a Uniform Law of Arbitration (1966)

  355

  European Convention on Establishment of Companies (1966)

  European Convention on Foreign Money Liabilities (1967)

  European Convention on Consular Functions (1967)

  European Convention on "Au Pair" "Placement (1969)

  European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments(1970)

  European Convention on the Repatriation of Minors(1970)

  European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters (1972)

  European Convention on the Place of Payment of Money Liabilities (1972)

  European Convention on the Calculation of Time-limits (1972)

  European Convention on Social Security (1972)

  Supplementary Agreement to the European Convention on Social Security (1972)

  European Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused by Motor Vehicles (1973)

  Agreement on the Transfer of Corpses (1973)

  European Convention on the Non-applicability of Statutory Limitation to Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes (1974)

  European Convention on the International Effects of Deprivation of the Right to Drive a Motor Vehicle (1976)

  European Convention on products Liability in regard to Personal Injury and Death (1977)

  European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (1977)

  European Convention on the Service Abroad of documents relating to Administrative Matters (1977)

  European Convention on the obtaining abroad of Information and Evidence in Administrative Matters (1978)

  European Convention on The Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Firearms by Individuals (1978)

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter (1979)

  European Outline Convention on Transfrontiern co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (1980)

  European Convention on Offences Relating to Cultural Property (1985)

  European Charter of Local Self-Government (1985)

  European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (1987)

  Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (1988)

  Arrangement for the Application of the European Agreement of 17 October 1980 concerning the Provision of Medical Care to Persons During Temporary Residence (1988)

  European Convention on Certain International Aspects of Bankruptcy (1990)

  European Convention on the General Equivalence of Periods of University Study (1990)

  European Code of Social Security (Revised) (1990)

  European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages 1992

  Convention on Civil Liability for Damage from Activities Dangerous to the Environment (1993)

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations with North Korea for the access of nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to its nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  North Korea's refusal to comply fully with its IAEA safeguards agreement is a cause for great concern. We hope that the problem can be resolved through dialogue between North Korea, the United States, South Korea and the IAEA. Any solution must reaffirm the IAEA' s right to inspect all North Korean nuclear sites to the agency's satisfaction.
  356

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he now plans to follow up his signature of the chemical weapons convention in Paris in 1993; what legislation is necessary to implement the United Kingdom's commitments under the convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We intend to ratify the chemical weapons convention—CWC—as soon as the necessary implementing legislation is in place. The legislation's main elements will be rights of entry and immunity for Organisation in the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspectors, requirements for industry declarations and creation of offences in respect of non-compliance with the CWC. We will introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the numbers of additional income tax payers in 1994–95 compared to 1992–93 as a result of freezing the rate of personal allowance in two years; and how much extra income tax will be raised as a result.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Compared with indexing the 1992–93 personal allowance to 1994–95 levels by reference to the statutory formula, the revenue yield from the measures in the last two Budgets is £1·1 billion and about 400,000 more people will pay tax.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the loss to the Treasury of tax revenue as a result of the exemption from inheritance tax of gifts to political parties for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of insider dealing were reported by the authorities in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Nelson
  Alleged cases of insider dealing are generally detected by the stock exchange through its
  357
  monitoring of share dealing. Following a preliminary investigation the stock exchange informs the Department of Trade and Industry when it believes there is a prima facie case. That Department has powers to investigate and to bring prosecutions where appropriate. The cases referred to the DTI in this way since 1980 are set out in the table.

  Alleged cases of insider dealing reported to the DTI by the stock exchange between 1980 and 1993–941

  Cases reported

  1980

  7

  1981

  18

  1982

  23

  1983

  17

  1984

  12

  1985

  6

  1986–87

  13

  1987–88

  29

  1988–89

  33

  1989–90

  21

  1990–91

  8

  1991–92

  11

  1992–93

  5

  1993–94

  7

  1The data for the period 1980–85 relate to calendar years whereas thereafter the figures are on a financial year basis. The information for 1993–94 relates to cases which were reported to the DTI between April and the end of December 1993. A case may have led to more than one person being prosecuted.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of insider dealing have been prosecuted in each year since 1980; and how many prosecutions resulted in(a) conviction and (b) acquittal.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is given in the table.

  Insider dealing prosecutions between 1980–81 and 1993–941

  Year

  Cases

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Acquittals

  1980–81

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1981–82

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1982–83

  2

  3

  3

  0

  1983–84

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1984–85

  2

  4

  0

  4

  1985–86

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1986–87

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1987–88

  3

  3

  3

  0

  1988–89

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1989–902

  10

  14

  4

  9

  1990–91

  1

  2

  2

  0

  1991–92

  5

  8

  3

  5

  1992–93

  3

  7

  5

  2

  1993–943

  3

  6

  0

  5

  Total

  32

  50

  22

  26

  1 The figures reflect the number of individual defendants who were prosecuted in the thirty-two insider dealing cases which have been concluded since 1980. They do not include a case which is still in progress.

  2 The figures for 1989–90 include one prosecution which was subsequently withdrawn.

  3 The figures for 1993–94 include one case which was not proven.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Nelson
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part,358
  by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate can be made of the number of people who would have an income tax liability from April 1995 whose sole income was incapacity benefit; and what would be the yield in a full year of taxing incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Only a very small number of people whose sole income was incapacity benefit would have any income tax liability in 1995–96 on the basis of the announced rules for the taxation of incapacity benefit for 1995–96 and the changes to income tax allowances announced for that year, assuming indexation of benefits and the personal allowance. The revenue yield in respect of these people would be negligible.

  Charities (VAT)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether previous VAT zero-rated non-domestic charitable institutions will be liable for VAT from 1 April.

  Sir John Cope
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the existing VAT zero rate for fuel and power used by a charity otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business. I confirm that the relief will not apply from 1 April 1994.

  Household Debt
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of debt per household for every £100 of disposable income in(a) 1992 and (b)

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the level of household debt outstanding are not available. The level of debt of the personal sector, which includes apart from households, all unincorporated private businesses, sole traders, partnerships, non-profit making bodies serving persons and private trusts, per £100 of disposable income in 1992 was £112. Figures for 1993 have not yet been published but the latest Treasury estimate is shown in chart 3.9 of the Red Book.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has no IT service contracts that involve the use of personal data held by the Department.
  359

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will detail the statistical sources for the information given by the Paymaster General in answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) of 24 November,Official Report, columns 66–70.

  Sir John Cope
  The sources of this information were:

  1. The document produced by the Commission of the European Communities entitled "The Evolution of VAT Rates applicable in the Member States of the Community" and numbered XXI/158/93-EN, which was deposited in the House of Commons Library in reply to a Parliamentary Question tabled by the hon. Member for Newham South, of 18 October 1993, Official Report, columns 7–8;

  2. VAT in Europe;

  3. International VAT Monitor; and

  4. Tax News Service.

  Items 2 to 4 are produced by the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation.

  American Depositary Receipts
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue gathered from stamp duty reserve tax on American depositary receipts issued on behalf of United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  The 1·5 per cent. rate of stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax applies to transfers of shares either into a depositary receipt scheme or into a clearance service system. The total yield from the 1·5 per cent. rate is estimated at around £20 million. Precise information is not available about the proportion attributable to.transfers into American depositary receipt schemes, as distinct from other depositary receipt schemes or clearance services.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Racially Motivated Crimes
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the procedure for the Crown Prosecution Service drawing to the attention of the courts the fact that a crime appears to be racially motivated; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  It is the duty of all those who prosecute on behalf of the Crown to put all the relevant facts before the court.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the future of the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Solicitor-General
  The review of the handling of serious fraud by the Serious Fraud Office and the fraud divisions of the Crown Prosecution Service, which the Attorney-General announced last October in the light of the recommendations of the royal commission, is expected to report by the end of February.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent consideration has been given by the Serious Fraud Office regarding City crime and sentencing.

  The Solicitor-General
  Sentencing in all cases is a matter for the independent judiciary.
  360

  Prosecutions (Public Interest)
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria are used by the Director of Public Prosecutions in assessing the public interest when deciding whether to proceed with a prosecution.

  The Solicitor-General
  The general principles used when assessing the public interest are set out in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors" which is published and laid before Parliament each year in the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Extradition (Cyprus)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Attorney-General when he next plans to visit Cyprus to discuss extradition.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has no such plans.

  Fiats for Cases to Proceed
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General in how many instances in each of the last five years he has(a) granted his fiat and (b) refused his fiat for a case to proceed; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought by my hon. Friend is recorded only on the files relating to individual defendants in relation to a wide variety of different offences and is not collected or collated centrally. The information requested could therefore be collected only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Corby District Council
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1980–81 the money paid to Corby district council under the derelict land scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available in the precise form requested. However, since 1980–81, Corby district council has incurred the following expenditure on land reclamation which has been eligible for derelict land grant. Grant is payable on this expenditure at a rate of 100 per cent.

  Corny District Council Derelict Land Grant Expenditure

  Year

  Expenditure £

  1980–81

  505,000

  1981–82

  809,000

  1982–83

  3,112,640

  1983–84

  3,289,793

  1984–85

  3,512,493

  1985–86

  3,652,513

  1986–87

  4,000,000

  1987–88

  3,941,974

  1988–89

  3,035,917

  1989–90

  2,410,386

  1990–91

  1,374,391

  1991–92

  1,914,953

  1992–93

  3,635,003

  11993–94

  1,305,000

  Total

  36,499,063

  1forecast

  361
  A further £27,000 of derelict land grant has been paid towards reclamation schemes carried out by non-local authority applicants in the Corby district.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been made available to the district and borough of Corby under the estate action scheme in each year since 1985.

  Sir George Young
  The following amounts of estate action resources have been made available to Corby since 1985:

  .

  £ million

  1985–86 to 1990–91

  Nil

  1991–92

  1·4

  1992–93

  1·85

  1993–94

  2·9

  1994–951

  3·0

  1995–961

  3·0

  1996–971

  0·6

  1 Provisional.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to take to encourage local authorities to become debt free.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities which have repaid all their long-term debts have recently been given general freedom to spend amounts already set aside for debt redemption. They are also generally relieved of the obligation to make further provision for debt redemption, either from capital receipts or revenue.

  Local Authorities (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total of usable receipts held by each local authority in Northamptonshire at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  Authority

  Usable receipts at 1 April 1993 £'000

  Northamptonshire County Council

  220

  Corby

  749

  Daventry

  2,884

  East Northamptonshire

  2,628

  Kettering

  1,481

  Northampton

  3,634

  South Northamptonshire

  Nil

  Wellingborough

  11,840

  Source: Local authority returns.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the representations he has received from the British Medical Association about the accuracy of his Department's estimates of the extent of homelessness in London in the light of their research findings using capture-recapture analysis techniques.
  362
  Sir George Young
  This Department has received no such representations from the British Medical Association. The methodology used by the voluntary sector to count the number of people sleeping rough in central London, which has informed the rough sleepers initiative, was developed independently to provide a series of accurate, directly comparable counts. This methodology is now being adapted to undertake local counts in some other towns and cities.

  Private Rented Housing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce incentives to strengthen and increase the private rented sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We are very keen to expand the private rented sector. The package of deregulation measures in the Housing Act 1988, which introduced assured and assured shorthold tenancies at market rents for most new lettings, was designed to encourage landlords to bring their property on to the market. In addition, we have already launched a number of specific initiatives to encourage private landlords to let their property. We are keen to explore all avenues to encourage further growth in the sector.

  Press Office
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed in his Department's press/communications office including clerical and administrative staff in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  There are currently 46 staff employed by the Department of the Environment's information directorate.

  Figures for prior years on the composition of the information directorate are published each year within the management information system for Ministers dating back to 1979 which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his Department's press releases in date order since 1 June 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  Monthly summaries of this Department's press releases for the period 1 June 1992 to 31 December 1993 have been placed in the Library.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each service that has been market-tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 "Competing for Quality" programme with the Efficiency Unit in the Cabinet Office. Some points of detail have yet to be finalised, but, once this has been completed, much of the information requested in
  363
  the question will be published in aggregate form in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report". On an individual contract basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Rent Assessment Committees
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his review of the role of the rent assessment committees.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on 30 November,Official Report, column 507.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make public the conclusions of his review of the homeless persons legislation.

  Sir George Young
  I intend to publish before the end of this month a consultation paper about reforming the homelessness legislation and improving access to local authority and housing association tenancies. I look forward to a constructive debate about the Government's proposals for reform.

  Superstores
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will ensure that superstores(a) have more than one entrance and exit and (b) are sited at sufficient distance from petrol stations such that it would be impossible for a fire in a superstore to spread to a petrol station.

  Mr. Baldry
  Whether a single entrance and exit is adequate for escape in fire is dependent on the size of the building and the distances that persons would need to travel. A superstore would almost certainly be large enough for more than one escape route to have to be provided to satisfy the Building Regulations.

  If the petrol station was outside the boundary of the superstore site compliance with the Building Regulations would ensure that the superstore was located at a safe distance from the boundary if a fire were to take place therein. If the petrol station was within the confines of the superstore site boundary guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive would need to be followed with regard to its location. If this guidance were not followed, a petroleum licence would not be issued. The relative locations of different land uses may also be material considerations to be taken into account in deciding whether to grant planning permission, whether in response to an application or by the Secretary of State on appeal.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the cost of advertising by his Department has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 16 December 1993]: In the financial year 1991–92, my Department spent £815,118·06 on advertising; in the financial year 1992–93,
  364
  it spent £6,929,637·89 on advertising. However, before the financial year 1991–92, figures are not available for advertising alone. In addition, information relating to the financial years before 1979–80 and 1984–85 cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. The total publicity expenditure for each financial year from 1985–86 to 1992–93 was:

  £ million

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  4·2

  1987–88

  4·8

  1988–89

  6·9

  1989–90

  131·5

  1990–91

  7·5

  1991–92

  2·7

  1992–93

  213·4

  1 The figure for 1989–90 includes publicity costs associated with water privatisation and community charge.

  2 The figure for 1992–93 includes publicity costs associated with the CO2 reduction campaign "Helping the Earth" and the introduction of the council tax.

  For the financial years 1985–86 to 1990–91 inclusive, the figures also include associated staff costs for my Department, including agencies. Before 1991–92, expenditure was not broken down between different publicity media.

  The cost of publicity advertising per month for the past 12 months has been:

  £

  December 1992

  nil

  January 1993

  3,311·74

  February 1993

  3,120,031·18

  March 1993

  3,236,235·92

  April 1993

  475,506·00

  May 1993

  1,394·00

  June 1993

  1,128·00

  July 1993

  780,047·00

  August 1993

  nil

  September 1993

  257·33

  October 1993

  3,493,327·30

  November 1993

  347,246·71

  These costs include creative and production charges, value added tax, and other levies as paid.

  The costs given for the months above relate to the month in which the invoice was processed for payment; in some cases the advertising may have appeared some time previously.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local education authorities in England who in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 have spent or are expected to spend less than their allocated standard spending assessment for education in each of those years, together with the respective figures for each year, the totals of all such spending assessments for that authority, the standard spending assessment figure in respect of interest on capital expenditure approved by Her Majesty's Government, the amount paid or expected to be paid and the contribution to any consequential deficit that must be made, pro rata, by transfer from the respective standard assessments for educational expenditure made by Her Majesty's Government for the relevant years.
  365
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: The information requested has been placed in the Library. It is for each local authority to determine its spending priorities between services in the light of local circumstances.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 7–8, if he will disaggregate the table on households with negative equity into the normal planning regions.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: No. The sample sizes from which changes in house prices and distributions of mortgage advance to price ratios are estimated are not large enough to produce sufficiently reliable figures for all regions

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the site or sites of proposed enterprise zones in north Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction intends to announce very shortly proposals for four sites in the east midlands to be designated, subject to the agreement of the European Commission, as enterprise zones.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid to whom in each district council area in North Yorkshire for carrying out council tax valuations; and what was the cost of managing and administering the valuation process.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to disclose payments to individual contractors, on the grounds of commercial confidence. The cost of managing and administering the valuation process in North Yorkshire was £98,517.

  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 settled in the last six months; and what was the average cost of settling each appeal.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Receipts and settlements of appeals against council tax for each billing authority in North Yorkshire are as follows:

  Billing authority

  Appeals settled

  Craven

  374

  Hambleton

  496

  Harrogate

  872

  Richmondshire

  210

  Ryedale

  509

  Scarborough

  488

  Selby

  498

  York

  484

  366
  The estimated average cost of processing a council tax appeal in the current financial year in England is £115. This estimate includes Valuation Office agency and valuation tribunal costs.

PRIME MINISTER

  Severance Payment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what ministerial severance payment has been offered to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and what amount is to be paid to the hon. Member.

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Member is entitled to a severance payment under the provisions of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.

  Iraq and Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the policy on Iraq and Iran set out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29 October 1985,Official Report, column 450, remains that of Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  No. An embargo on trade with Iraq was imposed by the Iraq and Kuwait (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1990 (SI 90/1651). This put into effect the sanctions on Iraq imposed by United Nations resolution 661. Current policy on exports to Iran was set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 1 March 1993,Official Report, column 8.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he or his predecessor last met his counterpart or the President of Iraq; and what was the purpose of the meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not met my Iraqi counterpart or the President of Iraq; neither did my predecessor.

  Question Time
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in total(a) he, (b) Lady Thatcher or (c) Lord Callaghan was absent from the House at Prime Minister's Question Time while serving as Prime Minister; and what that figure represents in each case and as a percentage of the total number of Prime Minister's Question Times for which he or she was responsible.

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter of public record.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what records held at 10 Downing street prior to December 1990 have been passed to the Scott inquiry on request.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has passed to the Scott inquiry those records held at 10 Downing street prior to December 1990 which fall within the terms of the inquiry's requests.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion since the 1992 Edinburgh European Council that cameras have been admitted to meetings of European Community Council of Ministers.
  367
  The Prime Minister
  The following Council sessions—all in 1993—have been televised:

  Foreign Affairs, 1 February: Danish Presidency work programme, and opening EFTAn accession negotiations;

  Agriculture, 9 February: agriculture price fixing proposals;

  ECOFIN, 15 February: Danish Presidency work programme;

  Foreign Affairs, 5 April: opening of accession negotiations with Norway;

  Internal Market, 5 April: Sutherland report;

  Social affairs, 6 April: employment;

  Industry, 3 May: industrial competitiveness and environmental protection;

  Development, 25 May: development co-operation policy to 2000 (Horizon 2000);

  Foreign Affairs, 19 July: Belgian Presidency work programme;

  ECOFIN, 13 November: Belgian Presidency work programme;

  Internal Market, 11 November: strengthening the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises, and skilled workers and development of employment in the Community;

  Environment 3 December: Green Paper on civil liability.

  Mr. Gerry Adams
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on what date or dates he has received a letter or letters from Mr. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, seeking clarification of the joint declaration; if he will place a copy of the letter or letters in the Library; when he intends to reply to Mr. Adams; and if he will place a copy of his letter or letters to Mr. Adams in the Library;

  (2) if he will give the precise terms of clarification of the joint declaration sought by Mr. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, in communications with him since the joint declaration was published ; what were the precise terms of his responses to such communications; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I received an unsigned letter on Mr. Adams's headed notepaper, dated 7 January 1994, last week. It is being considered and no response has yet been made.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give details of the public appointments that he is able to make, excluding Cabinet and ministerial appointments and those covered by "Questions of Procedure for Ministers'; and which appointments he has made since 1991.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 December 1993]: As Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury I am able to appoint to the following public bodies. There is no single central record for all these appointments, but, to the best of my knowledge, the appointments listed in the table have been made over the last three years.

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  15 Commissioners of which 6 have been appointed from 1991

  British Museum

  15 Trustees of which 5 have been appointed from 1991

  Natural History Museum

  8 Trustees of which 3 have been appointed from 1991

  National Gallery

  13 Trustees of which 6 have been appointed from 1991

  Tate Gallery

  11 Trustees of which 5 have been appointed from 1991

  National Maritime Museum

  Normally 12 Trustees of which 5 have been appointed from 1991
  368
  National Portrait Gallery

  Normally 15 Trustees of which 5 have been appointed from 1991

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Not less than 12 and not more than 20 Trustees of which 3 have been appointed from 1991

  Science Museum

  Not less than 13 and not more than 20 Trustees of which 4 have been appointed from 1991

  Museum of London

  9 Governors of whom 4 have been appointed from 1991

  Wallace Collection

  7 Trustees, none of whom has been appointed from 1991

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  11 Trustees of whom 7 have been appointed from 1991

  Kennedy Memorial Trust

  6 Trustees, none of whom has been appointed from 1991

  Security Commission

  7 members have been appointed from 1991

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  None has been appointed from 1991

  Police Negotiating Board Chairman and Deputy Chairman

  None has been appointed from 1991

  Police Arbitration Tribunal Members

  None has been appointed from 1991

  Security Service Tribunal Commissioner

  No appointment made from 1991

  Interception of Communications Tribunal Commissioner

  1 appointment has been made from 1991

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  2 members have been appointed from 1991

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body

  6 members have been appointed from 1991

  Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body

  6 members have been appointed from 1991

  Nurses', Midwives' and other NHS Professions' Review Body

  2 members have been appointed from 1991

  Schoolteachers' Review Body

  12 members have been appointed from 1991

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  2 members have been appointed from 1991

  Citizen's Charter Panel of Advisers

  9 members have been appointed from 1991

  Women's National Commission

  1 appointment has been made from 1991

  Chequers Trustees

  1 Trustee has been appointed from 1991

  Dorneywood Trustees

  3 Trustees have been appointed from 1991

  Chevening Trustees

  1 Trustee has been appointed from 1991

  As Prime Minister, I am also responsible for advising Her Majesty the Queen on Crown appointments.
  369

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the value served by the ban on Sinn Fein voices being heard and of the practice of using an actor to dub the person's voice.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is reviewing the relevant restrictions, in consultation with other Government Departments concerned.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether political advisers receive redundancy payment when they resume the same responsibilities(a) when the appointing Minister leaves his post and the appointment is renewed by his successor and (b) when the same Government are returned after a general election; and since 1986, how many political advisers have resumed their same responsibilities after a change of appointing Minister and after a general election.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Although each Minister's appointment of a special adviser is formally a new appointment, no severance payments are made if there is no break in the special adviser's service. Since 1986, special advisers have remained in post after a change of appointing Minister on eight occasions, including, in one case, following the 1992 general election.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. David Davis
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will hold discussions with independent television company representatives on the proposals that the Council of Europe approve a special study of the value of co-production at the regional level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman refers to the resolution, published in March 1993 by the Council of Europe standing conference of local and regional authorities of Europe, on the regional dimension of the European audiovisual area. This resolution proposed a study of regional television co-production. I understand that the project is still in its early stages, and I have not seen any detailed proposals. In these circumstances, a meeting with industry representatives would be premature.
  370

  Theatre in Education
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps his Department is taking to maintain and develop the educational and artistic methodology of theatre in education as a vehicle for educating children in social responsiveness and community responsibility.

  Mr. Brooke
  The methodology of theatre in education raises questions of educational and artistic judgment in which my Department does not become involved. The value, use and development of theatre in education are issues that need to be addressed by those agencies with a direct interest—local authorities and individual schools, and the arts councils and regional arts boards.

  Arts Venues
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how the advent of unitary authorities will affect the funding of venues with fewer than 400 seats.

  Mr. Brooke
  I maintain a close interest in the work of the Local Government Commission, although ministerial responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The funding of local authority controlled arts venues is a matter for the local authorities concerned.

  European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he plans to put forward to enhance European cultural activities during the Greek presidency of the European Union.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is for the Greek presidency of the European Union to indicate what areas it wishes to give priority to during its presidency. The United Kingdom will participate fully in carrying forward the work of the Culture Council as a whole.

  London Orchestras
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent information he has about the Arts Council's policy towards funding the leading London orchestras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Having undertaken a review of its support for the London orchestras, the Arts Council has decided that, in the immediate future, it will continue to concentrate funding on the London Symphony, Philharmonia and London Philharmonic orchestras. In addition, the Council has welcomed the emerging regional strategy of the Royal Philharmonic orchestra, for which it will also provide financial support.

  The Council will be discussing this approach, and its longer-term policies with the Philharmonia and London Philharmonic orchestras, and with the Royal Philharmonic orchestra. In formulating its policies, the Council will take account of the general review of orchestral provision now being undertaken jointly with the BBC, and of the timing of decisions to be taken by the South Bank Board on the future of the orchestral residency at the royal festival hall.

  Television (Children)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what evidence he has on the numbers of children watching after the 9 pm watershed.
  371
  Mr. Brooke
  Statistics on the make-up of television audiences are not collected by my Department, but the table sets out data, compiled by the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board and interpreted by the BBC, on television viewing by children during a recent period.

  Estimated average numbers of children aged 4 to 15 years, watching TV channels (including satellite) after 9 pm in period 5 to 10 December 1993

  Million

  9.00 to 9.30 pm

  2·0

  9.30 to 10.00 pm

  1·8

  10.00 to 10.30 pm

  1·1

  10.30 to 11.00 pm

  0·7

  11.00 to 11.30 pm

  0·5

  11.30 to 12.00 pm

  0·3

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Joy Gardner
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the outcome of his internal review of deportation policies and procedures following the death of Joy Gardner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 12 January,Official Report, columns 212–13.

  Vehicle Theft
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange to publish statistics showing separate figures for reported thefts of(a) cars and motorcycles, (b) light commercial vehicles and vans and (c) heavy commercial vehicles.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information collected centrally relates to the total number of offences of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle recorded by the police. It is not possible to identify the type of vehicle stolen and there are no plans to collect such information.

  Football (Arrests and Ejections)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Carling premiership and Endsleigh Insurance league clubs together with the total season's attendance at(a) matches played in the Carling premiership and Endsleigh Insurance leagues and (b) matches played in the FA cup, Coca-Cola cup and Autoglass trophy with the total numbers of (i) arrests, (ii) ejections and (iii) arrests plus ejections as a percentage of the total attendance at each category of such matches, accurate to four decimal places, for the seasons 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement on attendance rates and arrest rates at each category of such matches.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.
  372

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warrants were issued under section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 in each year since 1986; and how many such warrants are still in operation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The numbers of warrants issued by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland and of those remaining in force at the end of each year are published in the annual reports of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has on the level of involvement in serious road accidents of persons found to be under the influence of alcohol while being below the legal limit of intoxification for driving a car in each year from 1980.

  Mr. Maclean
  The only available information relates to the years 1987 to 1991 and was published in Home Office statistical bulletins "Breath Test Statistics". This suggests that the following percentages of persons were found to be below the legal limit in England and Wales when required to submit to an evidential test following a positive roadside screening breath test after a road accident:

  Per cent.

  1987

  15

  1988

  14

  1989

  13

  1990

  14

  1991

  14

  Homosexual Offences
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions and convictions there have been involving homosexual offences committed by consenting persons in private over the past five years where any person involved was aged between 16 and 21 years of age.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table gives information on consensual acts of buggery or attempted buggery of a male of, or over 21, with another male under the age of 21, with consent—Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 12 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967, section 3(1).

  Number of persons prosecuted and convicted for consensual sexual offences1, 1998–92

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1988

  19

  24

  1989

  8

  17

  1990

  10

  9

  1991

  19

  10

  1992

  14

  12

  1Buggery or attempted buggery of a male of, or over 21 with another male under the age of 21 with consent.

  373

  Game Shooters
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to ensure that all game bird shooters have a licence to shoot;

  (2) how many prosecutions of game bird shooters have taken place under the Game Licence Act 1860 in each of the last five years; and what plans he has to more rigorously enforce the Act;

  (3) how many game licences have been issued in each of the last five years; and what proportion this represents of the number of game bird shooters.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:

  Game Licences issued, 1988–89 to 1992–93

  Number

  1988–89

  40,600

  1989–90

  43,600

  1990–91

  43,300

  1991–92

  46,700

  1992–93

  43,900

  There is no information currently available on the extent of licence evasion.

  Defendants proceeded against in magistrates' courts for offences under the Game Licence Act 1860, 1988–92

  England and Wales

  Number

  1988

  61

  1989

  76

  1990

  86

  1991

  76

  1992

  70

  Enforcement of the law is a matter for the police.

  We are currently consulting interested groups to see how far the game licences continue to meet their original objectives of combatting poaching and enforcing the statutory close seasons, or whether there may be better means of achieving the same object.

  Murder
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been murdered or are suspected to have been murdered by members of their immediate families or by those with whom they have been placed in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table shows the number of offences currently recorded as homicide in England and Wales where the victims were persons under the age of 16 years and the suspect was the parent, other relative or a child minder or nurse:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  57

  1984

  62

  1985

  79

  1986

  37

  1987

  58

  1988

  80

  1989

  47

  1990

  51

  374

  Year

  Number

  1991

  76

  1992

  59

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that local police officers are informed of the names and addresses of all children recorded as being at risk; and if he will advise all police forces and local authority social services departments that it is essential for relevant information to be passed both organisations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Detailed guidance on liaison arrangements between the police, social services departments, and other agencies concerned with child protection is contained in "Working Together: A guide to arrangements for inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse" which was published by the Government in October 1991. Copies were distributed to all police forces. This document emphasises the importance of sharing information between agencies and the requirements of confidentiality. The detailed arrangements are a matter for local operational decision.

  Mr. Stefan Kiszko
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Lancashire police commenced their investigation into the conviction of Stefan Kiszko; when he expects it to be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The investigation started on 10 May 1991. A report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service on 3 June 1993, and is now under consideration.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into organised crime and protection racketeering in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have no plans to do so. However, the hon. Member may be aware of an inquiry into organised crime currently being undertaken by the Home Affairs Committee to examine the threat from organised crime and to consider the most effective ways of responding to that threat.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has been given by the chief constable of Northumbria regarding the prevalence of protection rackets and organised crime in his region.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The chief constable is aware of media reports about organised crime in his force area. He acknowledges that protection rackets do exist in some parts of Tyne and Wear. Concerted efforts are being made by Northumbria police to tackle this type of crime. These are operational matters for which the chief constable is responsible.
  375
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to deal with protection rackets in the leisure industry in major cities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The investigation of alleged criminal offences is an operational matter for inividual chief officers of police.

  Mr. Tony Bland
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make available in the Library the post-mortem report and any specialised pathology reports relating to the case of the late Mr. Tony Bland;

  (2) whether it is his usual policy to publish post-mortem and pathology reports relating to inquests which are held; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the normal period which elapses between the death of a patient in accidental or unnatural circumstances and the holding of an inquest into that death.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Coroners always endeavour to open inquests into deaths reported to them as soon as is reasonably possible.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long elapsed between the death of Mr. Tony Bland and the completion of the inquest into his death; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the West Yorkshire (West) coroner that Mr. Bland died on 3 March 1993. The inquest into his death was opened the following day and adjourned to await the outcome of relevant legal proceedings. The inquest was resumed on 21 December 1993 and concluded on the same day. Coroners are independent judicial officers and Ministers have no authority to intervene in or comment on the way in which a coroner carries out his duties in any individual case.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his Departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Howard
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  Police Authorities
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to select the five members of each police authority whom he will be required to appoint under the provisions of the Police and Magistrates Court Bill ; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Members of the public will be able to put themselves forward for appointment as independent 376
  members of a police authority. To assist people to decide whether they have the qualities to undertake the duties of a police authority member, I am publishing today a job description and personal profile against which candidates' suitability for appointment will be considered.

  Job Description

  The main tasks of a police authority will be:

  To establish the local priorities for policing in consultation with the Chief Constable.

  To ensure that there are effective arrangements for consulting local communities about policing and for reflecting those views in local policing priorities.

  To set the total budget for policing for the year.

  To approve and publish a costed plan for policing. The police authority will need to ensure that the plan is designed to deliver both the Government's key objectives and those which are set locally.

  To monitor the financial and other performance of the police force during the year in terms of key and local objectives and targets.

  To maintain a dialogue with the Home Office about the achievement of key and local objectives for policing.

  To publish annual performance results in a standard form to allow comparison of performance against other forces.

  To participate in the selection of senior police officers.

  To participate in the selection of senior civilian staff, both for the force and the authority itself.

  Members of a police authority will be expected to:

  Act on behalf of local people as the "customer" of the service which the police force provides.

  Consult the public about the work of the police force.

  Help to build a partnership between the police and the local community.

  In achieving these aims, members of the authority will be expected to:

  Attend all meetings of the police authority.

  Attend meetings of any sub-committees of the authority as appropriate.

  Prepare for these meetings by reading papers, reports and background information in advance and by keeping abreast of developments both locally and nationally in the policing sphere.

  Represent the policy authority in discussions with:

  other police authorities

  staff associations

  local government

  central government

  any other groups with an interest in policing matters.

  Attend local police consultative groups as appropriate. Consult with representatives of the local community about issues relating to policing.

  It is envisaged that the above duties will require a minimum commitment of 18 days a year. Most commitments will be on weekdays, on some occasions during the evenings.

  There is a statutory obligation on police authority members to set a lawful budget each year. Failure to do so may lead to a member being surcharged if auditors consider that the authority suffered a financial loss as a consequence.

  Appointments will be made for a period not exceeding four years.

  Police Authority Members are not paid but are entitled to receive an allowance and expenses relating to the work they undertake on the Authority's business.

  Personal Profile

  Potential candidates should be at least 21 years old, be under 70 years of age at the expiration of their term of appointment and be of good character. They should also meet the following criteria:

  They should live or work in the area for which the authority is responsible.

  They should possess good communication skills. They should have good financial skills.

  They should be able to demonstrate the ability to challenge accepted views in a constructive way.

  They should have an understanding of the needs of the community with regard to policing and of the pressures and challenges which face the police themselves.

  They should have the skills and experience which would broaden the expertise available to the authority.

  377

  Police Authorities should include members from a wide range of backgrounds and experience and should reflect the composition of the society they serve.

  All applications received will be considered in the first instance by one of six regional short-listing panels. Each regional panel will consist of a professional recruitment consultant and two people independent of Government.

  I shall select those I wish to appoint as members of police authorities from the short-list for each authority submitted by the regional panels.

  The involvement of people independent of Government in the short-listing procedure, and the publication of the selection criteria for these appointments emphasise the Government's aim that the five independent members of each police authority should be truly independent, and bring to their authorities a broader range of skills and experience.

  We are consulting the Association of Lord-Lieutenants about their possible involvement in the short-listing procedure.

  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the powers of the courts to direct that juveniles who are remanded to local authority accommodation should be held in secure conditions.

  Mr. Howard
  I intend shortly to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1993, which would allow the courts to exercise such a power in relation to all juveniles who are at least 12 but not more than 16 years old, in accordance with the existing statutory criteria for its use in relation to 15 and 16-year-olds.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sustainable Energy Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the Association of County Councils to discuss its recent paper on a sustainable energy policy, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Eggar
  The association will discuss its paper with my officials in February.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Lord Chancellor, or their deputies or officials of their Departments, in regard to the withholding of departmental records inherited from the former Ministry of Power and Ministry of Fuel and Power, on Anglo-American arrangements for the import and export of nuclear materials to and from the United States, under the provisions of section 3(4) of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, in preparation for the most recent release of official papers from the Public Records Office.

  Mr. Eggar
  The decision to approve the retention of records or to prescribe a closure period of longer than 30 years, in accordance with the criteria established under the Public Records Acts, is made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Advisory 378
  Council on Public Records and of his officials in the Public Record Office. Applications are made by the relevant departmental officials in consultation with colleagues in other Departments as appropriate.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with his counterparts on the EC Council of Ministers in regard to communicating to the American nuclear industrial trade organisations the European Community's policy on obtaining a one-time waiver comprising prior consent for a programme of approval for reprocessing US nuclear fuel in European reprocessing plants after 1995.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Corby Development Area
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been paid by his Department under the Industry Act 1972 and subsequent related legislation in each year to companies in the Corby development area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details of payments to companies in the Corby travel-to-work area under the original and revised regional development grants scheme; regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants, are as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  0·3

  1981–82

  3·4

  1982–83

  9·3

  1983–84

  12·6

  1984–85

  7·2

  1985–86

  7·2

  1986–87

  9·9

  1987–88

  8·0

  1988–89

  8·5

  1989–90

  8·9

  1990–91

  4·9

  1991–92

  1·9

  1992–93

  1·0

  1993–94

  0·7

  Aggregate information about payments to companies under other sections of the Industry Act 1972 and its successors is not available at a sub-regional level.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what export licences were granted in 1993 for arms or arms-related equipment to Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1993, 51 licences were issued for goods listed in schedule 1 part III group 1 of the Export of Goods Control Order 1992.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of imports and exports with Indonesia in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table:

  United Kingdom trade with Indonesia

  Year

  United Kingdom imports £ millions

  United Kingdom exports £ millions

  1983

  169·4

  193·6

  1984

  181·5

  186·7

  1985

  156·5

  175·3

  379

  Year

  United Kingdom imports £ millions

  United Kingdom exports £ millions

  1986

  141·2

  196·5

  1987

  144·8

  236·0

  1988

  233·7

  203·3

  1989

  273·1

  183·9

  1990

  327·9

  198·0

  1991

  415·2

  198·0

  1992

  536·0

  312·8

  Source: Business Monitor MA20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Jetstream
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of his meeting, and the meetings between officers of his Department, with the management of Jetstream; what representations he is making to the European Commission as a result of these meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The managing director of Jetstream has had meetings with myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. As a result, discussions are taking place on whether DTI can further help promote Jetstream's export campaigns, while the European Commission has been asked to look at possible examples of unfair competition.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Eggar
  The effect on my Department's budget of the abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate is likely to be more than offset by the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions.

  Departmental Organisation
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to consolidate the organisation of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have today announced further changes to consolidate the DTI's organisation along the lines initiated in July 1992, to take effect on 1 March 1994. The changes mark another step in restructuring the Department to ensure that it is best placed to fulfil my principal objective of helping United Kingdom business to win in world markets.

  The principal changes are:
  The main division sponsoring industrial sectors will be grouped under one Deputy Secretary.
  In recognition of the vital importance of innovation and the policies in the recent White Paper on science, engineering and technology, DTI's work on technology development will be integrated more closely with its promotion of industrial competitiveness; its work on technology transfer and the spreading of management best practice will be brought together with the work to assist small and medium-sized enterprises and develop the business link network.
  The divisions dealing with export promotion will be grouped under the director general, export promotion.
  The Invest in Britain Bureau's successful efforts are to be reinforced by establishing it as a separate division of the DTI under a new chief executive.
  380
  The Offshore Supplies Office will become the new Oil and Gas Projects and Supplies Office. It will have a wider remit covering oil and gas market opportunities at home and abroad both upstream and downstream including petrochemicals. It will continue its existing work to ensure that United Kingdom suppliers take full advantage of North sea market opportunities, working closely with the DTI's energy divisions, under the Minister for Energy. It will, in addition, have a new task of exploiting opportunities for major overseas projects as well as other export opportunities working as part of the DTI's export promotion effort, under the Minister for Trade.

  Science and Technology Adviser
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to maintain a post of chief adviser on science and technology; and to which official he intends the Innovation Unit to report.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [pursuant to the reply, 14 December, c. 612]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Following the reorganisation of the work of the Department on innovation, I shall not be appointing a successor to Dr. Robinson when he returns to the private sector in March. Within the new structure, the innovation unit will report direct to the head of the industry command.

  Local Authority Enforcement Functions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for a review of overlapping local authority enforcement functions; and what the terms of reference for such a review will be.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In response to concerns of business, and following the announcement after the Prime Minister's last progress meeting on deregulation, that ways of eliminating duplication between enforcement agencies should be reviewed, the Government have decided that there should be a review of the enforcement functions of local authorities. This review has started today with the following terms of reference:To investigate the organisational arrangements for the enforcement functions of local authorities, except insofar as they relate to fire safety, and to report on the scope for minimising business compliance costs and enforcement costs, as well as reducing inconsistencies in enforcement by removing any duplication and improving co-ordination within and between enforcement functions. The study should:

  (a) review experience of co-ordination of enforcement, particularly within existing unitary authorities and also within and between other authorities;

  (b) assess the scope for wider-coordination of regulatory functions by all authorities; and

  (c) make recommendations on the means available to central and local government to promote good practice.

  The scrutiny will report to Ministers within the 90 working days which are allowed under efficiency scrutiny guidelines.

  The Secretary of State for the Environment and I will be the supervising Ministers for the scrutiny. The scrutiny team will be advised by a steering group which will include officials from interested Government Departments together with representatives of the local authority associations.
  381

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for a review of the enforcement agencies for fire safety matters; and what the terms of reference for such a review will be.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Following the announcement after the Prime Minister's last progress meeting on deregulation, that ways of eliminating duplication between enforcement agencies should be reviewed, and in response to concerns of business such as those of the deregulation task force for the construction industry, the Government have decided that there should be a review of those enforcement agencies responsible for fire safety. This review has started today with the following terms of reference:Taking account of the review of the operation and effectiveness of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 recently undertaken by the Home Office, to review the operation and effectiveness of all legislation for which Home Office, DOE and HSE have policy responsibility in relation to fire safety; to review the organisation arrangements of all relevant bodies and agencies, including local authorities, responsible for enforcing this legislation; and to make recommendations.
  The study should identify any areas of overlap, duplication or lack of clarity between the responsibilities of enforcement bodies, and should recommend ways of dealing with them. It should also address the practicability of bringing all policy responsibility for fire safety together in a single Department.

  The scrutiny will report to Ministers within the 90 working days which are allowed under efficiency scrutiny guidelines.

  The Home Secretary, Secretary of State for the Environment, Secretary of State for Employment and I will be the supervising Ministers for the scrutiny.. The scrutiny team will be advised by a steering group which will include officials from interested Government Departments. The steering group which will be assisted by a contact group representing the interests of business users, constructors, the insurance industry and the various enforcement interests.

  British Coal
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions he has reached about arrangements for the future of concessionary fuel entitlements after the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  In October, the Government published a consultation paper on proposals for future concessionary fuel arrangements after privatisation of British Coal. Comments were received from coal industry unions, other organisations and a number of individuals.

  Careful consideration has been given to all responses to the consultation paper. In the light of these responses, the Government have decided to pursue the proposals which were set out in the consultation paper.

  Responsibility for meeting the entitlements of former British Coal employees and their dependants would be transferred at privatisation to the Secretary of State. The Coal Industry Bill which was introduced into the House on 2 December would provide powers for the Secretary of State to make payments necessary for securing these entitlements. The total liability to be assumed by the tax-payer would be in the region of £1,500 million.

  Responsibility for supplying concessionary fuel to employees transferred to successor companies would pass to those companies. The Coal Industry Bill would provide the powers for these transfers by means of restructuring
  382
  schemes. The schemes would place a contractual obligation on successor companies to honour the concessionary fuel entitlements of persons transferred to their employment.

  In order to achieve continuity in the administration of concessionary fuel entitlements, the Government have decided that the National Concessionary Fuel Office—NCFO—part of British Coal's pensions and insurance centre in Sheffield—PIC—should continue to administer such entitlements for at least four years after the main privatisation of British Coal. The PIC would be privatised within a year or so of the main privatisation.

  As far as continuing employees are concerned, it would be for successor companies to ensure satisfactory administrative arrangements in respect of concessionary fuel entitlements of British Coal employees who transfer to their employment. If required, the NCFO would be able to provide a concessionary fuel administration service to successor companies.

  The Government believe that these proposals meet in full their commitment to safeguard the entitlements of past and present employees of British Coal, and their dependants, to concessionary fuel or cash in lieu after privatisation.

  Export Licences
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what information he has on the export of Heckler and Koch machine guns from the United Kingdom to the United Arab Emirates in 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will now publish details of all export licences granted to Royal Ordnance between 1980 and 1993; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what information he has on the export of Heckler and Koch weapons from the United Kingdom to the former Yugoslavia in 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what information he has relating to the exports of Royal Ordnance to (a) the United Arab Emirates, (b) central America, (c) the former Yugoslavia and (d) the former East Germany; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what information he has relating to the export of ethyl cellulose by Royal Ordnance in 1989; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what is his policy regarding the collection and publication of information on the export of weapons by Heckler and Koch from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: It has been the policy of successive administrations not to disclose details of an individual company's export licence applications, which are submitted to my Department in confidence.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy towards negotiating bilateral agreements with(a) Russia, (b) Hungary and (c) the Czech Republic in relation to reducing tariff or other trade barriers on agricultural products and food manufactured products; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.
  383
  The negotiation of trade agreements is undertaken on behalf of the Community by the European Commission, working from mandates approved by the Council of Ministers. Europe agreements have been concluded both with Hungary and the Czech Republic, as well as with Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. These provide access to the Community market at concessionary rates of import charge for a wide range of agricultural and processed agricultural products, as well as favourable access terms for the Community's farm exports to their markets. The United Kingdom strongly supported the negotiation of these agreements which should help the development of more market-oriented economic structures in those countries.

  Russia benefits from certain agricultural concessionary arrangements under the Community's generalised scheme of preference. Negotiations are currently under way for a partnership and co-operation agreement with Russia. This agreement does not contain specific trade concessions but does hold out the possibility of a free trade agreement in the future.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid (Kenya)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new British aid projects are now being considered in discussions with the Kenyan Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are discussing new projects in many areas including health and family planning, education, agriculture and wildlife, transport and the police.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions Her Majesty's Government are currently making towards the lifting of mines in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since October 1991, we have provided nearly £500,000 for demining in Cambodia. and we are currently contributing in addition some £135,000.

  Brazil (Street Children)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government have given to projects in Brazil concerned with assisting former street children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1992, we have committed over £400,000 to projects which assist Brazilian street children. This assistance is largely channelled through United Kingdom non-governmental organisations such as Childhope, Womankind and Oxfam.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how aid is being affected by the political situation in Nigeria.
  384
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Existing aid projects continue and we are reviewing the rest of our programme. A £23·3 million grant to the power sector has been cancelled.

  Sudan
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the impact of conflict in Sudan on the United Kingdom"s aid programme to that area.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We closed our aid projects in southern Sudan in 1986 due to the conflict. In 1991, the continuing civil war was one factor in the decision to terminate our aid programme completely.

  South Africa
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the United Kingdom is doing to help the training of the police and crowd control marshals in South Africa, with particular reference to election monitoring.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following a successful pilot project, we have agreed to help train marshals in crowd control at a cost of £750,000. We also plan to train 6,000 peace monitors who will be deployed during the elections at a cost of some £830,000. In addition we shall contribute to the activities of the new electoral unit to be set up in South Africa by the European Union, and consider any specific requests from the South African Independent Electoral Commission.

  World Bank
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the accountability of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund to Parliament; and what plans he has to make changes to improve accountability to national Parliaments.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World bank and the IMF are accountable to their shareholders, including the United Kingdom. The Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to these institutions. These arrangements work and we therefore have no current plans to change them.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the report, "Adjustment in Sub-Saharan Africa" published by the operations evaluations department of the World bank on 30 June 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Individual evaluations produced by the operations evaluation department—OED—of the World bank are not published, but summaries of selected reports highlighting the main findings and lessons are released. Publication of the summary of the OED report on adjustment in sub-Saharan Africa is imminent, and a copy will be placed in each Library of the House as soon as it is received.
  385

HEALTH

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to health authorities regarding procedures for suspension of NHS employees and the length of time in which formal disciplinary inquiries should be instigated, where such an inquiry is to take place.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Disciplinary proceedings for national health service staff employed on national terms and conditions of service are governed by section 40 of the General Whitley Council's handbook, a copy of which is available in the Library. This provides a framework within which employing authorities determine local disciplinary procedures.

  Guidance on disciplinary procedures for hospital medical and dental and community medical staff, where questions of professional conduct or professional competence are involved, was issued to employing authorities in departmental circular HC(90)9, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of all individuals appointed to chair NHS trusts and serve as non-executive directors, listing their occupation and sex.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital allocations have been awarded to each NHS trust in the Northern region for 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Capital allocations to national health service trusts are not yet complete. An announcement about the issue of trust external financing limits, which control trust capital spending, will be made shortly.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish estimates of the amount of money held in trust funds by(a) district and (b) region.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals are at present engaged in community activities in order to raise money to purchase a magnetic resonance imaging scanner.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Surgeons' Assistants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on cardiac surgeons' assistants.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This interesting development is being evaluated at the Churchill John Radcliffe hospital, Oxford. The Royal College of Surgeons is closely involved in the scheme and it will be discussed with the medical profession in the joint consultants committee shortly.
  386

  Optician Registered Premises
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many optician registered premises there were in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of ophthalmic opticians premises1 for the five most recent years for which figures are available is as follows:

  at 31 December

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England

  Ophthalmic opticians premises2

  4,970

  4,944

  4,887

  4,944

  4,927

  Other3

  —

  —

  735

  734

  832

  Total

  —

  —

  5,622

  5,678

  5,759

  Wales

  Ophthalmic opticians premises

  349

  345

  330

  353

  358

  Other

  —

  —

  56

  51

  47

  Total

  —

  —

  386

  404

  405

  1 Between 1986 and 1989, data were not collected on those premises not classified as 'Ophthalmic Opticians' premises. In 1990, information on all premises was collected. As a result, it became apparent that some family health services authorities were wrongly classifying some premises as 'Ophthalmic Opticians'. These figures should therefore be used with care.

  2Premises where the owner or manager is registered with the General Optical Council as an ophthalmic optician.

  3 Premises where the owner or manager is not registered with the General Optical Council as an ophthalmic optician.

  Female Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many female consultants there were in the national health service on 1 January; and what was the Opportunity 2000 target for female consultants in the national health service by 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  Most recent figures available are that there were 2,822 female consultants in the national health service as at 30 September 1992. The Opportunity 2000 target is that 20 per cent. of all consultants should be female by 1994.

  Dentists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists were salaried in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of salaried dentists in England at 30 September

  Year

  Number of salaried dentists

  1989

  36

  1990

  33

  1991

  27

  1992

  65

  1993

  93

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of general practitioner fundholders have spent more than their budgets for 1992–93.
  387
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not yet available centrally. The Department is awaiting finally audited figures on fundholder expenditure from some regions.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to be able to publish a regional breakdown of the 1992–93 allocations retained by general practitioner fundholders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These figures are not yet available centrally, as the Department is awaiting finally audited figures from some regions. When these are available, the regional information will be published.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it remains her policy that hospital treatment should be made available equally to the patients of fundholding and non-fundholding general practices and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All patients are entitled to expect high-quality health care, regardless of whether the treatment is paid for by a fundholding general practitioner, or a district health authority on behalf of the general practitioner.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received from right hon. and hon. Members identifying instances where is it alleged that different priority in the allocation of treatment is given to the patients of fundholding and non-fundholding general practices; and if she will in each case identify the establishment allegedly operating any such two-tier system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  According to our records, six parliamentary questions—excluding my hon. Friend's—and 61 letters from hon. Members have been answered in the current financial year.

  At 31 December

  England1

  Wales1

  Ophthalmic opticians

  Ophthalmic medical practitioners

  Total

  Ophthalmic opticians

  Ophthalmic medical practitioners

  Total

  1988

  5,378

  832

  6,210

  419

  47

  466

  1989

  5,514

  784

  6,298

  436

  43

  479

  1990

  5,652

  779

  6,431

  461

  46

  507

  1991

  5,745

  757

  6,502

  471

  50

  521

  1992

  5,863

  738

  6,601

  477

  53

  530

  1 Practitioners are generally counted only once even if they have a contract with more than one family health services authority. If however, they have contracts in both England and Wales, they will appear in figures for both countries.

