Sitting of 13 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the United Nations to discuss the continuing hostilities in Afghanistan.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is in former Yugoslavia today.
    My right hon. Friend has not recently discussed Afghanistan with representatives of the United Nations.
    Mr. Hanson: In view of the continuing slaughter of innocent people in Kabul and other centres of population in Afghanistan, will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister arrange an early meeting with the United Nations to raise two matters—first, the need for an urgent arms embargo, especially on weapons from Pakistan; and secondly, the early re-establishment of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Afghanistan, which was withdrawn from the country in January? While the slaughter continues, both measures are needed.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have regular contacts with United Nations representatives. In recent months, we have supported two Security Council presidential statements calling for an end to the hostilities and for support for the programme of humanitarian aid.
    The United Nations is seeking to re-establish its presence in Afghanistan. A proposal is under consideration to put a mission from the UNHCR back in the country.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Government policy with regard to the situation in Rwanda.
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rwanda.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are fully joining in international efforts to bring a halt to the bloodshed. On 8 June, the Security Council approved the deployment of an expanded United Nations force. We have offered 50 trucks to the United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda, UNAMIR, and we are considering whether we can do more. We have supported the French initiative to mount a humanitarian mission until the expanded UNAMIR can be put in place.
    Since 6 April, we have given more than £11 million in humanitarian aid, and a further Overseas Development Administration assessment mission is now visiting the region. Once it returns we shall consider what further bilateral assistance we can provide, including in the areas covered by the French initiative.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the letter to us all from the Minister for Overseas Development. Can he assure the House that we are giving as much humanitarian assistance as is needed? Can he ensure that the people of Rwanda are protected in the humanitarian zone? Given the finding that genocide has been perpetrated in Rwanda, can he assure the House that all responsible for it will speedily be brought to justice by the relevant international authorities?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have outlined the humanitarian assistance that has been given to help refugees in the humanitarian zone and the neighbourhood, and a mission is assessing whether we should be doing more.
    I can confirm that the French have established a humanitarian zone and that people can live there safely.
    A Security Council resolution of 1 July established a commission of experts to analyse the information relating to violations of international human standards in Rwanda.
    Mr. Worthington: Is not it true that the French stepped in only because of the failure of the United Nations to act with urgency, and that the French have committed themselves to pulling out at the end of July? All my information leads me to believe that there is no commitment to replace them. Surely the Minister realizes that 50 trucks are wholly inadequate as supplementary logistical support. Whatever else happens, can the Minister assure us that we will be spared the obscenity of the Government of Rwanda becoming the president of the UN Security Council in September?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has heard what Isaid and he has been in correspondence with my ministerial colleagues. I can only reiterate that the provision of British equipment is the result of what has been requested of us by the United Nations. Of course, we are not the only country that has responded in that area. A number of countries have offered logistical support, including ourselves, America, Russia, France, Canada and South Africa. So there are others involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the troops sought by the Secretary-General are coming from a number of African countries, which I think is right; they are from Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo and Mali. Local countries have taken the initiative at the request of the Secretary-General.
    Mr. Lester: In his report to the Security Council, the Secretary-General suggested that, because the performance of the Security Council and the international community in dealing with the issue was, I think he said, deplorable, he would set up an inquiry into the operation of the international community when confronted with crises such as that in Rwanda. Has my hon. Friend any news about the inquiry? Has it been set up, and at what stage will we hear the result of it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not aware of any detailed conclusions that have been reached; but of course I shall be happy to answer a question from my hon. Friend when those details are available.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The United Nations agreed a force for Rwanda, but did not agree its deployment. Now that its deployment has been agreed, we are told that it has been held up because of lack of logistical support from western countries. Why is further delay occurring? Genocide continues in Rwanda and hundreds of thousands of terrified people are flooding across the borders of some of the most impoverished countries in the world. Of course, no sensible person blames all that on Her Majesty's Government; I am not suggesting that. [Laughter.] I am dismayed that Conservative Members think that this is a laughing matter; it just shows how pathetic their attitude really is. We want to know from Foreign Office Ministers whether it is lack of capability or lack of political will that is preventing the United Nations from getting its act together.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly it would be wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to blame the British Government and I defend the British Government—
    Dr. Cunningham: I did not say that.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to cast blame widely—including, in part, on the British Government. We have responded to the request of the Secretary-General for the supply of equipment. We have made that equipment available; it is being inspected by United Nations people at the moment and will be ready for deployment when the United Nations is ready. It is not lack of support from the British Government that is constraining activities in that area. As to humanitarian aid, we responded immediately and provided a substantial amount of help; we are ready to do more. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the British Government cannot be accused of not taking our international commitments seriously as we are the fourth largest contributor to United Nations operations in the world.

    Israel
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): They are excellent.
    Mrs. Kennedy: I am pleased to hear that from the Minister. Is he aware of concern about the British Government's attitude to the continuing Arab trade boycott of Israel? Does he agree that British companies need the
    972
    shield of legislation to allow them unequivocally to reject demands that they comply with the boycott? Will he consider introducing such legislation here?
    Mr. Hogg: There is concern about the trade boycott and we deplore that boycott. I am glad to say that the tertiary and secondary boycott has been falling away and that there has been a substantial increase in the volume of United Kingdom exports to Israel. In 1993, exports to Israel were up by 50 per cent; in the first five months of this year, exports to Israel were up by 26 per cent; and Israel is now the third most important export market for United Kingdom goods in the middle east.
    Sir David Madel: What is the Government's attitude to the idea that Jerusalem could become the capital of an independent Palestinian state as well as the capital of Israel?
    Mr. Hogg: That is certainly a matter which should be given the utmost consideration by those who will have to negotiate Jerusalem's status. It has long been agreed that that status will be addressed at the very end of the peace process, which I consider both inevitable and right, but the parties to the negotiations will wish to think seriously about finding a way for Palestinians and Israelis to share Jerusalem.
    Sir David Steel: Will Her Majesty's Government give a warm welcome to last week's political initiative from King Hussein of Jordan, which has received a ready response from the Israeli Government? I understand that official talks between the two countries are taking place this very week.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and we do indeed give a warm welcome to the speech made by His Majesty the King of Jordan. Negotiations between Jordan and Israel will start on 18 July, and will deal with such important subjects as the border, security and water. That is a very welcome development, and we applaud it.
    Mr. John Marshall: I welcome the recent improvements in relations between Britain and Israel, but may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to agree with people in Israel who—remembering what happened in the years before 1967—are reluctant for Jerusalem ever again to become a divided city?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I can sensibly add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel). The question of Jerusalem is of key importance, and is best dealt with at the end of the peace process. There are powerfully competing emotions among all sides in the negotiations, which must be dealt with sensibly.
    Dr. Howells: I am sure the Minister will agree that the international community has a duty to help the new Administration in Gaza and Jericho. No doubt he is aware that that Administration requires an estimated £900 million of aid just to stabilise living conditions for the 700,000 Palestinians who live in Gaza, mostly in deplorable conditions. Will the Government give a lead in ensuring that the money promised by donor countries is delivered to those who have the great task of rebuilding Gaza?
    Mr. Hogg: But we are giving a lead. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the statement made on 8 July by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who

    973
    made it plain that, in addition to the £70 million that we would make available over the next three years, we were providing an additional £5 million in bilateral assistance. That will go largely to the Palestinian police force, but there will be other technical support. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the fact that, for example, the Bank of England is now helping the Palestinians to establish a Palestinian monetary authority. We are already playing a full part, and we now look to others to do likewise.

    Asia-Pacific Commercial Sections
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Foreign Office is doing to reinforce commercial sections in Asia and the Pacific.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad to say that exports to the Asia-Pacific rim region rose by 28.5 per cent. in 1993 to £13 billion, and that since 1990 total export promotion effort at the Foreign Office posts in Asian and Pacific rim countries has risen by 23 per cent.
    Mr. Butler: I welcome the increasing trade in what might be termed a frontier market, but I was seeking assurances about the amount of additional assistance that the Foreign Office is offering business men. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the increased co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry will continue, so that our business men receive as much assistance in these important markets as business men in our European competitor nations?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is quite right. As I have said, the export promotion effort has risen substantially: we have created 40 new front-line commercial jobs at posts in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Delhi, Singapore and Hanoi, and at the British trade and cultural office in Taipei. My hon. Friend can rest assured that a great deal of effort is going into meeting that frontier market.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How many letters has the Foreign Office received from British business men or businesses suggesting—indeed, complaining—that Britain's attitude to China over Hong Kong is costing them business?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some facts speak clearly for themselves. In 1992, exports to China were up 72 per cent. and in the first quarter of 1994 they were up 22 per cent., so we are on course to do the same again this year. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. There have been assurances from Chinese Premier Li Peng and from the Vice Premier and Foreign Minister that China will not discriminate against British companies in commercial interests.
    Dr. Spink: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the performance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in trade development in recent years. Notwithstanding the statistics that he has just given us in relation to China, is my hon. Friend satisfied that we are doing as much as we can—and as much as our major competitors—to capture that fast-growing market?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I can say is that we are doing extremely well. I cannot give precise comparisons because
    974
    they are difficult to make. I believe that we are making an enormous effort to help British exporters, who are responding.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the war crimes tribunal investigating atrocities in the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 827 which established the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We welcome the recent appointment of Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa as the prosecutor. In the meantime, we have been co-operating with and supporting the work of the acting deputy prosecutor, Mr. Blewitt, who has been setting up the prosecutor's office in The Hague.
    Mr. Hutton: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House when he thinks that the first indictments will be issued by the tribunal and when the first prosecutions are likely to start? Does the Minister think that the time may be right for the British Government to give serious consideration to the establishment of a permanent United Nations tribunal to deal with war crimes and human rights violations around the world?
    Mr. Hogg: The former part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the prosecutor. I understand that there is some chance that there will be trials before the end of the year.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the position is that the United Nations International Law Commission has produced suggestions—a draft—for the establishment of an international criminal court. Clearly there are attractions in that. We now have to consider whether it is practicable. If one were to be set up, it might be the appropriate forum in which to try war crimes such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Jenkin: Given the situation in the former Yugoslavia, which is symptomatic of the failure of our common European foreign policy led by Germany, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the Karlsruhe judgment in Germany this week? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the speeches by President Clinton proposing a leadership role for Germany oversimplify foreign policy in Europe and are rather more reminiscent of Joseph Kennedy than of J. F. Kennedy?
    Mr. Hogg: What is happening in former Yugoslavia has more to do with the bloodiness of human nature than with anything on the part of the German Government or any other Government. I disagree with my hon. Friend on that point.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in central Bosnia.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The situation in central Bosnia is stable. The ceasefire between the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Croat forces has held up well. The United

    975
    Kingdom UNPROFOR contingent has played an active part in monitoring the ceasefire, chairing the joint liaison commissions and assisting humanitarian work in the area.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister agree that to establish a lasting and successful peace framework in central Bosnia it will be essential to respect two principles: first, that the internationally recognised boundaries of Bosnia should be preserved in any peace settlement and, secondly, that there is a right for refugees and displaced persons to return to their areas of origin, from which many were forced out by the horrors of ethnic cleansing? Will the British Government be resolute in pressing for those principles as part of a peace settlement?
    Mr. Hogg: Both are important principles. The map worked out by the contact group provides for the preservation of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a complete entity, the external frontiers of which will be respected. The return of refugees is also tremendously important, but we must keep in mind the fact that before people will go back and, a fortiori, stay there, they must have confidence that they will be safe. If there is a settlement, the international community can achieve some things by way of implementation. I hope that it can instil confidence, which is a necessary precondition for the achievement of that second element.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the achievement of peace in Bosnia—we all wish the Foreign Secretary well in his difficult mission—depends primarily on the Serbs; that the Bosnian Government have behaved extremely responsibly in recent weeks; and that, as he himself said, the alliance with the Croats has held?
    Mr. Hogg: I welcome the alliance with the Croats, and it is true that the federation between the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats seems to be holding firm. It is important to keep in mind the fact that the recent infringements of the ceasefire were committed by both sides—by the Bosnian Government as much as by the Bosnian Serbs. It is important to be aware that the contact group's proposal will not work unless it is accepted by both sides; so we look to both sides to accept it.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Everyone wishes the Foreign Secretary well on his mission to former Yugoslavia and we hope that he will be successful in impressing on the combatants the fact that this is perhaps their last opportunity for a negotiated settlement. It is sad that the current offer to the Bosnian Government is worse than was available when they had the opportunity to reach a settlement in 1992. Of course we wish the Foreign Secretary well, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that, if a success is not achieved in the next few days, there will be no early abrogation of either the sanctions against Serbia or the arms embargo on Bosnia?
    Mr. Hogg: If a settlement is not reached because the contact group plan is rejected—I am focusing now on the question of rejection by the Bosnian Serbs—it is certain that sanctions will remain in place and that they will almost certainly be toughened. It is probable that the arms embargo will not survive. The pressure to relax the arms embargo in the event of the Serbs rejecting the plan will probably prove irresistible.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at this stage, it would be a tragedy if the contact group were not successful, bearing in mind the sacrifices that have been made by French and British troops in delivering aid in Bosnia? I hope that he will continue in his endeavours to encourage everyone to sign the agreement.
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is a critical moment. If the parties do not accept the plan that has been proposed and worked out by the contact group, there is a grave danger that war in Bosnia will re-ignite and develop with ever-increasing intensity.

    Albania and Macedonia
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken or proposes to take in the light of Serbian aggression against Albania and Macedonia.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Following the occupation by Serbian troops of a hill near the Serbia-Macedonia border in mid-June, the British chargé d'affaires in Belgrade made representations to the Serbian authorities. We welcome the recent agreement brokered by UNPROFOR, under which Serbian and Macedonian troops withdrew from the vicinity of the hill. We are not aware of any recent cases of Serbian aggression towards Albania. We continue to watch developments in the region carefully.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Does not the Minister recognise that the west's inaction when Milosevic first used his tanks and aircraft against Ljubljana gave a green light to Serbian aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that appeasement of Serbian aggression and acceptance of their ability to gain territory by force encourages acts of aggression against Macedonia and Albania and the further persecution of the Albanian majority in Kosovo?
    Will the Government now stand firm against Serbian aggression and try to prevent the conflict in the Balkans from getting completely out of hand?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should not indulge in generalities; he needs to be careful not to induce people to suppose that the Government mean, or that he means, things that we do not or he does not really mean. It is our policy to try to persuade the parties to accept the plan worked out by the contact group. We are not in the business of waging war; the hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is, but that is not the policy of his party's Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Sir Peter Emery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the Macedonian resolution passed almost unanimously by 53 nations in the Parliament of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe demanding of Greece the recognition of Macedonia and the withdrawal of any trade restrictions? Would that not greatly assist Macedonia with any problems that might arise in the future?
    Mr. Hogg: I have indeed seen the resolution to which my right hon. Friend refers, and I welcome it. The Greek Government's policies towards Macedonia are quite wrong, especially that of imposing sanctions. We were very pleased when the European Court of Justice took up

    977
    the issue. Proposals worked out by Cyrus Vance address all the relevant questions which divide Macedonia and Greece, and I very much hope that Macedonia and Greece will be prepared to accept the compromises worked out by him.
    Ms Quin: Is not Macedonia facing a grave crisis in terms of its security and economy, with industry virtually at a standstill and unemployment rocketing? I welcome the Vance initiative, but what contact is the Minister having with the Greek Government and his European Union partners to resolve the problem, as it seems that the European Court avenue is not going to provide a speedy solution?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right that the European Court is not prepared to take interim action—a fact which I very much regret, as it would have been a useful way forward. We have been in frequent bilateral contact with the Greek authorities and the issue has been raised frequently by Ministers in the context of various European Union Councils. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary intends that it should be raised at the next Council meeting which, I believe, is early next week. It is a very important issue and we will continue to press the Greek Government on it.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to try to persuade the Nigerian authorities to respect the result of last year's presidential elections.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Secretary of State is worried about developments in Nigeria. The Nigerian Government claim to want a speedy transition to democratic government, but their actions contradict their claims: their decision to put Chief Abiola on trial cannot help to achieve that end. Meanwhile, their regressive economic policies are stifling industrial production and domestic and foreign investment and damaging Nigeria's standing with its creditors. We are urging all sides in Nigeria to join in constructive political dialogue.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he emphasise that the British Government's friendship towards the Nigerian people makes it absolutely clear that we want democratic accountability to come to Nigeria, that we want the President who was elected almost a year ago to be allowed to take his place, and that we want the Parliament that was freely elected to be able to take control from the military Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can, of course, confirm that we wish Nigeria to return to democratic civilian government. Last June's elections were the most free and fair in Nigeria's history. It is important that Nigeria should have a President who is acceptable to all, and it must be for Nigerians to resolve whom that should be.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern about the arrest not only of Chief Abiola but of many other people who support the democratic process in Nigeria? Some people in this country, including Nigerian students, say that we should at least impose an arms embargo, if not go further, to try to ensure that Nigerians accept the democratic process.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in conjunction with our European partners and the American Government we have imposed certain sanctions against the Nigerian military: visa restrictions, bans on high level visits and on military training, and restrictions on defence sales. Those will remain in force for the time being.

    Paraguay
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Paraguay following the recent visit to the United Kingdom by President Wasmosy.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Relations are excellent. We were delighted to welcome President Wasmosy to the United Kingdom for the first time last week.
    Mr. Streeter: During the recent visit of the Paraguayan President, did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss with him the difficult question of drug trafficking from Latin America? Does he agree that it is time for a fresh initiative to try to stem the flow of life-destroying drugs from South America to Europe?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, Paraguay is on a number of drug routes, which is why we so warmly welcome its Government's commitment to getting on top of that scourge. During the President's visit, we signed a drug assets confiscation agreement and we look forward to its being put into practical effect.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister acknowledge that a key issue for people concerned about strengthening the democratic process in Paraguay is the establishment of a civil service free of party political interference—one which has security of tenure for its civil servants and is professionally recruited on merit? Does he share my deep concern, however, that we are in a weak position to lecture any other country on such subjects, having so weakened our own civil service under the present Government?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's insinuations about this country, but I welcome without reservation Paraguay's return to democracy after more than 50 years.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the significance of President Wasmosy's visit the fact that he is a directly elected Latin American President who received his symbols of office from a predecessor who was also directly elected—something for which Latin America is now once again becoming renowned? Is it not of great value to have within Mercosur, the trading bloc of southern America, a country with a long-standing record of free enterprise and free trade?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we welcome the return to civilian democratic government of almost all the countries in that continent. There is an especially interesting development concerning trade in the southern part of South America, in that we hope that the Mercosur agreement will come into effect at the beginning of next year. There will

    979
    be a free trade zone among the countries of that region, and Paraguay will be at the centre of it, so our excellent trading relations with that country will stand us in good stead.

    International Paedophile Rings
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with other Governments about international paedophile rings.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We take every opportunity in all international forums to urge action against child prostitution.
    Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he consider having talks with the Sri Lankan Government, who are taking strong measures to combat paedophile rings? For example, they have established a Cabinet sub-committee and set up a separate unit in every police department, the tourist board is closely supervising hotels and guest houses, and the Government are carrying out a public awareness programme as well as conveying strongly to foreigners the message that they will not tolerate the exploitation of children. Does the Minister think that other Governments could learn from that? If so, what could his Department do to co-ordinate a campaign against that vile practice?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Lady knows, I have myself been in touch with the Sri Lankan high commissioner on all these matters. I can tell her that there is a great deal of police co-operation between Britain, Sri Lanka and other countries. The national crime intelligence service has a paedophile unit which gathers information on known British rings and liaises with its counterparts in the region of which the hon. Lady speaks. British officers take an active part in the work of Interpol in dealing with offences against minors. Interpol provides a useful focus for international police co-operation in the area.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time of kid glove action is over and that we must go for a mailed fist result? We must really go after the perverts—the evil people who prey on the bodies of children in an unnatural way. Would my hon. Friend consider discussing with people overseas and our Home Office whether, on a second conviction, castration might be a very suitable approach? One would be surprised to see how few people would need to be castrated to stop this evil practice against children—and I would do the same for those who rape women.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion is a matter for the Foreign Office.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Bosnian Government in respect of recent breaches of ceasefire agreements; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have repeatedly urged all sides to show restraint and we are supporting UN efforts to extend the ceasefire. We are also pressing the parties to accept the proposals put forward by the Geneva ministerial meeting on 5 July. My right hon. Friend the Foreign
    980
    Secretary and his French colleague Mr. Juppé are taking action with the key players in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia on their current visit.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that the breaches of the ceasefire have been mainly by the Muslim Government from Sarajevo since the recent ceasefire agreement was arranged? It is important that we get the right message through to the Bosnian Muslim Government. Does the Minister agree that it is erroneous to tell the Bosnian Serbs that whenever they have breached the ceasefire agreements they may be confronted by air strikes when there are not tit-for-tat threats against the Muslim leaders in Sarajevo? If there is to be a successful conclusion to the present peace negotiations and if there is to be agreement by the Bosnian Serbs, this country and the United Nations must show an even-handed approach.
    Mr. Hogg: On the first three paragraphs of the hon. Gentleman's question, the factual position is as follows: in terms of the number of infringements during the past month's ceasefire, the Bosnian Serbs committed the most, but perhaps the most serious infringements were committed by the Bosnian Government. Looking forward, I greatly welcome the fact that Mr. Akashi was able to negotiate an extension to that one-month ceasefire.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In the context of what the Minister said earlier, when he surmised that the arms embargo could be lifted, and given the fairly trenchant position that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have taken on the issue, what would be the British Government's position if such a development were to come about or draw near?
    Mr. Hogg: It is true that for two years or so we have argued strongly against the relaxation of the arms embargo as we believe that such a relaxation would run the risk of seriously re-igniting the war in Bosnia. That remains our view, but it also remains a fact that if the present negotiations do not succeed and, in particular, if they are rejected by the Bosnian Serbs, the pressure to relax the arms embargo—most especially, although not exclusively, in Washington—will probably prove irresistible. We shall have to judge our own policy as the facts develop.

    Commonwealth Institute
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the Commonwealth Institute.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am pleased to announce that the Minister for Overseas Development has today informed the acting chairman of the Commonwealth Institute that the Government are willing to provide a grant of £2.4 million over the three-year period from 1996–97 to enable the institute to regenerate its galleries and become self-supporting by March 1999.
    Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for his reply and also for kindly telephoning me this morning in relation to the matter. Is he aware, however, that the Commonwealth Institute in London is desperately in need of cash to finance the refurbishment of the building, which will cost about £5 million? Given that grants were previously in the order of

    981
    £2 million per year, does not £2.4 million over three years pale a little in comparison? Does that not show a negative attitude towards the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. The Government are most certainly committed to the continued strength of the Commonwealth. The offer that the Government have made is under discussion with Mr. David Thompson, the acting chairman, and it is on condition that the institute raises £5 million in sponsorship and submits satisfactory business and building maintenance plans. Mr. Thompson is confident that, with the restructuring in hand and with the assistance that he will receive from private sponsorship, he will be able to maintain the building and make the Commonwealth Institute a viable and flourishing institution for the future.
    Mr. David Howell: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is excellent news which will be widely welcomed on both sides of the house? Does he further accept, as I am sure that he does, that that institute or club, the Commonwealth, is not only thriving, but growing and that more and more countries are seeking to join it? Does he realise, as I am sure that he also does, that the provision is a very good move which reflects the growing interest of this country and Commonwealth members in grouping together for the future?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful for his encouraging comments. We hope that the Commonwealth Institute will thrive and flourish with an injection of private sector funds as well as Government assistance in the interim period because it is an important institute for the development of the Commonwealth which we wish to see flourish and thrive. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, we paid some 30 per cent. of the costs of the Commonwealth secretariat in London and 60 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Rogers: I do not quite understand why the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) thinks that the Government are advancing when there is a cut in grant from £6 million to £2.4 million. The Minister and the Government are sending out completely the wrong signals to the Commonwealth. We should like to know whether the Government intend to privatise or to hive off that valuable and focal institution because that is what they are doing under the restructuring. Will the Minister tell us what status he envisages for the Commonwealth Institute after 1996 and whether, when the process which he seems to be undertaking starts, he intends to repeal the Imperial Institute Act 1925 and the Commonwealth Institute Act 1958 under which the institute is governed? When will that process be put into train?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government believe that the Commonwealth Institute has a great future ahead of it, in the way in which I have indicated, with assistance from the private sector and help from the Government over the interim period. The institute is, of course, run by its own body of management, governing body and trustees. There is no plan to repeal the Acts of Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which established the Imperial Institute and later the Commonwealth Institute.

    Korea
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of relations between North and South Korea.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is too soon to know how the new leadership in Pyongyang will approach relations with South Korea, but we hope that the death of Kim Il-sung will not lead to a lengthy postponement of the summit talks between South and North Korea earlier planned for this month.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend accept that the words "North Korea" are merely shorthand for the dangers posed by nuclear proliferation? Has he seen reports that North Korea may have as many as six—certainly at least two—nuclear devices which it is seeking to develop to a state in which it can deliver them overseas? Is he aware that North Korea is trading in nuclear technologies with a number of countries whose interests are not favourable to ours? Will he use the hiatus caused by the death of the North Korean leader to accelerate rather than decelerate pressure on that country to reduce nuclear proliferation?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no hard evidence that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. There must be suspicions, however, because North Korea does not allow the necessary international inspections which would assure us that plutonium is not being diverted. We take the drive against nuclear proliferation extremely seriously. We are glad that North Korea has not denounced the nonproliferation treaty, and we hope very much that it will allow the necessary inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    Mr. Winnick: In the context of North Korea, does the Minister know whether Marxism-Leninism now accepts entirely the Conservative principle of hereditary succession? Will Ministers be writing to congratulate the North Korean leadership on a new development in Marxism-Leninism?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: They do like to try to keep it in the family in such countries. That is a feature of Marxist dictatorships. The succession to the leadership is a matter for the North Koreans. It is important to note that the dictator concerned is one of the last vestiges of a socialist world order that is now widely discredited.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is pretty well established that both Iran and Iraq have been spending substantial sums—Iran has been spending up to $0.5 billion every year—on nuclear proliferation. Much of the technology has been transferred to Iran and Iraq from North Korea and China. Does my hon. Friend have any clear plan to deal with that? It would seem that the policy of nonproliferation has pretty well failed in many countries and that we should be looking to something much harsher.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that non-proliferation has failed. We are working to achieve an indefinite extension to the non-proliferation treaty. We are also working to negotiate a comprehensive test ban, provided that it is part of a wider move to prevent proliferation, especially among the states that my hon. Friend mentioned.

    China
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relationships with the Chinese Government.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Relations with China have improved recently. On Hong Kong, we have reached agreement on defence lands and have made progress in our discussions on financing the new airport. Our trade figures show a 72 per cent. increase in direct exports to China last year and a 22 per cent. increase in the first quarter of this year. We also have an active dialogue on human rights and international and United Nations matters. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), will be visiting China from tomorrow.
    Mr. O'Brien: What representations did the Government make to the Chinese Government after the underground nuclear test on 10 June, which was conducted in defiance of international opinion and in breach of an international moratorium? Can the Minister able assure the House that that second underground nuclear test in nine months met with firm representations from the Government and that difficult relations over Hong Kong did not prevent the Government from expressing concerns about real and important nuclear issues?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. We have expressed our disapproval of the continuing underground testing in China and I am glad that China has at least indicated its intention to participate in negotiations for a comprehensive test ban.
    Mr. Waterson: Despite the public rhetoric of the Chinese Government, will my hon. Friend continue to keep the pressure on them to accept the democratic through train up to and beyond 1997?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will doubtless be carrying those discussions forward during his forthcoming visit.
    Mr. Gapes: When will the Government next have discussions on Bosnia in the United Nations Security Council? Will the Government be trying to work with the Chinese to veto any move by the United States to lift the arms embargo? In view of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—and of the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said that he was against the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo—may we have a categorical assurance that our Government will not give way to misguided pressure from the American Congress and President Clinton but will work with others to stop the lifting of the arms embargo?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it known to the United States Government that any unilateral move of the sort suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be strongly deprecated.

    Embassies (Science and Technology Sections)
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the criteria for the establishment of a specialised science and technology section within British embassies abroad.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Science and technology work is carried out by different sections within a wide range of our overseas posts, as appropriate and in response to demand.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that scientists and businesses in the United Kingdom are kept aware of developing science and technology in other countries, particularly in the United States? Will he explain why he has decided that the science and technology counsellor in Washington can be absorbed into another section when the German embassy in Washington maintains a section of five people, the French embassy maintains a section of six people, and the Chinese embassy maintains a section of 11 people?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I believe that we are extremely well served by the new arrangements established in Washington. We have created responsibilities at counsellor level for a counsellor with science and technology responsibility and also in other areas, including transport, energy and the environment, in line with the kind of arrangements which prevail in Paris, Bonn and elsewhere. We also have one full-time first secretary below him and a part-time first secretary assisting him.
    The hon. Lady makes a comparison between France, Germany and Japan, or perhaps it was China. She should be aware that the academic contact between British academics and American academics, because of the common language and culture, is very extensive indeed and, I am sure, nothing like so extensive in the countries that she mentioned.

    South Pacific Forum
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to visit the south Pacific forum in Brisbane this summer.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), will take part in a post-forum dialogue which follows the south Pacific forum in Brisbane.
    Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend understand the concern that Britain's role in the region is not always as significant as it once was? Against that background, does he understand the welcome that will be given to my right hon. Friend's visit to Brisbane, emphasising the fact that we must take a very close interest in the affairs of the south Pacific?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our annual attendance at ministerial level in discussions following the conference shows the importance that we attach to the area. There will be an opportunity to identify shared policy priorities and objectives. My right hon. Friend will continue with his visits in Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, we maintain a significant aid programme in the area which shows our continuing interest.
    Mr. Faulds: In view of the contortions of a slightly earlier question, will the Minister consider, on his way to visit the south Pacific forum in Brisbane this summer, the necessity to apologise to the Chinese Government for the—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is a little way out geographically.

    Middle East
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I welcome Mr. Arafat's return to Gaza and Jericho, which symbolises progress in the peace process. We shall continue to provide assistance to his new Administration. We welcome recent progress on the Jordanian track of the peace process and hope for progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Earlier, the Minister skated rather rapidly over the question of the boycott. Why is it that France, Germany and America and various other countries have very firm anti-boycott legislation, but the British Government, who know that British businesses are losing out in this matter, absolutely refuse to support the European directive or to introduce legislation in this House which would outlaw such activities?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that legislation would be helpful. We have already been successful in persuading the Arab states to relax the boycott. I have already spoken of the relaxation in the secondary and tertiary boycotts. Israel is now the third most important United Kingdom export market in the middle east, and there have been substantial increases in UK exports to Israel. That shows that the boycott is extraordinarily ineffective.

    Cyprus
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between the United Kingdom and Cyprus.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our relationship with Cyprus is close. We regard the division of the island since 1974 as damaging and unacceptable. We continue to work, both at the United Nations and in our capacity as a guarantor power, for a peaceful, just and lasting settlement. We believe that the package of confidence-building measures put forward by the UN offers the best way to make progress towards such a settlement. The gap between the two parties is now narrow. I hope that they will be able to seize the present opportunity to take a decisive step forward.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be quite wrong for Mr. Denktash to have a right of veto over Cyprus's application to join the European Union? May we have an assurance that the Government will support that application, whether or not the current measures lead to agreement?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We do support and have supported the application. Neither Mr. Denktash nor anyone else has a veto over the application, but we recognise the difficulties of bringing in a divided island: that is why the position will be reviewed by a European Union observer at the start of next year.

Civil Service
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper on the civil service, published today.
It is nearly 150 years since the Northcote-Trevelyan report first laid out the principles of a professional civil service, accountable through Ministers to Parliament, recruited on merit, politically impartial and dominated by a high ideal of the value of public service. Over the years since, the civil service has seen the demands laid upon it change in ways that could not have been imagined then. But the core principles established at that time have remained unaltered. They have served the country well; they continue to do so.
Today's White Paper therefore reaffirms those same fundamental principles. These principles help us to live in a decent society, but they have economic value, too. No one should underestimate the advantage we get from the justified reputation we have as a country in which our public service is honest, competent and apolitical.
None the less, no organisation can stand still in changing times. The public rightly expect to see continuing improvements in the standards of service in the public sector within the resources which can be afforded. That is why this Government have introduced a series of wide-ranging reforms, now brought together under the banner of the citizens charter, aimed at delivering better service ever more efficiently. These include the financial management initiative, the next steps programme, the efficiency reviews and the "Competing for Quality" programme.
I believe that the House should pay tribute to the way the civil service has handled these and other initiatives. They have already produced marked increases in both performance and efficiency. The size of the civil service is at its lowest level since the second world war, and the new structures are showing considerable gains in efficiency. The White Paper published today sets out how the Government see these reforms being taken forward and draws together the implications for the future of the civil service.
One central principle of management unites all these reforms—that of delegation to and within properly accountable organisations. We should now take further steps in that same direction, building on what we know works, rather than going off in a new direction.
But it is a fact that the most radical change so far has been in those parts of the civil service, much the largest in terms of numbers, which provide service directly to the public. The role of departmental headquarters and of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury now needs to change, too. The central role should be to set tough targets and to monitor performance on the basis of better information than we have at present. But staff throughout the civil service should be given the power to manage and operate in ways that best meet their particular tasks and needs, rather than within a single, central blueprint, adequate for all, but well fitted to none. We therefore intend to carry the next steps process further.
The Government propose that Departments should take greater responsibility for deciding their organisational structures, the pay of their staff and the best mix of
988
efficiency measures to meet the never-ending pressure to raise standards within tight running costs. Departments themselves should judge, for example, how best to use privatisation, contracting out and market testing. Centrally driven initiatives have shown in recent years how more competition and choice improves quality and reduces costs: Departments themselves must now take these well-established policies forward if we are to see the full benefit from them. The central Departments should continue to measure, monitor and report to Parliament, but with less second guessing of Departments' plans.
To do that, we need better information systems and more modern accounting practices. The Prime Minister has therefore asked the efficiency unit to conduct a scrutiny on management information systems and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is publishing today a Green Paper on resource accounting and budgeting. The Green Paper paves the way for important reforms of the way in which we account for public money and opens up the possibility of changes in the way in which the Government plan their spending, both of which will complement the changes that I am proposing in the White Paper.
Departments will be given the freedom to determine their own management structures at all levels matched to their own needs. We expect them to be tauter and flatter than now. The Government propose to extend the delegation of pay and grading—which at present covers around 60 per cent. of the civil service—to cover all civil servants below the senior civil service. I shall return to pay arrangements for the latter in a moment.
The senior civil service needs to support both the collective responsibility of Government and the particular responsibilities of Departments, and to underpin both policy making and high-quality service delivery. But it, too, cannot be immune from change. It needs changing qualities and skills to match its changing tasks. The Government published an efficiency unit report on those issues last winter, known as the Oughton report, and the White Paper includes the Government's response. The Government accept the efficiency unit's main recommendations, but propose additional changes. Our main conclusions are as follows.
To strengthen cohesion across the civil service and bring in all those with substantial management responsibilities, the Government propose to create a new senior civil service, including those broadly down to the present grade 5 level. It will include up to 3,500 people.
There should be more interchange between this senior civil service—and, indeed, the rest of the civil service—and outside employees. Open competition should become a more normal part of the process for selecting people for senior appointments. It need not be used in every case, but it should be considered in every case. Such competitions must be superintended, as now, by the Civil Service Commissioners, independently of Ministers, to guard against the possibility of politicisation. I am publishing today, alongside the White Paper, a report on the future role of the commissioners. I myself believe that if the civil service is as good as it should be at training and career development, most senior posts are likely still to be held by insiders, as they would be in most big firms; but we should set no targets one way or the other.
Next, the Government propose to introduce explicit written employment contracts for members of the new senior civil service. For the great majority, they will

989
provide for employment for an indefinite term, but with specified periods of notice. Fixed-term and rolling contracts would also be used as appropriate.
As figures in the White Paper show, it is a myth that the civil service is an organisation in which people serve as a matter of course until retiring age. Substantial numbers of senior staff have left early in recent years and that is likely to continue.
Finally, the White Paper proposes that a new, more flexible pay system should be introduced for this group. There should be a range for permanent secretaries' pay, with the positions of individuals determined by a remuneration committee with a majority of non-civil service members. Below that, we propose a system of wider, overlapping pay bands broadly linked to levels of responsibility, with progression based on performance, giving more room for manoeuvre to Departments to change their structure to fit their needs. As a first step, the Government will implement the wider pay ranges recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for the present grades 2 and 3 and will ask the review body to recommend a pay range for permanent secretaries. Those proposals will, in time, allow for greater differentiation in individuals' pay within the overall pay bill. No immediate pay increases are entailed.
The proposals for greater delegation to Departments and reform of the senior civil service represent a considerable further challenge for the civil service. We are seeking to raise standards of service within tight control of running costs. Staff numbers will continue to fall, from 533,000 at present to significantly below 500,000, with reductions at all levels. Wherever possible, that will be achieved through natural wastage and by voluntary departures. From the autumn of this year, the Treasury will give special assistance to Departments with any additional costs.
The Government believe that the civil service is fully capable of achieving what we have asked of it. It will be helped to do that by the greater flexibilities and the management changes that I have announced, against the background of the reaffirmation of the old strengths and values which underpin the civil service, which the Government have reaffirmed today, and with which, I believe, the whole House will concur. The civil service must continue to offer attractive and exciting careers to talented people who wish to serve their country in some of our most important and challenging jobs and it will be helped to do so by up-to-date organisations and structures.
The civil service has a unique role maintaining our unwritten constitution. It does not belong to one Government or party. The Government, therefore, plan to consult Opposition parties as well as others with an interest in the proposals that I have outlined today. We shall, of course, consider carefully the forthcoming report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
The Government's objective in publishing the White Paper is to map a way forward for the civil service to the end of the century and beyond. The result will be a smaller civil service, more flexible in organisation, better able to respond to changing tasks, properly rewarded on the basis of responsibilities and performance and offering challenging careers for both staff and managers with a reaffirmed commitment to the unchanging principle of public service. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Michael Meacher: The statement is a menu for the accelerated privatisation of the civil
990
service, which threatens to destroy the constitutional principles on which the civil service has rested for 150 years since Northcote-Trevelyan. Those principles include ministerial accountability, the unity of the civil service and the public service ethic as the standard for civil servants' actions. All of them will be undermined by the statement.
The right hon. Gentleman is squeezing out around 50,000 jobs by cutting the running costs of Departments. Is not that a wholly arbitrary exercise, in which he has abdicated his responsibility for the overall direction and general goals of the civil service? Is not he doing that because market testing has manifestly failed, even though he has constantly exaggerated the forecasted savings from the exercise?
The right hon. Gentleman said that centralised pay bargaining in Whitehall would end. Is not he reneging on long-term civil service pay agreements into which the Government solemnly and unequivocally entered two years ago? Will he tell the House how many hundreds more civil servants will be needed to negotiate pay agreements in each Department? Does he recognise that there will be a massive duplication of bureaucracy with the creation of at least 150 separate pay-bargaining units, and that 3,000 civil servants must be trained for that? Currently it is done by a mere 40 in the Treasury.
Will this be a repetition of what happened two years ago when the Government introduced performance-related pay, when nine Government Departments individually approached Andersen Consulting and paid nine fat fees for the same advice? As for personal contracts and performance pay for the top 2,000 civil servants, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to measure the performance of a top civil servant—by how much he pleases the Minister?
On open competition for top posts, is not it true that Ministers make the final choice of appointee and that, despite the right hon. Gentleman's denials, his proposed changes will open the way for more politicisation of the civil service, which the Government have taken too far already? Does not he recall the then Home Secretary a few years ago insisting on appointing as head of the Prisons Agency a man who had no knowledge or experience of the prison service, but whose private sector views made him ideologically sound? This Government have quangoised Britain with their own political placemen. Are they now going to do the same for the top ranks of the civil service?
Why is there no mention of equal opportunities in the civil service, with the right hon. Gentleman's retention of the elitist fast stream entry to top jobs? The real objection to this White Paper is that it has no vision. The public do have concerns about the civil service—about how Ministers increasingly rule by fiat and compromise civil servants' political neutrality; about what Pergau and the Scott inquiry reveal about the secrecy culture in Whitehall; and about the dismantling of an institution which has hitherto been the envy of the world. None of these matters which really worry the public are dealt with in the statement. It is not just a missed opportunity: it is a major backward step from the good governance of our country.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), as usual, gets it almost entirely wrong. I believe that he will find that he has misjudged the White Paper and the mood of the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked, as if it were a difficult question, how we can measure the performance of senior

991
civil servants—[Interruption.]—clearly showing himself as unaware as is his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who is misadvising him, that senior civil servants have been on performance pay for many years.
Next, the hon. Gentleman mistakenly asked whether Ministers make the final choice. That is not true. The Civil Service Commission makes the final choice. I have today published a paper—the hon. Gentleman should study it—which rightly explains the role of the commission. If it is necessary, as I believe it is, to bring in more people to the senior civil service to gain their experience, those jobs must not be politicised. It is therefore vital that the choice remains with the Civil Service Commission.
Nothing in the White Paper or in the Government's reforms changes ministerial accountability to this House, or the accountability of civil servants, through Ministers, to this House.
Typically, in a recent article, the hon. Member for Oldham, West claimed that the Government intended to reduce the numbers of civil servants to 50,000. We intend, I hope, to reduce their numbers to below 500,000—the hon. Gentleman got the decimal point wrong, just as he has got virtually everything else wrong on this occasion.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his advisers on the hard thinking and hard work that have gone into the White Paper.
Will the Government acknowledge that the wider recruitment and wider exchanges that they seek as between the senior civil service and the private sector will come about in practice only if pay amounts as well as pay structures in the senior civil service are made comparable with those in the private sector? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend press for an early debate in Government time, as soon as the House returns, on these important proposals?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, I will, of course, report to the Leader of the House what my hon. Friend has said.
Needless to say, the Select Committee is already engaged in cross-examinations on my hon. Friend's point, and I look forward to appearing before a sub-committee of the Select Committee next week to discuss it.
We believe that there should be more competition for the top jobs; that is the challenge that we offer the civil service. The other side of the coin must be that we develop the capacity over time to respond in terms of pay, so that these jobs attract a reward commensurate with the competition that they entail. That will take time. There is no overnight pay increase in the White Paper; but we need greater flexibility and wider pay bands to enable the civil service to attract its fair share of people from outside on equal terms.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The White Paper has much in it to be commended. It is important not to oppose change merely for the sake of opposing it, but the record of Ministers shows that they have often favoured change merely for its own sake, particularly in respect of privatisation.
The White Paper does not deal well enough with the worry that, with greater flexibility at senior levels of the civil service and with greater emphasis on performance
992
among those who give advice, the robust independence of the civil service will be affected. That is not addressed in the White Paper and it needs to be addressed more seriously by Ministers. The one great gaping hole—
Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman and the House have seen, a number of hon. Members are seeking to ask questions. I want questions and not statements now.
Mr. Taylor: There is a gaping hole in the White Paper that I would ask the Minister to address: why are the same rules, the same issues of independence and proper public appointment subject to independent scrutiny not being applied to the great growth areas of the state—the trusts, quangos and appointees subject to ministerial appointment—when the Minister places such importance on the independence of the civil service?
Mr. Waldegrave: The White Paper addresses head on the essential point that the hon. Gentleman fairly makes. Its entire first chapter deals with the importance of maintaining a robustly apolitical and independent civil service. I have absolutely no doubt that, should by some misfortune the Labour party or the hon. Member's party find their way into power, the civil service would serve them with exactly the same loyalty with which it has served us. Anybody who doubts that is casting an aspersion against the civil service. We reaffirm that today and I join the hon. Gentleman in reiterating its importance.
The hon. Member's second point is a real one. My right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Health has just published guidelines for the selection and conduct of trust boards and the Treasury has just republished and reinforced its guidance on appointments to non-departmental bodies. They are separate matters from the issues that we are looking at today, but they are important and should and are being addressed.
Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend accept that any savings to the taxpayer as a result of the White Paper will be welcomed by Conservative Members, unlike the Opposition, who have no regard to the British taxpayer? He said that he hopes to reduce the civil service by some 33,000 to around 500,000. Are those all going to be saved posts or will any be contracted out? If they are all saved, that is a reduction of something like 6 per cent. in the overall head count. Does he agree that it is still rather conservative compared with the reduction in overheads that most private companies have had to make during the recession? Does he agree that our investment in information technology in the civil service has not produced the return it should have done?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right to say that, when we look at our own organisations, we should consider the very rapid change undertaken by large organisations outside, many of which have had to undertake change quicker under the compulsion of the markets than we have achieved. None the less, I pay tribute to the civil service because it has changed fast. The fall in numbers—that is a gain in efficiency and a return for the taxpayers who pay for us all—has been faster in recent years than in the period running back to 1979, though there has been a considerable drop in numbers since then. Some jobs will be contracted out or privatised, some will go because we analyse that there is no need for the function at

993
all, and others will be go due to sheer efficiency gains. In the past 18 months, the ratio of efficiency gains to contracting out has been running at about 60:40.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's claim that so much of the reform is apolitical, is he aware that one of its serious aspects is the way in which fixed-term appointments will be made? Who will decide, when the term ends, whether that person will be reappointed? Is that not the time when the Minister concerned can exert his own pressure? Finally, 108 members of the Government are paid for out of public funds. We are reducing the numbers of civil servants, yet the numbers of Ministers have increased year by year. Why does he not turn his attention to that?
Mr. Waldegrave: The latter point may be for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rather than being my direct responsibility. On the former point, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have come down against fixed-term contracts for the generality of the new contracts that will be negotiated. They must be negotiated with the staff for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman gives. The cliff edge might produce a sense of insecurity and it is part of an efficient and apolitical civil service to give advice to their political masters that may not be welcome; civil servants should have the confidence to do that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will this pruning and semi-privatisation of the civil service apply across the board in Northern Ireland? Will it apply to both the Northern Ireland Office and the Departments in Northern Ireland? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the people of Northern Ireland that—contrary to pressures from Dublin—any new members of the Northern Ireland civil service will be appointed, as they are in this part of the United Kingdom, solely on the basis of merit rather than religion?
Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Northern Ireland civil service is a separate body; however, the principles underlying our proposals apply to it with equal force. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be considering how, and to what extent, they might be implemented in the particular circumstances of the Northern Ireland civil service.
The Northern Ireland civil service selects on merit, and the principles—well known to the hon. Gentleman—according to which it seeks to extend the pool from which it selects to all communities are an important part of that.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee will need to examine the details of the White Paper and discuss them with him? Personally, I welcome the fact that the Government have seen the need to reassert the essential values of the civil service at this time. I am also pleased that they recognise that the service is not the property of any one party, and are prepared to consult the Opposition; and that the Select Committee will have a role in considering its future.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to reaffirm the importance of the Select Committee's work. We have explicitly stated in the White Paper that we shall await its report before reaching any final conclusions. It has taken an interest in a number of aspects—for instance, civil service Acts and statutory backing for ethical codes. I must say that
994
the hon. Gentleman seems to show more understanding of both the issues and the sense of the House than does his Front-Bench spokesman.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is one of the few countries in which corruption at the top levels of Government is almost unknown? That is largely due to the dedication and high integrity of senior civil servants. Is my right hon. Friend confident that introducing an increasing number of people from an entirely different ethos, and without such long training, will not lead to a lowering of standards, with serious consequences for our political life?
Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend has said. We should be proud of the standards in our civil service. As I said in my statement, they not only make life better in this country, but provide an economic advantage: people invest here in the knowledge that the British officials with whom they will deal are not corrupt.
As for my hon. Friend's second point, let me remind him that during the war many people who entered the civil service—I think of, for instance, Roger Sherfield and Oliver Franks—greatly added to its strength. We have lost something of that since the war has become more distant. If we can widen the pool of able people who wish to serve the public by working in the civil service at some point in their careers, I do not think that that implies any lowering of standards. The great men and women who served at that time, and later, reinforce my belief.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have delivered his piece with a little less rattle and a little more conviction. Do the Government really intend to pursue the introduction of performance-related pay in the higher echelons of the civil service? How on earth can such performance be measured?
Mr. Waldegrave: I would not want to compete with the hon. Gentleman in terms of rattle. There is virtually no organisation in the world, including the British senior civil service, that does not have some measure of performance-related pay. [Interruption.] The hon. Member and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) are decades out of date if they think that people have not been addressing these problems and solving them perfectly satisfactorily.
Dr. Keith Hampson: I notice that my right hon. Friend's statement does not refer to the Fulton report. Is not it true that the philosophy of that committee, which was established by a Labour Government, is followed by the bold and imaginative ideas that my right hon. Friend has outlined today, particularly in terms of the need for a widening of recruitment into the civil service and for greater management efficiency? In terms of the accountability of the senior civil service to the House, is it possible that the Select Committee system has some part to play in the appointment of certain members of the senior civil service?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right that part of the important advice from the Fulton committee was that we should achieve a greater interchange and wider experience in people's careers before they reach the top of the public service. That has not happened enough, although it has happened to a considerable degree and we want it to happen more. We are abolishing one thing that was derived

995
from the Fulton report, the senior open structure down to grade 3, because we have come to the conclusion that that is too narrow a basis for the unified cross-departmental senior civil service that we need. As we need better devolution to Departments and less Treasury and Cabinet Office interference in the management of Departments, we also need to retain a capacity to move people laterally. That is why we have established the new senior civil service structure.
Mr. Tony Benn: The Minister's statement will require careful examination, but will he answer some questions? If power is to be devolved to civil servants in Departments who will no longer be accountable to Ministers for many aspects, is not it true that an incoming Government might regard the friends who have been brought in by this Government as wholly unsuitable and be entitled to remove them on the grounds that their performance is of a political character, quite unacceptable to the decision reached by the electors, which normally removes the Ministers who run the civil service?
Is not it also true that all the fine language used by the Minister is a cover for a return to the "spoils system" which has ruined the American civil service and which goes back before the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms and will ultimately create great distrust among the public about the operations of the civil service because it is being put on the basis of accepting the Government's political philosophy which is wholly foreign now to the majority in this country?
Mr. Waldegrave: If the reforms did any of those things, I would join the right hon. Gentleman in opposing them. It would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to heed his own advice, which is that what we are saying does require close attention. What will be devolved is structures, pay and management matters. Accountability for those matters lies ultimately through the Minister to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience—I have read his diaries on many of these points—often found himself resenting detailed management intervention from the central Departments. If we can find ways of minimising that within proper accountability structures, we will have done something valuable.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real reasons why we get into the mess that we do with respect to the amount of money spent on the civil service is the legislative burden that both sides of the House impose on it? Would not it be sensible, in the light of the review that is taking place, for us to consider reducing the duties imposed through Acts of Parliament which drive so many of the increases in duties imposed on our civil servants and in the functions imposed on the people of this country?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, has launched the major deregulation initiative. Over the years, under all Governments, we have found ourselves steadily increasing the amount of regulation that we ask the civil service to carry through—and it carries it through efficiently on all occasions. We then find that we have placed new burdens
996
on industry and on our population, which we regret. I accept the principle of what my hon. Friend said and we are introducing measures under the vigorous leadership of our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Is the Minister aware that many people will regard the White Paper not as a clear, bold blueprint for the future, but as a rather patchy, inconclusive mish-mash? Will he confirm that his Cabinet colleagues, led bravely by the Foreign Secretary, threw out some of his more ludicrous, extreme proposals, and that what remains in the White Paper will not lead to the creeping politicisation and deprofessionalisation of the senior civil service which many fear? Does not he agree that, to overcome the serious concerns and worries that have been expressed by hon. Members this afternoon, he should consider introducing a new code of ethics that will govern and safeguard the neutrality, standards and professional independence of the civil service?
Mr. Waldegrave: I did not notice the hon. Gentleman under the table at the Cabinet discussions; perhaps he was there. I do not think that he knows how they went. The result is a policy and a White Paper which have been whole-heartedly endorsed, as I believe my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will confirm, by every senior Minister in the Cabinet and elsewhere. The code of ethics point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a real one, but he should note that, last year, we brought together for the first time in the civil service management code all relevant documents, including the Armstrong memorandum and other important documents. It is vital that they are properly disseminated. They are part of the terms of service in the civil service. We await what the Select Committee says on the matter. The hon. Gentleman and I have no argument on the importance of maintaining that code. The Select Committee may wish to advise us on whether the code should be statutorily backed in some way. Now, as in the past, it is binding on civil servants and it must remain so.
Mr. Michael Shersby: To what extent does my right hon. Friend expect competition for the top jobs in the civil service to result in an inflow of permanent secretaries from outside? Will he give an assurance that such a move will maintain and enhance the standards of public service which the House is entitled to expect and which the Public Accounts Committee considers twice a week and on which it reports to the House every Session?
Mr. Waldegrave: Eight out of the present 35 permanent secretaries came from outside, including the head of the Treasury, so the process started some time ago. I do not know whether the number will increase. That depends ultimately on the skill, determination and resources that we put into the training of our people to enable them to compete properly. As for the service of the public and of the House, we must look at as wide a field as possible to employ the best possible people.
Dr. Tony Wright: Can the Minister say why it was sensible to make his statement on the White Paper before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee had completed its investigation into this matter? Why was it sensible to have overlooked the recent, devastating conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee, which said that standards in the conduct of public business were at their lowest point since before the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms and that the reason for that

997
decline was the increased inter-penetration of the public and private sectors and the erosion of the public service tradition? Why was it sensible further to erode that tradition rather than to deal with the issue? If it is sensible for the Civil Service Commission to consider new appointments to the senior civil service, would not it also be sensible to have a public appointments commission—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have asked for brief questions. I am attempting to assist hon. Members and call as many of them as possible, but I am not getting the co-operation from them to which I am entitled. I intend to have it from now on.
Mr. Waldegrave: On timing, we would have been happy if the Select Committee had finished its work first, but it did not seem possible to wait indefinitely. As we can consult it further, it seemed sensible, as we had finished our work, to publish the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman provides a travesty of what the PAC report said. In the clearest terms, it stated that there was nothing in the reformed structures that inherently or in any way threatened public accountability or standards, but that in a more devolved system—and I accept that this is right—it is necessary to take even more trouble to ensure that everyone understands what his or her duties and responsibilities are.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that market accountability is not the same as democratic accountability and that both are required from the public service? Will he describe to the House the Government's view of the principle that should determine the balance between them?
Mr. Waldegrave: What drives the public service is accountability ultimately to the democratic process. There are certain parts of the public sector into which, if one does it properly, one can introduce choice and competition to the benefit of standards in general. However, in no sense is the public sector comparable to the market; otherwise, those things should be in the market. It is much better to privatise something which really should be in the market, and that is what we believe in. There is a distinction, or the Government would not be in this business in the first place. Nevertheless, there are things that can be learnt from private sector markets to the benefit of both sides.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the record and standing of this Administration are such that they will commend this policy to the public? Is he really happy with the contraction which has occurred and which now means that if our constituents write to certain Government Departments, the chances are that their letters will be mislaid?
Mr. Waldegrave: As a matter of fact, I believe that the performance of Departments in responding to letters has steadily improved in recent years, but where there are failings, they must be put right. That is a perfectly proper thing to do. The principle that I am setting out—giving Departments the chance to organise themselves properly to deal with the tasks that they face—will help with such problems where they exist rather than hinder.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he is managing with skill the latest stage in a process which began with the Fulton commission
998
under a Labour Government and continued with the White Paper on central Government reorganisation in 1970? This is the latest stage, so it has taken about a quarter of a century to get things moving which, I suppose, is quick by British standards. However, will he accept two caveats? First, our nation has a fine tradition of public service, which we must do nothing to damage. Secondly, in giving more accountability and separate management control to Departments, as we planned 25 years ago, will he ensure that there is still plenty of movement between Departments, especially between the Department of Trade and Industry and the foreign service?
Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend says about the standards and principles that lie behind our public service. He is right to say that the origin of a fair amount of the White Paper goes back a good many years—he said about 25 years, and that may be fair. In fact, that exactly parallels the time that it took to introduce the original Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, which were not fully implemented until the 1870s.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Why have the Government retained the fast stream for top management jobs? Does not it place a severe limitation on people getting to the top on merit?
Mr. Waldegrave: The study that was published today on the so-called fast stream, which the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) so dislikes—I should say that we issued a report partly in response to the hon. Member's badgering, so I must pay tribute to him for that—concluded that there is no large employer that does not have some means of trying to get hold of a share of the best output from universities and colleges. What is wrong is the name "fast stream", which gives the impression that the people involved in it have some privileged route to the top, whereas, in fact, they have not. It would hobble the civil service most unfairly in the jobs market if it were not allowed to go on what is called the "milk round" to try to get its share of the best people from our universities.
Mr. James Paice: May I welcome especially the delegation of responsibility for the management of budgets down through the senior civil service? Is not it the case that with delegation comes responsibility for more effective decision making? Have not the Opposition perhaps missed the fact that with responsibility ultimately comes a great deal of job satisfaction for people who have been deprived of any responsibility in the past?
Mr. Waldegrave: The point that my hon. Friend makes seems entirely right. It was accepted by the Labour party when the original next steps programme was introduced. Although the party's then spokesman, the late John Smith, criticised the Government on other matters, he accepted that devolution was a sensible way to proceed, and I believe that he was right to do so. When the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has calmed down, I am sure that he, too, will find that it is the sensible thing to do.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As most women working in the civil service are in the secretarial and clerical grades, what proposals has the Minister for increasing equality of opportunity for both men and women across the grades in the civil service?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that there was nothing about equality of opportunity in the White Paper. In fact, there is a considerable passage. I believe that the civil service is a good equal opportunities employer and, in terms of the proportion of applicants, the numbers entering the service are about right. We are getting better at employing more senior women. That is necessary, but there is much more to do, and also more to do in reaching out to people in the ethnic minority communities. The White Paper addresses that subject, too.
Mr. Barry Field: While my right hon. Friend is busy pushing his new broom through the corridors of Whitehall, will he consider the fact that one of the greatest impediments to the transfer of employees from the public to the private sector and vice versa is their pension entitlement? Will he share with the House his thoughts on what he intends to do about that?
Mr. Waldegrave: The imbalance in pension entitlements was at its most acute when there was very high inflation. I have not heard private sector employers arguing about it so much since then. In the schemes that we now have in place for swapping people to and fro, which are welcome both to private industry and to the civil service, we have not found such factors to be a bar.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Privatisation has led to the disappearance of a Department of State—the Department of Energy—and is leading to further uncoupling of the work of the Department of Trade and Industry, and to the disappearance of the accountability for measures to the House. The next steps agencies are taking over from Departments, and often run things in a rubbishy fashion. Does not the Minister realise that in the end a small civil service might be a manipulative civil service—in fact, no civil service at all?
Mr. Waldegrave: There is a good deal of rubbish in what the hon. Gentleman says. I remember a Conservative Government setting up the Department of Energy. That was nothing to do with privatisation, and the fact that energy policy is now run from within the DTI is nothing to do with privatisation either. When the hon. Gentleman attacks the "rubbishy" next steps agencies, he should remember that he is attacking two thirds of the civil service. I do not believe that that is right. The hon. Gentleman will find in the White Paper evidence of the fact that, according to a whole range of indicators, the performance of the next steps agencies is improving services to the people who rely on them. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should study the evidence that we have placed in the Library. If he does so, he will tind that he is wrong.
Mr. Michael Brown: In connection with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) concerning fixed-term contracts, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the White Paper says anything about the principle of secondment? Does not that principle provide the opportunity, on a two-way basis, for people from the civil service to play a role in industry and vice versa? Does the White Paper say anything about that?
Mr. Waldegrave: It does; it endorses the importance of more secondments and of those who work with the civil
1000
service to arrange them. I have in my Department several secondees from outside; they make a valuable contribution and I believe that it helps to develop their careers in the private sector, too. Equally, those from the civil service who go out find that their careers are enhanced. I do not believe, as some Opposition Members seem to, that any threat arises from the mixing of the public and private sector cultures. Both gain from it.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Minister has been anxious to assure us of the political impartiality of new entrants into his new model senior civil service. Will he confirm here and now that active participation in one's local Conservative association will be a disqualification rather than the qualification for a new entrant?
Mr. Waldegrave: The rules on that are perfectly clear. Those who work for political parties on either side—presumably there are people on the Labour side who are also inconvenienced—are subject to the published code, which the hon. Gentleman can find in the Library. There is no more difficulty on that subject now than in the past.
Mr. Anthony Steen: It was a jolly good statement, and the whole House is most grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We much enjoyed the statement, but one inherent danger was not mentioned—the likelihood that the civil servants who are left when others have been removed will become more over-zealous and officious. Will the rules and regulations be more over-zealously enforced by the remaining numbers? Surely the raison d'être—if my right hon. Friend will excuse the phrase—of the civil service is that civil servants must serve the public, that they must help to create jobs and that they must help to create wealth in the private sector. Is not that the test of the civil service today?
Mr. Waldegrave: The overwhelming raison d'être—the use of the phrase "raison d'être" by my hon. Friend is slightly surprising, now that I come to think of it—or duty of the civil service is to serve the system of ministerial accountability properly and to carry out the duties laid on it ultimately by the House. It is ultimately the House which should take the responsibility for over-regulation and which should take steps to diminish it. It should not blame over-regulation on the civil service. That is why it is a political matter, for us as the Conservative party, to lead the campaign against over-regulation which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched at our party conference.
Dr. Liam Fox: Can my right hon. Friend put the streamlining of the civil service into context by telling us what has happened to total civil service numbers since the Government came to power so that the House and the country can differentiate between the Government's love for less government and the bloated bureaucracy left and loved by the Labour party?
Mr. Waldegrave: The highest number the civil service achieved—if that is quite the right word—was under the previous Labour Government. We have brought the number down from 732,000 in 1979 by almost exactly 200,000. That is an achievement of which we should be proud. We should also be proud of the fact that the smaller civil service is carrying great burdens and doing great work with greater efficiency than was the case then.
Mr. Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major achievements of our civil service over the past century has been its ability to evolve and to develop in response to changing circumstances and needs? Does he accept that the White Paper published today advances that fine tradition? It looks yet again at cutting out inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy and it seeks to improve even more standards of efficiency and user-friendly services, both for those who receive them at the sharp end and for the civil servants themselves.
Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that my hon. Friend is right and I also believe that if one gives a clear task and a clear challenge to the civil service, it always shows itself willing to meet it. The gains in efficiency that we are seeing and the gains in service to the customer—the patient, the pupil and everyone who relies on the civil service—are genuine. The civil service should be congratulated on them. Civil servants understand as well as we do that the search for efficiency gains never ends.
Mr. Michael Bates: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the many thousands of my constituents who are employed in the private sector, who have often learnt at great personal cost of the need in the modern world for ever-increasing efficiency and productivity and who have realised that there is no such thing as a right to a job for life, will be pleased to learn that the rules that apply to them are about to apply to the people whose salaries they pay?
Mr. Waldegrave: What my hon. Friend says is right. We have a duty in the House to the taxpayer as well as to the public service. I believe that the balancing of those two has been achieved in the White Paper. We need to continue the drive for efficiency, but we also need to protect the apolitical, independent nature of our civil service. I believe that the White Paper achieves that.
Mr. John Garrett: Surely the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman, nominally the Minister for the civil service, has simply copped out. Rather than produce a policy for the future of the civil service, he has
1002
signalled the start of a competition between Ministers to fire as many civil servants as possible. The results will be purely arbitrary, with the fast streamers and mandarins, like him, getting off exceptionally lightly and junior jobs going in their thousands. The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, so why did he stop it carrying out a direct investigation of the civil service? Will he ask his successor to reconsider these thoroughly incompetent proposals?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman achieves a new low. He always manages to go below the level of the subject, but today he has managed to get right under the carpet. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. In recent years, the proportion of those leaving has been higher from the senior civil service than from the civil service more widely. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the wireless this morning, he would have heard the First Division Association pointing that out.
I have answered questions in the House before about the survey of the civil service. The issue is perfectly simple. As the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) demonstrate all the time, those matters, at least for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, although not for all the Back Benchers, are of political dispute. If we involved the opinions of civil servants in that political knockabout and we identified those opinions, we would have done more at a stroke to damage the political impartiality of the civil service than if we had done anything else.

BILL PRESENTED
  DATA PROTECTION
  Mr. Harry Cohen presented a Bill to make further provision for the retention, registration, use and disclosure of automatically-processed information relating to individuals; to regulate the provision of services in respect of such information; to provide for a Data Protection Commissioner and a Data Protection Tribunal; to replace the Data Protection Act 1984; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

  War Pensioners (Equal Rights)
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to review the effect of differential treatment of war disablement and war widow pensioners by local authorities; to bring forward means for equal treatment; and for connected purposes.
  The Bill would correct one small but important injustice in the way in which we treat war pensioners in this country. Over the years, it has been accepted by Governments that war pensioners, by which I mean war widows and war disablement pensioners—people who were in active service or those who were injured in the war when they were at home—have been treated by the state as the recipients of a justified form of compensation for their injury or bereavement. Answers on that point have been given over the years—I am grateful for the presence of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—by Ministers from the Department of Social Security which have made that clear.
  Over the past decade, or a little longer, the cost of that compensation has been assessed and there has been a change in the way that the legislation has treated those people. First, dating back a little more than 20 years, local authorities in Britain were obliged—it goes back to the Housing Finance Act 1972—to disregard a proportion of war widow and war disablement pensions when assessing the entitlement of people in that category to housing benefit. In 1986, under the general review of social security legislation, there was no change to the discretionary position of local authorities, above the obligatory minimum amount of disregard. We then had an uprating in 1990 when the disregard went from £5 to £10.
  By the arbitrary nature of which local authority area one lives in, it may be that if one is a war disablement pensioner or a war widow, one's entire pension is disregarded, part of one's pension is disregarded or the statutory 10 quid only is disregarded. That is not in any way a party-political point, because local authorities of all political colours and, indeed, of none fall into each of the categories. For example, if a war pensioner lives in Bristol, the City of London, Croydon, Leeds, Oxford, Pendle, Restormel or Wear Valley—I have chosen, at random, a group of local authorities across the country—not more than £10 would be disregarded, whereas if a war pensioner lives in one of the authorities next door, everything would be disregarded. So the anomaly has arisen that certain people, in exactly the same predicament, are treated differently by virtue simply of their residence. For a pensioner on a limited income, that difference may be significant and it is certainly unfair. The other relevant aspect is that the disregard now applies also to council tax benefit, so it applies to the help that pensioners receive with housing costs and with council tax bills.
  All I want to argue is that there should be an urgent review and the Government should be asked to look at their policy again to see whether they ought to change it to give equity of treatment across the land.
  1004
  The latest available figures—they were given to me by Ministers in the past month—are that more than 290 local authorities offered a full disregard. A further 28 offered a full disregard for disablement pensioners only and another five offered a full disregard for widows' pensions only. About 150 local authorities did not operate a full disregard system. As a result, in 150 areas such pensioners were treated less fairly. Certainly they were less well off.
  The full cost of my Bill would be very small. The Southwark local authority offers a full disregard and it costs every adult about 8p a year to do that. We are talking only of pence. It is also obvious that the problem is becoming less expensive to solve, because there are fewer war disablement pensioners and war widows left. In 1978, there were about 382,000 in those categories, and in 1992 there were only just over a quarter of a million. The bill to the Treasury is becoming smaller.
  In the past financial year, the Government paid out—the figures were supplied by the Government—about £225 million in war widows' pensions. On the last day of last month, there were nearly 50,000 war widows' pensions and about 250,000 war disablement pensions.
  This is the 50th anniversary year of D-day and next year will be the 50th anniversary year of VE-day. I am raising an issue which pensioners' organisations and ex-service people's organisations, such as the Royal British Legion, have been on about for a very long time, as Ministers will know.
  I wish to put down a marker today so that between now and the Budget in the autumn the Treasury can seriously consider whether the very small additional cost in revenue terms of righting a social injustice for increasingly few people is something that it can now meet as a reward to a specific category of our fellow citizens during this year of all years.
  The reality is that some people in the category that I am talking about are very old. They served, or were alive, in both world wars. The rest were alive during the second world war although not the first. They all deserve equity and I hope that the House will allow the issue to be examined. Above all, I hope that the Government will allow the Bill to be considered and that they will bring forward a proposal to put money into the kitty so that every local authority can treat every war pensioner in the same way from next year onwards.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. David Shaw and Mrs. Diana Maddock.

  WAR PENSIONERS (EQUAL RIGHTS)
  Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to review the effect of differential treatment of war disablement and war widow pensioners by local authorities; to bring forward means for equal treatment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Privilege
4.33 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I wish to call attention to a report in The Sunday Times of 10 July that Members of the House had been offered, and had accepted, payment for the tabling of parliamentary questions; and to move,
That the matter of the complaint, together with the issues referred to in the statement by the Speaker on 12th July, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker announces that she has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).
Mr. Brown: The motion is facilitated by the statement made yesterday by Madam Speaker. Its purpose is not to decide the matters of substance but to call the attention of the House to recent allegations and to refer them, and wider questions of principle, to the Committee of Privileges.
The specific allegation arises from a story in The Sunday Times of 10 July 1994. The allegation is:
"Two leading Tories were willing to table official questions in the House of Commons in return for £1,000."
Madam Speaker, you reminded us yesterday of the section of the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which states:
"A financial inducement to take a particular course of action in Parliament may constitute a bribe and thus be an offence against the law of Parliament."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 829.]
On page 119 of "Erskine May" we are told in a section headed "Corruption in the execution of a Member's duty":
"The acceptance by any Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as such Member or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the House or any committee thereof, is a breach of privilege. Members of the Commons who have been found guilty of such an offence have been expelled or committed. It is also a contempt for a Member to enter into an agreement with another person to advocate the claims of such person in the House, for pecuniary reward."
The newspaper allegation is clearly that such a breach has been committed. The questions that were tabled relate to fictional matters—a drug called "Sigthin", and a company called "Githins". Both are anagrams of "Insight", and both are clearly bogus. It is therefore not open to anyone to claim a long-standing interest or alleged public interest in either the drug or the company. They are both clearly fictional.
It is also painfully clear that, if the drug and the company had been real entities, the only beneficiary of the parliamentary questions would have been the business men who procured the tabling of the questions. On the face of it, there is no public interest justification for tabling the questions.
The transcripts of conversations between Members of Parliament and the investigative reporters have been published. One Conservative Member is quoted as saying:
"The main point is the question you have asked will be answered…one way or another, so we will just have to wait and see"
The reporter then says:
"I will send you the £1,000 in the post now, then."
The Conservative Member of Parliament then says:
"That's very kind of you."
The reporter then says:
1006
"And thank you again for your help."
A separate conversation with another Conservative Member of Parliament deals with the ethical issues involved. The reporter asks:
"Did you manage to have—you were going to talk to the Members' Interests people."
The Conservative Member of Parliament replies:
"Yes, yes. I do not see any problem."
The reporter then asks:
"There is no problem at all?"
The Conservative Member says:
"No. I would be quite happy to go ahead."
The reporter then says:
"What do you want to do about paying you the £1,000?"
The Conservative Member then says:
"I don't really mind. Why don't you just send it to me? Do you want my home address?"
On the face of it, the relationship between the money and the tabled questions seems overwhelming. In any event, it is my contention that it is strong enough to justify referral to the Privileges Committee.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am no defender of many of the exploits of the tabloid press or the serious press when the press intrudes into people's private lives, be they Members of Parliament or anyone else? However, for the life of me, in this case I cannot understand why there should be any criticism of The Sunday Times. If The Sunday Times had not done what it did, we would not be debating, or referring to the Privileges Committee, the whole question whether parliamentary questions are being tabled for money. If anything, The Sunday Times is to be congratulated.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has made his point. I will deal with precisely that point later, because my motion refers to that, just as it refers to the wider issues of principle—as, indeed, you did, Madam Speaker, yesterday. However, I would like to make my speech in my own way, because I want to persuade the whole House to support my motion.
The two hon. Members involved will want to tell their side of the story and should have the opportunity to do so. I understand that 20 Members of Parliament were approached—10 Labour and 10 Conservative. The 10 Labour Members and six Conservative Members who appear to have rejected the approach outright clearly have something of value to say.
Another Conservative Member allegedly offered to table a question about a fictional disease called "thising", which is another anagram of "Insight", and apparently wanted his cheque for £1,000 given to his favourite charity. That allegation should also be considered by the Committee of Privileges. It is the exchange of money specifically for the asking of parliamentary questions that I believe to be the breach of privilege. The use to which the money is put, no matter how noble or worth while, is wholly beside the point.
Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will note that I requested exactly what Madam Speaker has given us today: the opportunity to have this matter considered by the most senior Committee of the House. I was deeply concerned about the activities of the individual who approached me. Before the hon. Gentleman says too much about me, he should remember that, if there are recordings, they will all be on tape.
Mr. Brown: I have already said that I believe that all the hon. Members mentioned in the allegations should, of course, have the opportunity to explain what they have done before the Committee of Privileges. That is the very reason why I am moving my motion.
I hope that the House will have noted that I am carefully avoiding naming individual Members. I have to set out the allegations to make the case for referral to the Committee of Privileges. I am trying to do so in a way that does not spark off a debate on the matters that I am asking the Committee to consider and not asking the House to determine this afternoon. It is a difficult line to tread, and I hope that the House understands that I am doing my best.
It is not possible to consider the ethics of taking a payment without looking at the ethics of offering payment—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). "Erskine May" states on page 128, under the section on improper influence:
"Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct may be considered contempts. One of the methods by which such influence may be brought to bear is bribery and in 1695 the House of Commons resolved"
to deal with this issue. When my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised that point, hon. Members laughed, thinking that 1695 was a long time ago. The resolution carried then is still the law of Parliament on bribery, and it is worth repeating to the House. The resolution states:
"the offer of money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour and tends to the subversion of the English constitution".
That was before the Act of Union.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Brown: If the intervention is about the Act of Union, I am not sure how grateful I shall be for it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has just quoted from the rule. Is not consultancy, in principle, above that? Is it not fair to argue, as have a number of my hon. Friends, that the entering into a consultancy agreement by a Member of Parliament in return for money, in the knowledge that that consultancy requires the promotion of an interest that benefits a Member, is in breach of the law?
Mr. Brown: That is the third issue that I want to raise. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington anticipates me.
I shall first deal with the issue of contempt—the offering of the bribe rather than the acceptance of it, if bribe it was. The Sunday Times story made it perfectly clear, at least to me, that Members of Parliament had been entrapped. It was also perfectly clear that Members of Parliament had been subjected to attempted entrapment.
The investigative journalists involved will say that they were acting within the ethics of their profession—[Interruption.] I am not always sure whether hon. Members are listening properly. What I said was that the investigative journalists involved would say that they were acting within the ethics of their profession—quite.
The Press Complaints Commission has an excellent code of practice—it would be excellent, if anyone took any
1008
notice of it—and it has something to say on the topic. It has quite a long section on misrepresentation. Section 6(iii) states:
"Subterfuge can be justified only in the public interest and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means.
In all these clauses the public interest includes:
(a) Detecting or exposing crime or serious misdemeanour."
Ms Clare Short: Given the nature of the rumours that we have heard about hon. Members tabling questions for money, it is clear that evidence of that would never become available, as those spending the money would not expose the action. Does my hon. Friend agree that The Sunday Times has done British democracy a favour through the investigation in exposing such gross behaviour, which must be scrutinised by the House of Commons?
Mr. Brown: I am trying to make the case for my motion in as neutral a way as I can, while still placing the facts in the public domain. It is clearly my duty to say what the issues are without trying to take sides in too partisan a way.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, which has now said that it will investigate his complaint? Would it be right for the PCC to investigate and pronounce judgment before the Committee of Privileges has had a chance to sit? It may not start sitting until October, and it may not produce anything until January or February. What would happen if the PCC came to a verdict before the Committee of Privileges?
Mr. Brown: I was not aware that the complaint had been made. We are trying to establish an organisation with authority, and there is already an established body that has the authority to make investigations in its own different arena. I am certain that it is not for me to tell it how to proceed or to conduct its affairs. It is clearly open to the "Insight" team to mount a defence of their actions on the grounds of public interest. I share what I think is the general prejudice against entrapment.
Mr. Tim Devlin: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because surely there would be a defence if the "Insight" team had been trying to reveal an activity that it was suspected was happening in this place. I have been a Member only seven years, but I have spoken to a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, and no one has ever heard of an instance of someone attempting to bribe a Member of Parliament to table a question in the House. Is not that the reason we are having this debate?
Mr. Brown: The reason that we are having this debate is that a number of hon. Members wrote to Madam Speaker following the publication of The Sunday Times article. You, Madam Speaker, made your statement to the House yesterday, which facilitated this motion. That is the reason we are having today's debate.
I am trying hard to introduce the motion in a neutral way, without denying the House the explanation of what lies behind it. I do not think that I am helped in that by interventions that invite me to go further than I should now into the matters of substance. I hope that, if the Committee of Privileges decides that it wishes to meet the "Insight" team, they will, if asked, willingly co-operate with its inquiry.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: If it is on the issue of co-operation.
Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is presenting his motion.
The "Insight" team have also said that they started their entrapment procedure because a business man had told them that he was in the business of giving Members of Parliament money to table questions. Will the "Insight" team be obliged to answer the questions that should be put to them: who is that business man, and what real evidence have the "Insight" team got?
Mr. Brown: That is exactly what I asked the House not to do in response to the last intervention. Clearly, that is a matter for the Committee of Privileges to consider. My motion seeks to get the issue—and, indeed, some wider issues—to the Committee of Privileges and to allow it to consider how best to proceed. Certainly it is not my place to tell it how to proceed.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: Irresistible. Of course I give way.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is a serious debate, and not a matter for joking. Will the remit of the Committee include those Members of the House who engage an excessive number of research assistants, many from America, who obtain information from the Library to enable them to get their D.Phil, doctorate or whatever? That is a nuisance to every Member of the House.
Mr. Brown: Frankly, I had not given that matter the consideration that I perhaps should have done. Again, I feel that I am being drawn into the details of the matter, when I want to deal at this stage with the broader questions of principle.
Yesterday, Madam Speaker, you spoke of the
"urgent need to clarify the law of Parliament in that area."
You gave that as a specific reason for granting the motion today. You also said that the Committee would have
"power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege which are concerned. I hope that it will use that power for the assistance of the House in a difficult area."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol.246, c. 829.]
It is a difficult area.
An excellent research paper prepared by the home affairs section of the House of Commons Library sets out the background to the topic, and explores the problems. There is a widespread fear among many who originally supported the Register of Members' Interests that it acts more as a licence than as a safeguard.
Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Committee of Privileges investigating the allegations against individual Members. However, Madam Speaker referred specifically to The Sunday Times. Will the inquiry that the hon. Gentleman envisages include a thorough inquiry into The Sunday Times, and into why it makes wild allegations every time there is a meeting overseas, so that, whenever my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes back to report, it is eclipsed? Will it also make inquiries into the allegation that The Sunday Times has said that it intends to
1010
get rid of the Government by causing by-elections? Those are allegations that I have heard from The Sunday Times itself.
Mr. Brown: The motion invites the Committee of Privileges to examine the issues dealt with in The Sunday Times story—the cash-for-questions row. It invites it separately to consider the wider questions of principle that are involved in the relationship between Members of Parliament's public duty and their private business interests. That is what I seek to refer to the Committee of Privileges. I am closely paralleling the statement that you, Madam Speaker, made yesterday.
The hon. Gentleman asks that the Committee should investigate more widely. I am not sure that it will want to investigate quite so widely as he wants it to do. Nevertheless, I hope that it will examine the broad issues of principle, rather than merely the narrow issue that has given focus to the motion today.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public would find it utterly baffling, indeed incomprehensible, if we gave any impression that the House gave equal sense of seriousness to the activities of some journalists on The Sunday Times and to the alleged bribery of Members of Parliament? Those two issues are not of equal importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they are."] Conservative Members say that they are of equal importance. They are certainly not of equal importance to the people we represent. It is vital that the Committee of Privileges acknowledges that, not least because it would be ludicrous if a decision was made in the end which condemned the activities of The Sunday Times and condemned the activities of the hon. Members. They would never have been found out if it had not been for The Sunday Times.
Mr. Brown: I am trying to get the Committee up and moving. I certainly do not intend to tell it what its decision should be. It is difficult for me to respond to hypothetical conclusions of the Committee of Privileges when it has not even been set up yet. The purpose of the motion is to set it up and give it the widest possible remit, including the broader issues of principle.
Mr. Den Dover: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that he understood that 20 Members had been approached by The Sunday Times. Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence, since he tabled the motion, that 10 Labour Members were approached, or has he had no evidence at all?
Mr. Brown: Those matters are referred to in the story. Clearly it will be open to the Committee of Privileges to invite the "Insight" team to come before it and say whom it approached and what the responses were. The point that I was trying to make to the House was that 16 Members from both sides of the House rejected the approach outright, and that their reasons for so doing would clearly be of interest to the Committee of Privileges. That is the only point that I make in that matter.
I do not want to go through the recent well publicised causes for concern. It will suffice to say that there is widespread public disquiet about the relationship between the public duties of Members of Parliament and their private business interests. Our rules must ensure that there is no improper overlap between the two.

1011
I know that, as the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), told the Committee which considered the matter a few years ago, there are profound problems of interpretation, enforcement and punishment. In my view, there is an even more profound problem in not tackling the issues. My motion enables the Committee of Privileges to try to do so.
An amendment has been tabled but not selected which suggests that, unless there are pressing reasons to the contrary, the Committee should follow its usual procedure in recent years and keep its proceedings in the public domain. I hope that the Committee will be able to do that, not merely because there is public interest in the issue but because, if Parliament looks at its own affairs and how we regulate the relationships between public and private interests, it is right that the public should see us doing it, and should understand the outcome.
4.56 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I intervene simply and briefly to express the hope that the House will agree to the motion. As you said in your statement yesterday, which has given precedence to the motion today, Madam Speaker, the press report at the weekend which led to your receiving a number of complaints, including that from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), plainly raised serious and difficult issues.
I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman achieved the neutrality that was his ambition. Perhaps that is what provoked so many interventions. Certainly I do not think that it would be right for me as Leader of the House to follow down his path of commentary. I have no doubt that the proper course is for the House now to remit those complaints to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration and advice.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Madam Speaker, will the Leader of the House tell us how he intends to implement that part of your statement which asked for urgency? I am sure that he is aware that, on occasions in the past when matters have been referred to the Committee of Privileges, it has taken a very long time to come to a decision—perhaps for good reasons. Does he agree that, on this occasion, it is important that consideration is urgent, and that he should use all his powers as Leader of the House to set up the Committee and let it get on with its work as quickly as possible?
Mr. Newton: I was about to come to that. It is obviously for the Committee, when it is set up, to decide how to proceed. If the motion is agreed, the Government will, of course, undertake appropriate consultation with a view to tabling a motion to nominate the Committee as soon as possible.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Madam Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion.
4.59 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Very few hon. Members have ever been called before a Privileges Committee, and I wish to take a few minutes to explain exactly what can happen. That is why I tabled my amendment today.
The sad fact is that if the Committee decides that it wants to hand out a public spanking—for example, to a recalcitrant trade union leader such as Arthur Scargill—it will hold all its hearings in public, and its proceedings will gain a great deal of publicity.
On the other hand, there is a tendency for a Privileges Committee to say that it is there to protect the House rather than the public. When that happens, there is a feedback to the culprit which says, "Grovel, apologise, purge your contempt and say you will never do it again." Proceedings will drag on for three or four months, and then the Committee will quietly produce a report which says that the hon. Member concerned apologised for his bad behaviour and that, as far as it is concerned, no further action should be taken.
A Committee will sit in private to reach that conclusion, it will hear virtually no evidence and its report will not be debated in the House. The matter goes into limbo. And that is exactly what happened to me.
I was the whistleblower in 1974, when I wrote a piece in Labour Weekly which alleged that there were Members for hire. That was at the time of Poulson and T. Dan Smith, and allegations such as those about Harold Wilson and the slagheaps and Tony Crosland, the Foreign Secretary, being given a coffee pot. My piece in Labour Weekly said that those allegations were nonsense, and that the number of Members out of 650 in the House who were susceptible to a proposition could be counted on one hand. Immediately the tabloids splashed across their front pages, "Name the guilty five." On the day when the T. Dan Smith trial ended—when what had been sub judice was no longer sub judice—I was the subject of a terrific amount of investigation.
The hon. Member for Peterborough at that time, Sir Harmar Nicholls, stood in the House and moved that the matter be referred to a Privileges Committee. That was between the two elections of 1974, when we had a majority of 22. I might add that things were done differently in those days, because I had to leave the Chamber immediately. With respect to you, Madam Speaker, I think it was the rule at that time that the Members accused had to leave the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: That is no longer the case.
Mr. Ashton: Exactly, but I had to leave.
The matter went upstairs to the Committee, and word came back that I should apologise and that no further action would be taken. I refused, and I put up a defiant defence. I was helped in that by my hon. and learned Friend Arthur Davidson, then the Member for Accrington and now a leading libel lawyer in Fleet street. We said that we had the facts in a file which was about a foot thick and there were immediate panic stations around the place.
Members of Parliament were, at that time, very badly paid. There were even advertisements in the whip on Friday saying that, if a Member wanted a £10 trip to Iceland to study the cod war, and he wanted to take his wife and two kids, it could be arranged. It was as blatant as that. A man came to me at the time and said that he wanted to make a commercial which said that the man who wound up

1013
Big Ben wore a Timex watch. "All we would have to do," he said, "is film a man walking across the bridge and down through the door into Big Ben." He asked if I could arrange it, and said that there would be a good fee for doing that.
I wrote to the Leader of House and asked whether that could be arranged. He wrote back, and hit the ceiling. But that was part of a specific campaign to get a Register of Members' Interests, which Eddie Milne, Phillip Whitehead and I and a few others were engaged in. We constantly wrote articles saying that the matter should be brought out into the open and that there should be a register—and eventually a register was brought out.
My point is that the Privileges Committee decided at that time that it would sit in private and would not publish any evidence. I alleged at the time that Members were renting out the banqueting rooms and staging receptions, and that fees of £300 had been paid for scotch whisky receptions on Budget days.
I asked for the catering booking forms so that I could produce them to the Committee, but the Catering Committee said no. I said to the Committee of Privileges that I wanted those booking forms, but I was told that I could not have them. I did not object to the fact that I could not have them, but I did object that the fact that I had asked for them was not even reported in Hansard. None of it was reported in Hansard, and all the report said was that the Committee had sat on several occasions and had had deliberations.
I was asked whether I wanted to go before the Committee—my hon. and learned Friend Arthur Davidson said that I should not go because the lawyers and the Attorney-General would tear me to shreds—or whether I wanted to write and ask questions. I wrote to them; they asked me questions; and we wrote back. It went on for months, which was what everybody wanted.
As the October election was coming up in 1974, there was a strange mood around the House. People were saying to me that they knew that I was right, but that we could not fight an election in October while all this was going on. The hon. Member for Slagthorpe, North would come up and say that the hon. Member for Slagthorpe, South might be a bit dodgy, but that the allegation rubbed off on him. "It rubs off on us all," I was told, "so for God's sake drop it."
There was constant pressure on me to drop the matter.
I am afraid that I was not a popular person at that time, but the campaign ultimately resulted in the setting up of the Register of Members' Interests. That was not done until two years later when Poulson had gone bankrupt and had had to reveal the payments which he had made.
The Committee met again and recommended that three hon. Members—Reggie Maudling, Albert Roberts and John Cordle—should be suspended for six months. Michael Foot said—I do not think that Labour had a majority then—that there were two Members from one side and only one from the other. We could not have that, as we would be accused of rigging a majority for the Government of the day.
There was a tremendous kerfuffle. John Cordle did not wait for the House to decide on the matter, and handed in his resignation. The other two did wait and, I am sad to say, the House divided along political lines—perhaps because of the climate at that time. Reggie Maudling's suspension came up first, and the Conservatives voted solidly against the proposal. When it came to Albert Roberts, the Labour party voted solidly to keep him in as well.
1014
We got the Register of Members' Interests set up, but because there was not a clear majority in the House we could not get the House's full agreement. That meant that the register was toothless in a way because, although it said that Members had to register their consultancies, it did not say that they had to register any offers or that the people who were making the offer had to register.
That is important because if the people making an offer had to register, nobody would make an offer. It is as simple as that. If it were against the law to make an offer to a Member—which it should be—nobody would make an offer. But we could not get that through the House at the time, and that very important part had to be left out.
What we are debating today has a different dimension, and a very important one. The question—with respect to my hon. Friends who were talking about The Sunday Times—is one of bugging. I do not object to newspaper investigations at all. I object to the growth in the use of tape recorders which we have seen in the past two years. I sat on the Select Committee on National Heritage which looked at the matter.
Within the past 18 months, a tape recorder has been placed under a Cabinet Minister's bed, the results of which were then splashed in the papers. In another example an offer of £2,000 was made by a prominent politician at a railway station, and one of the people involved in the incident was wearing a mike. We now have an instance where a conversation has been taped and where telephones have been bugged. The royal family's telephone conversations have been bugged, and then printed. I hope that the Committee will look at the growth of technology which did not exist 20 years ago when the House was not televised and was not even on the radio.
Mr. Roger Gale: I concur with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He has been in the Chamber and may not be aware that this afternoon the editor in charge of The Sunday Times Insight team—he is in the Gallery this afternoon and is hearing what I am saying—admitted on the record that his team had been researching this story and trying to stand it up since January. They had investigated a number of Members, and had been unable to pin the story on any particular Member at any time, and they had to resort to subterfuge to set up the story.
Mr. Ashton: I do not want to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said at the beginning of the debate, we should not produce evidence which might be prejudicial to any inquiry. We are talking about the general merits of the matter.
The Committee must certainly take a look at electronic surveillance. That problem has been compared with the banning of journalists from the Terrace because of allegations that they were harassing Members. A long tradition of trust with the journalists' lobby has been built up, but we can no longer talk to journalists without fearing that they may have microphones or tape recorders in their pockets. We can no longer use the telephone without wondering whether we are speaking on lobby terms or whether we are being recorded. The Committee must look into that too, because all this technology is a new dimension of privilege, and the House has never before examined the matter.

1015
I tabled my amendment just to make sure that members of the Committee know that everything said in it must be subject to full public scrutiny—perhaps not all the deliberations, but certainly all the evidence given to the Committee.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that there be a public record? If there is not, for the next few months there will be nothing but speculation in the newspapers to the effect that the Privileges Committee has heard this or that, or recommended this or that, or probed this or that. We need an open record of what goes on, so that we can all judge on the basis of fact, not hearsay.
Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is of course right. I believe that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made a mistake by going to the Press Complaints Commission. That will only result in a verdict being given by a body before this House gives its verdict, thereby pre-empting it.
I hope that the Committee will adhere to my hon. Friend's suggestion and insist that every scrap of evidence be published.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: May I draw to the attention of the House the fact that a number of hon. Members want to speak in this debate? I ask them to exercise voluntary restraint in respect of the length of their speeches. Secondly, I draw their attention to the fact that the motion is a very narrow one, and I hope that they will read it before speaking.
5.11 pm
Sir John Gorst: Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday I made a complaint to you about bribery and the surreptitious use of bugging devices within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I begin by setting out the facts on which that complaint was based.
On Wednesday 29 June a Mr. Jonathan Calvert came to see me at the House of Commons by appointment. Several days earlier he had left telephone messages, saying that he wished to discuss a consultancy matter with John Gorst and Associates Ltd., a consultancy that I formed six years before I was elected to this House. It is also registered as a business and public relations consultancy in the Register of Members' Interests.
I took Mr. Calvert, a young man in his late twenties or early thirties, to a bench seat off the Central Lobby, and he immediately explained that he had been left some money which he wished to invest in a drugs company that was unable to establish the facts about an uncommon disease. He spelt it out as an unpronounceable illness called "thising aphonitus infeston". Before deciding whether to proceed with an investment, Mr. Calvert explained that he needed information from the Department of Health about the incidence of this disease. He asked whether I would table a parliamentary question for which he was prepared to pay £1,000. He did not require any regular consultancy; it was just that one-off question to which he sought an answer.
I explained to him that it was not proper for a Member of Parliament to accept money for tabling questions. He
1016
seemed to think that that was either pedantic or unhelpful, so I explained, as The Sunday Times reported, that although it might not be illegal it was certainly not very nice if Members of Parliament asked questions in return for money.
I did not comment, although the thought crossed my mind, that his request was more than somewhat improper. I am used to certain types of business people, unfamiliar with the ways of Parliament, thinking that money can buy whatever they want. So I was inclined to put his request down to ignorance or naivety.
I therefore confined myself to suggesting that if Mr. Calvert set out on paper what he wanted to know and sent it to me I would consider tabling the question for nothing. I could see no objection at that time to asking a question about the incidence of an unusual disease. As Mr. Calvert had ostensibly come to see me about the possibility of my company undertaking consultancy work, I concluded the 10 or 15-minute meeting by saying that, if in the future he felt the need for consultancy, I would be perfectly willing to discuss some sort of arrangement.
I hope that the House will take the view, irrespective of Members' views on the desirability or otherwise of Members having outside interests, that this was a perfectly correct response to both the letter and the spirit of our regulations. Certainly it was a dubious approach, and I hope that I responded correctly.
After Mr. Calvert's departure I consulted a medical dictionary in the Library. There was no reference to the so-called disease he had mentioned. Meanwhile I also decided that there was something that did not quite ring true about Mr. Calvert. At the same time, I was inclined to suspect that he was a slightly cranky individual of a type not unfamiliar to Members of Parliament from their surgeries. Indeed, on checking his telephone number, which was in the Richmond area, I could not understand why he had not consulted his own Member of Parliament. Even though it appeared that his Member was a Minister, there was no good reason why the information that Mr. Calvert sought could not have been obtained by a Minister through normal correspondence.
Thereafter I gave no further thought to Mr. Calvert—or rather, not until Saturday 9 July—10 days later—when I returned a call from The Sunday Times, in the course of which I was informed that the paper intended publishing a report to the effect that two Members of Parliament had accepted money in return for tabling parliamentary questions. It was also revealed to me that the Mr. Calvert who had come to see me in the House of Commons was in fact a member of the paper's staff.
I was indignant at this subterfuge, but more to the point, I recognised that a deliberate, seemingly criminal attempt had been made to bribe me, and that there had been nothing naive or unknowing about the proposition put to me by Mr. Jonathan Calvert.
When, later that evening, I obtained an early edition of The Sunday Times, I also took exception to what I took to be a libellous innuendo. I rang the paper and remonstrated with the editor of the column. During our conversation he revealed to me that he had a transcript of what I had said, thereby making it perfectly clear that Mr. Calvert had been using a concealed recording device throughout our conversation.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has referred to bribery. What is the difference between

1017
payment for a one-off service under the heading of consultancy and payment for a consultancy that lasts for a period?
Sir John Gorst: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am trying to deploy a case. I do not wish to dodge the question, but I hope that he will understand from my subsequent remarks that I am discussing the two points in this motion about which I have personal knowledge.
Hon. Members will be well aware that "Erskine May" states on page 128, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has already said:
"Attempts by improper means to influence Members in their parliamentary conduct may be considered contempts."
I contend that offering money for tabling a question constitutes such a contempt. Before I reach that point, I hope that the House will allow me to finish what was saying about Mr. Calvert.
It was only because I believed that I was being offered money out of ignorance or naivety rather than duplicity that I did not report the conversation I have outlined sooner. I have explained to the House why I now think differently.
I wish to go further, however, and argue that those who from the start seek in the precincts of the House to cause a Member to commit a contempt by accepting bribes, are themselves guilty of committing a contempt and should be dealt with accordingly. Their motives are irrelevant. They should operate within the laws of Parliament and not above them. Should they seek to justify their conduct on the grounds of public interest, I would submit that they are abusing and usurping powers that properly belong either to Madam Speaker or to the House.
Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Gorst: No. I shall not give way as I realise that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
Who are these members of the fourth estate anyway? Who are these so-called guardians of the public interest who are arrogating to themselves exceptional powers and rights: the right to break the law; the right to offer felonious bribes; the right to invade the precincts and privileges of the mother of Parliaments? Such contemptuous arrogance has not been seen since the days of the robber barons.
The power of the press has grown, is growing and needs to be diminished. As a voice for the grievances of the nation it is essential, invaluable and must not be fettered, but as a power above the law, without accountability, it has no rights, no role and no function in our parliamentary democracy.
There are those who plead eloquently against the erosion of the sovereignty of Parliament in Europe. What price that sovereignty if it is to be subservient to the Murdoch empire, an empire in the ascendant that has a higher budget than the British Empire ever had in its decline? Against such mighty and overweening assertiveness, what is the value of the ancient, jealously guarded privileges accorded to the elected representatives of the people? What is their value if they are to be subordinated to the news editor of The Sunday Times, who places his concept of the public interest as superior to that of the constitution?
1018
Finally, I turn to the use of clandestine bugging devices. Although there is no explicit reference to their use in the Palace of Westminster, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to page 115 of "Erskine May":
"Generally speaking, any act…which…impedes either House in the performance of its functions, or which…has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.".
In this case, such recording devices were used without my knowledge within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
The use of bugging devices in any circumstances in the Palace of Westminster could impede uninhibited discussion between Members and Ministers, constituents, or accredited members of the lobby, or between Government and Opposition parties.
As that is a practice not permitted to such authorities as the police, the security forces or indeed any official acting under the authority of you, Madam Speaker, it would be wrong in my view to permit it to journalists. Moreover, the use of recording devices in such circumstances places improper influence and pressure on Members of the House and therefore ought to be treated as a serious contempt.
Bribery and bugging by any section of the media are a gross abuse of Parliament. To censure and outlaw it inside the privileged precincts of the House is not an infringement of the liberty of the press. Those practices are a violation of freedom, not a protection of it.
Corrupt means to expose corruption are a corruption in themselves. We do not sanction corrupt methods in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland, nor should we tolerate them in this place. Deception and trickery are the tools of a totalitarian state; they have no place in this country.
Across the span of our public life we have a variety of properly constituted inspectorates. Are we now to tolerate a secret self-appointed journalistic police answerable only to the commercial imperatives of the transatlantic Rupert Murdoch?
If something is to be done—and I support the motion wholeheartedly—if censure or penalties are to be imposed, I hope that the Committee of Privileges will ensure that The Sunday Times is denied access to any privileged facilities of the Palace of Westminster and that it will not be allowed to return until it has purged its contempt and given assurances that there will be no repetition of this disreputable conduct.
5.26 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I support the motion before the House and, as a former member of the Committee of Privileges, I do not wish to comment on the individual cases. The matter of the next Committee will be for the House to determine. However, it is sensible to set the framework against which these issues have come into the public domain.
Without regard to the individual details that have been given, if people observing Parliament, which is widely reported in the press and on television, were to be persuaded that the transactions that we present to them as being a conflict of ideas and interests were really just a cover for financial arrangements which were concealed from them, their confidence in the House would rightly disappear.
I have long thought—and I hinted at it in the debate when you were elected to the Chair, Madam Speaker—that the threats to democracy in Britain come from quite

1019
surprising places, not least from those who seek to replace our work by moving it to other places at Millbank and elsewhere.
It is important that this House, which has a very long history—I think it is 700 years next year since the model Parliament was called—should recognise that in a sense the whole development of Parliament has been a struggle by the common people to prevent the country from being run by rich people.
It was the King who conquered—William the Conqueror came to Westminster abbey on Christmas day 1066—and his power was power by conquest. He owned the country, so he ran it. Similarly, when the barons went to Runnymede—an activity sometimes misunderstood as having played a significant part in the development of democracy—the feudal landlords told the King that they were not prepared to have him run the country because they were landlords and they owned the land. The serfs who suffered under the landlords never really benefited from Magna Carta.
I shall not take the House through any more history—we all take school children round this place—but it is worth remembering that in 1832, which is not so very long ago, only 2 per cent. of the population had the vote and they were all rich white men. The Chartists and the suffragettes wanted the vote. Why was that? It was because they wanted to use the ballot box to countervail the power of money.
That is what the whole parliamentary story is about. People did not want the vote because they had done an A-level in government; they wanted it in order to buy collectively what they could not afford individually. That is what the history of the labour movement means. People said, "Many of us cannot afford houses or proper education, health care or pensions. We will band together and campaign for the vote. We will then campaign for candidates who, when elected, will be able to use the power of Parliament to countervail the power of money." If we allow that idea to be put in question by giving the impression that money—by means of subterfuge—still runs the proceedings of the House of Commons, we destroy the whole thing at a stroke.
Then there is the question of privilege. There are two views of privilege, one of which is that its purpose is to protect Members of Parliament from being criticised outside. I have never taken that view. Clearly, if a Member of Parliament receives a death threat—"If you vote for such and such a Bill, we will kill you"—that is a breach of privilege. Why is that? It is because it prevents that Member of Parliament from performing the function for which he or she was elected. Privilege is there to protect the electors, so that the Parliament that they have elected can perform the functions for which they elected it.
The Committee of Privileges recently dealt with an interesting case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). It concerned an employee of Birmingham city council. When that council promoted a Bill to allow a road race in Birmingham, that employee—in his personal capacity—petitioned against it. The council then tried to move him from his job as a punishment for petitioning against his employer.
I am proud to have played some part in what followed. The Committee of Privileges ruled that Birmingham city
1020
council was guilty of a breach of privilege by threatening a citizen, thus preventing him from coming to Parliament. I hope that when the Committee meets on this occasion it will bear in mind that view of privilege—that it is there to protect those who elect us so that Parliament can work for them against those who will always seek to get their results by means of money.
Some Members of Parliament are already governed by very strict rules. I take it that the Leader of the House and other Front Benchers are governed by the same rules that governed me when I was a Secretary of State. They are contained in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", a copy of which I have kept. The document will vary from Government to Government, but it is sent to every Minister by the Prime Minister of the day. My copy is copy No. 21, dated 23 April 1976; Jim Callaghan, who was then Prime Minister, sent the memorandum to all of us. I will quote two of the rules.
The first of those rules states:
"It is a well-established and recognised rule that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him under an obligation."
The second passage, which is equally short, states:
"It is a principle of public life that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties."
My opinion—which I submitted, unsuccessfully, to the Select Committee on Members' Interests—is that every Member of Parliament should be covered by those rules. What is so special about Ministers that they are public servants? Are we not public servants? Do we not table questions? I table many questions for business men who come to me and say, "I have an invention" or "I have an export problem", but I would not dream of either expecting or receiving money for doing that, either in a personal capacity or by setting myself up as a consultant. I do not put myself in any position above that, but Members of Parliament are elected to act as consultants to the British people: that is what we are here for.
Why do people write to Members of Parliament and visit their surgeries? It is because they want our advice: they want to consult us about how their problems might be resolved. That argument, I think, is both powerful and easy to advance, because the rules are already there for Ministers. I presume that the current wording is very similar to what I read out, although it may vary slightly—indeed, the present Government published the rules.
When I put the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, it would not allow the document to be published. It was frightened, because the document was marked "confidential". Ministers were governed by rules that were secret, while the rest of us were not.
We often boast that we are a high court of Parliament. If that is so, Members taking the oath should swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Rather than being an oath of allegiance to the Crown—I shall not go into that now—the oath that we take in the House should have some bearing on the duties that we perform. I drafted such an oath and submitted a Bill that dealt with it. It read:
"I…Solemnly declare and affirm
That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the peoples of the United Kingdom, according to their respective laws and customs"—
that is from the coronation oath—
"preserving inviolably their civil liberties and democratic rights…through their elected representatives in the House of

1021
Commons, and will faithfully and truly declare my mind and opinion on all matters that come before me without fear or favour."
That is from the Privy Councillor's oath, which the Lord President has declined to publish. Happily, I did it for him some time ago.
If Parliament is to be credible, people must know that when we come here we are public servants. No one would argue that we do not bring our experience to the House or that we may not do other things in parallel—some Members of Parliament write, for instance—but that is quite different from being paid to perform an aspect of one's parliamentary duties.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I am trying to make a serious point, but I will give way.
Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. His speech is interesting, but I seem to recall his saying on the radio that he had failed to persuade members of his own party of various things that he thought were right, and then saying that he had best explain or put forward what he disagreed with. If the point of view in the second part of his speech includes his diary form, think that many people will find points to criticise; the first part was rather better.
Mr. Benn: I will conclude by putting to the House some proposals that I believe the Committee should consider. First, I propose that every Member of Parliament should be required to list the sources, though not the amounts, of all his or her financial interests. Secondly, the procedure for Ministers should apply to all of us. Thirdly, certain financial interests should be held to disqualify a person from serving in the House of Commons. As you know, Madam Speaker, an office of profit under the Crown disqualifies: it is not possible to serve the Executive and be a member of the legislature. That is an old principle and is the reason why Members of Parliament wishing to retire apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. But are there not other offices which should disqualify? I think that at one stage people working for contractors to Government Departments were included. If people are engaged in making money as a result of being in Parliament, is that not a disqualifying office? I believe that the rules, whatever they are, should be embodied in statute and not just in the "old boy" regulations of the House.
I also believe that every candidate should publish his or her interests with the nominations papers, and that all organisations making payments of any kind to any Member of Parliament should be required to make a declaration to that effect in a separate register. If an organisation pays a Member of Parliament, it should be under a statutory responsibility to declare, "We paid that Member for that purpose." All lobbyists should declare the names of all persons whom they employ for that purpose, and the list should be published. When a Member declares an interest when speaking or voting—as he should—that interest should be printed in Hansard, having been picked up from the Register. The oath should oblige us to do all those things.
No doubt the Committee of Privileges will examine the question of the Members concerned and what happened in the current instance in detail, some of which has been touched on today. However, I urge the House not to allow
1022
this opportunity to deal with the wider question to pass. If people at home not only hear what is happening in the House but wonder whether the newspapers pay for things to be done which they subsequently report independently, as part of the democratic process, the House will do itself a disservice and will richly merit criticism.
5.39 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. First, however, I should like to thank you personally, Madam Speaker, for responding to my letter and to those of many others giving us an opportunity to have this debate. As a result, I hope that the Privileges Committee will be able to look into the matter.
I want to make it clear to Opposition Members that I have no objection to the Privileges Committee sitting in public or to everything being recorded. In fact, I look forward to the tape recordings of my conversations being heard in full. I welcome that. I believe that they would have the same effect as the Richard Nixon tapes had on Richard Nixon and on the individual who obtained those recordings. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. There are some rather loud conversations taking place. I am sure that we all want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Walker: From time to time The Sunday Times gives us titbits of news which it thinks will titillate the interest of the public at large and help the newspaper's circulation. I am concerned that from now on the newspapers should not use edited versions of recordings in order to increase their circulation. I have made my view clear: I am happy to have the tapes involving me heard and printed in full in the Committee report. I welcome the fact that the Privileges Committee has the powers that it has and I trust that it will use them.
The Sunday Times claims that the methods used were justified and in the public interest. Consequently, I believe that it could not object if I were to tell the House the name and address of the business man, the potential investor and job creator, who told me that he had given up being a haulage contractor because he had come into a substantial inheritance which he wished to invest in a company manufacturing a new drug that would be a cure for a particular type of serious throat problem. The House will recollect that last year I was off ill for quite some time with just such a health problem. Was I not the right chap to approach with that sort of instant cure? I should certainly have thought so. The idea of a cure together with the prospect of jobs was what made me interested in the gentleman—or rather the agent provocateur, con man, liar and cheat—who tried to get me to accept a cheque, which I refused, and who recorded all our conversations on the telephone and all the conversations held in my room in the House without my knowledge.
If Jonathan Calvert of 35 Cambridge Cottages, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AY is listening, I hope that he will recollect that I also have his telephone number—081 940 2534—on which I have spoken to his wife. I obtained the clear impression that he was genuine.
I ask hon. Members to think carefully. The right to ask questions and to have questions answered is the

1023
cornerstone of our unwritten constitution. Anyone tampering with that for whatever motive—or ulterior motive—should be dealt with severely by Parliament.
I am prepared—I imagine that I have no choice—to appear before the Committee of Privileges. If I have erred, as I often do—I live in a house full of women who constantly remind me of that—the Committee will quite properly point out my erring ways. If The Sunday Times has erred—I believe that it has erred in a ghastly way—the Committee should treat it properly as well.
5.44 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the House will vote for the motion, and that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Committee is set up speedily, which I know he will want to do. I am sure that that is the mood of the House.
At this stage, I do not intend to dwell on the behaviour of the press. It is right that that should be investigated and, like the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), I am certainly not convinced that the press complaints procedure is an effective guardian of the public interest. It may be that the behaviour of the press in this context needs to come back to us in the House.
I hope that your statement, Madam Speaker, was so clear that the Committee of Privileges will be under no misapprehension. I believe that both halves of the motion should be followed comprehensively. The Committee should look not only into the specific matter of the complaints relating to two colleagues, but consider all the matters that flow from that and are related to it. That means that three separate matters need to be examined by the Committee.
The first is that there may well be contempt of Parliament by colleagues, because one of the allegations clearly implies that hon. Members might be in contempt. I should add that we are all and always prospectively at risk of that, and I do not want to suggest that at different times any of us might not be. It is clear from the wording on page 119 of "Erskine May" that
"The acceptance by any Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as such Member or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted"
is a breach of privilege and puts the Member in contempt.
Two types of effort are made to influence us here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) gave me a specific example of a type of effort made by many. When he ceased to be the leader of our party, he was approached by a consultancy firm offering him a five-figure sum for one year simply to book rooms for entertaining and to look after clients of a consultancy. That is entirely inappropriate. My right hon. Friend declined that offer clearly, having, in his own words, been "astounded" that it had been made. That is one level of activity which involves using the building and facilitating contacts.
Another level of activity is attempting to influence the business in the Chamber—speaking, voting and tabling motions and questions. The matters raised in the motion and in The Sunday Times relate to that much more central matter of the business of Parliament. Attempts were made to influence the business of Parliament, with money as the reward.
1024
Those of us who have been taught the criminal law are taught about the legal difference between attempting to do something which can actually be done, such as stealing something, or attempting to do something illegal that one cannot do, for example because there is nothing to steal. I hope that the Committee will not find on a technicality that, because there was no real company and because people were pretending something, there was not an offence. I hope that the Committee will exclude that, because the issue is as serious as if it were a real company and a real individual seeking to influence us in some way.
Secondly, there may be contempt—on the face of it, it looks as if there is—by those who attempted to bribe 20 hon. Members. I do not know whether other people have done that before, but your statement, Madam Speaker, made it clear that you wanted the wide rather than the narrow set of issues to be considered.
It is also clear that the Committee can find such action to be in breach of privilege, and that it can deal with it. On both of those matters, you rightly made the point yesterday, Madam Speaker, that the law of the land was not clear. There is ambiguity as to whether, in ordinary criminal law, such action could also land anyone before the courts—when would contempt in this place also be illegal outside? That matter should be sorted out.
We must know whether any person who approached our 20 colleagues was guilty of a criminal offence, and whether hon. Members who respond to such an approach and accept and pocket money are also guilty of a criminal offence. The matter should be made clear, and the public should know what the position is. If the law needs to be amended, it should be. The Committee should deal with the matter.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) alluded to the third issue, which is a subsidiary one but linked to the main issues, as your statement, Madam Speaker, made clear. It relates to whether the Register of Members' Interests is sufficient to achieve the purposes for which it was intended.
Mr. Terry Lewis: It is.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) makes the point from a sedentary position—it is not, and there are several reasons for that.
First, hon. Members do not have to declare an interest until a month afterwards. Secondly, the Register, although it is published annually, updated periodically in a loose form and can be inspected, is by definition not up to date in a public form. The relevance of an interest may be past by the time it is in the public domain. It may be no good, for example, for people to discover only a year afterwards that an hon. Member was given money for an air ticket to North Korea. The relevance may be when the payment was made, not later.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, currently we do not have to declare the value of the interest. The register is almost useless unless the actual amount of money that passes hands appears in it. There is all the difference in the world between being paid tuppence and being paid £1 million to do something. The amounts that people receive for their non-parliamentary duties should be explicitly included in the register for everyone to see. [Interruption.] The register should include everyone, and all the money that hon. Members receive other than as a result of their parliamentary duties.

1025
Another issue may also be debated later tonight—an appropriate amendment has been tabled, although I do not know yet whether it has been accepted. I have argued my case on the issue, and I have previously forced votes on it. In my view, all the money that we receive from elsewhere should be deducted from what we earn as a Member of Parliament. [Interruption.] I should add that that view is not shared by every one of my parliamentary colleagues, let alone other hon. Members. A significant number of people share my view, and it has been placed on the record before. Many hon. Members resist such a view. It would embarrass them publicly if their constituents knew how much money they earn as a result of being elected to this place which they would not have earned if they had not been elected.
In any event, however, it cannot be right that the taxpayer foots the bill for answers to questions from which hon. Members can gain private financial reward, because, by this means, the taxpayer is lining the pockets of hon. Members who accept money.
When hon. Members go to the Table Office and table an early-day motion, they are required to say whether they have a relevant interest to declare. There is no reason why there should not be the same requirement when we table a question. We should declare an interest. If we are in breach, at least we have been alerted, and have failed to declare the interest knowingly.
It may be argued that it is also nonsense for the taxpayer to pay, through the licence fee, the British Broadcasting Corporation, which then pays hon. Members to appear on television. We are elected to represent different views. [Interruption.] It does on certain occasions. Television and radio payments should also be in the public domain.
When we visit our constituents, a common view is that Members of Parliament are here for their own advancement and interest. A common view is that we are here to make a profit for ourselves. A common view is that we do financially very well and that we have our snouts in the trough.
If we are to enhance democracy, the Committee should consider that issue as widely as possible; otherwise, we will be regarded as open to the same form of corruption as some other democracies around the world. Your statement, Madam Speaker, made it clear that you would find that unacceptable. I hope that the Committee will be as tough as possible, to ensure that the system is clearly organised to be protection against any risk of corruption of this sort again.
5.56 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and others raised some interesting points about the Press Complaints Commission, and, in particular, my complaint to it, and I intend to consider what they have said.
Madam Speaker, I am thoroughly relieved that you have proposed the setting up of the Committee of Privileges. It means that I will have my peers from this House, and not the press, sitting in judgment over me. I too, therefore, support the motion.
I very much regret what I hope the House will accept was a lack of judgment on my part rather than anything worse, and I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and the House that it is in part actions by me which have made it necessary for you to initiate the debate.
1026
I feel that the House will agree that now is not the time to go through in detail the sequence of events that took place. I will, of course, be talking to the Committee. But as the House, I think, knows, I was approached by a Mr. Jonathan Calvert—that name again. He claimed to be a business man, but he turned out later to be a Sunday Times journalist.
I recognise that I was unwise to have even considered doing what he asked me to do. Consultancy was mentioned. He told me that he had been advised by a former constituent of mine that I was always prepared to help small business men. He talked about his Yorkshire connections, but I accept that I made an error of judgment in agreeing to table a question and in agreeing initially to accept a fee.
I can tell the House that soon after I started to reflect on what I had agreed. I came to my own conclusion that I could not justify accepting a fee, and I decided that I would not accept the payment. This was before the Department of Social Security had told me that it did not know anything about the fictitious company and before I knew that I was the victim of an elaborate Sunday Times scam.
I returned to my Yorkshire home last Thursday. The cheque arrived on Friday morning. I sent the cheque back by return of post on that Friday.
Madam Speaker, I am grateful for your decision to refer the behaviour of The Sunday Times to the Committee of Privileges. It does seem to me to be somewhat dubious, to say the least, that a journalist from a national newspaper should masquerade as a business man and tell a Member of Parliament a tissue of lies to manufacture a story.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Riddick: No, I am not going to give way.
Beyond the challenge to my own integrity, which I deeply regret, the thing that has mortified me the most is that my judgment may have undermined the general standing of Members of Parliament, and even perhaps have damaged the reputation of this Parliament. I regard it as an enormous honour and privilege to serve in the House of Commons and to be able to help my constituents as their Member of Parliament. I am sure that that is the view of most—if not all—hon. Members.
I apologise for the trouble that I have created for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, for whom I have so enjoyed working, and for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the very time when he was fighting for Britain's interests in Naples. But most of all—[Interruption.]
Sir John Gorst: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is virtually making an apology to the House. On such occasions, the House usually hears hon. Members in silence and toleration. I wonder whether you could encourage such conduct on this occasion.
Madam Speaker: When any hon. Member is speaking, irrespective of what he is saying, he should be heard with courtesy and in silence. I hope that that will be so throughout this debate.
Mr. Riddick: Most of all, for undermining—to whatever degree—the standing of the House, I wish to apologise to you, Madam Speaker and to every hon.

1027
Member. I look forward to giving evidence to the Select Committee on Privileges, in which I have complete faith and confidence.
6.1 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I want to make a short contribution on a narrow point but to take a little further the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
To the best of my knowledge, the motion provides an opportunity, which the House should seize, for us to attend in detail for the first time in some 15 years to the immunities granted to Members of Parliament. They are immunities—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I have just asked for order for one hon. Member, and other hon. Members are equally entitled to it. Will those who are having meetings do so outside the Chamber? May I have the doors closed? Will hon. Members either come in or leave? I do not want any more meetings in the Chamber. An hon. Member is on his feet and I want to hear him.
Mr. Rooker: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This debate provides the House with an opportunity that should be grasped. Many hon. Members in the Chamber today—perhaps the majority—were probably elected after 1979, after some turbulent Sessions during which one hon. Member resigned and three were called to book, after the Select Committee that investigated the conduct of Members reported and after various other events in the late 1970s which, of course, brought into being the Register of Members' Interests.
In many ways, we have been here before. When we examined the immunity of Members of Parliament in the past, we were found wanting—we cannot fail this time. Although we have to ask the Privileges Committee to examine the immunities from the law of the land which are granted to Members of Parliament and which set us apart from our fellow citizens, it is not generally appreciated that our immunities go beyond free speech.
I often hear it said on the radio in the morning that Members of Parliament in Italy or Russia are voting to grant or remove immunity from prosecution for some malfeasance, and I think that at least that does not happen here. However, the fact is that we have certain immunities that go beyond that of free speech. Free speech is the crucial immunity; it is very narrow but sets us apart from our constituents. It is a specific immunity in respect of our duties in the House. It therefore elevates our duties in this House above everything else and separates us from our fellow citizens. That is where we should draw the line.
We hear about "the law of Parliament" or "the High Court of Parliament"—indeed, we heard such language in your statement yesterday, Madam Speaker—but I submit that there is no such thing. I think that we should all be equal before the common and criminal law. It is a matter that we, as a House, have been asked to deal with in the past but which the House has refused to address. I remind the House why that was so.
In respect of our parliamentary duties and our actions in Parliament, we, as Members of Parliament, have an immunity in the criminal law from charges of corruption,
1028
bribery and attempted bribery. Outside we are equal; inside we are not. I do not think that that should be the case. I want the Select Committee to widen its remit, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has suggested.
We govern ourselves essentially by self-regulation, but we have to ask ourselves whether the Committee of Privileges and the Register of Members' Interests are good enough. Do our constituents believe that we all receive equal treatment? The Register of Members' Interests is of fairly recent origin—it did not exist when I was elected just over 20 years ago. To some extent, it has been strengthened, but is it good enough? It has already been called into question today. I wonder whether the ultimate sanction of an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges is sufficient but, fortunately, we do not have to reinvent the wheel.
I should like the Committee of Privileges to revisit the report of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life, which has never been debated in the House. It was published in July 1976 after an inquiry that commenced in December 1974. It has never been the subject of debate. I asked my colleagues in the Labour Government and I have asked this Government by means of parliamentary questions in the early 1980s to allow the House to debate the report.
I do not deny that many of the report's recommendations, in so far as they affect our fellow citizens in business and local government, have been implemented over the years, but some of its recommendations relating to this place have not been dealt with. The report was published under the guidance of the commission's chairman, Lord Salmon, in July 1976, 18 years ago. It is Cmnd. 6524. Let us consider dates for a moment. The Register of Members' Interests was set up by resolution in June 1975; and the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life was sitting at that time and taking evidence from various people.
I draw the House's attention to the report's conclusions. Chapter 17 is entitled "The law affecting Members of Parliament" and runs to only 12 paragraphs. The conclusions and recommendations are worth putting on record. The final paragraph-311-states:
"Membership of Parliament is a great honour and carries with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards of probity, and this duty has almost invariably been strictly observed. Nevertheless in view of our report as a whole, and especially in the light of the points set out in the foregoing paragraph, we recommend that Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of the criminal law. Our recommendation is limited to this single point, and we do not raise any questions about other aspects of Parliamentary privilege and related matters."
That recommendation has never been debated by the House or by any Select Committee. Part of the background to that recommendation is the fact that the commission felt strongly that Parliament is not a public body for the purposes of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889; Members of Parliament are not agents for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906; and, in fact, membership of this House is not a public office for the purposes of the common law. Of course Ministers, in their capacity as Ministers, are public officials, so they are separate. But our status is unique. In this country we are immune; we are the prosecutors, the jury and the judge. That is wrong. Now the Privileges Committee has the opportunity to address that issue. I make no comment

1029
whatever on the merits of the arguments. I know that. some hon. Members have done so, but I think that they have been unwise, bearing in mind the fact that the Select Committee on Privileges is not yet constituted.
I finish by reminding the House that during my exchanges with the Government concerning the lack of serious attention to the report, I once asked the Home Secretary
"what proposal he has in mind to improve the standards of conduct in public life."
The answer that I received was:
"To set a good example to others."—[Official Report, 15 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 343.]
That was in the days when we had a gent as Home Secretary; he is now Lord Whitelaw. His answer was not a Willieism; it was actually true. We are here to set a good example to others.
The lack of attention that the House has given over the years to the royal commission report as it affects our vested interests means that we have failed in our duty to our constituents. I look upon the motion as an opportunity for us to make amends for our negligence in the 18 years since the report was published.
6.10 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall make two brief points. First, I had a telephone call last week; I believe that it was from a Mr. Calvert, but unfortunately I threw away the pink slip. I gave the name to my secretary and said, "I have never heard of this guy, and I have never heard of the company. Could you please ring him?" That was the end of it.
I do not want to comment on the position of my two hon. Friends. One of them has explained his position, and the matter will go to the Committee. However, one or two aspects involving The Sunday Times need examining. In connection with entrapment and other such ensnaring schemes, the press code mentions suspicion of a misdemeanour, and the general public interest. The only suspicion that the newspaper could have had of me derives from the fact that, like most of the other Tory Members who were contacted, I am a member of Lloyd's. So I do not think that The Sunday Times could claim that what it did was in the public interest.
The Committee must examine that matter, because that was the newspaper's only possible excuse for bribing Members of Parliament, for coming on the premises of the House with recording equipment and for encouraging Members of Parliament to table questions, knowing full well that those questions would cost the taxpayer money. Perhaps for a start The Sunday Times could reimburse the two Departments for the cost of answering them. I hope that the Committee investigates carefully the role of The Sunday Times in the saga.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that when one signs an early-day motion and has an interest in a company, trade association or whatever, one's interest must be marked as having been registered. I do not see why that cannot apply to questions, too.
In any case, I think that questions are a hugely overrated technique. Why should one want to table a question, unless one wanted information quickly? Surely if one wants information one can write to a Minister, ask for a meeting with a Minister or ring him up. Only in extreme cases would one want to table a question. I have not had the answers that I wanted to the questions that I have tabled
1030
during the past year. I have always found it far more helpful to write to a Minister. Perhaps one consequence of this unhappy saga will be that less taxpayers' money will be wasted in answering questions—apart, that is, from questions for oral answer.
The subject of Members' outside interests has been touched on, and the inquiry may consider that subject in some detail. I declare an interest as a paid director of a company, or a paid consultant to a trade association. I do not hide such connections. I am proud of the role that I play. However, if the Committee is to examine interests it must also consider Members who are sponsored by trade unions, and Opposition Members who are paid by airlines from other countries to visit them. If Members will be influenced by directorships, surely they will be equally influenced by unions sponsoring them in their constituencies and paying for their offices and other expenses. On that note, I feel that the matter should be committed, and that is why I support the motion.
6.14 pm
Mr. George Galloway: At least two thoughts occurred to me while I was listening to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) telling us about the banqueter who offered a five-figure sum as an inducement to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). First, I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had reported the improper approach to the House authorities. Secondly, I wondered who got the job after he had turned it down.
I do not think that this has been an especially edifying parliamentary occasion. Conservative Members, for the most part, have not approached the debate with the seriousness and humility that I had imagined they would display. It has not been a pretty sight to watch them braying at the Murdoch newspaper empire—that was not a sound that we heard when on polling day The Sun ran pictures of the former Leader of the Opposition on its front page, headlined:
"Will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights?"
Nor did we hear it the next day, when The Sun trumpeted:
"It's The Sun wot won it".
It seemed then that the devil Murdoch could be supped with using the shortest of spoons. So it is not convincing when Conservative Members now claim that the Murdoch empire is engaged in a profoundly anti-Conservative crusade.
I have no animus against the two individuals involved in the story. Indeed, with one of them, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), I have a friendly relationship. I simply wish, as I suppose he now wishes, that he had not been quite so zealous in his unsubstantiated denunciations of the activities of Monklands district councillors in the very week when he was making what he now concedes were errors of judgment. Certainly if a Monklands district councillor had accepted £1,000 from anyone for doing anything in the council he would now be behind bars. That may be a lesson to Members of Parliament to avoid casually imputing dishonesty to others, especially people who cannot answer back.
I am no zealot about work outside Parliament. I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who say that we should not have other jobs, nor with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who says that we should hand the money back. I occasionally write for money, for

1031
newspapers and magazines including occasionally, in years gone by, The Sunday Times under a previous editor. However, there is all the difference in the world between work of that nature, and registered consultancies with companies—again, I disagree with some of my hon. Friends here—and the acceptance of money for one-off parliamentary acts such as tabling a question.
Somebody asked me today what the moral difference was between a consultancy and a one-off question. I put it to him with what I hope is not too colourful a metaphor to use in the presence of ladies, including yourself, Madam Speaker. At least a consultancy is transparent, rather like a declaration of marriage between the company and the Member of Parliament. Everyone can see that the Member has that relationship, and knows that the marriage will involve the invoking of conjugal rights by one party or the other from time to time. But the act of tabling a question for a big one-off fee is more akin to a five-minute knee-trembler down by the railway line in exchange for a quick cheque. The difference between the two kinds of commerce is like the difference between such rampant commercial promiscuity and open transparent marriage.
It will not do for Conservative Members to think that the public regard whatever sin has been committed by The Sunday Times in the same light as whatever sin has been committed by Members of Parliament who have accepted money in that way. In fact, most members of the public will regard The Sunday Times as having carried out a signal public duty in exposing transactions that ought not to have taken place, as at least one hon. Member has had the grace to concede this evening. In exposing that, the newspaper has done a public duty.
I hope that what The Sunday Times has done is not used as an excuse for the introduction of new curbs against the press or new privacy laws, as has been attempted in the recent past in the House. Such legislation would build high walls and dig deep moats around the lives of Members of Parliament and powerful and rich people so that they might repel all would-be boarders who wanted to see what those rich, powerful and important people—people like us, business people and others—were actually doing.
The tossing around of the word "bribery" in respect of what The Sunday Times did is ill advised because bribery is a criminal offence and, as a criminal offence, requires criminal intent. My dear friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who is a barrister, has told me that the Latin phrase used is "mens rea", which I take to mean the question of the intention behind the money being offered. There cannot be criminal intent in offering money to expose malfeasance or to expose an abuse in public life; that cannot be true. It is simply a contradiction in terms. If the money was offered for the noble purpose of exposing a wrongdoing, it should not be condemned with the ignoble use of the word "bribery".
I wish the Committee godspeed. I hope that it goes about its work diligently, I hope that it does so publicly and I hope that it does so with the view of improving the standing of this House in the public eye, compared with the rather parlous state it is in, I fear, at the minute.
6.21 pm
Mr. Rupert Allason: Your statement yesterday, Madam Speaker, which was the catalyst for this evening's debate, will be remembered in the House as a wise adjudication and as a timely opportunity to examine the relationship between the media and this House. I have worked—I declare an interest—for The Sunday Times. I believe that The Sunday Times "Insight" team has had a long and honourable tradition of exposing corruption and treachery. When I worked for The Sunday Times, we were able to expose two hitherto unknown traitors and I believe that that was in the public interest. In the 1960s, the "Insight" team gained considerable admiration for its work in exposing the Whitehall cover-up of Kim Philby. Bruce Page and Philip Knightley were primarily responsible for the investigation and exposure of that episode.
I fear that since those days, investigative journalism has changed. I fear that since the days of Watergate, the journalistic school of Woodward and Bernstein has encouraged journalists to target people in public life. It has made it the acme of journalists' ambition to bring down somebody in public life. In the case of Woodward and Bernstein, it was, of course, the late Richard Nixon.
The reality is that, in this case, clandestine recordings have been made. Conversations have been taped illicitly in the Palace of Westminster. That raises important issues which, I hope, the Committee will investigate. If The Sunday Times can demonstrate a legitimate complaint from an authentic source—the Privileges Committee will need to take evidence on that topic—I well recognise the newspaper's right to pursue its investigations. Investigative journalism is not, however, a licence to invade privacy. According to the terms of the code of practice published by the Press Complaints Commission, clandestine methods, such as recording, are justifiable only when there is no other method of obtaining the information.
If there was widespread corruption or, indeed, any corruption in the House, and if there had been rumours, hon. Members on both sides would have heard those rumours. We now know that, since January, The Sunday Times has been on a quest to ferret out corruption. If the journalists were in pursuit of a single legitimate, authentic complaint, they could, of course, have targeted the person or persons who were the subject of the complaint. However, we now know that hon. Members who, in my judgment, are of considerable probity were approached and offered money. They are individuals whose previous reputation is completely untarnished, even by rumour. The journalists who undertook the investigation will have to answer some very severe questions. Was this, for example, the only way in which they could obtain the evidence? Was there any supporting evidence that justified their actions?
The fact is that the relationship between Members of Parliament and the media will now be investigated by the Committee and I welcome that. I recall making allegations in the House about Robert Maxwell. Soon afterwards, I was interviewed in the Lobby by a journalist in the pay of Robert Maxwell who manufactured a completely bogus story alleging that I had a pecuniary interest in making my remarks and complaints. In fact—
Mr. Galloway: The journalist is sitting in the Gallery.
Mr. Allason: Is he? Well, Alistair, I regret to say that you cost your newspaper a great deal of money.