  Confidentiality
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she first announced a plan to publish a code of confidentiality for the NHS; what progress has been made; and if she will publish the draft NHS Management Executive document on confidentiality, use and disclosure on NHS information.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1984 and in 1989, the Government issued consultation documents on a draft code of practice for handling personal health information. After failure to achieve consensus on this code the Government decided instead to prepare guidance on the matter. This was announced in the reply given by my hon. Friend the
  388
  The establishments named were:

  Addenbrookes Hospital (twice), Cambridge

  Kidderminster General, Kidderminster

  Lister Hospital, Stevenage and Queen Elizabeth H Hospital Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital Trust, Luton

  Norfolk Acute Hospitals Trust, Norwich

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington

  Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, Essex

  Royal Surrey Hospital, Guildford

  Royal United Hospital Trust, Wiltshire

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

  St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey

  South Warwickshire General Hospital Trust, Warwick

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury

  Watford General, Watford

  Westmorland General Hospital, Kendal and Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle.

  Cigarette Advertising
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of the effect of a ban on cigarette promotion on levels of smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health discussion document "Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption" reviewed the evidence on the effect of tobacco bans in other countries. The report makes no estimate of the effect of an advertising ban in the United Kingdom. Copies of the report, published in October 1992, are available in the Library.

  Opticians
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many opticians were registered with family health services authorities in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of ophthalmic opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners registered in the five most recent years for which figures are available is:

  Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 13 1991 at column 509. There have beeb compelx legal issues to resolve, but we hope to issue the guidance for consultation before the end of March.

  Midwifery
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on the establishment by Leeds university of a chair of midwifery which is open to non-midwives; and if she will make a statement about the funding of this post.

  Mr. Sackville
  The qualifications required for appointment to the chair of midwifery are a matter for the university funding the chair to determine.
  389
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communication she has had with the director of research and development about advertisement for the chair of midwifery at Leeds university being open to non-midwives; and if she will comment about his views.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to restructure the Medicines Control Agency; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency became an executive agency in July 1991 and a Government trading fund in April 1993. In accordance with the usual arrangements, and as announced in the next steps review 1993, we shall be conducting a review of the performance and operation of the Medicines Control Agency for completion within three and a half years of the agency's launch—that is, by early 1995.

  GP Night Fees
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is required on the form on which general practitioners claim night fees.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Health has issued a model form for completion by general practitioners claiming night visit fees. However, individual family health services authorities are free to amend this form to ask for additional information if they The model form asks for details of the GP making the visit, including FHSA code number, and his or her relationship to the patient's own GP; the patient's personal details, including national health service number and date of birth; place of attendance; and confirmation that the visit was requested and made between the hours of 10pm and 8am; additionally, if more than one patient was seen on the same visit to one place, details for each patient are requested.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

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

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are those people currently appointed to serve on regional health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Non-executive chairmen and members of regional health authorities are as listed. The appointment of executive members to regional health authorities is a matter for the authorities themselves.

  EAST ANGLIAN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Sir Colin Walker

  Non-executive members

  Mrs. J. Hopwood

  390

  Professor Sir David Peters

  Mr. J. Mowson

  Mr. L. Rice

  Mrs. S. Sida-Lockett

  MERSEY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Sir Donald Wilson

  Non-executive members

  Professor Alistair Breckenridge

  Mrs. R. Hawley

  Mrs. J. Timms

  Mr. J. Halliday

  Mr. B. Jenkins

  NORTH EAST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Sir William Staveley

  Non-executive members

  Mr. P. Holwell

  Baroness Gardner of Parkes

  Major General R. Wall

  Dr. Mollie McBride

  Mr. B. Davis

  NORTHERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Mr. P. Car

  Non-executive members

  Mr. A. Brown

  Professor Michael Rawlins

  Mr. R. Spoor

  Mrs. J. Flanagan

  Mrs. S. Irvine

  NORTH WESTERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Sir Bruce Martin

  Non-executive members

  Mr. C. Jeanes

  Dr. Arup Banerjee

  Professor Stephen Tomlinson

  Professor Janet Finch

  (Vacancy)

  NORTH WEST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Sir William Doughty

  Non-executive members

  Mrs. J. Stern

  Mrs. J. Hanham

  Mr. J. Taylor

  Mr. R. Gain

  Professor Stewart Sutherland

  OXFORD REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Dr. Stuart Burgess

  Non-executive members

  Professor Sir David Weatherall

  Mr. P. Gell

  Mr. N. Ward

  Mrs. V. Rubinstein

  (Vacancy)

  SOUTH EAST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Mr. P. W. Barker

  Non-executive members

  Mr. G. Neely

  Professor Arthur Lucas

  Mrs. J. Rodin

  Ms S. Reeve

  Dame Wendy Mitchell

  SOUTH WESTERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Ms R. Fritchie

  Non-executive members

  Mr. U. A. Woodburn

  391

  Mr. D. Strachan

  Sir John Kingman

  Dame Margaret Fry

  Ms N. Pain

  SOUTH WEST THAMES REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Professor Marian Hicks

  Non-executive members

  Ms S. Stapley

  Professor John Lacey

  Mr. G. Howe

  Mrs. M. McNaughton

  Ms L. McGoldrick

  TRENT REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Sir Michael Carlisle

  Non-executive members

  Mr. M. Dessau

  Professor Sir Colin Campbell

  Mrs. P. Wildgoose

  Mr. G. Clemons (Vacancy)

  WESSEX REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Mr. A. Service

  Non-executive members

  Sir Julian Oswald

  Dr. Dale Ferguson-Hudson

  Mr. P. Waring

  Ms F. Sheldon (Vacancy)

  WEST MIDLANDS REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Mr. B. Baker

  Non-executive members

  Mrs. E. Metcalfe

  Professor Sir Michael Thompson

  Mr. B. Sedghi

  Ms J. Cravos

  Mr. D. Rhead

  YORKSHIRE REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chairman

  Sir Bryan Askew

  Non-executive members

  Mr. J. Fergusson

  Professor Stanley Brown

  Mrs. J. Barden

  Mr. M. Morgan

  Mrs. C. Trimmer

  Nuts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the number of people suffering from an allergy to nuts and the number of deaths that have resulted in recent years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Flu Vaccine
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the distribution of flu vaccine for 1993–94; and what relative priorities have been given to asthmatics, children, adults and the retired.

  Mr. Sackville
  For commercial reasons, a fifth of the expected supply of flu vaccine did not become available until 22 December 1993. Helpfully, however, additional production by licensed suppliers resulted in over 5 million 392
  doses being made available to the national health service prior to this date compared with 4·7 million in 1992–93. Supplies of influenza vaccine are still available.

  As in previous years, the chief medical officer wrote to all general practitioners in 1993–94 giving advice about available vaccines and about people most at risk for whom immunisation is recommended, including asthmatics. Routine immunisation of children and fit and healthy older people is not recommended unless there are particular risk factors. The final decision in individual cases rests with the GP.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the number of people using private health care(a) by region and (b) by district health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Patient Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish a regional breakdown of written patient complaints for 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information should be available by the end of March 1994.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out the terms of reference for the review of the role and functions of the NHS estates; and when she expects the review to be completed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The terms of reference, including the time scale, for the review of the national health service estates agency are as follows.

  REVIEW OF THE NHS ESTATES AGENCY

  Terms of Reference

  I. To carry out a review of the NHS Estates Agency by the end of June 1994, by

  1. evaluating the following:

  (a) the appropriateness of the aims and objectives of the agency

  (b) the agency's performance in meeting its targets

  (c) the appropriateness of the delegations available to the agency

  (d) the efficiency and economy of the agency's internal operations, including its personnel, management and financial systems

  (e) the impact of agency status on the agency's activities in relation to the Department of Health and its Ministers

  (f) the impact of agency status on the agency's and Department's relationship with Parliament and the public;

  2. reconsidering the prior options for the status of the agency;

  3. depending on the outcome of 1 and 2 above, revising the agency's framework document as appropriate.

  II. to report to Ministers according to the agreed timetable, consulting the Office of Public Services and Science and the Treasury as necessary.
  393

  Runaway Children
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will direct area child protection committees to undertake monitoring of the scale of the problem of young runaways in each area and ensure that proper inter-agency arrangements are in place to respond effectively.

  Mr. Bowis
  Government guidance on the role and functions of area child protection committees—ACPCs—is given in "Working Together under the Children Act 1989" and we have no plans to issue specific guidance to ACPCs on young runaways. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the report of the Children's Society on young runaways, a copy of which has been sent to her.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has just received a copy of the report of the Children's Society on young runaways and will study it with interest.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon her departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employer's national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's running costs baseline.

  Oldchurch Hospital, Romford
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and nature of representations she has received relating to Oldchurch hospital, Romford.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a petition of some 46,000 signatures and some 17,000 pre-printed letters and postcards from members of the public, as well as a number of letters from individuals and hon. Members.

  In-vitro Fertilisation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement indicating her policy on the use of ova from aborted babies to enable babies to be conceived through in vitro fertilisation; and if she will identify precisely those sections of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 which would effectively prevent the adoption of such techniques.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government welcome the consultation document on the use of ovarian tissue, including fetal ovarian tissue, in the treatment of infertility issued on 7 January by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. This wide-ranging consultation will give the public and professional interests time to consider all aspects of this complex and sensitive area. We look forward to receiving advice from the authority in due course, when we can consider what action, if any, is required.
  394
  Under Section 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, it is an offence to create, keep or use an embryo without a licence. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority stated that no licence would be granted where the in vitro fertilisation involved fetal eggs.

  Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1990 the expenditure on gross redundancy payments for(a) regions, (b) districts and (c) trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 December 1993]: The information is shown in the table.

  Revenue expenditure on gross redundancy payments in England

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £

  £

  £

  Regional Health Authorities

  948,202

  2,720,438

  3,236,599

  District Health Authorities

  10,789,525

  25,875,532

  34,805,785

  NHS Trusts

  Not applicable

  3,674,860

  14,467,515

  Totals

  11,737,727

  32,270,650

  52,509,899

  Notes:

  Number of trusts as at: 1 April 1991—57

  Number of trusts as at: 1 April 1992—156

  Number of trusts as at: 1 April 1993—292

  The closure of psychiatric hospitals in connection with "Care in the Community" and management restructuring throughout the national health service are the main reasons for the increase in redundancy compensation payments. Section 45 of the General Whitley Council handbook establishes the redundancy compensation arrangements for NHS staff. Redundancy compensation takes the form of a lump sum dependent on the age and reckonable service of the employee at the date he or she ceases to be employed.

  Benefits
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual amount of money paid to claimants by way of health benefits; and how much was paid in each area of entitlement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: Holders of low income scheme charge remission certificates are entitled to receive national health services free or at a reduced cost as and when these are needed during the currency of a certificate; they do not receive a specified financial award. Certificate holders may also be entitled to refunds of travelling expenses incurred when attending hospital for national health service treatment and, within strict time limits, to refunds of charges paid before they claimed help from the low income scheme. Information about expenditure on these refunds is not collected centrally.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the Welsh share of inward investment to the United Kingdom and the European Community.
  395
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992–93, Wales had a 20 per cent. share of United Kingdom foreign investment projects. The comparable European figure is not available.

  Cardiff Wales Airport (Road Links)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to secure the provision of an improved road link between Culverhouse cross and Cardiff Wales airport.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for securing the good communications which are important to the continued success of Cardiff Wales airport rests with South Glamorgan county council. The Department would be prepared to consider a well substantiated case for transport grant support for major improvement to road links to the airport if the county council considered it of sufficient priority.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest information he has concerning the length of hospital waiting lists at(a) six months, (b) one year and (c) over one year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The most recent detailed information on the length of hospital waiting lists in Wales and the increasing numbers of patients being treated is that shown in the Welsh "Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1993", No. 2, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Economy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement outlining the prospects for the Welsh economy during 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh industry has extremely high productivity. We have seen a long-term trend of falling unemployment with a further fall of 1,800 in Wales last month; low inflation; low interest rates; and competitive exchange rates. All of these factors have given Welsh companies a competitive edge which they are using to the full. Welsh industry is in a strong position to take advantage of improving trading conditions both at home and overseas, which will be improved even further with the accord reached in the Uruguay round.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The seasonally adjusted number of claimant unemployed in Wales was 126,000 in December 1993. The number has fallen by 7,900 since January 1993.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of male and female unemployment in Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  Seasonally adjusted, there were 99,600 males and 26,500 females who were claimant unemployed in Wales in December 1993.
  396

  Hill Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange to meet leaders of farmers' unions in Wales to discuss the acute problems facing hill sheep farmers.

  Mr. Redwood
  I meet the farming unions several times each year.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many managerial, nursing and midwife posts there were in the NHS, including trusts, in Wales in each year from 1988 to date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information given as follows relates to staff numbers and not posts.

  Managerial staff1

  Nursing and midwifery staff

  Other

  Learners2

  Total

  1988

  3—

  24,583

  3,336

  27,920

  1989

  187

  24,919

  3,118

  28,037

  1990

  416

  25,018

  3,075

  28,093

  1991

  683

  25,028

  2,934

  27,962

  1992

  848

  25,451

  1,970

  27,421

  1993

  1,028

  25,206

  1,033

  26,239

  Notes:

  Figures given are the whole-time equivalent number of staff employed as at 30 September each year.

  Includes staff employed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and those Family Health Services Authorities using District Health Authority payroll systems.

  The use of locally devised payscales from 1991 onwards may affect the comparability of figures as these staff cannot be allocated centrally to a specific staff group and are not, therefore, included above.

  1General and senior managers. The growth in the number of these staff arises partly from the extension in 1989 of senior manager terms and conditions of service to second and third level managers including some senior nurses and other professional staff.

  2 Since the autumn of 1991 student nurses have been classified as students and are no longer included in the NHS staff figures. Staff included here are students finishing courses begun before this date. There were some 1,800 Project 2000 student nurses at September 1993.

  3 Comparable figures for years before 1989 are not available.

  North Wales Main Railway Line
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss improvements to the north Wales main railway line.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend last met Sir Bob Reid on 12 October 1992. They discussed a number of issues including the north Wales main line.

  Roads
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for further road building in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  On 14 December, my right hon. Friend announced that in 1993–94 work will start on the A465 Aberdulais-Glynneath improvement, the A4042 Llantarnam bypass, and the A40 Llandeilo northern bypass. Work has since started on the first two of these
  397
  schemes and tenders for the third are being assessed. In 1994–95 starts are planned for the A470 Pentrebach-Cefn Coed improvement, the A5 Glyn Bends improvement and the A40 Whitland bypass.

  My right hon. Friend is reviewing the strategic roads needs of Wales with the aim of accelerating the start of the more important schemes in the forward programme. He plans to make an announcement shortly.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of his local government settlement on the level of youth service provision in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The provisional local government revenue settlement for 1994–95 provides for local government spending of £2,704·8 million, an increase of 4·2 per cent. over 1993–94. The settlement is realistic in the present economic climate.

  Local authorities are responsible for determining their priorities for expenditure in the light of available resources and local needs, including the youth service.

  Health Authorities (Administration Costs)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the administration of the Clwyd health authority and other authorities in Wales cost in the last year and in 1978 adjusted to 1992 prices.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows. The table gives the cost of administration for health authorities in Wales for 1992–93—the last year for which data are available—and for 1978–79 adjusted to 1992–93 prices.

  £ thousands

  Health authority

  1992–93

  1978–79

  Clwyd

  3,615

  4,198

  East Dyfed/Pembrokeshire

  2,804

  4,687

  Gwent

  3,729

  6,312

  Gwynedd

  2,080

  3,337

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,372

  7,321

  Powys

  2,248

  1,870

  South Glamorgan

  7,101

  6,923

  West Glamorgan

  2,605

  4,584

  Source: Summarised Accounts of Health Authorities in Wales.

  Note: The figure for the cost of administration is taken to be that covering authority administration and purchasing expenses. This represents the total revenue expenditure on the pay and accommodation costs of staff of all disciplines and their support staff employed at headquarters levels together with the costs of the purchaser function. They exclude administrative support in hospital departments and at other local levels which is regarded as operational expenditure.

  Council Spending
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the actual council revenue spending for 1993–94, net of community care, and the planned council revenue spending for 1993–94 and 1994–95, net of community care, for each district and county of Wales and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authority budgeted expenditure, including community care, for the current financial year is published on page 43 of "Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics No. 17 1993", copies of which are in 398
  the Library of the House. Information on community care budgets is not available separately. Actual figures for 1993–94 and budgeted expenditure for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of reserves was spent by every county and district council in Wales during the last financial year; and if he will give the totals for all counties and all districts, and the combined total for Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The use of reserves by local authorities during the last financial year is shown in the table.

  Appropriations from/to financial reserves, 1992–93 revised estimates1

  £'000

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,133

  Colwyn

  193

  Delyn

  1,216

  Glyndwr

  378

  Rhuddlan

  327

  Wrexham Maelor

  -283

  Carmarthen

  -50

  Ceredigion

  892

  Dinefwr

  -91

  Llanelli

  415

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  -685

  South Pembrokeshire

  222

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,672

  Islwyn

  725

  Monmouth

  193

  Newport

  -1,568

  Torfaen

  -314

  Aberconwy

  909

  Arfon

  58

  Dwyfor

  241

  Meirionnydd

  990

  Ynys Mon

  198

  Cynon Valley

  568

  Merthyr Tydfil

  224

  Ogwr

  -3

  Rhondda

  -1,104

  Rhymney Valley

  389

  Taff Ely

  789

  Brecknock

  -107

  Montgomeryshire

  1,134

  Radnorshire

  -176

  Cardiff

  -1,529

  Vale of Glamorgan

  477

  Port Talbot

  143

  Lliw Valley

  -9

  Neath

  3,464

  Swansea

  4,659

  Clwyd

  -22

  Dyfed

  1,030

  Gwent

  819

  Gwynedd

  1,002

  Mid Glamorgan

  -5,496

  Powys

  2,121

  South Glamorgan

  898

  West Glamorgan

  -125

  Total Districts

  15,690

  Total Counties

  227

  Total Wales

  15,917

  Source: General Fund Revenue Accounts Return (RA94).

  1 Appropriations from financial reserves are shown as positive and appropriations to reserves are shown as (-). Includes reserves under Local Management of Schools and Local Management of Colleges.
  399

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of members of all public bodies to which he made appointments.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest list, showing the position as at 1 December 1993, was deposited in the Library of the House on 16 December 1993.

  Youthstart
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect on Wales of implementing the Youthstart programme, proposed by the European Commission White Paper on growth, competition and employment.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Youthstart is a Community youth guarantee scheme which is still being considered. The Government's youth guarantee scheme already ensures that all young people under the age of 18 who are not in a job or further education are given the opportunity of a suitable place on youth training.

  Welsh Language Act 1993
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available in the Vote Office and Library Welsh language copies of the Welsh Language Act 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Yes. I have today arranged for copies of the Welsh translation of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to be available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of general and senior managers in the NHS in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as
  follows:

  Salary costs of general and senior managers

  £000

  1986–87

  1,332

  1987–88

  1,600

  1988–89

  1,735

  1989–90

  6,521

  1990–91

  9,253

  1991–92

  16,897

  1992–93

  20,127

  Source:

  Health Authorities' Annual Accounts/Financial Returns

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust Financial Returns

  Notes:

  i. Figures include expenditure by Health Authorities, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, Pembrokeshire NHS Trust and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales but excludes those of Family Health Services Authorities whose corresponding costs are not identifiable on the same basis.

  ii. It should be noted that since 1989 senior managers' terms and conditions of service have been extended to second and third level managers and some senior nurses and other professional staff have also transferred to the senior management grades.
  400

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received a copy of a report on biodiversity and conservation action, prepared by six environmental groups; and what steps he has taken to evaluate the risks outlined in the report.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have not received a copy of the report although I understand that it broadly accords with the Government's biodiversity action plan which will be published shortly.

  Tunnel Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to Friends of the Earth Cymru's inquiry in regard to the standardisation of safety regulations covering the transport of dangerous cargoes through road tunnels.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I replied to a letter from Friends of the Earth on 10 January decribing the measures we have taken to minimise the risk of vehicles carrying hazardous loads using the tunnels on the A55. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Education Staff
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for the continued employment of the staff of the Welsh Education Development Committee—PDAG—the Welsh Committee of School Examinations and Assessment Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales following the transference and expansion of the functions of those bodies following the enactment of the Education Act 1993 and the Welsh Language Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Decisions on the continued employment of the staff of the Curriculum Council for Wales when it is established as the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales/Awdurdod Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru—ACAC—from 1 April will be a matter for the new Authority to consider within the approved staffing structure and resources to be made available to the authority. Discussions are taking place with the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority in respect of those staff employed on Welsh language functions whose contracts will continue after 1 April 1994. The redeployment of staff currently employed by the Welsh Language Education Development Committee—PDAG—is the responsibility of the Welsh Joint Education Committee which is their statutory employer. Staff currently engaged at PDAG will, however, be free to apply for any post advertised by ACAC, the Further Education Funding Council and the Welsh Language Board.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has in regard to the disposal of radioactive waste by Singleton hospital, Swansea in a local landfill site.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The disposal of radioactive waste from Singleton hospital is authorised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the provisions of the
  401
  Radioactive Substances Act 1993. The small volume of waste sent to landfill is mainly in ash form, most of it having already been incinerated, and contains very low levels of radioactivity.

  Grant and Subsidy Schemes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been spent in Wales on each different grant and subsidy scheme available to farmers and landowners in each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94; what are his forecasts for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The expenditure on agricultural grant and subsidy schemes in the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 is published in the appropriation accounts for the relevant years, copies of which are in the Library of the House. The latest forecasts for 1993–94 are set out in the supply estimates 1993–94 for vote 1 schemes and, for vote 2 schemes, in the winter supplementary estimates. My plans for spending on agricultural grants and subsidies in Wales for 1994–95 will be set out in the 1994–95 supply estimates. The Government's priorities on and aims for agricultural spending will be set out in the Welsh Office departmental report to be laid before Parliament in March.

  Pembrokeshire Coast National Park
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress his Department has made in reviewing the boundaries of the Pembrokeshire Coast national park following the public inquiry in 1991; and if he will make a statement.
  402
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The review has raised complex legal issues which are still being considered. A response is expected to issue in the near future.

  Local Planning Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish new guidelines to local planning authorities with regard to the factors which should be considered in permitting out-of-town shopping centres with a potentially detrimental effect on town centre business activity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Revised guidelines were published in July last year in planning policy guidance note No. 6. These advise that the scale, type and location of out-of centre retail developments should not be such as to undermine the vitality and visibility of those town centres that would otherwise serve the community well. The guidance is being kept under review.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employer's national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.
  403

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Swimming Pool, Kilkeel
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when funding will be provided to Newry and Mourne district council in respect of the provision of a swimming pool at Kilkeel.

  Mr. Ancram
  Finance for this project is not currently available.

  The position in future years will be determined in the light of the resources available and the priorities which need to be addressed.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what changes have taken place in teacher training to ensure that all newly qualified teachers can identify and assist children suffering from dyslexia ;

  (2) how many teachers in Northern Ireland have been trained specifically to recognise or to assist children with dyslexia and other special educational needs.

  Mr. Ancram
  Dyslexia can describe a variety of learning difficulties experienced by children. All teachers receive, as part of their initial training, an element designed to enable them to develop the capacity to identify and deal with pupils with learning difficulties. For serving teachers, the education and library boards mount in-service courses with similar objectives, but the numbers involved are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parole
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were released from prison for Christmas parole; how many returned at the required date and time; and what was the maximum number of years of sentence for any such prisoners.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In December 1993, a total number of 446 prisoners were released from prison for Christmas home leave; of these, 100 prisoners were serving indeterminate sentences. The number who returned at the required date and time was 436, including all the indeterminate sentence prisoners.

  At 14 January, three prisoners were still unlawfully at large and their names have been passed to the security forces.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why Neil Latimer was not released from prison for Christmas parole; how many years he has been sentenced to imprisonment; and how many of these years he has already served in prison.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Neil Latimer is serving a life sentence. He completed 10 years imprisonment in December 1993. To be eligible for consideration for Christmas home leave a prisoner was required to have served a minimum of 11 years in custody.

  Ice Bowl
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the public inquiry was held about the next phase of the development of Dundonalds 404
  international ice bowl; when a decision is to be announced; and if he will make a statement about the efficiency of such public inquiries.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The public inquiry was held before the Planning Appeals Commission from 5 January until 13 January 1993. Unfortunately, as the presiding commissioner was indisposed for a period following the close of the inquiry, the commission's report is not yet with the Department. I understand that the report should be submitted to the Department next month after which a decision will issue as soon as possible.

  Planning inquiries are held to ensure that all representations are fully aired and considered in an open forum before a decision is made. I am content that this system provides a fair consideration of what are often complex planning issues.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  Parliament Buildings, Stormont
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the refurbishment of Parliament buildings, Stormont.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  A contract costing in the region of £2·5 million is to commence at Parliament buildings in February 1994. The work, which will take about a year to complete, will ensure that the building complies with health and safety and fire regulations.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many official Christmas cards were sent in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average prison sentence imposed for defaulting on a fine; what is the average period actually spent in prison by such a defaulter in Scotland; and what is the average cost of such a person's imprisonment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average sentence imposed in 1992 for defaulting on a fine was 23 days. The
  405
  average time spent in prison by a fine defaulter was an estimated 13 days and the estimated average cost of the person's imprisonment was £970.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were sentenced to a prison term under each offence category in the latest year for which figures are available; and what number and percentage of the total were fine defaulters.

  Receptions to Scottish Penal Establishments in 1992 by Crime and Offence

  Crime/offence classification

  Total receptions

  Fine defaulter receptions

  Fine defaulter1 receptions as a percentage of total receptions

  Total crimes & offences

  19,923

  8,339

  42

  Total crimes: sub total

  12,388

  4,044

  33

  Non-sexual crimes of violence: sub total

  1,218

  66

  5

  Homicide

  80

  2

  3

  Serious assault etc

  718

  30

  4

  Handling offensive weapons

  31

  12

  39

  Robbery

  354

  15

  4

  Other

  35

  7

  20

  Crimes of indencency: sub total

  328

  158

  48

  Sexual assault

  70

  2

  3

  Lewd & libidinous practices

  81

  5

  6

  Other

  177

  151

  85

  Crimes of dishonesty: sub total

  9,020

  3,024

  34

  Housebreaking

  2,345

  489

  21

  Theft by opening lockfast places

  547

  193

  35

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  825

  229

  28

  Other theft

  3,992

  1,619

  41

  Fraud

  321

  143

  45

  Other

  990

  351

  35

  Fire-raising, vandalism etc: sub total

  371

  215

  58

  Fire-raising

  41

  7

  17

  Vandalism etc

  330

  208

  63

  Other crimes: sub total

  1,451

  581

  40

  Crimes against public justice

  773

  317

  41

  Drugs offences

  651

  262

  40

  Other

  27

  2

  7

  Total offences: sub total

  7,535

  4,295

  57

  Miscellaneous offences: sub total

  5,364

  2,994

  56

  Petty assault

  1,082

  480

  44

  Breach of the peace

  3,796

  2,197

  58

  Drunkeness

  228

  139

  61

  Other

  258

  178

  69

  Motor vehicle offences: sub total

  2,171

  1,301

  60

  Reckless & careless driving

  147

  88

  60

  Drunk driving

  390

  245

  63

  Speeding

  18

  15

  83

  Unlawful use of vehicle

  1,525

  873

  57

  Vehicle defect offences

  15

  15

  100

  Other

  76

  65

  86

  Agricultural Base Areas
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the figures in hectares for (a) set-aside; (b) pulses, (c) oilseed rape and (d) cereals for 1989, 1990 and 1991 which were used to calculate the base area in Scotland.
  406
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table details the total number of receptions and the number of fine defaulter receptions to penal establishments in Scotland by classification of crime and offence for 1992.

  (2) if he will list the June census set-aside figures for Scotland for 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 29 November 1993]: The figures used to calculate the base areas in Scotland are as follows:—
  407

  1989

  1990

  1991

  3 years average

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  LFA

  Non-LFA

  Set-aside1

  3,643

  7,807

  4,919

  12,949

  6,487

  15,796

  5,016

  12,184

  Protein crops

  526

  4,509

  358

  4,046

  353

  3,024

  412

  3,860

  Oilseed rape

  7,821

  28,244

  8,919

  36,276

  9,896

  39,999

  8,879

  34,840

  Cereals

  188,780

  319,270

  178,060

  303,383

  175,843

  292,665

  180,895

  305,106

  Total

  200,770

  359,830

  192,256

  356,654

  192,579

  351,484

  2195,202

  2355,990

  1Figures taken from the five-year and one-year set-aside scheme returns.

  2Before submission to the EC Commission in September 1992, these figures were adjusted by switching 34,854 hectares from less-favoured areas to non-LFAs giving a base area of 160,348 hectares for the LFAs and 390,844 hectares for the non-LFAs. These figures were further adjusted to reflect the more accurate split between LFAs and non-LFA arable land established from the integrated administration and control system returns, and a further 39,303 hectares was switched from LFAs to non-LFAs giving new base areas of 121,045 hectares for the LFAs and 430,147 for the non-LFAs. These last figures are now accepted by the EC as the Scottish base areas. Throughout, the total base area has remained constant at 551,192 hectares.

  The set-aside figures recorded in the June census for 1989 and 1990 were 29,197 and 44,465 hectares respectively. These figures partly reflect land registered for set-aside and are, therefore, higher than the area actually set aside. No specific set-aside questions were asked in 1991.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of households with negative equity for the third quarter of 1993; and what this figure represents as a proportion of total owner occupied households.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: We do not hold this information. However, recent studies have shown that the problem of negative equity is less pronounced in Scotland than in other regions of the United Kingdom, affecting only an estimated 1 per cent. of recent homebuyers. It is open to anyone in that position to discuss their situation with their mortgage lender.

EDUCATION

  Further Education Colleges
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Education (1) if he will list the members of the governing bodies of the new further education college corporations together with(a) their age, (b) their gender and (c) occupation;

  (2) what statistics were held on (a) the age, (b) the gender and (c) the occupations of members of further education college governing bodies prior to the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not hold records of members of further education college governing bodies prior to the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988, nor of members of further education college corporations, since in neither case was the Secretary of State the appointing authority. In the case of sixth form college corporations, my right hon. Friend was responsible for the appointment of the initial members only. Current records are not held by the Department.

  Student Loans
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the usual period experienced by full-time students who have no other financial means for 408
  the processing of their applications for support from the access fund; and what assistance is available to sustain them during that period.

  Mr. Boswell
  Access funds are intended to help eligible full-time students in higher and further education who, for whatever reason, face financial difficulties. Arrangements for allocation and payment of funds to students are determined by individual institutions. Under the charters for further and higher education published by my right hon. Friend, students who apply for assistance from access funds can expect a decision normally within four weeks of applying or by a published termly date when the institution considers applications. They can also expect to be paid quickly if their application is approved. It is open to institutions to accelerate the timetable for students in exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the usual period experienced by students between the end of entitlement to benefit on the commencement of a full-time course and the actual receipt of maintenance grant from the local education authority; and what financial assistance is available to such students who have no other financial means to sustain them during that period.

  Mr. Boswell
  Most full-time students in further and higher education are ineligible for income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit from the date of their enrolment on the course. Students formally enrol at their institution at the beginning of their first term. Local education authorities are responsible for the payment of the grants they make to students. Under the charters for further and higher education published by my right hon. Friend, students have a right to expect the payment of their grant at the start of each term, provided that they have met the authority's application deadline and given such information as the authority requires. Where payment of the full grant is delayed, authorities can make some payment on account. Institutions may use their access funds to give help to eligible students who face particular financial difficulties.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice he has issued about responses to be made in respect of complaints concerning quality in higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  As autonomous institutions, universities and higher education colleges are responsible for providing responses to complaints about the quality of what they
  409
  provide. However, the charter for higher education published on 21 September 1993 by my right hon. Friend advises that institutions responsible for service delivery can be expected to reply to complaints within 10 working days.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the total cost to public funds of the assisted places scheme at the Royal school, Wolverhampton in each year since 1988–89;

  (2) how many pupils have been (a) on the roll and (b) under the assisted places scheme in each year since 1988–89 at the Royal school, Wolverhampton.

  Mr. Forth
  Nil. The Royal school, Wolverhampton does not participate in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average household income of children supported by the assisted places scheme in each year since 1988–89 in each English local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the average household income of an assisted place holder is not collected by reference to local education authority areas. The data can be derived only at disproportionate cost. The average household income of assisted pupils in England for each year since 1988–89 is given in the table:

  Financial year

  Average household income of assisted place holders £

  1988–89

  9,105

  1989–90

  9,716

  1990–91

  10,457

  1991–92

  10,932

  1992–93

  10,982

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many pupils have been(a) on the roll and (b) under the assisted places scheme in each year since 1988–89 at Tettenhall college, Wolverhampton;

  (2) what was the total cost to public funds of the assisted places scheme at Tettenhall college, Wolverhampton in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Forth
  Tettenhall college does not participate in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost to public funds of the assisted places scheme; and how many children were supported by the scheme in each year since 1988–89 in each English local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  The total cost of the scheme and the number of children supported by it for each year since 1988–89 is given in the following table. The data are not available broken down by each local education authority.

  Year

  Total expenditure (financial year) £ million

  Total number of assisted pupils (academic year)

  1988–89

  50·9

  27,083

  1989–90

  56·5

  27,008

  1990–91

  63·4

  26,740

  410

  Year

  Total expenditure (financial year) £ million

  Total number of assisted pupils (academic year)

  1991–92

  75·7

  27,641

  1992–93

  192·8

  28,674

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

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average cost to public funds of each place at non-maintained secondary schools under the assisted places scheme in each year since 1988–89 in each English local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the average cost of an assisted place is not collected by reference to local education authority areas. The data can be derived only at disproportionate cost. The overall average cost to public funds of an assisted place for each year since 1988–89 is given in the table:

  Academic year

  Average cost of an assisted place

  £

  1988–89

  2,121

  1989–90

  2,364

  1990–91

  2,691

  1991–92

  3,101

  1992–93

  3,405

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 442, if he will publish the random audit surveys of income assessments made by his Department for parents of children supported by the assisted places scheme, together with other statistical information collected and referred to.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average school fee paid by the parents of children who benefited under the assisted places scheme, in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Academic year

  Average fee charged for assisted pupils £

  1990–91

  3,267

  1991–92

  3,703

  1992–93

  3,996

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of the assisted places scheme for each financial year since 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Financial year

  Total cost of assisted places scheme £ million

  1990–91

  63·4

  1991–92

  75·7

  1992–93

  192·8

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

  411
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children in(a) England, (b) Cornwall and (c) Devon have received funding under the assisted places scheme, in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the table. The number of assisted pupils in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Number of assisted pupils

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Academic year

  England

  Cornwall

  Devon

  1990–91

  26,740

  174

  728

  1991–92

  27,641

  178

  753

  1992–93

  28,674

  179

  774

  Sex Education
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans the Government have to ensure that teachers receive adequate initial and in-service training to deliver the new compulsory provision of sex education in secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The new arrangements for sex education, which will come into force in September 1994, will incorporate elements which currently form part of the national curriculum requirements for science; and many secondary schools already teach other elements of sex education too. The Department's grants for education support and training programme for 1994–95 will assist schools in securing any additional in-service training needed to equip teachers to deal with these and other aspects of the new arrangements. My right hon. Friend's accreditation criteria for initial teacher training require that the new arrangements should be adequately covered in all relevant courses.

  Surplus School Places
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest available statistics for surplus school places for primary schools and for secondary schools in Essex.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest figures we have for surplus places in Essex are for 1992. In that year the local education authority estimated that there were 18,121 surplus primary and 12,600 surplus secondary places in schools maintained by the county council, representing 13 per cent. of capacity in each sector.

  Capital Bids
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the purpose of his Department issuing a list of named schools following the announcement of the decisions on capital bids for local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  The schools named in the announcement are those voluntary aided and special agreement schools where central Government grant is being set aside for projects. The annual announcement of capital allocations also covers the annual capital guidelines given to local education authorities in respect of their county and voluntary controlled schools.
  412

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to meet representatives of the national steering committee of the nuclear-free local authorities to discuss their report on the nuclear industry in schools, a copy of which was recently sent to him.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. How nuclear issues are handled in schools is a matter for the individual schools themselves and their local education authorities, within the law.

  Student Grants
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the efficiency of payments of grants to students by local education authorities; and if the citizens charter specifies the standard of service students are entitled to in this respect.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local education authorities are responsible for ensuring the prompt payment of grants to students. My right hon. Friend wrote on 8 September 1993 to the chairmen of all authorities in England and Wales to remind them that students have a right to expect the prompt payment of their grant at the start of term, provided that they have met the authority's application deadline and given such information as the authority requires. The charters for further and higher education published by my right hon. Friend on 21 September 1993 tell students about the level of service they have a right to expect from their authority. The Department is prepared to take up some complaints of significant delay with the authority concerned.

  List D Schools
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement in respect of his Department's current proposals for list D schools.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no list D schools in England.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 Competing for Quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office, Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report". On an individual contract basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Postgraduate Students
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many postgraduate students have successfully completed their doctorates within British universities for each year over the last five years.
  413
  Mr. Boswell
  The number of students successfully completing doctorates in the former UFC-funded universities in the United Kingdom in the last five years for which information is currently available was as follows:

  Number

  1987–88

  7,552

  1988–89

  7,745

  1989–90

  8,380

  1990–91

  8,447

  1991–92

  8,878

  University Academic Posts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what data he holds on the number of academic posts existing within British universities which are(a) not wholly funded and (b) wholly funded by the institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the academic year 1991–92, there were 31,226 full-time and 2,532 part-time academic staff wholly funded, and 19,895 full-time and 1,778 part-time academic staff not wholly funded by their institution in the former UFC-funded universities in Great Britain.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of his Department's officials involved in the preparation of the parents charter; how many hours this involved; what was the total cost to the taxpayer of(a) the involvement of civil servants, (b) typesetting and printing and (c) circulation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on Friday 14 January 1994 at column 280. The revised parents charter will cover many aspects of the organisation and curriculum of schools in England. The involvement of civil servants in the Department in the preparation of the text reflects their ongoing responsibilities for promoting improved educational standards, and cannot be separately quantified.

  Curriculum Advisory Group
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the members of each Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority curriculum advisory group.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for the authority. SCAA announced the members of its advisory groups on 12 January and I have arranged for a copy of its press notice to be placed in the Library.

  Asthma
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice he has given to schools to ensure that medication for conditions like asthma are readily available for children to take when necessary; if he will consider publishing guidelines to ensure that medication for conditions like asthma are readily available for immediate use when required; and what representations he has received on this subject.
  414
  Mr. Forth
  General guidance on health care in schools for children with medical conditions is given in DES circular 11/90, "Staffing for Pupils with Special Educational Needs", and the October 1993 draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. My right hon. Friend has recently received a letter on this subject from the National Asthma Campaign.

  Teachers should, in consultation with parents and with appropriate medical advice, do all that is reasonable to enable children with medical conditions to obtain maximum benefit from education and to participate as fully as possible in school life. Where possible, and particularly in cases of asthma or diabetes, it is considered good health care practice to encourage children to manage their own condition as early as is consistent with their development.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  School Premises Regulations 1981
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to publish the results of his Department's review of the School Premises Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Forth
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many tonnes of freight were carried by BR's Railfreight distribution company in each of the last five years; and how much it is estimated will be carried in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96;

  (2) how many tonnes of (a) coal, (b) petroleum, (c) metals and (d) construction materials were carried by BR's Trainload freight company in each of the last five years; and how much it is estimated will be carried in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96.
  415
  Mr. Freeman
  Historic data can be found in table 5.14 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1993", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Traffic forecasts are a matter for BR.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will seek to use freight facilities grant, or other grants, to ensure that fuel oil is once again carried from Stanlow to Aberystwyth by rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  If the company concerned felt that an application for freight facilities grant or the new track access grant, which will be available from 5 April, could be of assistance in returning this business to rail, I would be happy to consider it.

  Marchioness Disaster
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate whether the crew of the Bowbelle had been made aware of the availability of walkie talkies on the night of the Marchioness disaster.

  Mr. Norris
  The matter was investigated during the marine accident investigation branch inquiry. The master was aware of the presence of hand-held VHF sets on board Bowbelle; sections 8.9 and 17.1 of the chief inspector's report refer. At least one of the seamen on the fo'c'sle was aware that sets were carried.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  Scotland and North

  1,957

  1,834

  1,969

  2,022

  1,930

  9,712

  Midlands

  2,240

  2,423

  2,037

  2,198

  2,179

  11,077

  Southern

  2,109

  1,993

  1,897

  1,756

  1,701

  9,456

  South Wales/South West

  1,908

  1,717

  1,375

  1,316

  1,223

  7,539

  North and North Wales

  2,268

  2,305

  2,461

  2,013

  2,070

  11,117

  London and Eastern

  2,141

  1,829

  1,716

  1,434

  1,414

  8,534

  Total

  12,632

  12,101

  11,455

  10,739

  10,517

  57,435

  Information on the number later found to be stolen is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Trunk Roads, London
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what major road improvement schemes on trunk roads in London have been(a) completed, (b) started or (c) planned to start in the current financial year.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:—

  (a) Trunk road schemes in London completed in 1993–94:

  A13 Blackwall Tunnel/Cotton Street "dedicated lane"

  (a) Trunk road schemes in London started in 1993–94:

  A13 West India Dock Road Junction Final Scheme

  A406 East of Falloden Way to Finchley High Road

  A406 Dysons Road Phase 2

  A406 M1 Junction 1 Improvement

  Al2 Hackney-M11 Contract 4

  A40 Long Lane to West End Road Junction

  A13 Heathway—Wennington Advance Works

  A13 Butcher Row Junction

  (c) Trunk Road schemes planned to start in London 1993–94

  A13 Thames Avenue to Wennington

  A13 Blackwall Tunnel/Cotton Street Main Works

  A406 Dysons Road Phase 1

  416

  Thames Bridges
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the co-ordination of works involving Thames bridges as a result of consultation between his officials and the Association of London Borough Engineers and Surveyors.

  Mr. Norris
  Ways in which the co-ordination of works, including those on Thames bridges, could be improved feature regularly in discussions between officials of the Department and the Association of London Borough Engineers and Surveyors. A "Riparian" group of borough highway authorities, which have responsibility for most river crossings within London, has been set up under the chairmanship of the City of London. One of the main aims of this group, which has now met twice, is to reduce the inconvenience to traffic and pedestrians caused by roadworks on those structures.

  Q Plates
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will give, by region, figures for the number of vehicles which have been issued Q plates for each of the last five years; and how many of these vehicles were later found to be stolen.

  Mr. Robert Key
  The information requested on the volumes of Q plates issued is as follows by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency area command:

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what future role that grade of senior executive officer will play in the structure of the vehicle inspectorate; and what will be the significance of the grade's duties.

  Mr. Key
  Senior enforcement officers (traffic) are and will continue to be key members of the area management teams of the road traffic enforcement division of the vehicle inspectorate. In addition, they provide expert advice on traffic enforcement matters for traffic commissioners, lorry and bus operators and other enforcement agencies.

  Tanker Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress made in his review of the safety of tanker transport established after the Braer oil tanker accident.

  Mr. Norris
  I expect the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry in the early part of this year.

  In addition, the Department made specific proposals on tanker routing to the International Maritime Organisation. These entered into force on 28 November.
  417
  Recommended routes will be introduced for the Fair Isle channel subject to the successful completion in 1994 of further hydrographic surveys.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing the punctuality performance of each of the Network SouthEast divisions as compared to target performance in the four-week periods ending 3 December and 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Division

  Punctuality

  Performance four weeks ending

  standard Per cent.

  3 December 1993 Per cent.

  31 December 1993 Per cent.

  Great Northern

  90·0

  86·5

  93·8

  Northampton Line

  90·0

  90·6

  87·5

  Chiltern

  90·0

  91·3

  92·6

  West Anglia

  90·0

  82·1

  98·1

  Thameslink

  89·0

  83·2

  89·5

  South Western Lines

  88·0

  82·8

  87·8

  Kent Link

  88·0

  68·6

  81·6

  South London Lines

  88·0

  82·4

  84·4

  North London Lines

  87·0

  82·5

  87·0

  Great Eastern

  86·0

  80·9

  88·7

  Solent and Wessex

  86·0

  76·9

  83·6

  Thames

  85·0

  87·7

  89·6

  London Tilbury and Southend

  85·0

  88·3

  93·2

  Sussex Coast

  83·0

  84·0

  78·6

  Kent Coast

  82·0

  70·7

  77·1

  On average over 1993, 12 out of the 15 groups met or exceeded their punctuality standards.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's proposals for sound reduction measures on existing rail routes that will be part of the network to the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  For some locations on the existing rail routes where the concentration of international traffic will be heaviest, between the channel tunnel and west London, BR has agreed with local authorities jointly funded non-statutory schemes for the provision of noise barriers. Beyond London, international traffic will be spread over a number of routes without the same degree of concentration. The new international rolling stock which is to be introduced on all the routes concerned has been designed so as to minimise noise levels.

  A43
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further progress has been made since July 1993 on improvements to the A43 between Stanton and Corby.

  Mr. Key
  Tenders have now been returned for the installation of traffic signals at both A6116 junctions with the A43, and for road lighting from south of the southern A43 junction at Stanton northwards to the existing lighting on the Weldon bypass. Work is programmed to start in February.
  418

  Indoor Enforcement Office
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the future of the indoor enforcement office as a main prosecution unit or for diversification of its functions.

  Mr. Key
  The vehicle inspectorate is conducting a review of the future role of the indoor enforcement offices—now called group support offices. This is expected to report by the end of Feburary and decisions about their future will be taken in the light of the recommendations of the review team. Interested parties, including the staff and trade unions are being consulted.

  A1(M)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has published in advance of the outcome of the planning inquiry into Radwell motorway services station concerning the sites of such stations on the A 1 (M) motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We announced on 1 December that the proposal at Radwell was one of 16 potential motorway service area sites in England on which a planning application was under consideration.

  Cycle Network, London
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of the 1,000-mile cycle network in London have now been completed; and what action his Department has taken to speed up its completion.

  Mr. Norris
  Responsibility for the provision of the 1,000 mile network in London rests primarily with the 33 London boroughs. Cycle schemes on local authority routes are eligible for Government funding support. Approximately a third of the network is in existence or in preparation. We have agreed to provide, where practicable, all the routes that have been proposed for trunk roads as well as cycle crossing points of the trunk road network. We continue to encourage local authorities to provide cycle facilities.

  London buses (Privatisation)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information has been presented to him by London Buses Ltd. on the expected impact on mileage following privatisation.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  British Rail
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the approximate passenger mileage on British Railway's InterCity services travelled by passengers paying(a) first-class fares, (b) normal standard fares, (c) saver and supersaver fares and (d) period on fare past tickets, together with the approximate revenue per year for each category of ticket.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of state for Transport if he will publish a table showing his Department's latest estimate of passengers travelling
  419
  (a) into, (b) out of and (c) within (i) South Yorkshire, (ii) Humberside, (iii) North Yorkshire and (iv) West Yorkshire, each day on British Rail; and what are the comparable figures for (1) 1979, (2) 1983 and (3) 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department does not hold the information requested. This is a commercial matter for InterCity.

  Maritime Collisions (Inquiries)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether the discretion afforded to an inspector appointed by the chief inspector of marine accidents under the regulations concerning the conduct of inquiries into maritime collisions (SI, 1989, No. 1172) is compatible with the open policy objectives of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Tuesday 11 January,Official Report, column 135.

  Al-M1
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Al -M1 link road serving the Dearne valley area to be completed; and what proportion of this highway is currently able to carry traffic.

  Mr. Key
  Barnsley metropolitan borough council hopes to complete the Dearne towns link road in 1996. About one quarter of this road is already open to traffic.

  London Lorry Ban
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to abolish or reduce the existing restrictions on heavy goods vehicles over 16·5 tonnes entering the Greater London restriction zone.

  Mr. Norris
  I am considering proposals aimed at reducing the bureaucracy associated with the administration of the Londonwide night and weekend lorry ban while maintaining the environmental protection it offers. These will be published shortly.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Norris
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  EC Habitats Directive
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Attorney-General in regard to the implications for areas covered by EC habitats and species directives by his roads development programme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government are considering the arrangements for implementing the EC habitats directive in United Kingdom law. Draft regulations will be laid before Parliament in due course.
  420

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Business Plan and Yearbook (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of producing the North Yorkshire district benefit agency's 1993–94 business plan and yearbook; how many copies were produced; and to whom they have been given.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, its chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 14 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking details about the cost and production of the North Yorkshire Benefits Agency's 1993–94 Business Plan and Yearbook.
  The Benefits Agency requires its District Offices to produce Business plans for external customers. In total 460 copies of the North Yorkshire District Benefits Agency 1993–94 Business Plan and Yearbook were produced and distributed to client representatives in the North Yorkshire Area. Of these 330 copies were distributed to local councillors and Members of Parliament and 65 copies to Statutory and Voluntary organisations, for whom the year book is intended as a reference document. Other copies were distributed internally.
  The majority of the preparation work was done locally, all the photographs being provided by the District Office staff and the document was produced on recycled paper. With the exception of 70 copies issued by second class post, all other copies were distributed at nil cost.
  Some of the design and artwork was completed by Benefits Agency Publishing House at a staffing cost of £999·42 met from their own budget allocation. HMSO printing costs were covered out of the Benefits Agency's printing budget.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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 income support for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the tables.

  Claimants, Partners and Dependants in receipt of Income Support—May 1989

  Region

  Number of beneficiaries

  Percentage of Population

  North Eastern

  1,179,000

  —

  London North

  1,029,000

  —

  South Western

  419,000

  —

  Midlands

  1,163,000

  —

  North Western

  1,142,000

  —

  London South

  878,000

  —

  England

  5,811,000

  12·2

  Wales

  413,000

  14·4

  Scotland

  799,000

  15·7

  Great Britain

  7,023,000

  12·6

  Claimants, Partners and Dependants in receipt of Income Support—May 1990

  Region

  Number of beneficiaries

  Percentage of Population

  North Eastern

  1,137,000

  —

  London North

  1,092,000

  —

  South Western

  432,000

  —

  421

  Region

  Number of beneficiaries

  Percentage of Population

  Midlands

  1,150,000

  —

  North Western

  1,103,000

  —

  London South

  907,000

  —

  England

  5,821,000

  12·2

  Wales

  424,000

  14·7

  Scotland

  777,000

  15·2

  Great Britain

  7,023,000

  12·6

  Claimants, Partners and Dependants in receipt of Income Support—1991

  Region

  Number of beneficiaries

  Percentage of population

  North Eastern

  1,216,000

  —

  London North

  1,289,000

  —

  South Western

  524,000

  —

  Midlands

  1,233,000

  —

  North Western

  1,155,000

  —

  London South

  1,083,000

  —

  England

  6,500,000

  13·5

  Wales

  442,000

  15·3

  Scotland

  805,000

  15·8

  Great Britain

  7,747,000

  13·8

  Claimants, Partners and Dependants in receipt of Income Support—May 1992

  Region

  Number of beneficiaries

  Percentage of population

  North Eastern

  1,319,000

  —

  London North

  1,604,000

  —

  South Western

  613,000

  —

  Midlands

  1,414,000

  —

  North Western

  1,269,000

  —

  London South

  1,284,000

  —

  England

  7,502,000

  15·5

  Wales

  496,000

  17·1

  Scotland

  855,000

  16·7

  Great Britain

  8,853,000

  15·7

  Claimants, Partners and Dependants in receipt of Income Support— February 1993

  Region

  Number of beneficiaries

  Percentage of population

  North Eastern

  1,443,000

  1

  London North

  1,758,000

  1

  South Western

  702,000

  1

  Midlands

  1,598,000

  1

  North Western

  1,390,000

  1

  London South

  1,537,000

  1

  England

  8,428,000

  17·4

  Wales

  541,000

  18·7

  Scotland

  898,000

  17·6

  Great Britain

  9,868,000

  17·5

  Sources of all tables:

  Income support statistics annual inquiries May 1989 to 1992.