1033
What is more remarkable is that a few days after an apology had been made in the High Court, the same journalist went round many Opposition Members attempting to create an early-day motion that was critical of my conduct. I have many friends among Opposition Members and I was alerted to what was happening. Again, that matter became the subject of litigation.
The conduct of the press has now got completely out of control in this House. Although there is always the justification of public interest, I hope that the Committee will look carefully at the way in which journalists behave, not just in the Palace, but elsewhere.
Mr. John Butcher: My hon. Friend will know that The Sunday Times has asserted that 20 names were chosen at random. The newspaper drew a blank on 16 of them. Does he agree that the Committee should brook no refusal by The Sunday Times to supply the names of all those approached so that we may know either the scale of the operation that was mounted or whether a truly random sample was put together?
Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend makes an important point. You will have noticed during the afternoon, Madam Speaker, that several hon. Members have declared that they were the subject of approaches from The Sunday Times. What is curious is that as far as am aware—I have sat through the debate from the beginning—no Opposition Member has declared that he was approached by The Sunday Times. It is important that The Sunday Times declares the matter fully to the Committee; there should be no excuses.
If the excuse is used that the newspaper has to protect its sources, I remind you, Madam Speaker, and the Committee that on the previous occasion that that defence was deployed—during the Vassall tribunal when two journalists went to prison for refusing to reveal their sources—the reason why the journalists went to prison was that they did not have any sources. They had made up the story and it was on that occasion that the two journalists were exposed and Fleet street itself was exposed for the most disgraceful hypocrisy.
I carry no brief to prevent journalists from investigating issues in the public interest. I have seen no evidence at all so far that anything that has taken place in the past few days, which has tarnished the reputation of hon. Members whom I count among my friends, has been in the public interest.
6.29 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: When we bring visitors around this place and they attempt to sit down on the green Benches, they are shouted at by the policemen. I have often wondered why that happened. I found out—I do not know whether the story is true—that it is not allowed on the ground that it could just be that someone sat in the place where their Member of Parliament sat and pushed a bribe down the back of the seat. I must say that, religiously, for the last 11 years I have looked down the back of my seat and I have never found any used fivers, indeed, not even a 50p piece. So bribery has affected and has interested the House over many years. Since I was elected, I notice that I have tabled 6,919 questions. If I had received £1,000 a throw for each of those, I would have
1034
netted a cool £7 million, which would have meant I could have faxed this speech from Mustique or some other exotic place.
Criticism of The Sunday Times is simply out of place. If not one hon. Member had accepted the £1,000, we would have had a strong case for referring The Sunday Times to the Committee of Privileges, if, indeed, we had ever found out about it, which somehow I doubt. However, two hon. Members did accept the bait and they have done themselves and the rest of the House a grave disservice. I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). It was a difficult speech for him to make and we were right to listen to it very carefully. With respect, I would have had more sympathy with him if I had not heard him recently attacking members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers for trying to get a decent return for their services in operating the railway—£1,000 would have gone down very well there.
Dr. John Reid: None of us, of course, is conducting a trial. We are trying to establish the ground rules for the Committee, which will look into the matter. Since the matter has implications for the whole House, because, as several hon. Members have pointed out, the perception of people outside is affected by it, may I ask my hon. Friend a fairly straight question? If The Sunday Times had asked 20 hon. Members to take money and no one had taken it, would the paper have run that as a major story?
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend obviously missed the point, but I said that I doubted very much that we would have heard of the story. But the fact is that we have heard of it and, of course, we now have to deal with it. I do not think that we should turn it into a general attack on The Sunday Times or the press, although we can all feel disquiet about the way in which it went about getting its information. Regrettably, it did get some evidence and we must address that and not attack The Sunday Times.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was right. There is a view among people outside that we are all in this place for ourselves. It is not true, we know that it is not true, but, unfortunately, incidents such as this do not help.
I am very worried about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which is the reason why I am making this speech. He began by suggesting that consultancies were, in many respects, no different from the one-off payment. That worries me because I have a number of consultancies and I must consider that. I act as a parliamentary adviser to three trade unions, for which I receive intermittent payments, which go to my constituency. I also receive money from the International Fund for Animal Welfare to pay a full-time worker because I do much work in that area. I table a lot of questions connected with animal welfare. They are not specifically requested and they are not paid for on a question-by-question basis. However, the sort of things that are being said place worries in my mind and make me feel that we should look carefully at the issue. I may add, I also act as the parliamentary adviser to the London Association of Beekeepers, for which I receive 12 pots of honey and I would pleased to give you one, Madam Speaker, if you were to need it.
Mr. George Howarth: Another sting.
Mr. Banks: That is a very sweet point.
At the end of last year, I gave a cheque to the Fees Office for £8,000: the excess of my office costs. Those consultancies paid for that, in effect. I am putting those points on the record because one needs to consider them as well.
It is quite clear that the Register of Members' Interests is deficient, which our good friend, our dear, departed colleague Bob Cryer was always saying. First, if we are to declare interests, we must declare how much we receive. Secondly, we must declare from whom that money comes and, thirdly, for what was that money given, what services were provided in exchange for that money. Interests must either be transparent so that everyone can see them, or we must stop them completely and say that Members of Parliament cannot serve any outside interest whatever for which they receive payments. That may be the way in which to go forward, but the Committee of Privileges must consider it.
Whatever emerges from this highly unfortunate matter, it is clear that we cannot continue in the way in which we currently operate. If we bring about a change which restores us in the eyes of those we serve, The Sunday Times should be thanked for doing us a great service.
6.35 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I was grateful to be given the chance to intervene during the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) but my intervention did not quite come out in the way that I intended.
I agree that many people think that we should not have a continuous line of people ruling the country without letting ordinary people come in for one generation or for five years or 10 years. That was one of the reasons why on a previous occasion I argued with the right hon. Gentleman that there was good reason for having the House of Lords, so that some families who are continually represented in Parliament may have a seat without keeping the rest of us out.
The other point about which I feel strongly is that the greatest power over Members of Parliament, the way in which they vote and what they do is the Whips, the party system, which I expressed inelegantly in my intervention.
However, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has said that, both in opposition and in government, hon. Members may find themselves losing an argument and then being asked in public to say things that they cannot say whole-heartedly, to put it gently, and merely do the best that they can. I suspect that there is far more of that behaviour than there is of hon. Members who may be bought or induced to do something for money.
I hope that the Committee, if it is the right one, will quickly say that, for tabled written and oral questions, there should be a distinguishing mark to indicate areas in which hon. Members have an interest in the same way that the first hon. Member listed on an early-day motion is marked. I do not understand why the first hon. Member only is marked as having an interest and not every other hon. Member who has signed it. There may be logistical problems, but I think that only the first name of the six is marked. I apologise if I have got that wrong, but I believe that I have described the situation accurately.
1036
We ought to have a system which induces the best to happen and reduces the worst. There are fewer bought Members of Parliament now than there were in the 1930s. I am not saying that all those who were subsidised from outside in the 1930s were bad Members of Parliament. The House has good reason to be grateful to some who were supported, even by newspaper editors, during their times in the wilderness. I declare that I once received £200 from The Sunday Times for writing an article.
Mr. Tony Banks: He was overpaid.
Mr. Bottomley: I may have been overpaid. We also ought to avoid being too sanctimonious.
When I was in Government at a junior level for a time, someone asked me if I kept a diary. I said no. They said that, if I kept a diary, I would be able to earn more money, have more accurate and more interesting reflections and that the details which might be a blur six years later would be down in black and white, with who said what to whom. They said that that would make a good living afterwards or would help to illuminate the process of government. It is difficult to be clear about what is right and what is wrong, but having a discussion about it is a good idea.
I disagree with those who think that we ought to apply the same standards for the press and for Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should set what we expect to be our minimum standards and the press in general should set what it expects to be its minimum standards. Our standards should be higher than those of the press.
There are parallels between the activities of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament and an editor of a newspaper. It is not the written rules which basically control what we say on the Floor of the House, but what people around us are willing to tolerate. It is fair to say that people around journalism are willing to tolerate more, on a consistent basis, that is wrong than we are in the House. There is as much ambition and competition to be the writer of a front-page story in The Sunday Times as there is to be elected to this House and to serve as a Member of Parliament. I am not saying that that ambition and competition always produces bad people. It does not. Indeed, it produces some of the very best. On the way, however, there are casualties. The way in which newspapers proceed and the habits that they adopt deserve examination, preferably by them.
I hope that the Committee of Privileges will be able to bring in special advisers on the press. I hope, for example, that it will consult someone like Professor Stephenson from City university, who runs a journalism course. I hope also that it will take advice from someone like Ray Snoddy of the Financial Times, who is one of the more respected of those who comment on the media. It would be appropriate to ask someone like that who could provide advice to the Committee of Privileges on the elements of the reference that relate to the conduct of the press.
I hope also that the Committee will produce separate reports on the parliamentary side and the press side. To bundle everything in one report would be wrong and would help to distract attention from initiatives that might properly be taken that would be useful, effective and proportionate.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, it is to be hoped that the Committee will pay attention to the Salmon committee's recommendation,

1037
which reflects, probably, the most pointed contribution that has been made to the debate. That could make a difference. It would allow whistle blowers throughout the country to say, "I have some knowledge of a payment. Was it declared by the person who made the payment?" That might lead to a self-checking system.
I have the feeling that the press makes a significant contribution to our country because most of us want to try to do things that the press will not be able to nail us for.
My personal test—I do not pretend to be especially good at all this—is that of the local newspaper. I ask myself whether I am doing something that I am prepared to read about in my local newspaper. If the answer is yes, I ask myself whether I have sent it a press notice. I know, of course, that it will ignore it.
Let us suppose that I am going to the middle east with the Israeli Government or the Palestine Liberation Organisation, or both, or to another area of the world. Am I willing to say it out loud? If I am, have I done it ? That is guidance that I have found useful.
We should have the courage to say almost anything in public. If it is said on the Floor of the House, it can be virtually guaranteed that the press will ignore it. If it is taken up, however, it will come as no surprise and it will appear somewhere on the record.
My first parliamentary question was tabled two years before I was elected to this place. The late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams kindly agreed to table a question on family allowance for the first child. Many people want questions answered in Parliament for many different reasons. It is not a new concept and it is not a bad one. I hope that we shall not give those outside the idea that it is bad to contact a Member and ask for information or help.
Yesterday, at my surgery, I dealt with many different cases. I hope that constituents will never feel thy or embarrassed—the issues may involve business or personal matters, immigration, tax problems or criminal proceedings—in approaching their Member because any of us has been put off, as it were, from the job that we were elected to do.
I regret that which has caused the debate. I believe that the reference to the Committee of Privileges is the right response. The procedure is the best way of getting these issues off the Floor of the House after a short debate. There can be a better debate when we have received the considered views of those who have taken evidence.
There can be no secret sources in this story with the exception of the person who originally said to journalists, "I think that people are taking money that they should not be taking." I look forward to knowing that the Committee of Privileges has had all the tape recordings, all the journalists' notes and all the electronic records in the newspaper's files. On the one occasion that I had seriously to go to law with a newspaper it transpired that most of the things that some of the staff had been saying after I had first made my complaint were falsehoods.
We should follow the audit trail. I understand the problems that may ensue when stories change, but in this instance there should be no secret sources. All the information should be available to the Committee.
6.43 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall be specific and extremely brief.
I remain concerned that there may be a stitch-up by the Committee of Privileges over its report. I am concerned about the Committee's composition. I refer my hon. Friends to your ruling yesterday, Madam Speaker. You said:
"Of course all the rules of the House will be respected."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 831]
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the resolution in paragraph 24 of the first report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in 1991, which I referred to yesterday, which deals with conflict of interest. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, when replying to the debate, should give us an assurance that no Members who are consultants to any organisation will be a member of the Committee of Privileges to be appointed.
Furthermore, no Members should be appointed to it who are directors of companies which have lobbied, are lobbying or could in future lobby Ministers on behalf of those companies, or ask questions or table motions. I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "And trade unions?"] Yes, trade unions as well.
We need specific assurances on these matters. If they are not forthcoming, the public will accuse the Committee of Privileges of stitching up a bad report.
6.44 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I do not take the view that is taken by some outside this place, that the House of Commons is more or less corrupt and that every Member can be bribed to table questions or to act for commercial lobbyists. If a comparison were to be made with other Parliaments, I believe it likely that the House would be found to be relatively clean. It does no service to the cause of parliamentary democracy to give a different impression.
For a considerable time, however, as my right hon. and hon. Friends know, there has been anxiety about the way in which parliamentary facilities, such as questions, early-day motions and letters to Ministers, can be used for commercial purposes.
I remember the controversy before the Register of Members' Interests was introduced. It was argued that we were all honourable Members, and that there was no need for a register. Those who took that view said that the register would impugn our motives even in tabling a question. Now that Enoch Powell is no longer a Member, no one, as far as I am aware, disputes the need for a register. It is accepted.
I see little value in a register that does not give real information about the value of an outside interest. I have written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests—the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—on several occasions, and my point was pursued. My view is simple and clear. Why not give the value of the outside interest? Is it small or large? Why should we not be told? Why should the public not be given that information? Why should a Member feel that the interest is so secretive that in no circumstances should it be revealed?
We all know that there is little or no effective control over lobbyists and the manner in which they use the House.

1039
There is a film—many of us want to see it—that sets out the way in which certain lobbyists go about their business. That is the sort of film that we should see.
I can remember the various occasions when our late colleague, Bob Cryer, raised these matters. He did so not to undermine or discredit Parliament but to ensure that we had a clean Parliament. He wanted to ensure that, where there were outside interests, lobbyists, and payments being made to Members, that information should be available and that everything should be above board. He took that view in the name of parliamentary democracy. In my view, he was right. Incidentally, we much miss him and the work that he undertook day after day in the House.
It is understandable that criticism has been made about The Sunday Times. As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), I think that on the whole The Sunday Times did a job that needed to be done. It is almost inevitable that in future, if we table a question and we have an interest, we shall be expected to declare that interest. That reform will almost certainly come about. The debate is taking place in the light of what The Sunday Times did.
I am always willing to criticise newspapers, but in trying to spotlight a weakness in our parliamentary procedure—outside interests and commercial interests—The Sunday Times did no harm. It will be for the Committee of Privileges to tell me that I am wrong. My view is that The Sunday Times acted in the public interest. If anything, it should be congratulated.
There is a cynical attitude outside this place. Perhaps some Conservative Members will disagree with me, but it is felt by some that we are all in politics for our own good, that more or less all of us can be bought, and all the rest of it. We must dispel that view. We must make the point clearly that we are not in it for our own interests. We must make it clear that Parliament and parliamentary democracy are of the greatest value to the British people and that all our civil liberties would not last five minutes without this place. That is the historical value of the House of Commons.
It is unfortunate that people have a cynical attitude to Parliament. It is essential that we dispel that attitude, not only in our interests as individual Members, but in the interests of parliamentary democracy and our successors in the years, and hopefully centuries, during which this place will continue. It is essential that we do that in the interests of what we are trying to establish and maintain.
There is, perhaps linked to the cynical view, a great deal of concern over what has occurred and what the two hon. Members are accused of. After our debate today, the matter will go to a Committee and it could then be more or less buried. The summer recess is coming up and, by the time the Committee meets, other matters will be on the agenda and public and parliamentary interest in this matter might have faded away.
I hope that we will have a report by the end of the year. These are matters of crucial importance. However much hon. Members may have criticised The Sunday Times, I do not believe any hon. Member has disputed the fact that these matters are important. If the matters are important and if they are to go to the Privileges Committee, we should have a report as quickly as possible. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear that point in mind because
1040
that view is shared by many hon. Members. Obviously the report will be debated and it may be disputed. However, we should not leave it in abeyance for a year or so. The sooner we have that report, the better for this House and for our reputation.
6.51 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: May I first apologise fervently to you, Madam Speaker, for attempting on 11 July to raise a point of order which you ruled out of order because I was trying to suggest that more issues should be considered than just the behaviour of individual Members? I should, of course, have realised that you would have considered the issue more widely and the statement that you made yesterday showed that.
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are concerned with our Standing Orders or breaches of procedure. I caution Members not to raise points of order just because they want to make a point or a comment, which is what so often happens.
Mr. Connarty: I thought that I was in order then, but you ruled me out of order because you knew better than I did.
The point that I was trying to make is very salient to today's debate. I wish to suggest, like many other hon. Members, that the remit of the Privileges Committee should be to look seriously at the inadequacies of the register that we hold at this moment. I tried to make the point that the value of the interest is important.
Sadly, I disagree with my good friend and someone I have admired for some time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who suggested, rather weakly, that value should not be included in the register. That undermined the very splendid case that he made. I also disagree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). He is another good friend of mine and someone I admire. He said that a consultancy was in some way different from taking an individual payment for a particular issue. He said that it was all about a marriage.
I suggest that all hon. Members are already married. To take a consultancy is an infidelity, because we are married to our constituents and to the people we represent. It is actually a bit on the side, when one is so good that one is paid for the service one renders. That is totally inappropriate to this House.
Anything that anyone does in this House which is directly related to influencing the business of the Houses of Parliament or clearly designed by action or inaction to do that should be done only because of someone's beliefs or judgment and not because there is any question of influence by the taking of money for anything that connects us to a party outside which can profit from our actions in this House. We are here to represent our constituents and their interests in a broader frame.
I have stated in the House, and have put it on the record, that I receive money, or my constituency party receives money, from the Union of Communication Workers. It is entirely consistent with the wishes of my constituency party that I defend the Post Office and post office workers. If there were ever a difference, I would suggest to my constituency party that it should let that money go by, so that I could represent my constituents properly and honestly.

1041
I attempted to raise the question of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who asked a question about power in Scottish Question Time on 6 July. That hon. Member is a consultant to Scottish Power. He admits that he has a car from Scottish Power. He has not, in fact, declared how much he has in the register. It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead, whose entry is next to that of the hon. Member for Ayr, has entered the fact that he is an unpaid political consultant for an organisation.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that, if an hon. Member is going to make points about another hon. Member, courtesy requires that that hon. Member should be notified about that in advance?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I had assumed that, in this debate, Members would be very circumspect, and that that is what happened. Has the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) notified the hon. Member concerned?
Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has, in fact, been informed. We have discussed the matter at some length. He is aware of the points that I am trying to make and continue to make.
Madam Speaker: Order. May I make myself clear? Has the hon. Member for Falkirk, East informed the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), not simply had a conversation with him at some time?
Mr. Connarty: I formally informed the hon. Gentleman of this, yes.
As a result of what I have described, articles appeared in the Daily Record. In my opinion, and in the opinion of other hon. Members who have spoken, someone who receives a consultancy fee should enter it so that people know the value that is placed on the services.
The question that occurred to me was, what is a consultancy for? The hon. Member for Ayr has said that he has not asked any questions on behalf of Scottish Power in the time that he has been a member of this place arid has been a consultant. It appears to me that, if a company is willing to pay a large sum of money, as yet unspecified as it is not declared in the Register of Members' Interests, and someone does nothing on that company's behalf for two years, that company is getting a very bad deal.
No one in the public domain outside this House believes for a minute that, if someone takes a consultancy fee, something is not being done for it to advantage those who pay the fee.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Connarty: In a moment.
As an hon. Member who pays Scottish Power for his electricity, I am concerned that it is paying a sum of money to an hon. Member to do nothing for the company or for me as one of its customers. That does not make sense. It does not stack up.
Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is always possible to pay someone to keep quiet? The fact that Scottish Power is planning to build a huge interconnector through my constituency, about which the
1042
hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has kept completely quiet despite the fact that many of his constituents are up in arms about it, may have some connection with that.
Mr. Connarty: The point has been well made, and I do not need to repeat it. It seems to me that silence can be bought as much as speech. That is a matter of judgment for the electors in the constituency of Ayr.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Connarty: I have no intention of giving way further in this very brief contribution to the debate.
My point is that there is a question about immunity and privilege in the House in respect of what people can say in the House about members of the public outside, who may be entirely and utterly innocent. When I took up a case in the medical field, I was threatened on occasions by an organisation called the Medical Protection Association. It said that it would take litigation against me. I squared it with the association by telling it that, if it thought that I would be silenced by that threat, it was not on. We have that privilege to protect us in speaking on behalf of our constituents.
When that privilege is abused, and when someone consistently gets up and accuses, on the record, council officials, councillors, or a council of being corrupt and of using dubious practices, such people sully the names of many hard-working officials in local authorities up and down the country. That happened in respect of the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in respect of Monklands. They did that continually and without justification. I sat in this place at 2 am to defend those officials, whom I know to be honest, upright citizens. The Privileges Committee should consider how we can curtail that kind of thing.
I repeat the words of Lord Whitelaw, which were quoted earlier. The point of this House is to set a good example. It should be part of the Committee's remit to see how we can better set a good example. My father used to say: "Civility costs nothing, and honesty earns admiration." That should be the aim of the Privileges Committee.
6.59 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: In moving my motion, I sought to do two things: to refer to the Privileges Committee the allegations contained in The Sunday Times article, and the circumstances in which they were made, and separately, to refer to the Privileges Committee the wider questions of the public duties and private interests of Members of Parliament. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have emphasised different aspects, but no one has spoken against the motion. Therefore, I assume that the motion commands a consensus in the House, and I hope that it will be agreed without a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the matter of the complaint, together with the issues referred to in the statement by the Speaker on 12th July, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that my name was raised in the Chamber a short time ago, and the individual who raised it suggested that I had been informed that that was his intention. That is not the case; I have had no

1043
information about it. I accept that, last Monday, I was informed belatedly that my name was to be raised, but today I have received no such notification.
I understand that the comments made on Monday referred to the question that I asked at Scottish Question Time about nuclear generation. I want to make it quite clear that nuclear generation has nothing to do with Scottish Power—with which, I openly acknowledge, I have an association.
Madam Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that quite clear. I went out of my way only a few moments ago to ask twice very clearly whether the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) had informed the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that he was to refer to him in this debate. I accepted the word of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, as an honourable Member of the House, that he had informed the hon. Member for Ayr beforehand. I seem to have been mistaken in that—perhaps I might now have an explanation.
Mr. Connarty: If you, Madam Speaker, did say, "in this debate" I apologise. I do not recall you saying that. I did, quite timeously, inform the hon. Gentleman, and phoned his office on Monday. I said that I would be raising the issue of his connection with the consultancy, and that—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me make it quite clear: I twice during this debate referred to the matter. I deprecate the answer that the hon. Gentleman has given me. We shall now move on with our business.

Orders of the Day

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
    Clause 1

      EXTENDED MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      7.2 pm
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Clause 1 is important. It provides an opportunity for several countries to join the European Community. If we do not approve the clause, that opportunity will not arise. I wish to make three points that I hope the Committee will consider in relation to clause 1 only.
      First, I hope that the Committee will bear it in mind that the countries of the European Economic Area have had one of the most shameful and scandalous tricks played on them about the EEA. They were approached in 1989 by Mr. Jacques Delors about the idea of an EEA, which was presented as an attractive half-way house that would give its members the advantages of the single European market without giving away their sovereignty and neutrality.
      Now that we know the details of the EEA, it is abundantly clear that all those countries have to accept about 60 per cent. of every EC law, whether or not they are a member. I hope that we shall bear it in mind when considering the clause that when we offer those countries an opportunity, it is not nearly as significant as some people think. It is not a choice between liberty and abandoning liberty, but a political decision. The countries have to obey the majority of EC laws, but they play no part in their drafting.
      Secondly, while Ministers gave us assurances in the earlier stages of the discussions when we were considering the merits of the Bill, I hope that our friends in Norway and Sweden will bear it in mind that all the assurances given to other applicants many years ago have been shown to be virtually bogus. That still happens. Hon. Members will remember that when Britain was joining the EC, we were told that it would lead to a dramatic improvement in trade with the EC. We always had a positive trade with Europe before we joined, but we now have a cumulative deficit of £100,000 million, which has done grave damage to our economy. We were also told that membership would provide a great boost to jobs. The continent is awash with unemployment and the EC faces a more serious economic problem than most other parts of the world where there are no wars.
      Thirdly, I hope that Norway will consider the assurances that we have given to our fishermen. I represented a Scottish constituency at the time and was astonished at the extent to which fishermen in Scotland and England voted for the EC because they were in no doubt that a clear assurance had been given that all would be well with the fishing industry. We have seen for ourselves that

      1045
      the value of the catch of North sea fish achieved by the British fishing industry has declined by more than three quarters since we joined.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, especially to what he has to say about the fishing industry which, as he knows, is close to my heart. When the Foreign Secretary presented the Bill on Second Reading, he said that the accession of Norway would provide British fishermen with great opportunities from 1997 onwards. Is the hon. Gentleman a little sceptical about that promise?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Frankly, I do not believe one word of what was said. That is not because I regard Ministers as disreputable or as a bunch of liars, but because pledges are made to please everyone. I would ask the Norwegians to look at the declarations, which apparently guarantee everything. I hope that Norwegians will realise that the declarations are of no value; they have no legal binding and contain nothing one could refer to in a court. They are simply statements of intent with no validity. The Norwegians should not worry about the British, but think about the Spaniards, the assurances that they have already been given, and the promises and pledges that they have already made to their fishermen.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is not one of the problems with the declarations that we do not know their status? It is part of the difficulty in understanding the way in which the European Court of Justice works. It is not a court of justice in the sense that our House of Lords is. It is a quasi-political body that constantly takes into account political gestures such as a declaration or the general mood of the Community at any one time.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend, who is wiser than me and knows far more about such matters, will know that declarations have no validity. They are shoved in to pacify and please people and give them assurances, but they are worth nothing. My hon. Friend knows that well, which is why, with his usual professionalism, he interrupted me to allow me to underline that point. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is one of the honest Ministers—
      Mr. Budgen: He was.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: He certainly is. I think that the Minister is a decent chap. He is someone whom I have always regarded as truthful and honourable, and he would not intentionally tell a lie.
      I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that we are being misled day after day. Only yesterday I had word—this will shock hon. Members—that a massive new job involving a Government office that was being carried out in Southend had been put off because there was a panic about spending. It coincided with the publication of a statement by the Paymaster General that, to our astonishment and horror, and despite all the assurances given by Ministers, in 1995 our gross contribution would increase by £2,000 million. That is £3 per week per British family. That came out of the blue. It was not expected.
      We also found out from a paper produced by the Commission last week that, even though Ministers had been telling us that agricultural spending would fall as a
      1046
      result of all these wonderful reforms, agricultural spending would exceed the legal limit agreed in Edinburgh by more than £1,000 million.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend said that the budget and our contribution to it will increase by a massive amount. I do not think that anyone anticipated that that would happen. Certainly, at the Edinburgh summit when the financial conditions were agreed, there was no indication that our budget would soar to those heights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the House would be well advised to throw out the financial mechanisms agreed at the Edinburgh summit to increase our contribution, if they come to the House?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: As my hon. Friend knows, the House has no power. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate—I say this sincerely—that under the clause, in which we give the people of Norway and Sweden the opportunity to join the Community, what he is being told is basically utter nonsense.
      If one asks Ministers about the legal limits, they say, "It was agreed in Edinburgh. The legal limits will be adhered to. Nothing can stop it." Here is how they intend to do it. I have the papers here from the EC. I also have something from the Treasury, although it is not meant to be generally available. The Government will have to draw on the monetary reserves. Remember what happened the last time we had strict budget controls under our wonderful previous Prime Minister. The Government used the metric year, with which financial journalists, financiers and rich people are familiar. One had 10 months of spending and 12 months of income. That is how they kept to the legal limit then. Now they will keep it by drawing on monetary reserves. They will keep the limits agreed at Edinburgh by doing a fiddle and a fraud.
      I hope that hon. Members will appreciate when they pass the clause, first, that there is the clearest of evidence that the poor unfortunate people of Norway and Sweden will pay more per head in net contributions than people in the United Kingdom. I feel thoroughly ashamed, as I am sure that all hon. Members do, that the poor families in Southend-on-Sea have to pay—according to our Foreign Secretary—£28 a week extra in taxes and higher food prices simply because of the repulsive CAP. Next year they will have to pay £5 a week for their net contribution. That is £33 a week which the poor families of Southend and England, Scotland and Wales will pay unnecessarily.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard Front-Bench Members argue strongly that to widen rather than deepen the Community would make the United Kingdom's financial position easier. Surely now, even with the widening, we shall have to pay even more than we pay today.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is so right. I know that people in Northern Ireland are suffering from poverty. I hope that the Labour party will highlight the position. I know that it fights for poor and neglected people. Are Labour Members aware, unlike some of the former silly twits in our Foreign Office, that poor families will pay £33 a week that they do not need to pay?
      I hope that in passing the clause we appreciate that we are telling the people of Norway and Sweden not to be misled by the assurances. Happily, we are well aware that the people of Sweden and Norway are great people. The

      1047
      opinion polls show that 52 per cent. of the people of Norway want nothing to do with the EC. Only 28 per cent. are in favour. We know that the good people of Sweden are of the same democratic mind: 43 per cent. oppose it and only 31 per cent. are in favour. I hope that they will appreciate that they should not believe a word of what they are told about the future.
      The Foreign Office is inherently optimistic. Ministers say, "Do not worry. It will be all right. Things will get better. The CAP will be reformed. Expenditure will be controlled. Budget limits will be imposed." People should not bother about that stuff. They should think about all the assurances that have been given about trade and jobs. They should appreciate that western Europe is awash with unemployment, that the position is appalling and that borrowing is getting out of control.
      I hope that by passing the clause we shall tell the good people of Norway and Sweden that if they say yes they will do great damage to their country and to the poor people of their country, who have suffered appallingly, particularly from filthy EC taxes such as VAT, which are simply a tax on the poor. More importantly, they will take themselves into an economy that is protectionist, bad, awash with unemployment and in great misery.
      I hope that we shall give a simple message to the people of Norway and Sweden: do not be conned, do not be fooled and remember that democracy should matter to every one of us.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Marlow: A subject which, rightly, has exercised the House deeply when we have considered enlargement of the Community, is qualified majority voting—for the very good reason that it affects the powers of the House. No one would argue, whether he is in favour of extending qualified majority voting or takes the opposite view, that qualified majority voting is not an important issue for the House. When something is decided by qualified majority voting, our Government and, therefore, the House of Commons can be cut out. Therefore, the higher the threshold and the smaller the blocking minority, the greater the remaining powers that we have.
      I hope that the House will excuse a certain amount of simple mathematics. The treaty states that if all four countries join the Community, we shall require a blocking minority of 27. That is 27 votes out of 90—precisely 30 per cent. Let us go through a few what ifs. We know that Finland will join. It wants Europe to protect it from a resurgence of the Soviet Union and wants to be part of the European Union. One can understand why. But what if Norway votes no? It has three votes. Let us say that it decided to reduce the blocking minority by one. Then a blocking minority of 26 out of 87 votes would be required. That is a blocking minority of less than 30 per cent. So the powers of Her Majesty's Government and the House would be sustained and reinforced, albeit marginally.
      Let us suppose that Sweden alone decides not to join. It has four votes. Let us suppose that the blocking minority is reduced by about one. We should then require a blocking minority of 26 out of 86 votes. That is greater than 30 per cent. If Norway and Sweden dropped out together and two votes were taken off the blocking minority, the effect would be the same.
      1048
      The second and third options would make it more difficult for Her Majesty's Government to block. Therefore, it would reduce the powers of the House. That is for general, run-of-the-mill qualified majority voting. On some issues such as a proposal that does not come from the Commission, a decision is not dependent only on qualified majority voting. A threshold of member states has to agree. Put another way, a threshold of member states has to disagree.
      At present, if five out of 12 do not want it, it does not happen. Under the proposals, if all four countries join, if six out of 16 do not want, we also have a block. Suppose that Norway and Sweden do not join. Will five out of 14 or six out of 14 be able to block? It makes a lot of difference.
      We raised the question of qualified majority voting on Monday. My hon. Friend the Minister was helpful and referred us for guidance to article 2.2. So what happens if there is an unfortunate hitch, things do not go as the Euro-elite—the witch doctors of Brussels—would wish and some of these good countries decide in their wisdom that they do not want to join the EC? I am pleased to be able to tell the House that it is very straightforward. All one has to do is look at article 2.2, which states:
      "The Council of the European Union acting unanimously shall decide immediately upon such adjustments as have become indispensable".
      That is one for the lawyers, isn't it? Who decides whether something is indispensable? Does it have to be a unanimous decision that a change is indispensable? If there is no unanimity, there can be no immediacy.
      Let us suppose that Norway and Sweden do not join. At the moment, a blocking minority of 27 is required. If the Council is not unanimous, and my hon. Friend on the Council says that he does not agree immediately—and it has to be immediately—with the views of everybody else, what happens? The treaty says that 64 votes will be needed for a qualified majority vote. If the Government do not agree, and if some of the countries concerned do not join the Community, the powers of Britain and of the House are increased.
      If one looks at the text of the treaty and the words unanimously, immediately and indispensable, one sees that the Government could actually strengthen our protection with regard to qualified majority voting if one or more of the four applicant countries does not join the Community. It is important that the House should know today—before we agree to the clause—what action the Government will take and what the Government's interpretation will be of those facts.
      The treaty is a legal text, and I am sure that the Government totally understand its implications. I am sure that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister understand how important the matter is with regard to the powers of Government and of the House. I am sure that he will be able to tell the House clearly and unambiguously what the Government will do in the circumstances that I have set out, and what the Government believe to be the meaning of that text within the treaty.
      Mr. Michael Bates: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your clarification on a matter of guidance given to Members on page 119 of "Erskine May". My point of order relates to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), to whom I have given notice of my intention to raise the matter. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be in his place to respond,

      1049
      given that this is the Committee following the Second Reading of the Bill. The comments to which I shall refer were made on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "How dare the Foreign Secretary conclude that hon. Members have such short memories and that the people of this country forget so quickly the promises and commitments solemnly given in the House of Commons and in European summits about their approach to the European Union. In a desperate attempt to cling on to votes at any price, the Foreign Secretary abandoned all his long-held principles on Europe, whereas I never have."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 700.]
      I seek your guidance on how that statement relates to page 119 of "Erskine May". Earlier in the debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had voted yes in the 1975 referendum, although he did not refer to the fact that he—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may continue in a second. I hope that he will relate this to clause 1 stand part, because that is the issue before us. If he does not, he will have to find a different occasion on which to raise the matter.
      Mr. Bates: May I seek your guidance—
      The Chairman: Order. I have given guidance, which I hope will be taken.
      Mr. Bates: It will be taken, Mr. Morris. When will I have an opportunity to raise the matter, because my point of order relates to the Second Reading of the European Communities (Accessions) Bill?
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman might like to see me later, and I shall be very happy to give any assistance that I can. But as of this moment, I am solely concerned with clause 1 stand part. The hon. Gentleman's point of order clearly does not relate to that.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: This debate is important for the four applicant countries. If the four countries are successful—as I hope they will be—in joining the European Union, the Union will be enlarged in an interesting way. Three of those countries are neutral, and the fourth is a member of NATO.
      Under the treaty of European Union, the Western European Union will become an increasingly important part of the European Union. Article J.4, paragraph 2, of the treaty states:
      "The Union requests the Western European Union, which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. The Council shall, in agreement with institutions of the WEU, adopt the necessary practical arrangements."
      It is clear that the "necessary practical arrangements" referred to will have big implications for the European Union. There may be new members coming into the European Union to add to the existing members which are not members of WEU—at present, the Irish Republic, which is neutral, Denmark, which has so far made it clear that it does not wish to be a member of WEU, and Greece, which is in the process of joining.
      As the European Union enlarges; as we approach the intergovernmental conference in 1996; as the reflection committee is established in 1995 to prepare far that conference—and given that it is clear that the future of Europe's defence and security will be an integral part of the discussions in the IGC and in the preparatory meetings for it—we will be in a complex position. There may be
      1050
      members coming into the Union and taking part in the preparatory process of that IGC which have not so far been either in NATO or in the WEU. What will be the implications of that for the future of European defence and security?
      We must look at what the Maastricht treaty says and at the direction in which things may be moving over the next few years. I am very concerned that not enough attention is given in this country to the defence and security aspects of the European Union. In the past, all of us have taken NATO for granted. The foolish decisions taken by the United States Congress about the situation in Bosnia and the lifting of the arms embargo have meant that there is a growing tension in the relationship between the two sides of the Atlantic. Fortunately, we have seen more positive and Atlanticist approaches coming from France in recent months. In February this year, the French Government adopted a new defence White Paper which made the most positive statements ever made by France about NATO and the transatlantic relationship.
      President Clinton recently addressed the French National Assembly. It may have been coincidence that his visit to Europe took place when our Parliament was not sitting; in any event, he did not come and speak to us. We know that he has been in Germany in the past few days, talking about the special relationship between the United States and Germany—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unique."] It is unique, but it is also important to recognise that our historic relationship with the United States cannot be taken for granted.
      Because of the attempts by the Conservative party to interfere in the last American presidential election, the relationship faces some difficulties that need to be dealt with. I hope that we will use all available channels to try to build up that relationship again.
      The French Government's White Paper makes it clear that they want a continuing American presence in Europe. When President Clinton spoke to the French National Assembly, he said that the United States would remain committed to a defence policy involving keeping American troops in Europe. It is quite probable, however, that the American Congress will not go along with the President's commitment to keeping 100,000 troops on European soil indefinitely. Budgetary pressures and pork barrel politics are likely to mean that the Americans are more in favour of closing bases in Europe than they are of closing bases in the United States.
      We must be careful about our approach to European defence and security; we do not want to send the wrong signals across the Atlantic to the American public and legislatures. The French White Paper was welcome in that respect, but we must go further. As the European Union grows bigger and as the Visegrad countries join in the next wave of enlargement after the Nordic countries and Austria, I hope that Europeans collectively will begin to do far more about our defence and security. If we do not, we may find a dangerous vacuum that we might rely on the Americans to fill—but the American commitment to fill it may not be as great as we might suppose.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has said that Britain should not take the special relationship with America for granted; and that the French seem to have made a pitch at improving that relationship;

      1051
      and that the Germans have too, if I extrapolate correctly. He strongly suggests building up that relationship—but then goes on to say that we must have a separate European defence strategy. The two ideas do not exactly go hand in hand.
      Mr. Gapes: I did not use the word "separate". I am not in favour of separating west European NATO countries or WEU countries from the relationship with the United States. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument—
      The Chairman: Order. I am rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman will develop his argument about the four countries joining, instead of sticking to his brief, which covers transatlantic matters.
      Mr. Gapes: I will indeed, Mr. Morris. Sweden, Austria, Finland and Norway already make a significant contribution to the United Nations defence effort. We must try to persuade them to come closer to WEU and hence to NATO's collective security role in Europe and the world. If the United Nations Security Council asks NATO for help in some regional conflict, or if NATO asks WEU for such help, or if the two work side by side, a difficulty may arise. Member states of the European Union that are not in NATO or WEU may also want to contribute to such security efforts, but they are not institutionally integrated with the other Western European Union countries—Britain, France and, following the Karlsruhe judgment, Germany.
      There may be a way around this problem. NATO has developed a concept of joint task forces that might provide a practical solution. It will be far easier, however, if, having joined the European Union, the applicant countries at the time of the IGC in 1996 consider their relationship with European defence and security structures.
      After all, the IGC will have to consider the future of the Western European Union. Its treaty, based on the 1948 treaty of Brussels, has a 50-year life. The issue will therefore be central to the debate in 1996 and beyond.
      I believe that the Government should be doing far more to educate the public and Conservative Back Benchers about the importance of this issue. It is not enough to see the European Union as being merely about free markets or deregulation. We have to discuss the political and security aspects of Europe, including its defence policy and its defence relationships both with the United States and within the United Nations. It is high time we began a public debate about that.
      Some ambiguities remain. The Maastricht treaty seems to face both ways. Article J.4, paragraph 1, states:
      "The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
      Paragraph 4 of the same article, however, qualifies that statement:
      "The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework."
      The reasons for the differing paragraphs are clear. During preparations for the Maastricht treaty, in 1990–91, there was a great deal of tension among the British, the
      1052
      Dutch and, later, the Italian Governments, which had a more Atlanticist approach and, on the other side, the Franco-Belgian approach which favoured building a separate west European defence identity. The choice was fudged, and the ambiguity remains.
      The fact is that WEU does not have an integrated military command structure or control over armed forces. It is still a shadow organisation which lacks the defence structures that NATO possesses. Still, the French Government, and some other Governments, have long pursued the ambition of a European defence policy without the United States.
      The Chairman: Order. This is an absolutely fascinating lecture, but the hon. Gentleman really must relate it to the four applicant countries, which he has not mentioned in the past five minutes. I shall have to be very firm with the hon. Gentleman. He must relate his speech specifically to accession of the four applicant countries.
      Mr. Gapes: When Sweden, for example, joins the European Union, how will it relate to the defence debate? Will the Swedes, who have been neutral since 1812, be prepared to engage in a debate about the future of European defence and security? Will they take the attitude that they would rather not discuss the issue, or—as I suspect—will they decide, even though they are not members of WEU or NATO, that it is extremely important? Given the ending of the cold war, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fact that the Swedes need to have security in the Baltic and a close relationship with their neighbours, particularly the Norwegians, will they decide to take a role in that discussion? We should be doing all that we can to encourage Sweden, and likewise Finland, to become involved in that debate and, in doing that, influence Denmark towards joining the Western European Union.
      The position of Norway is more difficult. As was said on Second Reading and earlier today, it is not clear whether Norway will vote for membership of the European Union. I very much hope that it will, but I understand from my friends in the north of Norway that the problem of the rural and fishing communities is very serious. Oslo may vote in favour, but outside Oslo people may vote against. There is serious danger of a repeat of what happened in 1972. That would be a serious setback, not just to the future of European co-operation, but to European defence and security.
      If Norway stays out of the European Union and, therefore, stays out of the emerging, growing western European defence structures of the WEU, it will be more difficult to get Sweden and Denmark to play a more positive role. I very much hope that the Norwegian people will see the sense and logic of that future position, but I fear that they may not, in which case the architecture of European defence and security will become even more complicated than it could be if the four countries join the WEU.
      I should like to say something about Austria and its neutrality.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to Austria, has he the slightest evidence of any sort from anywhere for his ridiculous statement that Oslo is likely to vote yes? Does he agree that there is not the slightest sign of that from any opinion poll? Why did he say that and where is the proof?
      Mr. Gapes: I have no more evidence than the hon. Gentleman does about what will happen in future, but it is clear that the urban populations have been more positive about European integration, as have the young and educated populations, and that people living in rural areas—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: That is not proof.
      Mr. Gapes: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will answer his point.
      People in rural and fishing communities have justifiable fears about the impact of Spanish trawlers and fishing quotas, but the people in urban areas are dependent: upon manufacturing industry and international trade. They know that the future of Norway as a wealthy west European country depends on access to markets and trade and co-operation with its Nordic neighbours. That is something from which Norway outside the European Union would not benefit indefinitely. For those reasons I believe that the urban populations, particularly in Oslo, are more positive than those in rural areas, but it is impossible to say whether or not that would represent a majority. I hope that it will.
      Dr. Godman: On the basis of my experience of Norway and Norwegian communities, which extends over many years, I am not so sure that there is such a gap and distance between the urban and rural communities. May I also point out that many people in Oslo and its conurbation have strong family links with Bodo, Vardö, Hammerfest and other northern communities?
      Mr. Gapes: People who live in Tromso, Kirkenes, Narvik or the Lofoten islands will undoubtedly be worried about the impact of membership, just as the people who live in northern areas such as Lulea and Norrbotten in Sweden and the Nordkallotten in the Arctic circle will feel more peripheral to the European Union. They may well be more negative than those living in Stockholm, Malmo or other places in the south of the country. Nevertheless, I stand by my point and will now move on to talk about Austria.
      7.45 pm
      Austrian neutrality has to be considered differently from that of Finland or Sweden. After all, Austria was neutral because, after the second world war, the Russian troops withdrew voluntarily from Austria and a deal was struck whereby Austria became a neutral country when the Russians withdrew. Austria considers itself part of the main western European economic system, but it also sees itself as a bridge to Hungary and other central and eastern European countries.
      I believe strongly that Austria will have fewer difficulties in terms of integration with the Western European Union and the European defence and security structure than Sweden and Finland, but we also have to be sensitive to the fact that Austria borders on Yugoslavia. The political and economic problems in that relationship will be negligible compared with those of dealing with the continuing war and conflict on those borders.
      No doubt this is outside the terms of the debate and I shall not pursue the point, but it is imperative that the European Union does far more to get the warring parties in Bosnia together to bring about a peace settlement and put pressure not just on the Serbs but on the Government in Sarajevo, who are as much opposed to an indefinite peace
      1054
      treaty and compromise as the other side. All sides in that conflict bear responsibility, and we should be putting pressure on them all for agreement at this stage.
      The future of the Western European Union and the European Union will be greatly strengthened if there is a positive vote in the referendums in Sweden, Finland and, it is to be hoped, Norway.
      I am confident that, if the general election in Sweden results—as I expect it to—in the return to power of Ingvar Carlsson and the Social Democratic party, that will lead to a positive result in the referendum. I am worried that, if by some freak, the present Prime Minister, Mr. Bildt, remains in power, the voters will be less likely to support accession to the European Union. On that basis, it is in the interests of Europe, Britain and certainly Sweden and its neighbours if we get a Social Democrat Government in Sweden this year, as I hope, and am confident, that we will.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have heard a most interesting analysis of the effects of the new applicant nations joining the European Union and the effect that that is likely to have on the emerging security policy.
      It is curious that the hon. Gentleman's useful and perceptive analysis seemed to reach absolutely the wrong conclusions. I congratulate him on spotting that article J.4 of the Maastricht treaty is a complete fudge that will be worsened by the admission of more neutral countries. The prime concern, however, should be the coherence of NATO, which the legislation undermines.
      For a few moments the hon. Gentleman sounded like an Atlanticist. To conclude that we are sending the wrong signals to the United States and that, to redress that, we need to develop the security policy of the European Union even faster is to get the wrong end of the stick. We need to explain to the United States and to Bill Clinton that European politics is not quite so simple as Mr. Clinton apparently thinks it is, and that we can construct a sensible defence and security policy in Europe only with the American relationship as its linchpin, as it has always been. NATO, not the European Union, has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years since the end of the second world war.
      The European Union has demonstrated the "efficiency" of its common foreign security policy through the conduct of its policy in Yugoslavia. God forbid that that should be translated to the security of the European Union as a whole. It will not work—it cannot work. An enforced consensus among countries with such diverse perspectives and views of the world—different Weltanschauungen, one might say—will never produce a coherent policy. NATO's effectiveness was built on the fact that only some of the European nations were involved with it and able to give it a coherent policy.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of the American part of Europe's defence. Is it not possible, however, that Europe had become so excessively dependent on America that when it was left alone to intervene in an attempt to establish peace in the former Yugoslavia it could produce only a farce rather than any meaningful contribution with a chance of success?
      The Chairman: Order. Before we go any further, let me point out that all references to Yugoslavia are way outside the terms of the clause stand part debate. I hope that

      1055
      hon. Members will recognise that, and return to the subject of the four specific countries mentioned in the Bill and their relationship.
      Mr. Jenkin: Clause 1 is at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the accession of the four applicant states. What does that accession mean, and what sort of Europe will it bring us to? Listening to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Monday, I was struck by how differently each of us assesses the latest developments in Europe; having read the same evidence, we reach opposite conclusions. Most interestingly, in Monday's debate my right hon. Friend's optimism about the efficacy of current policy was confounded not just by Euro-sceptic critics but by Euro-enthusiasts: we agree on what is happening in Europe, but it does not seem to be the official Foreign Office line.
      The paradox of the enlargement, to which clause 1 is vital, is that while enlargement represents a step towards a new Europe—a wider, more free-trading Europe—the old Europe of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand is still trying to reassert itself. I welcome the Bill and the clause, but I question whether we are seeing the dawn of the new Europe that we British Conservatives now envisage. Is the old Europe—the western Europe of the cold war—perhaps merely adapting its grip?
      The Europe of Monnet, Schuman and Adenauer, of Delors, Kohl and Mitterrand, was founded on the stability provided by the cold war. Those people's views and policies were forged by the aftermath of the second world war. They were and are among those who founded and promoted the western European Christian Democrat-Social Democrat consensus which built the western Europe that we know today.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confessed to being an enthusiast of that tradition in his recent speech to the German Christian Democrat Union Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Bonn. He explained how he had seen the Berlin wall go up 30 years ago, and described the impression that it had made on him. It should be added that the British political tradition never truly embraced that consensus, preoccupied as we were—and remain—with our changing global role in international politics. The cold war, however, created a certainty and stability in which the consensus provided comfort for a divided continent. Western Europe was divided from the east, overshadowed by the communist bloc and held in the US embrace of NATO.
      The subject of the clause is, most directly, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway. Three of those countries excluded themselves from NATO, and they all excluded themselves from one or more of the formal international structures. Nevertheless, they were all firmly embedded in the free west. In particular, the neutral nations were able to benefit from the effect of NATO's protection, but without the expense of commitment. Today, the Berlin wall which so shaped political opinions and created consensus in western Europe is down, the communist bloc has disintegrated, the cold war has ended and Germany is reunited; all of that certainty has gone. All over the world the post-war ground rules have been ripped up and we must radically alter our basic assumptions about that world.
      Much is better. In the middle east, there is more promise of a mutually agreed settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute;
      1056
      in South Africa, apartheid has been ended in a way for which none had dared to hope; and capitalism is newly confident, especially in the far east. Much is ominous, however. There is a new multitude of feuds, flashpoints and wars across the globe—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sure that there are all sorts of flashpoints around the world, but not many are relevant to clause 1 stand part.
      Mr. Jenkin: My point, Mr. Morris, is that European politics and the enlargement with which we are dealing cannot be immune to all those changes around the world.
      On the contrary, Christian democracy has been swept aside in Italy, is being subsumed into Gaullism in France and, even in Germany, is adopting a more overtly nationalist hue. Nor can British politics be immune; the question is, what should be our response?
      When Lady Thatcher first suggested at Bruges that the EC should be extended to include national capitals such as Prague, Warsaw and Budapest—and, by implication, Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden—she was regarded with hostility and derision. Now the enlargement of the European Union appears to be orthodox. Why has Germany, at first apparently hostile, so changed its view? The fact is that it has not. Whereas Lady Thatcher advocated EC expansion to break down the barriers which divided Europe and to promote the widening of free trade, this enlargement will have the opposite effect. As has been pointed out, although we no longer have a Berlin wall, there is a new wall across Europe—a wealth wall, erected by the west. We in the United Kingdom do not set limits to EU expansion. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister often speaks of his desire to see a free trade Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, but others' enlargement ambitions are much more cautious because they are trying to maintain the old certainties of cold war Europe.
      This enlargement is only a very small first step towards the kind of Europe that will match the agenda set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in an article in The Economist on 24 September last year. There is no sign in this accession treaty of the multi-layer, multi-speed, multi-track Europe that he advocated in his Ellesmere Port address.
      The Chairman: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman spoke on Second Reading, but these are Second Reading points. We are discussing whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill; that clause relates to just four countries. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about other countries, other speeds and other articles which have nothing to do with clause 1. I suggest that he think again about continuing to read out a speech that he has written. In any event, he really must relate his speech to clause 1 stand part.
      Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In fact, this treaty is aggregated with others, including the Maastricht treaty, and therefore automatically—through the acquis communautaire—includes reference to all matters relating to Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway. If I may say so, it would be out of order to rule such matters out of order on the ground that they are irrelevant.
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I recognise that his knowledge of the subject is deep.

      1057
      However, he is wrong again. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) wishes to challenge the Chair, I shall have to take appropriate action. This is not a Second Reading debate; it is a Committee stage and we are debating clause 1 stand part. There are four countries involved. If the hon. Member for Stafford thinks that this is a great joke, perhaps he will share it with me afterwards. We are dealing with four countries: we are not dealing with other countries that may wish to join the European Community at some time in the future. I make that point to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and I hope that he will return to relevant matters.
      8 pm
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: I do not think that we want another point of order.
      Mr. Dykes: It is a different point of order. May I seek your guidance? The House will be grateful for your ruling on the previous matter. In a clause 1 stand part debate, it is normal for people to make speeches which are relevant to the clause and which are spontaneous in the sense of an intrinsic debate rather than reading a closely typewritten script somewhat akin to Kim Il-sung' s final speeches.
      The Chairman: The House recognises that the hon. Member for Colchester, North has done an assiduous amount of research and preparation. Unfortunately, his research has gone beyond the clause under discussion. Perhaps he will amend his notes accordingly.
      Mr. Jenkin: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Morris. I apologise if I have been leading the Committee astray.
      My speech principally concerns clause 1, which refers to the accession treaty involving the four countries. If we approve the clause, it will take Europe in one direction or another; I wish to discuss which direction the Community is taking in approving the clause.
      In the accession treaty there is no sign of the development of a multi-track Community. The central pillar of the Union remains inviolate. None of the applicant states sought so much as an opt-out from the social chapter or from monetary union or from any other aspect of the European Community. By the accession they become obliged to accept every jot and tittle of the acquis communautaire and to accept its ever-widening reach and scope. The enlargement is likely to strengthen the centralising tendencies of the Community. It gives a wider field of national protagonists for the central institutions of the Community to play off one against the other. Even our vain efforts to achieve a minor concession on the arrangements for qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers was ruthlessly brushed aside and condemned as obstructive.
      Ms Joyce Quin: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is against the enlargement because of the fears about centralism that he has suddenly expressed?
      Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Lady had been paying attention to my speech, she would know that I have already said that I am in favour of the Bill, the clause and the enlargement.
      There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. First, the enlargement will serve to maintain the federalist
      1058
      agenda in the European Community. After all, that is what the applicant Governments want and it can be explained easily. The countries had no need overtly to join western Europe when they were held to us by the iron curtain. Today, particularly as small states, they fear exclusion from a bloc which is no longer defined by super-power politics but which defines itself by its supra-national institutions, its laws, policies and interests. Article B of the Maastricht treaty specifically establishes the objective of the Union
      "to assert its identity on the international scene".
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I acknowledge the consistency that he and many of his colleagues sitting around him have adopted on these matters. If the Bill and the proposed accession of the four countries, to use his phrase, serves only to maintain the federalist momentum of the European Union, how can the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues fail to vote against it since they are opposed in principle to any federalist momentum?
      Mr. Jenkin: It does not accelerate the process that is already under way. It reinforces it. It does not reverse it in the way that the Government have declared. I shall deal with the only way to reverse the centralising tendencies of the European Community later in my comments.
      With communism no longer the defining threat, with NATO unsure of its ongoing role, with increasing emphasis upon Europe organising its own security—however unrealistic that may be—and against the background of endemic European protectionism towards the east, the applicant states feel safer in the embrace of the Franco-German axis than outside it. That is despite their superior economic performance over the past 20 years. Although I welcome their accession and their net contributions to the burgeoning EC budget, I wonder whether they will find that accession helps them to adapt more quickly to the ever more competitive world in which we live. Do they believe, vainly, that federalism will obviate the need to become competitive?
      The second conclusion is that the Government must continue to adapt new policies and a new coherent anti-federalist approach to Europe in time for the intergovernmental conferences in 1996. That is not helped by the present and rather laughable ambiguity on the single currency.
      I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the fresh impetus that he has brought to our thinking with his writings and speeches. He is right to place emphasis on free trade and the wider enlargement needed to stabilise the new democracies in eastern Europe. He is right to labour the need to end the requirement for uniformity across Europe. The nation states of Europe are not regions to be absorbed into a superstate—they are Europe itself. By his Corfu veto, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to practise the tactics that he will need to employ to avoid the United Kingdom's absorption into a federal Europe in 1996. I congratulate my right hon. Friend because this is not retrospection or reaction. It is the sort of modernisation of the Conservative party that we must have if we are to remain in government, having already held office for such a long period. Neither Europe nor the world has stood still in the past 15 years, and nor must we.
      Mr. Hardy: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) as I want to make a few important points without detaining the Committee too long.
      On Monday the Foreign Secretary said that our task was to understand the need for change. It is because of that comment that I feel it necessary to intervene now. I believe that we must pass the Bill, but if we pass the Bill and do not follow it with other similar developments it will be an example of further unwisdom.
      The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) may remember that when I first came to the House in the 1970s I spoke against entry into the Common Market. I had advanced a similar view for some years before then and I did so because I was convinced that a Common Market built on and almost exclusively concerned with the common agricultural policy was not necessarily in the interests of Britain or of a wider Europe. I spoke against it in the House and I voted against it. When the referendum debates took place I was the most junior and humble member of the Foreign Office team and I campaigned and voted against it. However, as a democrat I had to accept that the referendum decision was significant. When the Government saw the Single European Act through Parliament, that development had a considerable effect on those of us who had taken a different view.
      The logic now is that the widening of Europe is a process which must be continued. As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) pointed out on Monday, there are serious implications because, as Europe widens, the pressure upon the common agricultural policy becomes even more acute and I believe that that is a highly desirable end. It might also be desirable if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) pointed out, Europe becomes more intelligent in its approach to defence and security. That would be welcome. As you will be aware, Mr. Morris, I have probably served longer on the Council of Europe and the Western European Union than is good for me—certainly longer than any Labour Member or, I think, any Conservative Member. I have been closely involved in the developments there for a long time. In April, a planeload of Russian parliamentarians, led by Mr. Zhirinovsky, came to Strasbourg. He was clearly opposed to the European developments of which hon. Members on both sides of the House approve. In a serious speech, he called for the restoration of the Baltic states as Russian provinces. He also made a number of other serious comments. The worrying thing was that not one of the substantial number of Russian parliamentarians, most of whom were supposed to be strongly opposed to his policy, would publicly dissent from his outrageous comments.
      Last week in Austria, Mr. Zhirinovsky paraded his views at the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. He attacked the west for rearming and planning to invade Russia. As history changes rapidly, the House should consider his other comment that there would soon need to be an eastern European economic bloc. He did not say a new eastern European military alliance—even Mr. Zhirinovsky recognises economic weakness when it stares him in the face. He could perceive the possibility of two Europes developing, which would be hostile to each other. Such a development would not in the best interests of our sub-continent. For that reason, the Bill should be passed, but it must be succeeded by further Bills which will widen Europe in an intelligent way or it will be of little value.
      We should pass the Bill, even at the cost of treading on
      1060
      those countries which value and benefit from the common agricultural policy a great deal more than we do, with only 2 per cent. of our population dependent on agriculture. The political health of Europe in the 21st century requires this measure.
      I welcome the accession of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria because they are more natural allies of the British than some other member states. As Europe widens to the south, it may bring in countries warmer than Britain normally is, but less notable for their political probity than we normally are. They may be more excitable or less efficient than we normally are. We need Sweden, Norway and Finland to be with us.
      I am less enthusiastic about Austria. I, and those who study Europe carefully, perceive the possible development of a German hegemony, with Germany, Hungary, the Czechs, the Slovaks and the Slovenians forming a tighter economic accord than may be good for member states, even the more recently amiable French. That development must be balanced by the addition of the Baltic countries at the earliest possible date, which would provide a balance in the European Community. Those countries would inject not merely probity, but a closer attachment to efficient administration than some people have become accustomed to in Brussels in the past 20 or 30 years. For that reason, I welcome the Bill and the clause. The Minister should understand, however, that if the Government do not seek to establish good relationships with those countries and to ensure that the Community's boundaries continue to be changed quickly, we shall not gain any advantage.
      There is another anxiety. You may have been present, Mr. Morris, on the historic occasion in Strasbourg when Mr. Gorbachev spoke about the need to build the common house of Europe. I listened with passionate approval to that speech. Unlike some Conservative Members, I was on my feet when Mr. Gorbachev walked in. I was delighted, however, that everyone was on his feet when Mr. Gorbachev walked out at the end of his important speech, which was entirely consistent with the aims of the Bill.
      8.15 pm
      Unfortunately, both the British Government and the American Government issued statements on Mr. Gorbachev's speech earlier than they should have done—even before he had sat down. He started his speech an hour late because his journey from Paris was delayed. The comments of the British Government and the American Government after that important, visionary speech were aimed at pouring cold water on and dampening the implications of Mr. Gorbachev's speech. We treated him badly that day and the summit treated him badly when it left him exposed and vulnerable and allowed him to be overthrown.
      The fact remains that Mr. Gorbachev's vision was correct. If we are to achieve the common house of Europe and, therefore, a peaceful Europe, we must ensure that the momentum created by the Bill is maintained. If it is not maintained, the Bill merely causes further difficulty and an internal hotch-potch of bureaucratic incompetence. I remain critical of the administration and the limited vision which still exist in Brussels; only through the pursuit of a wider vision shall we achieve peace in the sub-continent, which has eluded us for so long.
      Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to be called and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I wish to

      1061
      speak briefly, despite the encouragement of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—I shall resist that temptation, but, as always, I am grateful for his support. I welcome his heckling because it means that at least one is being listened to.
      I did not wish to be unkind and mean to my distinguished colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke earlier. It was just that I share the informal, personal view of my other colleagues that it is bad practice—I hope that this will not annoy him—for hon. Members to speak from typescript in the House. Obviously, Ministers have to do it because they make official statements and sometimes one has to have a lot of typescript on an important speech if it involves a complex matter. Some typescripts are read word for word—although that was not the case with my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—and are written by a public relations man or the anti-Europe group, whose well-funded office is located over the road, and which can provide ample material for the young fogeys to make their—
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it possible that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is incapable of reading and that jealousy is prompting his remarks?
      The Chairman: I think that the occupant of the Chair deprecates personal remarks in the Chamber and in Committee. I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) had been here long enough to recognise that courtesy is the basis of good debate.
      Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: Order. I repeat that courtesy is the basis of proper debate.
      Mr. Dykes: I was referring to the reality of the extremely well-funded organisation across the road that provides material to the anti-European parliamentarians.
      Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Madam Speaker has ruled that it is inappropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to refer to us as anti-European. It is not true, and I wish him to withdraw his remark.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little excited. I know that it is hot outside, but it need not be that hot inside. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has the Floor.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Wilkinson: It is a genuine point of order.
      The Chairman: Order. I hoped that it would be genuine.
      Mr. Wilkinson rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I have the Floor at the moment. I hope that the hon. Member would always make genuine points of order. I am asking the hon. Member for Harrow, East to debate clause 1 stand part. Perhaps we can proceed on that basis.
      Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to me by name. May I say that no public relations firm has ever written any part of my speeches?
      The Chairman: I am not sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood was accused of not having written any of his speeches. I have listened to him many times and I know that he makes very good, short, poignant speeches.
      Mr. Dykes: That is exactly what I said. I was paying tribute to my hon. Friend for his wonderfully spontaneous and moving speeches, which he makes without notes. That is the best method of all, but there is always a half-way house that involves a little bit of writing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North may prove if he catches your eye, Mr. Morris.
      I think that the House will welcome not only the Bill as a whole but the clause, especially in view of the agreement of one of the new member countries. We had a very thorough Second Reading debate on Monday. We can speak only according to our own suppositions and speculation and the evidence accumulated on our visits if we get a chance to go to those countries or talk to their citizens, but I think that the other three will vote in their referendums to join. I think that I am right in saying—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: They will not have ecus.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: A bribe.
      Mr. Dykes: In ecus, or £1,000 perhaps? I think that I am right in saying that referendums are constitutionally compulsory in all four countries. There is a great campaign in the remaining three to get a significant yes vote. I concede that the biggest question mark is over Norway. Some hon. Members may have agreed with me on Monday when I said that it is not compulsory for those countries to join. They can simply go away—no one is insisting that they join the European Union. However, I think that they would be sad about that on reflection because it would be a great opportunity missed. The European Union will gain in strength with this enlargement, as it did from the recent enlargements which brought in the southern countries. There is a great accretion of collective strength in the south and the north of Europe coming together.
      I do not want to alarm my hon. Friends, but they have to accept the reality, which is that we are one member state among 12 at the moment and, I hope, 16 when this constitutional process is completed in the existing and putative member states. I have the impression that the new member states are interested not only in widening but in deepening the process as a result of their accession.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: This issue has arisen many times. My hon. Friend is always prepared to elucidate, so perhaps he could clarify what he means by "deepening".
      Mr. Dykes: I shall do so, subject to my not irritating the Chair by going on too long because we risk having another general Second Reading debate. I therefore relate my comments to the clause stand part debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made the most open, straightforward and honest speech on Monday in which he outlined what he thought was the future direction of the European Union. I agreed with him, although he, of course, deplores and disagrees with it. However, he was right, and I welcome it. I am delighted to be able to remind the

      1063
      House, with great emphasis but without being pompous—which I hope that I never am—[Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is—
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Boring but not pompous.
      Mr. Dykes: The distinction between the two is a matter of ontological debate.
      Colleagues must accept the reality that the European Union wants to proceed in this direction. I know that a small number of parliamentarians—unfortunately mostly gathered on the Conservative Benches—who want to halt the process and feel that they can perhaps do so in this country. I doubt that they can in view of the inexorable reality, but they cannot halt it in the other countries—not in the existing 11 member countries or in the four new members countries.
      On Monday, I cited the definitive and unequivocal adherence to deeper integration evidenced in all four new member states.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Dykes: I shall give way in a moment, but not for long. What I have to say is relevant to the clause stand part debate, I think.
      In column 688 of Monday's Hansard, I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether he agreed with that proposition and was rather depressed to find that he did not. He did not answer my question directly. The four new members have all expressed a wish for deeper integration, and we should acknowledge that deepening and widening go together.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend will have noted the Foreign Secretary's remarks as reported at columns 685 and 687 of Hansard on Monday. He referred to
      "the old-fashioned idea that European construction came only by the steady centralisation of power in Brussels."
      He had previously said:
      "Old certainties are changing; unthinking centralism is a theme of the past."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 685–7.]
      My hon. Friend has been a consistent supporter of the European vision for 30-odd years—
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Forty years.
      Mr. Budgen: Perhaps it is 40 years. Will he tell us over what period he has seen any change in what the Foreign Secretary describes as "unthinking centralism"? Is that just another bland description of Europe to sell to those who wish to accept a particular view? Is there any objective evidence to prove that the "unthinking centralism" has been abandoned?
      Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend will have to put that question to the Foreign Secretary—it is up to him to answer it personally. I have never accepted that particular description of the way in which the Community has developed. It has always been decentralised in the sense that sovereign member states work together, with majority voting becoming more frequent as a result of the Maastricht arrangements—something that was long overdue and about which we were enthusiastic in terms of the single market. The only manifestation of centralism is the fact that there is one body in Brussels—the
      1064
      Commission—deploying the new legislation on behalf of the member Governments, more and more at their request. There is no danger of the Commission becoming an overweening, powerful bureaucracy, unaccountable to anyone. That is merely black propaganda—the myths and nonsense that we hear about the development of the European Community.
      Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mr. Dykes: No, I shall not give way. If I did, the debate would become too long. In addition, I am planning to give way briefly to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North and for Stafford if they still wish to intervene.
      I was asked what "deepening" means. Simply and straightforwardly, it means following the prescriptions and procedures laid down in the Maastricht treaty. I can think of no greater sublime nonsense than that we work hard—and far too long, in fact, over a ridiculously attenuated Committee stage dealing with the ratification of Maastricht—and then proceed to denounce it.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to Mr. Gorbachev. I remember his last visit when he came to an Inter-Parliamentary Union reception. He has a delicious sense of humour and said that it was marvellous to revisit the most robust democracy in Europe, but that he recognised the same faces from his previous visit in 1980, despite the intervening elections. That was an interesting reflection on our Parliament. In this mother of Parliaments—apparently the most mature of all Parliaments—we have to bear in mind that we are talking about sovereign countries working together and that they suffer no loss of sovereignty from the collective arrangements. That is the way that they want to go. In a European Union of such strength and collective maturity, which has the wisdom of many years of constitutional and political development, we cannot say that we disagree, without leaving. In the end, the other member states will say that if we disagree so fundamentally and whinge and moan so much, we should pull out. What would our reaction be, then? I see a wonderful smile on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East has also got rather carried away. We are debating clause 1 stand part, which deals with four new member countries.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Dykes: I was merely referring to that, Mr. Morris, because there are some people in those four countries who were asked, "Do you think Britain should leave?" They all said, "No, we want Britain to stay."
      Sir Teddy Taylor: They want our money.
      Mr. Dykes: They are all contributors to the budget. That was the original motive of the founding countries when they pleaded and begged us to join, and that process continues with the arrival of the one plus the three.
      Again, it must be said that my hon. Friends have a duty to the public. They mislead the public if they misrepresent and mix up fantasy and propaganda, and pretend that it is reality and fact. Let us look at what the malevolent British newspapers, from the tabloids to the broadsheets, said about the Austrian referendum. Austria was definitely going to voteno—that is what the papers said. If there were

      1065
      time, and if you were patient, Mr. Morris, I could produce the bits and pieces from the newspapers with the relevant quotations. But look what happened in the event. That is why I do not think that Norway will necessarily be such a disappointment. I hope that it will not—but that is the biggest question mark.
      In the other two countries there is great enthusiasm for deepening, and for going all the way with the acquis communautaire, which they all accept solemnly. I am sorry that that feeling is not shared by my colleagues here—that phalanx of distinguished fogeys, young and old. I mean that in the most praiseworthy sense of the word; it is a colloquial description, now used by the press, of our anti-European colleagues.
      Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dykes: My colleagues do not want to accept—
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend said that he would give way to me.
      Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way now.
      My hon. Friends do not want to accept that that all includes the single currency. I have never heard of any more absurd suggestion—it produces real mirth in the four new countries that are about to enter—than the idea that in the single market we shall harmonise every piece of instrumentation, all physical equipment, all the financial instruments of one kind and another, the dimensions of bricks, nuts and bolts, and all measurements and dimensions, but that there is to be one exception—the most important lubricant of all, the currency. Apparently we are to say, "No, no. Sorry, there are 16 of those." A man or woman from Mars would ask, "Have they gone crazy? Have they gone mad?" It is an absurd notion.
      The four new countries accept all those things. Their opt-outs are non-existent, with the possible exception that the ability of foreigners to buy houses in one of those countries—Austria, I believe—will be limited. The Austrians may be worried about the purchasing power of the citizens of a neighbouring country. But there are no other exceptions. There are no opt-outs or hesitations of any kind. Those countries are joining enthusiastically, despite the fact that there may be geographical and agricultural difficulties in the Nordic countries, and Austria had some hesitation in respect of some of its industrial—
      Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dykes: I shall in a second, very briefly.
      Austria had some hesitation in respect of some of its industrial and commercial sectors.
      My hon. Friends really must accept all that. The tragedy of the European election campaign for the Conservative party was the fact that fantasy, propaganda and self-induced sublime nonsense of the worst kind took over from reality when we were talking to the public.
      Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dykes: I have given way to my hon. Friend once already, and I am just about to give way again, so I hope that my hon. Friend will restrain himself. I hope that he will catch your eye, Dame Janet, and make his own speech in a moment. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North.
      Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and grateful, too, for his advice on how I should
      1066
      conduct myself in the House. He has always been generous with his advice. However, the implications of what he is saying constitute a criticism not of those of us who criticise the centralising process, but of the Government for enunciating that the centralising process has been stopped. My hon. Friend agrees with me that the centralising process has not been stopped; the only difference between him and me is that I support the Government's objective, which is to try to stop it. Does he support the Government's objective of avoiding a federal Europe, which was the original aim before we set off to negotiate the Maastricht treaty ?
      Mr. Dykes: I knew that it was a mistake to allow my hon. Friend to intervene because again he misunderstands.
      I shall finish by expressing briefly a couple of descriptions of what I believe is the understanding of subsidiarity as it is perceived in operation in the modern world in the four new countries. It means that they too recognise the nonsense of the extended and continuing unfair attacks on the Commission in Brussels, which has had more and more to do in recent years. That has happened partly because of that pernicious institution, the ad hoc development of the European summit, which has done much harm by loading the Commission with more and more tasks.
      One of the worst features of the summit was the Saturday night dinner. At least we have done away with that now, and the meetings tend to end on a Saturday afternoon, which is a great improvement. The Saturday night dinner, armed as it was with delicious clarets and other wonderful wines, induced the leaders of Governments to say to the Commission, "Do a study on that," "Do a report on this," "Let's ask the Commission to look into this or that." And away went the Commission from the summit with yet another load of work.
      One of the best examples of all was a result of the intergovernmental process, not of the overweening tyrannical European Commission foisting its views on a hapless unwilling public in all the member states and on all the member Governments. That was the plan for monetary union itself, which came from an intergovernmental committee of central bank governors chaired by Jacques Delors, who was originally rather an unwilling chairman. That should be put on the record. He said, "Thank you very much for asking me, but I am rather busy. Could you find someone else?" But eventually he agreed to do it. That is the reality that we never have the chance to hear about in the British media.
      My understanding of what the four countries mean by subsidiarity has been helped by the fact that I have had the opportunity of discussing such matters with various people in those countries. The modern concept goes into the three strands of effective practical subsidiarity.
      First there is a whole panoply of domestic politics and legislation that does not come under the European Union at all. We all have our favourite examples. I think of domestic education policy as one of the classic examples, and the national health service is another. None of that is anything to do with the European Community. That is one sense of subsidiarity, whereby the nation states have plenty in their own terrain and territory that does not come into the European panoply of legislation or directives.
      The second strand is that which was originally designed at the request of the member Governments. I emphasise the fact that that is the basis on which all such things are done.

      1067
      The sovereign member Governments constantly ask the Commission to produce more legislation on this, that and the other—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. What has that to do with clause 1?
      Mr. Dykes: I am just about to explain to you, Dame Janet, to your satisfaction I hope, that that is directly relevant to clause 1, concerning how the Swedes and the other countries that will enter have recently thought about such matters.
      We have the Brussels-produced legislation on behalf of the sovereign member Governments. In the four countries that will operate in the same way. According to the treaty of accession they accept all those procedures, whereby there is then a devolution back to the member state on how that legislation is to be constructed.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way very briefly?
      Mr. Dykes: No, I shall not give way now, because I do not want speak for too long.
      We see already that the stream of legislative instruments coming from the Commission week by week—we deal with them in our European Select Committee—is now about one third of the size that it was a while ago. That is because the single market legislation is all finished. That is why there is a sudden drop, even apart from the Commission's willingness to say that it would legislate only in important areas in future, so long as the member Governments did not load it with additional tasks found within the treaties—the nearest thing that the European Union has to a constitution.
      The third area is when Commission legislation is withdrawn and left completely to the member state. If there were a project on the table the Commission would drop it, or it would not proceed with a new one if one had not yet been devised.
      Everybody would welcome those three strands and say that that was the modern expression of subsidiarity for the four new member states. We do not have the chance to read the media of those countries in great detail—by definition, we are too busy—but I have not noticed in any of the debates on accession in any of the countries any hesitation about the concept of practical subsidiarity.
      So what is the propaganda and the anxiety in this country, other than self-induced, self-imagined fantasy of the worst kind, which I think is grossly misleading and unhelpful to the British public? It causes a vacuum of enthusiasm and great hesitation about our membership of the European Union, which is not found in other countries—
      Mr. Jenkin: So it is just us?
      Mr. Dykes: —except, of course, the manifestations of the recession—
      Mr. Wilkinson indicated dissent.
      Mr. Dykes: If people are unemployed, how can they be enthusiastic about the development of any union, let alone a European Union, which is too vast and too great to grasp—[Interruption.] The fact that I am being heckled by some
      1068
      of my colleagues shows that what I am saying is perfectly correct, and acceptable in other forums. Otherwise my hon. Friends would not be heckling me.
      My conclusion is that when those four countries are in the Union, which I hope will have happened by the end of this year, we shall see—
      Sir Teddy Taylor indicated dissent.
      Mr. Dykes: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so unhappy about that. We shall see an intensification of the deepening which strikes such terror into his heart and alarms him, because he knows that that is the reality, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said on Monday. [Interruption]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is not a private conversation; it is a debate.
      Dr. Godman: There is considerable substance in the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that the processes of widening and deepening are not mutually exclusive.
      In response to an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made disparaging comments about the European Court of Justice. I should have thought that, with the accession of the four countries, if all four join—I have much greater concerns about the anxieties felt by many Norwegian people than the hon. Member for Harrow, Fast has—the European Court of Justice, despite the disparaging remarks of the hon. Member for Southend, East, will be the supreme court, in which 17 legal systems will be concerned. There will be the Scottish legal system, the English and Welsh legal system, and others. The court's decision-making almost inevitably ensures a deeper degree of integration of the 16.
      We can see what power the court has in terms of domestic legislation. At this very moment, the Government have a case at the European Court of Justice which relates to the payment of invalidity benefit. I have no doubt that if Norway becomes a member, the Norwegian Government and perhaps the others too will one day find themselves at that court in Luxembourg. There is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Member for Harrow, East says.
      The Minister has been something of a bystander in this debate. I should like to ask him a couple of questions. It is surely the case that the countries coming into the European Union have to honour certain obligations. My question for the Minister will, I am sure, be picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) if he catches your eye, Dame Janet.
      What is the position concerning the activities of the Norwegian whaling industry once Norway becomes a fully integrated member of the European Union? I believe that Norway has some flexibility in terms of its membership of the European Economic Area. Is it the case that the rules concerning that maritime activity are much tougher? Can the Minister state that, when Norway becomes a member, it will have to cease forthwith this disgraceful maritime activity?
      That question was put to me by a group of schoolchildren in my constituency. I awarded them 10 out of 10 for their perceptiveness in asking such a question. One of them said, "Ah, Dr. Godman. The Norwegians will have to stop hunting these whales when they become

      1069
      members of the European Economic Community." It is a little old-fashioned for a 14-year-old to refer 10 the European Union as the European Economic Community. However, the question is important. As a member of the European Union, Norway may have to honour certain obligations. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that is one of them.
      I return to the speech by the hon. Member for Harrow, East. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), he seems to be utterly confident that the Norwegian people will say yes in the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth said that the people living in and around Oslo will out-vote the people living in the northern Norwegian fishing communities. I am not so sure that that can be safely predicted.
      My family have long experience of working with Norwegian fishermen and their communities. When my father was injured while fishing off northern Norway, he received hospital treatment in Vardoe. More recently, when a brother of mine was injured on his trawler, he was taken by helicopter to a hospital in Bodo. Our links with the Norwegian fishing communities are fairly strong.
      8.45 pm
      There is no point in dismissing these people's anxieties. They have deep-seated fears that their communities could be fatally harmed by the imposition of the common fisheries policy. Those communities are part and parcel of the Norwegian culture, as acknowledged by the metropolitan types down in Oslo. There is concern, and the Norwegian Government will have to pay heed to it. In Norway, there may well be another vote—perhaps by a narrow margin—against joining the Union, largely because this important industry and its communities are threatened.
      Some people say that they do not trust the Norwegians. The ones I do not trust are the Spanish fishing operators. As was the case with the fishermen from the former USSR, the Spanish fishermen will sweep the seas clean. They will clean out grounds and then move away. The Norwegians cannot afford to clean out their grounds; that is why they have such tough policing regulations for those who fish in their waters.
      I have a question for the Minister about the obligations that the Norwegians will have to honour. I refer to what the Foreign Secretary said on Monday, when I was unable to persuade him to give way:
      "Our fishermen will have new opportunities in Norwegian waters from 1997 onwards."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 694.]
      What are the new opportunities? If the Minister cannot give me an answer this evening, I hope that he will be his usual courteous self and will write to me. If new opportunities will be offered to fishermen from United Kingdom fishing ports, presumably they will have to be offered to the Spanish as well, although their history of fishing in Norwegian waters is much more sparse than our long tradition of fishing in Norwegian fishing grounds.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend referred in relation to whaling to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). If the whaling matter is resolved by a reduction or an elimination of whaling, which it could be, and if the threat of Spanish fishing becomes a reality, is it not true that a recourse to agriculture, which may be the alternative in the northern parts of Norway, would be limited by the imposition of the
      1070
      common agricultural policy? The threat may be threefold, even if one course of action may gain some sympathy from the British public.
      Dr. Godman: What my hon. Friend says makes sound sense. I am not a lawyer, but, in my view, the whaling question will finish up in Luxembourg. I believe that it will go to the European Court of Justice. I hope that, if the Norwegian Government refuse to stop whaling on accession—if the Norwegian people agree to accession—the European Commission will take the Norwegian Government to the European Court of Justice.
      Mr. Hardy: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Council of Europe considered the matter a few months ago, Norwegian whaling policy met with the approval of the assembly? Labour Members voted against it, but, unfortunately, the Liberal and Conservative votes were cast in favour of Norway's whaling policy. That may well have some influence to bear on the diplomatic direction pursued by the British Government, and possibly that of other member states.
      Dr. Godman: I can only agree with my hon. Friend. However, the European Commission—another powerful, centralising institution—will have its power enhanced by a wider membership.
      There is another point to consider about fishing and the Norwegians with regard to their tough policing regime, which I mentioned earlier. We shall see some fun and games when the Spanish try their tricks in Norwegian waters—the kind of tricks that we are used to on the west coast of Scotland and that the fishermen are used to in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, because the Norwegians will hit the Spanish for six if they try their tricks. I hope that the Norwegians will be supported by the European Commission in that regard.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, under directive 92/43, appendix v, I think, whaling will be totally illegal if Norway joins the European Community. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the appropriate question to ask the Government is whether they would go for a derogation in the event of Norway joining? The law is abundantly clear: the directive could not be clearer. The only question is whether the British Government or others will or will not agree to a derogation.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to be aided and abetted by the hon. Gentleman. Incidentally, when my wife was a social worker in his constituency in deepest Glasgow, she thought that he was a first-class constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure that he does the same job in Southend.
      He is absolutely right. What is the Government's position if those circumstances arise? For what it is worth, my view is that the European Commission will intervene correctly by taking the Norwegian Government to the European Court of Justice. However, given the backlog of cases from which that court suffers, a decision would not be reached for at least two years. Nevertheless, that institution, that supreme court, will be the final arbiter and not the Council of Ministers—not derogation, but that remarkable supreme court, which is aiding and abetting the deepening of the Community.
      May I ask the Minister another question, which also relates to the Norwegians' obligations when they take on membership of the Community. We in Scotland are deeply

      1071
      concerned about the harm inflicted on our salmon farming industry by the deliberate dumping of farmed salmon into markets in what we now call the European Union. The Minister knows about the issue, as I think that I have mentioned it to him before, and I have certainly mentioned it to his right hon. and hon. Friends.
      I believe that, under the terms of the treaty, certain restrictions are placed on Norway concerning the European Economic Area, but am I right in thinking that, once Norway becomes a fully fledged member of the European Union, the regulations governing such exports, sold at such low prices, will be much tougher, and that the Norwegians will find that it is a much stricter regime once they are completely through the gate and are a full member of the European Union?
      I return to the Foreign Secretary's promise of more opportunities for our fishermen in Norwegian waters following the accession of Norway. What does that mean? Does it mean that access restrictions will be eased, and that more of our fishing vessels from the east coasts of England and Scotland will be able to fish Norwegian waters, or does it simply mean that a certain number of vessels will be allowed to continue to fish in those waters?
      I was struck by what the hon. Member for Harrow, East said about the deepening and the widening of the Community. Those processes are combined. We are moving, if not towards a federal Europe in the next few years, certainly towards one which is increasingly centralised.
      I deeply regret the Government's interpretation of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which deals with the application of subsidiarity. I should like to see a much greater devolution of political decision-making to a Parliament in Scotland—and, indeed, to local authorities throughout the whole of the so-called United Kingdom.
      The scrutiny of European legislation by the four countries' elected representatives in Strasbourg and in their own national Parliaments will bring added democracy to what is at the moment something of a ramshackle edifice, especially when we think of all the fiddling which goes on in some countries and of the misappropriation of structural and other funds, which occurs on a daily basis elsewhere in the so-called European Union.
      Mr. Wilkinson: In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), as so often on European affairs, was a veritable Valiant for Truth. He has sought to look behind the seven short lines of the clause and to come to the heart of matter. It is, as he explained, essentially financial; I shall return to it later.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) proved himself, as in his youth, a good sapper and miner, inasmuch as he undermined the Government's position on the question of qualified majority voting after the putative accession of the four applicant countries—particularly as we do not, of course, know whether they will all join. One wonders whether we ought to be passing this legislation in advance of their Parliaments' ratification and the affirmative resolution of their people in a referendum, but that is by the by.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to fishing and whaling, which are so important to Norway. That would take us into tempestuous waters and I shall not take such a course, except to say that
      1072
      it has been our experience in the United Kingdom—I hope that our Norwegian friends will examine our experience closely—that, since we joined the European Community, there has been a severe depradation of fishing resources around our coasts. Entire fishing communities have gone to the wall. I trust that the people of Norway will think extremely carefully about it. I am sure they will.
      9 pm
      I return to the financial matter to which I alluded earlier. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about the "practical consequences of enlargement". He said:
      "The fact that four relatively well-off countries will be coming into the European Union will reduce the amount that other countries, including Britain, will need to contribute to the budget. We expect our British contribution to be some £300 million sterling less over the first six years of accession than it would otherwise have been."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 24.6, c. 691.]
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East later sought clarification of that hoped-for reduction in our expenditure which would be consequent upon the accession of the four applicant countries.
      My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should have been much more open with the House, but we cannot really expect that from Foreign Secretaries. Obfuscation is the name of the game when it comes to matters European, and all Foreign Secretaries play it the same.
      My right hon. Friend said that he would disclose to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), in response to the inquiry of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the likely increase of the budget for the United Kingdom for 1995. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is rightly smiling, and I applaud him for his researches into these matters. He said that an extra £2,000 million of additional expenditure was likely to be incurred by the United Kingdom in 1995.
      Against that background, a saving of £300 million over six years is pretty small beer. I hope and ask that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not take for granted everything that is said about the consequences of enlargement. Our experience has consistently been that of being duped over the process of European integration.
      With the accession of the four applicant countries, if four join, the Community will certainly be wider, but I cannot see that it will be a more harmonious Community. Existing tensions will almost certainly run deeper, especially the tension between the relatively rich and prosperous north and the poorer south.
      I doubt whether countries such as Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland will be glad to continue to pay huge sums—Austria, Sweden and Norway will, like ourselves, be net contributors—to meet the cost of the objective of economic convergence. Will they be happy with that for very long?
      The objective of economic convergence will itself be made less realisable when four additional, disparate and different economies come into the Community. They have their own particularities. After the accession of the four applicant countries, the idea of bringing in the Visegrad three—Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary—will almost certainly be unrealisable. Perhaps that should be made clear now.
      I hope that we do not welcome the accession without comprehending that, even with friendly countries which

      1073
      have long been well disposed towards the United Kingdom, such as the applicant four, not all will be well in the European Union.
      I remind the Committee that it was the run on the Finnish currency, strangely enough, which presaged the ultimate break-up of the exchange rate mechanism and our withdrawal from it. Let us take note of the difficulties we experienced when we joined the Community. I am sure that the four applicant countries will experience difficulties at least as great. I suspect that, before long, tensions within the Community as currently designed will be too great for it to remain a union for very long.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and be extremely brief. I acknowledge from the outset that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who contributed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to the Second Reading debate on Monday, made clear our unambiguous support for the accession—as we hope—of the four new countries to the extended or expanded European Union in due course.
      After observing the continuing debate or, should I say, constructive discussions in the Conservative party, it is clear that the Bill is part of a triumvirate of important European measures which will come before the House in the remainder of this Parliament—assuming that :it goes something like its full length. After Maastricht and this Bill, there will be the own resources Bill which promises to be more electorally divisive in the House in terms of the Division Lobbies. The third part of the triumvirate will be the outcome of the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
      Having listened to the ongoing debate between the Conservative Member representing the European Movement and his colleague representing some other kind of movement, not in itself unconnected with Europe, but not connected to it in the way that the European Movement is, it is interesting to note that if that represents unanimity in terms of everyone supporting the accession, one hates to think what it will be like when the Conservative party returns to genuine and authentic division when it comes to voting in the House on own resources and perhaps, who knows, on the outcome of the IGC.
      While I want to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who, like me, speaks from a Scottish perspective on one aspect of the Bill, I share the general welcome to the four countries. In many ways, they are potential allies in the decision making that lies ahead. They are also economically potential allies.
      I hope that the course of the remaining referendums has not been too badly blown to one side or undermined from the outset by what I consider to be the quite farcical "Grand old Duke of York" performance over qualified majority voting and the signals that sent to the electorates and the difficulties it created for some parties in the other member states.
      I listened with interest to a Labour Member who referred earlier to his optimism that there would be a Social Democratic Government in Sweden after the general election there towards the end of the year. On the day that the qualified majority voting row was going on, it was my pleasure to join a Conservative Member at lunch with a visiting Swedish politician who would certainly have Cabinet rank in that Government if it were to come to power.
      1074
      That Swedish politician was aghast because the Swedish Social Democrats were having to take a difficult decision in opposition, similar to what happened on occasions in this House in respect of Maastricht, when an unpopular incumbent Government were trying to put through an important measure. The Opposition party in Sweden had to play off what it believed to be the right decision for Sweden's overall benefit against what was perhaps the easier, tactical electoral decision for its benefit in the forthcoming period. It felt disappointed and disheartened that the British Government's actions over QMV were making its dilemma more acute. That may not cause angst among those who would welcome Sweden saying no to accession, but we must note that what we say and what is done in one member state inevitably has a knock-on effect in others.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow rightly referred to salmon dumping. I have raised that subject before with the Minister and, following one of our exchanges, he wrote to me about it. I want to stress that, as and when Norwegian accession is achieved, I hope that the European Commission will be able to take a more active policing role under the terms of the single market which, hitherto, it has been unwilling or unable to take, in respect of the imbalance in the market price which Norwegian over-production and the loading of that over-production on other member states within the European single market has thus far created. I hope that the Minister can give some sign that, if the Norwegian accession goes ahead, we as a nation state within the European Union will press for that improvement at Commission level.
      Secondly, there is a happier side of the existing market relations between our country and Norway: the oil sector—not least the oil-related fabrication sector where significant progress has been made by United Kingdom firms. Of particular importance to the Scottish economy, but also elsewhere in the United Kingdom economy, is the fact that, in a fallow period in the UK market, we have been winning contracts that have been available from the Norwegian sector. We welcome that—the issue of the single market and the level playing field is equally applicable in this sector.
      I hope that if Norwegian accession is achieved, the Government will seek to use the good will that exists between Norway and Britain to form an axis to ensure that other member states over which we harbour continuing doubts about the level state of their playing fields—Italy and Spain are two countries that come to mind immediately—present us with genuine, fair competition with no hidden subsidies. Those are two practical points.
      I think that all of us who welcome the accessions do so in the right frame of mind. That is not to say that the accessions will solve all the problems. Every opportunity that comes before the European Union opens up new problems. These accessions will be exactly the same. I hope that the Minister will comment on the two specific points that another Opposition Member and I have raised or will write in more detail later.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Like the previous two speakers, I shall keep my comments brief. Before I speak about clause 1, I shall give the House a reminder of the long-held links between Norway and Denmark. I have a personal link as, during the last war, my father commanded the Norwegian and Danish wing in 1942. That should stand as a significant reminder to hon. Members of our long and significant

      1075
      connection with those two countries, many of whose citizens died to ensure that Britain stayed free of the oppression threatening us and Norway and Denmark.
      Clause 1 winds in the whole of the European Communities Act 1972 with the accession treaty. Like all foreign treaties, it is a curate's egg—good in parts. The good parts may just outweigh the bad. The treaty and the clause get my support. It is important to discuss some of the issues and problems that will arise from the clause, which is the Bill's main clause.
      In his opening remarks on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that Europe had been juddering in the past few years as a result of the ending of the cold war. He used the analogy of geographic plates sliding against each other and moving constantly in the process. I understand that analogy and partly accept it, but I take slight issue with it. We need to take a much broader historical perspective.
      In Europe, we are seeing a return to instincts and traditions that we thought had, in many senses, long since died. The accession treaty that brings in those countries of Scandinavia could never have happened before the cold war, which has been the key. For 40 years, that blanket of oppression, which defined two sides so clearly, also split Scandinavia. Finland was locked into a position with Russia. That was reasonable—big brother sitting next to it. Sweden was neutral for the same reason, although that neutrality went far further back.
      9.15 pm
      But that 40 years was not part of a natural process. It was an historical abberation. With the cold war lifted, we are now seeing a range of changes taking place across Europe which perhaps relate much more to the period before the second world war than to the period of the cold war. The unification of Germany has taken place. Germany is growing logically in strength and power to a dominant economic position at the heart of Europe. The position of the worried eastern nations as they look towards Germany and Russia is similar historically to their pre-second world war position. The position of the countries that we believe will come into the European Union is changing. They are having to look in different directions as a result of the collapse of the cold war.
      Underneath all that, the Europe of the European Communities Act 1972, to which the clause refers, developed under the blanket of the cold war. Many views were allowed to develop in isolation from the real world. Thoughts and ideas about the drive to ever-closer union, leading logically to some form of central government or federal state, might have seemed logical to states that had come out of the fear of the second world war under the oppression of the cold war, but, with the end of the cold war, it is time to reconsider the way in which these things will develop.
      The treaty of accession is the first act of the European Community since the cold war. Maastricht was a treaty of the cold war. It was about the cold war and the fears of the cold war. It was not about the changes post the cold war—the new national instincts that are re-emerging and the views of different countries, not least the four referred to in the treaty of accession.
      Looking forward, the accession treaty is the first opportunity that we have to hold a magnifying glass to the
      1076
      Community and the Union that we have created, which is very much a product of the cold war, and to try to understand how best it can change and what is going to happen. We should not be under any illusion about the countries that are about to come in. Many of them are long-term friends and many of them are democratic and adhere to the instinctive principles that Britain has represented over many hundreds of years, but they also bring with them certain aspects that will not be particularly to our liking. They already carry much higher agricultural subsidies than the common agricultural policy represents in Europe. They have much higher social costs than obtain in the countries of Europe.
      We watch time and again as my right hon. and hon. Friends go across to the Council of Ministers and argue about matters connected with social policy and express their fears about the imposition of the extra burdens of social costs which would shackle industry and make us less and less competitive both here in Britain and in other countries of Europe.
      Article 118 and others deal with the social matters that many of us believe should no longer be in the treaty and should be reconsidered. It is time that they were re-examined. When we consider those articles and understand what my right hon. and hon. Friends are discussing, we must have at the back of our minds an awareness that when those countries arrive they will not necessarily be our partners in discussions on these matters that we oppose. These matters cause us the greatest concern—the imposition of social costs. I suspect that they will not be with us in opposing those. It is more likely that they will be with those who seek greater imposition. There may be some differences of opinion on that, but we need to be aware that that is likely to be the case.
      The largest part of the debate in Europe is about the common agricultural policy. The countries that are about to come in carry with them a much higher burden of subsidy than the CAP represents. They would have to take a drop to reach the CAP. Here we are examining the iniquities of the CAP. Sixty per cent. of the budget goes to bureaucrats and into food mountains and, of course, massively into fraud and only 40 per cent., if any, reaches the farmers.
      We all say how dreadful it is, and that we must do something to reform it. In fact, many of us now have the view that much of the common agricultural policy should be repatriated to the nations comprising the European Community. The Government should be saying that more strongly.
      I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to make their position clear on the matter so that we can demonstrate to those countries coming in as a result of this accession treaty that we are seeking a full reform of the CAP. It is not enough for the levels that exist at the moment to be dropped—fraud and bureaucracy must go. There can be only one way do that, and that is by repatriation. The treaty gives us the opportunity to open the arguments again in the run-up to 1996.
      Although the nations joining the Union will be independent-minded—that is to be welcomed, and perhaps they will be far less inclined to go down the road of federalism—there are other matters which will cause us some problems and which need to be looked at. I would point my hon. and right hon. Friends towards the position of institutional reform.
      When the countries come in, they will bring with them—logically enough—a requirement to have more

      1077
      Commissioners, and the number will go up to about 21. We may think that the system is unwieldy and difficult now, and that it is of a centralising tendency which brings more power to the Commission. However, 21 Commissioners will be more likely than not to ask for even more briefs to keep them busy.
      The treaty gives us an ideal opportunity to go forward to 1996 from the springboard of this excellent beginning to reform the institutions. We must reduce the number of Commissioners. That must be a logical position for the Government to place before themselves for 1996, and this treaty gives us an excellent opportunity to do just that. To reflect the nature of what we believe in—a Europe of nation states—decisions must be taken more and more at the intergovernmental level. They should be manipulated far less; we must not have too many Commissioners.
      Perhaps a good thing in the treaty is that it gives us an opportunity to look ahead to the reform of the institutions and of the CAP, and to start opening the arguments that we thought we had locked away following the Maastricht debate. There are things which must be done if we believe in looking ahead from the cold war. That will give us the opportunity to make the Community a workable one of nation states, rather than a heavily centralised, bureaucratic monolith which will collapse under the weight of its own failings.
      I would also urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept that the treaty and the clause make up only the first of two stages of enlargement. If they stand by themselves, there will be failure. But if we accept that this is only a hand's grasp away from enlargement into the east, the Government can feel rightly pleased that we have sought to enlarge the Community. We will have sought not to destroy the Community, but to make it a community of nation states that works.
      I am reminded that one of the directorates-general—either DG XII or XV—produced a document that talked about opening the markets immediately to the eastern countries, such as Poland and the Czech and Slovak republics, so that we could get cheaper agricultural produce, steel and iron. That would benefit us and we would be able to feed people at a cheaper rate and get the materials that would enable our manufacturing industries to compete with places outside Europe. We need cheaper raw materials and those places could have provided them. In return, we would provide them with the cash to continue to develop their own industries.
      Mr. Spearing: I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He is advocating a wider and freer market over a wider area, perhaps on a worldwide level.
      Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a famous British exporter, which I will not name, has said that it cannot get iron castings manufactured in this country and has to get them from Turkey instead? Does he consider that good for our manufacturing industry? Should there not be a limit to the freedom of markets, in the European Community and across the world?
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Of course it is difficult to procure iron castings in this country if none are produced here. For those who used to produce them here, that is of course a major problem. However, the point is that there must be free movement of capital and goods throughout the world
      1078
      if third world nations are to have the chance to develop, and hence to make the money with which to buy the goods that we want to sell them. That is the logic of it.
      If, however, we stand in the middle and block free movement—we are doing it to the eastern bloc countries now—it will be no good lecturing poorer countries about democracy and all the other wonderful things that we believe they should enjoy if we take away from them the one thing that will sustain them through the pain of all the economic changes to come. We must not take away their chance to make the money that they need. They have things to sell us, and it is not right that we should stop them exporting those things to us on the ground that we want to protect our industries. Our industries will benefit in the short and the long term from a commitment by us to trade.
      I accept that there may be some limitations of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. They are what GATT dealt with, and they are why we need to move further along the lines of GATT.
      Without going a stage further, what we are enacting today will prove an unmitigated failure. It is not enough to squeeze in only the countries that can afford the entry ticket and to ignore all the other countries which need us and which we in return need for our trade. Trading with them will do all our industries a power of good.
      I have tremendous reservations about what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to as "deepening". Parts of this treaty include large elements of that deepening process; but I am prepared on balance to accept that the treaty will work to our benefit provided that we follow it up with the second stage: a wider Community. We must fight hard to stop the imposition of more social costs and to reform the CAP and the Union's institutions as we approach 1996. We must ensure that those institutions take account of a Europe of nation states of the kind in which the Government so rightly believe. It is what we must press for.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I oppose Norway's accession to the European Union, and not because I am anti-Norwegian. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) about our close links with Norway—links going back hundreds of years—although the Norwegians did come here originally as a form of early lager louts, stamping all over the good Celtic people up north. More felicitously, we have worked together and fought together in the recent past. It is, of course, not just a question of the Norwegians who died in the campaign to liberate Europe. A large number of British people died in the campaign to liberate Norway.
      Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman's point about our historic links with Norway, which is why I speak more in sorrow than in anger about Norway this evening. I have spoken out against it consistently because of its policy of slaughtering minke whales, in defiance of the International Whaling Commission and the great weight of public feeling in this country and the rest of the European Union.
      The Norwegians are behaving quite unacceptably, which is why I take this opportunity to vent my feelings and express my protest in the only way I can. The Norwegian Government have licensed 30 vessels to kill 301 minke whales this summer. Those of us who are concerned for the future of this great marine mammal are grateful for the activities of organisations such as Greenpeace. A great many brave people from this country,

      1079
      Norway and around the world are at this very moment on the high seas trying to prevent Norwegian whalers from slaughtering the whales.
      The Greenpeace ship Sirius has been attempting to prevent the Norwegian whaler Senet from slaughtering whales. For their pains, apart from being threatened by the Norwegian whalers, the crew have been arrested by the Norwegian coastguards in international waters. Their boat has been seized and they have been arrested.
      I have a number of questions for the Minister. I should like to know what he is doing on behalf of the British Government to protest to the Norwegians about their behaviour in international waters and to find out how many Greenpeace campaigners are United Kingdom citizens who are entitled to the protection of the British Government, particularly when they are trying to prevent the Norwegians from breaking international law and agreements. That is why I am asking the Minister what investigations he has made.
      9.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked what the Government were doing in terms of protesting to the Norwegians about their whaling campaign, as did the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is a great campaigner for animal welfare, particularly in terms of trying to prevent the slaughter of whales.
      What sort of deal, if any, has been done? Is it possible within the context of the accession treaty for any deal to be done? The word used was "derogation". Have the Norwegians been able to get an opt-out? Is there an opt-out in the rules regarding non-whaling within European Union waters? Have the Norwegians been successful in getting an opt-out from that requirement? Is that possible? I should be most grateful if the Minister would give me those responses, as a number of us on both sides of the House are concerned.
      The motor vessel Sirius—the Greenpeace ship—caught a Norwegian whaler shooting a harpooned whale in the North sea. That makes nonsense of the idea that somehow a whale can be slaughtered with a harpoon. There is no humane way of killing a whale.
      When the Norwegians argued that we, the British, kill cattle, I remember the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), making the famous point that we do not shoot a harpoon into a heifer and chase it through five fields trying to kill it. That is precisely the point. There is no humane way of killing a whale.
      I watched some footage of the Norwegians trying to electrocute a harpooned whale and shoot it with a gun. It is absurd and obscene and should not be allowed by any civilised nation. We should make sure that our protest goes out as strongly and volubly as possible from the House to our allies and close friends the Norwegians.
      The Norwegians killed 226 whales in 1993 and at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Mexico recently the Norwegian estimate of the north-east Atlantic minke whale population was seriously challenged by the IWC's scientific committee. The north-east Atlantic minke whale was protected by the IWC in 1985 because of its seriously depleted numbers, the population having been
      1080
      reduced to less than half its original size because of the activities of Norwegian whalers, with some help from the Russians and the Icelandics.
      Now that we have been able to build up the population of minke whales, the people who caused them to be depleted say that the population is sufficient to resume some form of slaughter.
      The Norwegians started by calling it scientific whaling, which was one way of getting round the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. Now they are going for limited commercial whaling.
      The Norwegians do not need to sustain whaling for their economic prosperity. They have one of the highest per capita incomes on earth. Norway is a very rich country. If it were a small agricultural fishing community, I might have some sympathy with its predicament, but the Norwegians have no economic justification for doing what they are doing.
      Much of that whale meat is exported to Japan. The Japanese are rather like the Norwegians in terms of their totally oblivious attitude to world opinion. They feel that they can kill anything because it belongs to them.
      Whales do not belong to the Norwegians. No one harvests whales; there are no whale fish farms. Indeed, as we know, the whale is not a fish—but try to convince the Japanese of that. When they are attacked for whaling, they say that the meat-eating north is imposing itself in a racist way on the fish-eating culture of Japan. I must point out to the Japanese that, for all their scientific whaling, they still have not worked out that the whale is not a fish but a mammal—a mammal that can feel the pain of a harpoon shooting through it, or electrodes pushing electricity through it. Whales can feel bullets. Moreover, they have a family system and a community that may be something like ours. They sense; they feel; they understand.
      The Norwegians still believe that they have the right to kill whales. They do not have that right. The whales belong to all of us. They are international. They do not live in Norway; they migrate, and come to our waters as well. They belong to us as much as they belong to the Norwegians, and the Norwegians have no right to slaughter them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)—who leads the Opposition's Council of Europe delegation—and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember the occasion when Mrs. Brundtland addressed the Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am proud to be a member. She paraded her green credentials—Mrs. Brundtland, who goes to the United Nations and says, "What a wonderful green socialist I am." I can only say that I am ashamed that Mrs. Brundtland should even presume to describe herself as a socialist. I do not recognise her as a socialist; I recognise her as a murderer, who is slaughtering a creature that is capable of comprehension which in many ways resembles that of human beings.
      I realise that I am becoming very emotional, Dame Janet. I am not tired and emotional; I am just emotional, because this is an emotional subject about which I feel strongly. I believe that my feelings may be shared by the great majority of our citizens, and it is on their behalf that I make my protest about the activities of the Norwegians. This has been an all-party effort: there has been a good deal of cross-party support. We have supported the British Government in their stand at the IWC. We have supported Ministers who have gone there and spoken for the British

      1081
      people, protesting about whaling. We shall continue to support the Government, as long as they support the whales and represent the feelings that the people of this country have expressed.
      I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my questions, and will realise that there are strong feelings about this subject—not only on my part, but throughout the House.
      Mr. Cash: I believe that the question at the heart of the debate is, "Will the Bill benefit the United Kingdom, and will it involve Germany?" That is the ace question that has lain at the heart of the European Community since 1945. Will the Bill improve or retard our ability to achieve our objective?
      An article in The Spectator recently quoted something that Bismarck said in 1877. He described his diplomatic goals thus:
      "to create a situation in which all powers other than France need us, and are prevented as much as possible from building coalitions against us because of their relationships to one another."
      The question is, will the treaty that is now part and parcel of the Maastricht arrangements enable us both to widen the European Community and to ensure that we do not deepen it? We are told that, through the treaty, we will widen it; but I fear that it will be deepened as well. The two processes run together because of the legal framework created by the Maastricht treaty.
      In fact, the accumulation of power that will accrue as a result of enlargement and the accession of the four new countries—given the trade balances that operate throughout the European Community in favour of Germany—will enhance its power. The voting structure will ensure that there is a greater opportunity for those alliances to build up in favour of the matters that the Germans want to push through. I shall not today go through the extended list of areas in which the Germans have managed to accumulate greater power. However, it started with the speech on the Oder-Neisse line and, more recently, there has been the beef ban. There is a range of matters including the interest rate question, the way in which they behaved over the EMS and the recognition of Croatia. All those issues will be made much more difficult if the consequences of the Bill in terms of the accretion of the voting power of countries dependent on Germany results in their voting with Germany.
      The most recent figures on the subject in the "Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook" of 1993, which describes trade with Germany throughout Europe, including trade with the four applicant countries, show that, for Austria, the share of the total of exports to Germany is 39.8 per cent. The figure in respect of imports from Germany is 42.9 per cent. The effect of that is that the two countries are totally intertwined, and there is no reasonable prospect that the Austrian Government will at any time have the degree of independence that is claimed for them by those who say that the enlargement of the Community will enable Austria to go its own way as a separate nation state. I think that it will be bound up in an undesirable way. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that that is the direction in which things will go.
      The figures for Norway are different. The figure for exports is 13 per cent; the figure for imports is 14 per cent. For Sweden, the figures are 15 per cent. and 18 per cent. respectively. There is an increasing indication, borne out within the Community as it stands under Maastricht, of an
      1082
      unhealthy over-dependence of the other countries upon Germany. That will affect the voting structure and that is why qualified majority voting, which we discussed in the House some months ago, is so important.
      It is precisely for that reason that it is essential that we reconsider the whole of the Maastricht negotiation and that the entire process back to the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act is re-evaluated at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. That re-evaluation must include the relationship that we have with the four applicant countries.
      I welcome their involvement in the enlargement process. My fear is that because it is based on Maastricht as well—Maastricht is about government rather than trade—the implications of the voting structure will tend to enhance the intrinsic power of Germany at the expense of the rest of Europe. That is contrary to what I believe was intended by the other members, although not by Germany.
      Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. and, on this occasion, learned Friend. I should like his legal advice before my hon. Friend the Minister begins his speech. My hon. Friend referred to qualified majority voting. If one of the applicant nations does not join the European Union, article 2(2) of the treaty comes into effect. That article says:
      "The Council of the European Union, acting unanimously, shall decide immediately upon such adjustments as have become indispensable."
      The threshold for qualified majority voting is 64. If the Government took the view that it was not indispensable to reduce that threshold, would they be able to make that point stick?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It was the reason why I tabled an amendment, which was not selected—and I make no criticism of that decision. The amendment highlighted the fact that, if all the countries did not ratify the proposal through referendums, according to the constitutional requirements envisaged in article 2 of the treaty, the voting structure would be distorted. My hon. Friend makes a valid point and his contribution was a valuable one.
      Although I have the greatest sympathy with many of the arguments on whaling and other matters that were advanced by some hon. Members, this issue is much more important than it seems. This is not just any old accession treaty: it enhances and increases the centralising process of the Maastricht treaty because it is based on it.
      My comments on the relationship between the acceding countries and Germany were not hostile towards Germany. That is not the point. The key question is whether the measure will create an imbalance in favour of Germany as compared with the other member states. We are talking about what is called the European Union or the European Community. If it is to be a fair and proper arrangement, it must be balanced and it must not automatically lead to one or two countries enjoying superdomination over the others. The original treaty of Rome and all that went with it in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was designed to avoid such an occurrence.
      In May 1953, Jean Monnet said that, if Germany were to obtain a degree of industrial domination in Europe, which he could not foresee but which has happened, the concept of the European Community that he had in mind would disintegrate. That is part of the problem. With great

      1083
      respect to my friends in the United States of America, the situation was not enhanced by Mr. Clinton's recent speech. With deep regret, I say that he has failed to understand the nature not only of the susceptibilities of the people of Europe but of the intrinsic balance of power that prevails even today, although some people may pretend that it does not.
      I should also like to quote a great statesman, Bismarck. Some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members may be surprised by that, but those people who know the difference between the Bismarckians and the Nazis would understand that he knew what he was talking about when he said:
      "I have always found the word Europe on the lips of those politicians who wanted something from other Powers which they dared not demand in their own names".
      Instead of blood and iron, we now have pen and rules. The four applicant countries may yet discover that it is not as easy to join the European Community as they had originally hoped.
      In the past few days, I have received a letter from a 13-year-old constituent of mine. It states:
      "We, as a nation, have just remembered D-Day and all the lives that were lost because we didn't want anyone else saying what our country should do. Why did we bother if it was all going to be changed anyway?"
      The girl also sent me the list of signatories that she had collected. I read that letter with some concern because it is 50 years to the day since my father was killed in the war and won the Military Cross fighting in Normandy for the liberation of Europe. Many other people did the same. Many Germans do not want that to happen again and they have honest intentions; others, however, have another agenda.
      I fear that the effects of the treaty and the accumulation of evidence of the assertiveness of Germany is not in the German interest. The Norwegians know and understand that only too well; the Austrians know and understand it; and so do the Finns from their relationship with Russia. I do not have time now to go into the Russo-German treaty, but I am sure that the Finns will be watching it with grave concern. The same is true of the Swedes.
      It would be easy for us to assume that this short Bill, which contains only a few lines, can be skated through today, dealt with in the odd point of order and regarded as having relatively little importance. I believe that it is more important than that and will prove to be much more important than many people have thought. Indeed, on the question of the relative currencies in Europe, The Daily Telegraph reported only a few days ago:
      "The Germans are at last in a position to dictate terms. They have no intention of rescuing the dollar, just as they had no intention of helping the pound when it was in trouble two years ago. The strength of the mark suits them well."
      In an intervention on Monday on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I pointed out that the Scandinavians have an obsession with the deutschmark—there is no question about that. That is part of the general problem and of the German question. The Germans themselves have to consider their relationship with those countries to ensure that we do not return to the problems of the 1930s.
      I do not need to detain the Committee for too long, but I must point out that those who believe that the treaty will be advantageous for the United Kingdom should bear in mind a number of issues. There are said to be four
      1084
      advantages in the accession of the new member countries. The first is that they are relatively rich and would be net contributors to the European Community. Secondly, they are Protestant countries and would thus shift the balance of power against the subsidy farmers of the Mediterranean or olive belt. Thirdly, like Britain, they are attached to their national sovereignty and would resist further centralisation in Brussels.
      Finally, and most important according to Government officials, enlargement is a necessary prelude to extending the European Community into eastern Europe. It is said that that expansion is in turn a moral obligation and the best guarantee against the follies of Euro-federalism as the united states of Europe would be too unwieldy once it included the eastern states. However, none of those arguments stands up to a moment's examination.
      While the four new applicants would all be net contributors to the European Community budget—
      Mr. Duncan Smith: Only just.
      Mr. Cash: Only just, as my hon. Friend rightly says. I refer him to the trade statistics that I mentioned earlier, which are well worth reading. They include details of the massive deficits in favour of Germany.
      Those countries' contributions would not noticeably reduce the burden on Britain caused by the Euro-budget, which we shall be discussing in a few months' time. As most of the new entrants' money has already been marked for cohesion funds—a point that some of my colleagues might like to note—to subsidise Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Spain, the idea that the new entrants will tilt the balance against agricultural interests is even more extraordinary. All four of the applicant countries subsidise their farmers even more than the European Community subsidises its farmers through the common agricultural policy.
      Mr. Marlow: If we are being invited to vote for clause stand part on the basis that the four new countries will be net contributors to the Community budget, what should we do when we debate the European Community finance Bill, which will mean that we shall have to pay much more money into the Community budget than will be forthcoming from the contributions of the four applicants?
      Mr. Cash: As ever, my hon. Friend asks a difficult question. At prayers today we said, "Lead us not into temptation", but the logic of my hon. Friend's argument is difficult to resist.
      As I said, all four of the applicant countries subsidise their farmers even more than the EC does. Between 1989 and 1991 the average farm subsidy was 48 per cent. in Austria, 57 per cent. in Sweden, 71 per cent. in Finland and 75 per cent. in Norway—compared with a mere 46 per cent. in the EC. How does that argument stack up? The Minister of State is now having a nice little joke with our distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should be delighted if the Parliamentary Secretary would come to the Dispatch Box and try to deal with my question, because it is a bit of a problem.
      Indeed, the most contentious issue in the membership negotiations for each of those countries was Europe's insistence that they cut their farm subsidies and food

      1085
      prices, which are even more absurdly distorted than those in the EC. How successful were we? I should like an answer to that question.
      As for the Scandinavians' fiscal probity, Sweden's Government deficit last year was 14.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, and Finland's was a mere 9.1 per cent. Those figures compare with deficits of 8.2 per cent. in Britain and 9.7 per cent. in that profligate country, Italy. We should bear those facts in mind.
      I like to be fair in such matters, so I must admit that Norway does not have any deficit problems—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do not want to join."] No doubt Norway's lack of problems is due to its massive oil revenues, and I would not mind betting that some of the Norwegians have sussed out that joining is not such a big deal, so Norway may not join anyway.
      However, Norway shares a certain fiscal characteristic with all its neighbours in Scandinavia. Wait for it. The Government collect more than 50 per cent. of national income in taxes. My intervention in the Foreign Secretary's speech on Monday pointed out the contrast between our policies and theirs on the social chapter, environmental protection and all that goes with them.
      It is said that the Scandinavians are proudly independent and that they would help us to curb Euro-centralisation and harmonisation. However, I cannot agree with that either. As I have said, in almost every sphere in which Britain has fought against Brussels—social policy, trade union rights, consumer protection, environmental regulation—in the negotiations as well as in their domestic policies the Scandinavians have been on the side of more centralisation and regulation, not less. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I regard the attitude of Opposition Members to what I am saying as eloquent testimony to my argument. It is precisely because I disagree with them so much that I have reservations.
      Even on monetary policy the Scandinavians have signed up enthusiastically to a single currency for Europe. And, as I have already said, they have an obsession with the deutschmark—complete with 100 per cent. interest rates.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: The deutschmark will be the single currency.
      Mr. Cash: That is a thought, which I should like to share with my hon. Friends who are worried about the exchange rate mechanism. As Mr. Anatole Kaletsky has pointed out, compared with 100 per cent. interest rates, the Prime Minister's ERM policy could be described as something on the margin.
      It is clear why Labour wants the Scandinavian countries as comrades-in-arms, but why on earth should their membership be a top priority for us? At this point, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office throws its last argument into the arena. It says that enlargement is inherently desirable regardless of which countries are admitted because by widening Europe we shall prevent or at least delay any further deepening along federal lines. The Foreign Office advisers, who will urge the Prime Minister and others to back down on Europe, regard this as their intellectual trump card. But that argument is even more specious and certainly more unworthy—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the European Union (Accessions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]
      Question agreed to.
      Again considered in Committee.
      Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friends may say that they have missed some of the argument. I assure you, Dame Janet, that I shall keep my argument as short as possible. I was on the point about the intellectual trump card of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am no more hostile to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office than I am to the aspirations of the Chancellery in Bonn. I regard what the Foreign Office has done as a perfectly understandable if mistaken policy. I do not say that in respect of this Bill because, although I have been critical about aspects of it, if there were a vote, I should vote for it. That is only because I believe that we must reorganise, under the 1996 conference, the whole of the Maastricht negotiations. The whole thing must be renegotiated. If we succeed in that objective and if the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office and the House are determined to ensure that we manage to renegotiate the Maastricht treaty, the four applicant countries will benefit from the fact that we shall have unravelled the legal framework that currently shackles and chains us down.
      The diplomats have misled themselves. Do they really think that they can gull the French, the Germans, the Belgians and the other federalists, or are they really trying to fool the Tory party into supporting the federalism that is secretly embedded in the continuation of Maastricht within the framework of this treaty? That is the key to understanding the arrangement.
      If the Community is to be widened, it must be a proper widening and not one that gives more power to Germany. After all, only the other day the Prime Minister turned down Mr. Jean-Luc Dehaene precisely for that reason. We are told that our right hon. Friend did not want Jean-Luc Dehaene to be imposed on us by the Germans. If that is the case, surely the corollary to that is that we ensure that we are not conned by the arrangements under the Maastricht treaty itself. This treaty of accession builds on that.
      I shall simply conclude—
      Mr. John Biffen: Oh no.
      Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend says no. I must say that I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
      This treaty is more important than it looks. It is more important than its size, because its content is the future of Europe. It treads a path through history. It treads a path to the borders of Russia; to anschluss in the 1930s. It treads a path throughout the entire European foreign policy of the past 200 years. I hope that those four countries, on an enlarged basis, will contribute to the European Union. That is why I shall not vote against the treaty, but only on the basis that this treaty, like the others, will be renegotiated in 1996.
      Mr. Biffen rose—
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The debate has

      1087
      had all the variety of a Second Reading with a great deal of the detail that we would expect in Committee. I shall endeavour to answer at least the main points that have been made. If I fail in that, I shall write to hon. Members who may have raised matters of particular detail.
      The clause is the heart of the Bill. It takes the treaty into United Kingdom law by the familiar means of using the European Communities Act 1972. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) began the debate in characteristic style by suggesting that the four EFTA states were deluding themselves about the advantages of entering. In saying that, he underestimated their political acumen and their ability to assess where their own interests lay. All those countries have vigorous democratic systems. The whole process of applying and joining the European Economic Area and now, we hope, the European Union has been accompanied by an extremely wide-ranging and vigorous public debate in those countries. Indeed, the result of the Austrian referendum showed that, at least in that country, the people there weighed up the advantages and disadvantages and came to the very clear conclusion that the future of their country lay in the European Union.
      My hon. Friend mentioned fish in particular and that issue was also raised by other hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who is not in his place at present. My hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and others questioned me about the balance of advantage and, in particular, they wanted an assurance that our own fishing industry was not put at any disadvantage by the accession treaty. I re-emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Second Reading that we have successfully reaffirmed the principle of relative stability as the foundation for the allocation of fishing opportunities between member states. That fact was conveyed to us with satisfaction by representatives of the fishing organisations.
      Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is not present but I, too, noted the Foreign Secretary's phrase. Is that not typical Euro-mysticism? How can one assess relative stability? Who is to decide what is relative to something else? Looked at cynically, does it not simply mean that it is a flexible opportunity for change?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I leave it to the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to comment on that. He wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 31 March to explain that
      "we were extremely appreciative of the efforts of'—
      my hon. Friend and myself—
      "to safeguard successfully the…cod quota and the principle of relative stability. The satisfactory outcome to the succession negotiations…is very welcome indeed."
      If the industry is happy with the outcome of the negotiations, that should be enough for the House of Commons.
      On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that there were new opportunities for British fishermen. During the long and arduous negotiations we gained additional flexibility to fish western mackerel in each of the management areas concerned, including for the first time access to Norwegian waters for that stock. I can
      1088
      reassure the Committee that Spain has not gained any new access either to the North sea or to the waters of the west coast of Scotland and Ireland.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East talked about our gross contribution. That is more properly a matter for future legislation, when the House of Commons will have an opportunity to consider the EC finance Bill in the next Session. I reaffirm and re-emphasise that, for the purposes of the Bill before us, as a result of the accession of the four applicant states the United Kingdom's net contributions will be lower than they otherwise would have been.
      Mr. Marlow: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the Committee what the savings will be from this Bill and what the costs would be from the EC finance Bill. Perhaps he could make a comparison in terms of the ratio of one to the other. I think that the Committee would be interested to know that at this stage.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can repeat the figures that were given on Second Reading. During the first six years of accession our net contribution will be lower by about £350 million than it otherwise would have been. Thereafter there will be a net saving of about—it is only an estimate—£75 million a year. As for the other information that my hon. Friend wants, I must tell him that the Bill that we shall be considering in due course will refer to how our contributions will be affected by the Edinburgh conclusions on own resources that we and other member states will be paying into the budget between now and 1999.
      I have been asked what would happen if one or more member states failed to join. Provision is made for that in the treaty that is under consideration. There would, of course, have to be some consequential adjustments, especially to the qualified majority voting arrangements. That is foreseen in the treaty and it would not be necessary to have a renegotiation.
      The arithmetical alterations to the qualified majority voting figures would be limited to those technically necessary by the non-accession of one or more member states. That would be done by unanimity at a Council meeting held immediately after the relevant referendum. I can assure the Committee that the arithmetic is relatively uncontroversial and straightforward. There is a precedent because in 1972 Norway said no in a referendum and precisely the adjustments that I have described had to be made. That was done almost immediately and without controversy, and in time for the other member states to come in on the date specified in the treaty.
      Mr. Marlow: The treaty states that a qualified majority will require 64 votes. If Norway does not join, would it be the Government's view, and would the Government be unanimous with other Governments, that it would be indispensable to change that part of the treaty? If the Government did not agree, there would be no unanimity. Therefore, there could be no change and we would stick on 64. If we stuck on 64, a blocking minority of 24 would exist instead of 27. I think that that would be something that the Government would favour.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If Norway failed to accede, the treaty blocking minority would reduce from 27 to 26. That is clear from the arithmetic. It would not be open to the Government, or any other member state, to take a