  Income support statistics quarterly inquiry February 1993.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Notes to tables:

  1. All figures rounded to nearest thousand. Percentages correct to one decimal place. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  1 Indicates that figures are not available.

  3. The tables refer to Great Britain only. Figures for Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  4. Information on the number of households claiming income support is not available. The tables show the number of claimants, partners and dependants in receipt of income support.

  5. Information on the number of income support claims is not collected by standard regions. The tables show Department of
  422
  Social Security administrative regions as used by the Department prior to 1988.Population figures for these regions are not available.

  6. The latest available figures for numbers receiving income support are taken from the February 1993 quarterly statistical inquiry.

  7. The latest population figures available are for mid-1992. Therefore these have been used to calculate both the May 1992 and February 1993 proportions.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to ensure that claimants with disabling medical conditions are given due consideration in any assessment of eligibility for incapacity benefits; and if he will make it his policy that claimants' existing medical histories will be taken fully into account in these assessments.

  Mr. Scott
  The proposed new medical incapacity test will accurately assess the limiting effect of all medical conditions on a claimant's capacity for work. In applying the test, all relevant factors, including the claimant's medical history, will be taken into account.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people receiving the new incapacity benefit will be eligible for the income support disability premium from the 28th week of incapacity.

  Mr. Scott
  The new long-term rate of incapacity benefit, payable after 52 weeks, will act as a passport to the disability premium. For those who have no other means of entitlement to the disability premium, the period of incapacity needed to qualify will be 52 weeks.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the child dependant additions payable with incapacity benefit will be payable from the first day of incapacity.

  Mr. Scott
  Incapacity benefit will follow the usual rule that child dependency increases are not payable with short-term contributory benefits, unless the beneficiary has reached pensionable age. They will not normally commence until long-term incapacity benefit comes into payment after 52 weeks.

  Special Compensation Payments
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for special compensation payments have been made in each of the most recent four quarters for which figures are available; how many were successful; and what was the average amount of each payment in each quarter.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance and attendance allowance are matters for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 14 January 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for details of the special compensation payments made in the most recent four quarters for which figures are available.

  423
  Firstly, I should explain that the Special Compensation Scheme applied to both Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) customers.
  Scans of both the DLA and AA computer systems were obtained and these lists of customers were then individualy scrutinised for possible entitlement to compensation under the special scheme.
  There were no applications from customers, indeed the first that the vast majority of customers knew about the scheme was when they actually received their compensation payment.
  The scheme has now been completed in its entirety but as there were no monthly or quarterly collations of statistics I have provided the total figures for both benefits below.

  Cases examined

  Cases entitled

  Cases not entitled

  Cases paid

  Amount paid £

  DLA

  33,539

  20,457

  13,082

  20,457

  406,745

  AA

  44,299

  19,564

  34,735

  19,527

  217,105

  The average payment made to both DLA and AA compensation recipients was £20.

  1 The difference between AA cases entitled and AA cases paid is 37 and occurred as a result of the death of customers for whom no next of kin could be found.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of invalidity benefit receive an additional pension; and what is the average amount payable.

  Mr. Scott
  On 4 April 1992, the latest date for which information is available, additional pension was paid to 1,230,000 invalidity benefit recipients1. The average weekly amount of additional pension in payment was £13·402.

  Notes

  1 Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Rounded to the nearest penny.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against a decision that an invalidity benefit claimant was fit for work were received by his Department during(a) April to December 1992 and (b) April to December 1993; and what percentage of these were found in the claimant's favour.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the table.

  Appeals registered with Social Security Appeal Tribunals: Invalidity Benefit1

  Quarter ending

  Appeals lodged

  Heard and decided2

  Decided in claimant's favour2

  30 June 1992

  2,593

  1,311

  681

  30 September 1992

  2,836

  1,236

  670

  21 December 1992

  2,834

  1,367

  757

  31 March 1993

  3,245

  1,436

  782

  Notes:

  1 Figures show all invalidity benefit appeals, including those against decisions that the claimant is capable of work.

  2 Includes appeals lodged in an earlier quarter.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of(a) male and (b) female claimants of invalidity benefit are over the age of 45 years where an invalidity allowance is in payment.
  424
  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information is in the table.

  Invalidity Benefit recipients aged 45 and over receiving invalidity allowance1

  Percentage of Invalidity Benefit recipients by gender

  Male

  232,000

  22

  Female

  113,000

  30

  Notes:

  1 Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain at 4 April 1992, the latest date for which figures are available. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Figures do not include people whose entitlement to invalidity allowance is wholly offset by payment of additional pension.

  Child Support
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the changes in targets on savings in benefits paid to parents with care following his recent announcement on changes to the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The changes will have an effect on benefit savings this year, but it is too early to be precise about the impact. We do not intend to alter the target at this stage in the year.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Scott
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  Age-related Rebates
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he issued the consultative document on age-related rebates; what time scale he laid down for responses; and which bodies and organisations were consulted on the document.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on 10 December 1993 at column 408. Several hundred copies of the consultation document have been issued to a wide variety of interested organisations and individuals.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Contributions Agency has for improved standards of service to employers.

  Mr. Hague
  The Contributions Agency today published a revised employers charter setting out the new improved standards of service employers can now expect. It incorporates the code for enforcement that all enforcement agencies were committed to publish as part of the Department of Trade and Industry's "Working with Business" initiative. Copies are available in the Library.
  425

EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who would own equipment jointly purchased by employers and the Government for disabled employees under the access to work proposals; and what advice will be issued to companies by his Department on(a) the declaration of equipment purchasing within the audited accounts of companies and (b) arrangements for insuring equipment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In reaching final decisions about these and other details of the access to work scheme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Henley are considering carefully all the representations made by the disability and employer groups whom they have recently met. Our aims, in relation to the issues raised by the hon. Member, will be to ensure that we have arrangements that do not inhibit the movement of people with disabilities into and between jobs and to ensure that procedures are simple and non-bureaucratic.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make the levy upon employers within his access-to-work proposals dependent on the allocated budget being fully spent after one year of the new scheme.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps will be taken by his Department to encourage employers to make the contributions expected of them under the proposed access-to-work scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In reaching final decisions about the details of the access to work scheme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Henley are considering carefully a range of representations made by disability and employer groups including representations about the proposed employer contribution. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce decisions soon.

  Social Policies (EC Budget)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the provision of public money via the European Community budget to promote social policies through the Trades Union Congress which are incompatible with the policies of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government are opposed to such subsidies and are considering what steps can be taken to restrict them.

  European Year of Older People
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what contribution his Department made to the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations in terms of financial support, practical support for particular events, and the provision of information;

  (2) in which programmes and events for the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations he has been directly involved.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To mark the end of the European Year of Older People and Solidarity Between Generations 426
  my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State joined colleagues at a meeting of the EC Social Affairs Council in November in issuing a declaration of principles confirming the commitment of member states to integrating older people into all areas of the life of the Community.

  Throughout the year, Ministers and officials from the Employment Department supported appropriate events, including that on "Investing in Older People at Work" staged by the Health Education Authority in October. In December, I spoke at an international symposium in Dublin on the implications of our ageing population for the work force. I told delegates of the work of my Advisory Group on Older Workers to persuade employers of the benefits of treating everyone on merit, regardless of age. I described our "Getting On" campaign which offers employers a five-point plan to avoid ageism. I also took the opportunity to challenge the European Commission to end its practice of excluding anyone over the age of 35 from applying to work with it or its institutions.

  Office Heating Bills
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, columns 737–38, in what form information in respect of heating bills for his Department's offices is available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department group occupies some 1,500 buildings nationally. Where the Department is billed direct, which is in the majority of cases, we hold records of electricity, gas and fuel consumption from April 1990 for individual offices. In the remaining offices these costs are part of an overall service charge and details are not available.

  There is no mechanism for identifying separately the cost of heating the Department's offices.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in abattoirs in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information on employees in employment in abattoirs is from the periodic censuses of employment and is given in the table:

  Number of Employees in employment in Abattoirs1 in Great Britain, September of each year

  Year

  Number

  1981

  10,100

  1984

  9,900

  1987

  11,200

  1989

  10,400

  1991

  10,400

  1 Activity Heading 4121 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980.

  Training
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a regional breakdown of the number of participants on work-related Government training programmes in each year since 1979; and if he will give the figure as a percentage of the total regional civilian work force in each such year.
  427
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is available from June 1983, and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Astra
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has made to representations to extend preferential reinstatement arrangements for staff employed by Astra.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the light of the representations I have received, I have extended for a further year the previous arrangements to give staff employed in the Skills Training Agency immediately before its sale to the private sector preferential consideration for reinstatement in the Employment Department group.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent the Health and Safety Commission has been able under the auspices of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to rationalise or modernise substantial areas of health and safety law.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: Since 1975, the Health and Safety Commission—HSC—using the powers given to it under the 1974 Act has proposed changes endorsed by Ministers which have led to the replacement of around 350 sets of old-style prescriptive sets of regulations with some 100 sets of modern goal-setting ones. This is a substantial programme of achievement, although the Government share the Commission's view that there is scope for simplifying legislation and reducing red tape.

  However, the powers in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are technically deficient and do not allow for regulations to make revocations or repeals of pre-1974 provisions unless they are directly replaced by new requirements in the same set of regulations.

  The HSC has requested an amendment to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to permit repeals and revocations without direct replacement where it is satisfied that the overall system of regulations and approved codes of practice in modern legislation properly safeguards standards of health and safety.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Health and Safety Executive draft publication "The Cost to the British Economy of Work Accidents and Work-Related Ill Health" will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: "The Cost to the British Economy of Work Accidents and Work Related Ill Health", a technical companion to the "Cost of Accidents" report, published in January 1993, is to be published on 9 February.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE were confirmed in the United Kingdom for each month of 1992 and 1993 in cattle that were(a) under two years of age, (b)
  428
  aged two to three years, (c) aged three to four years, (d) aged four to five years, (e) aged five to six years, (f) aged six to seven years and (g) aged seven or more years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I shall write to the hon. Member with the information and arrange for a copy of my letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE were confirmed in the United Kingdom for each year from 1985 in cattle that were(a) under two years of age, (b) aged two to three years, (c) aged three to four years, (d) aged four to five years, (e) aged five to six years, (f) aged six to seven years and (g) aged seven or more years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I shall write to the hon. Member with the information and arrange for a copy of my letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE were(a) confirmed, (b) reported and (c) slaughtered in the United Kingdom for each month of 1992 and 1993.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I shall write to the hon. Member with the information and arrange for a copy of my letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was spent by the Government in respect of BSE on(a) research, (b) slaughter, (c) compensation and (d) disposal of carcases for each year since 1985 to the latest available date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The amounts spent by this Ministey in respect of BSE in Great Britain for the areas requested are as follows:

  Miscellaneous1

  Compensation2

  Research3 (Financial year)

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1987

  0·2

  1988

  0·2

  0·5

  0·3

  1989

  1·6

  2·8

  1·0

  1990

  4·1

  9·1

  3·1

  1991

  7·2

  16·3

  4·9

  1992

  10·2

  29·2

  5·7

  1993

  9·5

  38·1

  6·1

  1 This includes all expenditure involved in the slaughter, transportation, storage and disposal of carcasses of cattle suspected of being affected by BSE.

  2 The compulsory slaughter of suspects with compensation was introduced in August 1988.

  1 Separate figures on R and D expenditure on BSE before April 1987 are not readily available. The disease was first identified in 1986.

  Milk Industry
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been done by the Government to promote a level playing field in the development of competition following the decision to abolish the Milk Marketing Board; and what methods have been employed by the Milk Marketing Board in establishing Milk Marque as its successor.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's actions in respect of the proposed changes to the marketing of milk are guided by the provisions of the Agriculture Act 1993. The Milk
  429
  Marketing Board has proposed that Milk Marque should be established as its successor body. We have received reports of concern from outside bodies regarding the methods employed by Milk Marketing Board, Genus and National Milk Record staff to persuade producers to sign contracts with Milk Marque.

  Food Expenditure
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage of average income spent on food in(a) the United Kingdom, (b)

  Household expenditure on food and non-alcoholic beverages1 as a percentage of:

  1. Household expenditure on all goods and services

  2. Total current receipts (ie income) of households and private unincorporated enterprises

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany2

  United States3

  United Kingdom

  France

  Germany2

  United States

  1966 to 1970

  21·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1971 to 1975

  18·9

  19·8

  25·4

  14·3

  13·1

  12·4

  14·5

  10·2

  1976 to 1980

  18·1

  18·0

  22·9

  13·2

  12·3

  10·6

  13·0

  9·3

  1981 to 1985

  15·3

  17·7

  21·7

  11·5

  10·4

  10·4

  12·3

  8·0

  1986 to 1990

  12·7

  16·6

  20·2

  10·1

  8·7

  10·0

  11·2

  7·2

  1991

  12·3

  16·2

  19·6

  9·9

  8·1

  9·7

  10·8

  7·1

  1992

  12·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993 Ql

  11·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993 Q2

  11·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993 Q3

  11·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1 Excludes expenditure in restaurants, cafes and hotels.

  2 Includes expenditure on alcoholic beverages and in restaurants and cafes.

  3 Includes expenditure by private non-profit making institutions.

  Sources: OECD National Accounts, CSO National Accounts (Blue Book).

  Cereal Production
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the change in(a) tonnage and (b) percentage terms in cereal production between 1992 and 1993 in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the United States of America and (iii) the European Union as a whole.

  Mr. Jack
  Final estimates for the 1993 harvest in the United Kingdom will be known only when the results of the April cereal production survey become available in May 1994. A similar situation exists in other countries.

  The current estimates are shown in the table.

  Estimated cereal production

  (thousand tonnes)

  1992

  1993

  Change

  Percentage change

  United Kingdom

  22,063

  19,607

  -2,456

  -11·1

  United States of America1

  344,700

  262,100

  -82,600

  -24·0

  European Union

  168,059

  164,061

  -3,998

  -2·4

  1 The figures are taken from the latest IWC grain market report—30 November 1993—and do not include rice production. The 1992 figure is an estimate and that for 1993 is a forecast.

  Crop Spraying
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to tighten controls on tractor spraying to bring them into line with aerial spraying; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  In May 1993 the pesticides safety directorate consulted interested parties on proposed 430
  France, (c) Germany and (d) the United States of America for each five-year period since 1965 and for the third quarter of 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  Information is not available for all four countries for the whole of the period referred to nor in the precise form requested. Details of household expenditure on food as a proportion, first, of total household expenditure on goods and services and secondly, of the total income of households and private unincorporated enterprises for five-year periods from 1966 to 1990 and for the latest available periods are shown in the table.

  amendments to the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 including a new provision requiring any person who uses a pesticide to confine the pesticide to the land, crop, structure, material or other area to be treated. This would effectively extend the existing provision on aerial spraying to all methods of use. The proposed amendments are being considered in the light of comments received with a view to laying a statutory instrument before the House in the near future.

  Radioactive Waters
  Mrs. Anne Campbel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the aquatic environment monitoring report on "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles 1991" will be published.

  Mr. Jack
  The report "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles 1991" was published in February 1993. The subsequent edition, with the results of monitoring undertaken in 1992, was published on 6 January 1994. Copies of both reports are in the Library.

  Cake Wood
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans her Department has to sell off the part of Cake wood which is owned by the Forestry Commission under its current disposals programme.

  Mr. Jack
  No decision has been taken to sell any part of Cake wood under the Forestry Commission's disposals programme.
  431

  EC Surplus Beef
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each of the metropolitan boroughs of South Yorkshire the designated organisation allowed to distribute surplus beef released by the European Community; and what has been the response to date.

  Mr. Jack
  A list of all organisations in the United Kingdom that have been designated to distribute canned beef under the EC surplus food scheme in 1993–94 is available in the Library. The 28 organisations designated in south Yorkshire have so far received allocations for over 100,000 eligible people. It is for the organisations to arrange distributions which best reflect their circumstances.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon her departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Jack
  The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  Agricultural Imports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the value of imports(a) into the United Kingdom and (b) into the EU of agricultural products analysed by suitable category of product from (i) Russia, (ii) Hungary and (iii) Czechoslovakia in each of the three most recent years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  The value of imports into the United Kingdom is shown in table 1 in thousands of pounds while those for imports into the member states of the European Community are shown in table 2 in thousands of ecus.

  Data for the whole of 1993 are not yet available. Prior to 1993 no separate data were collected for Russia.

  Value of imports to United Kingdom from countries listed 1990

  (£'000)

  Division

  Former USSR

  Hungary

  Czechoslovakia

  00

  56

  53

  75

  01

  —

  2,667

  383

  02

  —

  —

  —

  03

  14,291

  8

  27

  04

  33

  81

  —

  05

  178

  8,156

  877

  06

  —

  243

  105

  Imports to the EC from the former Soviet Union in 1990

  (thousand ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  10,196

  12

  0

  492

  1,040

  8,250

  88

  0

  313

  0

  0

  1

  01

  231

  17

  88

  8

  0

  5

  0

  40

  0

  70

  0

  3

  02

  3,322

  430

  1,860

  740

  262

  0

  0

  0

  30

  0

  0

  0

  03

  127,669

  24,370

  2,843

  6,230

  9,377

  3,634

  20,069

  5

  32,340

  296

  6,241

  22,264

  04

  651

  0

  343

  32

  150

  0

  123

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  05

  18,649

  946

  603

  649

  11,852

  2,558

  384

  0

  294

  749

  0

  614

  06

  6,313

  0

  1

  880

  5,179

  0

  0

  0

  253

  0

  0

  0

  07

  424

  8

  12

  87

  192

  0

  118

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  432

  Division

  Former USSR

  Hungary

  Czechoslovakia

  07

  2,185

  122

  91

  08

  285

  1,324

  171

  09

  —

  25

  —

  11

  1,021

  2,903

  1,039

  22

  187

  240

  —

  Section 4

  193

  53

  8

  Value of imports to United Kingdom from countries listed 1991

  (£'000)

  Division

  Former USSR

  Hungary

  Czechoslovakia

  00

  73

  89

  14

  01

  —

  1,334

  116

  02

  0

  6

  1

  03

  12,077

  1

  57

  04

  29

  141

  —

  05

  50

  6,419

  614

  06

  138

  28

  95

  07

  32

  145

  68

  08

  230

  467

  48

  09

  3

  94

  —

  11

  875

  3,779

  1,592

  22

  620

  295

  —

  Section 4

  475

  906

  613

  Value of imports to United Kingdom from countries listed 1992

  (£'000)

  Division

  Former USSR

  Hungary

  Czechoslovakia

  00

  47

  50

  118

  01

  36

  2,394

  —

  02

  —

  1

  —

  03

  22,556

  72

  58

  04

  20

  68

  7

  05

  43

  6,415

  696

  06

  6

  21

  118

  07

  20

  83

  65

  08

  131

  435

  —

  09

  —

  51

  —

  11

  992

  5,471

  2,341

  22

  747

  255

  4

  Section 4

  6

  806

  20

  Data Source: Central Statistical Office—MA 20.

  CODE DEFINMONS:

  00 Live animals other than those in '03' definition.

  01 Meat and meat preparations.

  02 Dairy products and birds' eggs.

  03 Fish—not marine animals—crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic invertebrates and preparations thereof.

  04 Cereals and cereal preparations.

  05 Vegetables and fruit.

  06 Sugar, sugar preparations and honey.

  07 Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures thereof.

  08 Feeding stuff for animals—excluding unmilled cereals.

  09 Miscellaneous edibile products and preparations.

  11 Beverages.

  22 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruit.

  4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes.

  433

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  08

  1,114

  7

  0

  175

  48

  0

  400

  0

  1

  0

  51

  432

  09

  280

  12

  9

  146

  19

  18

  63

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  11

  25,523

  818

  438

  869

  16,663

  1,687

  1,557

  31

  90

  2,364

  25

  981

  22

  7,593

  3

  931

  896

  2,723

  1,079

  258

  0

  4

  1,418

  0

  281

  4

  6,212

  814

  2,186

  1,838

  1,330

  35

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Imports to the EC from the former Soviet Union in 1991

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  6,745

  101

  41

  797

  745

  4,650

  105

  0

  294

  0

  0

  12

  01

  349

  117

  0

  28

  0

  145

  0

  0

  2

  57

  0

  0

  02

  3,159

  0

  461

  1,585

  258

  442

  0

  0

  369

  44

  0

  0

  03

  177,822

  21,215

  2,431

  16,930

  20,526

  3,379

  16,510

  0

  46,782

  300

  11,960

  37,789

  04

  730

  0

  181

  22

  433

  0

  94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  05

  41,659

  417

  4,192

  1,339

  31,972

  1,972

  148

  0

  337

  646

  0

  636

  06

  11,064

  25

  47

  986

  5,522

  15

  174

  0

  4,027

  0

  0

  268

  07

  438

  0

  0

  93

  292

  0

  53

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  08

  2,387

  0

  0

  89

  608

  41

  329

  0

  401

  0

  124

  795

  09

  341

  30

  2

  276

  17

  6

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  24,083

  698

  576

  1,487

  15,394

  1,099

  783

  26

  83

  2,526

  21

  1,390

  22

  26,136

  300

  526

  1,148

  2,240

  13,182

  893

  0

  16

  4,476

  2,540

  815

  4

  4,406

  410

  9

  161

  2,718

  52

  677

  0

  16

  352

  0

  11

  Imports to the EC from the former Soviet Union in 1992

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  1,323

  8

  0

  157

  175

  915

  62

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  01

  296

  0

  0

  26

  0

  97

  80

  0

  0

  93

  0

  0

  02

  1,019

  0

  227

  302

  14

  282

  20

  0

  174

  0

  0

  0

  03

  78,615

  7,219

  1,064

  4,865

  9,470

  1,523

  31,215

  0

  10,601

  60

  5,080

  7,518

  04

  374

  0

  0

  1

  344

  0

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  05

  15,925

  126

  816

  96

  13,811

  501

  81

  0

  230

  175

  0

  89

  06

  4,357

  0

  220

  22

  1,040

  24

  58

  238

  2,409

  0

  0

  346

  07

  345

  7

  0

  116

  184

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  08

  2,791

  0

  0

  0

  31

  191

  134

  0

  590

  0

  75

  1,770

  09

  198

  0

  0

  53

  0

  145

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  9,266

  389

  455

  442

  4,360

  559

  972

  25

  6

  1,118

  0

  940

  22

  30,480

  0

  0

  135

  15

  23,609

  1,054

  0

  0

  1,979

  1,019

  2,669

  4

  270

  0

  11

  0

  151

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  105

  Source: EUROSTAT.

  Imports to the EC from Hungary in 1990

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  71,675

  2,478

  3,134

  668

  3,345

  57,974

  100

  0

  37

  3,399

  0

  540

  01

  306,866

  48,731

  24,487

  6,018

  121,903

  88,476

  2,490

  0

  1,681

  7,451

  0

  5,629

  02

  6,014

  812

  470

  1,189

  713

  2,046

  0

  0

  105

  580

  0

  99

  03

  3,650

  15

  390

  12

  1,052

  2,028

  11

  0

  9

  1

  0

  132

  04

  20,041

  4,012

  942

  1,845

  9,189

  3,715

  113

  0

  7

  0

  56

  162

  05

  135,980

  5,369

  3,689

  11,191

  88,369

  8,596

  12,089

  69

  2,929

  2,610

  178

  891

  06

  13,973

  2,185

  235

  505

  6,397

  4,074

  359

  30

  33

  37

  0

  118

  07

  13,170

  1,218

  159

  1,876

  9,210

  141

  190

  0

  294

  0

  0

  82

  08

  25,534

  608

  167

  149

  4,222

  16,906

  2,075

  292

  233

  477

  0

  405

  09

  3,339

  119

  24

  1,034

  2,028

  93

  34

  0

  5

  1

  0

  1

  11

  12,140

  330

  126

  327

  7,033

  82

  3,989

  73

  146

  30

  0

  4

  22

  22,906

  2,488

  889

  1,470

  12,344

  4,757

  424

  0

  199

  17

  0

  318

  4

  12,143

  444

  1,074

  4,444

  2,300

  3,209

  42

  0

  303

  0

  0

  327

  Imports to the EC from Hungary in 1991

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  92,830

  3,092

  191

  560

  9,241

  69,587

  127

  0

  14

  9,177

  30

  811

  01

  351,757

  52,584

  22,859

  4,205

  164,373

  83,243

  1,161

  0

  2,795

  11,711

  284

  8,542

  02

  4,752

  103

  237

  854

  614

  1,609

  9

  0

  11

  1,093

  0

  222

  03

  3,539

  61

  266

  29

  1,054

  2,074

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  54

  04

  30,197

  3,450

  296

  1,336

  19,266

  5,148

  267

  0

  40

  38

  88

  268

  05

  225,447

  8,315

  9,505

  16,606

  154,184

  15,492

  10,432

  0

  4,962

  2,473

  133

  3,345

  06

  11,810

  1,374

  124

  393

  5,788

  4,034

  51

  0

  5

  18

  0

  23

  434 435

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  07

  14,623

  1,041

  196

  1,791

  10,471

  279

  216

  0

  315

  25

  22

  267

  08

  34,730

  150

  176

  737

  5,631

  24,865

  729

  164

  0

  1,975

  0

  303

  09

  7,441

  26

  71

  1,092

  5,638

  459

  132

  0

  12

  9

  2

  0

  11

  16,395

  232

  280

  376

  9,038

  36

  6,066

  86

  171

  85

  0

  25

  22

  30,435

  1,954

  582

  2,073

  14,005

  10,061

  524

  0

  424

  148

  0

  664

  4

  17,299

  762

  2,426

  3,848

  3,434

  4,506

  1,293

  0

  46

  0

  0

  984

  Imports to the EC from Hungary in 1992

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  84,740

  2,149

  175

  152

  8,080

  63,570

  66

  0

  6

  10,302

  0

  240

  01

  326,171

  54,900

  13,195

  4,366

  159,869

  69,836

  2,519

  0

  1,134

  5,255

  218

  14,879

  02

  1,870

  112

  33

  141

  712

  235

  2

  0

  130

  409

  0

  96

  03

  4,350

  26

  217

  4

  1,691

  2,221

  102

  0

  14

  72

  0

  3

  04

  28,096

  2,993

  487

  1,342

  17,500

  4,199

  133

  0

  78

  806

  38

  520

  05

  189,252

  5,279

  6,284

  14,452

  134,758

  8,237

  10,026

  22

  4,715

  1,309

  510

  3,660

  06

  10,150

  692

  141

  451

  5,660

  3,093

  30

  0

  68

  14

  0

  1

  07

  17,071

  1,429

  1,327

  1,243

  12,193

  275

  118

  0

  292

  0

  52

  142

  08

  27,856

  479

  296

  225

  5,696

  20,051

  567

  141

  3

  163

  0

  235

  09

  7,335

  3

  14

  795

  4,979

  1,444

  77

  0

  1

  0

  22

  0

  11

  21,909

  309

  428

  367

  13,192

  110

  7,112

  79

  227

  62

  0

  23

  22

  29,650

  1,760

  570

  2,710

  16,111

  6,472

  700

  0

  763

  29

  10

  525

  4

  14,048

  1,668

  1,116

  3,638

  3,543

  2,577

  1,141

  0

  55

  297

  0

  13

  Source: Eurostat.

  Imports to the EC from Czechoslovakia in 1990

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  19,064

  1,054

  173

  215

  4,280

  13,079

  105

  14

  35

  99

  0

  10

  01

  64,634

  5,643

  579

  1,395

  37,381

  11,112

  433

  0

  2,349

  3,238

  439

  2,065

  02

  19,796

  4

  7,645

  6,318

  2,169

  2,005

  0

  0

  90

  1,261

  0

  304

  03

  4,665

  563

  207

  51

  3,031

  701

  39

  0

  7

  0

  0

  66

  04

  9,588

  15

  1,691

  5,117

  2,747

  1

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  0

  05

  46,859

  369

  6,557

  1,709

  35,002

  439

  1,046

  0

  1,067

  303

  298

  69

  06

  7,201

  43

  78

  18

  5,904

  818

  147

  0

  0

  0

  0

  193

  07

  2,187

  0

  15

  296

  1,486

  4

  118

  0

  0

  10

  0

  258

  08

  4,751

  0

  0

  0

  4,091

  29

  631

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  09

  1,329

  0

  133

  119

  157

  920

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  12,272

  133

  36

  257

  8,184

  1,614

  1,473

  0

  39

  125

  0

  411

  22

  1,937

  0

  0

  0

  1,936

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5,796

  4

  0

  1,578

  2,966

  1,244

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Imports to the EC from Czechoslovakia in 1991

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  18,599

  822

  162

  178

  6,494

  9,871

  43

  0

  24

  538

  372

  95

  01

  41,958

  2,252

  825

  700

  24,312

  8,850

  456

  0

  1,036

  2,553

  0

  974

  02

  11,289

  235

  1,169

  4,152

  306

  920

  1

  0

  68

  1,284

  80

  1,074

  03

  7,344

  725

  541

  411

  4,669

  788

  81

  0

  7

  0

  0

  122

  04

  11,792

  0

  2,397

  2,202

  7,129

  29

  0

  0

  10

  0

  0

  25

  05

  78,522

  930

  7,580

  3,522

  63,538

  394

  691

  8

  639

  285

  183

  752

  06

  8,377

  127

  0

  23

  7,285

  320

  136

  0

  57

  5

  0

  424

  07

  2,585

  1

  17

  414

  1,730

  92

  86

  0

  0

  7

  0

  238

  08

  16,744

  4

  236

  241

  15,613

  391

  68

  108

  2

  0

  0

  81

  09

  1,235

  2

  0

  23

  320

  886

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  11

  22,338

  181

  45

  191

  16,215

  1,993

  2,756

  1

  25

  205

  0

  726

  22

  3,485

  41

  0

  121

  2,704

  487

  0

  0

  93

  39

  0

  0

  4

  9,545

  0

  11

  1,411

  7,278

  734

  29

  0

  0

  0

  0

  82

  Imports to the EC from Czechoslovakia in 1992

  (thousands ECU)

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  00

  36,323

  746

  647

  116

  16,299

  14,723

  150

  0

  33

  2,865

  415

  329

  01

  31,306

  1,413

  146

  19

  19,335

  8,834

  0

  0

  147

  851

  233

  328

  02

  4,930

  543

  135

  536

  2,955

  299

  0

  0

  94

  248

  0

  120

  03

  9,952

  1,004

  578

  609

  6,664

  804

  82

  0

  8

  1

  2

  200

  04

  4,946

  9

  1,335

  185

  3,305

  100

  9

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  05

  76,363

  1,188

  4,487

  4,186

  63,405

  460

  819

  22

  1,050

  68

  154

  524

  436 437

  Codes

  EC 12 Total

  France

  Belgium/ Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  FR Germany

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  Ireland

  Denmark

  Greece

  Portugal

  Spain

  06

  6,337

  26

  67

  97

  5,251

  312

  154

  0

  14

  377

  0

  39

  07

  3,749

  9

  16

  685

  2,572

  139

  134

  0

  7

  9

  0

  178

  08

  33,706

  0

  182

  353

  31,933

  739

  0

  420

  0

  0

  0

  79

  09

  2,673

  18

  55

  1,167

  1,027

  406,0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  28,321

  425

  104

  388

  21,042

  2,052

  3,192

  9

  26

  341

  0

  742

  22

  13,355

  6

  320

  215

  8,036

  4,685

  12

  0

  73

  0

  0

  8

  4

  7,039

  37

  6

  1,554

  5,223

  193

  26

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Source: Eurostat.

  Code definitions:

  00 Live animals other than those in'03' defintion.

  01 Meat and meant preparations.

  02 Dairy products and birds' eggs.

  03 Fish—not marine animals—crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic invertebrates and preparations thereof.

  04 Cereals and cereal preparations.

  05 Vegetables and fruit.

  06 Sugar, sugar preparations and honey.

  07 Coffee, tea cocoa, spices and manufactures thereof.

  08 Feeding stuff for animals—excluding unmilled cereals.

  09 Miscellaneous edible products and preparations.

  11 Beverages.

  22 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruit.

  4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will bring forward legislation requiring improved food labelling by food manufacturers.

  Mr. Jack
  The food labelling regulations will be amended shortly to provide a standard format for the provision of nutrition information. We also plan to consolidate these regulations this year, because of the many amendments which have been made to them since 1984. I do not believe that further regulation is necessary in advance of decisions on several labelling issues in the European Community.

  Farm and Conservation Grants
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation she has made of the horticultural elements of her Department's farm and conservation grants scheme.

  Mr. Jack
  An evaluation of the horticultural elements of the farm and conservation grant scheme was completed in May 1993 by Dr. Ilbery of Coventry university and Dr. Bowler of the university of Leicester. A copy of the evaluation has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the cost of advertising by her Department has been for each year since 1979 and for each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 December 1993]: Expenditure on advertising by MAFF in the financial year 1982-83 and each subsequent year was as follows:

  £

  1982–83

  3,000

  1983–84

  27,000

  1984–85

  26,000

  1985–86

  29,000

  1986–87

  54,000

  1987–88

  12,000

  1988–89

  380,000

  1989–90

  116,000

  438

  £

  1990–91

  53,000

  1991–92

  262,000

  1992–93

  April

  13,000

  May

  Nil

  June

  Nil

  July

  Nil

  August

  Nil

  September

  475,000

  October

  Nil

  November

  Nil

  December

  Nil

  January

  6,000

  February

  Nil

  March

  Nil

  Figures prior to 1982–83 are not available in this form since they do not distinguish between expenditure on advertising and other paid publicity.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will set out, for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, the balance of trade for organic food produce, both in terms of value in real terms and as a percentage of all foods.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 January]: Trade statistics do not separately identify organic food.

  Estimates suggest, however, that about two thirds of organic food consumed in the United Kingdom is imported. Some of this, but it is not known how much, is attributable to such factors as climate. The total organic market is very small, representing less than 1 per cent. of all food sales.

DEFENCE

  Exercise Hadrian's Wall
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties by(a) helicopters and (b) fixed-wing aircraft took place (i) in the Hunterston area and (ii) at other locations during Exercise Hadrian's Wall; and how many of these took place at night.
  439
  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 117 sorties were flown during Exercise Hadrian's Wall, 104 by helicopter and 13 by fixed-wing aircraft. Of these, four helicopters sorties were flown in the Hunterston area; 41 sorties were flown at night.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received about(a) low flying and (b) other activity connected with Exercise Hadrian's Wall.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's air staff secretariat received 12 complaints or inquiries about low flying in areas affected by Exercise Hadrian's Wall, not all of which were necessarily connected with the exercise. Two further complaints were received about other activity connected with the exercise.

  Departmental Records
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had with the Lord Chancellor's Department in regard to the withholding of departmental records on Anglo-American mutual defence co-operation under section 3(4) of the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, in preparation for the most recent release of official papers from the Public Records Office.

  Mr. Hanley
  In accordance with the Public Records Act 1958, MOD records withheld under section 3(4) are reviewed, on a rolling programme, every 10 years. Records may be withheld individually or under blanket arrangements, covering certain classes or records such as those relating to security, intelligence and nuclear matters.

  Records may continue to be withheld under the blanket arrangements without reference to the Lord Chancellor. Individual records withheld require separate reference to the Lord Chancellor for his approval.

  Due to the very large number of records reviewed under these procedures it is not possible to identify, without disproportionate cost, records which may have been withheld under a very broad category such as Anglo-American defence co-operation.

  Air Transport (Outsize Loads)
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current policy on the air transportation of outsize loads, including the Challenger main battle tank, Warrior mechanised infantry combat vehicle and multiple launch rocket system.

  Mr. Hanley
  Outsize loads are normally transported by sea or land. If these needed to be moved by air, we have a bilateral agreement with the United States for the use of their aircraft and plans for the use of chartered civil wide-bodied aircraft.

  West Freugh Airfield
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what night flying facilities are available at West Freugh airfield.

  Mr. Hanley
  West Freugh airfield is capable of providing all the facilities necessary for night flying; it is equipped with runway, taxi-way and approach lighting and air traffic, crash, fire and refuelling facilities can be made available in support of night flying detachments.
  440

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations, aircraft types and circumstances of all incidents occurring in each year since 1988 in which a public complaint about low flying led to an investigation which concluded that the aircraft concerned was in breach of low flying regulations.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparative statistical information on the safety record of different air forces while flying in Flag exercises underlay the statement in his Department's memorandum to the Committee of Public Accounts inquiry into low flying training—HC 241-i, Session 1989–90, appendix 1, paragraph 7—on the safety record of the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Hanley
  The statement is borne out by United States Air Force statistical records of all aspects of FLAG Exercise flying. The RAF has been a major participant in these exercises since 1977 during which time it has lost four aircraft. This is some 7·8 per cent. of the total number of FLAG accidents suffered by all participating nations up to October 1990.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date night low level training by Royal Air Force Harrier GR7s re-commenced after the summer of 1993; and what are the projected dates for commencement of night low level training by numbers 3 and 4 squadrons.

  Mr. Hanley
  Royal Air Force Harrier GR7s resumed night low flying on 28 September 1993. One of the two squadrons mentioned is planned to commence night flying in September 1994 and the other in September 1995; the order has yet to be decided.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the regulations for practice interception of aircraft in the United Kingdom low flying system(a) by similar aircraft types and (b) by dissimilar aircraft types since the accident to a Royal Air Force Jaguar on 12 September 1990.

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

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are used to ensure separation of military aircraft, operating without lights at night in the low flying system, from civil aircraft operating in the flight information region.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are two such procedures: notices to airmen and separation by height.

  Laser-guided Bomb
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tenders have been received for the low-level laser-guided bomb programme; and if he will make a statement on the projected dates for project milestones for this programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Three companies responded following the invitation to tender issued last year. Of these, two were invited to submit best and final offers which are currently
  441
  under consideration. Project milestones will be established once the weapons contractor has been selected and final negotiations are complete.

  RAF Edzell
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel are currently employed at the US Navy facility at RAF Edzell.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently 42 British military personnel employed at the US Navy facility at RAF Edzell.

  NATO Infrastructure Programme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce shared civil-military usage of(a) existing military infrastructure facilities funded by the NATO infrastructure programme and (b) future NATO infrastructure programme facilities.

  Mr. Hanley
  Certain military infrastructure facilities funded by the NATO infrastructure programme are already shared with civil users. The possibility of shared usage will be taken into account for all future NATO infrastructure facilities.

  Pilot Training
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual continuation training requirement, in hours, for simulator training for(a) Tornado GR1/1A pilots and (b) Harrier GR5/GR7 pilots.

  Mr. Hanley
  The annual continuation training requirement for simulator training for GR1/IA and Harrier GR5/GR7 pilots is 20 hours.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual continuation training hours requirements for fully combat-ready front-line pilots in(a) Tornado GR1/1A pilots and (b) Harrier GR5/GR7.

  Mr. Hanley
  To retain combat-ready status on Tornado GR1/1A and Harrier GR5/GR7, pilots must fly a minimum of 180 hours a year.

  Birds (Radar)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deploy radars in the United Kingdom for the purpose of monitoring concentrations and movements of birds.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently no plans to deploy radars in the United Kingdom for this purpose. However, a trial has established the feasibility of detecting birds on radar and a contract has been let in order to evaluate the development of a bird hazard warning system for the RAF.

  Operation Distant Frontier
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military operations areas, instrument flight rules military training routes, visual flight rules military training routes, air-to-ground weapons ranges and electronic warfare ranges to which Royal Air Force aircraft have been granted access by the United States authorities during Distant Frontier deployments to Alaska.
  442
  Mr. Hanley
  Military operations areas, training routes and ranges to which the RAF has been granted access by the United States authorities during Distant Frontier deployments to Alaska are as follows:

  Military Operations Areas

  Yukon One and Two

  IFR Military Training Route

  IR952

  VFR Military Training Routes

  VR1909 and VR1910

  Weapons Range

  R2202

  Electronic Warfare Ranges

  Tactical EW Simulators deployed in Weapons Ranges

  R2202 and R2205

  Jetstream
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration he has given to the purchase of new Jetstream aircraft following his meeting with Jetstream managing director, Allan Macdonald; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has studied carefully the company's proposal to replace RN and RAF Jetstreams with new Jetstream Super 31s. There is, however, no current operational requirement, nor are there other grounds for replacing our existing Jetstreams, which can continue in service into the next century.

  HMS Illustrious
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report on the inquiry into the recent accident aboard HMS Illustrious; and if he will make a statement on the accident.

  Mr. Hanley
  HMS Illustrious is at present undergoing a refit in Devonport dockyard. On the morning of 7 January 1994 an accident occurred when a member of the ship's company fell into the machinery of the vessel's vertiflo stores lift. He suffered severe facial injuries and was transferred to a local hospital.

  An investigation was immediately initiated by the ship to establish the circumstances which led to the accident. The report is an internal document produced for internal use and there are no plans to publish it. However, a copy would be made available to the individual concerned on request.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number and location of vacant dwellings owned by his Department in the parliamentary constituencies of Plymouth, Drake, Plymouth, Devonport, and Plymouth, Sutton.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 December 1993 the Ministry of Defence owned the following vacant dwellings in the parliamentary constituencies of Plymouth, Drake, Plymouth, Devonport and Plymouth, Sutton:

  Plymouth Drake

  Plymouth Devonport

  Plymouth Sutton

  Service married quarters

  11

  205

  67

  MOD civilian houses

  0

  5

  0

  Former married quarters in the process of being sold

  27

  17

  26

  443

  Plymouth Drake

  Plymouth Devonport

  Plymouth Sutton

  TOTAL

  38

  227

  93

  The majority of the married quarters are either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation or are already allotted to service families who will be moving in shortly. I am not prepared to give the location of these properties on security grounds.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacant dwellings are owned by his Department in each parliamentary constituency in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following is the information.

  Service married quarters

  MOD civilian houses

  Former married quarters in the process of sale

  Total

  North Devon

  20

  0

  0

  20

  Exeter

  5

  0

  0

  5

  Honiton

  30

  0

  3

  33

  Plymouth Devonport

  151

  5

  17

  173

  Plymouth Drake

  11

  0

  27

  38

  Plymouth Sutton

  67

  0

  26

  93

  Torridge and West Devon

  10

  0

  0

  10

  Falmouth and Camborne

  1

  0

  0

  1

  North Cornwall

  161

  0

  0

  161

  St. Ives

  85

  0

  0

  85

  South East Cornwall

  2

  0

  0

  2

  The majority of the married quarters are either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation or are already allotted to service families who will be moving in shortly.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings are owned by his Department; and how many are currently vacant.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 December 1993 MOD owned 71,415 service married quarters of which 10,112 were vacant and at 30 September 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, 677 MOD civilian houses of which 134 were vacant. The majority of the vacant quarters were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, already allocated to service families who were due to move in shortly or held for units returning from overseas as a result of the restructuring of the armed forces. In addition some 2,019 service married quarters, of which 1,275 were vacant and 456 civilian houses, of which 44 were vacant, were in the process of being sold.

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report of the inquiry into the accident which occurred on HMS Tireless on 7 January; and if he will make a statement on the accident.

  Mr. Hanley
  On the afternoon of 7 January HMS Tireless was preparing for machinery trials in Devonport 444
  Dockyard. During this procedure a member of the ship's company was caught in a large spill of very hot water from the ship's propulsion system causing him to suffer burns. He was taken to a local hospital where his condition is now stable.

  An investigation was immediately convened to investigate this accident. The report of that investigation is an internal document produced for internal use and there are no plans to publish the report. However, a copy would be made available to the individual concerned on request.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average cost of the school place provided for the children of service personnel in independent and private schools in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The MOD provides support to service parents for the education of their children by means of boarding school allowance; this is paid to assist eligible service parents in providing a stable education for their children in the face of the domestic turbulence frequently encountered in service life. The average amounts of boarding school allowance paid per service child for the years in question were:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  5,897

  1991–92

  7,117

  1992–93

  7,719

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of sending children of service personnel to independent or private schools in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost to the MOD of boarding school allowance for the years in question was:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  105·61

  1991–92

  115·35

  1992–93

  116·72

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of children of service personnel in(a) Devon and (b) Cornwall whose place at independent or private schools were paid for by his Department, in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the locations of children of service parents claiming boarding school allowance is not collected annually. The most recent figures, for 1992, are:

  Number

  a. Devon

  640

  b. Cornwall

  211

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings are owned by his Department in Plymouth.
  445
  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 December 1993 the Ministry of Defence owned 2,548 married quarters and 11 civilian houses in the Plymouth area. In addition 70 former married quarters and two civilian houses were in the process of being sold.

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the 1st Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers will occupy RAF Brawdy following their arrival in August.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans, the advance elements of the 1st Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers will occupy RAF Brawdy in August 1994 with the remainder of the battalion following in September 1994. The battalion is planned to remain there until 1996.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if RAF Brawdy is still being considered for longer-term Army barracks requirements.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes, RAF Brawdy is being looked at as one of a number of options for the Army's longer-term barracks requirements.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Royal Welch Fusiliers will transfer from RAF Brawdy.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans, the 1st Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers will transfer from RAF Brawdy in the first half of 1996.

  Army Apprentice College, Chepstow
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the cost of refurbishing the Army apprentice college, Chepstow, accommodation in the next two years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The latest estimate for refurbishing the Army apprentice college Chepstow to allow reroling as an infantry battalion barracks is approximately £16,000,000.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 918, if he will give a full breakdown of the total annual support costs for helicopter search-and-rescue operations at RAF Chivenor after (a) 31 July 1994 and (b) 1 October 1995.

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

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Aitken
  The abolition of the 80 per cent, statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset, at least in part, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.
  446

  RAF Supply Depots
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for an examination by auditors of the findings of the equipment depot supplies report into RAF supply depots.

  Mr. Hanley
  The findings of the equipment supply depot report have been scrutinised by the senior finance officer of RAF Support Command and are fully open in the usual way to examination by the MOD's internal auditors and the NAO. In addition, and in response to concerns expressed, I have asked senior MOD officials outside the RAF Support Command structure to go over the analysis again on my behalf.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent agreement reached with the Ukraine to dismantle its nuclear defences.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to this in the House on 12 January. We warmly welcome this agreement and pay tribute to all the signatories. It is important that it be speedily implemented. I have placed in the Library of the House the text of the statement made on 14 January.

  NATO
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the conditions under which countries are eligible to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no fixed criteria for membership of NATO. Article 10 of the Washington treaty allows the members of the alliance, by unanimous agreement, to offer membership to any other European state which is in a position to further the principles of the alliance and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Assaults)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of assaults(a) by prisoners on prisoners and (b) by prisoners on staff, in each of the last three months, for each prison in England and Wales.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 17 January 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for a list of the number of assaults (a) by prisoners on prisoners and (b) by prisoners on staff, in each of the last three months, for each prison in England and Wales.

  447
  The latest available information for the number of assaults proved at adjudication under the prison discipline system for the last three months is given in the attached table.

  Assaults October-December 1993

  October 1993

  November 1993

  December 1993

  Prison Establishments, areas

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  All establishments

  268

  210

  478

  311

  212

  523

  256

  174

  430

  North East

  11

  14

  25

  23

  14

  37

  13

  11

  24

  Acklington

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  3

  Castington

  2

  3

  5

  2

  2

  4

  —

  2

  2

  Durham

  2

  —

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  2

  6

  Frankland

  1

  —

  1

  5

  2

  7

  —

  3

  3

  Full Sutton

  2

  3

  5

  7

  2

  9

  3

  1

  4

  Holme House

  3

  —

  3

  2

  2

  4

  3

  2

  5

  Kirklevington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Low Newton

  1

  7

  8

  4

  4

  8

  —

  1

  1

  North West

  11

  14

  25

  10

  18

  28

  13

  15

  28

  Garth

  4

  1

  5

  1

  4

  5

  2

  —

  2

  Haverigg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hindley

  1

  8

  9

  —

  4

  4

  —

  7

  7

  Kirkham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  2

  2

  4

  4

  6

  10

  6

  4

  10

  Preston

  4

  1

  5

  4

  3

  7

  4

  2

  6

  Thom Cross

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Wymott

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  8

  10

  18

  17

  7

  24

  10

  11

  21

  Askham Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deerbolt

  —

  3

  3

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  4

  Everthorpe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hatfield

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Hull

  8

  1

  9

  14

  2

  16

  4

  3

  7

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  3

  3

  6

  Rudgate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thorpe Arch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wetherby

  —

  4

  4

  —

  2

  2

  —

  3

  3

  Trans-Pennine

  22

  10

  32

  37

  8

  45

  22

  9

  31

  Leeds

  8

  6

  14

  8

  5

  13

  12

  3

  15

  Liverpool

  5

  1

  6

  4

  —

  4

  2

  3

  5

  Manchester

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  New Hall

  1

  —

  1

  3

  —

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Risley

  7

  —

  7

  15

  1

  16

  5

  1

  6

  Styal

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  5

  2

  —

  2

  Wakefield

  1

  2

  3

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  18

  14

  32

  21

  19

  40

  11

  9

  20

  Lincoln

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Lindholme

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Moorland

  14

  12

  26

  15

  15

  30

  8

  6

  14

  Morton Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Sea Camp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Ranby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stocken

  3

  1

  4

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Whatton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Mercia

  9

  11

  20

  5

  11

  16

  4

  17

  21

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drake Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hewell Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shrewsbury

  1

  2

  3

  2

  1

  3

  —

  2

  2

  Stoke Heath

  3

  3

  6

  —

  1

  1

  3

  2

  5

  Sudbury/Foston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Swinfen Hall

  4

  1

  5

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Werrington

  1

  5

  6

  3

  6

  9

  1

  13

  14

  Central

  34

  20

  54

  33

  25

  58

  26

  24

  50

  Ashwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  2

  —

  2

  5

  —

  5

  2

  1

  3

  Brinsford

  9

  5

  14

  5

  8

  13

  6

  9

  15

  Featherstone

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  Gartree

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Glen Parva

  6

  12

  18

  9

  11

  20

  8

  12

  20

  Leicester

  4

  1

  5

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  448 449

  October 1993

  November 1993

  December 1993

  Prison Establishments, areas

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  Long Lartin

  6

  —

  6

  10

  2

  12

  2

  —

  2

  Stafford

  6

  1

  7

  1

  3

  4

  5

  —

  5

  Chilterns

  20

  29

  49

  22

  22

  44

  19

  21

  40

  Aylesbury

  7

  7

  14

  6

  4

  10

  7

  3

  10

  Bullingdon

  2

  —

  2

  10

  1

  11

  4

  1

  5

  Coldingley

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Huntercombe/Finnamore Wood

  —

  3

  3

  —

  2

  2

  1

  4

  5

  The Mount

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Onley

  5

  16

  21

  4

  12

  16

  1

  12

  13

  Reading

  3

  3

  6

  1

  2

  3

  2

  1

  3

  Wales and the West

  5

  6

  11

  8

  11

  19

  7

  2

  9

  Bristol

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Cardiff

  —

  3

  3

  3

  7

  10

  —

  2

  2

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Erlestoke

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  —

  3

  3

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Leyhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pucklechurch

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  4

  4

  —

  4

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Usk/Prescoed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wessex

  12

  7

  19

  7

  5

  12

  7

  5

  12

  Channings Wood

  2

  —

  2

  2

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Dartmoor

  3

  —

  3

  3

  —

  3

  1

  2

  3

  Dorchester

  1

  2

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Exeter

  5

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guys Marsh

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  3

  3

  —

  3

  Portland

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  Shepton Mallet

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  The Verne

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  London North

  25

  20

  45

  26

  24

  50

  28

  11

  39

  Bedford

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Holloway

  7

  7

  14

  5

  9

  14

  5

  4

  9

  Littlehey

  3

  1

  4

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pentonville

  5

  —

  5

  5

  4

  9

  5

  2

  7

  Wellingborough

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Whitemoor

  1

  2

  3

  3

  3

  6

  4

  3

  7

  Woodhill

  1

  5

  6

  2

  7

  9

  5

  —

  5

  Wormwood Scrubs

  7

  3

  10

  9

  1

  10

  6

  2

  8

  East Anglia

  17

  18

  35

  21

  8

  29

  12

  8

  20

  Blundeston

  2

  5

  7

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  3

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Chelmsford

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Highpoint

  4

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  4

  5

  4

  2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Norwich

  2

  6

  8

  3

  4

  7

  2

  3

  5

  Wayland

  4

  1

  5

  11

  —

  11

  4

  2

  6

  London South

  23

  21

  44

  33

  15

  48

  41

  11

  52

  Albany

  1

  3

  4

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  3

  Belmarsh

  7

  —

  7

  11

  1

  12

  7

  1

  8

  Brixton

  3

  6

  9

  4

  —

  4

  4

  2

  6

  Camp Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  —

  2

  Feltham

  4

  10

  14

  10

  8

  18

  8

  6

  14

  Latchmere House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Parkhurst

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  9

  —

  9

  Wandsworth

  7

  2

  97

  7

  1

  8

  9

  1

  10

  Kent

  13

  8

  21

  14

  15

  29

  12

  13

  25

  Aldington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blantyre House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canterbury

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  Cookham Wood

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Dover

  —

  2

  2

  1

  2

  3

  1

  4

  5

  East Sutton Park

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Elmley

  3

  —

  3

  2

  2

  4

  1

  —

  1

  Maidstone

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Rochester

  2

  4

  6

  4

  8

  12

  1

  4

  5

  Stanford Hill

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Swaleside

  6

  —

  6

  4

  2

  6

  7

  2

  9

  450 451

  October 1993

  November 1993

  December 1993

  Prison Establishments, areas

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  Staff and others

  Prisoners

  Total

  South Coast

  12

  2

  14

  5

  8

  13

  15

  5

  20

  Downview

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haslar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  High Down

  6

  1

  7

  4

  4

  8

  8

  1

  9

  Kingston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewes

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  2

  Northeye

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Send

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Winchester

  4

  1

  5

  —

  3

  3

  5

  3

  8

  Contracted out Prisons

  28

  6

  34

  29

  2

  31

  16

  2

  18

  Blakenhurst

  26

  5

  31

  24

  2

  26

  14

  2

  16

  The Wolds

  2

  1

  3

  5

  —

  5

  2

  —

  2

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the political advisers to Ministers in October 1993 were in which Department; how many were on which salary spine point; how many were aged under 34, 34 and 35 years and above; and how many had served less than two years, two but less than three years, three but less than four years and four years and over.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In October 1993, 30 political advisers were serving in 18 departments as shown in table1.The numbers on each salary spine point is given in table2.Three advisers were not paid on the normal salary spine points. Of those, two were on secondment and their salary was reimbursed to their employer. The third was paid on a personal basis.