      1089
      completely different view, which I believe my hon. Friend is inviting me to take, because the treaty refers to adjustments which are indispensable. That clearly refers to the technical and consequential adjustments that would flow naturally from the non-accession of one member state.
      10.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred at length to defence and security matters. I will not follow him down all the paths that he mapped out. However, I agree with him that it is very important that the future evolution of a European security apparatus, particularly through the Western European Union, is fully compatible with the Atlantic alliance and NATO in particular. That is one reason why we hope that Norway will accede, because it is a long-standing member of NATO.
      The fact that three of the EFTA states concerned are currently neutral shows that they are shifting in their attitudes to that concept. Many people in those countries believe that the traditional neutrality that they have followed has become out of date following the end of the cold war. They are seeking to integrate their foreign policies more in line with the common foreign and security policy which the Maastricht treaty set up for the first time. There is no obligation on those states to join WEU, but I hope and expect that in due course they will at least become associated with the treaty.
      In reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), I put it to him that the fact that the European Union can welcome into its membership countries with a wide diversity of security attitudes—three of them being neutral—is an example of that multi-track Europe which my hon. Friend seeks. That is achieved within the existing treaty. No amendments are necessary. That shows that the treaty of Rome as amended by Maastricht is highly tolerant to several different security systems.
      However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North about a point that he made. A similar point was made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). This enlargement round is not, by itself, sufficient. We, too, regard it as one further step, but an important step, on the way to others which must include, in some way, the countries of central and eastern Europe.
      Mr. Jenkin: Is not the real test of whether we are beginning to decentralise the Community not the multi-speed, multi-track aspects of the separate pillars—the pillars are apart from the main part of the Community—but whether we start to have multi-layer, multi-speed and multi-track in the central pillar, in the European Community itself, and cease to have to regard the acquis communautaire as inviolate, untouchable, sacrosanct and hitherto completely protected by subsidiarity? The Edinburgh guidelines on subsidiarity specifically state that one cannot attack the acquis communautaire.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall not follow my hon. Friend too far down that road as it is essentially a point for other debates. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made the point from the Dispatch Box that even within that central pillar of the Community there is already a variable geometry or multi-speed system. The provisions relating to monetary union allow for different timetables for different states. I would argue that, leaving aside how the Community or the Union may develop, we
      1090
      already have in it more than the seeds—we have the reality of some of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North is seeking.
      The hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) questioned me about whaling. I can assure both hon. Members that Norway did not seek and certainly did not receive any opt out or derogation from the provisions in existing EC law relating to whaling. The combined effect of the existing measures on whales and whaling amounts to a de facto ban on commercial whaling by member states in Community waters. Norway has agreed to and will be signing up to all the obligations and rules as they relate to whaling.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Under the terms of the accession, at what point must the Norwegians cease whaling or find themselves in contravention of EU law?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When Norway joins the European Union—on 1 January next year, I hope.
      That brings me to an important point on which I think that I differ from the hon. Gentleman. He said that he did not want to see Norway join because of its whaling policy. I argue that all who seek an end to Norwegian whaling should welcome Norway into the European Union. The hon. Gentleman asked me what this country could do to try to protect whales more effectively from the Norwegians. The answer is, very little until Norway joins. Once it is subject to the rules, regulations and laws of the European Union, the whales will be safer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work for and welcome Norway's accession in due course.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give us a clear and specific assurance—I know that he will—that, in the event of the Norwegians seeking derogation, the Government will stop it?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No derogation has been sought and the question does not arise. I must be candid with my hon. Friend—many of the rules and regulations have not been tested fully in the European Court. I think that it was the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow who said that the issue may go to the European Court, and he may be right. The position is not entirely clear. I am giving what I consider to be the clearest guidance that I can at this stage.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am a Conservative Member with some doubt about the relevance of subsidiarity. Could the Norwegians claim that it was a matter that they should decide under subsidiarity because of its critical importance to the Norwegian economy?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, they cannot do that because they must and will sign up to the existing obligations and rules. Those rules cover whaling in directives such as the habitats directive—specifically aimed at whales and their protection.
      The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and others talked about salmon. Norway will be entitled to all the rights of membership, including trade access for fish products. Article 53 of the treaty provides for the Commission to monitor the effect of serious disturbance of fishing markets and to take appropriate

      1091
      action if necessary. Once Norway is a member, if dumping can be proved or the payment of state aids by the Norwegian Government can be shown, action can be taken.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) discussed institutional reform. That is chiefly a matter for 1996, not this debate. But we share his view that there are too many Commissioners. There will be 21 if all four countries accede, which is too many. I do not know what they will all find to do. At the next intergovernmental conference I hope that we shall be able to find a way of reducing the number. I hope that it will not reduce my hon. Friend's enthusiasm to know that Mr. Delors shares his view. Mr. Delors wants a more effective, smaller Commission, whereas the maverick view might be to keep increasing the number of Commissioners so that they eventually collapse under the weight of their own expansion.
      Certainly it is the view of the Government—I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford on this—that a pruning of the numbers would help us to achieve a more efficient, effective and responsive Commission. We shall work to that end in 1996.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) made several points which I shall not endeavour to answer as I tried to do so on Second Reading. However, I must take issue with one point that he made. He takes a most pessimistic view of the future development of German foreign policy. I do not share that view. In particular, he made the point—I regard it as an allegation—that Austria would become little more than a German satellite and could always be counted on to vote the German way. That is clearly wrong. In their referendum, the Austrian people did not vote 2:1 for entry in order to achieve an anschluss. They wish to join the European Union precisely because they will be able to sit alongside their German neighbours in the Council of Ministers on the basis of equality. It is precisely to avoid domination by one powerful neighbour that they believe that their relationship with Germany is best pursued in the context of a wider union.
      With those few remarks, I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
      Ms Quin: I welcome clause 1. It is the main clause of the Bill and the main part of the ratification process of the treaty of accession. Just as we welcomed the Bill strongly on Second Reading, so we welcome clause 1. The Minister was correct in saying that as it was the main clause it allowed a wide debate and allowed many hon. Members who had perhaps wished to speak on Second Reading to make their points on this occasion.
      My hon. Friends have made many valid points, particularly on fishing, on whaling—raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—and on the possible consequences for European security arrangements of the accessions that we are considering today.
      We have heard a variety of speeches from Conservative Members. They were somewhat different from the speeches on Second Reading. Several hon. Members almost seemed to be against enlargement. Certainly, the hon. Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) seemed to think that this enlargement would reinforce centralism within the European Union.
      1092
      Many of us feel that it would not. They talked about "unthinking centralism" and seemed to suggest that the applicant countries favoured it.
      The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) talked about the commitment of the four countries, which we welcome, to high levels of social protection. He said that that was a direction that he and others did not like. I certainly do not believe that the four countries are in favour of unthinking centralism, and neither are we. It seems to me that many of the European Union countries already offer a decentralised model. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the belief in decentralisation here.
      One thing that struck me in the debate was the great amount of suspicion which seems to exist among Conservative Members towards their own Foreign Office Ministers. [Interruption.] I am glad that they agree so strongly. It was particularly true of the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford and perhaps even more striking in the speech of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who said that he did not believe a word that the Foreign Secretary had said on fishing.
      The Governments of the four countries believe strongly that it is in their interests to join the EU—including the people of Austria, as shown by their referendum result. Interestingly enough, they also feel that the terms of entry meet their concerns. Perhaps in that respect they are somewhat more fortunate than we were when we joined some 20 years ago. It is now up to the people of those countries where referendums have not yet been held to give their views. I hope that they will be encouraged by the support that most of us in the Committee have given to them tonight.
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
      Mr. Spearing: Let us have some democracy in this place.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
      Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
      Question put accordingly and agreed to.
      Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      POWERS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      10.30 pm
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to make one brief point which is of some significance, and I would appreciate the Minister's view on it. When we passed the Maastricht treaty, we were told that when we became citizens of the European Union we had certain entitlements given to us in relation to voting in European elections and in council elections.
      Although I did not choose to become such a citizen, can the Minister say how article 13 on page 359 of the treaty conforms to that? The article provides that member states

      1093
      who find that 20 per cent. of their citizens are citizens not of their country but of other parts of the European Union can say that those people cannot vote unless they have resided in that country for five years and cannot stand for election unless they have resided there for ten years. That is set out in detail in article 13 of page 359. Can the Minister say why the Government accepted that and, in particular, whether it does not conflict totally with the assurances given in Maastricht on the rights of European citizens?
      My second point is also brief. As the treaty also excludes certain areas of Norway and Sweden from having representation in the European Parliament—the Minister kindly provided detailed written answers on 11 July on the matter—is that also in conflict with Maastricht? It seems to be almost a form of ethnic cleansing. If that applied in Britain, and we felt that 20 per cent. of our voters were French, German, Italian or from other parts of the Union, we could say that they would have to have had five years' residence. That seems to be an unusual clause which does not seem to have any relevance to the previous treaty. Why on earth was it put in the treaty at all?
      Mr. Spearing: First, may I apologise for a wholly out of order remark, Mr. Lofthouse? You may realise that a brief contribution at the end of the previous debate might have been of interest, particularly as the Minister rose when the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and myself had indicated that we wished to speak. I will not pursue that matter because we are now debating clause 2.
      I wish to ask—why is the clause here? We are all, whether we like it or not, citizens of the European Union and we all have a vote for the European Parliament. If the powers of the European Parliament were being expanded by virtue of the treaty of accession, under the European Assembly Elections Act 1981, there must be permission for that in an Act of Parliament.
      I hope that the Minister can tell us why the clause is here. I was not aware that the treaty of accession, as distinct from the treaty of Union, enlarged the powers of the European Parliament, although of course it would enlarge its membership.
      Mr. Biffen: What I have to say is tolerably brief and could certainly be as easily contained in a debate on clause 1 as on clause 2. It does not require much elasticity to ensure that it can relate to clause 2. I want to talk about the principles of consent which are contained in the Bill. I want to do so in the context of a quite remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It will not be the first occasion when a parliamentary campaign is conducted with relentless concentration upon one central issue which it is believed will have growing dominance in the public perception of what is at stake.
      I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is in his place. He adds great intellectual distinction to our gatherings—a Greek planted among Romans—and he will confirm that Cicero warned again and again about the danger that Carthage posed for Rome. In that tradition, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is claiming that we cannot understand the European Union, or the implications of this Bill, or the enlargement process described in it, without relating it all to German policy. Those who believe that enlargement will, as it were, modify the sharpness of Germany have got it wrong.
      1094
      Enlargement will merely serve to underline the German confrontation with the rest of Europe that will almost inevitably proceed from the collapse of Soviet power as Europe reverts to its more historic power structures.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the determination with which he pursues the argument. I happen to disagree with it; I would not want hon. Members to think that I share that view of Germany. I do say, however, that we cannot understand what is developing in Europe without trying to see it through the eyes of the major European power. That does not entail facile performances of the type that President Kennedy attempted when he went to Germany and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner". That was all very well for a word bite, but our perceptions and judgments must be a good deal more sustained than that.
      I welcome the clarity that my hon. Friend brings to these debates, although I also understand why the Minister did not immediately endorse his arguments. This is a debate that will remain with us. I look forward to more—perhaps briefer—contributions with the same degree of persistence by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.
      To return to my theme of consent: clause 2 mentions the European Parliament, perhaps the institution most clearly linked to the idea of consent in all this. As we are being somewhat intellectual this evening, I should like to recall Shakespeare's comment that
      "a monarch needs no unwilling subjects".
      The truth about the European Community is that it is a bosses' show, a bureaucrats' show, a politicians' show. It has never been a people's Europe, although I know the Liberal Democrats hope to develop that idea.
      Perhaps the most depressing feature of the recent European elections was the fact that so few people turned out to vote, and they do so in diminishing numbers at each election. Worse still, in almost every country the elections were fought on every subject under the sun—except the European Union. There is no basis for the EU in popular consent, which has been lacking even when a referendum has been used as a device to secure endorsement. The consequences of using that device have been relatively short lived.
      My observations arise not out of any hostility for the arrangements that we have in the European Union but out of the fact that what I have described is the truth. Any analysis rooted in realism must accept that. Some of my hon. Friends have begun to develop a dialectic that contrasts widening with deepening. Those who claim that deepening must parallel widening must be quite sure what they mean by deepening. They had better be quite clear as to what further commitments should be made and, above all, they have to be able to demonstrate that the powers that will be taken by Government do not have to take account of the very thin levels of popular support for the European Union across all its functions.
      I make that observation with no great foreboding or warning, except that if we are to have a debate about the balance between widening and deepening, let it be quite clear that unless and until we have clear, enduring evidence of popular affection for the European Union as a concept which commands loyalty and, above all, will support sacrifice—because government is about ordering priorities and the sacrifice that goes with ordering priorities—and if that mood and that commitment does not exist, whatever

      1095
      we advocate in respect of deepening has to take that severely into account or once more we shall embark upon a false trail which will end in disillusion.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall try briefly to answer one or two of the points that have been raised. I shall have to write to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who raised a rather detailed point. One might say that he has taken out one of my stumps as I am not aware of the particular residency voting requirements in the clause to which he drew attention.
      In answer to my hon. Friend's other point, there are provisions for some of the states, particularly Norway and Finland, to decide later whether they wish to include particular areas in the franchise for the European Parliament. My hon. Friend may be referring in particular to the Aland islands, which enjoy a high degree of autonomy within Finland. The Finnish Government have not yet decided whether they should be directly represented in the European Parliament.
      The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked what was the point of the clause. We are required to legislate through the House when the powers of the European Parliament are enhanced in any way. They are in one small and detailed respect: the European Parliament will have the power to vet and approve the credentials of Members of the European Parliament elected between now and the end of the year from the accession states, in the event that in the next few months any of those countries wish to elect people to sit in the European Parliament. After 1 January next year, their credentials will have to be approved and that power, small though it is, will pass to the European Parliament.
      In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), I cannot possibly satisfy him or give him an adequate answer, except that I entirely accept his point about the need to take the people with us. One of the lessons of Maastricht was that the political class in Europe got well ahead of the people that it represented. It behoves us all to try to create a Europe for people, not one to satisfy political vanities or bureaucratic convenience.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 4

      CLARIFICATION
      'Within 12 months of the ratification of the treaty the Secretary of State shall present to parliament a report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union, its agricultural policy and its fishing industry.'.—[Sir Teddy Taylor.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is the only amendment which has been selected out of five pages of amendments, not because the Chairman of Ways and Means has become mean, but because in every single piece of European legislation the Government are becoming more clever in having a short title which
      1096
      prevents any detailed discussion on almost anything. Only through the skills of our own researchers are we able to have one particular amendment discussed in new clause 4.
      The Government should be aware that it does not exactly help democracy when Members of Parliament are unable to discuss any aspect of policy in detail. While they are certainly very clever, conscientious and able, it does not exactly help democracy when we have a Bill which contains many important issues, but Parliament is unable to discuss them at all.
      My new clause is simple. It suggests:
      "Within 12 months of the ratification of the treaty the Secretary of State shall present to parliament a report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union, its agricultural policy and its fishing industry."
      I think that it is a very good idea for the Government to tell hon. Members a year later whether things have turned out as they predicted. Irrespective of their views on the EC, hon. Members will surely agree that almost every day we receive information revealing that last year's pledges and assurances have turned out to be a load of rubbish, and that the Government are not really in control.
      10.45 pm
      It will be remembered that a Council was held in the lovely city of Edinburgh. Although they would be closing down plenty of military establishments the next day, causing much sadness among the military community, the Government agreed to give more cash to the EC, on one condition—that there were strict budgetary limits on spending. Hon. Members cheered, just as they cheered Mrs. Thatcher when we did same thing under the Single European Act. We said, "At last we have control. They cannot overspend by a penny." But we have already seen what has happened. We have seen a statement signed by the Paymaster General, which I obtained privately, and also one from Brussels, showing that, despite that pledge, our people will have to spend £1,000 million above the legal limit on agriculture in 1995 because the Commission says that that must be done. The Government say that it can be done if we spend reserve funds.
      The same applies to contributions to agricultural spending. We were given assurances that things were sorted out now—that the amount would not be much more. I have challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have with me the paper which states that in 1995 Britain will be paying an extra £2,000 million in its gross contribution. That means that every family living in every constituency, and all the poor Members of Parliament who have been assured that things are under control, will be spending an extra £3 a week.
      It is all very well for some hon. Members to laugh, but there are many poor families in Britain. Many people cannot make ends meet. It is no fun for them to be told, "Sadly, we have got it wrong. You will all have to pay an extra £3 a week." It may be fun for Members of Parliament, but it is not fun for people who are finding it difficult to pay gas, water and electricity bills—people who may be unemployed. It is wrong, evil and terrible that Members of Parliament are consistently being led up the garden path and not being told the truth. Why not make a gesture of reconciliation? I am only asking the Government to come back to us a year after the treaty's ratification and say how it has worked out.
      Fishermen are being told not to worry—everything will be all right. Our fishing industry will be slightly stronger, we are told, with with more opportunities; the Norwegian

      1097
      industry will be all right. The plain fact is, as the Minister knows—he is one of the few honest guys in this place—that we have already agreed that in 1996 restrictions on the Spaniards will be removed. We have seen what has happened to our fishing fleet in the north: the Spaniards have cleared it out and our North sea catches are down to less than a quarter of their former value. Foreign Office Ministers may walk out of the Chamber, but they know the facts. They know that the value of our catch has fallen by three quarters. People become unemployed and all we do is offer them cash.
      The Government say, "Do not worry about these countries joining; we are going to get more money. Britain will be £300 millon better off." The detailed Library papers, however, show that it is not quite as simple as that. Because we shall pay large amounts of compensation to these countries for several years in the form of transitional payments, no saving at all will be made, at least for the first four years. We are far from sure what will happen after that. I may be wrong, the Government may be wrong, but why not come back just once, in a year, and say how it worked out?
      The same applies to agriculture. We are told time and again that agriculture will get better and that expenditure will go down. Yet time and again the Government's assessments are shown to be inaccurate, to be lies and misunderstandings or to be a mistake by the Foreign Office.
      We cannot carry on like this. People are suffering. According to our Foreign Secretary, the average family in this country pays £28 a week extra on its food or taxes purely because of the CAP. Next year, they will be paying an extra £5 a week. That is not right.
      Auditors' reports are published showing fraud and extravagance, but they are never debated in the House. I am not asking the Government to accept all that I am saying or to say that we should leave the EC or encourage others to do so or even that we should spend less money. I am simply saying that, as a gesture of reconciliation, the Government could agree to approve a clause that asks them to come back in a year and tell us how things have worked out. I do not think that that is asking too much. The Government could agree to do that just once. They could say, "We thought certain things were going to happen and they all did. How right we were"; or perhaps, "Things did not quite work out as they should." That would be far better.
      My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that we do not want to pass unnecessary legislation. We do not want to stick something into the Bill that we do not need. The Government will probably say, "Why bother about it anyway because hon. Members can ask questions?" My hon Friend the Minister is an honest chap in the Foreign Office and he knows that we cannot table questions. We cannot ask about our trade with the EC. We are told that the answers are contained in information in the Library. Sadly, the Library figures are not precise because there are many different ways of assessing them. The Government have now achieved a situation in which on many of the basic issues, such as contributions and spending on agriculture, Members can no longer ask questions; we have to go to the Library.
      Just once, I want to ask our friendly Foreign Office to come back in a year and provide some figures and let us have a look. We do not even need to have a debate,
      1098
      although I should prefer one. This is a sensible and helpful suggestion and what has happened in the past more than justifies the request.
      The new clause does not propose revolution. We are not proposing that everyone should stand on their head or that policy should change. We are simply asking for an auditor's report in one year to see how things have worked out. If the Opposition and the Government accept that, it will make us all happy. We will know that at least once we will have a proper auditor's report on what has happened, without having to listen to all the nonsense, misunderstandings and sometimes the blatant untruths that, unfortunately, we sometimes hear from the Foreign Office. Many hon. Members have tonight specified that the Foreign Office is the source of deliberate misunderstanding. That is wrong in a democracy.
      Ms Quin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on at least having his new clause selected for debate. As he pointed out, he was the only person who managed to achieve that.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will admit that the new clause is modest in its scope. The Opposition are not particularly enthusiastic about it, simply because it refers to only certain aspects in the treaty of accession and not others. There are many other matters in that treaty that could be looked at. For example, social matters form an important section of the treaty. Other issues include environmental matters, regional matters and matters relating to democracy and open government. There is the declaration by Sweden on open government which also forms part of the accession documents.
      The hon. Gentleman has made some valid points, particularly about the cost of agriculture for people on low incomes or who are living in poverty. However, if the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about poverty, he and his colleagues should speak out much more on the taxation system, the VAT rises and the deregulation employment policy of the Government, which have done a great deal to promote poverty in this country.
      Six-monthly reports are presented on developments in the European Union. Issues such as those referred to in the new clause can properly be raised in those reports and in Select Committees and European Scrutiny Committees. I am not certain or convinced that the new clause is necessary. As I said earlier, we do not like its selective nature. If a report were to be presented, we would much rather that it referred to all the issues raised in the accession treaty. The hon. Member for Southend, East has an obvious and repeated distrust of the Foreign Office, so I am not sure that he would believe what was in such a report.
      Mr. Wilkinson: In the debate on clause 1 stand part, I called my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) Mr. Valiant for Truth, and right hon. and hon. Members who heard his speech on the new clause will understand why. My hon. Friend and the supporters of the new clause are not asking anything extravagant or extraordinary of the Government. All we are asking is that their practice should match their rhetoric. We have often heard calls for open government and that the Government are custodians of the practice of open government.
      The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) said that the new clause is modest and not comprehensive,

      1099
      which is true. It does not refer to the environment or social policy, but it does refer to the three key issues that impinge on people's livelihoods and welfare.
      The question of the European Union's finances is fundamental. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to the notional saving of £300 million over six years in our net contribution, which was described by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his Second Reading speech, and the big increase in this country's gross contribution next year and probably thereafter. We want to see how that equation develops and whether we will achieve the savings that have been promised.
      One needs only to take a trip around the countryside and to see the fields of oilseed rape and acres of set-aside land full of weeds to wonder whether the costly extravagance of the agricultural policy is working and whether it is in the interests of our people.
      As for the fishing industry, as I mentioned in the debate on clause 1 stand part, whole communities are becoming derelict, which is a tragedy for many coastal villages throughout the land. We want to see whether policy is working out as the Government promised it would.
      The new clause makes a modest, simple request of the Government. In a year's time, we want them to give an account of themselves on the important matter of the workings of the European Union after the accession of the four applicant countries, if all four join.
      Mr. Winterton: I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Apart from the intervention that I made earlier, this is the first time that I have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friend said that the new clause is modest in its intent and objectives. That was confirmed by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who spoke for the Opposition. It is extraordinary, however, that Back Benchers have been able to debate only one amendment or new clause on a matter that I believe is of constitutional importance.
      In an intervention in an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) highlighted the lack of interest in Europe—in the European Community or the European Union—displayed by the people of this country. He said that the interest in and support for the European Community or European Union was in fact diminishing. I believe that the House has an important role to play, and I deeply regret the fact that it is unable to make a more meaningful contribution to debates such as this on behalf of the people whom we are here to represent. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has made that point many times.
      11 pm
      The objectives behind the new clause are very limited. If the House does not allow its Members to represent the deep concerns of the people of this country about matters of constitutional importance such as this Bill, those people will wreak their vengeance on the political parties that have allowed the Bill to be passed in their name.
      I do not think that it is unreasonable for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), to ask the Government and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has
      1100
      displayed an understanding and realism greater than those of any other Minister at the Foreign Office, to give a sympathetic response to the new clause. Is it wrong to ask a Minister to come back to the House in 12 months' time to give an account of how the Bill has affected this country in three important areas of activity—finance, agriculture and fishing?
      I accept what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said in her brief contribution. Many of us would have wished the new clause to go even wider. If the House is to play a meaningful role in the governance of this country—in the United Kingdom and within the European Union—surely it is not too much to ask the Government to report to the House on whether what they said during the passage of the Bill was accurate and, if it was not, to provide an accurate report on precisely what has happened and to outline its actual impact.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East mentioned the cost to the people of this country of the European Community. I believe that he talked of a figure of £28 a week for each family. Is it not right that the United Kingdom Parliament should be able to judge what the Government have done and represent the interests of the people? If not, why are we debating the Bill at this time of night? [Interruption.] I am happy to hear a response from hon. Members who are not even within the limits of the Chamber. It is extraordinary that we should be able to debate only one modest new clause tabled in respect of a measure of such great constitutional importance.
      I believe fervently in Parliament and in the role of its Back Benchers—I have been practising it for 23 years without a break. I suggest to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has made a very modest request of the Government. I do not think that the Government are being honest with the House and with the people of this country unless they are prepared to report back to the House in 12 months' time to justify the policies that they have urged the House, and especially their colleagues, to adopt.
      I have been brief and direct. I believe that, yet again, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, like my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Ruislip-Northwood, has done the people of this country a great service. My hon. Friends will go down in the history of this place as honest, direct and honourable. I ask the Government to do the same.
      Mr. Marlow: I, too, intend to be brief, Mr. Lofthouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for introducing the new clause, and I am especially concerned that we should have an early report on the implications of the treaty for the finances of the European Union.
      One of the most important aspects is European monetary union. As we all know, that will be very expensive indeed, as countries in southern Europe are bought off through cohesion. The four applicant countries are in the penumbra of the Hun, so they will be in favour of European monetary union. Their joining the Community will make it more likely to go forward. Therefore, if we are to influence the debate on European monetary union, it is most important for the Government to make their position crystal clear at an early stage, through the report.
      We know the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that a European state without a single currency is

      1101
      unthinkable. We know the views of the Secretary of State for the Environment—"Not tonight, Josephine. We do not know what the circumstances are; we do not know where we shall be, or what our attitude will be." Monetary union will take place by stealth.
      The real question, the question to which we all need the answer, is: what are the Prime Minister's views? One could say that over the past few weeks my right hon. Friend has made a fresh start, and his fortunes are improving. Perhaps by making his position clear in the report on European monetary union he could add momentum to that recovery.
      It would be useful to revisit my right hon. Friend's article in The Economist of 25 September 1993, in which he said that the nation state was here to stay. Is that compatible with monetary union? He also said that the people find the centralising vision of Europe alarming. Is that compatible with monetary union? He said that decision making should come closer to the people, not further away. Those issues could be reported on in the annual report.
      The Prime Minister said in that article that economic and monetary union was a rain dance—something for the witch doctors. That is all sensible and encouraging stuff. But why not go further, especially as the four applicant countries will probably be hell-bent on monetary union? Let us make our position clear soon. Let us build on my right hon. Friend's success at Corfu, especially in the light of his views as expressed in the article in The Economist.
      A real friend might say to my right hon. Friend, "John, you're on a roll. You're doing well. Cash in; take it further. The party in the country, the party in Parliament, and above all the people, want a European policy with which they can be at ease, a policy that they understand, and one that suits the United Kingdom. You've got it; go for it."
      Of course we all know what a single currency would mean. It would not be a convenience for commerce or a bonanza for business. It would mean massive transfer payments. Those could be set out bit by bit in the report—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As is not uncommon, the hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the new clause. Will he get back to it?
      Mr. Marlow: I have nearly come to the end of my remarks, Mr. Lofthouse.
      I am saying that the Prime Minister, by bringing forward the report, could make his position with regard to monetary union crystal clear to the country. It is not a convenience for commerce or a bonanza for business. It means—these are items that could be set out in the report—a massive transfer of funds from the United Kingdom to the southern European countries. It means single interest rates and a single economy. It means harmonisation and a high rate of taxes. It means a single bank and it means inevitably that instead of being a nation state, instead of being the United Kingdom, we should become a mere province of a single, centralised European state. The decision making would be not closer but further from the people. There would be an expensive rain dance of an unrepresentative and unaccountable Government—the witch doctors of the European elite. That would bring forward a storm of resentment and ungovernability which would wash away not only the Treasury's policy and the
      1102
      agricultural policy, which would be reported on, but some of the aspects of European co-operation of which we are all in favour.
      It could be said in the report that the British people cannot afford European monetary union and do not want European monetary union. From his statements, it is clear that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not want European monetary union. If the heart and mind of the Prime Minister and the hearts and minds of the people of the United Kingdom take the same view on this vital issue of policy—this vital issue of identity—does it do any harm for the Prime Minister to make that clear now? Does it do any harm for him to say, "I will never accept the single currency and I will never accept the single European state"? The two are a distinction without a difference.
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I want to be helpful to my hon. Friends because I think that the provision of information to the House is important. National Parliaments should be more involved in European legislation and developments in Europe than they have been. However, the information sought in the new clause is generally available in other ways. During the passage of the Bill, we have tried to set out the implications of accession—in documentary form as well. On 29 March, we sent to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs a fairly detailed account of the negotiations at that point.
      In addition, my hon. Friends have overlooked the elaborate scrutiny system that already exists in the House. All important documents coming from the European institutions are deposited with the Select Committee on European Legislation and are available for scrutiny and debate. Indeed, I gave evidence to that Committee yesterday. Developments in the European Union are reported in six-monthly White Papers and Ministers frequently make statements on their return from Council meetings.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in particular mentioned finance. It is true that the EC budget will have to be adjusted to take account of the states that accede, but that, too, will be the subject of scrutiny and debate. The documents will be deposited in the normal way, I hope before the end of this year.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sheer scale of this? The EU proposes to provide 200 million ecu in the first year for Norway alone. It is estimated that the cost of agricultural support is 2 billion ecu. Where is that extra 1.8 billion ecu to be found?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As has frequently been made clear, agricultural support in the four countries is extremely high. One of the advantages of bringing the countries into the European Union is that it will reduce the degree of agricultural protection in Europe. Bringing them into the Union will be a net gain in terms of the reduction in agricultural protection. The overall flow of funds is to our advantage. I repeat the point that, although the common agricultural policy will remain expensive in those states, they are more than paying their own way—not only in the long term, but even during the transitional period before their systems align fully with existing policies.
      The point on which I must end is that we should not legislate unless we absolutely have to. That is the principle, after all, which underlies our deregulation efforts. Given

      1103
      that all the information will be made available under normal proceedings, I must invite the Committee to reject the new clause.
      Question put and negatived.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Spearing: The Committee was surprised that the Government Front-Bench spokesmen, or one part of their team, took steps to prevent the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) from contributing to an earlier debate. However, with his characteristic ingenuity and his knowledge of the rules of the House, he was able to speak.
      On Third Reading, the Bill being about the Community and accession to it, I, too, would like to use the opportunity that the Standing Orders provide to make some brief remarks. The Bill is to permit the applicants, if they so wish, to join the Community—this Union which prides itself on its democratic tradition and its democratic opportunity, but which nevertheless is at something of a turning point due to the increasing dominance of one of its member states. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred a short time ago to what happened in Europe 50 years ago. Through the sacrifice of his father 50 years ago today, people like myself were spared the attacks of certain weapons in London. Those of us who survived that period were determined that after that war Europe would be a place where such a war could not happen again.
      The Bill and the Community that we are offering to our Scandinavian neighbours is founded on treaties which cannot—and, I fear, will not—provide that sense of security, of democracy, of co-operation that we all sought 50 years ago. The reason is that, instead of encouraging co-operation, the Community's treaties encourage competition. Instead of going about things in an open way, they encourage package bargaining and secret negotiation. That is why our friends in Germany, in seeking to keep the freedom of their lands, are advocating a federal structure which some Conservative Members and others in this country rightly fear so much.
      In other words, the Bill will enable our Scandinavian neighbours, if they so wish, to accede to a Community whose constitution and whose treaties are flawed because they do not serve the purposes for which they are advertised and cannot bear the fruit for which they are constantly praised and, one hopes, expected to produce. I do not think that they can achieve those objectives.
      The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, myself and others have not thought this because of antagonism towards our friends in Europe. It is the opposite of that. We want to ensure that friendship is founded on real democracy, real freedom and real open government, but we fear that these treaties will not ensure that. I hope that our Scandinavian friends, having been given the opportunity to choose whether to stand aside and to co-operate outside the
      1104
      alleged Community and the alleged Union, will opt to do so. It will be to their advantage and to the advantage of all countries in Europe if they choose not to accede at this stage. It will also be to the advantage of the House, the quality of politics in this land and the citizens of the United Kingdom.
      11.20 pm
      Mr. Marlow: I shall be incredibly brief. We are in favour, apparently, of bringing these countries into the European Community because Europe is moving our way, because they will agree with us and because they will help us to move Europe our way. Apparently they will help us to reform the institutions of Europe.
      I have a suggestion for the Government. Money is power, and the less money the institutions of the European Community have, the less power they have—so do not bring forward the European Community finance Bill. Our finances have changed and Europe's finances have changed. There is massive fraud. We know that £300 million is being wasted on the European Parliament. We are taxing our elderly people to pay for their heating and we cannot afford it. Let us cut off the supply of money and add that to the alliance that we shall have with the four new countries of the European Community. Let us beat some sense into the heads of the bureaucrats of Brussels.
      11.21 pm
      Ms Quin: On Second Reading, the Opposition warmly welcomed the Bill and the accession treaty. Today's debates have not changed our minds. There have been many contributions and it seems that, especially among Conservative Members, the penny has dropped. There seems to be an understanding that the countries joining the European Union have European policies and domestic policies which have a great deal in common with Labour and rather less in common with the Government's views. That makes us, the Opposition, even keener about enlargement.
      The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said that we risk not always taking the peoples of Europe with us in many of the matters that are discussed in the European Union and decided upon. He talked of the danger of a democratic gap between the European institutions and the people. It is important for us to demystify Europe and to make it relevant. We believe that the four new countries will help us to do that. Their commitment to open government—as a reality and not just rhetoric—is welcome.
      The four applicant countries will bring considerable economic, social and environmental assets to the European Union, and they will help to make it more democratic. We welcome that, and we welcome them. We are pleased that the Bill is having its Third Reading.
      11.22 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Members' Allowances
  11.23 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions should have effect—
  Part A. Office costs allowance

  (1) The limit on the office costs allowance—

  (a) for any quarter in the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for a quarter in the immediately preceding year by 2.3 per cent; and

  (b) for any quarter in any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for a quarter in the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

  (2) The limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Part of this Resolution.

  (3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

  (4) In this Part of this Resolution—

  "quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January;

  "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April

  (5) The references in paragraph (1)(b) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.

  Part B. Supplementary London allowance

  (1) The annual rate of the supplementary London allowance—

  (a) for the period of three months beginning with 1st January 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual rate at which the allowance was paid immediately before that period by 1.5 per cent;

  (b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual rate determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph by 0.4 per cent; and

  (c) for any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the rate for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

  (2) Any rate determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

  (3) In this Part of this Resolution—

  "the supplementary London allowance" means the allowance payable in accordance with paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary expenses;

  "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.

  (4) The references in paragraph (1)(c) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.

  Part C. Additional costs allowance
  (1) The annual limit on the additional costs allowance—

  (a) for the year beginning with 1st April 1993, should be the amount obtained by increasing the relevant limit by 1 per cent;

  (b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual limit determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph by 1.81 per cent; and

  1106

  (c) for any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

  (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) of this Part of this Resolution the relevant limit is the amount equal to 144 times the Class A(i) London rate for a night's subsistence which took effect in the Civil Service on 1st August 1992.
  (3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
  (4) In this Part of this Resolution—
  "the additional costs allowance" means the allowance payable in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Resolution of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary expenses;
  "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.
  (5) The references in paragraph (1)(c) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.
  Part D. Car mileage allowance
  (1) Paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 20th July 1984 relating to the car mileage allowance should have effect—

  (a) in relation to journeys commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1994, as if the rates per mile shown in the Table were the rates obtained by increasing each of the rates at which the allowance was previously paid by 2.3 per cent; and

  (b) in relation to journeys commenced in any subsequent year, as if the rates per mile shown in the Table were the rates obtained by increasing each of the rates for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

  (2) Any rate per mile determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny.
  (3) In this Part of this Resolution "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.
  (4) The references in paragraph (1)(b) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.
  Part E. Winding-up allowance
  (1) The following provisions of this Part of this Resolution should have effect with respect to Members of this House who cease to be Members after 31st March 1994.
  (2) Provision should be made under arrangements approved by the Speaker for an allowance to be made in respect of the expenses which, after a person has ceased to be a Member, are still required to be incurred in connection with his Parliamentary duties.
  (3) The limit on that allowance should be four-thirds of the amount which, for the year in which that person ceases to be a Member, is the limit for that Member on the office costs allowance for a quarter in that year.
  (4) The allowance should be paid to the person who has ceased to be a Member or, if he has died, to his personal representatives or a person nominated by him or selected under the arrangements approved by the Speaker.
  (5) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.
  (6) In this Part of this Resolution—
  "quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January;
  "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.

  1107
  Part F. Recall of House during a recess
  (1) The following provisions of this Part of this Resolution should have effect with respect to any occasion on which, during a recess, this House is recalled before the expected end of the recess.
  (2) Members who attend the House during the recall should be reimbursed in respect of such extra costs which are wholly and exclusively attributable to the recall as are necessarily incurred by them in connection with travelling—

  (a) from any place to London; and

  (b) during any further recess immediately following the recall, from London to any place (provided that the purpose is to fulfil, before the expected end of that further recess, plans which were in existence before the recall).

  (3) For the purposes of this part of this Resolution—

  (a) "recess" means not only a period when Parliament stands prorogued to a specified date but also any period when this House stands adjourned to a specified date, and the references to the expected end of a recess are references to that specified date;

  (b) "reimbursement", in the case of a Member, means the payment to the Member of the amount of the extra costs concerned and the payment to the Inland Revenue, on account of the income tax liability of the Member, of the difference between that amount and such a sum as, after deduction of tax at the marginal rate applicable to the Member, is equal to that amount; and

  (c) "extra costs", in the case of a Member means costs in respect of which the Member cannot be reimbursed otherwise than by virtue of this Part of this Resolution.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I inform the House that Madam Speaker has not selected the amendment.
  Mr. Newton: In case anticipation has been aroused by the length and apparent weight of the motion, I should say at the outset that it represents no major or strategic change. I hope, conversely, that it does not create too much disappointment, either.
  The first four parts of the motion replace uprating mechanisms that for various reasons have ceased to work with one that does work and can be expected to continue to work.
  The fifth part meets a problem that has arisen because of the greater contractual commitments that Members these days are finding it necessary to enter into. It is merely designed to ensure that those commitments can be met if a Member dies or ceases to be a Member for any other reason.
  The sixth part corrects an anomaly which has hitherto meant that, if Parliament is recalled during a recess, Ministers can receive help with the expenses incurred but Members cannot. I hasten to add that the correction takes the form of extending help to Members and not taking it away from Ministers.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will Members be reimbursed retrospectively for being called back? I was called back from Australia just over a year ago. That was hugely expensive.
  Mr. Newton: I am afraid that it is not retrospective, and I cannot hold out hopes of anything other than sympathy to the hon. Gentleman this evening.
  I will deal first briefly with the four existing allowances uprating mechanisms that have failed. The main one is, of course, the office costs allowance. That was formerly increased with effect from each April by reference to the pay of senior secretaries in the civil service. However, in the same way as the move to new civil service pay
  1108
  arrangements broke the old automatic linkage for Members' pay, which we replaced last year, so this one too is breaking down and needs to be replaced.
  The additional costs allowance, to help with the problem of Members needing accommodation in two locations, was formerly uprated in August by reference to civil service overnight subsistence rates. With greater delegation to individual Departments, that too has ceased to be viable.
  The position in regard to its near relation, the London supplement, is a little more complicated. Essentially, however, it is that it used to be linked to the inner London weighting paid to civil servants. That is being replaced by a recruitment and retention allowance paid at the discretion of individual Departments—which, once again, makes it unusable as an uprating mechanism.
  Lastly, the motor mileage allowance used to be tied, in a very specific and detailed way, to a schedule of motoring costs which is no longer available in a form which can be operated within the terms of the underlying resolution of the House. Here too, therefore, we need a new uprating mechanism.
  Against that background, we spent some time considering the possibility of devising what might be called fancy new mechanisms which could be presented as in some way cleverly and specifically related to each of those different purposes. We concluded that all of them would be vulnerable to endless argument, and probably in due course once again be overtaken by change comparable with what has caused the present problem.
  We therefore decided that far and away the simplest, most straightforward and most sensible solution was to link them all to the retail prices index. That also has what I, and I suspect the House, regard as the inestimable advantage of being the most durable solution—that is, the one most likely to remain workable on an automatic basis, and thus to avoid the need for the House to have to keep passing new resolutions.
  That is what the first four parts of this resolution do: they provide for all four allowances to be uprated with effect from April 1994 by reference to the RPI, and henceforth to be uprated with effect from each succeeding April by reference to the RPI.
  The only reason for the slight variation in the actual percentage increases from April 1994 is that we have also taken the opportunity to make another sensible simplification, which is to end the variations of uprating date and to put everything on to an April to March basis.
  Thus, the office costs and motor mileage allowances rise by 2.3 per cent., which is the RPI increase from April 1993 to April 1994. The London supplement rises by 1.9 per cent., which represents 1.5 per cent. due from January 1994 in respect of an earlier increase in the civil service inner London weighting, plus 0.4 per cent. for the RPI increase in the three months from January. The additional costs allowance rises by a little more—2.8 per cent.—but only, I emphasise, because that relates not to 12 months but to a 20-month period since its last uprating in August 1992.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify a point relating to the office costs allowance with particular reference to the amount that we pay our secretaries or research assistants. In essence, is the increase being limited to 2.3 per cent.? If that is the case, it is lower than the increase being granted to the civil service, and that would be very unfair to our

  1109
  secretaries, who do a great deal of work and who often have to work very long hours. Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. Newton: I have explained, I hope fairly clearly—although I am moving fairly rapidly because I sense that it is probably the wish of the House that I should do that—that we have used the RPI as the most sensible and straightforward mechanism.
  The office costs allowance, which was substantially increased a couple of years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will recall, embraces several other costs, such as equipment costs and others, which are not salary costs these days and which hon. Members meet. I judge that that mechanism remains the most sensible solution overall.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. Friend based his argument about the increase in the allowances on the basis that they were originally fair. However, the additional London living allowance is based on the average number of sittings days of the House multiplied by the allowance given to a civil servant for one night in London.
  How is it possible for any hon. Member to rent a flat or have any living accommodation on the basis of such a calculation? Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that there was any fairness in that calculation in the first place? Will he confirm that all the allowances are paid against proven costs, as costs, to hon. Members, and there is no question of them being a benefit?
  Mr. Newton: That is certainly the case, and I was going to say later that it is absolutely clear that allowances are generally paid against claims that the expenses have been wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance and pursuit of parliamentary duties.
  On my hon. Friend's first point, it will ultimately be a matter for the judgment of the House, but I judged that some attempt to look strategically at this or any other allowance now would not have been the most sensible thing to do. I thought that it would be better to establish a sensible uprating mechanism.
  In the process of what I am proposing, we have moved away from the position whereby the uprating depended on overnight subsistence costs, which in turn related partly to hotel charges. One reason why the additional costs allowance rose very little for a couple of years was the effect of the recession on hotel charges, which rose very little. The move to an RPI indexing system will at least ensure that my hon. Friend will receive a more sensible deal than he would otherwise have done.
  I can sum up this part of my speech in two sentences. The purpose is simply to allow the limits on claims for expenses necessarily incurred by hon. Members in fulfilling their duties to be updated for inflation, and to ensure that they are annually updated in future. None of the increases, looked at on an annual basis, exceeds 2.3 per cent.
  I turn now to the fifth leg of the resolution, which involves the winding-up allowance. That is the amount, currently a maximum of one sixth of the office costs allowance, which is intended to enable Members—or their executors where the issue unhappily arises as a result of death—to clear up their obligations after leaving the House. It has become clear that this amount is now inadequate in the light of, for example, prevailing contracts
  1110
  of employment with staff and the periods of notice which are often required in relation to the increasing amount of equipment that Members have.
  Having taken advice from the Fees Office, I now propose that the allowance should be set at a maximum of one third of the annual office costs allowance, although Members will see that, for technical reasons connected with the way that the basic allowance is defined, the motion is drafted in terms of four thirds of the quarterly allowance.
  In addition, the motion widens the scope of costs that can be covered from purely secretarial to all necessary costs. I emphasise, of course, that, in common with the OCA, and indeed others, the new figure is a ceiling to which legitimate costs can be claimed, and not in any way an entitlement.
  Finally, I come to part F of the resolution, which introduces a new allowance to cover the necessary expenses of Members returning to Westminster in the event of a recall of Parliament during a recess—not, I should say, that we are planning one. [Interruption.] We are planning a recess.
  As I said earlier, the present position is that Ministers faced with a recall can have their expenses covered by their Departments, but no such protection is available to other Members. The motion proposes that Members faced by a recall during a recess should be covered for all costs
  "wholly and exclusively attributable to the recall",
  which includes, assuming that time and plans make it reasonable, the expenses also of travelling to resume a holiday. This is not, of course, an allowance we would expect to be activated very often, but I think it a reasonable safeguard to introduce for Members who need or wish to attend the House in the event of a recall, and I hope hon. Members will agree with me.
  Indeed, I need hardly say that I hope they will agree with, and support, the resolution as a whole. I believe it to be reasonable, realistic and restrained, and I commend it to the House.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: We are considering the recommendations in the shadow of recent events. We all recall what happened two years ago, when we took a decision, by a majority of the House, to increase the allowances paid by a large sum. That decision was unpopular outside the House, and the decisions that we take tonight will be seen in the twilight of the events that have taken place in the past three or four days. There is a great deal of cynicism about our status here. Most of it is unjustified, but we have to bear it in mind.
  We heard tonight from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for the Liberal Democrats that an offer in excess of £10,000 was made to a Member of this House for secretly carrying out a small duty of booking rooms. That is the type of information that will be presented in the press tomorrow along with the recommendations that we make tonight. I believe that the recommendations are prudent and sensible.
  We could put into our recommendations, if not tonight then on a future occasion, the same conditions that we lay down for other people who live off public money—those who live on income support. Those people have their ceiling of income support, as we have our recommended ceiling, which we have agreed. If they receive income in excess of that amount, of even a fiver a week, that amount is deducted pound for pound from their income support. In

  1111
  order to defend our position, if income comes into our pockets for doing parliamentary duties, we should consider deducting that amount pound for pound from the amount that we receive.
  When we took the decision to increase our allowances two years ago, 53 hon. Members opposed the increase. Those awkward 53 Members had substantial outside interests, which I believe brought them in a great deal of money. They opposed the increase, and I presume that they do not take the full allowance now. I believe that we are equal as Back-Bench Members of Parliament. We have agreed on a certain amount, and that should be the ceiling.
  Mr. David Ashby: We are talking about the office costs allowance, which is the expense of running an office. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the money that he receives from the trade union, which goes for running his office in the constituency, should be deducted from his allowance? If hon. Members receive money to run the parliamentary office from other sources, the hon. Gentleman has a point. Most Labour Members receive large amounts of money from the unions to run their offices.
  Mr. Flynn: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that I and many other hon. Members receive not a penny from a trade union or any other organisation. I believe that the 14 per cent. of Labour Members who receive sums of money from trade unions and commercial bodies should act in exactly the same way as the 85 per cent. of Conservative Members who receive such pay.
  If the amount that the House decided was appropriate for the office costs allowance was applied to everyone, the House could take a more realistic decision on what the office costs allowance should be. Some Members voted for a low office costs allowance when they realised that vast amounts of other funds would come into their office to do exactly the same job that all the rest of us do.
  We have to look at the matter with some realism, and recall the decision that we took two years ago. The many Members who opposed the increase two years ago should consider the amount of money that comes into them. We must restore respect to the House, which we all love. It is the centre of our lives. We regret the comments that are being made about the House and Members of the House.
  We have to say that any money that comes in to us, wherever it comes from, whether it is for making speeches or acting in the long term for a company, should be set against our allowance. As has been said, there is little difference between someone being paid a set amount to ask a single question, and someone being paid a substantial amount to act on behalf of a certain company over a period of years.
  There is another point, which has probably been made. We have had a debate on the pensions industry and a debate on the Trade Marks Bill in the Chamber in recent months. In both debates, only one Conservative Member spoke who did not have a financial interest in the subject. Those hon. Members were speaking not on behalf of their constituents or their party, but on behalf of companies outside. Neither a trade union party nor a Transport and General Workers party stood at the election. There was not
  1112
  a Legal and General party—or an Ian Greer party—standing at the general election. People voted for the Labour and Conservative parties.
  We have degraded our own democracy, and we have prostituted it. We have become so used to the atmosphere of soft corruption in the House that Members are shocked when they hear that what they are doing is wrong, and deeply wrong.
  11.39 pm
  Sir Peter Fry: I do not intend to follow what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said. My inclination is to say that any Member of Parliament who feels that his allowances are too high does not have to claim them. Anybody who feels that he is paid too much can pay it back to the Chancellor, who would be delighted to receive it.
  My comments will be confined to the car mileage allowance. I say to the Leader of the House, with respect, that I believe that the car mileage allowance is rather different from other allowances. It was historically fixed to a scale of mileage allowances proposed by the Royal Automobile Club, but we know that that scale of allowances has long since disappeared. The problem has been how we are to peg the car allowance to a more realistic figure.
  The fact that the original figure upon which we now base the allowance is years out of date does not give me the utmost confidence that we have the right formula. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that, perhaps unlike other allowances, the amount of money that is required to run a car could well rise, and, if the Chancellor keeps to what he said in the previous Budget statement, it will rise considerably faster than the cost of living.
  Therefore, we shall progressively find that, unless some other things happen, Members will be increasingly expected to provide more out of their other taxed income to use on the car on parliamentary business. The only way that that can be avoided is to ensure that, when the Inland Revenue comes to the point of deciding whether any of the car allowance should be taxed, it should take into account what the cost is, and raise the amount that it allows before tax applies.
  The present system for those who are now roughly paying the full amount of tax on the mileage allowance is such that, in many cases, Members are literally at break-even point. Certainly there is no question of their making any additional income from the car allowance. That makes it more important that we are careful in that respect.
  If we accept my right hon. Friend's recommendations tonight, does he not agree that a message should be imparted to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the figure that they accept before tax is due on the mileage allowance is also altered to take into account not just the rise in cost of living but the actual rise in the cost of running a car while on parliamentary business?
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his report to the House. It is never the right time to talk about allowances or salaries. I know full well that, despite the interventions from one or

  1113
  two Members, what has been done tonight shall be seen in the press as being a payment to the Member, not a payment relating to costs incurred.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin indicated assent.
  Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Member nods his head, and he made a similar point a little earlier.
  I know that that will happen. We are rightly bringing some relief to our hard-worked secretaries and research assistants, who are absolutely necessary for us to run our offices. It is pleasing to hear tonight that, in future, there will be an automatic allowance based on the retail prices index.
  Speaking as a Back Bencher, and not in my position as chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I should like to ask that thought be given in future to ensuring that that allowance is not part of a Member's allowance, and that secretaries and research assistants are paid as though they were in the civil service. That would not prevent Members from choosing their own research assistants or secretaries, but it would mean that they were paid the right salaries, based on a civil service grade. It might also offer them career prospects.
  I believe that, if a Member dies or retires, his staff should be kept on if possible. New Members arriving after an election could then select staff with experience. These people would also be available to help out Members whose secretaries were ill or on holiday—a better system altogether.
  It would be good to have a House personnel officer to advise us on these matters. What I propose would also remove the uncertainties surrounding what research assistants and secretaries should be paid; they would be paid against a definite grade.
  Perhaps the employer's element of our assistants' national insurance contributions could be paid, too. That would remove from Members the difficult choices of how much they can afford to pay in salary increases for their hard-worked staff, or whether to spend the money on office equipment. That too would afford us some relief.
  The rest of the proposals are correct, in my submission. The change to the supplementary London allowance will help Members with London constituencies. I agree also with what has been said about the additional costs that may be associated with the car mileage allowance. It is right, furthermore, to equate Members with Ministers when it comes to reimbursement for the costs involved in a recall of Parliament during the recess.
  1114
  I know from conversations with the Leader of the House that one of the difficulties has been finding a civil service grade to which to attach these figures. Now we are to base them on the retail prices index, so we shall not have to go through the whole process again. That is welcome.
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. I know that it has not been easy to achieve what he has done—there is never a right time, as I said—but the proposals in respect of the office costs allowance will, I hope, benefit our staff.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Leader of the House assure us that the car mileage allowance policy is consistent with Government policies on reducing car use, and compatible with the idea of using the smallest, most fuel-efficient cars that are commensurate with our duties?
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the position of staff who are off sick or on maternity leave. Our current allowances do not adequately cover this problem. I recognise the difficulties, but increasingly Members' allowances are fully committed, and that can put Members whose staff are off sick or on maternity leave under pressure.
  I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me a commitment tonight, but I ask him for an assurance that he will review an arrangement which has been in place now for a number of years, and which should be updated.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Newton: Other hon. Members have raised with me the same point as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has just mentioned, and I am looking into it. I am sorry that I have not managed to find a solution to put before the House tonight.
  I have taken note of other hon. Members' points. I have to say to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that I view his points with a little less sympathy than some of the others that were put to me.
  I shall certainly ensure that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) is drawn to the attention of those to whom it was directed, and I would say to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that I am a member of the Government, so I regard what I have suggested as being consistent with Government policy.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Members' Interests
  11.50 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the proposals in paragraph 18 of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker wishes me to announce that she has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie).
  Mr. Newton: This is now the sixth speech I have made on House of Commons issues since Monday and I shall try to keep this one reasonably crisp and brief.
  I can be brief because the purpose of the resolution is simply to implement recommendations from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, whose Chairman will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to set out in more detail the Committee's proposals and the reasons for them.
  The House will probably need little reminding of the background. In March 1992, the Committee produced a major report on the registration and declaration of Members' interests. That report was debated on the Adjournment in June 1992 and formally approved by resolution of the House in June last year.
  Most of the changes, which were substantial, have proved acceptable and appear to have worked without difficulty. That cannot, however, be said to have been the case in relation to the new requirement that Members who are members of Lloyd's should not only register that fact, but also list their syndicate numbers for the current year and their membership of any syndicates which remain unclosed. This requirement has led to difficulty well known to the House and complaints from a number of Members who argued strongly that those requirements went beyond what was reasonable compared with what is required in other fields and exposed them to intrusive, inaccurate and damaging speculation about the details of their financial affairs.
  The Committee, therefore, and in my view rightly, decided to carry out a further inquiry and to make another report to the House. It is the recommendations of that report for further changes, having examined those complaints, that are the subject of this motion.
  Essentially, the Committee has accepted that the requirements introduced last year have indeed inadvertently upset the balance between the accepted need for disclosure and the accepted need for hon. Members and their families to a proper degree of personal privacy. Its recommendations seek to restore what it believes to be reasonable balance while still going beyond the requirements of earlier years, and at the same time to take account of new developments in the Lloyd's market, in particular the introduction of what are known as members' agent pooling arrangements—MAPA—which on their own would clearly have necessitated some reconsideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the Chairman of the Committee, and his Committee performed a valuable service to the House in being willing to look again at what is appropriate in this difficult area and what they have proposed deserves the support of the House.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Bill Michie to move the amendment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the Leader of the House actually read the report? What about the deprecation by the Select Committee?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are not questions for the Chair. I call Mr. Michie to move the amendment.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'takes note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353); but considers that the existing rule on the registration of Lloyd's syndicate numbers is reasonable and necessary in the interests of transparency and that all honourable Members who are underwriting members of Lloyd's should comply with it.'.
  May I first express my gratitude to Madam Speaker for allowing the amendment to be debated? I do not consider that the motion on the Order Paper in any way reflects what was discussed and voted on in Committee. That is why I tabled the amendment.
  The debate took place over many months, going through a tremendous amount of detail interviewing individual hon. Members and the people of Lloyd's on the new arrangements to apply after 1991. The motion before us tonight does not reflect the issues that were before the Committee.
  There were two totally separate issues. First, some hon. Members did not comply with the will of the House. We had to write to them and the Chairman, who is here this evening, had to talk to them. We had written submissions from some, and none from others. We gave them yet another opportunity to explain why they had refused to comply with the will of the House.
  The House also gave the Committee the job of considering the changes that had taken place in the Lloyd's market since 1991–92. Even now, I have no doubt whatever that those two issues were meant to be separate and should have remained so, although obviously the Committee can deal with more than one issue at a time.
  Slowly but surely, however, the Committee began to merge the two issues. I protested more than once. Finally, on Tuesday 24 May—I stand to be corrected, but I doubt that I am wrong—the issue of how the report should be framed was discussed again, and
  "the prevailing view in the Committee appeared to favour the Chairman's proposal of a single Report divided clearly into two parts, although Mr. Michie protested strongly that this ran counter to the understanding on which the Committee's original decision to take evidence from Lloyd's had been based."
  We knew that there had been changes in the Lloyd's rules and their interpretation. No one doubted that the implications for the future had to be considered; but that had nothing to do with the fact that certain right hon. and hon. Members had flatly refused to comply with the rules of the House. Any mere Back Bencher who did that in any other context would be crucified. But the Committee went on and on; excuse after excuse was given for why the details could not be given. It mentioned intrusion into personal finances, embarrassment to families and so forth.
  Hon. Members may ask what difference the merging of the two reports makes. I believe that it makes a tremendous

  1117
  difference. After all our deliberations, however, we ended up with the bland statement on the Order Paper—not a reprimand for hon. Members who were guilty of contempt of the House, but a recommendation that actually suits those hon. Members.
  It is not just a case of "Let's look at the whole thing and come up with a consensus." No one reading the Order Paper would believe the way in which the report was worded. It is in two parts: the first deals with hon. Members who did not comply with the rule, and the second with the debate about whether we should change the rules in accordance with the new rules in the Lloyd's market. It states that
  "12 Members who had registered an interest…had failed to comply with that additional requirement…The other nine Members have still not provided the required information; and two further Members have subsequently registered an interest in Lloyd's but have similarly failed to supply their syndicate numbers."
  Ultimately, 11 hon. Members had failed to comply with the wish of the House.
  The report states:
  "The Registrar and the Chairman of this Committee have written successively to all these Members, drawing their attention to the relevant provision in the House's rules and making a formal request to them to supply details of their syndicate numbers. Eight of the 11 Members subsequently accepted an invitation to give evidence to the Committee.
  There is therefore no question but that the Members' failure to provide the required information is the result of decision rather than inadvertence or any other cause.
  The Registrar has informed the Committee that two of the named Members have submitted information about their syndicates to him, while withholding permission for the inclusion of the information in the published Register. We consider that this action can in no way be regarded as satisfactory compliance with the rule of the House."
  The Chairman's recommendation in part 1 of the report states:
  "Whatever the circumstances, the refusal by individual Members to comply with a rule which has been agreed by the House sets a bad precedent and is to be deprecated. We accordingly draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Members named in paragraph 3 above have refused to register their Lloyd's syndicate numbers as required by the House's resolutions of 28 June 1993."
  That is damning.
  The motion tabled by the Leader of the House states:
  "That this House approves the proposals in paragraph 18 of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353)."
  How can that be called a reprimand for people who told the Committee on more than one occasion to mind its own business and that it was out of order? Conservative Members are shaking their heads. I can go over this chapter and verse. I have all the drafts of what was said. It is great stuff. I will do that in private because I do not want to go on too long.
  The issue of contempt has been swept under the carpet. We are changing the rules in accordance with the wishes of those who are guilty of contempt. That is what the motion means.
  I do not doubt that in the future we may have to consider the new rules of the Lloyd's market and that that may be complicated. However, if because of MAPA and the change of rules we make changes because people might be embarrassed or because people are misled or misinterpret what the syndicate numbers mean, we will be making changes before things are proved. I say that because the syndicate numbers have not been registered and we do not know whether it will be embarrassing.
  1118
  The Members finally said that this was intrusive and that there was a misinterpretation. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that the press reports were wild, totally out of proportion and inaccurate. The strange thing is that he had not registered the syndicate numbers with the House. The few Members who did register the numbers did not suffer any embarrassment. If the press reports were wild, inaccurate and embarrassing, it was because Members did not provide the information to enable more accurate reports to be made. It is strange that the only people who have been embarrassed by the press are those who have flatly refused to give their syndicate numbers.
  Let us look at registration. We had the Lloyd's people at the Committee. The MAPA business is very complicated. It is far beyond the wit of the average person. [Interruption.] I have to concede that I do not have the same great wisdom as members of Lloyd's
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They cannot be that wise.
  Mr. Michie: My hon. Friend is right. They cannot be that wise because they put their money on a horse without knowing which horse it was and they did not know whether it came last or even ran at all. That is part of the problem. Then they go bleating to the bookie saying, "Can I have my money back because I was misinformed." Imagine somebody going back to the bookie after the Grand National. It is nonsense. They shout foul all the time.
  Whatever happens tonight, at least it will be on record that some right hon. and hon. Members have got away scot free by basically saying to the House, "Get stuffed. We are greater and more powerful than you are." One of the arrogant statements that was made cannot be seen in the report because the wording has been changed. I have checked it with the Clerk. He said, "I think that I heard something like that." One of the right hon. Members said—
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Clerk stated that the Committee record has been changed. Is not that outrageous?
  Madam Speaker: Provided that they are in order, I am not responsible for the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Many outrageous statements are made in the House.
  Mr. Michie: Coming from the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), that point of order was a joke. I am not into slimming foods and things of that nature, so we shall not get into that subject, on which he did a good job the other week.
  I did not say that the Clerk had misinterpreted, misunderstood or changed the wording. I know what happens in every Committee of that nature and a lot of it is confidential. I repeat that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that, if the Select Committee probed too deeply into matters of this nature, men of substance may be disinclined to stand for Parliament. What arrogance, when one thinks about it.
  The record now states that people of importance may not want to stand for Parliament, or something like that. Was that a threat to the Committee that it should not ask too many questions because, if it did, some people might not stand for Parliament? That is good news to some extent