  Information on the ages of special advisers is not held centrally.

  For severence payment purposes, 18 political advisers had served in their current appointments less than two years, eight had served two but less than three years, three had served three but less than four years and one had served four years and over.

  Table 1

  Department

  Number of political advisers

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  Cabinet Office (including Prime Minister's Office, Chief Whips Office, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Office)

  8

  Ministry of Defence

  1

  Department of Education

  1

  Department of Employment

  1

  Department of the Environment

  2

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2

  Department of Health

  1

  Home Office

  2

  House of Lords

  1

  452

  Department

  Number of political advisers

  Department of National Heritage

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  Scottish Office

  2

  Department of Social Security

  I

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1

  Department of Transport

  1

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  2

  Welsh Office

  1

  Table 2

  Spine point

  Number on spine point

  1

  —

  2

  1

  3

  —

  4

  —

  5

  2

  6

  1

  7

  —

  8

  2

  9

  1

  10

  1

  11

  1

  12

  —

  13

  1

  14

  1

  15

  1

  16

  —

  17

  —

  18

  1

  19

  —

  20

  —

  21

  2

  22

  1

  23

  1

  24

  4

  25

  —

  26

  1

  27

  —

  28

  4

  29

  —

  30

  1

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Business Compliance Cost Assessment
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the meaning and purpose of the new section in explanatory memoranda to Bills entitled Business Compliance Cost Assessment; whether it is intended to cover costs other than those incurred by commercial businesses; and, if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the new section in explanatory memoranda is to draw Parliament's attention to the best estimates of the impact which legislative proposals would have on business. Their purpose is to help parliamentary scrutiny by providing an early opportunity to take account of implications for business. As published documents they also help other interested parties, including charities and other voluntary organisations, to contribute to the public debate.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for replying to my Question. Will the matter be further considered, perhaps particularly in the light of the current Education Bill? That Bill has nothing at all to do with commercial business but, on the other hand, loads heavy administrative costs on the universities. Should not the purpose of the new rubric be extended to non-commercial businesses?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting his suggestion forward. He may like to know that the charities and voluntary sector task force is currently considering whether there should be an extension of compliance cost assessment to those bodies. That could well include the kinds of bodies that the noble and learned Lord referred to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, at what stage are these business compliance cost assessments made? Are the Government prepared to withdraw a Bill if the assessment shows that the increased cost is too great for industry to bear?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in bringing forward legislation various departments work closely with businesses and their representative organisations to obtain as fair an assessment as possible of the likely cost to business. I should emphasise that the matter we are discussing constitutes the Government's best possible assessments of the likely costs to business, and we believe the assessments are correct.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord assist the House a little further by publishing a detailed memorandum showing, as nearly as possible, the principles upon which these assessments are made, and also the methods used in their calculation, checking and verification before the explanatory memorandum appears?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to inform the noble Lord that a document has been published under the deregulation initiative entitled Checking the Cost to Business. A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment. I am told that this document is in the Library of the House, but I shall check to make sure that it is.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord state the cost of it to the public?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know the cost of the document, but it is not thick and I do not suppose it costs much.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the document is not very thick perhaps the noble Lord will explain its contents a little further. Further to the question of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, will the Minister undertake that the business compliance cost assessrnent will be properly established by a privatised firm arid perhaps indeed audited by a serious firm of accountants?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, these are of course early days as regards the compliance cost assessment. There is no reason why we should not improve on the system in the future, perhaps in the way the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, presumably the matter that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has raised is concerned with draft Bills of primary legislation. Will the Government consider having the same sort of criteria in regard to statutory instruments because it is often within statutory instruments that the real costs of changes can apply?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. Although the Question refers to primary legislation, it is also pertinent to secondary legislation, and indeed to legislation that emanates from the European Community which has a likely impact on business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, has the Minister observed that it is only the Members of the Labour Party in your Lordships' House who have the interests of the business community at heart?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I know that everyone does not entirely share the confidence that the noble Lord has in his own party and its beliefs as regards small businesses. My noble friends behind me have confidence in this Government.

Disabled People: Unjustified Discrimination
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, while the Government share the aim of ending unjustified discrimination, we do not see comprehensive legislation as the most effective and practical means of achieving it. We believe that the best way forward is a programme of awareness, education and persuasion, backed up where necessary by targeted legislation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that anti-discrimination legislation is supported by every disability organisation in Britain, by the Law Society and by governments in other countries such as the United States? Is he aware that it is supported by the majority of Members of Parliament and by this House? Above all, it is supported by millions of disabled people. If the Government continue to act like King Canute they must expect the same respect that he had. Does the Minister accept that they are damaging the interests of millions of disabled people by their refusal to enact this very necessary legislation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that unjustified discrimination against disabled people is unacceptable. The Government are committed to combating it. We believe that the best approach is one that builds on the Government's good record of increasing opportunities for disabled people through programmes of education and persuasion and, where necessary, targeted legislation. We do not believe that all encompassing legislation would be effective in helping to meet the needs of disabled people.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the real difficulty that disability takes many different forms? For instance, I walk on two sticks. Other people have defects of eyesight or of hearing. There are almost infinite ways in which discrimination can take place and comprehensive legislation would be almost impossible to draft.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree very much with my noble and learned friend. The complex range of disabilities and the varied ways in which they affect everyday life cannot be addressed by a single piece of legislation, unlike, for example, the approach which was adopted to deal with racial or sex discrimination.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Viscount knows that on two occasions this House has passed a Bill for precisely this purpose. He now says in reply to the Question that he is in favour of targeted legislation. Will he explain to the House what targeted legislation means?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is legislation targeted at those who need it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I was severely disabled for a short period I received every possible assistance in all parts of these Houses of Parliament from staff and colleagues? That ought to be put on the record. It is a pity that other organisations cannot emulate the Parliament they are all so eager to criticise. There were occasions when outside this building I ran into people who could only be called malevolent. Can something be done to persuade other organisations outside to emulate our behaviour and, in particular, can we examine the possibility of somehow dealing with the evil behaviour of malevolent people who like to hurt the disabled?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked the Minister for disabled people to work with the All-Party Disablement Group to identify ways in which discrimination could be eliminated. My right honourable friend has already had two meetings with the group to discuss proposals for taking forward this important initiative. The Prime Minister's personal interest has ensured that the work has received high priority within government and we shall look carefully at any proposals which are made to us.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the right to equal treatment without discrimination on any grounds such as mental or physical disability is a fundamental right guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and that we are obliged to secure that right in our domestic legal system?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have a very good record compared with other countries in the EC. We are opposed to discrimination against disabled people. As I said, we have taken steps in the past through targeted legislation to prevent it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider the remark he made in reply to the first Question from my noble friend Lord Ashley about the need for legislation to deal with discrimination? Is he aware that we have had a 3 per cent. quota for the employment of the disabled since 1944 and that, acting on a voluntary basis, it has never been reached? Some of us have argued the need for legislation in that respect. Does the noble Viscount not consider that there comes a time when legislation may be needed to support a measure which is not receiving on a voluntary basis the support which it ought to have?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the quota is under review. We are looking carefully at the evidence and considering options. There are many arguments to be considered. As the noble Lord said, the Disabled Persons Act requires employers to employ a quota of disabled people. The Employment Department is preparing a memorandum for the Employment Select Committee which will outline the Government's view

321
on the operation of the Act and will help the department to promote employment and training for people with disabilities.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, how far have the Government been able to meet the quota which they themselves have accepted for employing disabled people within the Civil Service?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Civil Service is committed to equality of opportunity for all people, including people with disabilities. Although the Civil Service is not bound by the quota legislation it has undertaken to accept the same responsibilities as other employers. It employs more than 8,300 staff who are registered disabled. That is equivalent to 1.5 per cent. of all civil servants, which is just above the proportion of people registered as disabled in the workforce as a whole and as far as we can judge almost twice the proportion of registered disabled people employed in the private sector. Like other employers, the Civil Service employs many more staff with disabilities who choose not to register as disabled.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is that not half the target that the Government have set themselves?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes, it is half the target. However, as I pointed out, many people who are employed and who have disabilities do not register.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many measures taken by the Government are likely only to increase employment discrimination against disabled people? I refer to such measures as the proposed employers' levy under the access to work scheme and the imposition of full costs of statutory sick pay upon employers. Will the Government consider again the disability working allowance scheme? It has had a low take up. We supported the scheme when it was introduced but we pointed out that it was flawed. However, the take up seems to have been low. Can something be done about that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have announced improvements to the disability working allowance. With regard to the noble Baroness's question about access to work, that matter is to be introduced by the Employment Department later this year and will replace or add to the help currently available. It will provide a wider range of help to a greater number of people. This new, more flexible provision has been widely welcomed by various organisations, in particular those organisations which relate to people with disabilities.
On the noble Baroness's point about the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, at present there is no evidence that the changes that we propose will cause employers to treat disabled people differently from others in the workforce.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is not the difficulty about the quota system—which requires employers of more than 20 people to engage 3 per cent. or more employees who are disabled—that throughout the country the registers of disabled people contain
322
figures of less than 3 per cent. That makes the requirement almost impossible. A review of the system is required.
As one who assisted with the passage of one of the Bills referred to through this House, I ask the Government this question. Will they consider setting up a disablement commission—that is what my Bills attempted to do—rather than seeking to create new offences which have to be dealt with in the courts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. As I said in answer to an earlier question, only about 1.5 per cent. of registered disabled people are in the workforce. That may be one of the reasons why it has been almost impossible to fill the 3 per cent. quota. I am sure that we shall consider my noble friend's other suggestion.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister kindly bear in mind that there are people in the United States with a wide variety of disabilities? There are those who use two sticks, those who are deaf, and those who are blind. Yet the comprehensive legislation works perfectly well in America, Australia and many other countries. Therefore, it is no argument to talk about the diversity of disabilities.
Secondly, the Minister refers to education and persuasion. That was the Government's argument on seat belts. It failed and legislation was required. The same principle applies to legislation on discrimination. Persuasion and education simply do not work. Discrimination in Britain today is massive and requires legislation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the legislative system in America is different from this country. The laws in America are fairly new. We shall, of course, be watching all developments in America to see how those laws work. However, at the moment there is as yet no evidence—those laws are fairly new—that they are any more successful than the legislation of this country.

Drink-Driving Statistics
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty' s Government:
How recorded incidents in Great Britain of drinking and driving during the Christmas and New Year period 1993–94 compare with records for each of the previous five years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, as the figures are fairly complex, I have arranged for them to be placed in the Library and a copy sent to my noble friend. However, a simple assessment shows that the number of breath tests administered increased by 11.1 per cent. over the previous year. The number of tests which proved positive fell slightly to 4.6 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, which indicates some

323
progress. Does he ascribe the improvements to the prospect of more severe sentences or to the special campaigns?
Was the welcome improvement reported in Scotland over the New Year a result of the traditional celebrations being curtailed—that would be a pity—or because they were better planned to enable the seasonal toasts to be enjoyed in the appropriate beverage but by people on foot or travelling as passengers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asks me a number of questions to which I feel ill equipped to reply. He asked whether the improvement is due to the severe sentences or to the special campaigns. The answer is probably that it is due to both. Certainly the sentences are more severe and certainly the campaigns have made a great impact on people's lives. It is noticeable that those, if I may so describe them, in the most awkward age category are not the young people but those of rather more mature age who have become used in the past to driving when they have had drinks.
The effect in Scotland has been remarkable. Between 1988–89 and 1993–94 the number of positive breath tests has dropped from 5.76 per cent. to 1.89 per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is very good.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is very good indeed. Whether that means that friends North of the Border drink less at Christmas and Hogmanay, I leave to my noble friend to decide.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister welcome the fact that deaths and serious injuries from road accidents have fallen sharply over the past year, apparently due to the good driving of the British people? I believe that that is to be rejoiced at. I hope that the noble Earl agrees.
However, in relation to drink and driving, is there not much confusion caused by the present limit of 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood? Is this not the time to consider whether there should be an outright ban on drinking alcohol and driving?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. There has been a great decrease in the number of people who have become victims of accidents in which alcohol is present. In 1992, 610 people were killed, whereas 10 years earlier in 1982 the figure was 1,550. That is an enormous drop. In 1992, there were 3,200 serious injuries and 8,010 in 1982, 10 years earlier.
The noble Lord asked whether it would be a good idea to have a zero limit on alcohol. That would produce problems. All the evidence shows that above the current levels—that is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood and 35 microgrammes in the breath—the ability is impaired. As regards reducing the limit to zero, people have alcohol in their blood for all kinds of reasons. For instance, if the noble Lord were to eat a bad pork pie he would find that he had alcohol in his blood. That might give an erroneous reading; or a correct reading but an erroneous interpretation of the noble Lord's capacity.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some countries nil alcohol is the level for new drivers in their first two years of driving? In view of his last answer, will he explain to me how that measure works in other countries if the bad pork pie has such a disastrous effect on people in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps people in other countries do not eat pork pies. All sorts of things occur in other countries which do not happen in this country. I assure my noble friend that the evidence is that it is much better to aim our efforts towards enforcing the existing law rather than increasing its rigour.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister rightly draws attention to the welcome decline in the number of accidents involving people who have been drinking. However, how does he draw his conclusions from the proportion of tests which prove positive? Is it not equally likely that there would be a decline in the number of positive results as a result of police forces testing more indiscriminately and less accurately than from a decline in the number of people driving when they have had too much to drink?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the interpretation of statistics is always a fine art. All one can do is to ask: what were the statistics in a previous year on a similar occasion and what are they now? Overall, particularly throughout the past five years, there has been a gradual decline, albeit small. At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of tests undertaken. The noble Lord may be interested to know that, in 1988, 65,000 tests were taken throughout England, Scotland and Wales over Christmas and the New Year. This past year, there were 119,000. In the first year 7 per cent. gave positive results, and in the last year 4.6 per cent. gave positive results. My conclusion is that that is an improvement. If the noble Lord wishes to say that it is not an improvement, that is up to him, but I think that it is.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree with me that, although there has been an overall improvement in attitude—cultural attitude, if you will—there still seems to be a hard core of drivers who imagine that they are better drivers when they have had something to drink? One hopes that they are a minority, but, if the noble Earl agrees with me, what plans does his department have to target that group?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks me to insert my own mind into the minds of a few people who happen to take a certain view. I could not possibly do that. I do not know whether certain people believe that they drive better if they have taken alcohol. Some may, but I would not know. What I do know is that the effect of the campaigns which have been undertaken is a marked improvement and what has transpired is that it is those who are older who tend to drive after they have taken drink, as opposed to those who are younger. That is an overall view which is obviously subject to adjustment. However, it is those who are older who have traditionally drunk and driven who are most likely to do so now, and we must aim at them.

Life Sentence Prisoners
3.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
On whose authority persons sentenced by the courts to imprisonment for life are released.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Home Secretary may release on licence offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, if he has been recommended to do so by the Parole Board. The Parole Board can direct the Home Secretary to release on licence those offenders who have been sentenced to life imprisonment for offences other than murder.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the case of convictions for murder, do I understand my noble friend to say that the decision is taken personally by the Home Secretary or delegated by him to some other person over whom he has no control?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend delegates a number of powers to other people. I think that I am correct in saying that those who are released on a life licence will have the personal approval of the Home Secretary.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in making that recommendation to the Secretary of State, is not the principal factor in the minds of the local review committees and the Parole Board the likelihood that a prisoner may re-offend? Is it the practice always to ensure that, in coming to their assessment, the parole authorities have the advice of a qualified psychiatrist?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Parole Board takes advice from a number of different quarters. I think that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is yes, but I should prefer to confirm that.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that, before deciding to release prisoners on life licence, the Home Secretary consults the Lord Chief Justice and, if he is available, the original trial judge? Will he further confirm that the Parole Board itself always takes carefully into account any comments that were made by the trial judge before deciding to recommend such a prisoner?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in both his observations.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the Question, as I read it, is not limited purely to life sentences in relation to murder. For example, many life sentences are imposed on those who intended to kill but did so under provocation, the persistent arsonist, the multiple rapist and the like. I believe that the procedure is quite different when it comes to the discretionary life sentence. Can the noble Earl inform the House of the Answer to the Question regarding the discretionary life sentence, and, if the decision-making process is markedly different, what is the justification?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the process is different. In discretionary life sentences the Parole Board can direct the Home Secretary to release on licence those offenders who were sentenced to life imprisonment other than for murder. There are a number of differences in the procedure, but the fact is that the Parole Board directs the Home Secretary and, if the Parole Board has so directed, the Home Secretary cannot go against its views. With a life sentence for murder, it is up to the Home Secretary to accept or reject any advice he receives.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer given by the Minister to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, indicates that there are significant differences in the procedure for murder and for other cases. The noble and learned Lord went on to ask: what is the justification for those differences? I did not hear an answer to that question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the justification is that murder is considered a unique crime and as such it requires the authority of the Home Secretary to allow back into that society for which the Home Secretary is responsible people who have murdered on previous occasions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, far from being a unique crime, murder includes an enormous range of different crimes with different degrees of seriousness and different degrees of motivation? Indeed, murder is the least unique crime of almost any which comes before the courts.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the taking of the life of an individual is a unique crime. The motivation for it covers a variety of different aspects.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, manslaughter involves the taking of a life. Is it, therefore, as unique as murder? If so, why is there not the same procedure?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to become involved in legal niceties, but manslaughter is in a different category from murder, where murder has been undertaken with the direct purpose of removing someone's life.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend reflected on the fact that if the victim dies over a year and a day after the original attack it is not murder; but if he dies a year less a day, it is murder?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, oddly enough I did consider that curious point. The fact is that if a person dies over a year and a day after the murder, it may well be that he would have died anyhow because he might have had a heart attack. It would be difficult to ascribe such a death to the act of murder. Clearly, one has to draw a line somewhere and it has been considered in law—about which my noble and learned friend will know much more than I—that that is a suitable date and there is no particular reason to change it.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
Brought from the Commons; on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): 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.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The local government areas]:
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("(aa) the principality of Wales;").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in that of my noble friend on the Marshalled List. This amendment paves the way for Amendment No. 3. I made the case for this amendment and all the implications in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. If we believe in democratic government as against bureaucratic administration, and if we want to treat Wales with respect in the developments that are going on in the United Kingdom and in the European Community, then we shall feel impelled to support this amendment.
There are profound weaknesses in this Bill. That should not surprise us because at every level there was inadequate consultation; and there was no commission, as was established for England. The White Paper which preceded the Bill was widely criticised. That was a warning to the Government. As a result, much of the Bill has been rejected by a number of organisations: namely, the CBI in Wales; the Welsh TUC; all the county councils; most of the district councils; and by a range of voluntary organisations.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed. It vests in the Secretary of State for Wales unprecedented powers to direct and control local affairs in Wales. The creation of unitary authorities without an elected body will result in local councils that have only a limited capacity to fulfil their services. I find that quite unacceptable. I want to see unitary authorities with a strong backing from an elected authority, and not authorities manipulated by the Welsh Office and overshadowed by quangos in Wales.
When I was Secretary of State for Wales 25 years ago, I worked to expand the functions of the Welsh Office. But I did so in co-operation and in co-ordination with the local authorities whom I consulted, as some of my noble friends will recall. With regard to quangos, I can see that there are circumstances in which an appointed body may be necessary, and where Ministers and the Government will have to set up such a body. But now matters have gone too far. I believe that noble
328
Lords on all sides of the Committee accept that. In the past 15 years—it is necessary for me to give the facts to support what I am saying—the number of quangos under the patronage of the Secretary of State for Wales has doubled. There are now 80 quangos in Wales, with a budget of £1.8 billion and a staff of 57,000. I regret to say that appointments in Wales to these highly influential bodies are made to a large extent on political grounds. I have never before known in my parliamentary experience appointments to be made at that level and in that number for political reasons. It is not only unsatisfactory; it is disgraceful. And it is our duty in this Committee to point it out. We have other matters of importance to discuss today, such as the local boundary issues which concern a large number of noble Lords. But the matter that I now pose goes to the heart of the democratic process in our country. I wish to make it plain at the start of this debate that it is to be exposed and condemned.
A Welsh assembly is therefore urgently needed to subject the functions and actions of the Welsh Office to proper public scrutiny and to bring the quangos under public democratic control. Recent experience in Wales proves that we must demand more accountability and more openness at the highest levels of Welsh public life. Without that, the reputation of Wales will suffer, although that will not be the fault of the Welsh people. In short, we believe that the powers given in this Bill to the Welsh Office should be vested in an elected body of councillors representing Wales as a whole.
Secondly, given the heavy dependency on nominated bodies, there will be a need to improve co-operation and co-ordination between the local authorities and the nominated agencies, such as the health authorities, the Further Education Funding Council, the training and enterprise councils, and other important bodies. Unless we accept this amendment, no action can be taken to deal with this undemocratic structure. In my view, co-ordination is essential.
Thirdly, an elected assembly would act as a co-ordinating forum stimulating inter-authority co-operation, which I believe to be essential.
Fourthly, it would address the relationship between Welsh local government and the relevant European Community institutions, such as the Committee of the Regions or the Social and Economic Committee. The Government failed to address that issue in all the consultative papers, and that was a very grave omission.
I must say that to thrust this flawed structure upon Wales without any consideration of the European Community dimension does great disservice to the people of Wales. Why are some people afraid of an elected Welsh assembly? That fear has existed for far too long. Are they afraid of placing too much power in the hands of the Welsh people? I hope that that is not true, and that this House will therefore support the amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I rise from these Cross-Benches to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to argue the case for a democratically elected all-Wales body as part of this Bill.
Since the referendum in 1979, when the people of Wales rejected the proposals by the then lately to be lamented Labour Government, both the structure of government and the nature of public opinion in Wales on this whole subject have changed. We have seen a massive increase in executive government and in decision-making by direction from the Welsh Office. Of course, I have to include myself in a small capacity as part of that process. The creation of non-departmental public bodies and the way in which the Government of Wales proceeds by direction from the Welsh Office can only be seen as a negation of democracy. However, there are those who see this as a transitional stage in the inevitable return of the argument for an elected, all-Wales body. That argument is located precisely in the context to which the noble Lord referred; namely, that of the European regions. For, increasingly, at that level, there are now institutions which represent local and regional authority.
The notion of the regional authority features strongly in the Maastricht Treaty, which last year took up so much of the time of this House. The regional authority exists as a policy making and representative level in the overwhelming majority of member states. The United Kingdom is clearly an exception. We lose out in the whole of the United Kingdom for not having national and regional structures to parallel those which exist in other member states, and also those which are increasingly now recognised and used by the European Union in the development of its policies. That applies not just to regional policy and regional expenditure but increasingly now to regional representation through the Council of the Regions and bodies of that kind. It is at that level that Wales needs to be directly represented. The creation of an all-Wales body would enable that.
As I said at the beginning of my short remarks, increasingly we find that public opinion in Wales is moving in that direction. Clearly in all the recent opinion polls there has been a majority in favour of an elected all-Wales body. To transfer the powers of the Welsh Office in this Bill—the powers of direction given to the Secretary of State in this Bill—to an elected body, seems not only appropriate but in line with the historic attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the past to create an all-Wales body.
The Government will say that such an all-Wales body is not part of the structure of local government in this Bill. But the Government will have to return—as they have already done so in the case of Northern Ireland and as they will again, I am sure, in the case of Scotland—to the issue of an all-Wales body, either in this term of their office if they remain in office or if the Government revert to the Opposition. Certainly the next Labour Government, if we live to see one, will have the obligation of legislating on this matter. I hope that they also will have the determination to do so.
Lord Gibson-Watt: The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who moved the amendment, knows a great deal about Welsh politics and more than I do. He said quite rightly that on Second Reading he had referred to the question of the assembly. He did. So did I. I pointed out to him and to the Chamber that in 1979 that question was put before the Welsh people; and by over three-and-a-half to one the decision was against.
That happened not very long ago. I very much doubt whether an assembly, which is an extra tier of government, is the right answer at this moment in time. I do not deny that the growth of quangos irritates Members Opposite. I am considerably irritated by the fact that there are too many of them. Their appointment is a very difficult responsibility for any Welsh Minister. I accept that. Despite that remark, this is no time to create a Welsh assembly. I urge the Committee not to support the amendment.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I have great respect for the noble Lord—almost my noble friend—Lord Gibson-Watt. But on this matter, I feel that he underestimates the change that has taken place since 1979. In 1979 there was an arguable case both ways. But I must say to the Committee that it seems to me that the policy of this Government over the past 15 years in weakening local government and in strengthening the quango system (if I may use such a word for it) has altered the whole balance of the argument.
What is sought here is a very modest committee to co-ordinate or oversee in some way such quangos. Many Members of the Committee will probably be slightly surprised when I say that the budget of the quangos in Wales today is equal to if not slightly greater than the local authority budget of all the local authorities there. That cannot be satisfactory in any way at all. To deprive the local authorities of the responsibility may be in accordance with government policy; but to make them accountable only to the Secretary of State for Wales simply is not acceptable in Wales to all those of us who think about these matters.
There is also the subsidiary question, which I suppose in some ways is as important, and to which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred; namely, the nature of appointments. One would think that, given the tremendous power put into the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, he would have been extraordinarily careful to have preserved a balance of appointments that would have reflected to some extent the political complexion of Wales, though I would not ask for that absolutely. I have seen—I believe it is within the knowledge of every Member who knows what is happening in Wales—very good public-minded and devoted people excluded from committees on which they previously sat and of which they had knowledge. No rational reason was ever given for it.
I am told by a leading contender for the Conservative Party leadership (in the future but not today, so I understand) that cynicism is rife in our country. In Wales a great deal of cynicism has been bred by what has happened in the matter of those appointments. I am not one who believes that one has to have exact representation or that Ministers should be attacked for

331
the nature of their appointments. But so flagrant has that been in Wales, through the concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State and his advisers, whoever they may be, that it has become shameless. It is high time that the situation was exposed. I do not propose to go into the issue this afternoon. I suppose that we shall not carry the amendment today. But I have great belief in the influence of this Chamber. When these matters are ventilated and known, I believe that these situations to some extent can be remedied.
It is wholly unsatisfactory that the budget of those quangos should be equivalent to if not greater than the budget of the local authorities in Wales and that the appointments have proceeded in the way in which they have done.
Lord Chalfont: I rise not to become engaged in the argument about quangos and the broader aspects that that argument raises, but simply to support the general thrust of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the more general geopolitical sense. He and my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas identified a trend which is undoubtedly taking place and which to my mind is inexorable in the whole field of modern political science.
Some of the great centres of decision-making are moving further and further away from our national capitals. There may be some of us who deplore that, but it is a fact of life. Decision-making is moving away from nationalities and national capitals into broader and bigger social entities. As that happens, it becomes of greater importance that local democracy should be strengthened. As the big macro-decisions are taken further away from Westminster, Paris, Berlin or Bonn, so the decision-making of local authorities and local people has to be strengthened. Indeed, that is part of the ostensible reason for the Bill; namely, to bring local government closer to the people.
I believe that there are many cases—I know that this point will emerge from some of the amendments tabled to Schedule 1 of the Bill—in which what is now proposed in the Bill takes government further from the people rather than bringing them closer. But in a more general sense what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and others have said about a Welsh assembly reflects an inexorable fact of history. It will happen sooner or later. It should happen sooner. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, that the Government, whether this amendment is agreed today (I suspect that it is doubtful), will bear in mind the views that have been expressed in the Committee today.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that I may be forgiven for intruding into this matter. Undoubtedly, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised an extremely important point.
The only issue on which I tend to differ from him is that it is not a specifically Welsh point. As the last speaker said, it is a point which affects and will continue to affect the whole of the United Kingdom. I shall not now talk about the unhappy story of Northern Ireland because that is not relevant to the present discussion, but it should be in the back of our minds.
332
What is true of Wales is reflected in current opinion in Scotland. Again, I am not in a position to speak about Scotland. But ever since 1963, when I had a certain responsibility in the North-East of England, I have been heretical from my own party's point of view about an underlying difficulty in regard to the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole; that is, that there is room for an intermediate level of authority between Parliament and Westminster and its Ministers—whose sovereignty I should like to see unabated because I remain an unrepentant unionist in such matters—and local authorities, which we have in this country de facto and which have existed for countless centuries. My belief is that they are inadequate in point of size to deal with the problems with which regions have to deal. For example, in the North-East, when I had that special responsibility in 1963, I had to deal with 146 different local authorities of different sizes. That was rather a lot. There were only three counties as they then stood.
I believe that there is room for a regional authority. My only criticism of speeches delivered by the other side in support of the amendment is that it is inherent in the structure of the United Kingdom that sooner or later this issue must be addressed. There is the problem of tertiary education; there is the problem of quangos, to which every speaker has referred. It is undoubted that the districts and counties into which the United Kingdom—by that I include England—is for the moment divided are divided into local authorities insufficiently large to discharge a great number of what are in fact regional problems.
As I said, I am a heretic on this point. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will forgive me exposing my heretical views. But it is a fundamental problem which sooner or later must be addressed by the whole of the country.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I found it interesting to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He is developing a theme today on which he has touched over many years in articles and speeches. It is right that there is scope for another tier of authority in our country on a regional basis. Within the Bill we see the weaknesses of the present approach. We have authorities that are far too large to be local governments and too small to be regional governments. There is certainly scope for a different kind of authority.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, knows, when I saw the amendment tabled I was placed in a quandary. Like himself I have always been a supporter of Welsh devolution. We campaigned together in the Parliament for Wales campaign in the 1950s. In principle I always support moves for a Welsh assembly. I never subscribed to the view that if we went down that road we would be furthering the cause of separatism in Wales. Far from it; we would be strengthening the case for unity within the United Kingdom.
Having said that, when I saw the amendment I had extreme doubts that this was the right vehicle by which to present that idea—for this reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, intimated, the matter needs an airing and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, did a great service

333
in calling attention to the point. But what would worry me with this specific amendment—for which I shall certainly vote because in principle I agree with it—is the question of how a Welsh assembly should be set up. It would mean such a great change in our arrangements that it should be done in a separate Bill. No doubt if the Labour Party win the next election, that will be done.
I agree entirely with the points made in regard to quangos. But the amendment gives the assembly no control whatever over quangos. I am entirely in favour of an assembly that would have control over quangos. I am entirely in favour of an assembly to which a Secretary of State would be answerable. But under the formulation of this amendment the Secretary of State would only need to consult the assembly; there would be no obligation on him to take account of anything it said following the consultation.
On the drafting of the amendment the assembly may do anything that it considers necessary. That is far too wide a power unless it is circumscribed in some way. Subsection (3) states:
"The Assembly may do anything it considers necessary to—

(a) facilitate the co-ordination of administration of local government in Wales, and

(b) promote greater co-operation between the Welsh local authorities and public agencies and voluntary organisations in Wales".

What does that mean? It means that, prima facie, it can do anything it likes. I should have thought that that was an unconsidered power.
All I am saying is that if this is an exercise in pointing the way in which Wales should go—that is the way in which it has been interpreted so far in the debate—then I am entirely in favour of it upon the grounds submitted on all sides—by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Callaghan and Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. In principle we are in favour of the amendment. But, if we arrived at the situation where we had to consider in detail the powers of an assembly, I should prefer to see many of the powers devolved from our Parliament to the assembly. I should like to see the specific relationship between the Secretary of State and an assembly set out rather than it being merely left to consultation. I should like to see the question of the relationship between an assembly and Welsh local government much more carefully thought out. All I am sure of is that, if we had a Welsh assembly, we should have unitary authorities in Wales which were much closer to the people than those we have been presented with in the Bill.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, draws us to the beginning of a much larger debate than we perhaps thought we were to have on the amendment. I was surprised to hear him let drop, in the middle of what he said, an intention to vote for the amendment because he approved of the general direction in which it pointed. We need to know a great deal more in regard to what is proposed before anybody should feel themselves in a position to commit Parliament to this form of delegation or whatever else the process is described as. In particular, how is it that we listened to so many no doubt well-founded lectures regarding the appointment of quangos, yet what the amendment puts forward is a
334
body which, in spite of its name, has no provision for its election? Is that not a super-quango? Or have I missed something in the Marshalled List which shows that it is to be an elected body?
I intervene merely to draw attention to that point. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, we are addressing the central issues of the constitution and this is a central part of that issue which does not seem to have been touched on at all.
Lord Molloy: Perhaps I may briefly make a submission. The debate so far has been quite reasonable. I could not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was so anxious. If the measure is established, many of the points raised today in an apprehensive manner will be discussed and put right.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when supporting my noble friend Lord Callaghan, said that this was not solely a question of quangos. However, in Wales there is grave apprehension that the number of quangos will grow. We shall need some assurance from the new Bill, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, that we shall return to democracy.
It cannot be denied that the quango is the first small move towards authoritarian rule. That is why I hope that the speeches of my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Callaghan will be examined by the Committee. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has enormous experience. Like my noble friend Lord Callaghan, he knows precisely both the problems of the United Kingdom and the features that particularly affect Wales, our country. I therefore ask the Committee to listen carefully to my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Callaghan and ensure that the measure before us is adopted. We can then move forward in raising the status of democracy by abolishing the so-called "quangos" and, at the same time, letting the people of Wales know that this Chamber discussed thoroughly both their apprehensions and their desires.
The Earl of Lauderdale: As a Scotsman, I have listened to the debate with great interest and some perplexity. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, or other Members of the Committee can explain whether doing anything considered necessary includes raising taxes or rates. The financial powers of an assembly are crucial to its essential functions. I simply ask for information. I am not commenting either way. It is a matter that exercises those of us in Scotland who are worried about the problem. I should like to hear what our Welsh friends have in mind.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It is with—
Baroness White: I was about to give way to a former Secretary of State for Wales. I was no more than a Minister of State but I had the privilege of serving under my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in the later part at least of his term of office as Secretary of State.
Over many years I have steadfastly opposed various proposals for a parliament for Wales mainly on the ground, which has become all too familiar in your Lordships' House in recent times, that it is difficult enough to secure satisfactory general legislation in one legislative body. To attempt to do so in three or four

335
separate legislatures in an area the size of the United Kingdom seems to me wasteful of time and effort and to be quite unnecessary. When some years ago there was an official referendum in Wales on the subject I agreed with the majority against it.
But the purpose of the amendment of my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Prys-Davies is something different. Several noble Lords have already explained the reasons why we are so dissatisfied in the Principality. To my mind the proposed Welsh assembly, which would be an elected body, would provide an absolutely essential channel to secure and maintain an effective and democratic administration for the local government of the Principality. It is not to be more than concerned with our domestic affairs and our links with Europe and the wider world, which are now developing, with the arrangements for the regions and so on, at quite a rapid pace. In those circumstances it is not just a matter of the quangos, difficult as that may be. It is a serious proposition for extending democratic government in a way which can satisfy local people that their needs and opinions are having some effect.
The difficulty with the Bill as it stands, even from the most cursory reading of it, is the astounding range of powers within the competence of the Secretary of State for Wales, with minimal restraint either by Parliament or by people. As one despairing chief executive of a county said to me last week:
"If he wants to, the Secretary of State can change almost the entire Bill simply by using his discretionary powers, without local consideration or consent".
That is how it appears to the rest of us.
As we proceed through the Bill we shall have to take notice of the circumstances to which reference is made in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of the House and also of the circumstances where no reference to Parliament will be required. As my noble friend has said, we in Wales have had no commission about local authority reorganisation. We have had no one with whom we could speak freely. In Wales the Welsh Office proposes and the Welsh Office disposes. This is the basis of some of our very serious dissatisfaction with the Bill before us.
I am sure my noble friend Lord Cledwyn would agree with me that over the years since we were together in the Welsh Office the range of responsibilities of that department has increased enormously. For the Secretary of State to be adequately and effectively advised over the whole area is, in my view, not feasible—certainly when it comes to making valid judgments on the numerous details of local administration with which the Bill before us concerns itself. The well-known phrase "It is not what you know but who you know that matters" becomes more and more of a byword in such a situation. Those of us who have had some experience of the Welsh Office in recent years—we would not necessarily be able to prove it in detail—know exactly what we mean.
I shall not weary the Committee by carrying on further on this matter, but it seems to me that what my noble friend has proposed, or something very like it, is
336
essential if we are to have a feeling of confidence with regard to the local affairs and the local needs of the Principality of Wales.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: It is with an understandable degree of diffidence that I rise to intervene in this debate. The Bill we are considering today is not my Bill. My Bill went through both Houses of Parliament just over 20 years ago. The passage of time has brought about a change inasmuch as it is now thought, and quite widely thought, that the two-tier system which was in my Bill no longer gives the satisfaction that it was hoped it would give and that changes are needed. It seems to me that the changes proposed in the Bill—the replacement of the two-tier system with a single tier unitary authority based on historic counties and county boroughs—are generally acceptable. I am therefore in many ways the villain of the piece and I intervene to make one short point.
Reorganisation as demonstrated in the Bill is reorganisation about removing an unnecessary tier of government. What is proposed in the amendment is the creation of a new and expensive tier of government and bureaucracy, one which will erode the responsibility of local government. As much as I understand how important it is that there should be consideration of the need for a Welsh Assembly, it seems to me that it is inappropriate that it should be introduced into this Bill. Using the Bill as a campaign for a Welsh Assembly is to distort the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to make local government close to the people it serves. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that if one is going to have a Welsh Assembly, it is such an important change that it deserves a separate Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I feel the same diffidence as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, at intervening and for the same reasons. I intervene only to draw attention to a very important commitment that the Government won at Maastricht; namely, the vindication of the principle of subsidiarity. As I understand it, that means that no decision should be taken by any decision-making body if it could reasonably be taken by some subordinate body which is closer to the person affected by the decision. If that is right, it is a powerful argument in favour of the general principle of this amendment.
For the reasons that were given by the noble Lords, Lord Hooson, and Lord Thomas, this measure is not an entirely suitable vehicle for a Welsh assembly; nor is the amendment entirely satisfactory. In fact, on the arguments heard today, there seems to be an unanswerable case for a royal commission on the constitution. This problem of assemblies in Wales and Scotland is bound up with a number of other constitutional questions.
If the noble and learned Lord who is to reply to this debate were to say that the Government will establish a royal commission on the constitution, I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn. Unless he says that, the

337
argument in favour of vindicating the principle, which is really the principle of subsidiarity, is best served by voting for the amendment.
Lord Moran: This afternoon I do not wish to enter into argument about the merits or demerits of a Welsh assembly, but merely to say that I believe it is, as has been made clear by a number of speakers, a very big question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke about regional matters throughout the United Kingdom and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale spoke about a possible royal commission. They have both indicated the width and importance of this question. It is not only very important but it is a controversial question.
We were privileged to hear this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who introduced the Wales Act 1978 when he was Prime Minister; and from the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, who led the "Vote No" campaign in 1979. He was supported then by a number of Labour MPs, including Mr. Neil Kinnock.
I say this only because it indicates that this is a controversial question. Therefore it is in my view inappropriate to try to include it in a Bill such as this, which deals solely with the reorganisation of local government in Wales. The matter should be dealt with either on its own or as part of a review of the whole question of regional government within the United Kingdom. Consequently, I am not happy about these amendments.
Lord Elton: It is Committee stage so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I intervene briefly again. It would be helpful if we could have some reply before we hear from the Front Benches on the question I asked as to whether we are dealing with an elected or an appointed body. If we are dealing with the latter, then what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, puts forward falls to the ground because one is not bringing decision making closer to the people but taking it further away—it is being given to people appointed by central government.
However, if it is to be an elected body, surely we need to know a great deal more about it—as well as what its powers will be and whether it can raise taxes—so that we can talk about it in a sensible way. However, at the moment we are speaking in a vacuum about a body which we can only see most dimly and certainly not well enough to give it any support.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Cledwyn for having explained the background to the amendment. I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Callaghan and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for their contributions.
Perhaps I may now deal with the three detailed points of criticism which have been made. The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as to whether it is to be a directly or indirectly elected body or a nominated body. I have no shadow of doubt that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and I had in mind that this would be a directly elected body; but somehow or other the word "elected" disappeared between last Thursday and today.
338
If the principle of the amendment is acceptable to the Committee, this is a matter to which we can return at Report stage.
I shall now deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt. He was returning to a point of criticism which he made at Second Reading when he suggested that in 1979 Wales had decided that it did not want an elected assembly and that that decision was to be binding on future generations. That was the implication of his intervention. With respect to the noble Lord, that decision was not irrevocable. As my noble friend Lord Callaghan has pointed out, we are living in a different world from that of 1979. I believe that today a referendum would produce a very different result.
In any event the assembly offered in 1979 was one which devolved the powers of central government. The amendment before the Committee does not devolve power from central government (that may be a point of criticism) and it does not deal with the powers of central government because they would not come within the Long Title. That title has been narrowly drawn. So the assembly which is the subject matter of this amendment would be concerned with the administration of local government in Wales.
A third point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir. He said that it is inappropriate to deal with an all-Wales unit in a local government Bill. The answer to that criticism is simple: the word "local" is itself a relative term. It may mean a street or a village, such as Ewenny, which is the subject matter of an amendment to be dealt with later on today, or a town such as Merthyr Tydfil or Ebbw Vale, which is the subject matter of another amendment to which we shall come later today. It may mean one of the oldest surviving constituent parts of the United Kingdom such as the Principality of Wales. In other words, it is a relative term and we are perfectly entitled to discuss the place of an elected assembly concerned with the administration of local government when this Bill is before the House.
Regrettably, we cannot deal with the mischief of the nominated bodies. Except for that, it seems to me that the amendment, modest though it is, is in line with what is recommended by most experienced councillors in Wales and most officials of local authorities in Wales and academics who are involved with Welsh local government. It is supported by the opposition parties in Wales.
I support the amendment on three specific grounds. First, the increase in the number of authorities that will be responsible for strategic services if the Bill is enacted points to the need for a central co-ordinating body in Wales. There will be a need to secure co-ordination and a need to promote co-operation. That work could be done by a Welsh assembly which would have a voice in the government of Wales. The phrase "a voice in the government of Wales" is not our creation. It was much used by the Welsh Office when it published its first consultative document in 1991. Today, however, that phrase has disappeared from the consultative document and the Bill. In the absence of a Welsh assembly, there will be increased Welsh Office involvement, which in

339
due course will also mean the need for additional Welsh Office staff. To the best of my knowledge, that has not been discussed anywhere in the consultation paper and, to the best of my knowledge, the accountants Touche Ross were not asked to examine the issue.
I turn now to the second ground on which I support the amendment. It has been touched on by a number of noble Lords. The amendment—modest though it is—would give the Welsh local authorities a voice within the European Union institutions. Rightly or wrongly, European Union policies and funds, such as the regional fund and the social fund, are of increasing importance to local authorities in the United Kingdom. We in Wales have more than our fair share of the most needy regions of the Community. Local authorities in the United Kingdom generally are being increasingly asked to implement EC primary and secondary legislation in areas relating to trading standards and environmental protection. For all those reasons, it is essential for a lasting reform of Welsh local government that it should be actively involved in Brussels. From my experience as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee, I know that Brussels would much prefer to deal with a Welsh elected assembly than with up to 21 smaller authorities. The amendment would give Welsh local government a voice in Brussels.
My third reason for supporting Amendment No. 3 is this: it seeks in subsection (5) to improve the checks and balances within the Welsh local government structure. Given the experience of the past 15 years, we submit that a major aim of the reform of Welsh local government should be to prevent too great a concentration of power from residing in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales. That has been happening progressively over the past 15 years.
As the Labour Party sees its, the amendment addresses positively the three main issues which have been totally ignored by the Bill. Moreover, I believe that an elected assembly with a modest role—this is a compromise of a model—would bring a new impetus to Welsh life. We believe that it would provide a focus for democratic action
4 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether it is intended that the assembly is to vote supply and to raise money?
Lord Prys-Davies: In our submission, no. It would not have that power.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It will not surprise the Committee that the Government find the amendment unacceptable. I realise that the purpose of the amendment was to raise a matter of general importance. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has stressed just how wide is the issue raised by this amendment. It is the kind of issue that affects the whole of the United Kingdom and raises matters relating to Scotland as well as to Wales. I accept that what has been said reflects the deeply held views of many of your Lordships, including the heretical views held by my noble and learned friend.
340
However, the question is whether the amendment should form part of the Bill. It is clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the assembly envisaged in the amendment is not the kind of assembly that would satisfy anybody. It is a compromise of a model. The wording of the amendment has been chosen to allow it to squeeze into the confines of this particular local government Bill. Whatever assembly might or might not be appropriate for Wales, this is certainly not it.
The basic point about such an assembly as it relates to this Bill is that it runs contrary to the whole thrust of the Government's proposals in the Bill. Those proposals are aimed at reforming the system of local government and at removing a tier of local government. The aim is to entrust the new authorities with appropriate responsibilities.
By contrast, the amendment cuts across that scheme and envisages certain strategic functions being given to the new body, which would have sweeping powers, the nature of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to intervene in local government under the disguise of facilitating co-ordination and promoting co-operation. The Secretary of State would be bound, on matters of local government, to consult not the local authorities, but the assembly. That is interposing an extra tier and it is not the way in which the Government believe that one can set up the best kind of local authority. It would diminish rather than enhance the role of the local authorities.
In any event, as has been pointed out, the amendment leaves rather a lot unsaid. It does not even state whether the assembly is to be elected or appointed. However, we have now heard that it is not to be an additional quango and that it is intended that it should be elected. The precise method is left to the imagination—
Lord Prys-Davies: With great respect, I have made it clear that in the event of the principle being acceptable to the Committee, we shall return on Report with the further particulars.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I take the point, but the amendment as it stands leaves such matters unsaid. It has been admitted that the amendment does not tackle—and cannot tackle—what is thought to be the problem of quangos. It is confined entirely to the matter of local government.
The Government's opposition to the concept of a Welsh assembly is well known. We believe that it would detract from the proper powers of Parliament, exercised in your Lordships' House and in another place. We believe that it is there that the responsibility of the Secretary of State for appointments and other matters should be brought home. Interposing such a body between local authorities and Parliament or between local authorities and the Community is not the way to advance the cause of local government. We believe that it would remove powers and functions which properly belong to local government. The matter of an assembly was raised and debated at length in 1979. I know that it has been said that much has changed, but the matter was

341
raised and determined at that time. We believe that this is certainly not the amendment to bring the matter forward again.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I found the speeches helpful and interesting. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I believe that what he said was valid and right. Nevertheless, I was dealing with the Bill which relates to Wales and putting the arguments that I feel are necessary at this time. My main objective was to draw attention to the weaknesses of the Bill and to the need for another level of government to repair the flaws—if that is possible.
I should prefer to see the Government withdraw the Bill completely, because it is unacceptable. I wanted also to draw attention to, and to stress, the worries which exist in Wales on the issue of quangos. I do not deny that those worries exist also in England and Wales. I was anxious, too, to draw attention to the danger which will flow from the increase in the powers vested in the Secretary of State for Wales.
As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, we have not been able to spell out the detailed functions of the assembly in the Bill. That is not possible. We have given the main functions in relation to the Welsh Office and the unitary authorities. We have received a reasonable reply from the noble and learned Lord; but it was a technical reply. It failed to grasp or to understand the reactions of the Welsh people to the Bill.
Baroness White: And made no allowance for the difference from 1979 to now.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My noble friend has always been helpful to me. If the noble and learned Lord had shown some sympathy for the objective or promised that the Government would look again at this or set up a commission to examine the position and the constitutional implications referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I would consider withdrawing the amendment. But I cannot say that I am satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's response, and I therefore wish lo take the view of the Committee.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Airedale, L.

Bottomley, L.

Annan, L.

Bramall, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Barnett, L.

Carter, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chalfont, L.

Blackstone, B.

Chapple, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

342

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ennals, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Glenamara, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L

Grey, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hayter, L.

Rochester, L.

Healey, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stallard, L.

Hunt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jay, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

McCarthy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cranborne, V.

Addison, V.

Crathorne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V.