  1119
  because some of those so-called men of substance have only one interest, although not necessarily those in this place. I shall not suggest what that interest may be.
  I come from an ordinary background, as did many hon. Members on both sides of House. We do not have to tell the Committee not to probe into our financial affairs. I am prepared to give evidence on anything, which I have not had much occasion to do. But I would not dare threaten the House by saying, "Do not probe too deep, otherwise great people like me may not stand for election to the House." For goodness sake, that is absolute arrogance.
  The excuse is that, because of developments at Lloyd's and the difficulty of interpreting information, the latter have not been tested. Time and again, Committee members discussed the matter with Lloyd's representatives, who said that because of the new MAPA rule, complicated as it may be, a member may not at any one time know where his money is.
  Mr. Bill Etherington: They do not know where it is themselves.
  Mr. Michie: They do not even know where they are.
  Members, therefore, cannot declare an interest because of their syndicate numbers. When I asked the representatives from Lloyd's whether it was possible for any member to know at any time where his money was invested, the answer was, "Yes, if they ask." That may be the case, but I still make the point that a Member should be responsible for declaring that to the Committee because that is the rule in the House.
  I am not convinced by any stretch of the imagination that the good and great are right on this issue. Some might say that they are the good, the bad and the ugly, but I shall stick with the good and great. That those great people have special rights and special privileges which go beyond the will of the House is unacceptable.
  Not enough time has been given for the present rules to be tried and tested. They should be given more time to work before the House considers anything else. If we pass the motion, we shall no longer reprimand those people who are in contempt and we shall concede their demands and their threats. No other group of people could get away with that. I beg hon. Members to accept my amendment for the sake of the House and democracy.
  12.8 am
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry that a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests should propose an amendment to the motion. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) is an assiduous attender of our meetings and it is a shame that he should find himself at odds with the other members. As I hope to demonstrate, his serious charge should not be supported by hon. Members from whichever party.
  If the hon. Member's charges against the Committee's findings are as serious as he claims them to be, why did not the Opposition table an amendment? I suggest that they did not do so because the findings of the Committee were based on the evidence put before us. As I shall mention later, when we consider proceedings, resolutions and rules involved in the Register of Members' Interests and the
  1120
  manner in which we declare those interests, it is very important that they should be seen to be fair and reasonable.
  We have made it clear that the report is divided into two parts. Why publish them separately? What is wrong with publishing the two separate parts in one report so that hon. Members can ascertain our attitude towards those who did not abide by the obligations that we think were placed on them and, at the same time, see whether there is any justification, as a result of any non-compliance, for changing the rules? As I said, the changes that we have made stand four-square with the evidence put before us. If that were not the case, we should not have suggested them.
  I shall be as brief as I possibly can. I do not want to go into too much detail because everything has been published, and I am sure that any hon. Member who wishes to raise an issue will do so. The hour is late; it is a short debate; and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. We have now had the experience of seeing the printed entries in the register in which many hon. Members have disclosed their syndicate numbers. They are complicated and, in some cases, out of scale with the rest of the register. The introduction of the members' agent pooling arrangements—MAPAs—at Lloyd's at the start of this year was a development not foreseen by the Committee when it made its original recommendation in 1992 and it has greatly increased the potential complications, as I shall show.
  The purpose and effect of MAPAs is to enable members of Lloyd's to spread their risk over a much wider range of insurance syndicates without increasing their overall financial commitment, just as an investor in the stock market can spread his risk by investing in a unit trust rather than in a small selection of shares. A member of Lloyd's who joined a MAPA this year will be participating in a minimum of 30 syndicates in that way alone. Next year, he may join another MAPA or the MAPA itself might change its syndicate content, but this year's MAPA will remain open for at least two more years so, under the present rule, the syndicate in it would have to remain in the hon. Member's register entry all that time, along with any new MAPAs or syndicates that he joined subsequently.
  The net result was described to the Committee by a witness from Lloyd's, by which I mean an official from Lloyd's. He said that
  "the entries are likely to get larger and larger as the years go on, as more and more detail may fall to be disclosed…becoming more and more full of numbers."
  The Committee therefore sought an alternative rule that would provide information about an hon. Member's participation in the Lloyd's market, beyond the mere fact that he is an underwriting member of Lloyd's, but in a way that is more concise and more comprehensible to the layman than a long list of syndicate numbers would be.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In reality, is a MAPA any different from a syndicate? A MAPA could have a number in the same way that a syndicate can have a number, but, whereas a syndicate relates to an individual portfolio, a MAPA relates to a portfolio that might include as few as 30 or as many as 60 syndicates. Why reverse the decision? Why not simply change the registration requirement whereby the MAPA is registered along with any syndicates to which an hon. Member belongs?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That would result in a bunch of numbers from which one would not be able to ascertain anything. I shall explain that as I go along, because it needs to be put clearly to the House.
  The purpose of the Committee's proposal is to ensure that hon. Members who underwrite specific categories of insurance business at Lloyd's disclose those categories in their register entries in future. That is what we recommend.
  Sir Ralph Howell: Will my hon. Friend now answer two questions that I have asked him in several letters? The first question is: what was the purpose of the request for members of Lloyd's to give numbers? What use could his Committee possibly make of those numbers? The second question is: what possible use can the Committee make of the new headings under winch he asks us to record our underwriting?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The purpose is as follows. To say that one is a member of Lloyd's does not reveal whether there is a particular emphasis in the business that one does with Lloyd's. If there were a concentration of a Member's investments in one particular aspect of insurance—aviation, say—it would stand out in the Register of Members' Interests that his principal interest was aviation.
  As I explained earlier, after the report was published the unit trust concept, with MAPAs, emerged, and that made the question of registration gobbledegook.
  Mr. Bill Michie rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I really must proceed, because I am sure that plenty of other Members on both sides of the House want to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I want to follow the steps that we took, so that they are clearer not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) but to other hon. Members who have not followed the subject as closely as others have.
  The second point openly acknowledged in the report is that the Committee has listened to the vigorous arguments and objections that have been levelled at the new rule by colleagues who are members of Lloyd's. The hon. Member for Heeley referred to that fact. Some will say that we were wrong to do that, because it sets a bad precedent. They say that in future Members who find a certain rule of registration troublesome will have only to complain loudly enough and the Committee will change it. That anxiety was expressed by members of the Committee when we discussed the issue, and I want hon. Members to know that I understand their fears. However, in this case I prefer the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in evidence to the Committee when he referred to its willingness to see "sweet reason".
  The Committee certainly does not accept all the criticisms levelled both at us personally and at the new rule. In particular, we do not accept the idea that the new rule was to blame for the speculation in the media about the financial losses of individual Members. The financial and legal problems affecting Lloyd's have led to that speculation, and I fear that they will continue to do so, irrespective of any change that we may make tonight. If the rule is to blame for the speculation, why have those who have complied with it also suffered from speculation—even more than some who have not complied, it could be argued?
  1122
  Nevertheless, the Committee acknowledges that information about syndicate numbers can be misused, because by combining information from the register about a Member's syndicate participation with information available at Lloyd's about the performance of each syndicate, it is possible to speculate about the financial position of individual Members.
  Speculation on the basis of that information alone is bound to be wildly inaccurate, because no information is published about a name's financial commitment to any syndicate, or about any stop loss policies that he may have. It is important for us all to remember that we do not want the register to be used as cover for such misuse. It was never intended to provide detailed information about Members' personal wealth or poverty. The rules have always sought to strike a balance between the right of the public to know about the outside financial interests that may influence the conduct of an elected representative and the right of that individual Member of Parliament to a reasonable degree of personal privacy.
  I accept what the Lord President of the Council said in opening the debate—that, although it was not the original intention, in the context of MAPAs the rule has inadvertently upset that balance. That is the other main reason for changing it.
  I now refer to section 1 of the report and to the 11 hon. Members who have not complied with the existing rule. Paragraph 7 makes clear the Committee's view of their conduct. In recommending the change of rule, the Committee is not condoning that conduct. Speaking personally, I think that I was more influenced by the reasoned letters and representations I received from members of Lloyd's who had complied with the recommendations of the Committee.
  The arguments in favour of changing the rule outweigh the danger that we may be represented as having given in to a campaign of non-compliance. There is another important reason. We who serve on the Committee recognise that our prime duty is to uphold the integrity of the Committee so that it may continue to enjoy the confidence of the House. That confidence depends on our being fair and reasonable. I hope that the House will accept that we have been both and will approve the motion.
  12.20 am
  Mr. Peter Hain: In supporting the amendment, I must tell the House that I believe that the Committee was, unfortunately, sold a pup by Lloyd's in the representations that were made to it. I say that with no lack of respect for the Committee members and certainly I have considerable respect for the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). It is simply a fact that Lloyd's, with a great deal of sophistry and a great deal of self-interest within the House, persuaded the Committee to adopt a course that was fundamentally wrong.
  It is appropriate to note that Lloyd's has been aptly described as the home of unfettered insider dealing. It is unfettered by the House; it is unfettered by the Department of Trade and Industry; it is unfettered by the Financial Services Act 1986; and it is unfettered by effective rules of its own. It is effectively a law unto itself.
  It is important that, as hon. Members have discretion to choose which syndicates they belong to or leave, their membership of syndicates should be disclosed. If they are members of unit trust arrangements, called the members'

  1123
  agent pooling arrangements—MAPA—those should be named as well. Disclosure provides a natural deterrent to any allegations of insider trading. It is particularly important that that membership is publicly known because that deterrent can then be exercised.
  That point is especially important against the background of the recent controversy within Lloyd's. It has been alleged that hon. Members and others who have been insider traders with Lloyd's have been given preferential treatment while other external names, who have often been driven to destitution, bankruptcy or even suicide, have had all the losses from the catastrophic syndicates dumped on them, often as a result of certain members being taken off duff syndicates and other more gullible members being pushed on to them, or as a result of the losses being paid or credited in return for improper secret political influence.
  The knowledge that such transactions show up because syndicate members have to be revealed in the Register of Members' Interests is a deterrent to that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may scoff. There is a central contradiction that they cannot duck. Of the 51 Conservative Members who are Lloyd's names and who, I believe, have cumulative losses totalling £22 million, none has suffered destitution, bankruptcy or the tremendous losses that other external names on exactly the same syndicates with exactly the same lines in them have suffered. The Committee should have brought its attention to bear on that contradiction by maintaining syndicate registration.
  The argument has been made that it is somehow an intrusion of privacy to disclose such information. If one has a copy of the Lloyd's blue book—it is not too difficult to obtain and every insider in the market has access to it—it is easy to determine on which syndicates hon. Members or any other Lloyd's names are placed. It is quite easy to determine that from inside the market. The question that the House must answer is why it is being denied that knowledge. Why are the public, through the House, being denied that knowledge because of the way in which the Committee is taking those rights to knowledge away from them?
  It has been suggested by Lloyd's—the Committee has bought the argument—that it would convey sufficient information to satisfy the principles of disclosing hon. Members' pecuniary interests if they declared to the register the various types of insurance business that their syndicates wrote in that name.
  That might seem reasonable at first glance, were it not for the fact that the ability of Lloyd's to categorise insurance business—I refer to the businesses listed in the annexe to the report—is notoriously unreliable, as well as being uninformative; it is recognised as such in the market. Lloyd's in fact ceased allocating the main categories of insurance for each syndicate in 1991.
  The traditional allocation of the four categories of marine, aviation, motor and non-marine has broken down. Lloyd's realised that so many supposedly marine syndicates were, in fact, writing non-marine and aviation business, often at crazy rates half the size of those quoted by the normal aviation syndicates. As it had less and less true marine premiums coming in, Lloyd's realised that its categories were becoming a total farce. Lloyd's has
  1124
  apparently sought to re-present that worn out farce in this context and it is regrettable that the Committee has accepted its argument.
  It is also important that we recognise that it does not necessarily matter which syndicate an hon. Member has been in in any one year. It is equally important to be able to identify whether an hon. Member has been removed from a particular syndicate, perhaps just before a year in which it incurred particular losses. I shall return to that point.
  The ability to compare one year's membership of a syndicate with the next year's is absolutely essential if we are to see whether any insider trading is going on and whether hon. Members are being treated in a preferential way as compared with other Lloyd's names. That is essential because there have been thousands upon thousands of huge claims from all over the world in connection with asbestos and pollution against some Lloyd's syndicates, which have been concealed from Lloyd's insiders and from ordinary investors since 1981.
  Those claims have not been settled; nor have they been withdrawn. In many instances, the original syndicate members, sometimes true insiders on so-called baby syndicates, to which I shall refer in a minute, have managed to pass the liability on to new names who are not, as it were, as in on the game as those insiders who have rigged it for themselves.
  Some hon. Members—not necessarily with their knowledge—have been removed from a particular syndicate the year before part of a large liability has been unveiled. There are at least three hon. Members of this House—I have notified them in the proper way, as required by the protocol of the House, that I shall refer to them in the debate—who are on preferred or so-called baby syndicates.
  Mr. Roger Knapman rose—
  Mr. Hain: A baby syndicate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] A baby syndicate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I am not giving way at this point. A baby syndicate has been likened to a baby kangaroo. The insiders involved in running a larger syndicate often set up a small one out of the profits of the larger syndicate.
  Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Half the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to have suggested that we have received preferential treatment and the other half that we have lost £22 million. Is it possible that the hon. Gentleman is not making any sense at all?
  Madam Speaker: As I said earlier, I hear a lot of comments in the House. It takes quite a lot to shock me. But the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) is obviously not giving way.
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to imply that a number of us have been engaged in some kind of insider dealing? If that is so, it is a very great reflection on some of us.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Neath said that he would mention names, but that he had already let the Members concerned know that he was going to raise the matter. Is that quite clear? I have already been deceived once today in this House on that matter. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has informed Members?
  Mr. Hain: I certainly have, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Thank you.
  Mr. Hain: I put notices on the board to tell hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Earlier this evening and well in time. If I can continue—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hain: I was seeking to explain, Madam Speaker. I have not made any particular allegations of insider trading against any one Member so far.
  As I was saying, a baby syndicate has been likened to a baby kangaroo. The insiders involved in running the larger syndicate often set up a smaller one that is run out of the pocket of the larger one.
  There are many who have been badly hit by the shenanigans within the Lloyd's market. It has been difficult to expose that, not least because of the vested interests in the House. Those interests have prevented disclosure of what has been going on. Typically, there have been over 1,000 ordinary investors on the large syndicate and only the main underwriters, fellow directors and their families and friends on the preference baby syndicate. They have relied on the large syndicate being run by the same underwriter to cream off profits properly due to the members of the larger syndicate and divert them to the baby syndicate. That is important in the context of the debate.
  Three Members were on three separate preference baby syndicates over the past seven years. One such was on syndicate 728, which was preferenced out of the coffers of syndicate 658. The best business was channelled into the preference syndicate, the baby, which made £1.5 million for every £1 million channelled into it in 1982. Both the hon. Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) were favoured in the preference syndicate over a number of years. I do not say that that was with their knowledge. I do not say that they were consulted about it. I am making no allegation to that effect.
  Mr. David Evennett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was not advised by the hon. Gentleman that he would mention my situation. I think that he has breached the protocol of the House.
  Madam Speaker: When did the hon. Member for Neath put the notices on the board?
  Mr. Hain: I think that it was just after 10 o'clock, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that the board closes at 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Hain: I put them on the board. I was not sure when the debate was coming up. I put them on the board at the earliest opportunity that I had.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member knew precisely that the debate would take place today. He knows also that the board closes at 10 o'clock. He might have made better endeavours than he has to inform the Members that he is now naming. I would suggest that he proceeds with great caution and care because he has not taken care to inform the Members that he is about to name.
  Mr. Hain: I shall certainly proceed with caution, Madam Speaker. I apologise if notice was not given in advance. It was not due to any intention on my part not to give notice.
  As I was saying, I am not alleging that any individual Member knowingly found himself or deliberately placed himself on preferential baby syndicates. I believe that those responsible in the Lloyd's market—members' agents and others responsible for running the market—have deliberately ensured that no Member was bankrupted or suffered the enormous losses that other external names suffered. Therefore, they were put on preferential baby syndicates and given preferential treatment in other ways. There are a number of examples.
  Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that no Member, as a member of Lloyd's, has not been put in a baby syndicate. I have no knowledge of baby syndicates and I have never been in a baby syndicate.
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.
  Mr. Hain: May I move on to explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] The House deserves to hear the argument.
  Let us take the case of Lord and Lady Archer. They were on syndicate 162 and the Sturge syndicates, 206 and 209, which had concealed asbestosis claims for several years until eventually the claims and the resulting losses were disclosed in 1990. However, both Lord and Lady Archer came off syndicates 206 and 209 before the worst happened. Had they remained on them, along with all the uniformed members, they would have been asked to pay £63,116 with an expected further deterioration of £206,750. That is calculated from the Chatset guide to syndicate run-offs—
  Sir Anthony Durant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a debate about Lloyd's; it is a debate about the Register of Members' Interests. We are wandering far from the register. It is not for me to offer guidance, but I believe that we are now a long way from the register.
  Madam Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which I believe is genuine. I cautioned the hon. Member for Neath about what he has to say. He might look at the motion on the Order Paper and refer to it rather more often than he is doing.
  Mr. Hain: I will certainly do that Madam Speaker.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir. E. Heath) has been on syndicate 573. Had he remained on that syndicate, he would have suffered a further loss of £20,652 with an additional deterioration, as estimated under the Chatset league tables, of £37,500. Most fortunately for him, he was advised to come off in time.
  If we consider the case of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—
  Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that you had ruled that, because the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) had put the notices on the board after 10 pm, he should proceed with caution. He has just mentioned another Member of this House.
  Madam Speaker: I asked the hon. Member for Neath to proceed with caution. I have now asked him a second

  1127
  time. He has mentioned another Member who has not presumably been informed because the Members concerned have received no information from the hon. Member for Neath that he was to raise these matters. If the hon. Member for Neath has not informed those Members, he is in breach of our procedures. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the motion, which refers to the Register of Members' Interests, and not to individual cases.
  Mr. Hain: You will advise me if my interpretation is incorrect, Madam Speaker, but I think that the amendment, which I support, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), refers to the fact that syndicate details should still be declared in the register. If it is no longer possible to list the syndicate numbers, all sorts of problems will arise, not least the failure to address exactly what has been happening in the Lloyd's market. That is why I am giving examples to support my case and to show why that is so important.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Neath is moving very far from the point that he is really making. I hope that he will come to order and make his points correctly for the remainder of his address.
  Mr. Hain: In that case, may I turn to the chairman of Lloyd's, Mr. David Rowland? He was obviously very well informed. He avoided liability on syndicates 437, 533, 582, 312—
  Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This debate is meant to deal with the Register of Members' Interests. Are Mr. David Rowland and Lord Archer Members of this House?
  Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Neath has now strayed very wide of the motion. He has taken a great deal of interest in the subject over many months and I am therefore sure that he is quite capable of speaking to the motion before the House. I ask him to do that now or I shall have to take action against him. I am giving the hon. Gentleman every opportunity. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman has been interested in the subject for many months. He should now be quite capable of speaking to the motion and the amendment on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Hain: Madam Speaker, you will advise me if I am straying out of line.
  Madam Speaker: That is precisely the case. The hon. Gentleman is straying far too wide.
  Mr. Hain: If you will forgive me and advise me, Madam Speaker, I will continue, if you will allow me, to address the House.
  Whether or not I have presented the case as adequately as I could have is a matter of judgment, but the House is refusing to face up to the fact that out there, in the Lloyd's market and among the public, is a well-founded suspicion that Members of the House and their friends in the Lloyd's markets have protected themselves against incurring the huge losses that would have resulted in bankruptcy and, in the case of hon. Members, their removal from the House. That is my central charge.
  It is important that syndicate membership should still be required to be stated under the rules of the House—a
  1128
  requirement that my hon. Friend's amendment seeks to restore. If that information is not available for public inspection and the House's policing, all sorts of insider trading and deals whereby Members and others are placed on baby syndicates and given preferential treatment will become the norm. The House will be unable properly to scrutinise the matter because it will be shrouded in the mystique and mystery and the complications and complexity that surround the Lloyd's market. That is my central charge.
  As you, Madam Speaker, have rightly said, I have sought diligently and honestly to address the issue over a number of years. In a number of ways my attempts have been thwarted. Tonight I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a number of Members have been preferentially treated. I have mentioned some of them. If I am to be prevented from mentioning others, I accept your guidance and ruling on that, Madam Speaker. I certainly do not wish to be ruled out of order.
  There are still a large number of Members who are Lloyd's names and who have been given preferential treatment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I would have preferred to carry on and give the details, but it has not been possible for me to do so. The House does itself no credit by introducing—through the Select Committee's procedures and under the rules of the register—new requirements for disclosure, then when it becomes clear that those requirements for disclosing syndicate membership are revealing to the public all the insider trading that has been going on—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May we have a ruling on something which is quite significant? You ruled that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) cannot proceed in the way that he wishes. Are we to presume that in future debates we can no longer refer to the personal circumstances of individuals when we are advocating a general case, in principle, on an issue? Are we now to be precluded from that—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Before—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I can answer him. No, that was not my ruling. My ruling was that an hon. Member should inform another hon. Member when he or she is to be mentioned. In this case, the information was placed on the letter board at about the time that it was to close. That is why I said that it was not just to refer to individual Members because they had not been informed. That was the ruling that I gave.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are we to presume that this is now to be a rule? Are we to presume that unless an hon. Member has placed notice of reference on the board an hon. Member cannot make a reference? I understand that that is a new movement—previously, it was custom and courtesy to do so. Is it now a rule?
  Madam Speaker: I believe that it is the custom and courtesy of the House, particularly when a motion on the Order Paper has been there for some time and an hon. Member knows that he or she wishes to speak, for that hon. Member to give ample warning to those hon. Members to

  1129
  whom reference is to be made. That is common courtesy. It is because that courtesy has obviously not been shown today that I believe that it is correct, right and in accord with natural justice—which is what I am concerned about—that those hon. Members should not be mentioned.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The ruling that we are given now is very important. A precedent is being set tonight—[Interruption.] It is—a precedent is being set because a rule is being defined. I do not object to the point that you make, Madam Speaker. I understand precisely what you are saying. My point is that you are now saying that in future, if we do not comply with the custom, practice and courtesy, we will not be able to raise matters. That is a rule.
  Madam Speaker: I have not said that at all. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Hansard tomorrow, he will see clearly what I have said. I hate repeating myself, but I have said that it is the custom and courtesy of this House for an hon. Member, when referring to other Members, to let those Members know. In this case, the motion was on the Order Paper some time ahead. The hon. Member for Neath knew that he wished to speak on this matter. Therefore, it was incumbent upon him, in all natural justice, to inform those Members. The hon. Member for Neath—
  Mr. Hain rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The hon. Member for Neath waited until almost 10 o'clock, as he said himself—[HON. MEMBERS: "After."] Order—when the letter board was about to close before he did that. Therefore, in natural justice it is correct that those hon. Members who have not been informed that they would be referred to should not be referred to.
  Mr. Hain: If that is your ruling, of course I am obliged to respect it, Madam Speaker. As it has been alleged in a taunt from the Conservative Benches that this was some devious manoeuvre, may I say exactly what happened this evening?. It is true that I knew that the debate was coming up. I did not know what time it would begin. I have spent most of the day and most of the evening checking and rechecking the information. It is not easy to get at the details. I did not know until well into the evening which hon. Members I would name to bring out my point about baby syndicates.
  It is my fault that I did not put notice on the board until just after 10 o'clock. Although I have been a Member for three years, I was not aware that there was a rigid rule that the board closed at 10 o'clock. That is my fault. I came in and presented the notice to the board and found that it was closed. I did not hold it back as some devious manoeuvre. I was determined to ensure that before I named Members I was absolutely certain of my facts. That is the basis on which I proceed.
  Are you saying that I am not allowed to refer to any other Members, Madam Speaker?
  Madam Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Hain: Right. I conclude by saying that it does not reflect any credit on the House—
  Dr. Robert Spink: I seek clarification on something that the hon. Gentleman said tonight. He said earlier that he did not make any accusation that hon. Members had sought preferential treatment or even that
  1130
  they knew that they had received preferential treatment—if indeed they did, which is very much in question. He went on to say a few moments ago, as Hansard will show, that hon. Members had sought to protect themselves. Will he clarify that? If he means it, he is contradicting what he said earlier and making a serious accusation. He might want to clarify that point.
  Mr. Hain: Hon. Members, whether acting through their members' agent or in any other capacity, have naturally sought to get the best deal that they can out of Lloyd's. No one could dispute that. No investor in Lloyd's is going to say, "Do your worst for me." Of course they are not going to do that. Suddenly hon. Members were withdrawn from the catastrophic loss-making years of 1989, 1990 and 1991—what a surprise!—so that they did not incur the losses that others have had to bear in their place. That is the central charge that I make.
  I have spent the past few days going through the information, discovering that several hon. Members, some of whom, for reasons which you have explained, Madam Speaker, I have not been able to name, were on syndicates year after year through the 1980s until 1988 and suddenly they came off them. Why was that? It was because 1989, 1990 and 1991 were the years when billions and billions of pounds of losses were suddenly incurred. They all fell on the external names and none of them appears to have fallen on Members of the House who are or were members of those syndicates until that time.
  That is why it was very important for the Committee to retain that syndicate requirement. That would have required more open disclosure, and would also have allowed for a situation where Members could have defended themselves openly and positively against the attacks and allegations that I and others have made.
  As it is now, the friends of those hon. Members who are Lloyd's names and who are in the market have the information. They are doing all the wheeler-dealing and carving others out of and themselves in to the preferential baby syndicates and others. [Interruption.] I wanted to name some of the people who had benefited from those, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I declare an interest, as a member of Lloyd's since 1973—which predates my membership of the House—and also as a member of the council. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has had a lot of conversations with Lloyd's and that Lloyd's has answered his questions? Does he agree that he has not made any allegations to Lloyd's regulatory board which is there to regulate the Lloyd's market, and that he prefers to spread his smears here rather than put them to the regulatory board? The chairman of the board is Sir Alan Hardcastle, a notable chartered accountant who used to be the head of the Government's accountancy service. The board has been sanctioned by the Bank of England and the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is there to deal with regulatory matters. Why does the hon. Gentleman try to give the impression that he has not been able to make his accusations fully and openly when the board is there to receive them?
  Mr. Hain: The very simple reason is that nobody has any confidence at all in the people running Lloyd's. They police their own markets. The sooner Lloyd's is brought under statutory regulation and has ceased to be a law unto

  1131
  itself, with people in it who police themselves and do what they like without any regard for anybody else or the rule of law, the better.
  1132
  I believe that if the House had kept to the syndicate rule, it would have encouraged a process whereby Lloyd's would have become properly regulated on a statutory basis, thereby enhancing its reputation and the reputation of the City of London. Instead, it is part of a sordid plot to cover up what has been going on in the Lloyd's market.
  12.51 am
  Mr. David Evennett: I did not intend to speak, but, having heard the nonsense which spouted forth from the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), I feel that I must make a couple of points.
  I endorse totally what the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), said in his excellent speech. As someone who did declare all of the syndicates in which I participated—I was happy to do so—I was amazed at the comments of the hon. Member for Neath. I have been on syndicates, one of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, since 1977, and my involvement pre-dates my membership of the House by many years. It is important that information is available and I endorse whole-heartedly what my hon. Friend said.
  I think that we have just heard the most sleazy and slur-making speech from the hon. Gentleman, and was appalled by it. If he spent all day researching his speech, it did not do him any good. The debate this evening has not been of the high calibre that we would have expected. It has been disappointing, and certainly the information given by the hon. Gentleman in respect of myself was inaccurate and wrong. That was not good from his point of view, and the people of Neath—whom he is supposed to represent—will deplore what he said.
  12.53 am
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I wish to return to what I believe to be the main issue in the debate. It is not really about understanding what the numbers in the register are about, and I fear that my constituents would think that they were looking at bingo numbers if I showed them a copy of the Register of Members' Interests.
  There were important matters raised by those members of the Committee who did not share the view of the majority, and I must challenge the Committee Chairman to an extent. My disappointment arises from the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House which totally ignores the first part of the report. I believe that it is wrong for Members of the House—however venerable—to decide that they shall not enter into a disclosure that the House has demanded. They should be reprimanded, and that was a recommendation of the Committee. The Leader of the House should take note of that, and not just refer to recommendation 18.
  It took the best part of four years to effect the original changes to the register. I have been a member of the Committee only for the past 12 months, but I believe that Members of the House have exerted pressure for the changes because, for their own reasons, they do not want to disclose what the House decided they should disclose. The Committee, in short, was bullied into making the changes. Given that it took so long to create the new register and work up the new insertions, this matter could have been considered in greater detail. It should not be forgotten that some very senior Members of the House were among the 11 who have been named.
  I await the response of the Leader of the House with bated breath. The reprimand issued by the Committee in its report cannot be ignored for much longer. If the Committee is to continue to enjoy the confidence of the House, the report must be accepted in total by the right hon. Gentleman and he must give the House a chance to vote on it.
  12.56 am
  Sir Anthony Durant: I recently became a member of the Committee. When I joined it, preparations for the new register were in hand and it was about to be printed. I am not a member of Lloyd's and I know nothing about it, and I could not understand the figures at all. I agree with the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis): they looked like a lottery to me.
  I therefore felt that that was the wrong way to proceed. But by then the register was already under way and had been printed. Subsequently, I have always argued for a different system. The Chairman has outlined the evidence that we took. I agree with him that Members should have filled in the forms—the first part of the report—because that was in line with a resolution of the House. There were reasons for reviewing the Lloyd's procedure, however. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) tried to conduct a debate on Lloyd's that had nothing whatever to do with the register.
  The purpose of the register is to assist hon. Members so that when a Member speaks in a debate on a particular subject, we can know why he is doing so. That was the original idea of the register and why it came about. It was never intended to be an exposé of Lloyd's—that was never the purpose behind including the numbers either.
  I strongly support the Chairman's proposals. We shall have to look at this matter in the Committee, because just including the numbers means nothing to the outside world—except to investigative journalists and Members of Parliament. They certainly mean nothing to me. Certainly, we want to know whether a person is a member of Lloyd's and what his interests in Lloyd's are. When there are debates on insurance-related matters, we shall then know why the Member in question is saying what he is saying. That, surely, is the point of the register, and it is why I support the Chairman's proposal.
  12.58 am
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The motion invites the House to approve the proposals contained in paragraph 18 of the report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, headed "Registration of Lloyd's Syndicates".
  I do not want to state a final view; I have not reached a final view about what the rules for registration ought to be. We invited members of the Select Committee to look at that for us. They will have heard detailed evidence and carefully weighed the issue before making their recommendation.
  What strikes me—and obviously struck my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—is what our attitude to the existing rules should be and what I believe is the clear requirement on right hon. and hon. Members to comply with them.
  The report does not just set out what the Committee believes the new rules should be—and we have a motion from the Lord President recommending them to the House and confirming that they will be the new rules. The report also contains paragraph 7, to which the Lord President's motion does not refer and to which his speech did not refer either. That paragraph states:
  "Whatever the circumstances, the refusal by individual Members to comply with a rule which has been agreed by the House sets a bad precedent and is to be deprecated. We accordingly draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Members named in paragraph 3 above have refused to register their Lloyd's syndicate numbers as required by the House's resolution of 28 June 1993."

  1135
  The matter cannot simply be swept aside. We should require hon. Members to comply with our original decision, just as I assume that we will be requiring them to comply with the new decision which the Leader of the House is urging on us tonight.
  It is not enough to deprecate the fact that hon. Members refused to comply. The Leader of the House should have something more to say about the matter; at least he should have something to say about the matter. Are the hon. Members who refused to comply with the House's clearly expressed wishes to be punished? Apparently not. Where does that leave those hon. Members—almost entirely Conservative Members—who did comply perfectly properly with the wishes of the House? They were right to do so and I applaud them, but they must feel rather aggrieved that they complied and others did not.
  An hon. Member who spoke earlier in the debate referred to proceeding in a way that was fair and reasonable. We have to be fair and reasonable to every hon. Member. It is particularly right to be fair and reasonable to those hon. Members who have complied with the wishes of the House. Clearly we should have something to say to those hon. Members who have not complied with the wishes of the House.
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there was no intention of carrying out any contempt of the House. It just seemed that the Committee, which has done an excellent job, was asking for information the purpose of which we simply could not understand. We approached the Chairman of the Committee, who willingly listened to us and, on reflection, the Committee has now decided that different rules should be adopted.
  Mr. Brown: In life, we all get asked to do things that we do not understand. If it is a lawful request, we comply with it. That is the point I am making to the House. It is not up to us to choose which rules of this place we comply with—just the ones that are convenient to us—and to overlook the others.
  Those are not my observations on the matter; I am being careful not to substitute my views for what the rules should be. I am referring to the decision of the Select Committee which has clearly decided to deprecate the refusal of Members of the House to register. They may well have had reasons for that and may well have argued with the Select Committee. I am sure that they did; nevertheless, I understand why the Select Committee has put the proposal before us.
  On behalf of the whole House, the Lord President has a duty to reply to the debate and put the Government's view on paragraph 7 as well as their clearer view on paragraph 18.
  1.3 am
  Mr. Newton: I can say clearly what my position is and what led to the resolution being tabled.
  In paragraph 7, the Committee made a number of comments which contain no recommendation. In the later paragraphs, it made a number of recommendations which require a resolution of the House to implement them. That is what the resolution provides for, and I spoke to that.
  1136
  I shall say only one other thing, particularly to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), whose speech made it clear, in conjunction with remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), that the comments that he made, without having properly informed the people about whom he made them or intended to make them, did not follow any attempt to make complaints to the appropriate investigating body.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Newton: No, I will not give way.
  The hon. Member for Neath made it clear that he had not communicated any complaint to the proper investigating authorities at Lloyd's. I presume from the fact that he intended to make his remarks and partially made them here, rather than anywhere else, that he is not prepared to list the names and suggestions outside the House.
  Mr. Hain: I am fully prepared to make the information available. It was derived from sources within Lloyd's, from an analysis of the Lloyd's blue book and from an analysis of Chatset league tables. Anyone who takes the trouble that I took can find that information, and I am not seeking to use the privilege of the House.
  Lloyd's has never invited me to expand on any of the early-day motions that I have tabled—as the Leader of the House knows—for the past two years, with the Speaker's permission. The reason is that Lloyd's is not interested, because it wanted to cover up what is going on in the market.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has assured the House that he did not intend to take any action under the cloak of parliamentary privilege that he would not take in another context. Of course I accept his word, but I think that—following what I have said, what the hon. Gentleman has said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said—the hon. Gentleman's proper course would be to make whatever suggestions he wishes to make, and to give whatever information he wishes to give, to the body to which my hon. Friend referred, or make it available for investigation in other ways.
  It was clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech that his reason for wishing all the information—the syndicate numbers—to be placed in the Register of Members' Interests had little, if anything, to do with what he thought it proper to require of Members in relation to their duties in the House, and everything to do with a political campaign that he is waging in relation to Lloyd's. As Leader of the House, I take the view that what should concern us is what is proper for the Register of Members' Interests in the House. I think that the Committee's recommendations are sensible in that respect, and I commend them again to the House.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
  Mr. Brown: I have to say, Madam Speaker, that the Leader of the House—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman requires leave of the House, and I am hearing objections.
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I must clear one thing at a time. I will take the point of order in a moment. Is the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) allowed to speak? I understand that he is. First, I will take the point of order from the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan).
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should the matter come to a Division, are those of us who have been involved entitled to vote?
  Madam Speaker: Every hon. Member is entitled to vote, irrespective of whether he or she is a Lloyd's name.
  Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should hon. Members who are Lloyd's names and have a particular pecuniary interest in being members of certain Lloyd's syndicates vote on the matter?
  Madam Speaker: I sought sound advice on the question before I took the Chair. They can all vote if they wish to.
  1.8 am
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Leader of the House referred to campaigns. It seems to me that the most successful campaign has been that mounted by the members of Lloyd's syndicates who have refused to comply with our original decision that they should register. Instead of compelling them to comply with that decision, the rules have been altered.
  The Committee may well have good reason for its action; I am not saying that it has not. I am saying, however, that the Lord President should have had something much sterner to say about the refusal of those hon. Members to comply with the original decision of the House. As he can say nothing about paragraph 7 of the report, I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Leader of the House a question? I assume that he has read paragraph 7 of the report which states :
  "Whatever the circumstances, the refusal by individual Members to comply with a rule which has been agreed by the House sets a bad precedent and is to be deprecated."
  Will the Leader of the House come to the Dispatch Box and deprecate the activities of five knights of the realm, a former Prime Minister and five Conservative Members of Parliament? Will he do that please? There is time before the end of the debate.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The decision that was made by the original Select Committee on Members' Interests was that the syndicate numbers should be recorded and it was accepted by the House. Does the Leader of the House believe that that was done in some fit of absent-mindedness and therefore does not matter? What are the reasons for dismissing the original report, which was carried after an amendment was put to the Committee, by five votes to one, without the alternative position being argued?
  Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
  Madam Speaker: I have not been in the Chair throughout the debate. Has the hon. Gentleman spoken?
  Mr. Flynn: No.
  Madam Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. Flynn.
  Mr. Flynn: I am afraid that the braying like daleks that we have heard from Conservative Members is characteristic of the disgraceful debate that we have just had. We had a debate on this subject some months ago and there were fewer Members present then than there have been tonight. Similar allegations were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and, with great bitterness, by a member of Lloyd's the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). The substance of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath has been greeted by the closing of ranks by the spokesman for the Establishment. That is a disgrace and stains further the reputation of the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 130.

  Division No. 294]

  [1.11 am

  AYES

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, D. N

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cann, Jamie

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Clelland, David

  Meale, Alan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michael, Alun

  Connarty, Michael

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dixon, Don

  Parry, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  Purchase, Ken

  Flynn, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Turner, Dennis

  Gunnell, John

  Hain, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mr. Terry Lewis and

  Jamieson, David

  Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  NOES

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Amess, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Ancram, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forth, Eric

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Ashby, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Hague, William

  Bates, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bowis, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Heald, Oliver

  Bright, Graham

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Butcher, John

  Jack, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Key, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Coe, Sebastian

  Knapman, Roger

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lightbown, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Maclean, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evennett, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  1139

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spencer Sir Derek

  Merchant, Piers

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spring, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sproat, Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Thurnham, peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Richards, Rod

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Willetts, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Sir Peter Emery(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may have noticed that Standing Order No. 37 was altered yesterday with the result that, if two Tellers have been appointed, the Chair does not have to wait two minutes before putting the Question a second time. In view of the hour, and as Clerks are already at the Table, it would be convenient if you acted according to new Standing Order No. 37.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I also recall that the Standing Order gives the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker discretion.
  The House having divided: Ayes 130, Noes 21.

  Division No. 295]

  [1.22 am

  AYES

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Ancram, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashby, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Beggs, Roy

  Evennett, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bright, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Burns, Simon

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butcher, John

  French, Douglas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hague, William

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heald, Oliver

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  1140

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Pickles, Eric

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Key, Robert

  Rendel, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knapman, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lightbown, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Merchant, Piers

  Wells, Bowen

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Moss, Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Mr. Irvine Patnick and

  Norris, Steve

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cann, Jamie

  Meale, Alan

  Clelland, David

  Michael, Alun

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dixon, Don

  Parry, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  Purchase, Ken

  Flynn, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Turner, Dennis

  Gunnell, John

  Hain, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jamieson, David

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Mr. Terry Lewis.

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the proposals in paragraph 18 of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Paper No. 353).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, for the remainder of this Session, Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall have effect as if for the words 'nine o'clock in the morning', in line 15, there were substituted the words 'eight o'clock in the morning'.—[Mr. Wells.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Resolved,
  That—

  (1) this House do meet on Thursday 21st July at half-past Nine o'clock;

  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Time for taking questions), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in her opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and

  1141

  (3) at Three o'clock the Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
    MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS
    That the draft Fair Trading Act (Amendment) (Merger Prenotification) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    COMPETITION
    That the Anti-Competitive Practices (Exclusions) (Amendment) Order 1994, (S.I., 1994, No. 1557), a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this. House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
    That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    CONSUMER DISPUFES
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11141/93, relating to the access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market; and endorses the draft Government response set out in the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 1st July.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Tommy Lee Bannister
    1.31 am
    Mr. David Jamieson: I present a petition to the House on behalf of the friends and family of Tommy Lee Bannister, a three-year-old boy from Plymouth who died in his home of unnatural causes. Despite the appalling injuries that he suffered, no one was charged with his death. It is estimated that there are at least 12 cases each year in which children die in their homes and no one can be brought to court on those charges. The petitioners seek a change in the law that permits suspects to walk freely from such crimes.
    The petition reads:
    Wherefore your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House will change the law to enable suspects to be jointly charged with an offence if they refuse to give evidence against each other. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    The petition is signed by 12,000 people from Plymouth and the counties of Devon and Cornwall.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Road Bridge (Kelso)
  Motion made, and Question proposal, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Conway.]
  1.32 am
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is my pleasure to rise, even at this early hour in the morning, to take advantage of the opportunity of the debate on the Adjournment to raise the very important subject of the need for a replacement road bridge at Kelso.
  I am sorry that the Minister has been kept up until this late time in the night. The longer I am a Member of the House, the more committed I become to the need for a reform of its procedure. I am sure that many of my constituents, who will be anxious to follow the proceedings over the next half hour, will be puzzled about why we arrange our business in such a way that consideration is given to such an important subject at this untoward hour.
  I know that the Minister is familiar with the Borders, and that he frequently visits the area. We are always pleased to see him, because he listens with great care to what is said to him, and the visits are always useful from our point of view. I know that he will be familiar with the town of Kelso. Kelso is, indeed, a very successful Border market town. It enjoys a high quality of life, and has a close-knit community. It is an almost perfect place in which to live and work.
  However, in common with, I suppose, many similar historic towns in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom, Kelso is struggling to cope with the pressures and demands of 20th-century life in an environment designed to serve a bygone age. Of course, other communities are also suffering those problems. There are always increasingly acute problems facing communities which seek to reconcile the requirements of modern traffic flows, in particular, with inadequate internal town roads.
  Kelso has a peculiar problem, because it is cut in half by the River Tweed. That problem does not face many other towns, certainly not Border towns. Of course, as a bisecting physical feature, the River Tweed is a partition which admittedly has some advantages. It provides one of the most attractive picture postcard settings throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, which is of considerable advantage to tourism.
  But the Tweed separates 80 per cent. of the houses on the northern bank of the river from 60 per cent. of the jobs on the southern bank. That would be a big enough problem for a town which had a modern bridge to provide modern communications between the northern and the southern banks, but it is an intolerable problem as the only connection between the two halves of the town has to be made by means of a bridge, which was designed in 1799 and built between 1801 and 1804.
  The bridge, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, has a width between the parapets at the side of the road of 24 ft. That is made up of a 16 ft wide roadway and two 4 ft wide footpaths. All the utilities—the Borders regional council water and drainage facilities and services, Scottish Power, British Gas and British Telecom—have apparatus in the platform of the bridge.
  Kelso bridge is included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest as a category A building. It is also scheduled as an ancient monument. That presents problems of its own, because no easy amendments or additions or alterations by way of a remedial structural
  1144
  extension can be contemplated against the background of that kind of importance. It was, of course, built and designed by Renay and it has a quality all of its own.
  Way back in the 1920s, there were attempts to engage in works to strengthen the bridge. Cleaning and pointing work has been undertaken, and the inside faces of the parapets have been rendered from time to time. It is difficult, however, to do anything fundamental to increase the capacity of the bridge as it stands.
  A proposal to increase the width of the bridge was included in the Roxburghshire county council development plan of 1958. After much controversy locally, objections to that suggestion were heard at a local public inquiry in 1962, at which it was decided that no change should be made.
  To come nearer to the present, in 1980 both parapets had developed a distinct outward lean, and there was an observable amount of stone deterioration. Restoration had to be undertaken on the upstream side during 1981 and the downstream side in 1985. The work, which was similar on both sides, consisted of taking down the entire parapet and rebuilding plumb.
  There was an accident in 1980. A vehicle collided with the downstream parapet, knocking a 27 ft length of cope and panel into the River Tweed. Remedial works were undertaken, but they were confined to rebuilding the dislodged section with salvaged stone augmented with new stone as necessary.
  Parapets on old stone arch bridges were never designed structurally to contain the vehicles that now use them. They were built, sometimes in an ornamental style, to prevent pedestrians and farm animals from accidentally falling from the arch. Such parapets are unable to provide the same standard of containment as that recommended now for new bridges.
  The old bridge carries at peak hours about 12,000 vehicles a day. That is the peak flow figure. The last reading that I have been able to find for average flows—it was taken in 1994—is that the bridge is carrying 9,650 vehicles a day. There has been an increase of about 7 per cent. since that reading, which was taken some 12 months ago.
  These figures are extremely high for such a type and design of bridge. That is the view of the local people. There is significant concern about the risk of further personal injury or death as a result of accidents that could happen on the bridge.
  I have had a heavy postbag from local mums, who fear running the gauntlet of the 4 ft pathway, especially when there are advancing heavy goods vehicles, with prams, toddlers and children. They have to use the bridge, as it is the only way of crossing daily from one side of the river to the other. These women make the crossing with their hearts in their mouths and their courage in their hands. They get their heads down, and sometimes they run, literally for their lives.
  If that is true of young mums, it is true too of elderly people and cyclists. It is becoming true also of heavy goods vehicle drivers. All these people are concerned about safety, and all are finding that conditions are worsening and becoming much more difficult to contend with.
  The problem is not confined to potential injury to life and limb. The closure of the bridge, for whatever reason it had to be contemplated, would require a detour of about 19

  1145
  miles to Mertoun bridge, or 20 miles in the other direction to Coldstream. That is not an acceptable degree of potential disruption in modern circumstances.
  The burden of my remarks is that local people have been waiting too long for remedial action to deal with the problem. The first recommendation that I have found was made in 1967. The A698 Kelso relief road scheme was originally recommended by a technical working party. It was approved by the old Roxburghshire county council and Kelso town council. That was nearly 30 years ago.
  As the Minister is aware, the current scheme, which has been developed by the present roads authority—Borders regional council—has now been included in the roads and transportation committee report. It is known as the TPP—the transport policies programme. The scheme in that report involves the section of the relief road from the north end of Bullet Loan at its junction with Shedden Park road via the new bridge over the River Tweed at Crown point, and via the former railway line to join the Jedburgh road at Wallaceneuk.
  Following a detailed traffic study of that proposal in 1988, it has been confirmed that that scheme would be of tremendous benefit to the historic hinterland and centre of Kelso, as it would occasion a considerable reduction of traffic on certain routes, including a decrease of up to 65 per cent. on the existing bridge, which, as I have said, has problems with width, safety and high traffic flows. The Minister will know, as he made urgent inquiries about it at the time, as we all did, that an accident occurred recently on the bridge, resulting in a fire tender going through the parapet and the driver of the tender being tragically killed.
  In order to make progress, the scheme that the regional council has put together will require help to enable it to be sustained within the time scale envisaged by the current council capital programme. As the Minister is aware, the regional council applied to the Secretary of State for consent to develop. An environmental statement, a compulsory purchase order and side roads orders were also forwarded, and the Secretary of State has now given consent for all those proposals.
  However, the cost of the project represents a very high proportion of the capital allocation for roads and transportation over the period of construction. In relation to the scheme, the regional council has requested that the Secretary of State take special heed of the proposed expenditure by increasing the council's capital allocation over the period in order to permit the project to proceed at a reasonable pace without deferring unduly other schemes within the five-year rolling capital programme.
  On 7 July, I received a written answer to a question in which I asked the Secretary of State
  "when he expects to be able to approve the necessary capital consents to enable a start to he made on the new road bridge for Kelso."
  The reply contained the statement:
  "The Government set annual block allocations for capital expenditure on roads and transport and any proposals contained in councils' financial plans will be given careful consideration,".—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 273.]
  That is a form of words that the council has been receiving in response to increasingly urgent requests for information about the Kelso bridge and relief road scheme for too long now. The provisional allocations of capital consents for 1994–95 and 1995–96 do not give any indication that that any additional section 94 consent is to be allocated, or is to be allocated in the near future. That is a matter of some concern.
  1146
  Quite simply, the problem is that the project is too big for the annual programme of capital spending to be accommodated easily. The project is expensive. It will cost about £8 million, and ancillary work must be carried out to the associated road network at either end of the bypass and the bridge. Environmental considerations, in any major structure built across Scotland's premier salmon river, must be paramount.
  There are complications about the way in which the project has to be mounted. The design standards have to meet modern road requirements, and they must recognise the high quality of the surrounding environment. The cost is high because standards cannot be compromised.
  As the Minister will know, the scheme will take 18 months to two years to complete. The council cannot commit borrowing consent into future financial years. With a capital spending programme on roads of £5 million a year, plus or minus a little, the council simply cannot find £8 million over a two-year period without severely prejudicing or ceasing all other expenditure on roads for two years. Clearly, that is not a realistic possibility, and the Government must accept that.
  It seems that the answer lies in the hands of Ministers, who have the power to allow a temporary hump in capital consents over the necessary two or three-year period so that the project may be committed and built. The delay is now becoming intolerable and unacceptable. We are not talking about enormous amounts of money in terms of the total public expenditure spend on roads in Scotland. The Government have done exercises to enable the Borders region to do similar capital projects such as the Melrose bypass.
  I am making an urgent plea tonight for the Minister to give fresh consideration to the issue so that the necessary capital consents can be found for the bridge to be built without any further delay.
  1.50 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate about the need for a new Kelso bridge. It is nice to see the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) present to support the hon. Gentleman.
  I am well aware of the strength of local feeling about the need for the project to proceed, and I believe that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has made a persuasive case tonight. It has been useful to have the matter aired. The hon. Gentleman has made a well-reasoned case for the project, and has drawn the subject forcibly to our attention. He can be assured that we will give it careful and sympathetic consideration when deciding future roads and transport capital allocation levels generally and, in particular, for Borders regional council.
  Before focusing on the specific project at Kelso, I think that it would be helpful if I were to explain the Scottish Office's role in relation to the local authority capital expenditure roads and transport programme. Let me make it clear first what our role is not about. When we came to power in 1979, we took the decision to disengage substantially from detailed involvement in local authority decision-making. As a result, neither Ministers nor

  1147
  Scottish Office officials are normally involved in the detailed decision-making process about individual local roads and transport projects.
  Our role is, in fact, twofold: first, to determine the broad overall level of capital consent resources which can be made available for local roads and transport projects; secondly, to take decisions about how that total is to be distributed to meet the competing claims of the 12 regional and islands councils. That process involves a general consideration of the council's transport, policies and programme documents and financial plans. Those documents set out the proposals for roads and other projects in their area over the next five years. The documents are updated annually by way of programme supplements.
  Careful consideration is given to particular projects which are drawn to our attention. Account is taken of the resources available, but at the end of the process a block consent is issued to each roads and transport authority. It seems entirely right that the authority should decide its own priorities.
  It should be remembered that these resources are not limited to the advisory allocation which is notified to them each year. Authorities are free to add to their allocation in a number of ways. They can switch resources from other capital programmes. They can use receipts from the disposal of assets. They can transfer funding for capital projects from their current expenditure budget. They may be able to attract private finance.
  By these means, councils, including Borders regional council, have substantial resources at their disposal to enable them to proceed with projects to which they attach priority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not for me, or any other member of the Government, to tell the council what it should or should not be deciding on the capital projects.
  As regards Borders regional council's roads and transport capital allocations, I should emphasise that there is no automatic right to a particular share of the available resources to enable authorities to undertake capital expenditure. As I have said, financial plans are considered afresh each year, and we shall certainly consider with great care what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight.
  As regards the particular levels of capital consent, it is fair to point out that the amount of consent issued to the council has remained at a steady level, despite this being a period of restraint on public expenditure. Indeed, the provisional allocations announced indicate a modest increase in the level for 1996–97 of some £400,000. That equates to a percentage increase of approximately 10 per cent.
  There is therefore no substance to the claims that have apparently been made locally that the authority's roads and transport allocation has been reduced. Also, supplementary allocations have been made where possible, with a particularly generous one issued to Borders last year. I accept that the allocations issued are below the levels included in the council's plans, but councils cannot always expect to have all their wishes met against a background of tight expenditure control.
  The 1994–95 level of £4.2 million equates to expenditure per head of some £40. That is the third highest
  1148
  level of all the regions in Scotland. The regional average for expenditure per head in Scotland is £33—considerably lower.
  It is also worth emphasising that, wherever possible, each year, if further resources become available through underspending by authorities in the previous year, we will give careful consideration to issuing supplementary allocations for appropriate projects. As I mentioned, last year Borders received an additional £670,000–£270,000 for bridge strengthening and repair and £400,000 for road improvements. Its share of the supplementary allocations issued for roads and transport was more than three times its annual share of the core consent.
  Allocations have been issued for this year, and there is no reserve available which could be drawn on now. While I cannot give the hon. Member any guarantee about the availability of supplementary consent in the current year, should the opportunity arise, the needs of the Borders will be considered most carefully before any decisions are made.
  I would also add that any supplementary allocation which might become available for 1994-95 would not in itself solve the funding problems which Borders regional council seems to face in financing the Kelso bridge and bypass project, although it would make a start.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The problem will get worse before it gets better. After 1996, a larger number of smaller unitary authorities will all face this problem with capital consents. Their annual level of capital spend just cannot cope with a project the size of £8 million. If one is running a budget of £5 million capital, one will never get to the stage of achieving the necessary phased finance for an £8 million project. Are the Government prepared in principle to address the problem?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we will consider most carefully Kelso's case for a new bridge and bypass. We will look at it sympathetically in the framework of what is possible. If there is a possibility of a supplementary allocation, the points that he has made will most certainly be borne in mind.
  As for the merits of the case, the hon. Gentleman made a persuasive case. We have received a number of representations, including one from the Fire Brigades Union and another from the community council. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a fatal accident inquiry in 1993.
  The matter was also discussed between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Minto earlier this year, and the case for increased resources was considered carefully at that time. Traffic flows now average about 9,500 per day, and I believe that on one day the traffic flow peaked at more than 12,000 vehicles in the relevant 24-hour period, which is very relevant.
  As regards the region's plans for a Kelso bypass and a new bridge, the necessary planning consents have been obtained and that is an important step forward. Planning procedures necessary for the project mean that, under the regulations governing development, the council had to publicise its proposals, and Borders submitted its notice of intention for the proposed bypass on 14 December 1990. Fourteen objections were received following the statutory advertisement.

  1149
  The Secretary of State concluded that there were no grounds which justified him requiring the regional council to submit a formal planning application, and a clearance letter was issued on 21 August 1992. Planning consent is therefore deemed to have been granted. My right hon. Friend's decision is final, and he has no further procedural involvement in the matter.
  The proposed bypass would, I understand, be built on the south and east sides of Kelso. It would run from the Jedburgh road, some 200 m west of the Wallaceneuk farm access, to Shedden Park road at its junction with Bullet Loan. The greater part of its route follows the line of the former railway along the south side of the River Tweed. A new bridge over the Tweed would be built south east of Bullet Loan. The existing road would be improved, five lengths of road and one private means of access would be stopped up, and one new means of access would be provided.
  The latest plan we have to hand from the council indicates a projected spend over three years of £1.4 million, £2.7 million and £1.3 million for each of the three years—a total of some £6.4 million. I understand that the latest estimate for the project which the council received has now risen to about £7.4 million, and that an additional project linking the bypass to the road network will cost a further £0.5 million. I recognise that those are considerable sums, and that Borders will have some programming difficulties in accommodating such a proportionally large scheme.
  1150
  I understand that the council is now committed to progressing phase 3 of the Melrose bypass via Newstead—a project estimated to cost more than £2 million. It of course remains open to the council to spread the construction phase over a longer time span than previously planned, although I appreciate that there may be constraints, given the nature of the construction contracts for such projects.
  We will give the case for additional consent serious thought within the context of the forthcoming public expenditure round, and in the distribution of capital allocations next year. I also emphasise that it is entirely for Borders regional council to decide on its own priorities, and therefore the projects it wishes to take forward.
  As to the future, when reorganisation takes effect, there is no reason why Borders regional council should be disadvantaged in terms of its capital allocation levels—indeed, it should be in a strong position to state its case. Careful consideration will be given in the forthcoming period to the system of capital allocations to operate from—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Two o'clock

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish the report on the civil service fast stream entry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As I announced on 18 February, the team reviewing the civil service fast stream entry, as recommended by the career management and succession planning study, was asked to report by the end of June 1994. Its report will be published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The review team's report reaches five main conclusions:
  the fast-stream schemes make an essential contribution to meeting Departments' needs for high quality recruits; but Departments need to update and clarify what they expect from, and offer to, recruits to the main generalist fast-stream scheme for the Home Civil Service, and how that relates to the training and development of staff recruited by other routes; the way the Service is presented to potential recruits needs to be improved to reflect more accurately the nature of the Civil Service in the late 1990s and to strengthen and broaden its appeal;
  the selection process itself, although already well researched, should be subject to indpendent audit to ensure that it operates effectively;
  there needs to be a clearer distinction between the recruitment schemes and the later distinct process of indentifying people with top management potential. The term "fast-stream" confuses the two and should be abandoned.

  The Government will now consider these recommendations and would welcome comments on them in the context of the White Paper on the civil service, which is being published today, and in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 1.8 of that paper.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will publish the report of the review team which has been considering the respective responsibilities of the Civil Service Commissioners and Government Departments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The head of the home civil service commissioned in January an internal review of responsibilities for civil service recruitment, with the following terms of reference:"In the light of experience in practice and increasing open competition for posts to re-examine the specific split of responsibilities made between the Commissioners, the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency and departments in 1991 by, in particular:

  —considering whether changes are required to improve effectiveness;

  —identifying any issues here which affect RAS's performance;

  —reviewing the definition of Commissioners' recruitment."

  The review team has now completed its work. Copies of its report, entitled "Responsibilities for Civil Service Recruitment", have been placed in the Library of the House. The review team has made a number of
  596
  recommendations designed to reinforce the principles of openness, fairness and merit in civil service recruitment and to clarify responsibilities for ensuring that these principles are properly and effectively applied. The main proposals are that:
  The Civil Service Commissioners should be given strengthened powers to maintain the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit as they apply to all Civil Service recruitment.
  Departments and Agencies should be more clearly accountable for undertaking recruitment in accordance with those principles.
  The Commissioners should audit recruitment policies and practices within the Service and report on the outcome in their annual reports.
  The Commissioners should be required to approve individually only the most senior appointments, removing the present requirement for them to process around 700 cases a year in more junior grades. The Government proposes that the Commissioners' approval should be required for recruitment to the new Senior Civil Service as envisaged in the White Paper on the Civil Service.
  There should be a clear separation between the role of the Commissioners and that of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency.

  The Government welcome the review team's report and would also welcome comments on it. These should be addressed to Miss E. Goodison, the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners, Alencon Link, Basingstoke RG21 1JB and should be received by 30 September 1994. Copies of the report can be obtained free of charge from the same address.

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the efficiency unit's report on "Career Management and Succession Planning in the Civil Service".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The statement I made to the House today and the accompanying White Paper on the civil service set out the main lines of the Government's response to the efficiency unit report, and build further upon it. I am placing in the Library of the House today a note of the detailed response to each of the report's recommendations.

  Chessington Computer Centre
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key performance targets he has set for Chessington Computer Centre trading fund for the current year.

  Mr. David Davis
  The key performance targets for Chessington Computer Centre trading fund for 1994–95 are:

  * an operating surplus of £1·1 million;

  * an increase in pay clerk productivity of 6 per cent. (over 1993–94 performance);

  * increasing usage of the online data capture system (SPIRE) to 82·5 per cent.;

  * raising minimum online service and availability to 98·5 per cent;

  * continually improving services to customers by updating software.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the criteria used in determining the allocation of a contract under the Government's policy of market testing.
  597
  Mr. Waldegrave
  All Government purchasers are encouraged to base all procurement of both goods and services on value for money criteria. They should take into account, as appropriate, the requirements of EC procurement directives, which in the case of services, have been put into effect in the United Kingdom by the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993, SI 3228. Section 9 of the Government's "Guide to Market Testing", which is in the Library, outlines the main criteria which Departments should take into account in market testing.

  European Particle Physics Laboratory
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the United Kingdom's current annual commitment to CERN; what are the budget projections for the next six years; and if he will make a statement on the effects of those spending proposals on the development of the large hadron collider.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Kingdom's subscription to CERN for 1994–95 is £60·5 million, which is some 13·6 per cent. of CERN's overall budget. Our contribution for the next six years, at most recent exchange rates, are estimated to be:

  £million

  1995–96

  61·0

  1996–97

  61·7

  1997–98

  62·4

  1998–99

  63·1

  1999–00

  63·8

  2000–01

  64·5

  These figures are likely to change due to fluctuations in exchange rates and in the relative net national incomes of CERN members.

  These spending proposals, taken in association with the normal subscriptions to CERN of other member states, will make possible the construction of the large hadron collider. For the construction of the LHC to be on schedule, however, additional income will be required. CERN is currently in discussion with host states and non-member states to secure additional contributions towards the project.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average value, as stated by plaintiffs, of those claims heard in the small claims court for each year since 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 29 June 1994]: The information requested is not recorded and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I previously gave a holding answer to enable further investigation to take place. This showed that it is not possible to extract relevant data at a reasonable cost.

  Disability
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what involvement his Department will have in the Government's forthcoming consultation on disability.
  598
  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will be co-ordinating action on this front and will involve other Departments as necessary.

TREASURY

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that discussion of economic policy at the Group of Seven summit meeting will include consideration of the ecological sustainability of economic activity.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 July,Official Report, column 376.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the details of his public sector pay policy and indicate what the permitted level is; how it was arrived at; to which posts in the public sector it applies; and to what extent its effectiveness is measured by the(a) total wage or salary bill of a public sector organisation, (b) rates of pay or (c) comparability with outside rates.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government expect pay across the public sector in 1994–95 to be considered in accordance with the approach which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in my statement of 14 September 1993 and which was reflected in the expenditure programmes announced in the Budget on 30 November. That approach will play a role in restraining the overall level of public expenditure and ensuring that within established ceilings resources can be devoted to public services and investment rather than running costs and pay.

  The effective application of this approach to public sector pay will constrain the overall Government pay bill and ensure that the costs of pay settlements are offset by efficiencies and other savings. Within this framework there is flexibility for different public sector groups to reach different pay settlements consistent with their own particular circumstances and under their usual pay determination procedures.

  Resource Accounting and Budgeting
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish detailed proposals on resource accounting and budgeting.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My November 1993 Budget statement contained a commitment to produce detailed proposals on the introduction of resource-based accruals accounting in Government Departments. It also said that the Government would look at the implications of this development for the current arrangements for public expenditure planning and control. This initial review is now complete and I am today publishing a Green Paper entitled "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money: Resource Accounting and Budgeting in Government". Copies are available from the Vote Office.

  The Green Paper announces the intention to proceed with the introduction of resource accounting for

  599
  Departments and that all Departments prepare these accounts by April 1998. The Green Paper also announces a commitment in principle to build on the introduction of resource accounting by developing a system of resource budgeting, which would mean changing the basis of the public expenditure survey and in-year control arrangements to reflect the full cost of resources, while retaining controls relating to cash.

  The Green Paper provides for a consultation period of six months, until January 1995.

  Government Staff
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of staff in post in central Government Departments at 1 April.

  Mr. Portillo
  On 1 April 1994 there were 533,350 permanent staff in post in central Government, which is a new post-war low. This is a decrease of nearly 20,900 in the last year.

  Of the total staff in post 487,435 were non-industrials and 45,915 were classified as being in industrial work.

  A summary showing staff in post by Department has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Monetary Union
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers the Monetary Commission and the Commission of the European Union have to initiate alterations in the conditions for nations proceeding to monetary union set out in the Maastricht treaty; arid if he will make a statement on the current discussions between the Commission and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The conditions under which member states may proceed towards economic and monetary union are set out in the Maastricht treaty. The Commission has the right to propose amendments to that treaty but such amendments would require the unanimous consent of an intergovernmental conference. Discussions between the Commission and the Government of the Republic of Ireland are a matter for them.

  "The Arts and Compulsory Competitive Tendering"
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to respond to the report on "The Arts and Compulsory Competitive Tendering" commissioned from the consultants Positive Solutions Ltd.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will make a statement as soon as possible.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what view he is taking about the quality of response by the Government of Kenya to previous World bank and International Monetary Fund criticisms; and what action will be urged by the British Government's director at the World bank in forthcoming debates in Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  I have been asked to reply. The IMF and World bank believe that there has been good progress 600
  recently in the implementation of Kenya's economic reform programme. We share that view. Macroeconomic stability is being restored; and the agreed structural reforms are broadly on schedule. We shall encourage the continued vigorous implementation of the economic reform agenda.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the consequences of World bank programmes on the poor of Kenya, the role of the Kenyan Government in promoting or alleviating poverty, and the action that should be taken in future programmes to alleviate poverty.

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

  We have been assisting in the preparation of a poverty assessment, sponsored by the Kenyan Government and a number of donors, including the World bank. This aims to provide a thorough analysis of both the nature of poverty, and the impact on the poor of the Government's structural adjustment programme, which includes a social dimension. Poverty in Kenya will be reduced by faster economic growth, which effective implementation of the adjustment programme will help to achieve, and by direct interventions favouring specific poor groups.

HEALTH

  Departmental Running Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 21 June,Official Report, columns 117–18, if she will break down to the smallest possible unit the budget heads for all expenditure on non-staffing costs within the Department of Health administration budget;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 23 June, Official Report, column 306, with regard to her Department's administrative budget, if she will detail the amounts spent on those items listed in her answer including (a) buildings—rent, maintenance, fuel and utilities, security, cleaning and other services, (b) meetings of expert advisory committees and working groups, conferences, seminars and publications, (c) payments to other Government Departments and (d) consultancy, staff training and travel.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of expenditure for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are shown in the table. The full information requested is not available centrally because individual managers set budgets for different types of non-staffing expenditure according to the particular needs of their business area. It is not possible to give the same level of detail prior to 1992–93.