Astor, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Birdwood, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blyth, L.

Elles, B.

Borthwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Erne, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Flather, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cadman, L.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goschen, V.

Carnock, L.

Granard, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Gridley, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hemphill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henley, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Hesketh, L.

Cox, B.

Holderness, L.

343

HolmPatrick, L.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Hood, V.

Pym, L.

Howe, E.

Quinton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Kenyon, L.

Renwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Shannon, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mancroft, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Manton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Marsh, L.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swansea, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Moran, L.

Trumpington, B.

Morris, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Oxfuird, V.

Waverley, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Westbury, L.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I report that, due to the lack of custom for dinner in the dining room tonight, it has been agreed through the usual channels that dinner in the dining room will be cancelled. I remind your Lordships that the Bishops' Bar and the Barry Room will be open for dinner as usual.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The New Principal Areas]:
Lord Kenyon Lord Kenyon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 49, line 10, at end insert:

("Breconshire and Radnorshire Brycheiniog a Faesyfed

The districts of Brecknock and Radnorshire together with (from the district of Blaenau Gwent) the community of Llanelly")

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may offer my condolences to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on his countrymen's defeat at Cardiff Arms Park last Saturday. However, I congratulate him on winning the first goal this afternoon.
During our debate on Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate acknowledged that the changes in local government in the early 1970s had cost Wales some of its cultural cohesion. He expressed the view that this Bill will go a long way towards restoring some of that cultural cohesion and sense of belonging.
The cultural structure of Wales, which has developed over the centuries, is not something that can be regulated by statute. Its origins are in the mists of time and no amount of local government Bills will alter the allegiance of people to their local communities. It would not be untrue to say that the strength of these cultural
344
bonds is in inverse proportion to their length, even in these times of high mobility. The longer one tries to make the bond, the weaker it will be.
As Members of the Committee know, I have some practical experience as a local councillor on the relatively compact council of Wrexham Maelor. But even there I live in and represent a ward which is some 10 miles from the guildhall. I frequently find that the council is discussing matters pertaining to an area about which I am totally ignorant. Local government really does mean "local", often involving discussion of nothing more than a few hundred square yards of land, the provision of a piece of equipment in a children's playground or the lopping of a branch off a tree. Those matters are not worthy of discussion in your Lordships' House but are of prime importance to the local community.
In moving the amendment, which must be taken with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, I propose that the old county of Montgomeryshire shall stand alone as one of the new unitary county authorities and that the balance of the Mid Wales county shall be re-named as Breconshire and Radnorshire. That will retain those historic county names in place of the eminently functional but somewhat colourless title of "Mid Wales".
Members of the Committee have heard that the new county of Mid Wales would be more than 100 miles long; that is the distance from Bristol to London. But between Bristol and London one has the benefit of a magnificent motorway or a motor railway which will carry people comfortably from one end to the other in less than two hours. I challenge anyone to undertake the journey from one end of this county to the other in less than three hours. That is on a good day, and heaven knows what it might be in fog or snow. I ask the Committee: what cultural cohesion can exist under those circumstances?
But in Montgomeryshire and in Breconshire and Radnorshire there are well-established community relations which go back many centuries. This Bill, if enacted without this amendment, will do much to destroy them. I must pay tribute to the dedication shown by the body of local councillors, even if in doing so I seem to be blowing my own trumpet. The councillors put in long hours to make their local communities work well and all for very little reward. The last thing that they want to be lumbered with now is the additional burden of travelling many unproductive hours from their homes to their town halls in order to spend time discussing matters of detail which are of little interest to them or to their local communities. Faced with that prospect, I fear that many good and able councillors or prospective councillors will be deterred from standing for the council of Mid Wales.
In a consultation paper on the structure of local government in Wales which was issued in 1991, the then Secretary of State indicated that the principal pillar on which his considerations would be based would be financial. That was a very worthy pillar indeed on which to base a structure for the 21st century. But two other pillars must also be considered. They are those of responsiveness in the delivery of our services and

345
accountability for our actions to the people. Indeed, it is the apparent lack of accountability in certain areas of local government that made this Bill necessary in the first place. Without a visibly creditable performance in these areas the whole purpose of the Bill will be lost.
The countrymen of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will have another bite at the cherry next month at Murrayfield. I hope that he will now feel able to give the inhabitants of Montgomeryshire and of Breconshire and Radnorshire the opportunity to show that they can govern themselves in the way that they perceive will retain their cultural ties most strongly and will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: During our debates on the gracious Speech and on Second Reading I was able to set out the overwhelming case for a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire. The noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, in an impressive speech favouring his amendment—which I signed, having withdrawn my amendment after seeing its terms—set out the geographic problems. He has considerable experience of local government, as had his father. The noble Lord spoke of the need for local government to be local. Here we are discussing a unitary authority which will cover one-quarter of the area of Wales. Even if it were divided into two, one would still be the largest unitary authority in area in Wales and the other would be the third or fourth largest.
I wish to go in particular to the reasoning of the former Secretary for Wales, the right honourable David Hunt. In 1991 he issued a consultation paper which was in favour of 20 unitary authorities for Wales. Of those, Montgomeryshire would be one and Breconshire and Radnorshire would be another. That was at the beginning of the consultation. After the consultation he stated:
"in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties, such as Pembrokeshire, Montgomersyhire, Cardiganshire and Anglesey".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/92; col. 171.]
Therefore, a year after the consultation the Secretary of State stated that he wanted Montgomeryshire. He named that as No. 2. I believe that he did so because in the 1991 debate the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, then a Member of another place, was eloquent in support of Pembrokeshire and against the creation of the huge county of Dyfed. I too was in support of Montgomersyhire and against the creation of the mammoth authority of Powys.
During the parliamentary election campaign which followed that statement in 1992, the Secretary of State attended a meeting of Conservatives in Montgomersyhire. I referred to that on a previous occasion. I now have a little more information about it. He spoke at a village called Llanfechain. As it was his only speech in Montgomeryshire during the campaign, the Conservative Association attended in full strength. I have checked this matter with the then chairman of the Conservative Association in Montgomeryshire. The Secretary of State said, in the course of his speech, that, among other things, he was looking forward to a Montgomeryshire unitary authority. That was not an
346
Opposition MP or any other MP speaking but the, Secretary of State who has direct responsibility for the matter.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, on instructions—of course, he can only speak as instructed on this Bill—said:
"Reference was made from time to time to a promise which it was said that the then Secretary of State made that Montgomery would indeed be a unitary authority. I was not present, but I have been told that the Secretary of State did not make any such promise. He certainly supported the idea".—[Official Report, 14/12/93; col. 1319.]
Therefore, the then Secretary of State supported the idea; and he, and he alone, has the power, subject to Parliament, to grant the authority. He has said in Parliament that Montgomeryshire will be a unitary authority. He then made that statement to great acclamation at a meeting in Montgomeryshire, having dealt with the negotiations which had apparently taken place.
However much "back to basics" may be misinterpreted by some people, it must mean at least that when a Secretary of State makes that kind of statement to a meeting in an election campaign, and then re-states what he has already stated in Parliament, he is leading peopie to believe that, if this Government are returned, Montgomeryshire will become a unitary authority.
As I have said, the movement for a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire, of which I am chairman, is supported by all parties. The chairman of each party is on the central committee and they have been totally steadfast in their support. No one doubted at that meeting but that Montgomeryshire would become a unitary authority.
After the election, there was a change. Why was that? Nobody has ever explained. If Mr. Hunt said, "Well, I may have given the impression that I was going to create that unitary authority but I was overruled in the Cabinet" (which I suspect is what happened) or, "Somebody in the Treasury forced me to change my mind", I could understand that. But many representations have been made to me on this matter and everybody left that meeting absolutely convinced that an undertaking had been given that Montgomeryshire would become a unitary authority.
As I said on Second Reading, the Tudors had it right as regards local authorities. They paid attention to the watersheds. It so happens that I live about eight or nine miles from the sources of the Severn and the Wye. As Members of the Committee will know, they rise about half a mile from each other. The Severn flows to the east. It goes through the Severn Vale to the English border at Shrewsbury and then turns down and goes via Worcester. The communications in Montgomeryshire have always been governed by that. On the other hand, the Wye flows for about six or seven miles to the east, to the village of Llangurig and then, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, knows, it turns south and eventually goes through Radnorshire and Breconshire. Of course, the communications there are governed entirely by that.
As regards the administration of those authorities, the electricity in Brecon and Radnorshire is supplied by the South Wales Electricity Board. In Montgomeryshire, it is supplied by the Merseyside and North Wales

347
Electricity Board. As regards government departments, the Audit Office in Wrexham deals with Montgomery, whereas Brecon and Radnor are controlled from elsewhere. The Severn Trent Water Authority supplies, save for a small part, Montgomeryshire, whereas the Welsh Water Authority serves Brecon and Radnorshire.
I know of no single private business which is based on a Powys concept. It is merely a question of administration. The Powys eisteddfod, which has been in vogue for well over a century now, is coming to my small town of Llanidloes this year and that is as far south as it ever goes, because Brecon and Radnor have their own distinctive and proud heritage and were never a part of Powys. It is only in the mythology of Wales in the 10th century that there is the possibility that there may have been a short period during the life of the son of Hywel Dda when they could have been part of Powys. The language pattern in Montgomeryshire is different.
The size is reflected in costs. Currently Powys County Council has the highest expenditure per head on corporate management of any county in Wales. It spent two and a half times as much as Montgomeryshire, despite having the same number of committees and members; and more than double is spent on members' travelling allowances. That is not to criticise Powys County Council. That cannot be helped when people must travel in order to attend meetings. If that follows for a unitary authority as regards housing and so on, it makes a mockery of local government.
Let us consider the position of the parishes of Denbighshire which have been joined on to Powys, about which the noble and learned Lord will know. When it was announced that Montgomeryshire would become a unitary authority, they wished to leave Clywd to join Montgomeryshire. That made a great deal of sense because they have much in common with Montgomeryshire. To their horror they now find that they have been lumped into Powys. For councillors to travel from those parishes to Llandrindod Wells for council meetings means a journey of about an hour and forty minutes each way. In inclement weather, such as we have had recently, they would probably never reach there at all. Therefore, there is an overwhelming case for a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire.
The combined population of Brecon and Radnor—the other area concerned—is larger than that of Cardiganshire and its area is considerably greater than that of Cardiganshire, and yet Cardiganshire is to have a unitary authority. Why should not Brecon and Radnorshire be that? Everything points in that direction.
As I said on Second Reading, the principles set out in the Government's White Paper are all met by Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnorshire.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: I support the amendment, which also stands in my name. It is a happy coincidence that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, should have so eloquently supported this amendment on Lloyd George's birthday.
The amendment is simple. I should like to concentrate especially on the aspect of it to which the
348
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred in the last part of his speech; that is, the viability and general wisdom of Brecon and Radnorshire as a unitary authority. We propose that as an alternative to this monstrous invention of Mid Wales which is, as has already been said, an authority which covers a quarter of the Principality and which from north to south—the longest axis of this new authority—is roughly the same distance as the distance from Hammersmith to the Severn Bridge. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, has pointed out, from Hammersmith to the Severn Bridge there is a motorway.
Anyone who has lived in, or even visited, Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire will know that one of the great problems of that area is communication. This simply underlines the fact that while the object of this Bill is, rightly, to bring local government closer to the people, the creation of this kind of authority—the Mid Wales proposed authority—does quite the reverse. It takes local government away from the people because the expense and difficulty of administering an area this size at the local government level is obvious for anyone to see. We must bear in mind that the elected representatives on local authorities do not—as we do in the national Parliament—spend most of their time on these affairs. They are local businessmen, local farmers and local people who devote their time, generally in the evenings and at weekends, to this kind of work. They are not going to travel the sort of distances that are implied in this curious new invention of the Mid Wales local authority.
On the other hand, it is true to say that Radnorshire on its own is probably not viable as a local authority although there was an idea at one time that it might well be. However, Breconshire and Radnorshire together—that combination has a certain historic viability anyway—have an administrative viability. They would cover a population of about 68,000 people, and those two counties together would constitute a larger authority than some of the unitary authorities already proposed. I therefore support most strongly the amendment which stands in my name and that of the other two noble Lords who have just spoken. It is an amendment which would improve the Bill. I do not suggest in any way that the Bill itself is at fault, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, believes that the Bill is a bad one. I do not entirely agree with him on that. There are many ways in which this Bill improves local government in Wales; but it would be further improved if this amendment were accepted.
Lord Gibson-Watt: The question which we are discussing is not an easy one. It is one which has vexed a great number of people of various opinions. My noble friend Lord Kenyon, who is a councillor, knows some of the problems of being a councillor. I, too, 40 years ago, was a Radnorshire local councillor. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is right to say that in his opinion—and also in mine—Radnor is too small to be an authority under today's economic circumstances. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, who argued his case for Montgomeryshire in a persuasive and rather aquatic

349
way. The points he made about the Severn Valley and the Wye Valley were correct. However, what I believe he and his colleagues have overlooked is that the present Powys County Council has worked extremely well. I know that it is a long way for people from Ystradgynlais or from the north of Montgomeryshire to travel to Llandrindod Wells, but the fact remains that the Powys County Council delivers good services to its inhabitants and it is for that reason in particular that I oppose this amendment. However, I would ask the Government why they propose to call the authority Mid Wales. Why do they not continue to call it Powys? That would certainly be much more acceptable to me.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I wish to pick up the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt. The county or the principal council area which is designated as Mid Wales Canolbarth Cymru is just not that. Mid Wales is an economic region, so defined by the activity of a number of different statutory bodies, principally the Development Board for Rural Wales. That board operated for a period, using a short title of Mid Wales, as did two of its predecessor authorities—the Mid Wales Industrial Development Association and the Mid Wales Development Corporation. I mention all those because they were either statutory agencies established by Parliament or they were voluntary associations brought together by local authorities, using this description of Mid Wales. I speak as a former resident of the area for 23 years. Mid Wales certainly includes the whole of southern Meirionnydd. It certainly includes Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnorshire, but also includes Ceredigion and arguably could include parts of Carmarthenshire and Dinefwr; and no doubt for some purposes Hereford and Shrewsbury, too. But what we are talking about here is a unit which had an important function and worked as an area—certainly during the period of the 30 years since the Beacham Report—of regeneration at the heart of Wales. I use another designation applied to that area, particularly by the tourist board.
In my view, to create one unitary authority calling itself Canolbarth Cymru Mid Wales is not to strengthen the structure of political administration in that area but rather to weaken it. I shall argue my next point a little later. When we were operating in Mid Wales with a number of unitary authorities working together under the old district system and under the previous local government system of counties pre-1974, we were then able to identify the region and take action in the region. I believe that performance will be less easily delivered under a system which centralises the concept of Mid Wales in an authority. Therefore for reasons of name and for reasons of structure I oppose the view being taken by the Welsh Office and I support this amendment.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, said that Breconshire was too small to be an authority under today's economic circumstances. I wonder whether we ought not to challenge that view before we reach a decision on this amendment because for years
350
and years people have said that larger authorities are better in some mysterious way; but the proof of the pudding is that they are always worse. I remember back in 1962 when my constituency was a local authority in Kent and it was put into a larger local authority in Greater London as part of the London Borough of Bromley. We were told that all sorts of improvements in efficiency would result from that change; but the numbers of staff employed in the authority became much larger than in the combined four authorities that were merged, and the service to the community became much worse.
The clerk of the urban district of Orpington at that time was a Mr. King. I remember being a devil's advocate and saying to him, "You must agree that at least there will be only one clerk, whereas formerly there were four in Bromley, Penge, Beckenham and Orpington". He replied "Don't you believe it, there will be four clerks and another one above them". That is what has happened. There was an enormous increase in administrative expenditure because of the size of the new authority, and the service to the community deteriorated partly because of the distances that people had to travel. That factor has been mentioned by several Members of the Committee. Formerly every service was administered from the town hall in Orpington or Beckenham, as the case may be, whereas after the change the planning offices were situated in one part of the borough, the treasurer's officers in another, the housing offices in a third part and no one knew where to go.
I have a question for the Minister, which was prompted by a discussion that took place at Question Time, on the financial effects of the Bill. The compliance cost assessment note reads:
"This Bill will not result in any significant additional burdens on business. Business will however benefit from having fewer local authorities with which to deal".
I should like to ask the Minister to consider the case of a business which is engaged in building in the area of mid Wales and has to deal constantly with the planning authority, for which purpose it has to send members of its staff to the place where the planning authority is located, wherever that may be. Is it not obvious that in a vast local authority such as this the members of staff of that business will have to travel much greater distances than if they dealt with an authority within the boundaries of Montgomeryshire? How can the calculation find that no increase in costs is imposed on businesses of that character?
The noble Lord who answered the Question at Question Time said that careful procedures were laid down to ensure that cost assessments were correct. I should like the noble and learned Lord to explain how it emerges that no additional costs will be imposed on businesses as a result of the creation of this enormous local authority. That is one example of how services to the community can degenerate as a result of the creation of bigger local authorities. If businesses have to travel large distances to deal with council departments obviously they will not get the same service as they would if the offices were more locally based, to say nothing of the effect on ordinary citizens. I believe that

351
it was Aneurin Bevan who once said that the essence of local government was that people should be able to walk to their town hall. Obviously there is no question of that in an authority which, as a noble Lord remarked, stretches the distance between Hammersmith and the Severn Bridge.
I put it to the Minister that it will be extraordinarily inconvenient for members of the public who have to deal with the offices of their local authority to get to those offices and transact their business. It will also be extremely expensive for them. I appeal to the Minister to consider the proposal and when he winds up at least to let us have some figures as to what the costs will be to the businesses which are involved with local authorities in such a vast area.
Lord Moran: The Local Government Commission for England stated in paragraph 41 of the progress report which it published in December last year that the expected population range for an English local government unit was from 150,000 to 250,000. It went on to say that for Wales the expected population range was between 67,000 and 295,000, with an average population of 137,000. It can be seen from those figures that the lowest figure put forward by the commission, which knows a good deal about the organisation of local government, is 67,000. However, Montgomeryshire is well below that, with a population of some 54,000. Therefore, although an eloquent case has been made today, as on previous occasions, by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for an independent Montgomeryshire, I do not believe that it has been proved that it would necessarily work.
I am concerned not so much with Montgomeryshire, because I do not live there. I live in Radnorshire. I am afraid that Radnorshire is in danger of being neglected in this argument. As I said at Second Reading, my heart is with Radnorshire and, ideally, I should like to see Radnorshire as an independent unitary authority standing on its own. But, if I express doubts about the validity of Montgomeryshire with a population of 54,000, I am bound to express greater doubts about Radnorshire, which has a population of only 24,000. This has resulted in this amendment, which suggests that Radnorshire should be combined with Breconshire, as is the case with the parliamentary constituency.
I have talked to a great many people in Radnorshire. Although many of them would like to see an independent Radnorshire and are not too happy about the continuation of Powys, or Mid Wales, they are much more unhappy about the idea of being swallowed up by Breconshire. Breconshire has a population of well over 45,000 and, inevitably, if one was to put Breconshire and Radnorshire together, the weight of power and influence would move to Breconshire. Although to begin with there might be an arrangement—as has been suggested by the Brecknock Borough Council—for services to be split or to alternate between Brecon and Llandrindod Wells, inevitably in the course of time the argument would prevail and the headquarters would be moved to Brecon. That would be a disaster for Llandrindod Wells, where at present some 500 people
352
are employed by the two councils. One of those councils is bound to go in any case, but if both went that would be a catastrophe for Llandrindod Wells. In addition, a move to Brecon would damage the whole economy of Radnorshire, which is fairly fragile in any case.
The fundamental argument is that people in Radnorshire do not want it. Of all the proposals put forward the one they like least is being put together with Breconshire. I do not believe that one should ignore the wishes of the people. Just to meet the wishes of people in Montgomeryshire one should not ride roughshod over the people of Radnorshire.
There is the problem of the strategic services—trunk roads, strategic planning and so on. That would be a great problem for a small unitary authority. I believe that it is best addressed by the proposed larger authority. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt. Why not call it Powys? I believe that smaller unitary authorities would be bound to result in increased costs.
One point that has not yet been made is that, if there were two or three small unitary authorities, inevitably for many of the functions of local government they would have to resort to joint working. As that is done most effectively with larger authorities, they would have to make joint arrangements with larger authorities to the north and south of the present Powys in order to secure those services. That would be unsatisfactory. It would not happen if the Powys authority was preserved.
There has been a good deal of criticism of Powys in this House. It is fair to say that there has also been a great deal of support for it in mid Wales. Powys Family Health Services, Powys TEC, the CBI, the NFU and the Farmers' Union of Wales, have, I understand, all written in support, as have many individual schools. Therefore there is quite a body of opinion supporting it.
As I said at Second Reading, I believe that the best practical solution would be to retain Powys but to increase the amount of devolution planned to the shire committees in order that matters which are really local could be dealt with locally by the three shire committees, and that matters that are strategic, in particular strategic planning, can be dealt with by the larger authority.
For all these reasons, I am not happy with the proposed amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Swansea: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kenyon and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I was born and brought up in north Breconshire. It is a part of Wales where my heart remains and which I know well and love. I have a great attachment to that lovely part of Mid Wales. I look back with great pleasure to the time when my permanent home was in those parts. I was a member of a rural district council which covered a fairly small area. It was a small friendly authority, completely non-political. Members got on very well with each other; and I believe that we did a good job. I disqualified myself from membership by moving out of the council area. That council no longer exists; but I often shed a quiet tear over the memory of it.

353
Local government should be local. The council depends greatly on an intimate knowledge by councillors of the area and its inhabitants. That principle has been entirely lost sight of. We now have an enormous, amorphous county in Mid Wales called Powys. I shall not venture into unparliamentary language by attempting to describe what I think of it. However, although with respect to my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt the system works well, nevertheless it is a great disaster. That may be a contradiction in terms. It is a disaster that the council loses the close intimacy between councillors and the people it represents.
We have heard from several noble Lords that the county of Powys is over 100 miles long. It stretches the distance from the Severn Bridge to Hammersmith. What member of a council based, say, in Bath or Bristol knows anything of Hammersmith? Members of the council would not know the people they represent. The concept of a county of that size is nonsense.
Since the reorganisation of local government areas in 1972, the former shire counties have been subsumed in those vast, totally impersonal, new counties. The councillors do not know the people they represent; and the people they represent hardly know their councillors.
I believe that Montgomeryshire is a viable unit. It has a population of about 54,000. If it were taken away from Mid Wales, Breconshire and Radnorshire would be a viable unit with a total population of about 69,500. That is a greater population than that of Cardiganshire, which is a proposed unitary authority.
I urge the Government to think again. In the past they have said that they would take Montgomeryshire from Powys. Perhaps the Government will consider again whether they were not right the first time. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. If a county in Mid Wales is to be maintained, let us stick to the name of Powys.
Lord Prys-Davies: The amendments present difficulties. We have had interesting speeches both for and against them. The people of Montgomeryshire have a genuine complaint about the attitude of the Government, bearing in mind the statement that was read by the former Secretary of State.
My initial worry about the amendments is that they will destroy Powys. That could present problems for Breconshire, with a population of about 41,000; and Radnorshire, with a population of about 23,000. On the other hand, the combined Brecon and Radnor authority would have a population of 64,000. On balance, we believe that the problems can be overcome with the aid of the enabling concept, although I do not accept for one moment that that concept is a panacea.
Both new authorities will have access to the enabling authorities. They can set up joint arrangements. We therefore believe that we can support the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: This is the first of a number of amendments that we shall consider today, all of which have the common characteristic that they have the effect of increasing the number and therefore reducing the size of authorities created in the Bill. The Committee may therefore find it helpful if, without
354
seeking to pre-empt debates in later amendments, I explain at this stage some general points in response to the amendments.
First, the Government of course recognise the strength of feeling which is often based on historical factors, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned in connection with Montgomeryshire. Those are historical factors which exist in many areas and which underlie many of the amendments before us. However, as has been made clear throughout the consultation process, which has been an extensive one, the desirability of establishing authorities with boundaries which reflect or strengthen existing community localities is just one of the factors which the Government have sought to take into account in determining the authorities. It would not be right to set up what might initially appear to be locally popular authorities if those authorities proved unable to deliver the services necessary for the people.
Therefore the Government have consistently emphasised that they also want to establish authorities which will be able to provide public services of a high quality which can be delivered efficiently, economically and effectively. It is against that criteria that we have difficulty with the amendments before us today, including Amendment No. 4, to create separate authorities for Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire.
We have in effect two main anxieties, the first of which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in relation to Radnorshire. The greater the number of very small authorities, the greater the number and complexity of the joint arrangements that are likely to be required to give effect to the new structure for services. The Government are not opposed in principle to having such arrangements. Indeed, it is one of the principles in the Bill. But we do not wish to have unnecessary situations in which those complex arrangements may be required.
Secondly and more important, we have very serious doubts about the ability of such smaller authorities to manage their resources in the most efficient and effective way. In our view, the smaller the authority, the greater the proportion of its resources which would have to be spent on central overheads such as finance, personnel and management generally.
At the same time, such small authorities would in practice be likely to find it difficult to attract staff of the same calibre as larger authorities. They would therefore suffer a double impediment and the losers, if that proved to be the case, would be the recipients of local services.
It was with those considerations much in mind that both the present and the former Secretary of State looked particularly closely at all the proposals that had been put forward for small authorities. They accepted those proposals only where they were convinced that a sufficiently good case had been made for their establishment as effective authorities. It is nonetheless worth noting in this context that the proposals for Wales in the Bill already involve the creation of authorities which, on average, are of a smaller population size than those proposed in the parallel legislation for Scotland

355
and those which seem likely to be created for England. So in no sense have the Government been parsimonious with authorities in Wales.
Those are the matters which create the general context.
Turning to the specific group of amendments, the Government of course acknowledge and have acknowledged the strength of the tradition and community identity in the three pre-1974 counties which make up Mid Wales. That strength has come over in the debates in your Lordships' House. But, in taking his decisions, the Secretary of State had to balance those principles against considerations of population and rural sparsity. The considerations suggest that the people of Mid Wales would be better served as part of a single large authority which would be better able to plan the delivery of the full range of local government services. Mid Wales would have a population of about 109,000; Breconshire and Radnorshire would have a population, as the Committee has heard, of about 70,000; Montgomeryshire, with the three communities from southern Glyndwr, would have a population of only 55,000. The smallest among the 21 authorities included in the Bill is Cardiganshire, with almost 68,000.
Again, I take up a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. The Government believe that a Breconshire and Radnorshire unitary authority is not one which would meet either the best interests or—and this is important—the wishes of residents of the areas. In particular, it would not be popular, the Government understand, with the residents of Radnorshire. The two districts, with populations of about 46,000 and 23,000 respectively, are considered too small to be self-standing unitary authorities and there appears to be little enthusiasm among residents for an alternative proposal based on a merger of the two districts.
It has been pointed out that earlier proposals put forward by the Secretary of State made provision—and this was put forward very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson—for a separate Montgomeryshire. However, the proposals provided no more than a basis for further discussion, consultation and consideration. Subsequent to the Statement of the then Secretary of State on 3rd March 1992, detailed consultations were held on the basis of the then 23-authority proposal which accompanied that Statement, involving the local authorities through their associations. Also consulted were private bodies, professional organisations and members of the public.
During the consultations, genuine anxieties were expressed about the ability of small authorities to manage the delivery of the full range of local government services. The concern was reflected in the report of the Structures Group to the Welsh Consultative Committee on Local Government. The report was published in September 1992 and a copy is in the Library of the House. In formulating his final proposals, the Secretary of State took account of those anxieties.
Taking up the question of the inaccessibility of those authorities, the Government have put forward in the Bill—and we shall come to this when we reach Clause 26 and so on —proposals for decentralisation. They are
356
put forward as a genuine response to the concerns of people in areas such as Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. They are designed to deal with precisely this kind of case. What is envisaged is that, where appropriate and desired by the people in these areas, area committees may be set up which would have responsibility for the delivery of many local services and would be fully accountable locally. They would not be mere talking shops, but places in which much of the relevant business of local government for that area could be transacted. Therefore, when it is said that the new body would, in effect, be too remote, too big and too far away, one must measure that in the context of the proposals for decentralisation.
Taking up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to whether there might be more cost involved on certain occasions in travelling some distance to see planning authorities, on certain occasions there might be. However, one must remember that under the existing system those businessmen would have to take planning matters to two authorities rather than one. Under the new proposals they would only have to deal with one. Therefore, in that sense the burden would be lighter.
I have explained the thinking of the Secretary of State in the matter and I have made it clear that, in reaching these proposals, the Secretary of State has listened carefully to what was said in consultations on the White Paper. The Government do not accept the amendments, but the Secretary of State will want to reflect on what Members of the Committee have said today and what may be said subsequently in another place.
Finally, on a point which was raised by some Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, about the name, it is something upon which the Secretary of State would listen to suggestions. In some senses, the name "Mid Wales" may be desirable because in no sense does it overshadow the historic names of Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. Therefore, some may think it preferable for that reason. However, if the overwhelming sentiment of the Committee is that some other name would be preferable, that is something which the Secretary of State would also wish to consider.
In the light of all that and on the basis of what the Committee has said and that the matter will be considered, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is it not correct that what he is saying is that the Secretary of State has a closed mind on the subject? Am I not right in interpreting it that way?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The position is that the Secretary of State has considered the representations that have been made by all the various public bodies and so on. It is now time for Members of your Lordships' House to make representations and for representations to be made by Members of the other place. All those matters will be taken into account by the Secretary of State and I do not think it would be correct to put it that

357
he has a closed mind. He has put forward his policy but he will take into account what your Lordships say and also what Members in another place say.
Lord Hooson: That is a most disappointing answer. When the Minister replied he referred to the average and lower figures that were considered for England and Scotland but did not mention that there are two unitary authorities in Scotland with much smaller populations than Montgomeryshire which work perfectly well. That is why I said on a previous occasion that the Scottish experience is much more relevant. Of course, he has corrected the figures put out so far on population. In Brecon and Radnor it is very nearly 70,000; in Montgomeryshire it is 55,000, anticipated to come up to 60,000 by 1998. It is very significant that the only two noble Lords who have spoken in favour live in Radnorshire. They live very close to Llandrindod Wells—they do not live away from it at all. It has been in one sense a godsend for Radnorshire to have the headquarters of Powys there. Surely the proposal is totally unacceptable. I intend to test the feeling of the Committee on this matter and press this amendment to a Division:
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hanworth, V.

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Haskel, L.

Airedale, L.

Henniker, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Avebury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hooson, L. [Teller.]

Barnett, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jay, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.

Kenyon, L. [Teller.]

Chalfont, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Longford, E.

Donoughue, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals. L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ezra, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Molloy, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mulley, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Ogmore, L.

Hamwee, B.

Peston, L.

358

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Swansea, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Layton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Manton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Moran, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Morris, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mottistone, L.

Chesham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Quinton, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Selborne, E.

Flather, B.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Geddes, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strange, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Howe, E.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wise, L.

Kimball, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 49, line 12, leave out ("and Merionethshire").
I hope that the last debate that we had, and particularly the last vote, will give the Welsh Office cause to reflect on the feelings of this House on the question of the scale and size of unitary authorities, and on the difficult balance between a sense of community and the need for efficient government, which is what we are debating. It was quite helpful that we, as it were, got the result of the game in the last debate. It was not as successful as Saturday—but then I would say that, wouldn't I? However, the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was able to set out the principles under which he, the Government and the Welsh Office approach the matter of the numbers and size of authorities makes it easier for me in moving my Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the strength of feeling and the wishes of residents. The evidence from Merioneth is certainly that a majority of the electors of the district, and a majority of residents, in responding both by petition to another place and by correspondence with the Welsh Office, indicated a wish that Merioneth should be a unitary authority. Merioneth was an historic county and was also the parliamentary constituency which I represented, on the old boundaries, from 1974 to 1983. Certainly my experience is that there is the required strength of community identity which must be the basis of an effective democracy.
I am the first to recognise that there are other considerations and that historical and cultural considerations are not the only ones which apply in matters of local government structure. But I am also faced with another difficulty; namely, that we now see quite clearly the alternatives before us in Merioneth and other would-be unitary authorities. We have received from the Minister the paper from the local government reorganisation group at the Welsh Office which now sets out the criteria for the alternative status that we might have; namely, that of an area subject to a decentralisation committee.
Obviously, we shall talk about the detail of the different structures later in the Committee. But, when we look at that paper, we see that among the criteria set out for applications to be considered for a decentralisation scheme are included geographic, historical, cultural and demographic circumstances. But the paper goes on to set out quite clearly what will not be in the functions of a decentralisation committee. With the exception of some interesting proposals on the relationship between an area committee and the area-based social services provision and the possible linkage between that and housing, it is clear that all major services are to be mainly centralised. For example, the paper says that no education functions could be delegated to area committees. To me it is quite unacceptable that a district such as Merioneth, which has a long and honourable tradition of developing its education policy, providing
360
school and adult education policies and so on, should not be able to have under its area committee much of an influence over education policy at all.
Faced with a choice between arguing for a unitary authority for Merioneth, with a slight extension of the boundaries as set out in the amendment, and the possibility of being only an area committee, I am certain that the majority of the population of the district of Merioneth and a number of surrounding communities both to the north and to the east would certainly want to be identified as a unitary authority.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned the other criterion of size. As my noble friend Lord Hooson said, there are at least two unitary authorities in Scotland currently under the proposed reorganisation which are significantly smaller in size than would be the unit of Merioneth that I propose in these amendments.
It seems to me that the other aspect of the argument relates to the structure proposed in the Bill. Let us not mislead ourselves. We are not talking about a simple scheme to create unitary local government. We are talking about a very complex multi-tiered structure. Again, I hope that we may return to this matter later in the Committee and at Report stage. There will be local government areas which are communities, counties and county boroughs. But there will also be the new principal councils and the area committees subject to the decentralisation schemes. Joint working arrangements will be established by direction of the Secretary of State—the Welsh Office will be extremely busy implementing the whole of the Bill—and there will also be possibilities for joint working authorities, which are in fact further bodies to be created by the Secretary of State (the Welsh Office) on the basis of this Bill. We are told that those bodies are to be treated as new principal councils. So we are talking about a structure of local government which will look much more like a kind of territorial federal system than simple single unitary authorities.
I can see the argument that possibly the majority of powers will be placed with the principal councils. But if the decentralisation schemes and the joint working arrangements, including the joint working authorities, are to be effective, as the powers are set out in the Bill, we shall have a complex system of different levels of powers.
Quite simply, my question, in putting forward the case for Merioneth as a unitary authority, is: what is the difference between having Merioneth as a unitary authority and having a series of powers for decentralisation schemes and for joint arrangements between different authorities? Why is it suddenly thought that a principal council of a certain size, which could itself share its joint arrangements with other authorities around it, is not at least as efficient a way of delivering local government to the residents of that district as the scheme now proposed whereby Merioneth is to have possibly only a decentralisation scheme and not be a unitary authority?
All those matters are by direction of the Welsh Office. Should the Welsh Office have so wished, it could have created—this point refers to our earlier debate—a

361
structure for local government in Mid Wales which was more flexible than the model of the principal council as a unitary authority. It could have created by a small act of the imagination—I believe the department to be increasingly capable of imagination—a system of local government reorganisation which balanced between those criteria of efficiency, skill of delivery of service and community identity.
It is precisely when one comes to those sparsely populated vast terrains of rural areas that the issue of community identity becomes very important in efficiency of delivery of service and identification between population, representatives and both staff and members of authorities. In my view it would have been possible, even within the terms of the Bill as it stands, to designate a historic county such as Meironnydd as a unitary authority and make it subject, by direction of the Welsh Office, to schemes for joint working arrangements or joint authorities which would have met the efficiency criteria and also maintained the notion of community.
That brings me back to the Mid Wales argument. Historically, geographically, sociologically, industrially or whatever criteria one wants, Meironnydd looks in many different directions. It certainly is a part of Mid Wales. It is also part of North-West Wales. It has historic links with North-East Wales, with Clwyd and Powys. The example I quoted in my days as a Member of Parliament for the area was to point out that I had constituents with postal addresses in at least three different postal centres—up in Bangor, over in Wrexham, down in Aberystwyth, and even some as far east as Shrewsbury. That was the nature of the territory. The area is still served by NHS trusts and district general hospitals based in Bangor, Aberystwyth, Gwent, Shrewsbury, Wrexham and Glan Clwyd Bodelwyddan.
Those were the nature of the services delivered for a district such as Meirionnydd. For those reasons, to lump it in with the historical county of Caernarvon, and the district of Arfon and Dwyfor, does not meet with the feelings of the community; nor does it meet with the criteria for effective delivery of service to that area. It will he more difficult to deliver an effective service to the southern part of Meirionnydd if the centralisation with Arfon and Dwyfor based in Caernarvon is the course to be followed.
Historically, the communities of Meirionnydd have been linked eastwards as well as north-westwards. That is why the amendment looks at those communities that have already indicated a wish to maintain a link with Meirionnydd if it were to be a unitary authority; to have them included within the borders. Of course, they are practical people and when they realised that the Secretary of State was not proposing Meirionnydd as a unitary authority, those communities indicated that they would prefer to be part of Sir Ddinbych, Denbighshire authority, which was to be a unitary authority, rather than to be lumped in with an authority centred on Caernarvon.
But given the option of being part of a historic Sir Meirionnydd, Merionethshire, the communities to the east indicated that they would wish to be part of that, as indeed have a number of communities to the north that
362
are now part of the parliamentary constituency in another place of Meirionnydd Nam Conwy. Those issues will arise in a number of further amendments about the possibility of a local option for community councils to decide as to which community they wish to belong.
That brings me to my final point. Of course in the United Kingdom we deal with a centralised system of government, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us. Local government is not really local government. It has no basis of power; it has no statutory basis apart from what is established for it by central Government. Its boundary is not determined by the natural sense of community of how people operate in their social lives. It is determined artificially by central Government and the Welsh Office. In this exercise it is historically the case that the wishes of the people of Meirionnydd are not paramount. The wishes of the people of Meirionnydd have not been sufficiently considered by the Secretary of State in coming to his decision. The only logic that we have heard in any of our local government debates and in the whole discussion on the consultation papers, is to do with the number of authorities.
If the Meirionnydd or the Montgomeryshire cases were conceded, then at least two or three other cases would have to be conceded. In fact, it is only two or three other cases. We are looking at a specific historical community with a particular mix of geography, culture and demography. When we are dealing with that we must also take into account the way in which local populations express their wishes. Those arguments must be balanced with the argument for efficiency. Given that we have a structure within the Bill through the joint working arrangements which could deliver both a unitary authority for Meirionnydd and efficient services across border with Arfon, Dwyfor, Sir Ddinbych, Montgomeryshire or whichever neighbouring authority could be part of those joint arrangements, we could have both the central identity and the sense of community maintained, and also efficiency delivered. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I support the amendment, which will be no surprise to any Member of the Committee. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, is to take our views to the Secretary of State on this matter, he should pay a great deal of attention to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
Historically the term "Mid Wales" was used to denote an area that benefited from certain economic measures. My own county of Montgomery benefited a great deal. Its population is on the increase and has been increasing swiftly over the past few years because of the work of the Rural Development Corporation which was an evolution from the Mid Wales Development Association. That was a voluntary body set up by the five county councils which are to be historically regarded as Mid Wales—Cardigan, Merioneth, Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery.
Bearing in mind that it is an extremely large area, sparsely populated, and that one has in Cardigan two universities which played a vital role in advising the

363
development of the economic rehabilitation of Mid Wales in the Rural Development Corporation, it would have made a great deal of sense if there had been five unitary authorities and they had shared an organisation to provide services. Providing services is not the be-all and end-all of local government. Local government must be local. I advert to what was said earlier in the debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that we need to provide certain services on a regional basis. There is a danger in the Bill of falling between two stools; that is, creating a mammoth authority in order to say that it needs a minimum population to provide the services, and at the same time failing to provide local government. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, proposed one solution and this is another possible solution.
With the Government's emphasis on the role of a local authority in providing services—that is, they do not have to provide them themselves; they are an enabling authority —it would have made a lot of sense in Mid Wales to have that solution. On the consultation process the truth, as I am told it, is that the Welsh Office took the bit between its teeth and was not paying any attention to suggestions made to it of this kind of alternative. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, can probably appreciate that with his experience of Scotland. There are areas of Scotland with which there is no comparable area in England and they must be dealt with on a different basis. Likewise with Mid Wales.
I was struck by the opposition of Arfon District Council to the proposition that there should be a Gwynedd unitary authority including Merioneth. It did not want Merioneth to be joined on to Arfon and Dwyfor. It pointed out that the lines of communication in Merioneth lead into Montgomeryshire. People in Merioneth do not shop in Bangor, as do the people in Arfon and Dwyfor. If they want to shop in a large town, they shop in Shrewsbury, because they use the natural lines of communication. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out, there is a great deal of cross-border co-operation, as it were. There is a tradition of it.
I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales not to have a closed mind on these matters but to look at this problem anew. If he had not created a Ceredigion unitary authority and left it at that one would have had Ceredigion as a central point for Mid Wales, with its two universities available to give expert advice from, for example, its two education departments to the education departments in each of the unitary authorities. That would have made a great deal of sense. With the economic and agricultural departments at Aberystwyth guiding and providing the expertise, there would be no need for unitary authorities to hire for themselves. They could have had it by contract.
I very much support the amendment. I know perfectly well—for I was for 12 years successively the deputy chairman and chairman of the Quarter Sessions in Meirionnydd and I have a great affection for the area—that it would run it perfectly efficiently. It is quite interesting that the clerk, as he was then called, of the
364
Meirionnydd County Council, this tiny county council which we are told was not capable of running itself, was appointed successively when we moved on to these larger authorities. He became the administrator of the Wales and Chester circuit, selected in preference to anyone else, and then became the ombudsman for Wales. That shows the quality of the person who had been attracted to that position. I totally disagree with the broad brush approach taken by the Government, as though local loyalties, local feeling and local tradition mean so much less than the figures provided for them by the Treasury.
Lord Prys-Davies: From these Benches I support the amendment so ably presented to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I believe it to be true to say that Meirionnydd is one of the oldest surviving units of government in Wales and indeed has its origins in the old Hundred of Meirionnydd which predates even the 1284. Over the centuries Meirionnydd has adapted itself to changing circumstances. It was a staunch supporter of Owen Glendower's revolt in the 15th century. It continues to this day to be a very efficient unit of local government and a source of community pride.
If I remember correctly, the motto of Meirionnydd is "Tra Môr, Tra Meirion", which translated means "While there is the sea there is Meirionnydd". The sea is there; the sea will be there; Meirionnydd is there; and Meirionnydd should be allowed to develop as a unitary authority to serve its people in the coming century. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can persuade his right honourable friends to take this proposal back to the drawing board and return with a proposal that will be acceptable to the people of Meirionnydd.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It goes without saying that the Government well appreciate the sense of history and the other factors which go to make up the identity of Meirionnydd, matters which have been put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. But as he himself acknowledged, in considering the question of what is the appropriate local authority area, other factors come into play. In considering that the Secretary of State has taken into account the very factors which have been mentioned—the sparse population scattered over a very large area. Those factors simply cannot be overlooked when determining and settling the boundaries of the new authority.
The population of Meirionnydd would be somewhat less than 35,000. The Secretary of State believes that that is too small to constitute a self-standing unitary authority. It is said that the Bill encapsulates the idea of enabling authorities. I accept that. But that does not get over the point which I made in my general remarks that when one has an authority as small as that, the proportion of its resources that has to be devoted to overheads—of finance, personnel and so on—would be, in the Government's judgment, much too high. It would also leave it vulnerable in competition for staff with the

365
larger authorities. While the enabling concept in some sense has a bearing on this matter, it does not provide the complete answer.
The Secretary of State believes that the people of north-west Wales as a whole—Meirionnydd, Arfon and Dwyfor —will be better served as part of a unitary authority large enough to co-ordinate and provide for the delivery of the full range of local government services and one in which no single part would be able to predominate over the others. The decision to merge Meirionnydd with Arfon and Dwyfor results, as in the decision in the case of Montgomery, from consideration of the consultation documents and from all the representations made by different people. The decision was not taken lightly or blindly. It was taken as the result of considering all that was said, and the points which I have mentioned were the kind of points which weighed.
I accept that joint authorities may be useful in the provision of services. But again, as I stressed in my general remarks, it is not the Government's view that that is an ideal solution. It is better than one should consider whether or not one has authorities which in the first place seem to be able to be large enough and substantial enough to provide services and to enable services to be provided properly for their own areas.
I stress again that in considering this proposal for Meirionnydd one does so against the background of the mechanism which we shall come to consider in due course under Clauses 26 and 27 for area committees. I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, that the guidance indicates that education could not become the responsibility of such an area committee for the reasons which are given in that document. But equally the Committee will have noticed that many other relevant functions, such as housing, planning, environment, health and leisure, can be dealt with by these area committees, which would therefore give an opportunity for the policies to be developed very much with the needs, desires and wishes of the community of Meirionnydd in mind. I believe that when it is looked at overall that is an acceptable way forward, an acceptable compromise, if one likes, between the desire to represent the local community and the importance of getting a stable and balanced structure of local government.
The Government do not accept the amendment, but I stress and say quite sincerely that the Secretary of State will wish to consider what has been said in Committee today and what may be said in another place. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and for an indication that there can perhaps he further consideration by the Secretary of State at least of the separation of powers between the area committees and the unitary authority. I should also like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, for their contributions. I believe that we have seen, particularly from the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the
366
alternative route which the department could have pursued. I still take the view that the response to the sparsity question is not to say that because. they are sparse these people should not be properly governed. The response should be that because these people are sparse, in a sense they require more government. I do not mean that in the sense that they require more forms of intervention, but that a larger proportion of overheads may need to be available to them in order that services are sensitively delivered to that area. That is the argument I am putting forward.
I now turn to the staffing argument. I will not accept, and I know that all my colleagues in this House who know Welsh local government will not accept, that some of our smaller authorities have not in the past produced innovation of policy, standards of public administration and innovation in all aspects. I refer to the Isle of Anglesey in the 1940s and 1950s as regards education and the leisure services, and the small authority of Dwyfor which has struggled to develop its environmental service and leisure potential. It has a language policy which has set an example to many other authorities in the past. Therefore, it is possible to have within the smaller authorities forms of innovation which match the needs of the local population and which can provide for a high quality of service and a high quality of life.
I am in a little difficulty here because I have recently moved from the district of Merioneth to Caernarvon so in a sense I do not want to appear too critical of the possibility of cohesion between Caernarvon and Merioneth in a future authority. It is definitely the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, pointed out, that the district of Arfon did not want to be part of this unit with Merioneth. I am yet to be convinced that the solution of the area committee is one which will excite people in Merioneth. They will not feel that they have real autonomy. They are not even allowed to make the final decision for any schemes prepared under the Welsh Language Act 1993. If the area committee of an area like Merioneth cannot even make its final decision on language policy, the area committee is hardly likely to represent an autonomy which will satisfy the community.
Having said all that, so that further consideration of this matter can take place and the Welsh Office can have an opportunity to look at our debate and the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate can discuss these issues, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 49, line 17, column 2, at end insert ("and (from the community of Taffs Well) the wards of Taffs Well and Ty Rhiw with (from the district of the Vale of Glamorgan) the communities of Barry, Dinas Powys, Llancarfan, Llandough, Michaelston, Penarth, Pendoylan, Peterston Super Ely, Rhoose, St. George Super Ely, St. Nicholas and Bonvilston, Sully and Wenvoe.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps it may be convenient to the Committee if I also address my remarks to the two other amendments which

367
stand in my name. There is a wide consensus in favour of single-tier local authorities. I have long held the view that Cardiff should never have lost the unitary status which it enjoyed prior to 1974. It is right that we should seek to restore to the capital city a local authority capable of exercising all the local government functions.
My concern today is that the provisions of this Bill constrain the capital city of Wales within artificial boundaries created by the Local Government Act 1972. The Government maintain that that Act had many flaws which require the wide-ranging revisions contained in the present Bill. The boundaries established in 1972 may have been appropriate 20 years ago in the context of county and district government, but they are not appropriate today for a unitary authority and most certainly will not serve the needs of the future.
Cardiff deserves the same opportunities which other United Kingdom and European cities enjoy. Cities such as Bristol, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cologne, Copenhagen, Seville and Bologna, are emerging as driving forces in their areas. Indeed, Professors Minford and Parkinson have described cities as the "wealth of nations" and as "economic dynamos". I agree with that view. Therefore, I believe it is essential that Cardiff should encompass all the strategic assets which drive cities forward.
There are many key assets in the area—that is to say, the M.4 corridor, Cardiff Bay, the city centre, Barry Docks, the green belt and the Cardiff (Wales) Airport are among those. Cardiff must have room to accommodate planned development without destroying important environmental assets. It must have a population base approaching 450,000 in order to register on the European and world stage. Cardiff must not be denied this opportunity which will enable it to take its rightful place along with the United Kingdom and European cities which are poised to take us forward into the 21st century.
The boundaries of Cardiff have been extended on six occasions since 1875. There is nothing special about the 1972 arrangements. At that time Parliament did not expect them to be regarded as the final solution. This Bill provides for a Cardiff authority with the highest population of the 21 proposed authorities. In doing so it recognises that Cardiff is a special case. In geographical terms, the Bill will make Cardiff the second smallest of the 21 new authority areas and the highest population confined to one of the smallest areas. It provides a recipe for urban sprawl, for unplanned expansion into valuable green belt areas which is something we must avoid. I understand that the Land Authority for Wales will shortly be announcing that housing land in Cardiff will dry up in five years.
The future of the city was of some controversy during the passage of the 1972 Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Gibson-Watt, both made contributions at that time. The problem which was faced then was that Cardiff was having many of its powers taken away from it, such as education, personal social services and others. These powers were being handed over to the new county of South Glamorgan. Speaking about Cardiff at the time the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said:
368
"We feel that it is undesirable that areas which ought to be looked at as a whole for such matters as town and country planning, roads, education, and personal social services, should be split by boundaries which are based on the out-dated idea that the county borough should begin where the continuously built-up area ends".—[Official Report, 31/3/71; col. 1406.]
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, when he was a Minister in another place, in defending the setting up of South Glamorgan County Council, said that Cardiff would be split:
"permanently from the coastal plain with which it has close geographical, social and economic links".
Those views are even more appropriate today than they were when they were uttered.
The partnership between central and local government and the wider business community has been particularly successful in Wales, supporting the claims that are being made daily that the Principality is leading us out of the recession. The capital city has been a very powerful component of that success. It is essential that the fragile recovery in Wales is not strangled at birth. The Cardiff Bay development will be an essential ingredient and, with the eventual passage of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act, Parliament has recently decided that the city should be physically joined to the Vale of Glamorgan, ensuring that the futures of both areas are inextricably linked. Artificially to separate complementary areas which will be joined physically will serve only to slow down or even derail the proposed development.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, said in another place when proposing the creation of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation:
"The objective … is to put Cardiff on the Map as a superlative city which will stand comparison with any such City in the world, thereby enhancing the image and economic well being of Cardiff and Wales as a whole".
The city cannot fulfil its role if it is to be constrained within the boundaries suggested in the Bill.
I understand that if the Government were to regard my amendment sympathetically, a number of consequential amendments would be necessary. It is in that light that very serious discussions have been going on back home between the local authorities. Although one can never get agreement on everything, I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that there is a very large measure of support for an agreement in which we could bring forward the consequential amendments.
In conclusion, I think that I heard the noble and learned Lord say that all the amendments concerning boundaries would increase the number of local authorities. That is not true in this case. This amendment would reduce them. I beg to move.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Over 30 years ago as chairman of the Welsh parliamentary party, I had the privilege to lead a deputation to the then Home Secretary, the late Lord Tenby, Gwilym Lloyd George, to seek government agreement to the appointment of the City of Cardiff as capital city of Wales. Leading the Welsh parliamentary party, I had the support of all the Members of all political parties in the other place, including that of my noble friend Lord Callaghan who was one of the distinguished Members representing the

369
capital city at that time. Of course, there were other distinguished candidates for the post of capital city—some in North Wales and one in my own constituency. But Cardiff was chosen and since then has grown in importance and dignity.
It has one of the most attractive city centres in Europe. It is a centre of government, of education and the arts, not to mention sport—especially last Saturday. I live as far from Cardiff as a Welshman can go. Indeed, another capital city, Dublin, is much nearer to my home than Cardiff. However, Cardiff is a great city and a great capital of which we are proud. It deserves all the privileges and honours which local government can bestow upon it. For those reasons, I support my noble friend and his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: I rise briefly to support the amendment for the reasons that have already been stated. I shall not rehearse them except to say that as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, Cardiff nowadays (unlike its aspect in the 1930s) is a city of great beauty and great spaciousness. It is a dynamic city. The Cardiff Bay development project, the concert halls, the opera house, Welsh National Opera and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, the sports centres have made Cardiff into a great capital city of a great Principality. However, Cardiff can and should go further. It should become one of the great cities of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, has said. I wish that we could get away from the curious conceit of the "Euro-capital", which to me is an ugly phrase. The phrase "European capital" does well enough. For all the reasons that I have given, I can see Cardiff in the next century as one of the great European capitals, and it is for that reason that I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Molloy: I should like briefly to voice my appreciation of and support for the amendment which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa and for the way in which he presented it to the Committee. The final and absolute proof that everything that he has said about Cardiff is correct is when somebody from Swansea agrees with him. I am proud to be able to do that tonight because I believe that not only Swansea and Neath but all the other towns in Wales, particularly in South Wales, will appreciate the fact—there can be little doubt about it—that in the past 20 to 30 years Cardiff has grown in all ways, particularly culturally. It is not merely a great Welsh city and a great British city, but a great European city. Therefore, I hope that the reasoned amendment of my noble friend Lord Brooks will find support in this noble Committee.
Lord Hooson: I, too, support the amendment. It seems to me that, as I said on Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said that he intended to table such an amendment, he must be right to do so. Unlike other noble Lords, I do not have the detailed geographical knowledge that would enable me to agree with all the points raised in the amendment, but in principle it must be right that a greatly developing
370
capital city such as Cardiff should have room to expand and should be able to control those areas into which it probably will expand.
Lord Aberdare: To square or round up the circle, perhaps I, too, may say a word in support of the amendment, particularly in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, quoted my words of considerable wisdom of some time ago. What is more, as I was in charge of that Bill in this House, those words represented the views of the Government, so I have no reason to withdraw them. I think that it is right that the capital city of Wales should have room for expansion. It certainly should have within its borders its own airport and the area of the Cardiff Bay development.
Baroness White: I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Callaghan would favour us with a contribution because he, after all, has a close connection with Cardiff—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: If my noble friend will permit me to intervene, I was reserving my fire until I had heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord the, Lord Advocate.
Baroness White: I apologise unreservedly if that was my noble friend's intention.
Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to be present on Second Reading, but naturally I read the report of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, who has now left his place, referred to way back in 1969–70 when the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, was Secretary of State. He was the Secretary of State who succeeded my noble friend and for whom I was a Minister of State. The noble Viscount was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, for not having undertaken at that time a reconstruction of Welsh local government. We left it for succeeding Welsh Office Ministers so to do. Apart from the fact that we had many other things to do, one of the reasons that we hesitated in 1969–70 was the difficulties attaching to some areas in Wales. We did not want to embark upon a wholesale reorganisation of Welsh local government until we could see the way clear.
I am afraid that subsequently, when the succeeding Conservative Government took charge and introduced the Bill in 1972, they understandably made some errors of judgment, and who would not in such complicated situations? To my mind, one of the most serious of their errors of judgment was the creation of South Glamorgan and the lack of concern for the capital city of Cardiff. I do not want to go into the whole question of South Glamorgan, but anyone with any sense would have realised that what Glamorgan needed at that time was a west Glamorgan with Swansea and an east Glamorgan with Cardiff. The whole nonsense of the creation of South Glamorgan arose from mistaken political aspirations, which I am afraid the Conservative Party found not to be as promising as it supposed they were going to be. But I must not go into that further.
Unless we do something specific in the Bill, Cardiff will remain hemmed in physically from the area to which it should be entitled, because as far as I can see there is nothing in the Bill which will help Cardiff.