  Expenditure details for 1992–93 and 1993–94

  £000s

  Expenditure

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Accommodation (rent)

  41,055

  30,928

  Building maintenance

  1,704

  1,280

  Fuel and utilities

  2,357

  1,609

  Security

  1,150

  1,139

  Cleaning

  1,426

  1,033

  Office services

  3,685

  3,670

  Committee expenditure

  1,098

  1,130

  Seminars/Conferences/Workshops

  1,086

  666

  Publishing, printing and stationery

  6,240

  4,258

  Payments to other Government Departments for services provided

  25,901

  17,793

  601

  Expenditure

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Consultancy

  19,439

  16,658

  Staff training

  3,155

  2,853

  Staff travel and subsistence

  6,052

  6,397

  Labour services

  1,615

  1,189

  Library and information services

  1,423

  1,234

  Telecoms

  3,853

  3,430

  Computer current

  2,852

  1,634

  Staff relocation costs

  5,890

  3,606

  Early retirement pension

  1,497

  4,931

  Civil service recruitment

  1,059

  651

  Other miscellaneous expenditure

  1,436

  2,562

  Notes

  1. Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  2. Expenditure of less than £1 million is shown separately under Other Expenditure.

  Dental Deregistrations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a regional breakdown of the number of dental deregistrations across England and Wales for each year since June 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information will be placed in the Library. Patient deregistrations in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Violent Patients
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health if she will make a statement on guidance to general practitioners and family health services authorities about the change in general practitioners' terms of service to allow the immediate removal of particularly abusive or violent patients from general practitioners' lists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service executive issued guidance, FHSL(94)24, in April which explained the new arrangements for removing violent patients from general practitioners' lists.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what investigations she has undertaken into the treatment and resuscitation of patients with a history of mental illness;

  (2) what guidelines or advice she has issued concerning the treatment and resuscitation of patients with a history of mental illness.

  Mr. Bowis
  No recent investigations have been carried out. Hospital consultants are responsible for having clear policies for making decisions about resuscitation. Decisions should take account of the best interests of individual patients.

  The Department has not issued any specific guidelines about the resuscitation of patients with a mental illness. The Chief Medical Officer wrote to all regional and district directors of public health on 20 December 1991, PL/CM0(91)22, to make it clear that responsibility for resuscitation policy lies with hospital consultants, who should ensure that their policy is known to junior medical staff. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Kawasaki Disease
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will fund research into the cause, detection and treatment of Kawasaki disease;

  (2) what information she has on the incidence of Kawasaki disease in (a) England and Wales, (b) the west midlands and (c) Birmingham in each of the last 12 years;

  (3) what action she has taken to reduce deaths from Kawasaki disease;

  (4) if she will ask the Chief Medical Officer to issue advice to general practitioners on the diagnosis and treatment of Kawasaki disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  Kawasaki disease is an uncommon disease of childhood. Most children make a full recovery but, in a minority of cases, cardiac complications can arise. The following information is available centrally on the prevalence of the condition and deaths recorded:

  Annual total cases

  Total number of cases

  Year

  England and Wales

  West Midlands region

  1986

  59

  4

  1987

  72

  3

  1988

  87

  5

  1989

  81

  6

  1990

  123

  14

  1991

  151

  15

  1992

  147

  13

  Source: British Paediatric Surveillance Unit.

  Deaths from Kawasaki disease 1985–92

  England

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  6

  —

  —

  1991

  2

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  Source: OPCS mortality statistics.

  Information about the diagnosis and treatment of Kawasaki's disease is available to doctors. Although we are not aware of any current research directed specifically at this disease, basic research being carried out on pathology in childhood is relevant. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is always willing to consider for support soundly based new scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a person in need of hospital care may choose the hospital in which they receive treatment under the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is a fundamental objective of the current national health service reforms to improve patient choice and it is the responsibility of district health authorities, in consultation with general practitioners and local people, to agree contracts with those hospitals where patients prefer to be treated. GPs will sometimes wish to
  603
  refer a patient to a hospital or service with which the DHA has no contract in place and DHAs hold funds to meet the cost of these extra-contractual referrals.

  Green Belt Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service hospitals that(a) are in use and (b) have been closed and are surplus to requirements lie in the green belt.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Conferences
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost to the national health service of officials attending conferences; and what guidelines she proposes to issue.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chairs, chief executives and non-executive directors of NHS trusts and health authorities attended the recent NAHAT conference; who paid their fees; and what was the overall cost to public funds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available centrally. We have no plans to issue central guidance. It is for individual health authorities and NHS trusts to decide what priority they attach to attendance at conferences. In doing so, however, we expect them to have proper regard to value for money and the potential benefits to the NHS and its staff, compared with other kinds of developmental training.

  Counselling
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 420, when he expects a report from the current departmental review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of counselling.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report of the Department's review of strategic policy on psychotherapy services, which will include a review of research evidence on the cost-effectiveness of counselling, is expected to be available towards the end of this year.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 215, if she will provide whatever figures are available from the prescribing analyses and costs data produced by the Prescription Pricing Authority on the quantity of minor tranquillisers prescribed in (a) York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) England in those years for which figures were collected.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of prescription items for minor tranquillisers dispensed nationally since 1979 and in North Yorkshire in 1992 and 1993 is shown in the table:—

  Minor tranquillisers: number of prescriptions (thousands) dispensed

  Year

  England

  North Yorkshire Family Health Services Authority

  1980

  12,631

  —

  1981

  12,354

  —

  1982

  11,964

  —

  604

  Year

  England

  North Yorkshire Family Health Services Authority

  1983

  11,292

  —

  1984

  10,290

  —

  1985

  9,090

  —

  1986

  8,606

  —

  1987

  8,086

  —

  1988

  6,810

  —

  1989

  6,044

  —

  1990

  5,548

  —

  1991

  5,554

  —

  1992

  5,339

  79

  1993

  5,175

  74

  Notes:

  1. The data included in the attached table are for minor tranquillisers referred to in section 4.1.2 of the British National Formulary.

  2. Information of this kind at FHSA level is not readily available for the years prior to 1992 and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  3. 1980 to 1990 data are estimates based on fees and cover prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  4. 1991 to 1993 data are based on items for all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and personal administration.

  Access to Health Records Act 1990
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning the costs of implementing the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The costs of implementing the Act are minimal, and largely self-financing. The Act allows a charge of up to £10 to be made to people seeking access to records which have not been added to in the last 40 days. A fee may also be made, where applicable, to cover the cost of copying and postage.

  Hospitals (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has for each national health service hospital or trust as to whether people with physical disabilities have access to all wards, clinics and out-patient departments.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for each individual hospital and trust and consequently no detailed information is available centrally. However, as part of the patients charter, hospitals should make arrangements to ensure that everyone, including people with disabilities, can use their services. In addition, we have published guidance—"Designing for Disabled People"—on the briefing and design stages of schemes for providing new or adapting existing health buildings and health authorities and trusts are encouraged to consult local representatives of disabled people on this issue. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Medicines Commission
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received the report, and copies have been laid today before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 1993 reports of the Medicines Commission,

  605
  the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to pay tribute to the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them warmly for the time and effort which they contribute in the public interest to this most important field.

  Steroids
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure(a) the use of steroid warning cards and (b) that a right of informed consent is given to patients prescribed corticosteroids.

  Mr. Sackville
  The use of steroid treatment cards is a well-established practice. We have no plans to discontinue their use.

  Under the patients charter, patients have a right to be consulted about, and to be given an adequate explanation of, their proposed course of treatment, and information on alternatives available through the national health service. However, there will be some cases where doctors will feel that informing patients of the treatment proposed and possible risks could be counter-productive to the well-being of the patient. In such cases, the decision on whether the patient should be informed of the proposed treatment and possible risks or not is for the doctor's discretion.

  Official Complaints
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many official complaints were received from NHS patients by each NHS hospital or trust between January and March.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not yet available centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time that patients in(a) England, (b) each English regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust waited from the date that their general practitioner referred them to a consultant until the date of their first out-patient appointment between January and March.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Youth Treatment Service
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the annual report of the chief executive of the Youth Treatment Service for 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library today. The report contains, at annexe 7, the Youth Treatment Service's receipts and payments account for the year ended 31 March 1994. These accounts, which are unaudited and have no form of endorsement by the National Audit Office, represent the service's view of the financial outcome for the year.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will give the latest figures and those for the previous four years for the total number of operating theatres(a) for England, (b) by region and (c) by district;

  (2) if she will give the latest figures and those for the previous four years for the number of operating theatre sessions cancelled because suitable back-up resources are absent or insufficient (a) for England, (b) by region and (c) by district;

  (3) if she will give the latest figures and those for the last four years for operating theatre sessions cancelled because there was insufficient appropriate staff available to the operating theatre session (a) for England, (b) by region and (c) by district.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on operating theatres for financial years 1988–89 to 1992–93 is published in "NHS Operating Theatres Availability and Use", financial year 1988–89, year ending 31 March 1992, year ending 31 March 1993—copies of which are available in the Library.

  Reasons for the cancellation of operating theatre sessions are not recorded centrally.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will give by district the latest figures and those for the last four years for patients funded by general practitioner fundholders waiting for ordinary admission(a) less than three months, (b) three to five months, (c) six to eight months, (d) nine to 11 months, (e) 12–23 months, (f) more than 24 months and (g) in total;

  (2) if she will give by district the latest figures and those for the last four years for patients funded by district health authorities waiting for ordinary admission (a) less than three months, (b) three to five months, (c) six to eight months, (d) nine to 11 months, (e) 12–23 months, (f) more than 24 months and (g) in total.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such information on waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment as is available is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Administrative Expenditure
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the total amount spent on administration by(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) special health authorities, (d) family health service authorities, (e) trusts and (f) the Department of Health/NHS executive, in 1993–94, in each case breaking the figure down to show expenditure on (i) salaries and wages and (ii) establishment expenses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: Expenditure on Department of Health administration, including national health service executive administration, in 1993–94 was £250 million, of which £117 million was on salaries and wages. The figures are provisional. Information on the 1993–94 expenditure of NHS bodies is not yet available.

  Cardiological Procedures
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the variations, adjusted by age and sex, in the number of cardiological procedures by purchaser; and what are the causes of these variations.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: Information about variations in the numbers of cardiological procedures by purchaser is not available centrally. The table shows the number of finished consultant episodes involving a heart operation in 1991–92 by region of residence of patient, expressed relative to the national total, England-100, adjusted for the age and sex distribution within each region.

  The Government asked the Clinical Services Advisory Group to advise on access to and the availability of coronary bypass grafting. Its report, which also covers coronary angioplasty, published in March 1993, sets out the possible causes of variations in the services provided; a copy has been placed in the Library.

  1991–92 index of finished consultant episodes involving a heart operation (England-100)

  Number

  Northern

  74

  Yorkshire

  133

  Trent

  89

  East Anglian

  79

  North West Thames

  156

  North East Thames

  149

  South East Thames

  124

  South West Thames

  89

  Wessex

  84

  Oxford

  83

  South Western

  59

  West Midlands

  83

  Mersey

  98

  North Western

  90

  England

  100

  These figures are based on preliminary, unpublished, data from Hospital Episodes Statistics.

  Immunisations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children per 100,000 have been damaged by vaccine for each category of damage, broken down by first and second immunisations, for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: The information requested is not available. However, the number of awards made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 since 1987 is as follows:

  Year

  Awards

  1987–88

  10

  1988–89

  3

  1989–90

  3

  1990–91

  1

  1991–92

  7

  1992–93

  13

  1993–94

  4

  Note: Awards do not necessarily relate to vaccines administered in that year.

  The Act, which is administered by the Department of Social Security, provides a scheme of one-off, lump-sum payments for people who have suffered either severe
  608
  mental and/or physical disablement of 80 per cent. or more where it can be shown on the balance of probability that damage has resulted from vaccination.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future funding of the Energy Saving Trust.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 4 July,Official Report, column 22.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a proposal for two radomes, support buildings, security fencing and extension of service road at Menwith hill station, Harrogate, was referred to him to determine whether the development should proceed; how many objections have been lodged against this development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The proposal has not been referred to the Secretary of State.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research the Energy Efficiency Office has carried out to explore top management attitudes to energy efficiency and the environment.

  Mr. Gummer
  A report outlining the findings of research carried out among a sample of firms with more than 200 employees over the past three years has been published by HMSO today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The findings show improvements in top management attitudes to and practices on energy efficiency and the environment. The proportion of firms with an environmental policy has increased steadily over the period from 46 per cent. to 58 per cent. and those with an energy policy from 34 per cent. to 46 per cent. Yet much remains to be done if the Rio target of returning CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 is to be met.

  I welcome particularly the findings which show that organisations which have joined the "Making a Corporate Commitment" campaign are leading the way in contributing to the CO2 partnership I have called for. Campaign signatories agree to give board-level commitment to energy management, to reassess their energy efficiency strategy and to set performance improvement targets. The findings show that they are making good progress. For example:
  63% have already set energy targets compared to 37% in business generally; while
  85% have actual plans to implement energy efficiency measures in the next 12 months. The corresponding figure for business at large is only 52%.

  I urge all organisations to increase the priority they give to energy management and follow the lead of campaign signatories. Such action provides the ideal contribution to the CO2 partnership. The benefits to business are increased profits. The benefits for us all are a better environment, since energy efficiency is the quickest and most cost-effective response to the threat of global warming.

  North Circular Road
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his position with regard to any decision on the proposed north circular road improvement scheme between Hangar lane and Gunnersbury avenue, Ealing.

  Mr. Gummer
  Given that my London residence is close to the proposed scheme I shall not be taking any part in the decision-making process which will pass to a colleague. Neither will I be commenting on the merits of the scheme as the inspector's report is currently under consideration. The tried and tested method for considering major road proposals is through a public inquiry of which there have been two into this particular stretch of the north circular road. Such inquiries enable the issues to be debated openly and a decision to be made on the merits of the scheme after all those concerned have had a chance to put their case.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 July 1994]: Since 1990, the operating activities of the Property Services Agency Services were sold as follows:

  Division

  Date

  Purchaser

  PSA Projects

  1 December 1992

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  Building Management (BM) Scotland

  1 September 1993

  Serco

  BM Manchester

  1 October 1993

  W. S. Atkins

  NorEast BM

  1 October 1993

  Mowlems

  BM South East and BM South West

  1 October 1993

  Amec-Pell Frischmann Consoritum

  My Department continues to examine regularly all its activities to ensure that the best mode of delivery is achieved. In particular, the Government have a manifesto commitment to privatise the docklands light railway and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Victoria Street
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated total cost of the refurbishment works on 1 to 19 Victoria street.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  1–19 Victoria street is being refurbished for reoccupation by DTI as its headquarters building. The work is expected to cost £61·4 million, net of VAT, £59 million of which is being provided by the landlord, Legal and General Property.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Quality Standards
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to introduce 610
  compliance with British Standards Institute quality standard BS 5750 in Departments of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Beith
  While there are no plans to require Departments of the House formally to comply with the performance standards contained in BS 5750, considerable importance is attached to the development of the quality control and management procedures by which performance can be assessed. Details of the measures so far adopted by individual Departments of the House may be found in the Commission's annual reports.

  7 Millbank (Lifts)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement on the number of times the lifts have broken down in 7 Millbank and the penalties incurred by the lift contractors.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  These are matters for the Director of Works and I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member.

EDUCATION

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the updated parents charter have been printed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 20 million copies of the parents charter have been printed.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the printing cost of the updated parents charter.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost of printing 20 million copies of the updated parents charter was some £2 million.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the delivery and distribution cost of the updated parents charter.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The final cost of the household distribution of the updated parents charter has yet to be confirmed.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education where was the updated parents charter printed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The updated parents charter was printed in the north of England.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he intends to reply to the first report of the Education Committee of Session 1993–94, HOC 255, on the common funding formula for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's formal response has been sent to the Chairman of the Committee today, together with a consultation paper, seeking views on the design and scope of the common funding formula in 1995–96. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what figures he has requested from the Student Loans Company for each year on graduates deferring payment of their student loans for(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) indefinitely and (e) refusing payment; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The SLC provides certain statistics annually for inclusion in the Department's statistical bulletin "Student Loans". They are not in the form requested by the hon. Member. The last bulletin on student loans was published in February. I will place a copy in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Livestock Subsidies
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost in 1993 in Northern Ireland of payments under(a) the sheep annual premium, (b) the suckler cow premium, (c) the beef special premium and (d) the hill livestock compensatory allowances; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  Number of applications for appointment2

  1

  24

  24

  12

  Number of appointments made2

  1

  23

  24

  12

  Number of notices to attend issued2

  1

  30

  29

  16

  Number of interviews conducted3

  1

  23

  26

  14

  Number of persons interviewed2

  1

  22

  19

  12

  Number of search warrants obtained2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Number of persons charged with schedule 5 offences2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Number of persons convicted of schedule 5 offences2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Number of search warrants or orders obtained4

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Number of production orders obtained4

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Number of explanation orders obtained4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1Up to 30 June.

  2Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  3Some persons have been interviewed more than once.

  4Under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  I remain of the view that use of the powers available under schedule 5 of the 1991 Act plays an important part in the investigation of terrorist finance.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been prosecuted as a result of investigations involving the use of powers authorised by section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 since 1991; in relation to what offences these people were prosecuted; and how many people have been convicted.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Four persons have been prosecuted as a result of investigations involving the use of the powers authorised by section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  One person has been convicted of failing to comply with a requirement made by an authorised investigator contrary to paragraph 4(1) of schedule 5 to the 1991 Act. A further person awaits trial on a charge of contravening that provision. One person awaits trial on two charges of false accounting contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. The fourth person awaits trial on two charges of making a false instrument contrary to
  612
  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1993 (cost)

  1994 (cost)

  Sheep annual premium

  41·7

  30·2

  Suckler cow premium

  8·8

  39·8

  Beef special premium

  4·9

  48·8

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  18·5

  13·6

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been interviewed by authorised investigators under schedule 5(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in each year and part year since 1991.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The following statistics indicate the number of persons interviewed by authorised investigators since schedule 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 came into force. They also show the incidence of use, by authorised investigators, of the other powers available to them under schedule 5.

  section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and two charges of false accounting contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been recovered under confiscation orders obtained under section 47 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 since 1991.

  Sir John Wheeler
  No moneys have yet been recovered under the provision.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many murders were committed in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years for which figures are available; of these how many were the result of terrorist activity; and, of the rest, how many persons were killed by(a) shotguns, (b) handguns and (c) other firearms.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The available information is as follows:
  613

  Murders committed in Northern Ireland

  Terrorist Murders

  Other Murders

  Total

  By shotgun

  By handgun

  By other firearms

  By other means

  1991

  89

  0

  6

  0

  19

  114

  1992

  81

  5

  2

  1

  19

  108

  1993

  82

  0

  0

  0

  19

  101

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the persons charged with causing the death of another person by the use of a firearm of any description had authority to possess that firearm, excluding all those cases where terrorists were involved or where the death was caused by a member of the security forces, in each of the last three years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The numbers of persons charged with non-terrorist murders involving the use of a firearm in each of the last three years are as follows:

  Number

  1991

  2

  1992

  5

  1993

  Nil

  In each case the firearm was legally held but not by the person committing the offence. In addition, in both 1991 and 1992, two persons who could otherwise have faced charges committed suicide.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further proposals he has to reduce carbon emissions from road traffic.

  Mr. Key
  We have already introduced measures to address the problem of carbon emissions from vehicles.

  Year

  Core business capital grant

  Core business revenue support grant

  New lines and extensions capital grant

  Total grant

  Cash Prices

  1978

  64

  56

  —

  120

  1979

  97

  60

  —

  157

  1980

  116

  102

  —

  218

  1981

  135

  82

  —

  217

  1982

  126

  186

  —

  312

  1983

  167

  175

  —

  342

  1984–851

  137

  186

  —

  323

  1985–86

  182

  125

  —

  307

  1986–87

  224

  66

  —

  290

  1987–88

  159

  44

  —

  203

  1988–89

  150

  20

  —

  170

  1989–90

  204

  44

  —

  248

  1990–91

  366

  74

  2

  442

  1991–92

  405

  103

  65

  573

  1992–93

  546

  254

  83

  883

  1993–94

  506

  66

  120

  692

  1994–952

  360

  13

  527

  900

  1995–963

  477

  —

  453

  930

  1996–973

  556

  —

  431

  987

  1993–94 prices

  1978

  184

  161

  —

  345

  1979

  238

  147

  —

  385

  614
  Our fuel duty strategy, which gives a commitment to annual increases in fuel duty of at least 5 per cent., is estimated to save 2·5 million tonnes of carbon in the year 2000. This represents one quarter of the total carbon dioxide emissions the United Kingdom aims to save under the climate change convention. No other European state has given such clear long-term signals on fuel duty movements.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish his Department's assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the most recent change of regulations regarding vehicle exhaust emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  New emissions limits, which came into force on 31 December 1992, effectively require new cars to be fitted with catalytic converters which reduce emissions of carbon monoxide—CO—hydrocarbons—HC—and oxides of nitrogen—NOx—by over 75 per cent. Similar measures will apply to new light vans from 1 October 1994. Some three million cars are already fitted with catalytic converters.

  From 1 October 1993, emission limits for new diesel-engined trucks and buses over 3·5 tonnes, were reduced by 60, 50 and 45 per cent. respectively, for CO, HC and NOx, and a limit on particulates set for the first time. A further reduction, to be implemented in October 1996, by halving the particulate limit, will increase the level of stringency to that soon to be applied in the United States.

  London Transport (Grant)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out in tabular form(a) total grant, (b) core business capital grant, (c) new lines and extensions capital grant and (d) revenue support grant, excluding the docklands light railway, awarded to London Transport in each year since 1978; and what is the planned expenditure for each year between 1994–95 and 1996–97, at both cash and 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:
  615

  Year

  Core business capital grants

  Core business revenue support grant

  New lines and extensions capital grant

  Total grant

  1980

  241

  212

  —

  453

  1981

  256

  155

  —

  411

  1982

  223

  329

  —

  552

  1983

  282

  296

  —

  578

  1984–851

  220

  299

  —

  519

  1985–86

  277

  191

  —

  468

  1986–87

  332

  98

  —

  430

  1987–88

  224

  62

  —

  286

  1988–89

  198

  26

  —

  224

  1989–90

  251

  54

  —

  305

  1990–91

  417

  84

  2

  503

  1991–92

  434

  110

  70

  614

  1992–93

  564

  262

  86

  912

  1993–94

  506

  66

  120

  693

  1994–952

  346

  13

  507

  866

  1995–963

  442

  —

  420

  862

  1996–973

  503

  —

  390

  893

  115 months accounting period.

  2In addition to grant in 1994–95 LT will benefit substantially from proceeds from the sale of the subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd. £13 million revenue grant is ear marked for the Dial-a-Ride service.

  3Grant, announced in the Unified Budget, for LT for 1995–96 and 1996–97 has not yet been allocated between revenue and capital spend, but it is expected that all of the core business grant will be used for capital investment with the exception of revenue support of Dial-a-Ride.

  These figures understate the growth in the level of investment by LT over the period arising from its improving financial position. With LT's move into operating surplus total capital investment is expected to be £1 billion per annum or more in each of the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 in cash prices.

  Bull Bars
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to ban the attachment of bull bars to road vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Lady of 21 June,Official Report, column 133, it would not be sensible to legislate without compelling evidence of increased injuries in actual accidents. Meanwhile I support voluntary action by individuals and organisations to remove existing bull bars and my Department has invited the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to discourage their sale.

  Petrol
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the trends in the relative use of(a) benzene and other aromatics and (b) lead additives in petrol; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what estimate there is of the increase in the use of benzene and other aromatics as the level of lead additives in petrol has been reduced; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what research has been conducted into the possible effects upon the environment of the increase in use of benzene in motor fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Differences in the aromatic and benzene content of petrol are the result of the refinery processes used to make the components of the fuel. Benzene in petrol is controlled at 5 per cent. maximum by EC directive and available data indicate that the present content for United Kingdom fuels averages some 2 per cent., a reduction on previous findings. There is no significant upward or downward trend in the aromatic content of United 616
  Kingdom petrols, though the overall percentage of aromatics in unleaded fuel is slightly higher than in leaded. Lead added to petrol is restricted by EC directive to 0.15 per cent. grams/litre maximum. Average content varies between 0·12 and 0·14 per cent. grams/litre.

  Benzene in exhaust gases is, however, principally a product of the combustion process rather than the fuel itself. Of the trace quantities created in the combustion process over three quarters are removed by catalytic convertors. All pollution from motor vehicles, including benzene, is falling as a result of tighter controls on emissions.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits of super-unleaded fuel over unleaded fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  High octane super unleaded petrol gives motorists whose cars were not originally designed to run on unleaded fuel the opportunity of choosing a fuel which will bring environmental benefits through a reduction of lead in the atmosphere. Current usage averages some 6 per cent. of total petrol sales and is expected to decline as cars built prior to 1991 are phased out. After this date all cars have been designed to use premium unleaded petrol.

  Catalytic Convertors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate there is of the number of motor vehicles which are equipped with catalytic convertors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The precise number of vehicles fitted with catalytic convertors is not known, but is estimated at approximately 3 million or 15 per cent. of the total licensed passenger car fleet, excluding diesel cars.

  Shipping Incidents, Bristol Channel
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents have taken place involving commercial(a) fishing vessels and (b) merchant ships in

  617
  the Bristol channel during each of the last five years; and how many lives have been lost as a result of those incidents.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures given relate to incidents involving UK-registered merchant or fishing vessels where it has been established that the accident happened in the Bristol channel.

  The figures are given only for the years shown as information relating to a particular sea area can only readily be obtained from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch computerised accident database. The database contains data from 1991 onwards only. To obtain the information requested for 1989 and 1990 would entail a great deal of research of the manual records for those years.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994 (to date)

  Registered Fishing vessels

  6

  2

  13

  3

  Registered Merchant vessels

  2

  1

  —

  1

  None of the incidents involved loss of life, but the Department is aware that an incident involving an unregistered fishing vessel resulted in the death of two sea anglers.

  Coastguard Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each of the last 10 years the full details of(a) coastguard station closures and (b) the number of sector posts reduced by (i) promotion, (ii) retirement and (iii) non-filling of vacant posts.

  Mr. Norris
  In the last 10 years the following coastguard rescue centres have been closed: Shoreham—1983; Tees—1984; Hartland Point—1988; Peterhead—1989; and Ramsey—1989.

  There have been no sector posts reduced in the last 10 years by promotion, retirement or the non-filling of vacant posts.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which office posts, in which districts, will be affected by the proposed efficiency savings for the Coastguard Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Coastguard Agency, along with other DOT executive agencies, has submitted proposals on how a 20 per cent. improvement in efficiency could be achieved. The Secretary of State is currently considering these proposals. No decisions have yet been made and it is not possible to give details of the office posts or districts which will be affected.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of staff competence arising from fatigue relating to changed duties in coastguard stations around the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  During the 12 years that HM coastguard's existing watch structure in rescue co-ordination centres has been in place, there has been no documented evidence to suggest it has been necessary to conduct an assessment of the effect of staff competence arising from fatigue.

  Driving Tests
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider his policy to suspend the practice of allowing heavy goods vehicles and motor cycle driving schools to block-book test slots.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Ford, and I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given. The agency's deputy chief executive, Mr. Lobo, will answer in Dr. Ford's absence on leave.

  Letter from G. Lobo to Ms Joan Walley, dated 12 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your question about the plans to end the present block-booking arrangements for motorcycle and large vehicle driving tests. I am replying as Dr. Ford is on annual leave.
  Block-booking is an arrangement that has enabled certain trainers to reserve blocks of test appointments without nominating candidates to use the appointment. This has commercial attractions to those training bodies as it enables them to coordinate their training programmes with test appointments that they control. Trainers have not been charged a fee for this special facility; indeed they have frequently not submitted payments for the block-booked appointments when they were reserved, whereas tests are normally paid for when they are booked.
  Block-booking has not been operating satisfactorily. It has involved the Agency operating a shadow booking system and administering the individual agreements. Reserving test appointments where a candidate does not exist has prevented those appointments being used by other prospective candidates and led to examiner time being wasted thus reducing productivity and increasing costs. All of this has added to the cost of the service which has had to be recovered from the test fees paid by candidates. The change is part of a package of measures to reduce the Agency's costs by an estimated £148,000 annually. All parts of the Department have been tasked with finding 20% efficiency savings over the next two years and this package will help the DSA to achieve part of that objective.
  Some trainers have indicated that they wish to make proposals about how the booking system could be developed in ways that would help training organisations without the problems of the present block-booking system. The Agency will consider those closely.

  MV Derbyshire
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the report presented by the International Transport Workers' Federation in respect of the search for the MV Derbyshire; and when he now expects to make a further statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has not received such a report from the International Transport Workers Federation.

  The technical material which has been received is currently being examined by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. When that examination is complete the chief inspector of marine accidents will advise my right hon. Friend on the course of action which he recommends.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to make announcements on restructuring of the Highways Agency
  619
  only while Parliament is sitting and to inform immediately those hon. Members with Highways Agency facilities in their constituencies of his proposals.

  Mr. Key
  An announcement on Highways Agency restructuring will be made as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend has asked the chief executive of the agency to consider what arrangements are appropriate for informing hon. Members with Highways Agency facilities in their constituencies.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of transport supplementary grant in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Transport supplementary grant is payable to local highway authorities An England. The amounts of TSG made available in each of the last five settlements are as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  233·125

  1991–92

  317·790

  1992–93

  370·000

  1993–94

  430·841

  1994–95

  329·433

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the projected figure for transport supplementary grant for 1995–96 based on the Government's expenditure plans for transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The amount of transport supplementary grant to be distributed to local authorities in 1995–96 will be determined later this year in the light of the total resources available for transport investment and the bids submitted by local authorities.

  Auxiliary Coastguard Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his budget for volunteer auxiliary coastguards in each of the last 10 years as a percentage of the budget for officer posts; and on how many occasions and in what circumstances auxiliary coastguards have been used in excess of 16 hours per week.

  Mr. Norris
  The budget for volunteer auxiliary coastguards for each year as a percentage of the budget for officer posts, including a small number of administrative staff was: 1990–91, 16·7 per cent.; 1991–92, 18·3 per cent.; 1992–93, 16·8 per cent.; 1993–94, 15·7 per cent.; 1994–95, 13·7 per cent. The figures for the years 1984 to 1989 are not now available as a different accounting system was then used.

  Details of how many occasions in the last 10 years and in what circumstances auxiliary coastguards have been used in excess of 16 hours per week could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the details of(a) insurance liability and (b) responsibility for health and safety matters in respect of auxiliary coastguards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Auxiliary coastguards are volunteers. They have a call on the principal civil service pension scheme in 620
  the event of injury while on duty, limited to impairment of earning capacity. In all other insurance matters they receive the same cover as regular staff while on duty.

  Auxiliary coastguards are covered by the same health and safety arrangements as apply to regular staff.

  Transport of Children
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will now take to ensure that councils do not suffer financially by allocating a seat to every child on a school bus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984 permit three children, each of whom is under 14, to share a double seat and count as two passengers.

  The Government are considering the way forward as part of the wider review.

  Lorry Bans
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the Metropolitan and the City of London police on the enforcement of the London night-time and weekend lorry ban.

  Mr. Norris
  Enforcement of the ban is the responsibility of the London borough councils and the police. Informal contact with the Metropolitan police has indicated they see no particular difficulties with the Government's proposals to amend the ban. Once the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill receives Royal Assent the police will be consulted on any draft order to amend the ban under the provisions of clause 24.

  Hartland MRSC
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the need for additional staff arising from increased incidents following the closure of Hartland maritime rescue sub-centre in 1988.

  Mr. Norris
  Following the closure of Hartland maritime rescue sub-centre in 1988, staff complements were increased in the Maritime rescue co-ordination centre Seansea and an extra sector post established in the north Devon area. Experience since indicates that no additional staff are necessary.

  Driving Tests (Fraud)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the scale of fraud in taking driving tests; and what steps are being taken to prevent abuse.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Ford, and I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given. The agency's deputy chief executive, Mr. Lobo, will answer in Dr. Ford's absence on leave.

  Letter from G. Lobo to Mr. John Spellar, dated 12 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your question about preventing fraud at the driving test. I am replying as Dr. Ford is on annual leave.

  621
  The driving test provides an important safeguard for road safety and the risk of impersonation of driving test candidates is viewed seriously. A conviction could lead to a £5,000 fine or 2 years imprisonment.
  Test candidates are required to establish their identity at the start of the test, normally by showing the examiner their provisional driving licence. Candidates also provide a signature and examiners check that against the signature on candidates' driving licences. Driving examiners are trained to distinguish between experienced and learner drivers. If there are grounds for suspicion the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency can delay issuing the licence until the matter has been fully investigated. This system will be further strengthened by the introduction of photographs on driving licences planned from July 1996.
  Notwithstanding recent well publicised instances of candidate impersonation, the Agency does not have evidence to indicate that this is a large scale problem. Over the last 12 months there have been nine convictions for the offence nationally compared with 1·7 million driving tests conducted, similar to the number in previous years.

  Driver Licensing
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he intends(a) to go out to consultation on and (b) to implement regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 to implement the second EC directive on driver licensing.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: Consultation on the second EC directive on driver licensing began on 31 March and ended on 24 June. Regulations to be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to implement the directive will be made as soon as remaining questions of interpretation have been clarified with the European Commission. The directive will come into effect on the due date of 1 July 1996.

  Pollution (Marine Incidents)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the date, the cause of the accident, and the extent of any resultant pollution for maritime losses, collisions and contacts in 1993 and 1994 to date in the sea areas of the Irish sea and the English channel.

  Mr. Norris
  The information given in the table relates to incidents involving one or more United Kingdom registered merchant or fishing vessels where is has been established that the accident happened in either the Irish sea or the English channel.
  622

  Date

  Accident

  Vessel

  Losses, collisions and contacts in the Irish sea

  1993

  6 January

  Collision

  Stephanie Jane/OSA Vooyager

  27 February

  Collision

  Breaksea/Tourmalet

  22 May

  Stranding/Loss

  Darmel

  14 July

  Collision

  Amber Rose/Opossum

  31 July

  Stranding/Loss

  Coeur De Lion

  17 September

  Collision

  Oakgarth/Bay Driller

  21 September

  Grounding/Loss

  Defiance III

  27 October

  Contact

  Artful Dodger III

  23 November

  Contact

  James Mervyn of Porthgain

  1994

  16 January

  Foundering/Loss

  Katy

  19 April

  Foundering/Loss

  Malin

  Losses, collisions and contacts in the English Channel

  1993

  4 January

  Foundering/Loss

  Lisa Marie

  7 January

  Foundering/Loss

  Doomey D

  28 January

  Foundering/Loss

  Helbri of Plymouth

  16 February

  Collision

  Reseda/HMS Cornwall

  16 February

  Capsizing/Loss

  Lia—G

  2 March

  Foundering/Loss

  Charlynne II

  18 March

  Foundering/Loss

  Heather Amorel

  18 April

  Foundering/Loss

  Nil Desperandum II

  17 July1

  Collision/Loss

  M.D.A.C./Lady Mira

  25 July

  Collision

  Sea Lady/Ocean Hound

  23 August

  Collision

  Condor 9/Huelin Despatch

  26 August

  Contact

  Norleader

  11 September

  Contact

  Cowes Castle

  25 September

  Collision

  Pride of Winchester/Duchess Anne

  26 September

  Collision

  Press On/Marcon Sabre

  30 September

  Collision

  Girl Allison II/Steel Fisher

  1994

  19 January

  Contact

  Dowlais

  27 January

  Contact

  Pride of Hampshire

  4 March

  Foundering/Loss

  Karen Marie II

  26 March

  Collision

  Canari/Jacomina

  28 March

  Foundering/Loss

  Karma

  30 March

  Collision

  Our Zoe Anne/Largs Bay

  1The pleasure craft Lady Mira was lost after collision with the fishing vessel M.D.A.C.

  There was very minor pollution in respect of the stranding/loss of the Coeur De Lion.

  There was very minor pollution in respect of the capsizing/loss of the LIA-G, the foundering/loss of the Charlynne II and the foundering/loss of Heather Armorel.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Wales (1) how much the Welsh Development Agency spent on legal fees in each year in the period 1983 to 1993;

  (2) what was the cost of the consultant hired by the Welsh Development Agency to report on a project entitled "Jobs and Pay"; and why its proposals were not implemented.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales are councillors.

  Mr. Redwood
  None of the current board members of the Welsh Development Agency is a councillor; 30 percent—three—of members of the Development Board for Rural Wales are councillors, which will be increased to five members following my statement on 7 July; and 50 percent—four—of members of the Land Authority for Wales are councillors.

  Water Quality (Llandudno and Rhyl)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he intends to take to improve water quality of Llandudno west shore and Rhyl beaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Dwr Cymru's programme of improvements to bathing waters includes schemes at both of these waters which should be completed next year. The schemes are designed to enable the waters to meet the mandatory standards in the European bathing water directive.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the change in the numbers of the unemployed since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  On a consistent and seasonally adjusted basis the number of claimant unemployed in Wales was 68,700 in May 1979 and 122,200 in May 1994, an increase of 53,500.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many buildings of historical importance are currently being renovated in(a) Gwynedd, (b) Clwyd, (c) Dyfed, (d) Powys, (e) Gwent, (f) South Glamorgan, (g) Mid Glamorgan, (h) West Glamorgan and (i) Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency under its chief executive, John Carr. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  624
  Letter from E. A. J. Carr to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Wales has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question originally put to the Secretary of State for National Heritage about the renovation of buildings of historical importance.
  There is no centrally collected information on the number of buildings of historical importance being renovated in Wales. What we do know is of Wales stock of some 16,165 buildings listed as being of special architectural or historic importance how many are the subject of listed building consent. The attached table [1] sets out this information.
  The other area in which we do have information relates to buildings which are receiving grant aid from Cadw. I have set out in the attached table [2] the numbers of properties currently the subject of grant aid.
  I hope this information is helpful. If you require more detailed information please do let me know and we will seek to provide it.

  (Table 1)

  1993–94

  Number of LBC applications received by CADW for each county

  Number

  Clwyd

  78

  Dyfed

  147

  Gwent

  64

  Gwynedd

  86

  Mid Glamorgan

  35

  Powys

  114

  South Glamorgan

  51

  West Glamorgan

  19

  594

  Alter/extend/partially demolish=584.

  Total demolition=l0.

  (Table 2)

  Live grant cases (CADW)

  Number

  Clwyd

  54

  Dyfed

  62

  Gwent

  55

  Gwynedd

  60

  Mid Glamorgan

  15

  Powys

  62

  South Glamorgan

  28

  West Glamorgan

  17

  Total

  353

  Schools (Security)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will outline his policies as they impinge upon meassures concerning the safety and the welfare of pupils on the school site with specific reference to the need for schools to be secure from casual visitors and passers by; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his assessment of whether the infant and primary schools of Wales are safe and secure from the point of view of the personal safety of the children during school hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is the responsibility of individual local education authorities to ensure the health and safety of all children attending schools within their area. With regard to grant-maintained schools, this responsibility falls to the governing body of each school. Clearly, security is an important issue and local authorities and schools have a wealth of national guidance and advice to draw upon. They
  625
  can also seek the assistance of the local police as necessary. I am satisfied that local education authorities and schools take these responsibilities seriously.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by wave(a) the number of non-executive directors of NHS trust hospitals and (b) the number of chairs of NHS trust hospitals, by salary band.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Non-executive directors—1992–5

  1993–62

  1994–43

  Chairmen's Salary

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Band 1 (£19,285)

  —

  5

  2

  Band 2 (£17,145)

  1

  7

  5

  Band 3 (£15,125)

  —

  1

  3

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of installing capital equipment in each of the hospital trusts of Wales over the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information about the cost of installing capital equipment is not held centrally.

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalents) at

  Health authority area1

  September 1990

  September 1991

  September 1992

  September 1993

  March 1994

  Clwyd

  Doctors2

  312

  315

  331

  353

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  406

  296

  169

  67

  12

  Other

  3,174

  3,270

  3,348

  3,328

  3,366

  Administrative and clerical staff

  840

  886

  944

  935

  944

  Managers4

  51

  98

  136

  147

  154

  East Dyfed

  Doctors2

  223

  213

  224

  246

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  210

  208

  138

  70

  36

  Other

  2,043

  2,018

  2,052

  2,061

  2,046

  Administrative and clerical staff

  598

  636

  672

  688

  688

  Managers4

  36

  61

  70

  102

  108

  Gwent

  Doctors2

  362

  367

  391

  400

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  364

  366

  239

  120

  70

  Other

  4,014

  3,924

  3,864

  3,747

  3,692

  Administrative and clerical staff

  980

  1,014

  1,018

  975

  975

  Managers4

  51

  69

  83

  129

  134

  Gwynedd

  Doctors2

  175

  175

  193

  212

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  230

  165

  99

  30

  3

  Other

  1,912

  1,920

  1,968

  2,049

  2,035

  Administrative and clerical staff

  549

  574

  607

  631

  625

  Managers4

  21

  31

  66

  74

  76

  Mid Glamorgan

  Doctors2

  423

  429

  452

  473

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  626

  635

  461

  269

  145

  Other

  4,777

  4,777

  4,901

  4,808

  4,753

  Administrative and clerical staff

  1,149

  1,184

  1,206

  1,184

  1,179

  Managers4

  235

  89

  90

  132

  145

  Pembrokeshire

  Doctors2

  79

  82

  87

  93

  —

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people employed in community care in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The whole-time equivalent numbers of staff directly employed by local authority social services departments to provide day and domiciliary services are as follows:

  Staff in post at 30 September 1992.

  Clwyd 544·7

  Wales 5,752·3

  These figures exclude local authority staff employed in the areas of care assessment, social work support and management and also exclude staff of other contracted agencies.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest figures and list for each of the last four years by region the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information is given in the table.
  627

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalents) at

  Health authority area1

  September 1990

  September 1991

  September 1992

  September 1993

  March 1994

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3

  Learners

  56

  56

  36

  21

  10

  Other

  677

  686

  643

  544

  525

  Administrative and clerical staff

  212

  233

  154

  107

  92

  Managers4

  16

  17

  3

  1

  1

  Powys

  Doctors2

  42

  39

  43

  43

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  53

  50

  34

  23

  19

  Other

  1,059

  1,084

  1,044

  1,010

  1,009

  Administrative and clerical staff

  201

  216

  229

  243

  241

  Managers4

  25

  38

  39

  52

  54

  South Glamorgan

  Doctors2

  679

  684

  697

  702

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  628

  678

  455

  250

  159

  Other

  4,309

  4,197

  4,378

  4,359

  4,390

  Administrative and clerical staff

  1,566

  1,598

  1,716

  1,674

  1,668

  Managers4

  87

  133

  187

  183

  189

  West Glamorgan

  Doctors2

  339

  371

  398

  398

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  502

  480

  338

  183

  118

  Other

  3,043

  3,080

  3,181

  3,222

  3,265

  Administrative and clerical staff

  900

  940

  1,005

  1,074

  1,083

  Managers4

  67

  79

  89

  93

  101

  WHCSA5

  Doctors2

  14

  14

  14

  14

  —

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3:

  Learners

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  10

  72

  73

  77

  73

  Administrative and clerical staff

  658

  766

  794

  1,064

  1,046

  Managers4

  27

  70

  86

  117

  133

  Wales

  Doctors2

  2,648

  2,689

  2,821

  2,934

  ߞ

  Nursing and Midwifery staff3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Learners

  3,075

  2,934

  1,970

  1,033

  572

  Other

  25,018

  25,028

  25,451

  25,206

  25,153

  Administrative and clerical staff

  7,653

  8,050

  8,347

  8,577

  8,540

  Managers4

  416

  683

  848

  1,028

  1,095

  Notes:

  1Includes staff employed by those Family Health Service Authorities using Health Authority payroll systems.

  The use of locally devised payscales from 1991 may affect the comparability of figures as these staff cannot be allocated centrally to specific staff group and are not, therefore, included above. This affects figures for Pembrokeshire in particular. Staff employed by NHS Trusts have been amalgamated with the health authority area in which they are situated in order to show comparisons over time.

  2Doctors working in the hospital and community health service. The figures are obtained from an annual census of staff in post on 30 September and, therefore, no figures are available for March 1994.

  3Reliable estimates of the numbers of nursing staff employed in specific occupational groups, such as midwives and health visitors, are not available centrally. Since the autumn of 1991 learner (student) nurses have been classified as students and are no longer included in the NHS staff figures. Learner staff numbers shown in the table for 1992 onwards are learners finishing courses started before this change took place.

  4General managers, senior managers and managers.

  5Certain responsibilities and staff have transferred to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority from Health Authorities in recent years, affecting the comparability of figures over time.

  Customs House School, Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will meet the chairman of the Education Assets Board and direct him to reverse his decision to transfer to and vest in the Deeside College a property within the grounds of Customs House county primary school, Deeside, Clwyd;

  (2) if he will make a statement concerning his working relations with the Education Assets Board (Leeds);

  (3) if he will meet the chairman and governors of Customs House county primary school, Deeside to discuss their plans for the future of the school.
  628
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Education Assets Board has responsibility under section 36 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to secure that the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from any local authority to a further education corporation is fully effective. Where there is a disagreement about whether or not an asset should transfer, the board considers representations from each side before making a direction to the effect either that the asset should remain in local authority ownership or that it should transfer to the corporation. Both the local authority and the further education corporation have a right to appeal to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales against a direction made by the board.

  No appeal has been received in respect of the board's decision that ownership of a property within the grounds of

  629
  Customs House CP school, Deeside, Clwyd should transfer to the Deeside further education corporation. If an appeal is received, my right hon. Friend will give it careful consideration.

  The Education Assets Board keeps the Welsh Office informed of the progress it is making in effecting the transfer of assets to the further education corporations and any disputes which arise in the course of its work.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the chairman and governors of Customs House CP school. I have met both the headmaster and a governor of the school with the hon. Member.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether hospital clinical waste is incinerated correctly and that localities are safe from injurious effects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All current guidance on the management of clinical waste, including incineration, has been issued to health authorities and NHS trusts in Wales. Under the pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the prime regulatory responsibility for hospital incinerators rests with district councils in Wales; and in licensing the operation of such facilities councils include safeguards to protect public health and the environment.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to improve dental health among children of school age.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Oral Health", published two years ago outlines arrangements necessary to secure improved oral health of the population including schoolchildren.

  The local strategy for health prepared by Clwyd health authority reflects the aims of the protocol in seeking to obtain improvements in patient care and quality of services.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the fairness of the current terms and conditions of NHS authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I asume this to be a question about the terms and conditions of service applicable to NHS staff, with the fairness of which I am broadly satisfied.

  Nurses Regrading
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the regrading of nurses in(a) Wales, and (b) Clwyd giving the date when regrading began; and how many regradings have taken place in each of the health authorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The new grading structure for nurses took effect on 1 April 1988. The other information requested is not held centrally.

  Dental Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to obtain more NHS dentists in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The assessment of health need and the procurement of appropriate care is the responsibility of the relevant health authority. General dental practitioners are independent contractors who can locate their practices where they wish. The Welsh Office is considering the Clwyd family health services authority's application to employ salaried dentists.

  NHS Research and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements are in place in his Department to collect centrally data on the numbers of people employed directly or indirectly to administer research and development in the national health service in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Land Schemes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost in 1993 in Wales of payments made under(a) the countryside stewardship scheme, (b) the hedgerow incentive scheme, (c) the countryside premium scheme and (d) the wildlife enhancement scheme; and what is his estimate of the cost in 1994.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  (a) The countryside stewardship scheme does not operate in Wales. The Countryside Council for Wales runs a broadly equivalent farm-based scheme called Tir Cymen, which was launched in July 1992.

  The estimated costs are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total expenditure

  2·01

  3·42

  Grants paid

  1·57

  2·98

  Administration and research

  0·44

  0·44

  (b) The estimated costs of the hedgerow incentive scheme are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total expenditure

  0·45

  0·51

  Grants paid

  0·38

  0·44

  Administration

  0·07

  0·07

  (c) and (d) There are no equivalent schemes in Wales.

  Day Surgery
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operations on a day-care basis were carried out in the last year in each of the hospitals in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However,
  631
  information on the number of day cases treated in each hospital in Wales is published annually in "Hospital Bed Use Statistics Volume 1: In-patients and Daycases" the latest edition of which, relating to the financial year 1992-93, is in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key performance targets have been set for the chief executive of the Meteorological Office executive agency for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  The agency has been set a range of quality, financial and efficiency targets to ensure that it delivers progressive improvements in the provision of weather-related services.

  The key quality targets set for the Meteorological Office during financial year 1994–95 are to achieve 80 per cent. of all business plan targets for customer satisfaction, forecast accuracy and timeliness; and in particular to attain an accuracy of at least 84 per cent. for the 24-hour national forecast broadcast at 1755 hours by BBC Radio 4.

  The financial targets are to deliver the agreed Meteorological Office programme within a business plan cash limit of £75,000,000; to reduce net expenditure, as shown in the annual report and accounts, to £93,200,000, representing a decrease of 9·1 per cent. on the 1993–94 budget; and to provide a net contribution to the agency's core costs and general overheads of £3,600,000 from commercial services to the public, industry and commerce, excluding the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of the Environment, representing an increase of £300,000 over the 1993–94 budget.

  Individual areas of Meteorological Office have been set targets to increase efficiency by between 2 and 3 per cent., typically, through improvement in quality and volume of service and reduced unit costs.

  Defence Accounts Agency
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Accounts Agency 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  The chief executive of the Defence Accounts Agency is responsible for providing accounting services for the Ministry of Defence as defined in the agency framework document. He has been set the following challenging key performance targets for 1994–95:

  a. To complete the following workload within the funds allocated for this purpose:

  Manage 92,500 non-industrial pay accounts

  Manage 45,200 industrial pay accounts

  Complete 150,000 pensions awards/transactions

  Approve 500,000 claims for travel or transfer expenses

  Pay 17,000 fees claims

  Pay 3,300,000 bills

  Process 48,000 invoices

  Make 420,000 personal payments

  Manage 9,000 imprest accounts

  Process 35,000 HQ receipts

  Process 2,750 banknote orders

  Process 2,150 bank fundings

  b. To meet the Agency's quality of service standards in Service Level Agreements and performance targets.

  632

  c. To achieve 10 per cent manpower reductions required by centrally managed efficiency measures by 31 March 1995.

  d. To make efficiency savings with a value of at least £1,100,000 which is approximately 2·5 per cent. of the initial cash allocation, concentrating on the fixed costs identified in a recent study.

  e. To compete for Payroll and Pension awarding business offered through the Government's Market Testing programme.

  f. To operate a Customer Charter for Civil Pay services by March 1995.

  g. To complete the Full Study Stage of the Mainframe Rationalisation Project.

  h. To develop a Quality Strategy by 31 March 1995.

  Base Storage and Distribution
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about possible defence-agency status for the base storage and distribution organisation of the Army.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have decided that the Army base storage and distribution organisation should be considered as a candidate for defence agency status, under the next steps initiative. A prior options study will be undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 9 September 1994 to:

  Major General D. L. Burden CBE

  Director General Logistic Support (Army)

  Headquarters Quartermaster General

  Portway

  Monxton Road

  Andover

  Hants SP11 8HT

  Directorate of Transport and Movements
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about possible defence agency status for the Directorate of Transport and Movements (Army).

  Mr. Hanley
  I have decided that, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of normal trade union consultation, the Directorate of Transport and Movements (Army) should be considered as a candidate for defence agency status under the next steps initiative. The directorate will undergo a prior options study to determine whether agency status or alternative options would be most appropriate. Comments and ideas would be welcomed from any interested party. They should be sent by Friday 9 September 1994 to:

  Major General D. L. Burden CBE

  Director General Logistic Support (Army)

  Headquarters Quartermaster General

  Portway

  Monxton Road

  Andover

  Hants. SP11 8HT

  Parachute Training
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current arrangements for the use of balloons for Army parachute training; what annual costs are involved; what plans he has for the replacement of balloons by aircraft; what savings in costs and reductions in service and civilian numbers are expected; what are the operational implications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF Balloon Operations Squadron—BOS—provides support both for initial parachute
  633
  training at No. 1 Parachute Training School and for continuation training for units of the three services. The squadron's operating costs for financial year 1993–94 were £3,858,000. The BOS is due to be disbanded on 1 April 1995, when its function will be taken over by a contractorised operation using Skyvan aircraft. Substantial savings are expected and there will be a reduction of 78 uniformed posts. As the Skyvan operation will mirror the existing operation, there will be no operational implications arising from this change.

  Army Service
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those Army regiments or battalions which served in(a) the Falklands campaign and completed tours there since, (b) Gulf war, (c) Bosnia and (d) Northern Ireland since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is set out in the table. Complete regiments and battalions only—the Royal Armoured Corps, Infantry and Royal Artillery—are listed in order of seniority.

  The Falklands.

  a. Operations 1982:

  2nd Battalion Scots Guards.

  1st Battalion Welsh Guards.

  2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment.

  3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment.

  1st Battalion 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles.

  4th Field Regiment Royal Artillery.

  29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery.

  b. Post-Operations:

  2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards.

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards.

  1st Battalion The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment).

  2nd Battalion The Queen's Regiment.

  1st Battalion The King's Own Royal Border Regiment.

  1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

  2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

  3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

  1st Battalion The King's Regiment.

  3rd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Light Infantry.

  3rd Battalion The Light Infantry.

  1st Battalion The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment).

  1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Royal Welch Fusiliers.

  1st Battalion The Royal Irish Rangers.

  2nd Battalion the Royal Irish Rangers.

  1st Battalion the Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding).

  1st Battalion the Royal Hampshire Regiment.

  1st Battalion the Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons).

  1st Battalion The Gordon Highlanders.

  1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's).

  2nd Battalion 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles).

  1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets.

  3rd Battalion The Royal Green Jackets.

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys).

  The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars.

  14th/20th King's Hussars.

  16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers.

  2nd Field Regiment Royal Artillery.

  12th (Air Defence) Regiment Royal Artillery.

  26th Field Regiment Royal Artillery.

  32nd Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery.

  39th Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery.

  40th Field Regiment Royal Artillery.

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards.

  1st Battalion The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment).

  634

  3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

  1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment).

  1st Battalion The King's Own Scottish Borderers.

  1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's).

  Bosnia.

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards.

  2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.

  1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding).

  Northern Ireland since 1990.

  3rd Field Regiment Royal Horse Artillery.

  5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards.

  9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales's).

  15th/19th Kings Royal Hussars.

  1st Royal Tank Regiment.

  3rd Royal Tank Regiment.

  2nd Regiment Royal Artillery.

  4th Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  16th (Air Defence) Regiment Royal Artillery.

  22nd Regiment Royal Artillery.

  26th Regiment Royal Artillery.

  32nd Regiment Royal Artillery.

  45th Field Regiment Royal Artillery.

  1st Battalion Grenadier Guards.

  1st Battalion Coldstream Guards.

  2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards.

  1st Battalion Scots Guards.

  2nd Battalion Scots Guards.

  1st Battalion Irish Guards.

  1st Battalion Welsh Guards.

  1st Battalion The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment).

  3rd Battalion The Queen's Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment.

  2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment.

  1st Battalion The King's Own Royal Border Regiment.

  2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

  1st Battalion The King's Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.

  2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.

  3rd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.

  2nd Battalion The Light Infantry

  3rd Battalion The Light Infantry.

  1st Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.

  1st Battalion The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment).

  1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Royal Welch Fusiliers.

  1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot).

  1st Battalion The King's Own Scottish Borderers.

  2nd Battalion The Royal Irish Rangers.

  1st Battalion The Gloucestershire Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment (29th/45th Foot).

  1st Battalion The Royal Hampshire Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment (Prince of Wales's).

  1st Battalion The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).

  1st Battalion The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire).

  1st Battalion the Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons).

  1st Battalion The Gordon Highlanders.

  1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's).

  1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment.

  2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment.

  3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment.

  1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets.

  2nd Battalion The Royal Green Jackets.

  635

  3rd Battalion The Royal Green Jackets.

  Notes:

  1. The list for Northern Ireland covers resident battalions and major roulements only and does not include Royal Marines deployed in the infantry role and Royal Irish Home Service Battalions.

  2. Details for the Falkland Islands only given up to 1991 when reduction to Company strength was made.

  Iraq (Friendly Fire)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has yet received the results of the United States board of inquiry into the shooting down of two Black Hawk helicopters over northern Iraq on 14 April; if the bereaved families have been informed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United States Government have today announced the results of their board of inquiry. I have placed a copy of the executive summary, summary of facts and United States news release in the Libraries of both Houses. The board of inquiry concluded that a combination of human error and organisational failures led to a tragic sequence of events resulting in the shooting down of the two Black Hawk helicopters. The bereaved families visited the Adjutant General and myself at the Ministry of Defence this afternoon, before receiving a briefing at the United States embassy from the ambassador and a representative of the United States air force in Europe.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Russia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration Her Majesty's Government and other Group of Seven nations gave to a Marshall-aid type programme to Russia; and what were the reasons for their decision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  When they met in Tokyo last year, G7 leaders agreed a package of assistance to the Russian Federation worth $43·4 billion. They discussed progress on implementing this package in Naples on 8 to 10 July. A copy of the summit communiqué has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the World Health Organisation about the improvement of its performance in crisis situations in developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We welcome the World Health Organisation's increasing role in emergency situations and have supported its emergency work in a number of countries.

  The United Kingdom, through its official representatives to WHO, maintains a continuing dialogue with the division of emergency and humanitarian action on how best the division should develop its activities in providing assistance in emergency situations. We have fully supported the recent setting up, by WHO, of a task force to
  636
  examine this role. It is still working on its recommendations which we will examine carefully when they are released.

  Aid and Development Targets
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the targets on aid and development co-operation established by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, by the United Nations and by its agencies, including targets established at the world summit for children, Jomtien education-for-all conference, United Nations conferences on the least developed countries and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; which of these targets the United Kingdom has accepted; and what progress towards these targets has been made by the United Kingdom to date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are three United Nations targets, accepted by the United Kingdom, for resource transfers to the developing countries. These are:

  (i) The United Nations Target for total net official development assistance (oda) to all developing countries equal to 0·7 per cent. of GNP. In 1993 United Kingdom net oda totalled £1·9 billion, equivalent to 0·31 per cent. of GNP;

  (ii) the United Nations target for total official and private flows to developing countries equal to 1 per cent. of GNP. In 1992, the United Kingdom spent 0·89 per cent. of GNP on total flows; and

  (iii) the United Nations Target for net oda to Least Developed Countries (LLDCs) equal to 0·15 per cent. of GNP. In 1991–92 the United Kingdom spent an average of 0·10 per cent. on net oda to LLDCs. (United Kingdom aid to India and Pakistan, two of our largest country programmes, does not score against this target even though both countries are poorer than many LLDCs).

  The world summit for children did not establish specific targets. It did, however, identify goals in such areas as child survival and development; child health; basic education, and the protection of children living in difficult circumstances. We were one of the first industrialised countries to publish its national report in response to the summit. The report, published in July 1992 by Command 1984, contains detailed information on the help we are giving to assist children in developing countries through our aid programme. Our commitment to the declaration and plan of action agreed at the summit is borne out in the pattern of activity supported by the aid programme. This programme benefits children directly, through health and education, and indirectly through safe water projects. In the financial year 1992–93 over £180 million or more than 31 per cent. of that part of our bilateral aid which can be allocated by sector, was spent in the social sectors such as education, health care, clean water and safe sanitation.

  No new targets were set at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. We have, however, taken an active part in the successful fulfilment of the agreements at UNCED, as expressed in Agenda 21, to restructure the global environment facility, to agree a convention on desertification and to hold a conference on the sustainable development of small island developing states, which adopted an action plan.

  We support the shift to basic education for all children, youth and adults which was adopted by the Jomtien conference in 1990. The Jomtien declaration reaffirmed the right of all people to education—and urged countries and

  637
  donors to allocate more resources to primary education, literary programmes and basic training. The amount we allocate to basic education has increased from £6 million in 1991–92 to around £15 million in 1992–93.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government aid policy with regard to Bangladesh.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on Thursday 23 June 1994,Official Report, column 272.

  Bosnia
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his European counterparts to improve the delivery of humanitarian aid in Bosnia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 27 June 1994,Official Report, 411. We are playing an active part with EU partners in the EU administration of Mostar.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy for aid to Indonesia, indicating whether such aid is to be targeted in the future; and what arrangements Her Majesty's Government are making for its independent monitoring.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Her Majesty's Government provide assistance for Indonesia because it is still a relatively poor country, is pursuing sound economic policies, has an impressive record of poverty reduction and is generally an effective user of aid. In agreement with the Indonesian Government, the United Kingdom aid programme is focused on natural resources including forestry, education, public administration, energy efficiency and transportation. We monitor the progress of projects through regular reports from the project authorities and through monitoring visits by ODA staff. The overall programme is reviewed every two years by ODA senior management.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Medical Referrals
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for sickness and invalidity benefit were referred to the regional medical services in each quarter since September 1993; how many of these cases resulted in a medical examination; and what were the outcomes(a) where examinations took place and (b) where they did not.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
  638
  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 12 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claims for sickness and invalidity benefit were referred to the regional medical services in each quarter since September 1993; how many of these cases resulted in a medical examination; and what were the outcomes (a) where examination took place and (b) where they did not.
  Figures are not yet available for the quarter ending 30 June 1994. Those figures which are available are shown in the attached table.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Outcome of claims to Sickness/Invalidity Benefit referred to Regional Medical Services in each Quarter since September 1993

  September 1993–December 1993

  January 1994–March 1994

  Total cleared

  230,000

  269,000

  Examination—capable of own work

  5,000

  5,000

  Examination—capable of alternative work

  25,000

  28,000

  Examination—incapable of all work

  48,000

  54,000

  No examination—incapable not examined

  131,000

  159,000

  No examination—claim terminated

  3,000

  3,000

  No examination—failed to attend

  17,000

  20,000

  Notes:

  1. Based upon a 100 per cent. count of cases, rounded to the nearest thousand

  2. Figures include severe disablement allowance references.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many referrals to the Benefits Agency medical service were made during 1992–93 and 1993–94 of claimants of(a) sickness benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) invalidity benefit; and what percentage of each were found (i) capable of alternative work and (ii) capable of normal occupation.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of sickness benefit and invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 12 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many referrals to the Benefits Agency Medical Services were made during 1992–93 and 1993–94 of claimants of (a) sickness benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) invalidity benefit; and what percentage of each were found (i) capable of alternative work and (ii) capable of normal occupation.
  The Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS) are asked an opinion on incapacity in relation to Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, and Severe Disablement. Allowance. I regret that the figures of cases cleared are not separated into the different benefits. The total figures for the three benefits are as follows:

  Number

  Per cent.

  1992–93

  References cleared

  872,000

  —

  Capable of alternative work

  62,000

  7·1

  Capable of normal occupation

  38,000

  4·4

  639

  Number

  Per cent.

  1993–94

  References cleared

  1,021,000

  —

  Capable of alternative work

  100,000

  9·8

  Capable of normal occupation

  22,000

  2·2

  Note: Figures subject to rounding to nearest thousand.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability (Consultation)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy to widen the Government's consultation on disability to include(a) transport, (b) education and (c) the adoption of comprehensive civil rights legislation;

  (2) if he will make a statement detailing the terms of reference and time scales for the Government's consultation on disability discrimination issues;

  (3) what criteria were used by his Department in determining the areas for discussion in the consultation on disability.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on 10 May that consultation would take place within six months on proposals in the fields of employment, access to goods and services, financial services, access to buildings, and the establishment of a new advisory body on disability. A consultation document will be issued very shortly.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated savings to his Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 resulting from (i) freezing the additional pension payable with invalidity benefit and (ii) abolishing the additional pension for new claimants of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that freezing the additional pension payable with invalidity benefit will generate net savings of £30 million in 1995–96, £40 million in 1996–97 and £50 million in 1997–98.