371
Therefore it was extremely important that my noble friend Lord Brooks should have put down the amendment. I cannot pretend for a moment that I agree with every detail of it, but something serious should be done to enhance the possibilities for the capital city of Wales. That is an extremely important part of the Bill. I hope that it will be taken seriously and that the error of 1972 will be corrected forthwith.
Lord Prys-Davies: My noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa has developed the case for a greater Cardiff council. Indeed, he touched upon that point on Second Reading. He has been well supported in Committee, and I am sure that that has given him great pleasure.
The amendment seeks space to enable Cardiff to develop not just as the capital city of Wales but as one of the more important capital cities of Europe, with its appeal to the European investor. I understand—I am not sure whether my noble friend mentioned this—that the case is supported by business interests in Cardiff, and that the two county councils are supportive of the proposal, and that is good.
There is one point—it would be putting it too high to say that it causes me concern—about which I have a little anxiety. It arises out of two letters which I have received. It is only fair that I should mention this. I have received a letter from the leader of Cardiff City Council which seeks to set out an alternative view for Cardiff's future. I cannot offer a judgment on that alternative view. I have also received a letter from the leader of the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council, who tells me that his council is opposed to the amendment. Clearly those letters contain relevant information, and I should be failing in my duty if I were not to mention them.
I am the first to accept that my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa has raised an important issue which must be addressed seriously as quickly as possible. Of course, as so often happens when one embarks upon an inquiry, the answer may give rise to other issues which may not have been identified or thought through. I have no idea how the Government will respond to my noble friend, but we on this Front Bench hope that the Government will give further consideration to the amendment and report back. I thank my noble friend for the way he presented the case.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It has been said by several Members of the Committee that Cardiff is a great capital city for Wales. I do not believe that anyone in this place would disagree with that description. It describes how Cardiff has developed over the years and how it has grown to the state that it now enjoys. That does not mean to say that a Scotsman necessarily approves of everything that happens form time to time in its Arms Park. But otherwise it is undoubtedly a capital city which has the admiration of people not just in Wales but throughout Britain and elsewhere. That has happened with Cardiff within its present boundary.
The amendment proposes to do away in effect with the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority, partitioning it so that the Cardiff authority would acquire the eastern two-thirds, with the rest going to Bridgend. The Government do not believe that that proposal would
372
reflect the wishes of the people in the areas concerned. When the White Paper was produced, Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council expressed support for the proposals contained in it. Therefore, it seems to me to be wrong to say that the White Paper contained nothing for Cardiff; it obviously contained what Cardiff City Council thought was appropriate. It therefore comes as no surprise to hear that correspondence to that effect has been received. On the contrary, it is clear from the consultations that we have had that the proposal would meet the strongest possible opposition from the areas in the Vale of Glamorgan which under this proposal would be absorbed by Cardiff. This is an occasion when I can say that we are taking carefully into account the views of the local people.
The idea behind the proposal seems to be that Cardiff needs this expansion of its boundaries to enable it to grow. My understanding is that redevelopment sites are available in Cardiff, particularly of course those which will become available in the Cardiff Bay area. There are also other sites, major and minor, on the periphery of the city. The Welsh Office does not have the information given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, about that being available for housing for a period of five years only. It is possible also to identify other sites within the existing boundaries in accordance with Cardiff's local plan. As for sites for employment, they are available in the Cardiff Bay area and the Wentloog area. The development of transport also means that facilities can be found in Pentwyn and elsewhere on the city's periphery.
For those reasons, the Government believe that there is enough land available for expansion of Cardiff for the foreseeable future within its existing boundaries. The Government believe that the proposal is therefore unnecessary on the terms on which it is presented and would be bitterly resented by the population of the Vale of Glamorgan. It is not desired by either the Cardiff City Council or the Glamorgan Borough Council. For those reasons the Government cannot accept the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will understand that his comments will be received in Cardiff with great disappointment. I assume that that applies too to a number of Members of the Committee who have spoken in favour of the amendment. There is no need for me to state the case because it has been put extremely well, and a good wine needs no bush. I must say, however, that the plans which exist for Cardiff and the development which is now taking place are of great benefit not only to Cardiff but to all the contiguous areas and to Wales as a whole.
I too have had the privilege of seeing the architectural plan for the proposed new Welsh National Opera House. There is no need for me to say in this Chamber that the Welsh National Opera is of international fame. I do not say that in a parochial way, because the opera company is recognised throughout the world as being remarkable

373
and of outstanding ability. If the competition produces the expected results, it is to be housed in what I hope will be a splendid building.
That will be of benefit not only to Cardiff but to Penarth, Barry, Peterston Super Ely and to the other areas which join in the cultural and sporting activities in Cardiff. During the 50 years that I have known the area those districts have become one. There used to be separate boundaries but the districts which I have mentioned are now almost part of Cardiff. The area is becoming a whole. I say with reluctance that it is not sufficiently convincing to say that, because the local inhabitants are opposed to this—and the noble and learned Lord is probably right in saying that—the future of Cardiff as a great international city should be set on one side.
I have known the area for many years and I have never known a time when the local inhabitants on the borders of Cardiff and surrounding Cardiff have not been opposed to absorption by Cardiff. I doubt whether there is any city where that is not true. To be fair, some of the local communities have first-class local institutions; urban and rural district councils, parish councils and so on. But, frankly, that time has now passed.
Although we are always telling the Government to listen to the people, surely there must come moments in the history of a nation—and we are speaking of the capital city of that nation—when its interests as a whole should be placed first. One might compare the constriction of the areas around Cardiff—it is almost like a surgical neck brace—with other cities. I have seen maps of some cities but not, I regret to say, of Edinburgh. I only wish I had—
Baroness White: It has far more than Cardiff.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: As always, my noble friend is better informed than I am. She first interviewed me in 1942 when I wanted to become the candidate for Cardiff South and asked me the most pertinent questions. She has done so ever since and has been putting me right. I am sure that my noble friend is right in her comment. I wish to make the point that the constriction is more severe around Cardiff than around any other capital city that I saw in the series of maps that was produced to me.
I strongly urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate not to rely only on the argument that there is well-found opposition among some local authorities on the border; that is to say, parish councils, rural councils and so forth. There is well-found opposition, but the noble and learned Lord should look at the interests of the nation as a whole and of its capital city. I have no doubt that in any objective context it will be said that Cardiff should have an opportunity to breath. It does not have that opportunity at present.
I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord a question and perhaps he will be good enough to rise to his feet again. Will he examine that argument before Report stage? Will he ask the Secretary of State whether the department has looked at the matter from this point of view? It may recognise that there is an objection from local people, but will it ask whether that should be the
374
final argument? If the noble and learned Lord will do so, many of us will be given a great deal of hope. We shall work closely with him to see what can be done to achieve a proper solution.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My noble friend Lord Callaghan addressed the opposition which comes from perhaps a majority of the people in the Vale of Glamorgan. I shall say nothing about that, except that in local government terms the favourite word of the Vale of Glamorgan District Council is no. It says no to everything. Successive Secretaries of State, not necessarily of my party, will tell the Committee that the local authority of the Vale of Glamorgan is not the most accommodating when it comes to innovation and development.
As leader of South Glamorgan County Council I had the most tremendous problems in attracting one of the most welcome industrial developments in Wales. The Bosch company approached the council and said, as footloose companies do, "That is where we want to go". That was in the Vale of Glamorgan. Thankfully the land belonged to South Glamorgan and it was able to give itself planning permission. But the day after the announcement all hell broke loose. There we were trying to get first-class jobs into the area but the Vale of Glamorgan District Council opposed us. That will be the pattern in the future.
I am trying to ensure that one local authority is created for that area so that those tensions will not exist. If a local authority is created along the lines which I am suggesting it will protect the rural part of the vale. There are economic growth points in the Vale of Glamorgan which the district council has done little or nothing about since reorganisation. Barry is virtually in a time warp; nothing has happened. Whenever the county council has approached the Vale of Glamorgan District Council in order to get something done it has been unable to get anything off the ground.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies stated that he has received letters from the Vale of Glamorgan District Council and the Cardiff City Council. I am sure that he has had letters from other organisations too in support of what I have said. My noble friend nods his head in agreement. The Vale of Glamorgan District Council has not written to me, nor has the leader of Cardiff City Council. Ironically, the member would be the district councillor of the ward in which I live. However, he has not been in touch with me and perhaps I am not surprised. The Vale of Glamorgan District Council would write such a letter, and I am sure that it has written many others of the kind. One can expect no other response.
Many members of the Cardiff City Council, certainly those of the controlling Labour group, were convinced by their officers that on an appointed day the council would take over the responsibilities currently carried out by South Glamorgan County Council. Since that, they have learnt that that is not the case and that, as with the 1972 reorganisation, ward boundaries have to be drawn; ward parties must meet to choose their candidates, and many may not be councillors in the new authorities. The same applies to the present county councils. But that did

375
not occur to them until later. I assure my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and the Committee that there are members of the Cardiff City Council who have since changed their minds. Whereas the Vale of Glamorgan may or may not be unanimous in its view, Cardiff City Council is not unanimous in its view.
There are members of the city council who will say that they did not have the opportunity to study the evidence putting forward the Cardiff case, which was sent to the Welsh Office. The case was given to them in documentary form; they were addressed; and it was immediately taken away from them. At least when I was leader of the county council, members of all parties were informed stage by stage of the approach that was being taken.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appears to have thrown cold water on what I seek. However, I do not believe that the door is yet closed. I believe that there is still time to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales that this is the opportunity to create a Cardiff of the kind that I seek. If it is not done today, it will have to be done fairly shortly and we shall have the agony all over again. In that light, and to give us more time to impress the Secretary of State, I shall not press the amendment.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate wishes to speak again.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I have noted what Members of the Committee, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, have said. It would be wrong for me to say that I shall not convey that to the Secretary of State. But it would also be wrong for me to raise any hopes by doing so. This case is different from the others because there is a distinct body of opposition in the Vale of Glamorgan. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said about that; but that opposition exists, and it must be borne in mind. Therefore, I do not wish to raise any hopes. I shall draw what Members of the Committee have said to the attention of the Secretary of State, and I can go no further than that.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 49, line 20, column 2, leave out ("Llanelli").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19, which is, in every sense, consequential upon it. In doing so, I must point out that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List in that in Amendment No. 19 Llanelli should be spelt with an "i" and not with a "y". That is not merely a matter of Welsh susceptibilities. There are two places with the same name but one is spelt with an "i"; and one is spelt with a "y". I am talking about the one spelt with an "i".
The purpose of the amendment is to establish Llanelli as a single unitary authority. That would correct another
376
anomaly in Schedule 1. The first major anomaly is one on which we have already had an interesting debate—that is, the question of Mid Wales. At that time I was beginning to fear that the Government were proceeding upon the familiar precept: "My mind is made up. Pray do not confuse me with the facts". However, since then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has indicated that he is willing to take back some of these matters to his right honourable friend. If he is prepared to do that, he will find that in most cases the amendments are unlikely to be pressed to a Division.
The issue as regards the amendment is the identity, integrity and local autonomy of Llanelli, which I was beginning to think had become something of a lost town. When I first looked at Schedule 1, I saw Cardiff and Swansea among the counties, and Bridgend, Newport and Neath among the county boroughs; but I saw no sign whatever of Llanelli. Indeed, there is no sign of it until one looks at the "small print" and the districts of Carmarthenshire. There Llanelli is shown in small print and is given very much the same kind of status as Gwyddelwern or Blaenau Gwent or any of the other smaller units in Wales.
and yet Llanelli has a population of between 75,000 and 80,000. That is well above the lower limit of viability set out for Welsh unitary authorities. It is at least worthy to be treated on a level with Caerphilly, Bridgend and Wrexham, all of which are to be county boroughs.
But the argument here is not merely one of size and importance. I understand entirely the thrust of the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on size and the other factors which must be built into the calculations and considerations about the establishment of unitary authorities. Therefore, I am not making much of an argument as regards size in this case, although I believe Llanelli to be in every way sufficiently large and important to create a viable local unitary authority of its own.
The important fact is that the Bill provides that Llanelli is to be part of a unitary authority in Carmarthenshire with Carmarthen. That would cover another large area of South Wales—nearly 1,000 square miles of South Wales. That is nothing like as large as Mid Wales, but it is still sufficiently large and widespread to present difficult and expensive administrative problems.
Even that is not really the crux of the argument. The real issue is one which I might call synergy. I know that "synergy" has become a buzzword in business and political science but it has a real meaning. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it means the combined or correlated action of a group of organisms. If that is taken to be the definition of synergy, there is no synergy between Llanelli and Carmarthen. Economically, socially and culturally, they are entirely different communities. They are organisms in which combined and correlated action is unlikely, if not impossible.
I do not take sides as between Carmarthen and Llanelli. It would be quite wrong for me to do so. I have a great affection for Carmarthen, which is the cradle of so much Welsh history. Indeed, some 20 years ago in

377
Carmarthen, at the time of the national eisteddfod, I unveiled a memorial window to Iolo Morganwg. Iolo might not be everybody's cup of tea but he was a Welshman whom many held in great esteem. Those familiar with Welsh history will know that Iolo Morganwg first integrated the Gorsedd of Bards into the national eisteddfod in that great eisteddfod also held in Carmarthen in 1819. I do not suppose that any Members of the Committee will remember that, but those who know the history of Wales will know that little titbit.
I also have an enormous affection for Llanelli if only because for many years I have been vice-president of the Scarlets, Llanelli Rugby Club. Indeed, I could almost claim that my spiritual home is at Stradey Park.
Several remarks have been made with the utmost delicacy about the tragedy which befell Scotland in Cardiff on Saturday. I shall not dwell on those events in deference to the susceptibilities of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I merely point out that of the 15 heroes who ran onto the field at Cardiff Arms Park, eight came from the Llanelli Rugby Club. I do not put that forward as any qualification for the status of the unitary authority. but It is not a matter to be treated lightly.
To be somewhat more down to earth and serious about this, there is a fundamental difference between the cultures and the economies of the town of Llanelli and Carmarthen and Carmarthenshire as a whole. Carmarthenshire is predominantly rural and agricultural, It has some industry. Morgan Marine and Albion are situated in the county of Carmarthenshire but the industry of Carmarthen accounts for only 7 per cent. of its whole workforce. In Llanelli 31 per cent. of the workforce are engaged in industry in such great industrial concerns as British Steel and the Delta Group. The difference is enormous. In Llanelli the borough council has put large sums of money—some from the Welsh Development Agency and some from the European Union—into a carefully co-ordinated and planned infrastructure designed to develop the industry in the town.
In 1993 the capital expenditure was something of the order of £14 million. That was a much larger sum than the capital expenditure in Carmarthen. This is a springboard for some exciting and dynamic projects in Llanelli. There is a business park, a country park at Pembrey where the ordnance factory used to be, a motor sports centre and the imaginative and exciting plans for the town centre itself. I suspect that, if the present scheme is implemented and if Llanelli is absorbed into the unitary authority of Carmarthenshire, a local government authority based in Carmarthen is unlikely to pursue with sufficient vigour this kind of development strategy.
The other point which has been made on several occasions in this debate—it is equally true in this case—is that we seem to be running counter to the professed aim of the Bill, which is to bring local government nearer to the people. We shall again have a large area—not anything like as large as Mid Wales, but large enough—and there is a real feeling that this will take away from the people of Llanelli the sense of being governed by people who know their interests,
378
aspirations, economic plans and ambitions. I think there will also be—if this plan as it is at present set out goes forward—a certain amount of hostility and resentment, as there was when Pembrokeshire was obliged to be amalgamated into Dyfed. Many of my noble friends in this Chamber will remember the effects of that. I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—I ask him to ask his right honourable friend to reconsider this—that it would be better both for Carmarthen and for Llanelli if they were two smaller unitary authorities. Neither would be too small and each would be well over the lower limit which is generally accepted as the smallest size for the viability of a unitary authority. Several proposed authorities in the Bill at the moment are considerably smaller than either Carmarthen or Llanelli standing on its own.
I wish to make a final point in the context of many things that have been said in this debate. Some Members of the Committee have put forward as a reason for rejecting or accepting an amendment the feeling, support or opposition, of the local people. In this case there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever and no equivocation. Right across the political spectrum in Llanelli, in business and everywhere else, there is support for this wish to be separated and for Llanelli to become a unitary authority on its own. It would be a tragedy if a forced marriage of incompatibles were allowed to discourage and damage the vibrant sense of enterprise that everyone finds now on even a brief visit to Llanelli. It is in that context that I move the amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may be surprised to find Aberavon coming to the rescue of Llanelli. I rise to my feet—I am only just within the margins of the rules of order—to inform the Committee that Amendments Nos. 26 to 30, which stand in my name, are designed to save the integrity of the borough of Port Talbot in the same way as the noble Lord has sought to save the integrity of Llanelli. Unhappily I shall shortly have to preside over an Anglo-Japanese dinner which has been transplanted to London. However, it is a good cause. Therefore I fear I shall not be able to speak to my amendments tonight, although I hope I shall have an opportunity to return to them on Report.
The case for Port Talbot was presented on Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. He and I are two freemen of the same borough of Port Talbot. Yet another who was born in the same borough is to be made a freeman next month—Sir Anthony Hopkins. There is therefore quite an army of distinguished citizens from that borough who I am sure would wish to support me now in speaking up for Llanelli. That is the only reason I am able to rise to my feet at this moment.
I believe the question of synergy is important in all these cases. Having started my life as a relatively radical Conservative I am becoming increasingly conservative with the passage of time and I am becoming increasingly hostile to the upheaval of local authorities for the sake of principled tidiness. I believe there is a great deal to be said for preserving those which have

379
worked well and which have a distinct sense of identity. There is no doubt that Llanelli has a powerful sense of identity. Port Talbot and Neath are situated in separate valleys and constitute quite separate communities. They would make uneasy bedfellows. I hope I may be allowed to trespass that far on the goodwill of the Committee and commend the amendment that I shall not be able to speak to as being at least as valuable as those which have been so eloquently commended by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Hooson: My late lamented friend, the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would never have forgiven me if I did not support this amendment, because much of the knowledge I have of Llanelli is based on stories that Elwyn used to relate to me. Everyone who knows Llanelli knows that its background is very different from that of Carmarthen. Carmarthen is a rural area and has rural values, whereas Llanelli was a thriving industrial town. Much of the emigration which took place from Montgomeryshire to the United States of America in the early part of the 19th century was from Llanelli. The Committee will be surprised to learn that in those days Llanelli was a thriving port. The silting up of the port has spoilt that these days.
I believe Llanelli needs to make good the ravages of the industrial revolution. It needs to maintain its industrial background. Carmarthen, however, is a totally different place. I know Carmarthen rather better than I know Llanelli. I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has a great deal of sense in its favour. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Howe, appear at this late stage. He should have told the Government of the importance of synergy at an earlier stage. I am sure his comments on Llanelli, Port Talbot and Aberavon are absolutely correct. I am pleased to support this amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Despite what has been said, the proposed restoration of the pre-1974 county of Carmarthenshire has been much welcomed by residents in the county, by businesses and public bodies. It will have a fairly large population base of 170,000 and therefore will provide a basis for social, economic and tourism development in that part of Wales.
Perhaps despite the presence of the eight Llanelli heroes, I acknowledge what has been said about the fact that Llanelli is in many ways different from the surrounding areas. Above all, it has been stressed that it has an industrial character. However, although the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that the proposal to give Llanelli unitary status has received a wide measure of support it is also true to say that it has received some measure of hostility, precisely because it would sweep up into that area localities which are not industrial but are outlying rural communities. People in those areas are not supportive of the proposal.
I do not want to go over the same ground as with the other amendments, but I point out again in connection with Llanelli that its peculiar characteristics could be
380
taken into account by the establishment, if that seemed appropriate, of an area committee to discharge the functions which such bodies can discharge for that type of area.
My noble friend Lord Howe of Aberavon spoke in support of the amendment. At the same time he drew attention to his own later amendment relating to Port Talbot. If he is not present when we reach that amendment perhaps we may hear him speak on the subject at Report stage.
On the particular matter of Llanelli, the Government do not accept the amendment. However, I am prepared to draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to what has been said and ask that he considers these matters and what is said on the same matters in another place.
Lord Chalfont: The response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not surprising, although it is disappointing. I recognise that, as in the case of the arguments that were put forward regarding the Vale of Glamorgan, there will be those outside Llanelli who will welcome the absorption of Llanelli into the larger unitary authority. My purpose in moving the amendment was to put forward the case of Llanelli as a unitary authority and to propose that it is large enough, strong enough and sufficiently industrialised to form a strong and powerful unitary authority of its own. It was also to advance the proposition that it is just possible that, if the larger unitary authority comes into being, some of the dynamism which is at present evident in Llanelli may be diluted. I shall not rehearse all the arguments again.
I hope that, when the Bill is further considered in another place and the Lord Advocate's right honourable friend comes to reconsider what has been said in your Lordships' House, there may be some room for changes and that the door is not entirely closed on the aspirations of the people of Llanelli.
In that context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. As a courtesy to the Committee, I mention that I shall not, of course, move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Licensing of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill was originally introduced by David Hinchliffe in another place, and I pay a warm tribute to him for his initiative in bringing forward this important measure. Sick and disabled people receiving domiciliary care are currently at risk. This Bill would give them

381
protection. However, so far the Government have refused to enact the necessary legislation and I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming this evening with something far more constructive than we have heard so far.
The need for registration and inspection of some care services has been recognised by Parliament with the Registered Homes Act 1984. The stringent requirements of that Act include the registration of all establishments —and I emphasise establishments—providing care and the naming of a qualified person to be legally responsible for the operation of an establishment. Homes can be inspected by the local registration and inspection unit and where necessary registration can be cancelled. That is a powerful sanction.
It is a remarkable anomaly that those important legislative safeguards are not afforded to sick and disabled people receiving domiciliary care in their own homes. Such people can be relatively isolated, with little or no company, and they can be far more vulnerable than people in residential or nursing homes. They have no company. They have no one to chat to. They have no one to keep an eye on them. That makes them all the more vulnerable.
The Government can only offer a feeble excuse for refusing protection to those people. Ministers excuse their inaction by claiming that the contracting and purchasing arrangements provided by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are sufficient safeguards. I hope that the Minister will not peddle that weak line this evening because it simply will not do. In fact, the so-called safeguards in that Act are grossly inadequate.
It is true that local authorities contract with agencies for the provision of services in people's homes, but it is nonsense to imply that busy social service departments make regular inspections, a task which they are not currently required to undertake. To claim that incapacitated and sometimes confused people receive protection from contracting arrangements is misleading.
In addition, a growing number of people purchase these services privately without any form of local authority involvement. There is absolutely no protection for them.
Some voluntary registration schemes have been set up, but while they are welcome they are no substitute for legislation. There is no way of enforcing voluntary arrangements, and it is the good not the bad agencies which will voluntarily register.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society, together with many other organisations, strongly supports the Bill. People with that disease are particularly vulnerable and the society is very anxious that all providers of these services should be registered and independently inspected. It wants staff to be subject to police checks, to have initial and in-service training and proper supervision and monitoring. I believe that that is a sensible and sound list of proposals and it is an absolute minimum for providing proper care for vulnerable people.
The Government are not only unaware of the importance of the supervision of care; they have even called on care home proprietors to see whether
382
inspections could be reduced. Fancy that, my Lords. Will the Minister explain why the Government are calling for those inspections to be reduced? That is exactly what is not needed. Sick and disabled people living in their own homes need inspections of care.
The Government should bear in mind that it is an issue which will not go away. It is being supported by an increasing number of individuals and organisations that feel deeply about the need for effective legislation. Without it there is a risk of disaster.
The Bill is a modest, reasonable measure, badly needed by a group of very vulnerable people. They are entitled to precisely the same protection, if not more, than those living in institutions. I hope that the Minister will reflect on those needs and offer to take on this necessary and important Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to support the Second Reading of this Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I am very pleased that he has brought it before the House. I should declare an interest. The organisation for which I work, the John Grooms Association for Disabled People, is in the process of setting up domiciliary care agencies. However, despite that, the association welcomes the Bill. It would very much like to see such agencies regulated. Regulation and control are needed to ensure that the Government' s aim of care in the community progresses satisfactorily and meets people's needs for personal care arid support in their own homes.
The cost of regulation and of administering the regulations will be a great deal cheaper than the cost of keeping a number of those people in hospitals or registered homes. Local authorities are expected to provide increasing home care services through a market mechanism using independent providers rather than providing direct services themselves. Targets have been set by the Government towards that end and the Department of Health has allocated special funds, as I understand it, to stimulate the development of independent agencies providing those services.
At present such agencies are entirely unregulated. Only agencies providing nursing care have a duty to register with the local authority. Therefore where the ministry helps with funding, it may not have a proper check on the spending of those funds if domiciliary care agencies are not properly regulated.
People, especially those in need of personal care and support services, are vulnerable in their own homes. Agency staff, unlike staff of residential homes, are not constantly and directly supervised. Regulation is required to afford some measure of protection to the public and to ensure that minimum standards are obtained.
The Government, and in turn local authorities, are anxious to develop value for money but at the same time quality of service. Thus regulation is quite appropriate to provide an operational minimum standard and to declare to the market clearly the levels and quality of service that are being sought.

383
It is clearly accepted that other forms of personal care and support provision are regulated; that is, residential care homes. Inspection is thus not a large economic or logistic difficulty. I can see no reason why the Government should not support the Bill.
It is only a short time since the Government agreed that taxi drivers should be properly monitored. Many Members of this House took part in debates on that subject, I think two years ago. People who take taxis probably spend only a short time with any one driver. Most of them are not vulnerable individuals. But we insist that the driver is properly vetted to ensure the safety of his passengers. How much greater then is the need to licence domiciliary care agencies when those for whom care is provided are by the nature of things all vulnerable, as attested by their very need for care. I hope that the Government will support the Bill and give it time not only in this House but in another place.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to support the Bill. Not having given notice that I wished to speak today, my contribution will be brief.
I speak because of concerns that have been expressed to me not only by officers of social services departments in the city council where I am a councillor but also by some of my constituents who are worried about the provision for those people who will receive domiciliary care in their own homes.
There are two significant changes which will affect the provision of domiciliary care. The first—it is one that I believe everyone would hope for—is an extension of the provisions to provide support for people to stay in their own homes rather than to become institutionalised and therefore for the individual to receive more expensive, but less satisfactory, care. Therefore the first point relates to the massive expansion of provision.
My second point refers to the commercialisation, if I may so refer to it, of provision. It is generally accepted that the vast majority of current provision is through local authorities or the National Health Service. Over the next few years we shall probably see the development of private contractors who do not have the same controls. They will be private companies predominantly run for profit. I am sure that there will be some non-profit-making organisations, but predominantly businesses will enter the field of community care in the way that we have seen a growth in the provision of residential homes over the past few years.
Effectively the people undertaking the task will be commercial contractors doing the job for the money. We shall not have the controls that exist in public service. I refer not only to the democratic controls from the top but to that ethos of public service that characterises the work of home helps and nurses throughout the country. I fear that we shall have a new breed of domiciliary care assistant who will do the job just for the money. That will be sad because I believe that those caring professionals contribute enormously in the way that they look after vulnerable people in their own homes.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill, the purpose of which has been clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, to whom we are grateful. It has also been ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lord Monkswell.
When the Bill was introduced under the Ten Minute Rule in March last year in another place by my honourable friend David Hinchliffe, Member of Parliament for Wakefield, it was given support in the Lobbies by both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat Parties, but so far as I can see almost no Government supporters entered the Lobbies. However, at least the Government did not choose to vote against the Bill but decided rather to allow it to die by not finding parliamentary time for it, as is the fate of most Ten Minute Rule Bills.
That was regrettable—I should not go quite so far as to say reprehensible—because the Bill has the support of the national bodies which are most concerned with domiciliary care in the community. My noble friend has not spelt out those organisations and it would be worth putting them on the record. The Bill is supported by the United Kingdom Home Care Association, which represents more than 300 voluntary and private agencies, the Joint Advisory Group of Domiciliary Care Associations, the British Association of Domiciliary Care Officers, the National Association of Inspection and Registration Officers, the British Association of Social Workers and the Social Care Association. It is also supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services, Age Concern and other interested organisations. It is important, so far as the Government are concerned, that the Social Services Inspectorate has, I gather, drawn Ministers' attention to the need for such a measure.
It is just as necessary, if not more so, for agencies which provide domiciliary care to be licensed and scrutinised as it is for those which provide residential care. Although, of course, care on the whole is good even under the present unlicensed system, whether it be provided by the private or the public sector, there are, unfortunately, always backsliders. They are probably equally divided between those who have fallen on bad times and are therefore cutting corners to avoid expense, and those who are running an agency where profit rather than service comes first, despite undoubtedly impressive and soothing words on their brochures.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out that market mechanisms are increasing and that there will be a number of entrepreneurs coming forth to provide services. My noble friend Lord Monkswell put it a little less politely and said that they would be in it for the money.
Experience, both before the National Health Service and Community Care Act came into operation in April of this year and subsequently, has revealed the urgent need for a Bill such as this. I do not intend to go into details of cases to support those words, but I should be willing to do so if the noble Baroness wishes to ask me about them.

385
My honourable friend, David Hinchliffe, said in the other place:
"I would not be at all offended if the Government took the Bill off my hands and implemented it themselves". [Official Report, Commons, 24/3/93; col. 925.]
I do not think that my noble friend wants the noble Baroness literally to take the Bill off his hands, but I very much hope that she will view it favourably and help to give it a rapid passage through this House.
7.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, when I learned that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, had brought this Bill before your Lordships' House, my expectation was that the noble Lord and other noble Lords would show both compassion and knowledge—compassion for the needs of elderly, disabled and vulnerable people and knowledge of the services and the commitment of the people who work in those services. These expectations have been entirely fulfilled.
The reform of community care, while not altering the basic need for services, has quite deliberately given an extra emphasis to their development and expansion, so that people who continue to choose to live in their own homes in spite of increasing frailty may be able to do so. The reforms are intended to encourage and increase the supply and type of support by expanding domiciliary services through a wider variety of providers and stimulating suppliers from both the voluntary and private sectors. Until now the public sector, through local authority social services departments, has been the pre-eminent supplier. A study of home help and home care services organised for social services clients shows that only a tiny proportion of service is purchased from the voluntary or private sectors. The Government want to see the public sector using a greater range of providers who will supply in turn a wider range of services. To help in this development, the department has funded a special initiative to assist 15 social services authorities in England to find new ways to stimulate activity in the independent sector by working alongside actual and potential suppliers. The early results of this work are already being disseminated throughout the country by newsletters and conferences.
The current size of the independent sector, measured by the number of agencies, is not easy to establish. Up to 3,000 care agencies are licensed by the Department of Employment in Great Britain, but these include agencies supplying medical and nursing staff and are not confined to domiciliary-based services. Perhaps half this total would come within the term "domiciliary care agencies". What is undoubtedly true is that there is a recent increase, and the Government are pleased to welcome this. At the same time we recognise the fragility of these small businesses and the need to avoid the risk of stifling them by over-zealous regulation.
The noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Rea and Lord Monkswell, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen drew the attention of your Lordships' House to the statutory inspection of residential and nursing homes. It can be argued that people who move into residential care are more vulnerable and open to exploitation compared
386
with those who remain in their own homes. Those in residential care are potentially or actually reliant on their carers for every aspect of their daily lives. This is, except in the rarest instances, untrue of people who remain in their own homes, with neighbours, friends or relatives nearby or at least easy to contact and external carers not in a position of complete control. This is not to deny the risk but to place it in perspective.
I want to emphasise that the Government not only sympathise with but share the underlying objective of the noble Lord's Bill. We also want to protect vulnerable people from exploitation by the unscrupulous who masquerade as providers of essential domiciliary services, but we consider that there are methods, short of a specialised licensing requirement, to provide such protection. The Government have been encouraged by national organisations which have developed codes of practice for their members, such as the United Kingdom Home Care Association and the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. In particular we are aware of the work being done by the United Kingdom Home Care Association, alongside many local authorities and directors of social services. They use an agreed code of practice as a basis for ensuring standards of service delivery and in some areas local voluntary licensing schemes. It is the quality of service, whether specified in a contract between purchaser and provider or by a commitment to adhere to the code of practice of a national organisation, that will ensure that service users get the quality they are entitled to expect.
The Government's sympathy with the objective already extends beyond mere rhetoric. Our first priority is to develop standards for domiciliary services. 'The Social Services Inspectorate published last October a first report, Developing Quality Standards for Home Support Services, which was sent to all social services authorities and made available to independent providers.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen, who works for an organisation which I greatly respect, will be interested to know that the umbrella organisation, the United Kingdom Home Care Association, described the report as very impressive, with the emphasis it puts on outcomes and the focus on users and carers. The inspectorate itself will be carrying out a programme of inspection this year, using this report as one of the key documents, and will report on the requirements for more explicit guidance.
Local social services authorities already have quality control levers which they should use. Effective contract specification and contract monitoring are the key to ensuring that their service users get the standard of service they have the right to expect. Additionally, some authorities have been establishing local standards and accreditation schemes, in many cases working alongside the UK Home Care Association. They are developing on a voluntary basis local registration schemes and are extending the role of their inspection units to independent home support agencies. This is being led by the Association of Directors of Social Services. These local initiatives are welcomed, and are part of the

387
flexible range of responses which the Government prefer at this stage. Not all local authorities or all agencies have reached this stage of development and it would not be appropriate at this time to impose a statutory requirement.
It would be ingenuous in this debate not to touch on the issue of resources, already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to operate the licensing system proposed in the Bill. Although the Government have not undertaken a detailed study, there will undoubtedly be an additional cost to public funds beyond that which can be recouped from fees. As a minimum, there will be the costs of work with potential agencies which do not result in the license application and the costs of operating the system for considering representation that is set out in Clause 3.
I hope that I have been able to make clear the reasons why, although the Government share the main objective of the Bill, this is not the appropriate time for such a measure. I regret that the Government are unable to support it. I realise that there will be disappointment, especially since the noble Lord has sought what may seem a sound basis by using the Employment Agencies Act 1973 as a framework for this Bill. Although the Government are unable to give their support to the noble Lord tonight, they are, however, prepared to undertake a review of the situation, including whether there might be a national scheme of regulation incorporating requirements proportionate to risks when they review social services inspection arrangements in 1995. I hope that that will afford a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord and to other Members of this House who have debated the Bill, although I recognise that it will in no way satisfy them.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Minister is, as always, typically understanding and constructive. We appreciate her comment that she sympathises with the Bill and shares the objectives. I am sorry that she could not go further and accept it. I believe that it is a very valuable Bill and one which will eventually be enacted.
The noble Baroness spoke about "over-zealous" regulations. That is the last danger in the world. The main danger lies in the lack of regulations. There is no point in worrying about "over-zealous" regulations. When this Bill in enacted we shall be very careful not to make the regulations over-zealous but lay them down in order to protect very vulnerable people.
The noble Baroness mentioned voluntary schemes. I agree that such schemes are welcome and are worth while. But they are simply inadequate and are no substitute for legislation. As a Minister, the noble Baroness must mention costs. But there is no astronomical cost. The Chancellor will not be broken, nor will the budget of the Secretary of State, simply by monitoring and ensuring that those sick and disabled people are protected. The review that she mentioned, although it is not sufficient, will be welcome. But why cannot the Government initiate that review immediately, pending Parliament's discussion of this Bill? I would like that to be done by the Minister, if possible.
388
I conclude by saying that when this Bill is enacted—and enacted it will be sooner or later because it is necessary —I hope that it will become known as the David Hinchliffe Act. I hope that the Bill will be accepted. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.35 to 8.5 p.m.]

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 50, line 21, column 2, leave out ("but excluding the communities of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny").
The noble Lord said: There is very clear evidence that the overwhelming majority of the parishioners of the three small communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick do not want to be part of the proposed new authority, the Vale of Glamorgan, but want to be part of the new county of Bridgend. They are against being included in the proposed county of Vale of Glamorgan. They are very small, integrated communities. Their electorate is small, Ewenny being 1,051, St. Bride's Major 1,676 and Wick 543. But they are on the doorstep of Bridgend. The principal officers of the Council of Bridgend will be located in Bridgend.
I might mention that Ewenny is two miles from Bridgend, St. Bride's Major is three and a half miles from Bridgend and Wick is six miles from Bridgend. For centuries those villages or parishes have looked to the market town of Bridgend as their nearest urban centre. If they are transferred to the Vale of Glamorgan, the principal officers of the Vale of Glamorgan will be 13 or 15 miles away from the villages.
Earlier in the day we heard that there are many references in the White Paper to the importance of preserving existing community loyalties. I shall pick up just one of those references, although I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate by now is weary of hearing such references quoted. I should like to quote paragraph 3.1 in the following terms:
"local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties".
There can be no shadow of doubt about the view of the local people in Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major. They are very strongly opposed to the Welsh Office proposal. In June last year the Electoral Reform Society conducted a poll which produced convincing results, which are known to the Welsh Office. On a turnout of 78.9 per cent. in Ewenny, 89.7 per cent. voted against the transfer; on a turnout of 74.9 per cent. in St. Bride's Major, 87.8 per cent. voted against the transfer, and on a turnout of 74.6 per cent. in Wick, 81.2 per cent. voted against the transfer. One can therefore say that there is

389
overwhelming evidence from the three parishes that they should not be pressed into the new Vale of Glamorgan council. Indeed there are both Conservative and Labour councillors from the three parishes in Westminster today. They have been here since midday lobbying against being pressed against their will into the new Vale of Glamorgan authority.
If the preservation of existing community loyalties is a guiding principle, then it should apply in Ewenny, Wick and St. Bride's Major beyond peradventure. The decision of the Welsh Office in that respect is quite wrong. I was greatly impressed by the case prepared by the borough council and presented to the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State. I should like to quote from a paragraph written by David Pearce, the local historian, vice-president of the Bridgend local history society, a former commanding officer of the local ATC and a man whom the community recognises as being a pillar of its society. After describing the emergence of the three parishes and their close relationship after 1425 with Bridgend, Mr Pearce offers the Secretary of State his opinion of the proposal in these terms:
"To alter this orientation would, in the considered view of the writer, be irresponsible, if not utterly mad".
He goes on to say,
"I write as a local historian and as one who grew up in the parish of St. Bride's Major and whose family connections were centered in the parish for over 250 years".
Lawyers present will recognise that that is extremely good, and probably the best, evidence. My hope is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will listen to the evidence of the parishioners, Mr. Pearce, the Electoral Reform Society and the Ogwr Borough Council, and that the Welsh Office will not proceed to build an administrative boundary between those parishes, those communities and Bridgend.
Earlier in the day we discussed large counties, vast areas of rural Wales. I believe that the Committee now has a good opportunity to prevent a mischief to small communities. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, who has a high reputation in legal and academic circles in Bridgend, will see that there is merit in the case. If he cannot accept the amendment, perhaps he will at least strongly recommend to the Secretary of State that he looks afresh at the evidence. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Your Lordships will be aware that in the White Paper the original proposal included Coychurch Lower in the Vale of Glamorgan. The Committee will also be aware that as a result of further consideration in the light of consultation, the Secretary of State announced the change and decided to restore Coychurch Lower to Bridgend. It is that which now appears in the Bill.
Therefore it is not right to say that the Secretary of State did not give the most careful consideration to the problem. The thinking behind the proposal which appears in the Bill is that the three communities are predominantly rural and agricultural, and that they have more in common with the neighbouring areas in the Vale of Glamorgan than with those areas which
390
comprise Bridgend, which is made up of the town of Bridgend itself, the seaside resort of Porthcawl and the industrial valley communities to the north of Bridgend.
That is the thinking behind the proposal which appears in the Bill. There will be an opportunity to consider any minor anomalies. In particular the Secretary of State recognises that the boundary between Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan as proposed in the Bill will include some areas in the Ewenny community which are physically part of Bridgend. Accordingly the Secretary of State will be asking the local government boundary commission to consider that boundary extremely carefully when it undertakes its post-reorganisation review of the new authorities in order that anomalies can be identified and corrected.
Looking more widely I say what I have said on a number of occasions. The Government do not accept the amendment as tabled. But. I understand what has been said. The Secretary of State will wish to reflect upon what was said here and what may be said in another place. With that assurance, perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment tonight.
Lord Prys-Davies: The last sentence was a soothing and comforting sentence but it was not convincing, for a number of reasons. Let me say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for not attempting to argue the case for pressing these communities into the Vale of Glamorgan on the grounds of democracy. I readily agree that originally there were four villages protesting against being included in the Vale of Glamorgan and that the Secretary of State decided that Coychurch Lower should not be included. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us why the Secretary of State agreed that Coychurch Lower should not be included but that the other three communities should?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Because, when one looks at it, Coychurch Lower contains industrial estate areas whereas the other communities, including Ewenny, although that contains an area. which goes into Bridgend, are, in a way in which Coychurch Lower is not, predominantly rural.
Lord Prys-Davies: Can the Lord Advocate tell the Committee where in the White Paper, in the consultative paper, there is authority for the view that a distinction should be drawn on the grounds that one is rural and the other industrial although they are within two miles of one another?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The point made is quite simply that the rural or industrial nature of the community affects the nature of the community. That is the kind of thing taken into account when considering what is the best boundary to draw.
Lord Prys-Davies: The noble and learned Lord did not answer my question. Where in the White Paper is the authority for the view that he is now propounding?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: At this short notice I do not think I can give chapter and verse for that precise criterion. What I can say is that matters such as the geographical nature, the social nature and so on are taken into account.
Lord Prys-Davies: Yes, "taken into account", but the guiding principle in paragraph 3.1 of the White Paper is that,
"local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties".
The local parishes have called in aid the Electoral Reform Society and we have the evidence that it is almost wholeheartedly against this movement of being pressed into the Vale of Glamorgan.
I am unable to follow the argument of the Welsh Office. I would again plead with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to take this back to the Secretary of State. The noble and learned Lord has suggested or hinted that this may be an issue that ought to go to the boundary commission so that it can adjudicate. Assuming that one goes down that route, when will the boundary commission take the evidence? How long will it take to consider the evidence? Will its recommendations be binding on the Secretary of State?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I would need notice of all the detail of those questions. In broad terms one could not lay down a timetable for the Boundary Commission because it is an independent body. But obviously this is a matter which it would be asked to consider by the Secretary of State and therefore would presumably consider it as quickly as possible. I think I am right in saying that in that situation the Secretary of State is not bound by the recommendations but of course would take them into account.
Lord Prys-Davies: Can the noble and learned Lord assure me that the Secretary of State's decision will be taken before the next general election?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is hard for me to predict the date of the next general election. But assuming that all goes well, there must be, I hope, every prospect that it would be taken before then.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have asked me what is the significance of the general election. This is what the people of the villages are saying. As far as I know—I am not misleading the Committee—not a single public body has supported the transfer of these three villages to the Vale of Glamorgan. To the best of knowledge, apart from the present Conservative Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, not a single public figure has supported the transfer of these villages to the Vale of Glamorgan. I have to say to the Lord Advocate that the general impression is that this has nothing to do with the choice of people. It has something to do with political considerations.
I shall ask the noble and learned Lord no more questions, but I should be grateful if he would impress on his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that there is deep concern about the proposed transfer of these communities to the Vale of Glamorgan. I should have thought that this is a case where the Committee would have an opportunity to prevent great injury and mischief being caused to a very small community. If there are no assurances at least I shall reserve the right to return to the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 50, line 28, after ("Penyrheol") insert ("Trecenydd and Energlyn").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 correct the names of two communities mentioned in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which are in that part of the existing district of Rhymney Valley which is included in the Caerphilly unitary authority. The corrections are required because the two communities concerned changed their names following the drafting of the Bill. The Committee will note that there is no increase in the number of communities. It is purely a change of name and is technical to that extent. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are happy to go along with the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 50, line 29, after ("Bedwas") insert ("Trethomas").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 50, line 30, at end insert:

("Cynon Valley Cwm Cynon

The district of Cynon Valley.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20 to 22. The effect of this amendment would be to divide the present unitary authority proposed in the Bill to be known as Rhondda, Cynon, Taff into two separate unitary authorities—one Rhondda-Taff and the other Cynon Valley.
I spent most of my speech at Second Reading telling your Lordships how I could foresee difficulties in this amalgamation and in particular suggesting that Cynon Valley should be a unitary authority on its own. I shall not weary the Committee by going through all that I said on that occasion, but in summary I was trying to persuade your Lordships that there is undoubtedly a very strong sense of community feeling within Cynon Valley, but there is almost a total lack of communication between the Rhondda Valley and the Cynon Valley for very natural geographical reasons.
I believe that a combined authority not based on a strong sense of community would lack local support and indeed might well result in friction. But having said that I particularly re-emphasise what I drew attention to on the sequence of events that took place over the three years 1991 to 1993. First, in June 1991 we had the Welsh Office consultation paper, The Structure of Local Government in Wales. That foreshadowed 24 unitary authorities which would include one—an amalgamation of the Rhondda and Cynon Valley. A lot of consultation took place after that paper and in March 1992 the then Secretary of State, Mr. David Hunt, came to the Principality and announced his conclusions after the consultations.

393
The conclusions amounted to 23 unitary authorities, including two separate ones—one, Rhondda and Taff-Ely and another, Cynon Valley. That was accepted by most people as being the preferred solution put forward by the Secretary of State just as in the case of Montgomeryshire. However, to our great surprise, a year later, in March 1993, when the White Paper, A Charter for the Future, was published, everything had changed—21 unitary authorities only were foreshadowed, including a group there described as Glamorgan Valleys—of the Rhondda, Cynon Valley and Taff-Ely rolled into one.
At Second Reading I asked the reason for this apparent U-turn. I did not expect my noble and learned friend to be able to give a particular reason to me because he was asked a great many questions. But I studied what he said in summing up and I should like to quote it:
"The Government have had to balance the desirability of having a local area which is resonant with local feeling with what is needed to have a base for viable local government".
Indeed my noble friend has repeated that proposition today in more or less the same words. I believe that instead of the words "viable local government", he used the words "capable of delivering services". I want to suggest to my noble friend, with great respect, that he has got the balance wrong. On one side of the scales there is a very heavy weight in terms of what he described as,
"a local area … resonant with local feeling".
I am quite sure that I can reassure the Committee, even if Members do not know the Cynon Valley, that it is resonant with local feeling. On the other side of the scale are considerations of size which in my opinion are not of the same weight.
As far as population is concerned, the unitary authority proposed in the Bill would cover nearly a quarter of a million people and that is at the very top of the range. That is more even than Swansea and considerably more than Newport and Bridgend. Even if Cynon Valley were on its own, it would still be comparable to other authorities in the Bill such as Anglesey, Cardiganshire and Monmouthshire. So I do not see that there is a great argument on questions of size.
As to the viability of a unitary Cynon Valley to take on increased responsibility for the present services of the county such as education and social services, the Cynon Valley Council commissioned an independent report from the School of Advanced Urban Studies at the University of Bristol, who saw no difficulty.
The White Paper of 1993 itself said,
"Individual schools are increasingly responsible for their own affairs".
That is undoubtedly true. They now work through their governors and indeed also further education colleges are no longer administered by local government. So Cynon Valley would feel perfectly confident in being an education authority. The White Paper also draws attention to the need for co-operation between the new authorities in the provision of the more specialised educational services; for example, the provision of speech therapists. That would also apply to Cynon Valley. I would like to point out that before 1974
394
educational functions were administered efficiently by small county borough authorities such as Merthyr Tydfil. I have no doubt that the reduced educational functions now required would be perfectly well tackled by an authority of the size of Cynon Valley.
As regards social services, the new unitary proposals would enable the same authority to administer both housing and social service functions. This is an ideal opportunity to bring together a care-in-the-community strategy. It would be a considerable improvement on the present system of separate authorities dealing with the social services and housing and would ensure better lines of communication co-ordinated by a director of housing and social services. Cynon Valley runs housing efficiently at present and could certainly take on board inter-related social service provisions. At the same time specialist services—for example, places in approved schools—could be brought in, as indeed is now done by some county councils, big as they are.
Another argument which has been advanced by my noble friend is the fact that only a large authority can attract good staff. That was the same argument which I was briefed to put forward in 1972. It was then for the large county councils and I do not believe that that argument really stands, as has already been argued this afternoon by other Members of the Committee.
That leads me to the conclusion that the weight of a local area resonant with local feeling outweighs the administrative reasons for a larger area. In fact, the larger area has all the drawbacks of the present local authority system. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will convert his U-turn of March 1993 into a W-turn in 1994 and allow Cynon Valley to take its place as an independent unitary authority. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: I very much support the amendment. When I first read through the White Paper proposals it seemed to me that the Government were building in friction. We know of the enormous frictions which existed after the 1972 Act. It was no use thinking that they would go away, because they did not. They will not go away as a result of this Bill.
It appeared to me that there were about three examples in the industrial areas—I know less about them than I do about the rural areas—but Cynon Valley was an obvious one. Merthyr and Llanelli occur to me as others which were not being properly dealt with. It is no use building into local government what was called in Dyfed the "Pembrokeshire factor" Pembrokeshire was an area which did not want to be in Dyfed. It resented being in it and made no bones about it throughout the time that the Dyfed authority was there.
Here, for geographical and social reasons, Cynon Valley and the Rhondda Valley, are separate entities. To the superficial observer one can argue that they have a great deal in common. But the people who know the areas know of the pride of feeling in the Rhondda and that in Cynon Valley. Why on earth should government lump them together? I have heard the kind of argument put forward by the Government in this case, making the comparison with business, where one needs to have large organisations and large authorities But in my

395
experience, by and large, such amalgamations do not work. They sometimes do but often they are an enormous mistake and also a financial mistake.
Perhaps I may now deal with an argument which has been put forward, I believe quite wrongly: namely, that small authorities are unable to attract quality staff. I have seen some staff in large authorities who have stayed there for years and years. I have seen very bright staff with smaller authorities who could have taken their places with aplomb at a very much earlier stage. For example, in Montgomeryshire in the old days the quality of staff was at least as high, if not higher, than anything the Powys County Council ever had.
Therefore the argument put forward by the Government will not bear examination in years to come. I said at Second Reading and I say now, that the Government are building in trouble for themselves for the future in no uncertain way. There are about four or five examples in this Bill which, if the Government only listened and made changes, would produce a much more acceptable Bill. They will not listen—so far, anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, with his great experience and wisdom, which is greatly appreciated in this House, was responsible for the 1972 Bill in this House. I am sure that at times his instructions conflicted with his instincts. But nevertheless I am sure that he observed what was happening. He has observed what has happened since. He speaks words of wisdom today when he proposes that there should be two unitary authorities here. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As I have said on other occasions—and it is true of this case as of others—the Secretary of State acknowledges that, in this case as in others, there is a strong case of community identity as well as other ties which make the people of the Cynon Valley into a community. It is because of that that amendments have been tabled in all such cases. However, having considered the matter, the population and demographic trends here have led the Secretary of State to the conclusion that the area of the Cynon Valley alone does not have a strong enough base to be an effective unitary authority which can co-ordinate and provide delivery of the full range of services. That is because if the amendment were carried, we would have a unitary authority with a population of only 66,000 which, as the noble Lord will appreciate, would make it one of the smaller authorities.
I have already given—I do not think that it will greatly assist the Committee if I repeat them in this context—the kind of considerations which have led the Secretary of State, when considering all these various proposals, to the conclusion that in this case, as in some others, the balance favours a larger authority rather than opting for a Cynon Valley authority which might correspond more closely with the sense of community in that area. It is not that there is a lack of sensitivity to that identity. The Secretary of State showed such sensitivity when he changed the name of the authority between the White Paper and the Bill. That was a recognition of the nature of the various communities. However, ultimately, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the
396
proposals in the Bill would provide viable local authorities. Again, I point out that much of what is said about local identities can be accommodated within the scheme for decentralisation which is available under the Bill. I have already explained that in other contexts.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that the Government will not listen on these matters. The Government are listening. I have listened and I say again on this matter that although the Government do not accept the amendments, I shall of course report to the Secretary of State what has been said on this matter as on others. I am sure that he will wish to reflect on that and on what may be said in another place on this matter.
Lord Hooson: I should not like the noble and learned Lord to think for a moment that I am suggesting he is not listening. He certainly is listening with great courtesy to everything that we are saying. If he will forgive me for saying so, however, we regard him in the guise of a conduit pipe to the Secretary of State. What we fear is that when the message comes out at the other side from the noble and learned Lord, the Secretary of State will not be listening.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that I am not such an obscure and choked conduit pipe that the message will not come out, and that the Secretary of State can hear it at the other end. I shall certainly try to ensure that he hears it; and I am sure that when he hears it, he will listen.
Lord Aberdare: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I am sure he is right that it is a matter of balance. The point is the Secretary of State thinks that the balance goes one way, and I think that it goes the other; but there we are.
Surely in 1992 when the former Secretary of State made his statement to the House of Commons and determined that Cynon Valley should be a unitary authority on its own he took into account the fact that he wanted a viable authority. The Secretary of State could not have made that announcement based only on the fact that it was resonant with local feeling. He must have taken into account also the fact that he thought that such an authority would be viable. Therefore, it seems strange to me that now we seem to be in a position where it is thought by the Welsh Office that Cynon Valley would not be a viable unitary authority. I think that it would be viable and I think that the balance is wrong. However, at this hour, after these discussions, and on the undertaking that my noble and learned friend has said that he will draw this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 50, line 30, at end insert:

("Merthyr Tydfil

The district of Merthyr Tydfil, together with (from the district of Rhymney Valley) the communities of Rhymney, Darren Valley and New Tredegar.")

The noble Lord said: The Labour Party attaches the greatest importance to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which relate to the proposed community borough of Heads of the Valleys. If the proposal is implemented as published, the new authority would be the fifth biggest unitary authority in Wales. However, the effect of the two amendments would be to set up two separate county boroughs: the Heads of the Valley and Merthyr Tydfil; each with a population of between 65,000 and 70,000 or possibly more instead of the single authority that is proposed by the Welsh Office. We are satisfied that each would be an efficient and effective unitary authority.
What struck me with force when I first read the proposal of the Welsh Office as set out in the Bill was that it ran contrary to the basic facts of geography, landscape, tradition and existing loyalties. It seems to me that the authors of that proposal have yet to learn that history and existing loyalties cannot be bypassed just like that.
Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil each have a strong sense of community and purpose. Those have developed because of their history and geography. There are no administrative linkages between the two communities. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is strong and widespread opposition to the proposal in both communities. If the proposal is implemented, it would be a shotgun marriage between two reluctant parties. The Welsh Office has received advice about shotgun marriages and this reorganisation from its own accountants, Touche Ross, which advised and warned the Welsh Office that such a union is unlikely to be in the long-term interests of either the Welsh Office or local government. Therefore, I emphasise the point that the western valleys of Monmouth are not the eastern adjunct of Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Rhymney—and neither is Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Rhymney the western adjunct of the western valleys.
Merthyr Tydfil is within the old county of Glamorgan. Indeed, it is the first Welsh urban experience of any note and the people of Merthyr know that and are proud of it. A century-and-a-half ago—perhaps even a century-and-three-quarters ago—its great ironworks made Merthyr Tydfil the iron capital of the world. Until 1972 it was one of only four county boroughs in Wales. It exercised a full range of local government functions to meet local needs. Sadly, in that year the status of Merthyr Tydfil was demoted to that of a district authority although I believe that it was allowed to retain its library service.
Blaenau Gwent comprises the western valleys of the old county of Monmouth. That authority was created in 1972 when the townships of Tredegar, Ebbw Vale, Nantyglo, Abertillery, Brynmawr and Blaenau were combined. A tremendous and successful effort has gone into building up in Blaenau Gwent an efficient, decentralised district administration, possibly more decentralised than that of Merthyr Tydfil. But both authorities have efficient administrations. Both councils are vigorously and constantly pursuing policies to arrest population decline, and it is hoped that that may now be on a plateau. Both are urgently pursuing policies to attract inward investment and to regenerate their communities.
398
The proposed new authority, if it is set up—our hope is that it will not be set up—will inherit two different patterns of administration and management. There will be no inherited sense of common purpose. There is another feature that causes the Labour Party great concern. It is that there will be no coterminosity of boundaries with the health authority, even though the new authority will embrace a part of Wales where the demand on the health service is great indeed. It is possibly higher than in any other part of Wales. But for health care, the western part of the catchment area will look to Merthyr Tydfil District Hospital, while the eastern part will look to Abergavenny District Hospital, because those two authorities are managed by two different health authorities with their different priorities and different investment programmes. Similarly, the general practitioners are answerable to two different authorities and to different policies. So it appears to us in the Labour Party that when it suits the Welsh Office to argue for coterminosity, it does so effectively; when it does not want to argue for coterminosity, the doctrine disappears.
So I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to tell the Committee why coterminosity with the health authorities is not seen as vital for the people of those valleys where there is so much chronic sickness and disability. I wonder whether the Welsh Office Bill team has access to the waiting list and disability figures. Thousands are waiting for more than six months for their first outpatient appointment. In many parts of the country, that would not be tolerated. By abandoning the principle of coterminosity with the health service in this area, the Welsh Office is taking an unwarranted risk. I put it as high as that: it is an unwarranted risk.
Looking at amendments to which we will come, I see that we are going to discuss the need for statutory provision for an area child protection committee. The Head of the Valleys Council will be lacking in coterminosity with any of the other three services involved with child care and protection: health, probation and social services. Parliament should not be imposing that structure upon the children, the young people, their parents and relatives. The children and young people of that area are entitled to something better than that. Here of course we are in the heart of Aneurin Bevan country. I do not know whether the Welsh Office is aware of that. The significance of saying that one is in the heart of Aneurin Bevan country is that its people have been brought up to expect equality of access to services and equality of services. They are entitled to know why they are not receiving the best that can be provided.
I mentioned Aneurin Bevan. Both communities have made a profound contribution to the life of Wales and beyond. Aneurin Bevan always claimed that the NHS was inspired by the Tredegar Medical Aid Society which was founded in 1890 and which made the cost of sickness a communal burden. On the other hand, it was on the historic ground of Dowlais and Merthyr that Keir Hardie, founder of the Labour Party, delivered some of his most powerful speeches. We on these Benches have to be loyal to that tradition when the Government are seeking to thrust this model on that area.

399
During this century that part of Wales has experienced the full flood of industrial growth, but, sadly, also of distress. But its people have had the capacity and the drive to rebuild and survive. They have rebuilt the economic basis of their community three times this century: after the long depression of 1925; after the loss of the steel works; and now of course after the loss of the pits. We say that they should be allowed to get on, for the third time in a century, with the task of promoting and rebuilding the economic basis of the community without the profound and unnecessary changes envisaged by the Bill.
The Labour Party believes that of all the proposals in the Bill—we have heard powerful arguments today—this is the one which most threatens existing standards and services for most people and which will lead to unequal standards of provision. This is not a case where the argument for change is in doubt; where we rely merely on historical loyalties. The case of the Welsh Office, leaving aside historical loyalties, fails any fair test of the services to be delivered to people.
I trust and hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—we have been impressed by his fairness—will advise his ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office to rethink.
The last point I wish to make is that the two councils know little about the origins of this proposal. I do not know who thought of it. It has not been discussed with Blaenau Gwent; it has not been discussed with Merthyr. The two authorities know of no research upon which it is based. The only thing the two councils know about the proposal is that its author does not know what he is talking about. For those reasons, we believe that it would be wrong for the proposal to remain in the Bill. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I think that I might say, without fear of successful contradiction, that I am the only Welshman in the Committee tonight who has actually lived for several years in Merthyr Tydfil.
Baroness White: Do not forget Rhymney!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have never lived in Rhymney; I have lived in Merthyr Tydfil. Admittedly that was during the 1940s and times have changed greatly between Pentre-bach and Dowlais. Yet from personal knowledge I can say that the proposal to merge Blaenau Gwent with the northern part of the Rhymney Valley and Merthyr Tydfil to form this thing called the Heads of the Valleys Unitary Authority is unlikely to lead to the creation of strong and happy local government.
The proposal contradicts the fundamental aims of the reorganisation of local government as laid down in the consultation and in the White Paper, which stated that local government should be close to the people and based on a strong sense of community identity. The people of both Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil have firmly rejected the proposal. An independent survey commissioned by University College Swansea showed that, of those who expressed a view, 94 per cent. in
400
Blaenau Gwent supported a unitary structure based on Blaenau Gwent alone, with only 6 per cent. favouring the proposed merger. Those figures were similar to others in a poll carried out in the Merthyr Tydfil area.
There are no common historical, political or social links between Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil. The two areas are part of separate county administrations. As my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said, police and fire authorities are different, as are health and ambulance trusts and community health councils. Travel-to-work patterns differ among residents of the two areas, as do shopping and socially-based patterns. There are thumping great mountains in between; one has to go round, and that is very difficult, especially in bad weather.
The proposed authority would be the fifth largest in Wales in terms of total population. However, there would be no natural centre; there would be no heart to it. Such an authority would not be based on any sense of community identity and would certainly fail to enjoy strong local support. The proposed authority would cross five valleys, causing immense problems for residents wishing to visit its headquarters, wherever those happened to be. If, for example, they were in Ebbw Vale, those living in the southern parts of what is now Merthyr Borough would have great problems. If the headquarters were in Merthyr Tydfil, residents of Abertillery Valley would find it almost impossible to get there. Bus journey times are a minimum of four hours for the return journey from Soffryd to Merthyr. I need hardly remind the Committee that the area is considerably below the national average for Rolls Royces per citizen.
Merthyr Tydfil is essential a one-town borough. Its development is concentrated in the town of Merthyr Tydfil itself. Blaenau Gwent is a borough of five towns in the industrial rural community of Llanelli. In the words of Shakespeare, one cannot bring this Troilus to this Cressida. They are oil and water; they cannot mix. This hydra-headed monster, the Heads of the Valleys Authority, should be instantly slain. The proposal is doomed to disaster.
Baroness White: I declare that I have a certain interest in the matter because my title is Baroness White, of Rhymney. I am grateful to my noble friends on the Front Bench for their comments about the proposal to put Merthyr and the Upper Rhymney Valley together with Blaenau Gwent. No one in their senses would have thought of that. How anyone in the Welsh Office could have thought that there could be a compatible union of such different communities passes any sensible comprehension.
What is the concept of Heads of the Valleys? That is probably the most dangerous road in South Wales. It has three lanes and one should never drive on it in the dark. Furthermore, there is no community between the upper part of the Rhymney Valley—Merthyr Tydfil being the major partner —and Blaenau Gwent and its valleys. After all, the valleys in this area do not run from east to west; they run from north to south. That is a fairly simple matter to comprehend.

401
It appears that there has been no adequate discussion of the proposal for this impossible marriage. I see that the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench are looking at one another. I can assure them that one could not possibly have made such a proposal if one had had experience in any depth of the two units which are being brought together. I do not want to labour the point because the time is getting on and we do not want to be here too late tonight. I merely repeat that no one in their senses could have thought of putting these two areas together.
Lord Hooson: While listening to the debate I reflected that "back to basics" was going a little too far because here one has a forced marriage between Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent. There is no case for that because both have done extremely well as separate authorities.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I have never lived in Merthyr Tydfil. However, many years ago I had the honour of being Recorder for that area. I was not sacked but was later beckoned to Swansea. During the short time that I was there I was tremendously impressed by their enormous pride in their county borough status. The first thing that the authority did on my appointment as Recorder was to send me books on the history of Merthyr in order that I would know what it was all about. I remember the tremendous pride that existed in the background of Blaenau Gwent.
It is odd, therefore, that it takes a Liberal from the Liberal Democrat Benches to say that to a Conservative Government. I thought that the Government always laid stress on feelings of belonging, pride, loyalty and so forth. When one puts together two incompatibles—for instance, Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil—one is without any doubt building up trouble for the future. It seems to me that there may be only four or five points in the whole Bill which need change, and this is one of them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I feel deeply depressed when I consider the problem which is before us at this time. On Second Reading and again today I have indicated the mistake which I believe the Government made when they failed to have adequate consultation with the local authorities in Wales. Indeed, they made a greater mistake when they failed to set up a commission which would have led to detailed consideration of all the implications of the combinations that we are now discussing.
As the Committee will know, I come from the furthermost northern part of Wales. However, my experience over the years has extended into the quite extraordinary valleys of South Wales. Those valleys have made an enormous contribution not only to the life of Wales but also to the life of the United Kingdom. I need refer only to the distinguished father of my noble friend Lady White, Dr. Tom Jones of Rhymney.
This situation shows an entire failure to understand the nature of this community. It is enough to turn a Welshman mad that I should be confronted by such arguments from people who have no idea of what goes
402
on in Wales and who have no concept of the difference between Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil. I must sit down before I go further.
There is no point in the noble and learned Lord, who comes from Scotland, coming here with messages from an English Secretary of State for Wales to tell us what should happen in Wales. That must come to an end. It is no use the noble and learned Lord saying that he will go back and talk about it. I plead with him to tell the Secretary of State for Wales that we must look again at this matter. Otherwise, we shall be doing Wales a great disservice.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My noble and learned friend should go to the Secretary of State to ask him to have another look at this matter. Otherwise, the Government will be making a major mistake.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Of course, I have listened with great care to what Members of the Committee have said. The Committee must not think that these proposals have been brought forward without an awareness of the nature of both Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent. It is not only Members on that side of the Committee who are aware of the history of those communities or who know in which direction the valleys run. Those matters were all considered. This proposal has not been brought forward without an awareness of precisely those factors which Members of the Committee have mentioned. Those matters are apparent. But the question is whether what is required in this area to enable it to have a viable local government authority accords with this proposal.
The proposal is not made in ignorance or without an awareness of those factors. It is put forward taking them into account. Nobody is trying to inflict an intentional wound on Wales and the proposal is not put forward with a sense of carelessness. It has been considered carefully in the light of the consultation that has taken place. It takes into account all those factors which I have mentioned on earlier occasions.
The Government are well aware of the difficulties which may exist in travelling by public transport between one area of the authority and another. I assume that those charged with the local government of that area will be equally well aware of the problems and will take them into account when deciding, for example, where various offices of the local authority are to be situated. There is no need for the local authority to have all its offices in one area and not to have local offices available to the communities in other areas. Local information points can be made available so that people can obtain information on services.
In particular, Members of the Committee are aware—I have stressed it on many occasions—that there is available within the legislation a provision for decentralisation and area authorities. It is in the light of those factors and of the need to provide a local government authority area which can make available the services which are required that the proposal is brought forward.
Various things were said—I shall not go over them all—about the health service and other matters, Members of the Committee are aware that under the

403
reforms of the health service it is possible for GP fund holders to obtain services, where these are available, from various trusts and other bodies. The significance of local health authorities in the provision of services may not be now what it once was.
I shall, of course, report to the Secretary of State the tenor of the debate. However, it would be a mistake for the Committee to think that these proposals have been rushed or have been arrived at in an unthinking way. I shall of course report what the Committee has said and the Secretary of State will undoubtedly take that into account. He will undoubtedly take into account anything that may be said on other occasions when he makes his final decision on this matter in the context of the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his response. I should have pointed out that there is an error in the wording of the amendment. We should throughout have referred to Merthyr Tydfil and the Upper Rhymney Valley. My noble friend Lady White reminded us of that mistake.
I am unsure how to respond to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Those words were pretty amazing. We were given a lecture on decentralised management. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that Blaenau Gwent has established a pattern of decentralised management and it needs no lecture on that. The noble and learned Lord was soothing as regards the health services for that area, but in practice there will be no coterminosity and the Bill and the setting up of the new authority will add to the difficulties in that area. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord failed to deal with the need for coterminosity of boundaries in that particular part of Wales. We would give that a high priority.
However, the noble and learned Lord acknowledged that he would convey to his right honourable friend the tenor of the debate. I believe that this is the first time that he has used that expression. We should be grateful if he would tell his right honourable friend that the Labour Party feels that its members must do all in their power to ensure that this proposal does not remain in the Bill. We reserve the right to return to this amendment on Report unless the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can meanwhile give us assurances. If it would be helpful for us to have discussions with the noble and learned Lord or with officials from the Welsh Office, we would be happy to meet them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 33 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Establishment of Principal Councils]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 34:
404
Page 55, line 21, leave out ("on which the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 was passed") and insert ("on which notice is given of elections to the new principal councils").
The noble Lord said: This amendment brings us into calmer waters and on to less controversial matters. The purpose of the amendment is simply to shorten the period in which casual vacancies in these councils must remain unfilled. I believe that the Committee will agree that the months after this Bill is passed will be busy and difficult for all local authorities. Every ship in Wales will need a full and well trained crew. We on these Benches cannot see any vital necessity for a compulsory long stretch of no man's land which could cause great problems if, for example, the chairperson of some key committee were to fall under a bus.
As it stands at present, the Bill could lead to casual vacancies in the elected membership of existing councils being unfilled for a period, I think I am right in saying, of up to 21 months. That would leave communities unrepresented and could lead to the political balance of councils being arbitrarily changed.
Our amendment is a compromise position which would lead to unfilled vacancies probably lasting no more than about 13 months. That is more than long enough, and we believe that a longer period could be quite perilous. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment as a positive contribution to improving the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: The Government are prepared to consider a later cut-off date for elections to existing authorities but believe that to refer to the date on which the notice of elections is given would cause problems since returning officers have a certain amount of discretion in setting the date. They are required to give not less than 25 days' notice, so there may be many different dates in different parts of the country. The Government believe that in the interests of administrative consistency there should be a single cut-off date. If the Committee will allow me to reflect on this matter I shall return with our conclusions at Report stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for what has been the best news on this Bill so far. With thanks to him and Her Majesty's Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Rules to be observed in considering electoral arrangements]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 35
Page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("the").
The noble Lord said: I do not suppose that I shall do so well with this amendment. It is intended to transfer a power from the Secretary of State to the Welsh Commission. The philosophical concept on which it stands is that much misused principle of subsidiarity, a note sounded so melodiously this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by which I understand that decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level.

405
We believe that there is no necessity for the Secretary of State to be involved in the matter of multi-member electoral divisions and every reason why he should keep out of that very sensitive area, which is all the more sensitive at present, especially in view of the alleged gerrymandering in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Bill as drafted creates a presumption in favour of single-member electoral divisions. It then gives the Secretary of State the power to vary the presumption in designated parts of the country—probably in dense, urban areas where single-member divisions might break up local ties. The amendment retains the presumption in favour of single-member divisions but leaves the power to vary the presumption with the Welsh Commission. We argue that decisions on the nature of electoral divisions in particular areas are best made by a relatively independent commission rather than by a Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: These amendments concern the level of discretion afforded the Local Government Boundary Commission in drawing up its proposals for dividing Wales into electoral divisions for the purposes of elections following the first elections to the new authorities. The Government believe that the majority of divisions should be single member since these provide for a much closer relationship between member and electorate and consequently are more clearly un-derstandable and accountable.
The Government acknowledge, however, that in some areas multi-member divisions may be more appropriate—primarily in densely-populated urban areas where there are recognisable communities which cannot readily be split into single-member divisions. The provision of sub-paragraph (3) of the new paragraph 1A as drafted would require the Local Government Boundary Commission to provide multimember divisions in areas specified in a direction by the Secretary of State. This does not correctly reflect the Government's intention, which is that the direction should simply be that the commission should consider the desirability of providing multi-member divisions. The provisions of the government amendment reflect that intention, but in not amending sub-paragraph (2), the commission would still be required to draw up single-member divisions in all areas not specified. The Secretary of State's involvement in the process is designed to ensure that multi-member divisions should only be considered in exceptional circumstances and that the general pattern of electoral areas would be one of single-member divisions.
The opposition amendments would allow the commission a much wider discretion in terms of providing for single or multi-member divisions in that no geographic limitation is imposed. The Government feel that such a limitation is important so that the pre-disposition towards single-member division is maintained for the reasons I have outlined.
I would respectfully ask the Committee to accept the government amendment in preference to that of the Opposition.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am profoundly grateful to the noble Viscount for his response, although I cannot say that I am in any way convinced by any of the arguments that he has put forward.
The Welsh Commission, as I say again, is an independent body in so far as any quango in this country is. But it can only make multi-member divisions when it is commanded to do so. That seems to me to be the basis of a very bad relationship indeed. The Welsh Commission is pretty firmly under the control of the Secretary of State. As we consider Schedule 12, we learn that,
"The Commission shall consist of not less than 4 and not more than 7 members, at least one of whom shall be Welsh-speaking".
What a relief it is that there is a slight mention in the entirety of the Bill to the Welsh language. The schedule continues:
"The members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
"The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members to be chairman".
It seems to me that the Secretary of State still has enormous control—unwarranted control, in our view—over the Welsh Commission. I should have thought that it would be possible, and I would hope that the noble Viscount would take back to his right honourable friend the suggestion that it might be sensible, to trust the Welsh Commission a little further than the Bill currently does.
However, with that pious hope in mind, and with the resolve that we shall return to the issue at a later stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("provide") and insert ("consider the desirability of providing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Community meetings and continuation of community councils]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("five years") and insert ("six months").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment which seeks to ensure that the naming of community councils in both the Welsh and English languages should take place within a period of six months rather than the five-year period specified in new Section 27(4).
The effect will be to ensure that both names are decided upon at an early stage and become familiar to the communities concerned. I believe that principle ensures that the Bill pursues the spirit of the 1993 Welsh Language Act in treating both languages on a basis of equality. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support the amendment. It seems to me that to give a council a period of five years from April 1996 to secure that there is both an English and a Welsh name for a community council sends out the wrong signal to the local authorities. We think that

407
this small reform ought not to be left outstanding for five years from April 1996, so we support the thrust of the amendment.
I have a few questions for the Minister and I am happy for him to reply in writing unless he has already been briefed. Subsection (4) states that the principal council:
"shall … take such steps as may be prescribed".
Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this subsection? If so, are those regulations in draft form? When are the regulations likely to see the light of day?
My next anxiety is this. It seems to me that subsection (4) must be read in conjunction with subsection (3). Am I correct in interpreting the combined effect of those two subsections to mean that there may well be cases where there will not be separate Welsh and English names for a community council?
My other question is this. Assuming that there is an alternative form of a name or an alternative name, but that the community council fails to comply with the requirement of the principal council, will there be a sanction? I should be grateful if the Minister could give guidance on those two questions. If there is a sanction, precisely what will it be?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It would be better if I were to write to the noble Lord in reply to those questions so that I make sure I get the answers correct. The overall thrust of the clause is that there should be names in both English and Welsh.
Turning to the general point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in moving the amendment and by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I think that on behalf of the Government I may accept that five years may seem over-generous for the working out of the alternative names. On the other hand, whether six months is a little too short may be a matter for reflection. Perhaps it is best that a little time should go by so that people may select the most appropriate names. In the light of that, perhaps the Committee will allow me to reflect upon the matter and return with the Government's conclusions at Report stage.
Lord Elis-Thomas: After that major victory which follows on from Saturday, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Establishment, dissolution and grouping etc. of community councils]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert:
("(9) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection of (1), where a Community Council have made a request to the Welsh Commission not later than 31st December 1995, for the alternative of a local government area resulting in the transfer of the community from one new principal area to another new principal area the Commission shall consider such a request and report to the Secretary of State within two years of the date on which the request was made.").
The noble Lord said: The building blocks of unitary authorities are the community councils. The amendment
408
should have referred specifically to Section 55 (1) of the Local Government Act 1972 but somehow I managed not to place it at the top. The amendment refers to the situation where a community council has made a request to the Welsh Commission for a transfer of that community from one principal area to another and it seeks to ensure a response from the Welsh Office.
The proposal refers specifically to certain micro areas of the unitary authority, certain community councils which might prefer to be part of one unitary authority rather than another. In the case of parts of Clwyd, there have already been transfers within the lifetime of the consultations on this legislation. A number of communities have already been transferred between proposed unitary authorities and others. Other authorities have indicated that they might wish to be transferred—border authorities that might wish to be part of one principal council rather than another. It makes sense to ensure that there is a timescale for that to take place and some notice can be taken of the views of local communities in specific cases such as this.
It is my view that as set out in the consultation document in 1991 the Local Government Boundary Commission should have a role in redrawing the boundaries of the principal councils in a way that ensures that the views of local communities are taken into account. I beg leave to move the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: Again, I support the thrust of this amendment because it places a duty on the Welsh Commission to consider the request from the community council for the alteration of the local government area.
However, if the principle is acceptable to the Government, I wonder whether or not the amendment needs to be spelt out in a little more detail. For example, in considering the request, will the commission be required to follow the usual statutory procedures: publishing a notice of consideration; publishing its draft report; consideration of observations on the draft report in the light of the responses; and the publication of the final report? Or will there be a shortened procedure which will apply until December 1997? My second question is: will the Secretary of State have a discretion to accept or reject the report of the commission? I ask these questions for clarification only.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales already possesses wide powers to conduct the reviews of local government areas under the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Those powers already contain provision whereby a community council can indeed require the commission to consider principal area boundary changes. In the Government's view it follows that there is no need to incorporate this particular amendment in order to ensure that the Local Government Boundary Commission can be required to consider these matters. In addition, the Secretary of State has already signalled his intention of using the existing powers to ask the commission to look at the boundaries of certain new authorities, to identify and

409
correct any new anomalies which may have arisen as a result of the creation of the new authorities, using the existing community areas as the building blocks.
The amendment would seek to put in a timetable; namely, that the request should be made not later than 31st December 1995 and the commission should then report within two years. The commission will have much work to do as it conducts its electoral review of Wales. This particular amendment would put a straitjacket on the commission by forcing it to conduct those further reviews on a somewhat arbitrary timescale. In the Government's view that is not necessary; the existing powers are adequate, and it would therefore not be necessary for this amendment to be incorporated in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked a number of questions related to the text of this amendment but since the Government do not accept it, I do not think that I can go into them.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the indication of support for the principle in the amendment, if not the timescale, and the fact that we have confirmation that it is within the existing powers of the commissioner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [General provision for transfer of functions]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
We now embark on a different part of the Bill; namely, Part II. Clause 17 specifies the general provision for the transfer of functions. It is quite obvious that in a Bill of this nature there must be a general clause transferring functions from existing authorities to the authorities that will be set up. My difficulty with the clause is represented by the amendments to which I speak.
The amendment that I now move on subsection (3) is designed to elicit from the Government an explanation of what on earth that subsection means. The drafting seems to me to be very complex. I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord, when he comes to explain it in very clear English, as I am sure he will, could tell the Committee precisely what it means. I recognise that I imperfectly understand the drafting, but it seems to me that as it stands it gives the Secretary of State the power to vary by instrument any aspect of the current legislation. If I am wrong, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will tell me so. I should be grateful if he would elucidate the matter.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 again concern the powers of the Secretary of State to vary the general transfer of powers in the clause. Again I have difficulty in understanding precisely the meaning of those subsections. For instance—I quote from the text of the Bill—subsection (6) states:
410
"Where a question arises, in relation to any relevant legislative provision, as to which is the appropriate new principal area for the purposes of this section, that question shall be determined by order".
If this Bill is enacted in its present form, does the Secretary of State have the right to vary by simple order whatever provision may be made? Furthermore, under subsection (7) (b), he may:
"make such amendments or other modifications of the provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under this Act".
Is that a blanket power for the Secretary of State to vary the provisions of the legislation?
These amendments are simply designed to elucidate what the Government have in mind and to see whether, at a future stage, we wish to probe even further and possibly oppose the powers that are being given to the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to satisfy the Committee on the meaning of what is contained in the Bill as presently drafted. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As the noble Lord said, the clause has the effect of adapting provisions which currently apply to the exercise by local government of the functions for which it is responsible so that all functions for which the existing district and county councils are responsible on 31st March 1996 will transfer in full to the new principal councils with effect from 1st April that year. There will be no diminution in the functions of local authorities arising from implementation of the new structure.
I recognise that Amendment No. 42 is a probing amendment. But it would leave out the recognition that specific provision for the transfer of functions is made elsewhere in the Bill; for example, Clause 21 and the schedules. It would also remove a reference to the provisions for statutory instruments.
The powers given to the Secretary of State under the Bill with respect to the making of provision by statutory instrument in relation to the transfer of functions are fully precedented in the provision made in the 1972 Act in relation to that reorganisation. It is important to note that the powers are exercisable solely in the context of the transfer of existing county and district council functions to the new councils as provided for under the Bill. The Committee will see that Clause 52(1) defines the powers as being,
"for the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act or in consequence of any of its provisions or for giving full effect to it"—
the purpose of the Act being, of course, the transfer of functions.
Amendment No. 42 would seek to remove subsection (6) from the clause. The purpose of subsection (6) is to enable the Secretary of State, should it become necessary, to make an order to resolve any doubts which might arise as to which is the "appropriate new principal area" for specific purposes. It is a power which it should not be necessary to use because it should always be possible to detect which is the correct area. It was included in the Bill as a failsafe in case such a need for clarification should arise. The point to emphasise is that it is not a power that could enable the Secretary of State

411
to take a responsibility away from local government but merely to adjudicate should a dispute arise as to which unitary authority should exercise the power.
Subsection (7) provides that in applying subsections (4) and (5) to existing local government legislation so as to transfer local government functions the existing legislation —that which is being amended, changed or removed—is to be construed, subject to any necessary modifications, to ensure that the transfer works properly. That seems to be an eminently sensible provision which tells the courts or others who are concerned with the interpretation of the Acts in question how they are to approach the matter in the new situation after reorganisation.
The provision in paragraph (b) is simply to be seen as an extension of this and would allow the Secretary of State to make amendments or modifications to a provision. But again that seems sensible so that the transfer works properly and is not in effect botched. In particular, it is thought that in some cases under the existing provisions functions are constituted in terms which relate to an interrelationship between the district authority and the county authority. This amendment would deal in those circumstances with the power of the Secretary of State to make an order amending or modifying such references to take account of the single-tier structure. That is what the provision is designed to do. Such a power is needed in order to remove doubts or uncertainties which might otherwise exist as to how this kind of provision was to apply in Wales after reorganisation.
The purpose of these provisions is simply to allow the courts to be guided as to how to construe the Act and where necessary in order to fulfil the purpose of transfer for this kind of order to be made by the Secretary of State. I hope that that assists the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But can the noble and learned Lord tell me how this is designed to help the courts construe the Act, as it will become on Royal Assent, before such an order is made by the Secretary of State? Clearly the courts, if there is a challenge in the courts, will have to depend on what is on the face of the Bill at the moment, assuming that it is enacted, before they can decide. It is only subsequently that the Secretary of State may make an order under any of the provisions that we are discussing. I am reserving my final remarks on this until I have heard what the noble and learned Lord has to say.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The point I was making—I apologise if I made it unclearly —is that the purpose of subsection (7)(a) is to be a guide to the courts when they are construing the existing legislation which is then to be applied in accordance with subsections (4) and (5) to the new authorities. When they are faced with a provision which, as the Committee will appreciate, will not have been written or designed for the new authorities, the guidance given by subsection (7)(a) is that it is to be construed,
"subject to any modifications necessary to give full effect to the provision".
412
So when they are faced with that after a transfer they can see that they are to approach it in the spirit that it is to be applied in order to give effect to the transfer after the Act. But where that cannot be done—it might not be possible to construe it across by just reading it in a reasonable way—there may be situations where it will be necessary for minor amendments to be made. That is what is provided for in paragraph (b). It is said there that the Secretary of State,
"may by order make such amendments or other modifications … as he considers necessary … in consequence of any provision".
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I had not quite followed his argument about the construction of subsection (7). Subsection (7)(a), if I may follow the noble and learned Lord's argument just for the moment, simply says that relevant legislative provision shall be construed by the courts,
"subject to any modifications necessary to give full effect to the provision".
It is a circular argument. The courts are instructed by Parliament to construe what is in Clause 17 subject to any modifications. It is the modifications under subsection (7) (b) that I am worried about. I am not worried about subsection (7) (a) and I accept the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of that subsection.
Perhaps I may go back to subsection (3), which is the object of my first amendment. I agree that we are now having a preview of Clause 52(1). When we get to Clause 52(1) we shall have a lot of argument about the powers that are available to the Secretary of State under that clause. I am still uncertain about the drafting of subsection (3). I think I now understand, after the noble and learned Lord's explanation, what it really means. But I am not sure that I do wholly. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could have a look at the drafting before we go to the next stage simply to see whether my doubts are such as to worry any court or lawyer—or indeed the noble and learned Lord—trying to interpret this.
Amendment No. 43 refers to subsection (6). I accept that that is a failsafe, as I believe the noble and learned Lord quite honestly said. It is very odd to have a failsafe in a Bill or an Act. It means that one is not safe and therefore one has to have a failsafe. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord will have another look at that and see whether it is really necessary to put these rather random subsections in the Bill when it is not entirely certain that the Bill will have the effect expected of it. Having had the discussion with the noble and learned Lord—I am grateful for his response—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Joint and special planning boards in Wales]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the complicated matter of the provisions to be made for the national parks. I must first declare an interest as one of

413
the vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks. I am moving what is essentially a probing amendment at this stage. I shall probably want to revisit this subject at a later stage of this Bill's progress, depending largely on the degree of satisfaction that I can wrest from the Government's response tonight. I need not remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the Government's promise to create independent authorities for all the national parks is a manifesto commitment and the Welsh Office will be well aware that I have been inquiring about the fulfilment of that promise for quite some time.
But am I correct in thinking that, apart from the pressure of business, there is no further impediment to the fulfilment of that pledge and that the general thrust of Clause 19 of the Bill, in so far as it relates to national parks, is to remove all barriers which might impede the upgrading of national park committees into independent boards? If that be so, do the Government have any substantial objection to the public inquiry procedure or do they simply think that an inquiry would be otiose? It might be argued that people have the right to know and these matters too often get slipped through without public knowledge and that a public inquiry could do no possible harm and might do some good.
Finally, what is the significance of the date "31st March 1997", which appears at page 15, line 35? Suspicious souls, amongst whom of course I would not number myself, might think that the words,
"if the board constituted by the order is to come into existence before 31st March 1997",
implies that not very much is going to happen on this front before about February 1997. I hope that that is not going to be the case. I would welcome the Government's reassurance on this and the other points I have raised. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: The amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Prys-Davies, would introduce a local inquiry requirement for joint planning boards in relation to the establishment of those boards for national parks before 31st March 1997. The amendment would make it impossible to create the boards at the same time as local government reorganisation. An inquiry could only be held after the shadow councils had been set up and three separate inquiries would he needed—one for each park—which would have very serious resource implications. At a minimum, the process would delay the creation of the boards by a year and would therefore require the creation of national park committees for the interim period. The new boards must be in a position to issue their levies before 15th February 1996 and would therefore have to be in existence before then.
By dispensing with the need for an inquiry, the possibility of boards being established for national parks in Wales can be debated in the context of this Bill. The 1997 time limit ensures that the dispensation applies only to boards set up in relation to the reorganisation. There are no proposals to change the number of parks or
414
any of their other arrangements, and I am sure that the Committee would agree that there is no need for public inquiries in these circumstances.
Your Lordships are, of course, aware of the Bill that my noble friend Lord Norrie proposes to introduce, which would have the effect of creating independent national park authorities. Were this to receive the approval of Parliament, the Government would not utilise the provisions of Clause 19 to create joint park boards.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am deeply obliged to the noble Viscount for that reply, which partially relieves some of my anxieties. On the question of the public inquiry, I do not want to push him very much further and since the brief from which he read so eloquently was not aware of the other questions that I asked, perhaps I am asking a lot if I ask him to find answers to them on his feet. However, I would be much obliged if he could take a look at Hansard tomorrow and, if he finds that there is anything further on which he would like to comment in relation to the questions that I have asked him which he could not answer, perhaps he will write to me. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Unitary Development Plans in Wales]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.46:
Page 61, line 22, leave out ("which") and insert ("to the extent that it").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Paragraph 1(5) of the new Part 1A inserted into Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act defines an "existing plan" for the purposes of the continuation of structure, local and old development plans. This is a clarifying amendment to recognise that, by virtue of a direction under paragraph 45(6) of Schedule 4 to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, it is possible for an old plan to be continued in force to a limited extent only. This is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transfer of other specific functions]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.47:
Page 17, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule 9A makes provision for the transfer to the new principal councils of functions in relation to water, land drainage and coast protection.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 47 introduces a new schedule, which is set out in Amendment No. 52. The schedule contains consequential amendments to legislation relating to water, land drainage and coast protection. All the amendments are solely for the purpose of carrying forward existing county and district functions to the new councils.
The Committee will appreciate that it would have been possible to achieve this purpose through the general provision for the transfer of functions in Clause

415
17 of the Bill. However, as with other functions covered in the Bill, it is considered more helpful for those who use the relevant legislation to have express amendments in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee why the schedule was not included in the Bill in the first place? Can he also say why there is no similar schedule dealing with education and fire services?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The schedule was not included in the Bill as originally prepared for and presented to this place because it was simply not ready. The Committee will appreciate that detailed work had to be done in looking out all the references. This schedule was not ready. It will be helpful for practitioners to have this kind of schedule rather than to have to rely on the general provisions. There are some areas where it is not necessary because the way in which statutes are defined make it unnecessary to have this kind of minute amendment in the Bill. Due to the way Education Bills are drafted, it is not necessary for this kind of minute amendment to be put in. That is why in the case of these functions the amendment has been brought forward.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for saying that the Bill was not ready when it was presented to this place on First Reading. I always understood that the Government had some sort of duty—one never knows what duty the present Government have—to present Bills to this place which are ready and are not to be added to as we go through them—at an early stage or on the first day of Committee. Perhaps we shall have more schedules as we go along. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how many other schedules are in draft and waiting for presentation when they are ready? When will we receive the final Bill which we can then discuss?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I cannot say whether there are any others which will be presented. What I can say is that properly parliamentary counsel is always looking to see whether a Bill can be improved while it is proceeding through this place. I am sure that your Lordships would always wish that when a Bill emerges from consideration in this place and in another place, and when it comes to be operated, it is in the most complete and efficient form. The amendment is an improvement to the Bill. I make no apologies for bringing it forward.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand fully what the noble and learned Lord is saying. He said originally that this schedule was not in the Bill as presented to this place because it was not ready, unless I misheard him.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That is right.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am asking how many other schedules, clauses or whatever it may be are not ready? It is not a question of what might result from our discussions; it is other things that are not ready.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I may have used the words wrongly. What I was saying is that it is always sought to improve the Bill and to see whether it can be made more appropriate for practitioners by introducing a schedule like this. I cannot say whether parliamentary counsel will identify in that process ways in which the Bill can be further improved. If he can, I am sure that he will bring forward those amendments. I would hope that your Lordships would accept that they might improve the Bill.
These are technical matters, as I said. The Bill could go through and rely upon the general power in Clause 17. The amendment improves the Bill for practitioners not because the Bill, as originally introduced, would not have the effect of transferring the functions but because it would be more difficult for practitioners to use. A schedule like this makes the Bill more user friendly—to use the modern jargon—for those who have to operate the legislation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 17, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule [Combined Trading Standards Authority] makes provision for constituting combined trading standards authorities and transferring to them functions in relation to weights and measures, trading standards and related matters.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 48 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 53 which imports a new schedule into the Bill, and so I shall, with the Committee's leave, speak to both amendments. I regret that the schedule, although shorter than that introduced by my noble and learned friend, will require a little more explanation from me than did his.
I start by declaring an interest as a vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. It is not a pecuniary interest, but it means that I have ready access to its information, which I shall use, and I was persuaded to one of its concerns. That is one reason why I have taken part in the Bill.
The other reason is that I was a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment responsible for taking through your Lordships' House the Bill which eventually became the Local Government Act 1985. That Bill, like this Bill, was designed to reduce the size, and therefore to increase the number, of certain local authorities. We have seen the consequences of what we did. Generally speaking, that has been beneficial or at worst neutral in its effect. But for the trading standards service the results have not been beneficial. In most areas they have been the reverse. That is bad news not just for the trading standards service but for its clientele. That means all the consumers, all the retailers and all the producers—and therefore all the population in the areas concerned.
Where one has to deliver a service of the complexity of that delivered by the trading standards service the size of the unit delivering the service becomes critical. There is a limit to the number of skills that one man can master and the number of visits that he can make in a given time. That size is dictated by the size of the population for which the unit is responsible. The effect of the 1985 Act was to break up the big metropolitan county authorities into a larger number of smaller authorities. It

417
gave them the power but crucially did not give them the duty to deliver specific services, including trading standards, through voluntary co-operative groups.
That is precisely what we are now proposing in this Bill. Eight years after we passed the Local Government Act only one such groups remains. Many of the successor bodies provide on their own a service that is either less effective or more expensive than that provided by its larger predecessor or by its co-operative predecessor. I believe that some provide services which are both less effective and more expensive.
I wish to remind your Lordships of two matters. First, in Wales the units were starting from an already smaller size than were the English metropolitan authorities or, indeed, units into which they were broken up. Secondly, the entire force of the trading standards service in Wales amounts to 120 officers. If we make the same mistakes again the consequences are likely to be a great deal worse. Indeed, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration argues that if all the new Welsh local authorities ended up trying to deliver the service single handed, they would average only five professional staff and some would have only one or two. One is trying to apply 70 Acts of Parliament and the subordinate legislation.
In that event the institute may have understated its case because what happened after the abolition of the metropolitan counties was that no less than 30 per cent. of the trading standard officers disappeared. I strongly believe that we must put in place provisions to ensure that the new authorities combine effectively to provide the service to units of population of a sufficient size to make them efficient and that having combined they stay combined and do not fly apart, as almost all the metropolitan ones have done under the centrifugal pressures of local government politics and finance.
The trading standards service is not well known in this country and the importance of its work is not generally understood. I remind the Committee that it is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of 70 Acts of Parliament and many hundreds of orders and regulations under those. Its list of duties is therefore long and at every point they are designed to protect the welfare and often the lives of the consumer. They range from weights and measures to mortgages, from trades descriptions to product counterfeiting and, more dramatically, from the control of explosives to vehicle safety. If the service fails the result may be merely that motorists receive only 98 per cent. of the litre of fuel that they pay for or that couch potatoes watch pirated video tapes instead of legal ones. However, it can mean that motorists drive cars with lethal defects, that children buy violent and pornographic video tapes or that housewives cook meat contaminated with mad cow disease. If that were to become generally known, there would be a high level of public interest and anxiety.
The service provided by those 120 officers is of very great importance not only to the comfort but also to the safety of everyone in Wales. In Wales a great many people are not only producers but also consumers. It is on them and their colleagues in the United Kingdom that the prosperity of the Principality and this country depends. Therefore, let us remember that while much of
418
the mass of legislation which those people implement bears on distributors, almost all of it bears on producers It bears extremely heavily, and it will bear even more heavily if we do not get this matter right.
For example, it will nearly treble the number of trading standards contact points that suppliers supplying throughout the Principality will have to deal with. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury would have made that Pont had he been able to be here. The manufacturing and commercial sectors are acutely aware of the importance of the issue. In a letter to local authorities, the CBI pointed out,
"the work carried out by trading standards departments is absolutely essential, in terms of the protection of individuals and businesses alike from unfair trading practices; … no local government department has a greater role to play in our well being and our safety than the trading standards department."
Those sectors are concerned also about the question of maintaining a viable size of unit. The British Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent. of British retailers, wrote to the Secretary of State last year and again last week to say that it is concerned that the considerable reduction in the size of operational units would make it impossible to provide the level of expertise necessary to provide a full trading standards service. It added that multiple retailers are also concerned that the regulations should be enforced consistently throughout the country since the inconsistent enforcement of regulations makes life very much more difficult.
The institute has received similar representations—I shall not quote them all—from the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Bankers Association, the Country Landowners' Association, the Industry Anti-Counterfeiting Group, the Consumer Credit Trade Association, the Finance and Leasing Association, the Retail Credit Group, the Market Law Advisory Service, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and the Federation Against Software Theft.
I have a good deal more to say in support of the amendments but the hour is late and if I can persuade my noble friend by saying that much, I shall be content to turn to the question of the actual supportable size.
That is an extremely difficult point. INLOGOV—which is not a retired Russian general but the Institute of Local Government Studies, based at Birmingham University—says that the effective minimum size of authority for the effective administration of the service should be a 750,000 population. That is not achievable; but under the Bill as it came to us, the average was 137,000; 15 authorities have under 150,000; four are below 100,000; and even Cardiff, the largest, has only just over a third of what is recommended.
It is not only non-governmental organisations which hold those views. The Ministry of Agriculture is of the view that the minimum size of authority to discharge that function should have a population of 350,000. If that is not enough for my noble and learned friend, I draw his attention to the submission of the Department of Trade and Industry to the Welsh Office during its review, part of the introduction of the Bill arid, therefore, prior to his involvement with the Welsh Office. It said that a structure of 23 independent trading

419
standards departments in unitary authorities is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory and consistent level of service across Wales, even with the advantages of amalgamation with and support from other unitary authority departments. In particular, such a structure would encounter problems as regards manning departments with adequate numbers of personnel, there being shortages even under the current arrangements.
With that weight of opinion as regards the minimum size of unit necessary, we must provide more than the entirely voluntary solution set out in the Bill which has been proved by the 1985 Act not to work.
Sir Bryan Carsberg, the Director General of Fair Trading, wrote to the Secretary of State last week to express his doubts that an effective trading standards service providing a high and expert level of service in the interests of consumers:
"would be the result, if a large number of much smaller authorities were to emerge unless special arrangements were made for the service".
My amendment provides an example of what those special arrangements might be. I do not propose to detail it. If Members of the Committee read it, they will see it is a probing amendment which sets out quite clearly what is intended. If the Committee has further questions, I shall of course be delighted to answer them. I hope the Minister will now feel that there is such a battery of opinion in favour of an amendment on these lines that he will be content at least to take it away and consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. As a past president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, I came to know about the enormous variety of its activities, which are added to virtually every month by new legislation which is either introduced in our Parliament here or emanates from Brussels. But, more importantly, I began to understand the increasing sophistication and the high technology of the work, particularly as regards such issues as counterfeit trading, which has shown a massive increase.
I wish to emphasise the fact that the recognition accorded to the trading standards organisations in this country by those who deal with them—I refer particularly to trading organisations such as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has mentioned—is paralleled by the recognition and the commendations that they receive from abroad. I was present at a meeting in Brussels a year or so ago where I met Commissioner Van Miert, who was then responsible for consumer protection. He was full of praise for the work of the trading standards organisations in this country, particularly for the effectiveness of their enforcement methods, which far surpassed those of many other countries in the European Union.
I have here a copy of a letter sent by the director of the corporate security department of a large American multinational to the President of the Board of Trade in which he too speaks highly of the trading standards organisation here with which he works closely in the performance of his duties. He expressed the gravest
420
concern about what might happen to the effectiveness of the organisation if its unit size were further diminished. That is the issue we have before us.
The reasons for the reorganisation of local government in Wales have been fully explored during our debates this afternoon and indeed some Members of the Committee have put forward amendments which would introduce even more units of local government. However, it was also recognised, not least by my noble friend Lord Hooson, that there may well be certain functions which smaller units of local government could not adequately perform and therefore that these should be performed in common. It is precisely that proposition which is before the Committee at the present time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has pointed out, it is a possibility under existing arrangements for trading standards organisations to be combined. Many such combined collective arrangements were put in hand but only two now survive: one in West Yorkshire and one in London. The likelihood of these arrangements surviving in Wales is poor, judging by past experience. It is for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has moved this amendment and I support it strongly.
If it is the Government's intention to make absolutely sure that the mass of legislation intended to safeguard consumers is in place and to ensure that food is of adequate substance and that goods described for sale are properly so described and to carry out the manifold functions which the trading standards organisations now have to perform and will have to perform increasingly in the future, and if those tasks are to be performed effectively, I believe that the Government must recognise that the units in which that work is done will have to be of sufficient size to enable the necessary technology and sophistication to be available. The more they are fragmented, the less effective will be their work. Those who will suffer most are individual consumers and trading organisations. For example, the big multiples are extremely concerned by the variability of performance of the fragmented trading standards organisations. They want a trading standards organisation which is efficient, well run and uniform throughout the country. Fragmentation would lead in the opposite direction. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will take the amendment very seriously.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: As one of the vice-presidents of the trading standards institute I should like to add to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the pressure of opinion among the varying client groups which contact the trading standards administration. Those include many retail organisations and national organisations. They see the problems which result from dealing with small trading standards units which are perhaps not effective.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the trading standards service has a direct impact upon electors and consumers. They have rights under the Welsh Bill as they would have under any English Bill. As electors they should be safeguarded from rackets carried on by certain types of traders. The awareness of consumers

421
locally is important in ensuring that government legislation is complied with and, when they see that it is not, in making reports to local trading standards officers so that they can take the necessary action.
The matter is not only important for local consumers. It is also important for trade. With the deregulation that is taking place we are finding increasingly that trade has more problems. The British Retail Consortium has added its support for larger trading standards units. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Bill will fragment the services which already exist in Wales.
It is important that the Government take note of the Audit Commission's reports. In the Audit Commission's report, Safer Foods—Local Authorities and the Food Safety Act, the point is made for us. It says that
"Many small authorities have neither the resources nor the relevant expertise to cope with the increasing complexity of enforcing standards on food producers".
Perhaps on some occasions the Audit Commission's remarks have not been taken as seriously as they are taken at present. Therefore, I hope that when he answers the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us some information on that aspect.
We also have to consider the tremendous amount of work which trading standards officers have to undertake in the form of detective work. That is primarily aimed at ensuring that customers are not ripped off and cheated by less reputable traders.
The less reputable traders are defrauding the legitimate businesses. We all know about counterfeiting; it is becoming a serious issue in this country. One can obtain videos, car parts, and parts for everything. There is the counterfeiting of perfumes which is upsetting large organisations not only in this country but elsewhere.
Last year 8,700 summonses were issued in the United Kingdom, involving the seizure of goods valued in excess of £8.7 million. However, if one looks at those who made the seizures, over 6,000 of the 8,700 summonses were issued by the large county and regional trading standards departments, because those departments have the large, comprehensive services with enforcing officers, investigating officers and the variety of the skills required.
On the issue of animal health, the panel of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated:
"Small unitary authorities as proposed for Wales would not be able to provide the level of service required to deal effectively and efficiently with all aspects of animal health and welfare enforcement".
Therefore we have the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—one of the Government's many departments—saying exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. In their various ways, government departments are stating that one needs adequate size for trading standards departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, made valid points in support of the amendment. The submission before the Committee is clear. We shall achieve the excellent service already given by trading standards departments in the larger authorities in future only if we state that small units are not satisfactory because they do not contain the breadth of experience for the various tasks
422
which trading standards officers are called upon to perform. I urge the Minister to listen carefully and to digest the arguments put forward in support of the amendment.
The position has been argued successfully. There needs to be recognition of what constitutes a reasonably sized authority for enforcement of government legislation. The trading standards officers enforce government regulations as well as giving general information to the trade and consumers. Those officers can only perform that duty with adequate, trained personnel.
The anxieties expressed to the Committee indicate conclusively that a reduction of services will take place automatically in Wales unless a minimum size of authority is defined. When the Minister replies, will he give guidance on what he considers to be a reasonably sized population to support an authority? What would he consider to be the number to ensure that we are, following the Government's wish, if there is to be an adequate service to carry out the legislation?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I fully accept the argument that trading standards need to be conducted by authorities which have appropriate financial back up and an appropriate financial spread. I also accept the argument that the unitary authorities being set up by the Bill, if it is enacted, may well, in some cases, not be of the appropriate size to have a fully fledged trading standards section and be able to finance it properly so that the consumer is protected.
I have difficulty with the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. First, I should have thought that if we are to have a body which,
"shall … cover the whole of Wales",
to quote paragraph 3 of the proposed schedule, it should properly be the Principality of Wales. But as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not agree with us that there should be a principality of Wales which should be a local government authority. Therefore, to my mind, that somewhat undermines his case.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. He is misreading paragraph 3. It says that the total of all the areas produced by the process:
"shall between them cover the whole of Wales"
It does not say that Wales shall itself be a single area.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord; I was just coming to the point that he anticipated. If we say that there is no such thing as the Principality of Wales, the view which I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, took in the Division Lobby this afternoon; if we say that we do not want that—and maybe the noble Lord voted in our Lobby this afternoon, but I thought he voted against it—
Lord Elton: There was no question of abolishing the Principality of Wales; it was a question of whether Wales itself should have an authority which should cover the whole of Wales. That is an option here. I think that the minimum number would be three. As a former Home Office Minister, it would be convenient to hang

423
the whole thing, for example, on the joint fire authorities. We are not laying down what the Secretary of State should decide, we are giving him an open card to write his own messages.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There again, I come back to my problem with the noble Lord. I could understand it if he had said that there should be something called the Principality of Wales which should be elected.
Lord Elton: Not an assembly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The original amendment concerned the Principality of Wales, if I may remind the noble Lord. If there should also be an assembly which should be elected, then I could quite understand that there should be a trading standards authority which should cover the whole of Wales. My problem with the noble Lord's amendment is that he seeks to give the Secretary of State powers to determine where, how and in what geographical order there should be authorities for trading standards. In other words, they are removed from the local government provision; they are removed from what I would have preferred, the Principality of Wales, and put in the hands of the Secretary of State who shall, according to paragraph 1 of the noble Lord's schedule,
"by order establish such number of bodies as he considers to be appropriate".
I am afraid that I have great difficulty with that. I believe trading standards authorities should be subject to democratic authority. So I join the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in saying that I have major doubts about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, I accept the noble Lord's primary thesis that the unitary authorities envisaged by the Government under the Bill are perhaps not strong enough in financial terms and all the rest of it, to support a proper trading standards authority. I should be very happy to hear the noble and learned Lord's response to my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal. Exactly what do the Government consider is a sensible size of authority to support a trading standards activity?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as has been clear, the effect of the amendments would be to provide for the creation of an unspecified number of combined trading standards authorities in Wales with responsibility for weights and measures, trading standards and related matters.
The Government's opposition begins from the point that such joint arrangements would not in effect provide the same degree of local accountability as would exist if—and this is consistent with the underlying policy of the Act—as the Government would prefer, individual local authorities, democratically elected, retain the responsibility for trading standards.
Much was said in the course of the discussion about consumers. Various noble Lords quoted communications that they had received. In that context, perhaps I may be permitted to quote from a letter which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State received today from Mr. Derek Prentice, the assistant director of the Consumers' Association, in which he says:
424
"[The] Consumers' Association's opposition to this amendment is fundamental".
He goes on to say that,
"one of the strengths of trading standards services in this country, as compared with the rest of Europe, is that being more localised, they are considerably more accessible to the businesses and consumers they are there to serve. … the trading standards service should be customer led. It should be based on analysis of inquiries and complaints from customers, so revealing the particular concerns of the local community. For that reason if no other, it follows that the service should be fully accessible to local inquiries and complaints".
That is what the representative of the Consumers' Association has to say on this amendment. Therefore, when it is said that the amendment favours the consumers, in my submission that provides a very clear steer on the matter. When the Government say that these matters should, so far as possible, be dealt with on a local basis, then that is not only good within the context of this Bill, but it is also good for consumers.
There is no reason why trading standards services cannot be satisfactorily delivered by 21 unitary authorities, not necessarily of course acting in isolation. Where necessary, the new authorities will indeed be able to enter into a range of voluntary collaborative arrangements to deliver particular services or particular kinds of services, and to ensure that the full range of specialisms is available for a particular area. That could result in the development of centres of excellence, the creation of a "lead authority" in particular matters, or it could result from the use of the trading power provided under the legislation.
For that reason, because it would in the end be a matter for the various local authorities to determine what is best for the particular services, I would not think it right to try to lay down or to prescribe for local government what would be the particular size of authority which was necessary to provide a particular type of service. I would expect those charged with that responsibility in local government to come in the particular area to the correct solution on that matter.
It is the Government's intention that all 21 trading standards authorities should be supported by technical advice and guidance supplied, for example, by the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Trading Standards, the Institute of Trading Standards Administrators and the professional network which is already largely in place in Wales. We have always accepted that the increased number of authorities delivering the service as a result of the reorganisation will demand better co-ordination. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already invited the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body to take on an enhanced advisory and co-ordinating role after reorganisation.
I have to say that to the Government there seems an obvious parallel to be drawn with the environmental health service, which enforces national standards over 37 authorities at present. Local arrangements already operate for environmental health, and there have emerged liaison bodies to achieve the kind of co-ordination, co-operation and uniformity of standards which are required in order that the legislation should be

425
properly enforced. There is no reason why after reorganisation similar arrangements should not work for trading standards.
The Government believe that it is right, therefore, to let the new unitary authorities retain responsibility for individual services, wherever possible. They recognise that, for the reasons which have been given, in the case of the trading standards service some joint arrangements will be required in certain areas. But, as I have stressed, in the Government's view such arrangements should be allowed to emerge after reorganisation through local consultation and not through central prescription by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot agree to the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him, after listening to the debates this afternoon and the arguments from all the local authorities represented by various Members of the Committee who put forward their particular cases, whether he believes that there will be the co-operation of which he spoke? I thought that various speakers were all batting on their own wickets. I could not see them making a very good team, whoever they were playing for. Is he confident that co-operation can be achieved between all the authorities?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am confident that, when the organisation is in place and the local authorities elected, and therefore responsible for providing the proper services for the people whom they serve, they will look around and decide whether it is necessary for them to obtain services from elsewhere. They will obtain them in appropriate cases from other local authorities. I am satisfied that, once the authority is in position, these arrangements will work, despite the apparent fragility of relations between certain communities.
Lord Ezra: The noble and learned Lord seemed to attach considerable weight to a letter received from an official of the Consumers' Association. But I wonder whether he has seen all the other letters quoted by his noble friend Lord Elton from the leading retail organisations of the country, the CBI and all the big organisations concerned with trading standards. They are extremely concerned that the break-up and fragmentation of this service could prove very harmful to their efforts. These things need to be put together.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to comprehend why, in the case of the police and the fire service, the Government apparently decided that the esteemed local connection need not be maintained. They seem to feel that if any authority is taken out from the local level, local contact will not be maintained. Are they suggesting that the police will no longer have local contact with the inhabitants of the areas that they serve because they will be re-formed in three groups? Obviously that is not the case. It would not be the case for trading standards if they too were re-formed into three groups. The benefit would be that they could be of sufficient strength as units to carry out the highly
426
sophisticated tasks that they have to perform in tracking down counterfeiting and all the other activities to which reference has been made.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I have seen a number of the letters referred to but I cannot say that I have seen them all. I am aware of the kinds of points made in the letters. I did not quote the letter because it was the be-all and end-all but simply because it was a letter which put a different point of view; more particularly, it put the point of view of consumers, which was being represented as different from what the Consumers' Association was saying that it was.
With regard to the other points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, of course the position of the police and fire services is different. By the nature of those services they have to be delivered in a different way. In the case of the services of trading standards, they can be delivered properly in the manner which I suggested, and that that can be done is suggested by the parallel of the environmental health service, which is delivered perfectly satisfactorily by a large number of authorities at present.
Lord Elton: On the question of consumers, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not think that the Consumers' Association is the only voice in the field. I believe I am right in saying that both the National Consumer Council and the. Consumer Council for Wales take the view that I advanced, and I shall take care to confirm that to my noble and learned friend between now and Report stage because this is a large and serious issue.
On the question of the proper size which will serve to render an effective service, it is important that my noble and learned friend answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I understand that the Secretary of State will be in a position to stand at long stop, and if he feels that arrangements are not satisfactory he will be able to intervene. The machinery for that at present is defective and I hope that a later amendment will show its defects. But, if it is to be operated, it is important to know on what criteria it will be operated. Therefore perhaps my noble and learned friend can say what is a sufficient minimum size that his right honourable friend would regard as viable.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I did not fail to answer the question, although I may have given an answer which was not satisfactory to my noble friend. My position is that there should be arrangements which deliver the service satisfactorily. It is in the situation where the arrangements have not worked satisfactorily—to use one of the tests in one of the later clauses—that the Secretary of State may intervene. Among other tests, the test is whether the arrangements are working satisfactorily.
I have not prescribed and do not purport to prescribe what would be the necessary size of authority to deliver a satisfactory service. The question is whether the service delivered is a satisfactory service.
Lord Elton: If the test is to be retrospective, it will be operating after the damage is done, possibly with

427
explosives and possibly with mad cow disease. That would be regrettable. However, we must not protract this matter too long this evening.
I am not uncomfortable at being in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, because I am used to it. But I am encouraged that he sees that there is a problem which may need a solution. I hope that when he looks again at our amendment he will see that it is a probing amendment showing a draft scheme and the question of the existence or not of the Principality of Wales does not arise.
I shall read with great care what was said by my noble and learned friend to see whether I can extract from it any more elements of persuasion than I was able to extract when I was listening to it. While I sympathise with his position, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, put his finger on the point when he pointed out that forming three or more co-operative groups does not take anything away from a local authority; indeed, it is precisely what is intended to happen under the Bill as drafted. The only difference is that we are asking the Secretary of State to ensure that it happens by some means; a specific means that we have illustrated in general terms in the amendment.
I had hoped that my noble and learned friend's response would be to find a different means by which the Secretary of State could ensure it which would be less offensive to him and possibly also to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I may therefore return at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Highways, Road Traffic and Transport]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 79, line 29, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the consent of).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 49 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. I also welcome the corrections to the grammar in these amendments which have appeared miraculously between their first appearance in print and their second. It adds a pleasing touch of literacy to our proceedings.
This amendment is intended to test the extent to which it is desirable or necessary for the Secretary of State to delegate specific functions under the Highways Act 1980 and what the relative responsibilities of different local authorities should be. What necessity is there for any such provision to be made, and made in such guarded terms?
"The Minister shall not delegate functions… except after consultation".
That means surely that after some form of consultation has been gone through the Secretary of State can do what he likes. It is a very considerable power. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether subsection (1) (b) sets right some existing anomaly. Does it fulfil some deeply felt need? Surely no council should be compelled to take on a highways function
428
against its will. Nor should a council cede the power to do something in its area to another council unless it is happy to do so.
May we also ask the noble and learned Lord whether this is really a large issue or a small one? Is it likely to be used frequently, or indeed is it ever likely to be used at all? Perhaps he could be obliging enough to explain to the Committee in what circumstances it is envisaged that the power to delegate a function to a council to do something to a highway in an area not its own against the wishes of the council in whose area its function is to be exercised is ever likely to be required. It is because we prefer consent to consultation, which is a very shifting sand of a word, even in abstruse and abstract and rarefied conditions like these, that we put forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Amendment No. 49 and Amendment No. 50 which is consequential upon it modify the amendments made in Schedule 7 to the Bill to Section 6 of the Highways Act 1980. Section 6 contains the power whereby the Secretary of State, as the highways authority for trunk roads, can delegate to local highway authorities performance of his maintenance and improvement functions. To use local highways authorities as agents in this matter is something which the Secretary of State is in the habit of doing.
At present, if it is desired to delegate such functions to a local highway authority in respect of trunk roads outside its area, this can only be done with the consent of the local highway authority within whose area the trunk road lies. The amendments to the Highways Act made in Schedule 7 remove the consent requirement and substitute a consultation requirement. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to maintain the consent requirement.
At present the Secretary of State has only eight agents—the eight counties. It follows, since all the eight counties act as his agents in this matter, that it would be very rare for it to be necessary for one highway authority to act outside its area because the Secretary of State, if he wished work done in another area, would simply use the agency of the neighbouring county authority. But in future there will be a much larger number of authorities not all of which would be used as agents of the Secretary of State for this matter after reorganisation. Therefore, in that situation the problem would arise more frequently that a local authority might be called on, when acting as the agent of the Secretary of State, to work in another local authority area. If one were in that situation, to maintain the consent provision the result would be to introduce the possibility of uncertainty and delay in getting this kind of work done.
I can add that the use of the consultation test is a reflection of what is already the position in relation to metropolitan counties and has been since 1985. Therefore, to that extent we are reflecting a practice under other legislation.
Similar considerations apply to Amendment No. 51 which also applies to Section 6 of the Highways Act 1980. Subsection 6(A), as amended by paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 7, will allow a Secretary of State's agent authority to sub-contract to another Welsh council in

429
respect of a trunk road outside the sub-contractor's area after consultation with the council in whose area the trunk road lies. Again, the amendment would substitute consent. However, again the Secretary of State believes that it is important that there should be the maximum flexibility to allow the best local authority expertise to be used in these circumstances. For that reason the matter of consultation again arises.
I hope that explains the matter to the Committee and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: Can the noble and learned Lord help us a little further? Of the 21 new authorities, how many are likely to be appointed agents of the Secretary of State for highway purposes?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The matter has not been decided. I have asked that very question. I understand that it is likely to be fewer than the eight authorities which do it at the moment. The exact number has not yet been decided on.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I believe that I find it helpful in so far as I have partially, tangentially and fleetingly understood it. Nevertheless, I feel somehow inexplicably relieved by what he has said, especially in answer to my noble friend's particular question. Reserving my right to come back to it at a later stage if I am not happy with what I read tomorrow in Hansard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos, 50 and 51 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 52:
After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 9A

WATER

  The Reservoirs Act 1975 (c. 23)
  1. In, section 2 of the Reservoirs Act 1975 (functions of local authorities), in subsection (1) —

  (a) omit "and Wales"; and

  (b) after "London boroughs" insert ", in Wales, the councils of counties and county boroughs".

  The Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)
  2. — (1) In section 191 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (duties to make recreational facilities available when building reservoirs in Wales), in subsection (2) (b), for "district" substitute "county or county borough".
  (2) In section 219 of that Act (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of "local authority", at the end add "but, in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough".

  The Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57)
  3.—

  (1) In section 10 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (composition of regional flood defence committees), in subsection (5), after "county," insert "county borough,".

  (2) In section 13 of that Act (composition of local flood defence committees), in subsection (7), after "county," insert "county borough,".

  (3) In section 140 of that Act (appeals relating to contributions from internal drainage boards), in subsection (1) (b), after "county" insert ", county borough".

  430

  (4) In section 167 of that Act (power to dispose of spoil in connection with flood defence works), in subsection (3), after "London borough" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".

  (5) In section 184 of that Act (duties to make recreational facilities available when building reservoirs in Wales), in subsection (2) (b), for "district" substitute "county or county borough".

  (6) In section 221 of that Act (general interpretadon), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), after "county," insert "county borough,".

  (7) In Schedule 8 to that Act (proceedings on applications for drought orders), in the Table in paragraph 1(2), for "a county" in each place substitute "an English county".

  (8) In Schedule 14 to that Act (orders transferring main river functions to the Authority), in paragraph 2(2) (a), after "county council" insert ", county borough council".

  (9) In Schedule 15 to that Act (drainage charges), in paragraph 13(4), after "London borough" in each place insert "or Welsh county or county borough".

  (10) In Schedule 16 to that Act (schemes imposing special drainage charges) —

  (a) in paragraph 1(2) (a) (i), after "county," insert "county borough,"; and

  (b) in paragraph 3(2) (a), after "county council" insert ', county borough council".

  (11) In Schedule 19 to that Act (orders conferring compulsory works powers), in paragraph 1(3) (a), for "a county" substitute "an English county".

LAND DRAINAGE
  The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (c. 50)
  4. In section 8 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (improvement of ways over fen-lands), in subsection (3), after "county" insert "or county borough".

  The Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59)
  5.—(1) In section 10 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (exercise of default powers by local authorities), in subsection (1), after "county," insert "county borough,".
  (2) In section 14 of that Act (general cliainage powers of boards and local authorities), in subsection (4) (b), for "a county" substitute "an English county".
  (3) In section 15 of that Act (disposal of spoil by boards and local authorities), in subsection (5), for "London borough," substitute "London borough or Welsh county or county borough,".
  (4) In section 16 of that Act (exercise of local authority powers under sections 14 and 15), in subsection (1), for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (3) and (3A)", in subsection (2), after "borough council" insert "or Welsh county council or county borough council", and at the end add—
  "(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to powers conferred on a Welsh county council or county borough council."
  (5) In section 18 of that Act (drainage of small areas), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) Subsection (1) above has effect in relation to land in Wales with the omission of the words "other than a district council"."
  (6) In section 20 of that Act (arrangements with other persons for carrying out drainage works), at the end add—
  "(5) Subsection (2) above has effect in relation to Wales with the omission of "other than the council of a non-metropolitan district"
  (7) In section 55 of that Act (powers to borrow), in subsection (2), after "county" insert ", county borough".
  (8) In section 57 of that Act (contributions by the NRA to expenses of internal drainage boards), in subsection (4) (b), after "county" insert ", county borough".
  (9) In section 58 of that Act (allocation of NRA revenue for its functions as an internal drainage board), in subsection (4), after "county" insert ", county borough".
  (10) In section 62 of that Act (powers to acquire land), in subsection (2), after "London borough" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".
  (11) In section 66 of that Act (powers to make byelaws), in subsections (1) and (2), for "a county" in each place substitute "an English county".
  (12) In section 72 of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" in subsection (1), after "county," insert "county borough,".
  (13) In Schedule 2 to that Act (expenses and proceedings etc of internal drainage boards), in paragraphs 4(1) (b) and 5(1) (b), after "county" in each place insert ", county borough".
  (14) In Schedule 3 to that Act (procedure with respect to certain orders), in paragraph 2(2) (a), after "county council", insert ", county borough council".
  (15) In Schedule 4 to that Act (schemes for small drainage works), in paragraph 3(2), after "county," insert "county borough,"

COAST PROTECTION

  The Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74)
  6.—(1) In section 2 of the Coast Protection Act 1949 (constitution of coast protection boards), in subsection (2) (a), after "county" insert "(other than one in Wales)".
  (2) In section 20 of that Act (contributions towards expenses of coast protection)—

  (a) in subsection (1), omit "or Wales";

  (b) in subsection (4), omit "or Wales";

  (c) in subsection (5), for "or Wales" substitute ", the council of a county or county borough in Wales".

  (3) In section 21 of that Act (grants), in subsection (1) (b), after "county" insert "or county borough".
  (4) In section 22 of that Act (incidental use of land acquired for coast protection), in subsection (2), for "or Wales" substitute ", the council of a county or county borough in Wales".
  (5) In section 45 of that Act (service of notices and other documents), in subsection (1) (b), after "county," insert "county borough,".
  (6) In section 49 of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "maritime district", after second "district" insert "or Welsh county or county borough".
  (7) In Schedule 1 to that Act (orders), in paragraph 1(a), after "county," insert "county borough,".")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
  Clause 22 [Fire Services]:
  Lord Prys-Davies moved Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 17, line 30, after ("until") insert ("on or after").
  The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It is to obtain confirmation from the Lord Advocate that the Home Office is fully satisfied that the proposed three combined fire authorities will be wholly operational on 1st April 1996.
  Amendment No. 55 is rather worrying. The amendment seeks to retain the existing obligation in the Fire Services Act 1947 requiring the Home Secretary to hold a public local inquiry. Since the consultative document was published, we have appreciated that it was intended to reduce the number of fire authorities to three. The last sentence of paragraph 4.3(8) had been interpreted in Wales as meaning that one would be able to rely on the safeguard of a public inquiry. That last sentence reads:
  "The combined authorities will be established by means of existing powers under the Fire Services Act 1947".
  If one reads the Fire Services Act 1947, one sees that its procedures include provision for a inquiry. If it was never intended that the procedure of the inquiry should
  432
  be available, why was that not made clear in the White Paper? Why was it not said that, although a public inquiry could be set up under the 1947 Act, one would not be available? A public inquiry is, after all, the safeguard. It gives one an opportunity to explore the operational effectiveness of the new proposals. One is concerned that it was not made clear in the White Paper that the public inquiry would not be available. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: On the first point, I confirm that the Home Secretary is satisfied that the provisions should be in place by 1st April.
  On the second point, the intention was not to hold inquiries. The provisions do not state that there will be an inquiry. The proposal to restructure the fire service in Wales had been subject to a lengthy consultation and the proposal for three authorities was set out fairly in the White Paper. There were then discussions between my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office and a number of the existing fire authorities in Wales which particularly wished their views to be taken into account on this matter. It was only after that that on 14th December last year the Home Secretary announced the scheme for the three authorities. Accordingly, there has been a long period for people to consider the proposals to establish three combined fire authorities and for their views to be made known.
  The matter can be debated by the Committee and the Bill makes explicit provision for the Secretary of State to consider representations from the affected authorities. In all those circumstances, it appears to the Government that an inquiry would not be necessary. Indeed, if an inquiry became protracted in any way, it might put in jeopardy the starting of the services on the necessary date. That has to be seen against the background that there has been a full period for consultation on the proposals.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. However, can he confirm that the existing fire authorities as well as the new principal councils will be given an opportunity to comment on the arrangements for their own locality?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I think that I have indicated that they have already had discussions with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. It was only after that that the proposals were brought forward.
  Lord Prys-Davies: I do not wish to press the amendment any further and beg leave to withdraw it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Police]:
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 18, line 15, leave out ("combination") and insert ("amalgamation").
  The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. Amendment No. 57 is a simple drafting

  433
  point. Schemes in relation to police authorities are known as amalgamation schemes rather than combination schemes. That would be more appropriate in the context of Clause 23.
  Amendment No. 58 is designed to ensure that the arrangements which provide the conditions under which an amalgamation scheme may be established should be continued after 1996. With the Bill as drafted, they seem to stop after 1996. We should like to ensure that what in our view are sound conditions should apply after 1996.
  Amendment No. 59 is designed to remove subsections (5), (6) and (7) in order to reinstate a requirement to hold local inquiries where there is no agreement between police authorities on a proposed amalgamation. It should be noted that Clause 10 of the current Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill removes the local inquiry procedure throughout England and Wales. Of course that clause is opposed. There is no good reason, in our view, for this Bill to anticipate the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill in this place, and so we should prefer that those subsections should be omitted.
  Amendment No. 60 would ensure that existing police authorities can be consulted on any proposed amalgamations. Apart from the drafting amendment that I proposed in Amendment No. 57, these are, in essence, probing amendments, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider them sympathetically. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: On this matter, if I may say so, "it's a fair cop". The drafting is defective. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to that matter. I accept the amendment.
  Clause 23(4) makes provision for a shadow police authority to be set up before it takes on its full powers as a police authority on 1st April 1996 so that it can take any steps which it feels necessary as a preliminary to the exercise of its full powers. It may, for example, wish to appoint staff and make financial preparations. But there is no intention that it should take up its full powers on any date other than the date of local government reorganisation, and it appears to the Government that the amendment is unnecessary. The alternative proposed by the amendment would seem to leave the new Welsh local authorities as police authorities in their own right, to be combined at some later stage. That would not be in the interests of a smooth transition to the new structure nor of the operational efficiency of the police services in Wales.
  Two of the other amendments would, as the noble Lord pointed out, subject a proposed scheme to a public inquiry or require the Secretary of State to consider from local authorities that were not directly affected representations about a proposed scheme.
  The Home Secretary's proposals for reforming the police service are set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which will come before this place tomorrow. Clause 23 has been included in the Bill in recognition of the need to make provision for the transfer of responsibility for police functions in the context of local government reorganisation, but in the expectation that those provisions may in due course be
  434
  overtaken by the provisions in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. Of course, it would not be proper for the Government to seek to prejudge Parliament's consideration of that Bill.
  Clause 23(7) therefore makes explicit provision for the authorities affected to make representations about a proposed scheme and for those comments to be taken into account. The position is broadly analogous to that which currently exists in England as a result of a comparable provision in the Local Government Act 1992.
  New amalgamation schemes have to be made and the first amendment would introduce unnecessary delay into that process. A public inquiry would seem not relevant because the changes here would be minor, consequential on the local government changes in the Bill.
  The third amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, could result in an amalgamation scheme not being ready to come into effect on 1st April 1996, and that would be undesirable.
  I have no doubt that before my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary makes a scheme he will wish to take into account all relevant considerations. However, we are reluctant to spell out a specific duty to consider representations from any authority which may have no direct interest in the particular proposal. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will bear in mind that it is the duty of anyone in the position of Secretary of State to have regard to all relevant considerations when he is making a decision of this kind. In the circumstances, if a relevant representation were made from some other authority he would have to take it into account.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response to these amendments. I am not entirely happy about his response to Amendment No. 58 and would like to study his comments in Hansard tomorrow. Therefore, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60. In the light of the noble and learned Lord's comments about Amendment No. 57, I commend it to the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 not moved.]
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Provision of services by one new principal council for another]:
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 18, line 37, leave out ("services") and insert ("any activity or service").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 61 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 64. The amendment deals with a small point. In principle, the provisions of Clause 24(1) are welcomed by Members on this side of the Committee. We have no difficulties with them. New councils must be able to share specialist resources between each other through trading with each other. However, the amendment, which replicates wording in a piece of Scottish legislation, makes it clear

  435
  that trading agreements can relate to part of a service as an activity and not just to whole services. That would be an improvement.
  As regards Amendment No. 62, the subsections give the Secretary of State the power to restrict agreements between authorities in any way that he sees fit. We cannot understand the purpose of that provision. What is the point of such restrictions? Are the Government intending to exclude from agreements between authorities, for instance, all those services covered by compulsory competitive tendering? That would prevent a private supplier being tested against the best available local authority supply. Our amendment simply seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to restrict agreements. If the Government can provide justification for that power—and I shall look to the noble and learned Lord for that—we may produce a more limited amendment at a later stage.
  Amendment No. 64 is supported by the Assembly of Welsh Counties. Archives are a difficult matter in Wales. I speak personally because the archives in Powys are held by the county council in Llandrindod Wells and the council is extremely worried that the archives will be broken up and that a great deal of valuable material will be lost. We need to hear from the Government exactly how they intend to operate that subsection. It is a matter of concern and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to offer us some comfort in that regard. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The effect of Amendment No. 61 would be to insert the words: "any activity or service". In the context of this legislation, the term "services" appears to be sufficiently wide to cover any possibility, including the provision of specialist services.
  The noble Lord drew attention to a similar provision in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill which will come before the House in due course. As the noble Lord will have noted, the wording there is a little different because it talks about allowing an authority to:
  "carry out…any activity or service".
  The Committee will observe that there is a difference between the Scottish and Welsh Bills because the Scottish Bill deals with agreements for the carrying out of an activity or service whereas this Bill deals with agreements for the provision of services. Merely to substitute the words, "any activity or service" would not make the legislation run. Therefore, the difference comes from the wording chosen by the respective draftsmen of the two Bills. I believe that the width of service provided for in this Bill covers all that is required.
  Amendment No. 62 removes the power of the Secretary of State to restrict the scope for service agency agreements by regulation. The Government do not consider it necessary for local authorities to be able to compete for contracted-out contracts outside their areas. There is already an adequate market available within the private sector to meet authorities' needs in those areas
  436
  It is because it is thought proper to introduce private sector involvement in those activities that the legislation provides for such an approach.
  It seems to the Government to be undesirable to encourage other authorities to bid for the contracts or services in that area. The geographical restriction would also seem to be appropriate. For example, it would be undesirable to encourage Anglesey to buy services from an authority in South Wales, there being such a great distance between them. Therefore, in that situation it is thought that it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to impose a geographical restriction.
  Amendment No. 64 is not necessary because the Bill does nothing to remove the statutory responsibility from the contracting council. A private sector contract does not mean that the statutory responsibility transfers to the private contractor. Therefore, there is no reason why that should be so under a service agency agreement. So it does not seem that that is necessary. I think the noble Lord also spoke to the matter of archives in Amendment No. 63. The effect of this amendment would be to keep existing collections of archive—
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry. I did inadvertently also speak to Amendment No. 63, but I am sure my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos will wish to move it and speak to it himself when we reach it. I apologise if I misled the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I would not wish to trespass on that amendment. In that case I have concluded my remarks on the amendments.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am not entirely happy with his response to Amendment No. 62. I am reasonably satisfied with his response to Amendment No. 61, but I thought his remarks about restricting agreements between authorities smacked a little of the old Tory dogma against public enterprise and in favour of private enterprise which I thought we were gradually getting away from. However, if the Government wish to pursue that rather tortuous path they are entitled to do so. As regards Amendment No. 64, again I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said and I shall not move it when we reach it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 61.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 19, line 26, at end insert:
  ("( ) For the purpose of the exercise of powers under the Local Government (Records) Act 1962 with regard to the acquisition and preservation of archives, where a principal council contains within its area an existing archive repository empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, that council shall become responsible for the Archive Service in the area of the old authorities to which its existing collections relate.").
  The noble Lord said: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for referring to this. To ensure that I am in order I wish to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, that is Amendment No. 63.

  437
  As the Committee should know, there is a good deal of concern about the effect of the Bill as it stands upon local authorities" responsibilities for archives. The White Paper made a specific reference to archives but the Bill is silent on the subject and we are left without any guidance as to the list of archival services for which the proposed councils are to be responsible.
  I wish to quote from the White Paper to clarify the matter. Paragraph 4.21 states:
  "The new authorities will need to establish arrangements for the safeguarding of archives… It is likely to be necessary for at least some of the new authorities to establish co-operative arrangements to secure these services efficiently and effectively. The Government proposes transitional arrangements".
  But no transitional arrangements have been announced. Indeed it would seem that by virtue of paragraph 11 of the fourteenth schedule to the Bill every one of the 21 new principal councils will become an archives authority unless, of course, they enter into a Clause 24 arrangement.
  The position is therefore unclear. The danger is—and it must be avoided—that these valuable archive collections will be broken up and fragmented. The basic arid well understood principle of an archival collection is that any group or collection of documents originating from one organisation or individual should be maintained as a unit.
  I understand that the cost of a new records office would be in the region of £2 million and that the average running cost is about £250,000. As the Bill stands, there is the risk that the existing comprehensive unit could on transfer be dispersed between small, inadequately staffed and underfunded repositories. Incidentally, I doubt whether this would be acceptable—this is an important point—to the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with its responsibility for the care and preservation of the records of Quarter Sessions and magistrates' courts. It is unthinkable that the public records of centuries should be put at risk by this Bill or that they should no longer be available in Wales.
  The purpose of the amendment is to limit by statute the councils empowered to hold archives to those which are already so empowered by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962. For all those reasons I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Teviot: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, does not mind if I speak before him. I heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in this amendment. He explained very well the present situation relating to archives.
  Perhaps I may go over the situation in Wales. There is an excellent record office in Glamorgan. Dyfed has three record offices in Carmarthen, Haverfordwest and Cardigan. Gwynnedd has two or three in the three counties. Clwyd also has record offices. In relation to Powys, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, it would be a tragedy if anything happened to the records held in Llandrindod Wells or if the responsibility was devolved.
  One could also say something about the archive heritage and the importance of keeping archives
  438
  together. An archivist is an important person. An archivist is not a librarian. It is a discipline. The conditions in which archives are stored are also important. The right humidity is very important.
  We are not only talking about the heritage. There is also the question of on-going accessions. There are all sorts of records which require instant retrieval. They have to be kept in the right way. It would be much better if there were a few centres. It should be possible to get together and agree to retain the present set-up rather than setting up archives in small unitary authorities which are not kept by specialists. Archivists are very much specialists.
  Lord Elton: Perhaps I may say a word about heritage archives or historical documents. They are of a peculiar nature. They relate to particular places. Historical researchers go to those places to look at them. The process of concentration makes the task easier because one goes to a single centre to cover a larger area. To break up a collection is crazy, because it has to be broken up to the areas from which it has come or else it has no meaning. It becomes irretrievable. That creates enormous damage to our historical heritage. Therefore, I hope that there is no question of that happening.
  I have to confess that I have only just looked at the matter. But having dealt with the question of archives in an earlier reorganisation, I warmly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, proposes.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Having jumped the gun recently on this matter, I have very little to add except to say that I wholly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I also bring the noble and learned Lord a message on this very matter from the Radnor Society, which approached me because I am a resident of Radnorshire. It is to the effect that the Powys records in Llandrindod Wells must not be broken up because otherwise many valuable records would undoubtedly be lost with the dispersion which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, would take place.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The effect of the proposed amendment would be to keep the existing collections of archive material together and also to keep the areas to which the collections relate intact.
  The amendment does not make any provision for any kind of agency arrangement. The result would therefore seem to be that, where an existing county was split into two or more new areas, the new council which covered the location where the archives were currently held would in effect inherit all the records and would therefore be solely responsible for the archive service which related to records which were concerned with the area of the old county. As a result, members elected for one area would have full and exclusive responsibility for this function in relation to another area or areas of the county—areas for which they were not elected. That does not seem to be a satisfactory arrangement.
  Of course, where one has custom-built buildings— as there are in various places in Wales—which are very satisfactory for the keeping of records, one would expect that local authorities would, as the White Paper suggests, come to arrangements among themselves for

  439
  the safekeeping of archives. One would expect that some authorities would need to establish co-operative arrangements to secure the delivery of those services efficiently and effectively. Members of the Committee have already drawn attention to the safeguard which is mentioned in the White Paper: that any arrangements made will continue to need the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to officially designated public records.
  I cannot accept an amendment which would prescribe lead authorities in this area for this purpose and which would in effect limit the freedom of the new authorities to make voluntary co-operative arrangements as would seem most suitable in the particular local circumstances. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I find myself in some difficulty, having listened to the noble and learned Lord. He made some important points. However, he failed to deal with the main thrust of my argument—it was supported by other noble Lords—namely, that archives should be preserved in their totality in the areas where they are currently deposited. If there are difficulties in the way, perhaps I may suggest to the noble and learned Lord that, if he sees flaws in my amendment, it is his duty and the duty of the Government to say that they will produce other amendments by Report stage to deal with the problem.
  The Minister has not disagreed with the position. Although he intended to be helpful, he has failed to be helpful. I plead with him to consider the issue again. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if he gives me an undertaking that by Report stage he will have considered the matter and will produce amendments which meet the point I seek to make.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am happy to consider further in detail what has been said. In the light of such consideration, if there appears to be an appropriate amendment to be made, I shall bring an amendment forward at that stage. I stress that it appears to us that the appropriate way forward on this matter is by co-operation among the local authorities concerned. However, I take on board the points which the noble Lord made.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may emphasise to the noble and learned Lord the importance of the problem. He seemed to imply in his reply that the new unitary authorities will voluntarily arrive at agreements about the depositing of archives. Perhaps he would like to talk to councillors of Montgomery, Radnor and Brecknock. He might come to a conclusion that it will be extremely difficult for them to arrive at an agreement and that it is up to the Government to ensure that the appropriate archives are stored in the appropriate places, with no loss.
  It is an important point. I hope that we can take the noble and learned Lord at his word when he states that he will reconsider the point and perhaps bring forward an amendment at Report.
  Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I too may make a plea to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider carefully the amendment moved by my noble friend. Will the noble and learned Lord explain to the Committee the role and duty of the Lord Lieutenant, exercising his old office of Custos Rotulorum? What is his responsibility? Is it just a matter for the local authorities, or even the Lord Chancellor's Department? I am sure that we would seek assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that this is not to be left to the Secretary of State and the local authorities. We need an arrangement that will be acceptable to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the Lord Lieutenants.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I fear that I could not give the Committee a full exposition of the role of the Lord Lieutenant as custos rotulorum. However, the simple fact remains that, whatever arrangements are made, they must be satisfactory to the Lord Chancellor's officials. Therefore, whatever is required at the end of the day to satisfy them must be done. That seems, in my respectful submission, to be an important safeguard when we are considering all those matters.
  I have noted what Members of the Committee have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and I shall reflect further upon it.
  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Service delivery plans]:
  Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 19, line 42, leave out ("31st March 1996") and insert ("30th September 1995").
  The noble Lord said: By way of background to this amendment, I remind the Committee that in our discussions on Amendments No. 48 and 53 my noble and learned friend said that his right honourable friend would act retrospectively only if shared services were not being properly delivered. I was not quick enough then, but it is relevant now to ask the Committee to look at Clause 29(1) on page 22 which states,
  "Where it appears to the Secretary of State … that particular functions",
  and then it continues,
  "(b) that satisfactory arrangements for the exercise of those functions will not be, or are unlikely to be, in force on or after 1st April 1996… he may, at any time before 31st March 1999, give a direction to the councils concerned".
  That is clearly both a preventive and a retrospective power.
  If we go back to Clause 25 on page 19, where my amendment strikes, we read that the new principal authorities are to be required to:
  "prepare and publish a plan ('a service delivery plan') … describing the manner in which they propose to perform their functions during the period beginning on 1st April 1996".
  But they are required to do it only by the specified date, which is 31st March 1996, a split second before the service has to be provided. That seems a quite extraordinary provision, since presumably one of the

  441
  purposes of producing a service delivery plan is to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether he wishes to use his preventive power under Clause 29.
  This is a probing amendment which moves that specified date forward six months so that there shall not just be a micro-second but at least a few months in which the Secretary of State can make up his mind. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps I may indicate that the Government see the force of my noble friend's observations. The Government's present thinking is that draft plans should be published in about October 1995 and the final plans in January 1996. It therefore seems that the idea of bringing forward the requirement to publish final plans by a full six months would be rather ambitious, but the point is taken that the date at present in the Bill is defective in the way in which my noble friend has pointed out. We shall consider the matter further and come back at Report stage.
  Lord Elton: Having received that unexpectedly encouraging reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 19, line 45, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
  It appears to us that there is an oddity in Clause 25. Subsection (3), which the amendment is designed to leave out —simply to have an argument to hang on; it is not meant to be an amendment in the true sense of the word—states that,
  "a council shall take into account any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to consultation, the contents of the plan and the manner of its publication".
  We then find in subsection (4) that the,
  "council's service delivery plan shall be published in such manner as the council consider likely to bring it to the attention of persons", etc., etc.
  It seems to us that subsection (4) would allow the council to decide to ignore the guidance of the Secretary of State and be entitled to do so by the words of the Bill. Either subsection (3) holds or subsection (4) holds. There seems to be inconsistency between the two. I beg to move.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I remind the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 67.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that there is no inconsistency between the two subsections. Subsection (4) is in the end the one which would rule, in the sense that it says that the plan will be published in the manner which,
  "the council consider likely to bring it to the attention of persons … who may be affected by the performance of their functions".
  Therefore, at the end of the day the council has to publish the plan, having considered how it is likely to bring it to the attention of persons who may be affected.
  442
  In considering that matter, the council would take into account—only take into account—any guidance which will be given inter alia on the manner of publication. So the Secretary of State could give guidance on this matter as to notifications, the way in which the plan might be published, and what intimations could be given which might be most likely to bring it to the attention of people. But at the end of the day how that is to be done, what manner of publication would in the particular circumstances of any particular council be most effective, would be for the council to decide, taking into account the guidance given by the Secretary of State.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Having taken in to account the guidance given by the Secretary of State, the council could ignore it. Is that the right answer?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is a matter of law that, where any body has to take account of advice, or whatever it may be, at the end of the day, if there is a power for it to do as in subsection (4), having taken it into account it could decide to do something different. But it would have to take the advice into account. If it does not take it into account, then it fails in its duty. But provided it takes such advice into account, at the end of the day it has to decide what in its own particular circumstances, having taken account of the guidance, is the best way to make the notification.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble and learned Lord give me a straight answer? Having taken into account the guidance of the Secretary of State, the council is then free to ignore it. It may take into account the guidance from the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Opposition Front Bench or anybody else, but it is free to ignore it, just as it is free to ignore the guidance of the Secretary of State. 'The only difference is that it is obliged to read what the Secretary of State has sent and take it into account. But a council can ignore it. Is the answer yes or no?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: A council can ignore it; it can go and do something else. But before it does that something else, it must have taken account of the guidance. That is quite a common kind of provision which is to be found in all sorts of legislation.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: It can ignore the guidance.
  My probing amendment to leave out subsection (3) becomes rather more substantive. I see no point in the Secretary of State, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Opposition Front Bench or anybody else giving guidance or advice if at the end of the day the council can say: "Thank you very much for your advice; we now ignore all that". The two notions are in contradiction. Nevertheless, if that is what the Government feel they want to put on the face of the Bill, at this hour of night I shall not rock the boat by pushing the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 19, line 47, at end insert ("and this shall include guidance to establish service delivery plans for children and young persons in each council area").
  The noble Lord said: I do not apologise for detaining the Committee for a little time this evening on what I regard as the most fundamental aspect of social policy; namely, services for children and young people.
  These amendments specify one particular service of social policy for the unitary authorities. I suspect that what the Government will say is that it is not necessary to specify this service more than any other. However, I suggest that this service in particular is one which requires strengthening at present in Wales and indeed in other parts of the UK and Europe. It is also a service which may suffer as a result of the transfer of responsibilities.
  I know that in the guidance which refers to the position of area committees there are specific references to social services. But I believe that it is essential for us to have from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate this evening some assurances about the position of children's services.
  There is no need for me to detain the Committee in specifying the negative side of this whole area. There is increased evidence of children being at risk and there has been substantial coverage of all these issues in the media. At the moment there are cases of major child abuse to which I shall not specifically refer but which are before the courts. There is grave concern in the professional area and among all those who are concerned for the welfare of children not only about the level of abuse which is now being identified but also about the way in which both the legal services, through the court systems, and the social services function in relation to prevention and in dealing with the whole issue of child abuse.
  Indeed, the Welsh Office itself has recognised the essential importance of a coherent approach to children's services by funding the Children in Wales Forum. Moreover, other major voluntary bodies working in the field have recently presented their views to the department. On Monday of last week the NSPCC organised a national conference in Wales, at Llandrindod Wells, at which the whole issue of how we should proceed on a strategy for children was debated. Representatives of local authorities and the specialists in the field were there.
  It seems to me that there is an opportunity in this Bill for the Welsh Office to further a strategic approach toward children's services on an all-Wales basis. I believe that such a strategy exists in draft form but has not been implemented. This also gives an opportunity for the local authorities to pursue policies and services which will lead not only to a reduction in child abuse but to the provision of services of child care both pre-school and after school, combining the need for education provision and day care provision with the preventive and child protection services which I set out in Amendment No. 68.
  I believe that the issue of the welfare of children and young people, seen as future citizens of our society, is absolutely fundamental at the moment to our approach
  444
  to social policy. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can indicate that that aspect of social policy provision is central to the Government's approach in this Bill and to Welsh Office policy. I beg to move.
  Lord Prys-Davies: The fact that these amendments were tabled reflects the anxiety felt generally in Wales about the future of the child protection services after reorganisation. I have received conflicting advice over the past few days regarding the merits of the amendments. I understand that they are fully supported by the NSPCC and by the Children in Wales Forum. The latter is making a great contribution to children and young people in Wales, particularly those who are too young to defend themselves. On the other hand, a senior social worker whom I consulted over the weekend found it difficult to give me a comprehensive view of the merits of the amendments.
  This is not the time of the evening to probe the merits of the amendments. The point being made by the senior social worker was that one ought to be pressing for a statutory commitment that each authority should have its own social services committee. I shall listen carefully to what the noble and learned Lord says. I shall be grateful if he can tell us—if he does not have the figures, that is fine—precisely how many children are on the child protection register in Wales, and how many children are in child care in Wales. That information may not be readily available. But if we are to return to this matter at Report stage, then it would be helpful for that information to be made available.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: In the end, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, anticipated my reply. In fact, the amendments are not necessary. That is not to say that the noble Lord has not touched on a topic which, as I am sure all Members of the Committee are aware, is one of great importance and has been given high profile over the past few years.
  The effect of Amendment No. 67 would be to impose on new authorities, in their shadow year, a duty to produce a separate plan for children's and young persons' services, in addition to any general service delivery plan. We believe that to be unnecessary because the general service delivery plans will make reference to all local government service functions and will therefore include coverage of social services within which must fall the services for children and young people. To separate off the children's services would detract in some way from the totality of the general plan which must of course apply equally to the delivery of services to other vulnerable groups such as the elderly. That is not in any way to underestimate the importance of the delivery of services to children; it is simply to stress that that will inevitably be part of the preparations for social services to be delivered by the new authority.
  I have more difficulty with Amendment No. 68. I am not sure what is intended. If it is intended in some way to create a separate committee of the council to deal with child protection matters, then that would be a breach of Section 2 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, which stipulates that a social services committee must be responsible for social

  445
  services matters, and that would therefore deal with child protection. It would therefore seem technically not to be in order.
  Again, the necessary type of committee is already in position. If it is not quite that but some other sort of committee that is required, then area child protection committees are already established throughout Wales in accordance with guidance published in the paper Working Together, and following on the report of the Cleveland inquiry. I cannot provide the noble Lord with the figures to which he referred. What I can say is that the guidance issued after Cleveland will continue to apply to the new authorities and therefore they will be expected to discharge their responsibilities in the light of that guidance.
  In that situation it seems to the Government that this kind of amendment is not necessary. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has indeed spotted the intention of Amendment No. 68, which is to draw out the whole question of the role of the area child protection committees post Cleveland. I am grateful for his
  446
  reassurance that that guidance will still apply to unitary authorities. I am still concerned about the question of the need for a comprehensive approach to children's services which applies not just to social services but to education services as well. In response to the crisis in child care and child protection which we are facing in Wales and other places at the moment, it seems to me that we need to look again at the way in which we deliver these services and to place clearer guidance on local authorities, not through the means of the service delivery proposals of the Bill but perhaps directly from the Welsh Office. With the reassurances from the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at two minutes past midnight.

  POLICE AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT MEMBERS
  POLICE AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT MEMBERS
  FERTILITY TREATMENTS
  FERTILITY TREATMENTS
  CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY
  CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY
  UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT: ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA
  UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT: ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA
  UNEMPLOYED PERSONS AGED UNDER 50
  UNEMPLOYED PERSONS AGED UNDER 50