  It is estimated that abolishing additional pension for people who start receiving long-term incapacity benefit after April 1995 will generate-net savings of £20 million in 1995–96, £130 million in 1996–97 and £230 million in 1997–98.
  Note: Estimates are expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, are rounded to the nearest £10 million and are net of offsetting changes in expenditure on age allowances and income related benefits.

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Cost

  £3·25

  million

  £4·25

  million

  £5·25

  million

  Increase allowance for

  gainers

  4,000

  gainers

  5,500

  gainers

  6,500

  couples and lone parents

  floaters on

  1,000

  floaters on

  1,000

  floaters on

  1,500

  Increase threshold for

  gainers

  4,500

  gainers

  6,000

  gainers

  7,000

  single people

  floaters on

  500

  floaters on

  500

  floaters on

  1,000

  Introduce a disabled

  Gainers and

  <250

  Gainers and

  <250

  Gainers and

  <250

  child's premium

  floaters on

  floaters on

  floaters on

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated administration costs of incapacity benefit for the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Forecasts of the costs of administering individual benefits are not available. It is estimated that the changes announced in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 will add £40 million per annum to the Department's overall administrative costs in 1995–96 and 1996–97 and £10 million per annum from 1997–98.

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

  Mr. Scott
  The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill received Royal Assent on 5 July 1994.

  The estimated savings taking account of amendments passed are in the table. Sections 1 and 2 have been grouped because it is not feasible to apportion the savings further. The figures show only the savings arising out of the Act itself.

  Section

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 £ million

  1 and 2

  -150

  -335

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  -160

  -475

  5

  -50

  -180

  6

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  negligible

  negligible

  9

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  +5

  +5

  11

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  -25

  -90

  Note: Estimates are expressed in constant 1993–94 prices and are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security(a) what are the estimated costs to his Department of the changes to disability working allowance and (b) how many people are estimated to gain, under (i) increases to the allowance for lone parents, and couples, (ii) increases to the single person's threshold and (iii) introducing a disabled child's premium.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost and expected number of gainers as a result of the disability working allowance changes are in the table.
  641
  Note: Costs are rounded to the nearest £0·25 million and are given at constant 1994–95 prices; caseloads are rounded to the nearest 500. It is very difficult to reliably estimate the behavioural consequences of these policy changes, therefore figures are not accurate to that degree.

  Statistics
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of claimants receiving(a) severe disablement allowance, (b) invalidity benefit and (c) unemployment benefit also received (i) housing benefit and (ii) council tax benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Information relating to housing benefit is in the table.

  Information relating to council tax benefit is not yet available.

  Benefit

  Total Beneficiaries (000s)

  Beneficiaries also receiving Housing Benefit (000s)

  Percentage

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  302

  60

  20

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,439

  336

  23

  Unemployment Benefit

  669

  154

  23

  Notes:
  The Severe disablement Allowance and Invalidity Benefit figures are based on a I per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain at 4 April 1992, and the Unemployment Benefit figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain at 14 May 1992. The Housing Benefit figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample of recipients at May 1992.
  All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and percentages to the nearest whole number.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures available for the level of use of(a) direct payments from benefits and (b) attachment of earnings, for each council tax collecting local authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Hague
  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why local authorities' responses to his Department's research on the amount of estimated council tax benefit local authorities were expecting to have processed by the end of March 1993 were not published in the report "Preparing for Council Tax Benefit" published in August 1993; and if he will now publish these responses.

  Mr. Hague
  Although the question was included in a departmental circular to local authorities giving examples of the type of information that might be required, it was not included in the research questionnaire subsequently issued. Professional advice was that responses to such a question would be inaccurate, as an estimate of council tax benefit case load assessed would have been based on an already estimated case load figure. The information is not therefore available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of reducing the council tax benefit taper(a) from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. and (b) from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent.
  642
  Mr. Hague
  The cost is estimated to be £110 million and £300 million in 1994 and 1995 respectively.

  Source:
  Estimates use data drawn from the 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys and modelled at 1994–95 prices and benefit levels. Costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Income Support
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated average cost of keeping an individual on income support from the day he becomes eligible to receive it until he reaches pensionable age.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available. Such a cost would vary according to the personal circumstances of the claimant and the changes that occurred during the period on benefit.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce an asbestosis compensation scheme on the same basis as the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme; and if he will give reasons for his decision.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to introduce an asbestosis compensation scheme.

  Poverty
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what definition Her Majesty's Government use of absolute poverty.

  Mr. Burt
  No Government in the United Kingdom have ever accepted that it is possible to identify a single simple measure to define poverty in any meaningful way. A great many methods have been used by various academics to identify a "poverty line", but none has received general acceptance.

  Rather than relying on narrow arbitrary definitions this Department publishes an extensive range of analyses and information of the incomes and characteristics of people in the lower half of the income distribution. These analyses can be found in "Households Below Average Income", the latest edition of which was published on 30 June 1993 covering the years 1979 to 1990. A copy is in the Library. The next edition is due to be published on 14 July covering the years 1979 to 1991–92.

  Funeral Expenses
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications to the social fund for funeral expenses have been refused since SI 506, the social fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1994 came into force; and how many refusals were on the grounds that the applicant is not considered a responsible person to meet the costs.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Habitual Residence
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he received representations from the Irish Government regarding the proposed habitual residence regulations; what was the substance of the representations; and what plans his Department has to take action as a result of these representations.

  Mr. Burt
  Department of Social Security Ministers met members of the Irish Government on a number of occasions earlier this year. The regulations laid on 11 July, which introduce a habitual residence test into income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit from 1 August, enable people who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Irish Republic to qualify for those benefits, subject to satisfaction of the other conditions of entitlement. This maintains the reciprocal access to benefits between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic based upon the common travel area which has existed for many years.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he received representations from the European Commission regarding the proposed habitual residence regulation; what is the substance of the representations; if he will place them in the Library; and what plans his Department has in view of the representations.

  Mr. Burt
  The Commission for the European Communities wrote on 15 March drawing attention to the existence of Community law in relation to residence tests and the right of free movement. The regulations which introduce a habitual residence test into income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, laid on 11 July, take account of the requirements of Community law.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether mink are currently present at Little Youlstone mink farm; and when the last licence was issued for this establishment;

  (2) whether mink are currently present at Lawleys mink farm; and when the last licence was issued for this establishment;

  (3) whether mink are currently present at Kelbain mink farm; and when the last licence was issued for this establishment;

  (4) whether Swaslemoor mink farm is currently licensed to keep mink;

  (5) whether mink are currently present at Brome mink farm; and when the last licence was issued for this establishment.

  Mr. Soames
  Ministry policy is not to disclose details of licences of mink farms.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many times officials of the State Veterinary Service have monitored the killing of arctic foxes on fur farms during each of the last five years;

  (2) what method is used to kill arctic foxes in fur farms.
  644
  Mr. Soames
  Officers of the State Veterinary Service monitored the slaughter of arctic fox once in the last five years. On that occasion the method of slaughter used was by lethal injection.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many welfare inspections were carried out on mink farms in 1993 by officers of the State Veterinary Service.

  Mr. Soames
  Officers of the State Veterinary Service carried out 13 inspections on mink farms in 1993.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total breeding population of mink in England, by county.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink Keeping Order 1992, which requires that mink farms are licensed by Agriculture Departments, does not require regular returns of the number of mink kept. However, best estimates suggest that the total number of mink being kept in fur farms in the United Kingdom has fallen from approximately 100,000 in 1987 to some 47,000 in 1992.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink were killed in fur factory farms in England last November.

  Mr. Soames
  The Mink Keeping Order 1992, which requires that mink farms are licensed by Agriculture Departments, does not require returns to be made of the number of mink killed.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licensing applications for new mink fur factory farms have been made in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Soames
  In the last five years up to 30 June 1994, two licence applications have been made for new mink farms: one in 1991 and one earlier this year. All other licence applications received have been for licence renewals.

  Calves' Offal
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration she gave to banning the use of the brains and spinal cords of calves under the age of six months in human food equally with the intestines and thymus; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I have considered carefully the advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and the Government's chief medical officer and concluded that on the basis of the scientific evidence there is no justification for banning the use of brain, spinal cord, tonsils and spleen of calves under six months of age from human food.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research she is doing on the dangers of consumption of the thalamus.

  Mr. Soames
  The thalamus is part of the brain, and therefore from bovine animals over six months of age is a specified bovine offal which is prohibited for use in food for humans, animals and birds. The thalamus has not been
  645
  tested separately from the rest of the brain, which has been assayed on several occasions, and in which the BSE agent has been shown to be present in brains from clinically infected cattle.

  The hon. Member may have in mind the thymus gland which was specifically mentioned in the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 30 June, Official Report, column 264, about new controls on calf offals. The thymus is also a specified bovine offal and prohibited for human consumption. Thymus tissue from experimental calves orally challenged with a large dose of BSE-infected brain is being assayed for infectivity in mice under a project funded by the Ministry. This research is incomplete but so far there is no evidence of infectivity in thymus tissue.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the background and field of expertise of each member of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested about members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is as follows:Dr. David A. J. Tyrrell: CBE, FRS. (Chairman)—Physician and Virologist. Former Director of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Common Cold Unit and Deputy Director of the MRC Clinical Research Centre.
  Dr. Robert G. Will (Deputy Chairman)—Consultant Neurologist at the Western General Hospital, Edinburgh and Head of the National Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit.
  Professor Ingrid V. Allen—Professor of Neuropathology at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast.
  Professor Fred Brown FRS—Virologist. Former Deputy Director (Scientific) Animal Virus Research Institute (Pirbright).
  Dr. William D. Hueston—Veterinary Epidemiologist, United States Department of Agriculture.

  Region

  Northern

  Mid/West

  Eastern

  South East

  South West

  Wales

  Scotland

  1989

  Beef

  31

  31

  43

  36

  102

  64

  47

  Dairy

  365

  886

  326

  1,017

  3,050

  374

  124

  1990

  Beef

  119

  88

  59

  92

  179

  145

  165

  Dairy

  882

  2,027

  678

  1,655

  4,935

  760

  242

  1991

  Beef

  226

  213

  127

  146

  423

  293

  260

  Dairy

  1,544

  3,566

  1,108

  2,262

  8,852

  1,604

  378

  1992

  Beef

  521

  602

  290

  356

  847

  647

  634

  Dairy

  2,740

  6,147

  1,669

  3,009

  11,223

  2,578

  831

  1993

  Beef

  782

  761

  438

  498

  952

  852

  1,043

  Dairy

  2,920

  6,537

  1,989

  3,014

  10,093

  2,634

  1,007

  19941

  Beef

  406

  329

  189

  248

  400

  363

  497

  Dairy

  1,284

  2,951

  1,050

  1,470

  4,069

  1,161

  437

  1As at 11 July 1994.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list all research
  646
  Dr. Richard H. Kimberlin—Independent Consultant on Scrapie and Related Diseases.
  Mr. David B. Pepper—Veterinary Surgeon in Private Practice (Retired).
  Dr. William A. Watson—Veterinary Surgeon. Former Director of the Central Veterinary Laboratory.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial allowance is given to members appointed to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Soames
  All members of the committee receive reimbursement of necessarily incurred travel and subsistence expenses. The chairman and four members of the committee also receive a daily fee for attendance at meetings in accordance with provisions set out in Treasury guidelines. The fee is £165 per meeting for the chairman and £131 for those members who receive a fee.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the supply of green top milk from dairy herds where BSE has been identified.

  Mr. Soames
  Green top milk from dairy herds where BSE has been identified is safe. Indeed, there is no evidence to indicate that milk will transmit any of the spongiform encephalopathies. Nevertheless, as part of the Government's ultra-cautious approach to BSE, the use of milk from BSE suspects is prohibited unless fed to their own calf, and all suspect BSE cattle are slaughtered and incinerated.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE have been reported in each region of Britain in(a) beef cattle and (d) dairy cattle in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Projects related to BSE which have been supported by Government in the last three years; and which projects are currently under consideration for future financial support.
  647
  Mr. Soames
  The titles of research projects that, for the last three years, have been and are currently being supported by Government funding are shown in the table. Research on bovine spongiform encephalopathy is also

  Research projects related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy Supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the last three years

  Project title

  Contractor

  Start date

  Proposed end date

  Infectivity of various tissues from animals with BSE

  Royal Veterinary College, Veterinary Pathology

  1 January 1989

  30 June 1993

  Evidence for the inheritance of susceptibility to BSE

  Dr. W. V. S. Wijeratne

  1 July 1990

  30 June 1993

  Experimental transmission of feline spongiform encephalopathy to mice

  Bristol University, Pathology and Microbiology

  29 August 1990

  28 August 1993

  Large scale isolation of abnormal prion protein from BSE-infected tissue

  Birmingham University, Chemical Engineering

  1 June 1991

  31 May 1993

  BSE deactivation studies (part of EC project)

  IAH, Compton Laboratory

  1 October 1991

  11 October 1994

  Bovine gene mapping with particular reference to BSE

  Roslin Institute, Edinburgh

  1 October 1991

  30 September 1994

  Further studies on oral transmission of BSE to mice

  Royal Veterinary College, Veterinary Pathology

  30 January 1992

  29 January 1995

  Investigation of the role of the embryo in maternal transmission of scrapie in sheep

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 July 1992

  30 June 1995

  Potential role of anti-PrP in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1994

  Transferrin ion binding in normal and abnormal plasma

  UL, UCL, Medical Microbiology

  1 November 1992

  31 October 1993

  Genetic susceptibility of cattle to BSE

  Reading University, Department Applied Statistics

  1 July 1993

  30 June 1994

  Continued large scale isolation of abnormal PrP from BSE affected tissues

  Birmingham University

  1 June 1994

  31 May 1995

  BSE: Epidemiological studies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1988

  31 March 1996

  BSE: Study to determine occurrence and incidence of maternal transmission

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 October 1990

  31 March 1997

  Longitudinal studies of the brain pathology of BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 January 1992

  30 June 1996

  Brain pathology of clinical BSE in cattle born subsequent to exclusion of ruminant protein in ruminant feed

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Clinical and epidemiological correlates of the vacuolar profile in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 October 1993

  Correlation of the histopathological diagnosis of clinically suspect but histopathologically unconfirmed BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 December 1993

  Comparative neuropathology of recently recorded scrapie-like encephalopathies in animal species other than cattle

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1998

  Identification of BSE infection in cattle tissue

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  Transmission of BSE and natural scrapie into sheep and goats by intracerebral and oral routes

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1996

  Strain typing of BSE pathogens in mice, and comparison with strains from natural sheep scrapie

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1991

  31 March 1999

  Susceptibility of BSE and scrapie isolates to laboratory facsimilies of rendering practices

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1997

  Susceptibility of BSE agent to chemical and physical inactivation procedures applicable to the field/laboratory

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1996

  648
  supported by the Biotechnology and Biologial Sciences Research Council, but this Ministry does not hold detailed information on these.

  As new research projects are submitted by potential contractors "in confidence" for consideration by officials of this Ministry details of these projects are unavailable.
  649 650

  Project title

  Contractor

  Start date

  Proposed end date

  PrP gene variants and their potential as markers for natural and experimental scrapie susceptibility in sheep

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1994

  Analysis of neuclic acid and differences between control and scrapie/BSE infected animals

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1994

  Diagnosis of BSE by detection of abnormal deposits of PrP and other BSE-infection specific antigens

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1994

  Development of an antemortem test for BSE and natural scrapie infection through the detection of abnormal deposits of PrP

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1997

  Sheep PrP gene studies

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Further analysis of nucleic acid differences between control and scrapie/BSE infected animals

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1997

  Identification of genetic markers for susceptibility of sheep to scrapie

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1997

  Evaluation of electrophysiological methods for the study of BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  A study of the diagnostic potential of behavioural abnormalities in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Diagnostic potential of the pharmacological manipulation of clinical signs of BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Electrophoretic analysis of body fluids to identify diagnostic markers in BSE and scrapie

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  Identification of BSE and scrapie infected animals by the detection of a urinary metabolite

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  I April 1992

  31 March 1995

  Sensitivity studies of fibril detection techniques used in Electron Microscopy for the diagnosis of scrapie

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1991

  30 September 1996

  Biochemical approaches to the differential diagnosis of BSE in the live animal

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 November 1992

  31 March 1995

  Sensitivity of scrapie-associated fibrils from different breeds of sheep to proteinase K digestion

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 July 1992

  31 March 1994

  TSE fibril immunolabelling studies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 July 1992

  31 March 1994

  Establishment of in-vitro culture of bovine cells for veterinary research

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 January 1993

  31 March 1994

  Production of sera suitable for the development of immunodiagnostic tests for transmissible spongiform

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 December 1993

  Gain information on use of resistant rams as method of controlling or eradicating scrapie

  ADAS

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1999

  Scale up of isolation of abnormal PrP from BSE infected tissue

  Birmingham University

  1 June 1993

  31 May 1994

  Molecular characterisation of a single stranded (SS) DNA observed in scrapie infected hamster and mouse brain—Jointly funded by MAFF and BBSRC

  London Hospital Medical College

  1 August 1993

  31 July 1994

  Studies of PrP gene of species naturally and experimentally infected with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1995

  Significance of PrP and putative anti-PrP genes on susceptibility to transmission of spongiform encephalopathies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1994

  Transcriptional control of the PrP promotor

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1997

  651 652

  Project title

  Contractor

  Start date

  Proposed end date

  Antibodies against the BSE agent

  Reading University, Department of Microbiology

  1 February 1994

  31 January 1995

  Molecular characterisation of bovine PrP

  IAH, Compton Laboratory

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1995

  BSE: Embryo transfer studies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 October 1989

  30 September 2000

  Transmissibility of BSE to pigs by injection with brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1989

  31 March 1998

  Transmissibility of BSE to pigs by oral exposure to brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1990

  31 May 1999

  Transmissibility of BSE to cattle by oranasal exposure to placentae of affected cattle

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 May 1998

  Transmissibility of BSE to domestic fowl by injection with brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 May 1999

  Transmissibility of BSE to domestic fowl by oral exposure to brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 May 1999

  Transmissibility of BSE to mink by intracerebral and by oral exposure to brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 December 1993

  Transmissibility of BSE and natural scrapie to marmoset by stereotoxic intracerebral inoculation of brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Comparative efficiencies of the bioassay of BSE infectivity in cattle and mice

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 2006

  Peripheral tissue distribution of the agent of spongiform encephalopathy in kudu

  Institute of Zoology

  1 June 1993

  31 May 1996

  Injection of bovine embryos with BSE/PrP infectivity

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1993

  31 March 1994

  BSE: Transmissibility to cattle by injection with brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1993

  31 March 1994

  Transmissibility of scrapie to pigs by oral exposure to brain homogenate

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1993

  31 December 2005

  Pathogenesis of experimental BSE in cattle

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  I April 1992

  31 July 1998

  Effect of oral innoculation dose on attack rate and incubation period of BSE in cattle

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  Targeting of PrBSE: Immunohistological localisation

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 December 1995

  Spinal cord pathology in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Extraneural pathology of natural and experimental BSE in cattle

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Neuronal morphology in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 May 1995

  Morphometric and immunohistochemical studies of BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Ultrastructural morphological and immunocylochemical studies of transmissible degenerative encephalopathies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  Potential role of anti-PrP in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 January 1992

  31 March 1993

  Aetiological studies of brainstem neuronal chromatolysis; a disorder clinically similar to BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 October 1992

  31 October 1997

  Sequential observations of neurological signs in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 December 1995

  Magnetic resonnance of imaging bovine brains

  Animal Health Trust

  1 December 1993

  31 January 1994

  Morphometric evaluation of scrapied mice

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 May 1994

  31 August 1995

  Scrapie infection of sheep neural and extraneural cell lines

  Moredun Research Institute

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1996

  653

  Project title

  Contractor

  Start date

  Proposed end date

  For BSE work with ADAS

  ADAS

  1 April 1991

  31 March 1995

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the projects which have been funded in the last three years; and which are under consideration for funding, that are related to establishing a live BSE identification test for cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  The table lists those research projects on bovine spongiform encephalopathy supported by

  Research projects concerned with the diagnosis of BSE in live animals supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Project title

  Contractor

  Start date

  Proposed end date

  Large scale isolation of abnormal prion protein from BSE-infected tissue

  Birmingham University, Chemical Engineering

  1 June 1991

  31 May 1993

  Transferrin ion binding in normal and abnormal plasma

  UL, UCL, Medical Microbiology

  1 November 1992

  31 October 1993

  Continued Large scale isolation of abnormal PrP from BSE affected tissues

  Birmingham University

  1 June 1994

  31 May 1995

  PrP gene variants and their potential as markers for natural and experimental scrapie susceptibility in sheep

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1994

  Analysis of neuclic acid and differences between control and scrapie/BSE infected animals

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1994

  Diagnosis of BSE by detection of abnormal deposits of PrP and other BSE-infection specific antigens

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1990

  31 March 1994

  Development of an antemortem test for BSE and natural scrapie infection through the detection of abnormal deposits of Prp

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1997

  Sheep PrP Gene studies

  Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Further analysis of neuclicc acid differences between control and scrapie/BSE infected animals

  IAH, Neuropathogenesis Unit

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1997

  Evaluation of electrophysiological methods for the study of BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  A study of the diagnostic potential of behavioural abnormalities in BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Diagnostic potential of the pharmacologicial manipulation of clinica; signs of BSE

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1993

  Electrophoretic analysis of body fluids to identify diagnostic markers in BSE and scrapie

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1996

  Identification of BSE and scrapie infected animals by the detection of a urinary metabolite

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1995

  Sensitivity studies of fibril detection techniques used in Electron Microsocopy for the diagnosis of scrapie

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1991

  30 September 1996

  Biochemical approaches to the differential diagnosis of BSE in the live animal

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 November 1992

  31 March 1995

  Sensitivity of scrapie-associated fibrils from different breeds of sheep to proteinase K digestion

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 July 1992

  31 March 1994

  TSE fibril immunolabelling studies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 July 1992

  31 March 1994

  Establishment of in-vitro culture of bovine cells for veterinary research

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 January 1993

  31 March 1994

  Production of sera suitable for the development of immunodiagnostic tests for transmissible spongiform

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 December 1993

  654
  Government during the last three years, which are related to establishing methods for diagnosing BSE in the live animal. Some of the other research projects funded by Government may also contribute to the developments of diagnostic methods, in as much as they contribute to knowledge about the nature of the infectious agent and the response of the infected animal.
  655

  Project title

  Contractor

  Start date

  Proposed end date

  Gain information on use of resistant rams as method of controlling or eradicating scrapie

  ADAS, Redesdale

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1999

  Scale up of isolation of abnormal PrP from BSE infected tissue

  Birmingham University

  1 June 1993

  31 May 1994

  Molecular characterisation of a single stranded (SS) DNA observed in scrapie infected hamster and mouse brain

  London Hospital Medical College

  1 August 1993

  31 July 1994

  Studies of PrP gene of species naturally and experimentally infected with transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1995

  Significance of PrP and putative anti-PrP genes on susceptibility to transmission of spongiform encephalopathies

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  31 March 1994

  Transcriptional control of the PrP Promotor

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1997

  Antibodies against the BSE agent

  Reading University, Department of Microbiology

  1 February 1994

  31 January 1995

  Molecular characterisation of Bovine PrP

  IAH, Compton Laboratory [FPC]

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1995

  Scrapie infection of sheep neural and extraneural cell lines

  Moredun Research Institute

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1996

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 22 June Official Report, column 168 what assessment she has made of the risk to humans posed by bovine immunodeficiency virus.

  Mr. Soames
  Bovine immunodeficiency-like virus, which was first identified in 1969, is one of a group of viruses that make up the lentivirus—slow virus—group. There is no evidence that it affects humans whether through contact with animals, drinking milk or eating meat. Experimental efforts to grow the virus in human cells have failed. Two United States laboratory personnel who had accidentally had needle stick injuries with BIV-infected cell culture material some five years ago have shown no signs of illness. Cattle with BIV antibodies have been identified in a number of countries and the virus is thought to have a worldwide distribution. No country as far as we are aware has considered it necessary to impose restrictions on known positive cattle herds in order either to protect the public or to prevent spread to other herds. It is characteristic of the lentiviruses to be highly species specific and it is important to note that mankind for generations has been in contact with horses, sheep, goats and cats many of which will have been infected with lentiviruses.

  Racing Pigeons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of paramyxovirus infection in commercial poultry have been attributed to racing pigeons for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  The virus which causes paramyxoviruses in pigeons causes Newcastle disease in poultry. The last confirmed outbreak of Newcastle disease in commercial poultry was in 1984, when racing pigeons were implicated.

  Durum Wheat, Italy
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 27 June,Official Report, columns 401–2 what were the areas and discrepancies of durum wheat measured by remote sensing in Italy; what subsequent action was taken by the Italian authorities; and what evidence she has on whether such action has been effective.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 30 June 1994]: The information requested is not held by my Department. Further details of the results and the nature of the action taken by the Italian authorities can be obtained from the European Commission in Brussels.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of her Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: Although the paper used for MAFF press releases and written answers is not at present recycled, they are all printed on an environmentally friendly paper made from pulp obtained from sustainable and managed forests. Tests of recycled paper on the high-speed and high-volume printing machines used to produce press releases and written answers have so far been unsuccessful. MAFF does use recycled or environmentally friendly paper wherever this is available, of adequate quality and represents value for money. Later this year, another type of paper is to be used which has been subject to an environmental audit and awarded an "Eco-check" four-star rating. Ministers' correspondence, which is not copied in large quantities, is printed on recycled paper.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to her departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans she has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 July 1994]: In March this year, the status of the former Agricultural Training Board was changed from that of a statutory, controlled non-departmental public body to a non-statutory private sector organisation with charitable status. The new organisation is known as ATB-Landbase. In 1990, it was announced that the Government intended to dispose of the assets of the Covent Garden Market Authority when legislative time permits. My right hon. Friend has taken no decisions regarding the transfer to private ownership of any other organisation of which she is owner or joint owner.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which interested parties she has written to on the licensing of BST; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 12 July 1994]: Following the announcement of my intention formally to consult all interested parties about BST I wrote on 28 April to 173 organisations, including welfare interests consumer organisations and industry bodies. A copy of the consultation package, including a list of those consulted, was placed in the Library of the House on 9 June.

  Up to 7 July, copies had also been sent to a further 38 members of the public, hon. Members and organisations, a list of which has been placed in the Library of the House today.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether her Department will make a grant to the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy to fund the undertaking of further research into the safety of comfrey and comfrey products.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry will shortly publish its "Food Research Requirements Document 1995–96" which describes the research topics that the Ministry is prepared to fund in the next financial year. These topics include research on the toxic properties of natural constituents of food which may cover the research requirements of the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy. The society is therefore welcome to submit its proposal for research in this area which will be assessed for its suitability for funding against the selection criteria listed in the document.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Police Computers (Misuse of Information)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many police offices have been prosecuted for misusing personal information from police computers in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.
  658
  The information held centrally on prosecutions under the Data Protection Act 1984 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 does not include the profession of the defendant. But I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers is aware of two cases during 1993 of police officers being prosecuted for offences arising from the misuse of computer-held information.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders were committed in England and Wales in each of the last three years for which figures are available, and, of these, how many were persons killed by(a) shotguns, (b) handguns and (c) other firearms.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information which relates to homicide is published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which can be found in the Library, latest edition, 1992, Cm 2410, table 3.4.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will show for each of the last three years(a) the total number of crimes reported to the police, (b) the number of crimes which were believed to involve firearms, (c) the categories of crimes in which firearms were used, (d) the type of firearms used, (e) the number of persons charged with using firearms in the commission of crime, and (f) how many of those persons had authority to possess the firearms.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which can be found in the Library—latest edition, 1992 Cm. 2410, table 2.1—for total offences recorded by the police; table 3.1 for offences in which firearms were used; table 3.3 for the type of firearm involved; and table 3.13 for persons found guilty.

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people charged with causing the death of another person by the use of a firearm of any description in England and Wales had authority to possess that firearm, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place in respect of vehicle exhaust emissions in each of the last five years from(a) freight vehicles, (b) other vehicles and (c) in totals; and how many have resulted in conviction.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Red Routes
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made by his Department of the effect of the introduction of red routes in parts of London on the incidence of crime locally.
  659
  Mr Norris
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  No specific assessment has been made, but there is no reason why red route controls should lead to any increase in crime whatever.

  Private Prisons
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what services are provided to his Department by(a) Wackenhut and (b) Wackenhut Corrections Corporation other than running prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The named companies are not under contract with the Home Office to provide any services other than running prisons.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances there is a bar on awarding contracts for private prisons to companies whose parent companies, subsidiaries or consortium partners have been in breach of the criminal law in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

  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 Philippa Drew to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about whether any bar exists on awarding contracts to private companies whose parent companies, subsidiaries or consortium partners have been in breach of the criminal law in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
  The Prison Service awards contracts in accordance with the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993 Section IV, paragraph 14(1)(d) of the Regulations, amongst other matters, provides that a contracting authority may treat a services provider as ineligible to tender for, or to be included amongst those persons from whom it will make the selection of persons to be invited to tender for or to negotiate a contract, on the grounds that the services provider has been convicted of a criminal offence relating to the conduct of his business or profession.
  An assessment of whether a services provider should be treated in this way would include considering the nature of the service to be provided to the Prison Service and the nature of the business that led to a conviction for a criminal offence.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what security checks and clearances were made by his Department on(a) Wackenhut and (b) Wackenhut Corrections Corporation prior to the award of the contract to manage Doncaster prison;

  (2) what checks were made on (a) Wackenhut and (b) Wackenhut Corrections Corporation by his Department prior to the award of the contract to manage Doncaster prison to Premier Prison Services.

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

  Letter from Philippa Drew to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent
  660
  Questions about security checks and clearances made by his Department on (a) Wackenhut and (b) Wackenhut Corrections Corporation prior to the award of the contract to manage Doncaster Prison.
  Checks were carried out in accordance with Part IV, paragraph 14(1) of the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993 (SI 1993 No. 3228).

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff at Blakenhurst prison have(a) resigned and (b) been dismissed since the prison opened.

  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 Philippa Drew to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of staff at Blakenhurst Prison who have (a) resigned and (b) been dismissed since the prison opened.
  42 staff have resigned and six have been dismissed.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is the Crown monitor at Doncaster Prison; and at what grade is the post.

  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 Brian Landers to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about who is the Crown Monitor at Doncaster Prison; and at what grade is their post.
  The controller at Doncaster prison, who is a Crown servant, is a Governor Grade 2.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many managerial staff working at(a) Blakenhurst prison and (b) Doncaster prison are former employees of the Prison Service.

  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 Brian Landers to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of managerial staff working at Blakenhurst and Doncaster prisons who are former employees of the Prison Service.
  There are nine former employees of the Prison Service working at Blakenhurst prison and eight at Doncaster prison. All are employed in senior or middle management positions.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what trade unions are recognised by Premier Prison Services Ltd. at Doncaster prison.

  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.
  661
  Letter from Brian Landers to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about which trade unions are recognised by Premier Prison Services Ltd at Doncaster Prison.
  It is Premier Prison Services' company policy to allow the staff in each establishment, on a site-by-site basis, to decide whether they wish to be represented by a trade union in discussion on conditions of employment.
  However, during the start up of a new operation, representation will be by way of a locally elected staff association. Such a staff association is in the process of being established at Doncaster Prison.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what trade unions are recognised by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd., at Blakenhurst prison.

  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 Brian Landers to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 13 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about which trade unions are recognised by United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. at Blakenhurst Prison.
  It is not UKDS' current intention to recognise any particular union for negotiation of terms of employment for any individual employee or groups of employees. A Staff Consultative Committee has been established to enable representative staff members to meet with senior management on a regular and formal basis.

  Prison Service (Performance Bonuses)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many performance bonuses have been awarded to Prison Service agency officials in 1994 to the latest available date;

  (2) if he will list the Prison Service agency officials who received performance bonuses in 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Director General of the Prison Service has received performance bonuses in respect of the periods 6 January 1993, when he was appointed, to 31 March 1993 and 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994. Other members of the Prison Service have received performance pay increases, where appropriate, in accordance with the arrangements for the civil service generally.

  Emergency Arrangements
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the steps being taken to ensure the introduction of a uniform national early warning public alert system of a kind urged by the Association of County Councils and the professional organisations concerned with civil protection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At this stage we are not persuaded that a uniform national public alert system can be justified on threat or cost grounds.

  Future national arrangements for warning the public of an air attack will be based around the use of radio and television broadcasts.

  Peacetime Disasters
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to enhance the arrangements for the designation of Government Departments and the precise allocation of responsibilities in response to major peacetime disasters in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The designation of Government Departments to take the central Government lead in response to a major peacetime disaster is the responsibility of the Cabinet Office civil contingencies unit. The designations are kept under constant review, as are the responsibilities to be discharged by Departments. The Home Office publication "Dealing with Disaster" explains the role of the lead Government Department and which Departments have been pre-nominated for particular disasters. A copy is in the Library of both Houses.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the recommendations of the Metropolitan police review of specialist units in relation to the future of the obscene publications branch.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 26 May, col.265.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Data Protection Act 1984 to reduce the bureaucratic burden associated with compliance with the data protection principles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We shall consider what amendments may be needed to the Data Protection Act 1984 when the outcome of the negotiations on the draft EU directive on data protection is known.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list those who contributed to his paper "Costs of Implementing the Data Protection Directive"; and if he will place in the Library the answers to his Department's questionnaires from data user organisations, if necessary in a form which would not breach confidentiality.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of those from outside the Home Office who responded to the costings questionnaire. It would not be possible to anonymise all the responses as many of these contain comments which indicate their source. The hon. Member may wish to approach the respondents direct, to ask them for a copy of their response.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the reoffending rate for young people who complete their sentence in an institution compared with that of young people who undertake community service in the community in the last four weeks of their sentence.
  663
  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the average young person under 24 years who completes a youth custody sentence from the known commencement of his criminal career.

  Mr. Maclean
  I regret that the available information does not allow any such estimate to be made.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the comparable reoffending rate for young people sentenced to a young offenders institution and young people sentenced to work in the community.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the table. The comparison reflects not only the effectiveness of the sentences involved but the different characteristics of offenders receiving the sentences. Research to be published shortly by the Home Office has shown that the criminal history, age and sex of the offender are associated with re-offending. Furthermore, the statistics of reconvictions contain a proportion of convictions relating to additional offences committed before the current sentence was passed.

  Percentage of offenders aged under 21 commencing Community Service Orders in 1987 or discharged from prison in 1987 who were reconvicted of a 'standard list' offence3 within two years.

  Those discharged from prison service establishments1 Per cent.

  Those commencing a community service order2 Per cent.

  Males

  71

  65

  Females

  51

  43

  1Source: Prison Statistics England and Wales 1992 (Cm. 2581 HMSO).

  2Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Reconvictions of those given Probation and Community Service Orders in 1987" (Issue 18–93).

  3Reconviction statistics relate to "standard list" offences as defined in Appendix 4 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales, 1992" (Cm. 2410).

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made with the Governments of the Isle of Man and Jersey to harmonise procedures to prevent money laundering.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Isle of Man and Jersey—and Guernsey—have all endorsed the 40 recommendations of the financial action task force against money laundering, established at the G7 summit in Paris in 1989, and have formally agreed to undergo an evaluation exercise, similar to that carried out by the task force in the United Kingdom in 1992, which will submit their anti-money laundering systems to a thorough examination. They have all also issued anti-money laundering notes for guidance to their financial institutions, similar to those issued in the United Kingdom. In addition, all three have criminalised drug money laundering in legislation modelled on the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  Immigration
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have chosen to be voluntarily repatriated under the scheme in the Immigration Act 1971, in each year from 1974 to 1986.
  664
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The voluntary repatriation scheme established under section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971 is operated by the International Social Service of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Home Office. During the financial years 1973–74 to 1986–87 the number of people repatriated under the scheme is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1973–74

  239

  1974–75

  156

  1975–76

  219

  1976–77

  110

  1977–78

  130

  1978–79

  178

  1979–80

  131

  1980–81

  142

  1981–82

  218

  1982–83

  152

  1983–84

  144

  1984–85

  81

  1985–86

  72

  1986–87

  65

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he now has any firm proposals for increases in the cost of firearm and shotgun certificates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The fees for the grant and renewal of firearm and shot gun certificates are currently under review. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the value of his official car.

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office provides three official cars for the Secretary of State's use. Two were purchased in 1988 at a cost of £27,000 each. A replacement third car was purchased earlier this year at a cost of £19,000.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those convicted of driving without insurance received fines of more than £1,000 in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information available to me indicates that five convictions for driving without insurance in 1990 in England and Wales resulted in fines of over £1,000 being imposed, six in 1991 and 25 in 1992.

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: There are no known instances during the last 10 years of Ministers in

  665
  the Home Office issuing written instructions in pursuance of paragraphs 13 or 14 of section 6.1.5 of "Government Accounting".

  Asbestos-related deaths and disorders Table 1—Deaths from asbestosis without mention of mesothelioma for each region and health board area of Scotland, 1984–93

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  12

  22

  16

  12

  17

  19

  17

  18

  13

  16

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central/Forth Valley

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  1

  2

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  1

  Grampian

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Highlands

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Lothian

  2

  4

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  2

  Strathclyde

  8

  13

  10

  5

  11

  13

  12

  10

  8

  10

  Tayside

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Orkney Islands Area

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland Islands Area

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles Islands Area

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Table 2-Deaths from asbestosis mentioning mesothelioma for each region and health board area of Scotland, 1984–93

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  3

  4

  4

  7

  7

  2

  6

  0

  5

  4

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central/Forth Valley

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Highland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Strathclyde

  2

  3

  3

  7

  7

  2

  4

  0

  5

  3

  Tayside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Orkney Islands Area

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland Islands Area

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles Islands Area

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development Agency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many legal actions were initiated by Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Development Agency which were(a) discontinued and (b) settled out of court for each year in the period 1983 to 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  Decisions to initiate, discontinue or settle legal actions are operational matters for Scottish Enterprise and I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member. I understand that the Scottish Development Agency did not maintain a record of cases discontinued or settled out of Court.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's policy on allowing council tax bands to be used as a basis for charging by third parties.

SCOTLAND

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the incidence and geographical distribution of deaths in Scotland from asbestosis and related diseases for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on council tax bands in Scotland is publicly available under the provisions of section 91 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Charging methods used by third parties should be appropriate to their circumstances.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) for Scotland how many households in Scotland, by region, receive the 25 per cent. discount on council tax charges;

  (2) what percentage of people in Scotland are in each of the council tax bands, nationally and by region.

  Mr. Stewart
  Council tax banding relates to dwellings and statistics are maintained only on that basis. The table shows the total number and percentage of dwellings by band, and the number of dwellings where there is an entitlement to a single discount, nationally and by region.
  667 668

  Number of dwellings by band and single discounts

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  Borders

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  15,040

  11,693

  5,491

  4,407

  4,482

  2,652

  2,321

  401

  46,487

  Percentage of total

  32·4

  25·2

  11·8

  9·5

  9·6

  4·7

  5·0

  0·9

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  7,399

  3,087

  1,309

  1,003

  860

  399

  295

  52

  14,404

  Central

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  34,162

  31,764

  9,482

  10,197

  12,301

  6,660

  4,844

  503

  109,103

  Percentage of total

  31·1

  28·9

  8·6

  9·3

  11·2

  6·1

  4·4

  0·5

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  17,360

  9,693

  2,862

  2,457

  2,420

  1,118

  694

  73

  36,677

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  10,864

  21,321

  9,445

  8,112

  8,117

  3,189

  1,592

  156

  62,796

  Percentage of total

  17·3

  34·0

  15·0

  12·9

  12·9

  5·1

  2·5

  0·2

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  5,095

  5,598

  2,075

  1,680

  1,498

  501

  203

  19

  16,669

  Fife

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  40,124

  43,509

  19,199

  13,701

  15,322

  6,584

  3,637

  380

  142,456

  Percentage of total

  28·2

  30·5

  13·5

  9·6

  10·8

  4·6

  2·6

  0·3

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  22,029

  14,241

  5,003

  3,191

  2,932

  1,026

  546

  63

  49,031

  Grampian

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  50,976

  48,510

  31,635

  24,024

  28,435

  15,737

  11,269

  1,042

  211,628

  Percentage of total

  24·1

  22·9

  14·9

  11·4

  13·4

  7·4

  5·3

  0·5

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  26,584

  17,999

  8,619

  5,748

  5,523

  2,419

  1,335

  114

  68,341

  Highland

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  18,138

  19,984

  16,721

  13,215

  12,230

  4,685

  2,278

  281

  87,532

  Percentage of total

  20·7

  22·8

  19·1

  15·1

  14·0

  5·4

  2·6

  0·3

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  8,422

  7,121

  4,672

  3,051

  2,241

  654

  318

  28

  26,507

  Lothian

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  46,782

  85,710

  63,520

  37,479

  39,300

  24,095

  19,673

  3,366

  319,925

  Percentage of total

  14·6

  26·8

  19·9

  11·7

  12·3

  7·5

  6·1

  1·1

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  23,079

  37,653

  24,138

  12,594

  10,609

  5,788

  3,760

  498

  118,119

  Strathclyde

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  292,389

  235,023

  147,392

  98,728

  90,851

  42,118

  27,831

  2,760

  937,092

  Percentage of total

  31·2

  25·1

  15·7

  10·5

  9·7

  4·5

  3·0

  0·3

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  146,276

  89,582

  44,569

  23,598

  16,7447

  6,184

  3,242

  232

  330,427

  Tayside

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  52,077

  43,510

  19,932

  19,699

  18,259

  7,485

  4,881

  719

  166,562

  Percentage of total

  31·3

  26·1

  12·0

  11·8

  11·0

  4·5

  2·9

  0·4

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  30,921

  15,919

  5,948

  4,915

  3,519

  1,051

  639

  86

  62,998

  Orkney

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  2,584

  2,360

  1,550

  1,157

  608

  108

  13

  1

  8,381

  Percentage of total

  30·8

  28·2

  18·5

  13·8

  7·3

  1·3

  0·2

  0·0

  100·0

  669

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  1,214

  675

  348

  185

  65

  9

  3

  0

  2,499

  Shetland

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  3,312

  1,593

  2,194

  1,179

  699

  117

  24

  2

  9,120

  Percentage of total

  36·3

  17·5

  24·1

  12·9

  7·7

  1·3

  0·3

  0·0

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  1,079

  481

  548

  150

  56

  8

  1

  0

  2,323

  Western Isles

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  4,533

  3,434

  2,319

  1,134

  587

  102

  20

  6

  12,135

  Percentage of total

  37·4

  28·3

  19·1

  9·3

  4·8

  0·8

  0·2

  0·0

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  2,001

  1,081

  470

  149

  71

  13

  1

  0

  3,786

  Scotland

  Number of chargeable dwellings1

  570,981

  548,411

  328,880

  233,032

  231,191

  113,532

  78,383

  9,617

  2,114,027

  Percentage of total

  27·0

  25·9

  15·6

  11·0

  10·9

  5·4

  3·7

  0·5

  100·0

  Number of dwellings entitled to single discount

  291,459

  203,130

  100,561

  58,721

  46,538

  19,170

  11,037

  1,165

  731,781

  1Number of chargeable dwellings after adjustment for disabled reduction.

  Source: Statistical return from local authority finance departments, October 1993.

  Erskine Bridge
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been spent on the fabric of the Erskine bridge in each year since it opened.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. The amounts prior to 1989 relate to the whole Erskine complex including approach roads, Dalnottar interchange, toll booths and administration buildings. Expenditure on the cable stay bridge could be separated only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Maintenance costs

  1971–72

  52,458

  1972–73

  88,274

  1973–74

  100,037

  1974–75

  121,185

  1975–76

  1456,192

  1976–77

  1681,976

  1977–78

  1934,462

  1978–79

  1817,467

  1979–80

  1814,800

  1980–81

  1772,151

  1981–82

  11,564,378

  1982–83

  12,051,090

  1983–84

  1966,915

  1984–85

  1267,609

  1985–86

  1264,615

  1986–87

  1278,810

  1987–88

  289,941

  1988–89

  269,878

  1989–90

  40,409

  1990–91

  110,446

  1991–92

  67,157

  1992–93

  188,812

  1993–94

  134,310

  1994–95

  25,370,000

  1Includes £7,341,322 for strengthening superstructure to comply with new design rules for steel box bridges.

  670
  2Includes £5,100,000 for major but routine waterproofing and resurfacing which are currently requiring traffic management on the bridge.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected expenditure on Erskine bridge for each of the next five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In addition to routine maintenance expenditure each year of £100,000 to £150,000, repainting the outside of the steel boxes supporting the carriageways will be required at an estimated cost of £2 million during the next five years. Expenditure on routine and programmed inspections and assessments will be made in line with standard practice for long-span bridges in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the condition of the Erskine and Kingston bridges and the likely disruptive effects of repairs to these bridges over the coming year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Erskine bridge is structurally sound and only works to maintain it in good condition have been identified. These can be carried out without full closure of the bridge but may from time to time require traffic management and lane closures.

  Kingston bridge in Glasgow is the responsibility of Strathclyde regional council and information on this structure can be obtained from its director of roads.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that Erskine bridge will not be closed because of repairs this year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Given present knowledge of the bridge and the works planned, there will be no need to close the bridge in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the early findings of the current principal inspection being carried out on Erskine bridge.
  671
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The consulting engineers carrying out the principal inspection are in general very pleased with the condition of the bridge. The final report has not yet been received. In practical terms, the inspection has confirmed that the original protective coatings to the cable stays should be replaced next year as expected after over 20 years in service.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make the findings of the present inspection being carried out on Erskine bridge publicly available

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Routine technical documents are not generally published, but there is no reason why interested parties should not have access to the principal inspection report. The report is expected towards the end of the year.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if it is his policy that the new water companies should base their charges on the amount used;

  (2) for how long the new water boards will be able to use rateable values as a basis for charging.

  Sir Hector Monro
  It will be for the new water and sewerage authorities to prepare charges schemes. These will need to be approved by the Customers Council or, failing that, by the Secretary of State before they come into effect.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what access to(a) the council tax banding of individuals, (b) income tax assessments and (c) DSS records the proposed new water boards will have in levying water charges.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There is provision in the Local Government, etc. (Scotland) Bill for my right hon. Friend to require local authorities to supply information held on the setting, levying or collection of council tax to the new water and sewerage authorities if he considers this will assist the latter either in making a charges scheme or collecting water and sewerage charges made under such a scheme. The new water and sewerage authorities will have no right of access to income tax assessments and DSS records.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the proposed new water boards will be able to take into account ability to pay in levying charge.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This will be a matter for the new water and sewerage authorities to consider in preparing their charges schemes.

  Medical Staff (Performance-related Pay)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what model of performance-related pay he intends to introduce for consultants, medical academic staff and junior doctors.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The salary levels of hospital doctors are determined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the advice of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body. There are proposals that an
  672
  element of doctors' salaries be set on the basis of performance but these have yet to be discussed in the appropriate negotiating committees prior to being put to the review body.

  It is not intended, should these proposals come into being, that a model of performance-related pay schemes be introduced in Scotland. It would be a matter for determination at local level as to how a national health service employing authority rewards its employees with regard to their performance and contribution to the objective of the provision of high-quality patient care.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations, agencies and other bodies relating to his departmental area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990; and what plans he has for further privatisation.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1994]: The following organisations for which I had responsibility have been privatised since 1990:

  Scottish Power;

  Scottish Hydro-Electric;

  Scottish Bus Group.

  I announced on 24 March 1994 that the board of the Common Services Agency is taking forward proposals for privatisation of the building division of the Common Services Agency in Scotland. I will continue to keep under review all activities for which I am responsible and privatisation will be pursued wherever it is apparent that activities presently carried out by Government would be better dealt with by the private sector.

EMPLOYMENT

  Cricket Professionals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits have been(a) issued and (b) refused to individuals seeking employment as cricket professionals in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the number of work permits issued and refused for cricket professionals is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what restrictions exist on the appointment of West Indian cricketers as club professionals; what changes to the regulations have occurred recently; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  West Indian cricketers are treated in the same way as cricketers who are citizens of other countries outside the European Economic Area. Unless they qualify under the immigration rules to be able to take employment without restriction, they must obtain a work permit before they enter the country. Work permits are issued only for cricketers who have experience of playing first-class cricket in their own country and who it is considered will not take employment away from resident player. The minimum terms and conditions on offer to them must be equivalent to those which apply to resident players. The Department has a consistent policy with regard to the issue of work permits and there have been no recent changes to the regulations.
  673
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what cricket tournaments in the West Indies are regarded as first class for the purposes of work permits being issued by his Department.

  Mr. Forsyth
  The Department follows the regulations of the International Cricket Council on what cricket is regarded as first class.

  In the West Indies the following qualify: matches played by teams representing Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad, the Windward Islands and the Leeward Islands either for the Red Stripe Cup or against other opponents adjudged first class; the final of the inter-county tournament in Guyana between Berbice, Demerara and Essequibo is also accepted.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: Ministers in this Department have not issued any directions, as described in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Treasury memorandum of the responsibilities of the accounting officer, during the last 10 years. A copy of this memorandum is available in the Library.

  Earnings
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will provide a table indicating the average gross weekly earnings of(a) women and (b) men

  Civilian Employment: Annual Changes

  Thousands

  United Kingdom

  France

  U.S.A.

  Japan

  Year

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1979

  +380

  +1·5

  +42

  +0·2

  +2,776

  +2·9

  +710

  +1·3

  1980

  -56

  -0·2

  +29

  +0·1

  +479

  +0·5

  +570

  +1·0

  1981

  -981

  -3·9

  -131

  -0·6

  +1,094

  +1·1

  +450

  +0·8

  1982

  -430

  -1·8

  +37

  +0·2

  -871

  -0·9

  +570

  +1·0

  1983

  -282

  -1·2

  -72

  -0·3

  +1,308

  +1·3

  +950

  +1·7

  1984

  +649

  +2·8

  -187

  -0·9

  +4,171

  +4·1

  +330

  +0·6

  1985

  +285

  +1·2

  -66

  -0·3

  +2,145

  +2·0

  +410

  +0·7

  1986

  +29

  +0·1

  +40

  +0·2

  +2,447

  +2·3

  +460

  +0·8

  1987

  +556

  +2·3

  +68

  +0·3

  +2,843

  +2·6

  +580

  +1·0

  1988

  +854

  +3·4

  +173

  +0·8

  +2,528

  +2·2

  +1,000

  +1·7

  1989

  +804

  +3·1

  +262

  +1·2

  +2,374

  +2·1

  +1,170

  +1·9

  1990

  +268

  +1·0

  +225

  +1·0

  +572

  +0·5

  +1,210

  +2·0

  1991

  -880

  -3·3

  +450

  +2·1

  -1,037

  -0·9

  +1,200

  +1·9

  1992

  -570

  -2·2

  -143

  -0·6

  +721

  +0·6

  +670

  +1·1

  1993

  -392

  -1·5

  -286

  -1·3

  +1,708

  +1·5

  +140

  +0·2

  Source: OECD, except United Kingdom (Employment Department).

  Trichlorethylene Poisoning
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take to investigate deaths by trichlorethylene poisoning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At those premises for which it is the enforcing authority, the Health and Safety Executive investigates all work-related deaths associated with the use 674
  in(i) each standard planning region and (ii) each county area in the northern region for each year since 1979 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1979 prices;

  (2) if he will provide a table indicating the number and proportion of (a) women and (b) men earning less than 68 per cent. of the national average gross weekly wage in (i) each standard planning region and (ii) each county area in the northern region in each year from 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Information showing the average weekly earnings of men and women in standard regions and counties is published for each year in part E of the "New Earnings Survey". Table 110 and 113 cover full-time males and females respectively.

  The information on the retail prices index, all items at April needed to convert 1979 figures to 1993 prices, is published in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette and in table 26 of the annual supplement to "Economic Trends" for April of earlier years.

  Estimated numbers of employees earning less than specified amounts can be prepared only for full-time employees and for standard planning regions. The available information closest to 68 per cent. of average weekly earnings is given in tables which have been placed in the Library.

  Copies of the publications can be found in the Library.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the year-on-year change in employment in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) the United States of America and (d) Japan for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is shown in the table:

  of trichlorethylene. During an investigation inspectors are able to call upon medical, scientific and technical expertise in seeking to establish the cause of an incident and the degree of compliance with the relevant health and safety legislation.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy on achieving full employment; and when it last changed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government pursue policies designed to achieve high levels of employment consistent with low inflation. Their policies have not changed, and measures to make the labour market competitive, flexible and efficient continue to be essential.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will exclude from the 16th and subsequent oil and gas licensing rounds those areas which meet the criteria for designation as special areas for conservation under the European Union directive on the conservation of species and habitats;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to exclude from the 16th oil and gas licensing round those United Kingdom continental shelf blocks which include, or could affect, special protection areas for birds or Ramsar sites.

  Mr. Eggar
  In considering whether to offer individual blocks for licensing in the 16th and subsequent rounds I will consult Departments and other relevant bodies, including the Department of the Environment and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and take into account any environmental or other concerns which they bring to my attention including the requirements of European directives and other international obligations. If necessary, strict conditions will be attached to blocks to ensure that any environmental sensitivities in them are addressed.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if those United Kingdom continental shelf blocks that were withdrawn from the 14th and 15th oil and gas licensing rounds for environmental reasons will also be withheld from the 16th and subsequent licensing rounds.

  Mr. Eggar
  The circumstances surrounding the non-offer of a block in a particular round may change. We cannot therefore say that a block excluded from the 14th round of offshore licensing will not be offered in a future round. No blocks have been withdrawn from the 15th round for environmental reasons.

  Company

  Inspectors

  Companies Act Power

  Date of Appointment

  Cost of inspection £ (000's)

  Graylaw Holdings Ltd.

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  S165 CA 1948

  11 March 1983

  474

  Link Service Station Ltd.

  and Mr. P. Foss FCA

  11 March 1983

  British Anzani plc

  11 March 1983

  Bank Street Securities Ltd.

  Miss E. Appleby QC

  S165 CA 1948

  4 October 1983

  172

  Medway Secondary Metals Ltd.

  and Mr. P. Foss FCA

  16 February 1984

  100

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc

  Mr. P. Heslop QC

  S442 CA 1985

  10 December 1986

  3,799

  Mr. R. Lewis FCA

  AEA Technology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will set out the apportionment for 1994–95 of current costs, current income, historic, contingent and future liability between the faculties services, Government and commercial divisions of AEA Technology;

  (2) if he will set out how current costs, historic debt and contingent and future liabilities have been apportioned between the facilities services, Government and commercial divisions of AEA Technology; who advised, and who approved such apportionment; and what external audit approval exists for such apportionment.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's budget for 1994℃95 is a management matter for the UKAEA. For internal purposes an apportionment of the UKAEA's balance sheet will be made in due course between AEA Technology and UKAEA Government division. The consolidated UKAEA balance sheet will continue to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General who is the UKAEA's external auditor.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the subjects on which consultants have been appointed to advise AEA Technology on all issues related to the divisional separation and sale of its businesses; what are the terms of appointment of such consultants; and whether, in all cases, they were appointed after competitive tender.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are management matters for the UKAEA.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to fund pensions and redundancy liabilities consequent upon the sale of parts of AEA Technology Ltd.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decisions have been taken on the form or timing of the privatisation of the business activities of AEA Technology. Arrangements for dealing with pensions matters and any redundancy liabilities which might arise will be determined in the light of those decisions.

  Company Investigators (Reports)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the reports of investigators under the Companies Acts which have been completed but not published, indicating in each case the names of the inspectors, the company investigated, the section of the Act under which has been taken, the costs of the inquiry and the date of commencement of the inquiry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The table covers all Companies Act inspections where the inspection has been announced and the report completed but not yet published.
  677

  Company

  Inspectors

  Companies Act Power

  Date of Appointment

  Cost of inspection £ (000's)

  Atlantic Computers plc

  Mr. E. Hamilton QC

  S432 CA 1985

  15 June 1990

  6,492

  Atlantic Computer Systems plc

  Mr. J. Scott FCA

  Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library tables showing the total value of United Kingdom exports to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and Oman and also the values of each of the broad category titles of the standard international trade classification for(a) 1971 to 1980 and (b) 1981 to 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table.

  United Kingdom exports to Iraq

  (£ million, current prices)

  Section

  Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  0

  Food and live animals

  20·0

  174·0

  1

  Beverages and tobacco

  64·5

  196·1

  2

  Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  5·9

  13·6

  3

  Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials

  5·3

  19·0

  4

  Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  1·0

  5·1

  5

  Chemicals and related products

  121·2

  549·9

  6

  Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  286·2

  694·8

  7

  Machinery and transport equipment

  708·6

  2,369·5

  8

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles

  113·8

  517·9

  9

  Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere

  8·4

  17·0

  Total

  1,3348·8

  4,557·0

  United Kingdom exports to Saudi Arabia

  (£ million, current prices)

  Section

  Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  0

  Food and live animals

  202·3

  1,050·4

  1

  Beverages and tobacco

  164·6

  556·2

  2

  Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  5·9

  37·7

  3

  Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials

  112·9

  123·7

  4

  Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  3·8

  14·1

  5

  Chemicals and related products

  352·0

  2,030·6

  6

  Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  662·6

  1,516·0

  7

  Machinery and transport equipment

  2,190·6

  8,484·8

  8

  Miscellaneous manfatured articles

  410·9

  1,273·0

  9

  Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere

  84·6

  1,169·8

  Total

  4,190·2

  16,255·9

  United Kingdom exports to Kuwait

  (£ million, current prices)

  Section

  Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  0

  Food and live animals

  77·4

  221·5

  1

  Beverages and tobacco

  45·8

  127·5

  2

  Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  2·4

  8·8

  3

  Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials

  14·9

  17·5

  4

  Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  2·0

  1·3

  5

  Chemicals and related products

  137·2

  424·0

  6

  Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  236·0

  387·6

  678

  Section

  Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  7

  Machinery and transport equipment

  666·8

  1,110·7

  8

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles

  166·1

  371·3

  9

  Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere

  135·3

  100·5

  Total

  1,484·0

  2,770·7

  United Kingdom exports to Syria

  (£ million, current prices)

  Section

  Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  0

  Food and live animals

  10·2

  14·1

  1

  Beverages and tobacco

  8·5

  9·6

  2

  Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  4·5

  11·8

  3

  Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials

  14·3

  6·6

  4

  Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  2·9

  0·6

  5

  Chemicals and related products

  63·9

  132·2

  6

  Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  88·3

  101·6

  7

  Machinery and transport equipment

  188·1

  259·5

  8

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles

  28·1

  54·5

  9

  Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere

  3·6

  19·5

  Total

  412·3

  610·0

  United Kingdom exports to Oman

  (£ million, current prices)

  Section

  Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  0

  Food and live animals

  23·6

  59·7

  1

  Beverages and tobacco

  23·1

  103·6

  2

  Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  1·6

  4·9

  3

  Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials

  11·2

  18·9

  4

  Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  0·4

  0·7

  5

  Chemicals and related products

  45·3

  207·5

  6

  Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  98·7

  303·6

  7

  Machinery and transport equipment

  518·5

  1,689·7

  8

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles

  103·1

  645·7

  9

  Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere

  49·1

  296·6

  Total

  874·6

  3,33·9

  Note: Totals may not equal the sum of component parts due to rounding.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  National Environment Technology Centre
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the costs of providing(a) a visitors' dining suite, (b) the refurbishment of toilets, (c) the refurbishment of the entrance foyer and (d) the car park extension at the national environment technology centre prior to its opening on 10 June.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the UKAEA.

  Competition White Paper
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in implementing each of the proposals in "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win".

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Progress on implementing the proposals in "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", will be carefully monitored by the ministerial group on competitiveness.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 748, what aspects of the Children Act 1989 and the Registered Homes Act 1984 the inter-departmental scrutiny team is looking at other than fire safety; and what recommendations the team has made.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As I made clear in my earlier response on 1 July 1994,Official Report, column 748, the report of the inter-departmental review makes a number of recommendations regarding fire safety legislation and enforcement which may affect the operation of the legislation mentioned or premises covered by them. The report, copies of which are in the Library of the House, does not deal with any issues other than fire safety and is now the subject of consultation.

  Questions about other aspects of the legislation and its enforcement should therefore be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the terms and conditions of those appointed to the deregulation task force.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 6 July 1994,Official Report, column 224, which set out the terms of reference of the deregulation task force. Members of the task force have been appointed for an initial period of two years. Individuals will not receive payment for their work as members of the deregulation task force.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the remuneration for members of the deregulation task force.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), on 25 May 1994,Official Report, column 174.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: From records currently available, there have been no such occasions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiative he is proposing to assist the inhabitants of East Timor, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The best assistance we can render the East Timorese people is to continue to support the current dialogue between the Indonesians and the Portuguese, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, the aim of which is to seek a solution on East Timor acceptable to all concerned.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations regarding recent developments in respect of the confidence-building measures for the Cypriot communities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the United Nations Secretary-General in New York on 21 June and discussed the prospects for agreement on the confidence-building measures for Cyprus. He reaffirmed our continuing support for the Secretary-General's efforts to make progress on these measures and on an overall settlement.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to mark the 20th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no plans to mark the 20th anniversary of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus in 1974.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the possibility of the accession of Cyprus to the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Corfu Council confirmed that the next phase of enlargement will involve Cyprus. The Council will review progress in the inter-communal process, and Cyprus's readiness for accession, in January 1995.

  European Commission
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest situation over the position of the presidency of the European Union Commission.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's position concerning candidates for President of the European Commission.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The German presidency is consulting other member states to find a candidate for the next president of the Commission who meets with the common accord of all 12 member states. We are playing a full part in those consultations.

  European Union (Enlargement)
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the benefits to the United Kingdom of the accession of four new member states expected on 1 January 1995.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The accession of these states will fulfil in part the Government's vision of an EU more widely representative of the peoples of Europe. Their membership will consolidate the benefits to United Kingdom business and consumers already flowing from the European Economic Area. Three of the four will be net contributors to the Community budget, and all are likely to share the United Kingdom's concern for budget discipline. Their accession will add extra weight to the group of member states which favour free trade over protectionism, and subsidiarity over centralism.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current situation regarding the enlargement of the European Union.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current situation regarding the enlargement of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A treaty of accession to the EU was signed with Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland at the Corfu European Council on 24 June. Provided that referendums in the Nordic countries are positive—the Austrian people have already voted in favour of membership—all four will accede to the Community on 1 January 1995. The Corfu European Council conclusions included the statement that the next phase of enlargement will involve Malta and Cyprus. The Commission has been asked to prepare opinions on recent Polish and Hungarian applications for EU membership.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of French troops on the situation in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I said today, we have supported the French initiative to send a humanitarian mission.

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's preparations for the 1996 intergovernmental conference of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We will participate in the study group which will convene in mid-1995 to prepare for the conference.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect of sanctions on Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sanctions are imposed on Iraq in order to ensure that the regime meets its international 682
  obligations. Iraqi co-operation with United Nations weapons inspectors resulted from sustained international pressure including the determined application of sanctions.

  We are concerned by reports of suffering among the civilian population. For that reason food and medicines are exempt from sanctions and we have contributed over £66 million to international relief efforts since April 1991.

  We call on the Iraqi regime to make the purchase of humanitarian supplies a priority, to lift the internal embargo on northern Iraq and accept United Nations offers to allow a limited sale of oil in return for further aid.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the continued detention of Kuwaiti prisioners in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I met a delegation from the Kuwaiti National Assembly on 29 June to discuss this issue. We raise the plight of Kuwaiti and other missing persons at the United Nations at every possible opportunity, for example when the Security Council last reviewed sanctions against Iraq on 17 May. Our acting head of mission at the United Nations told the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister in New York on 12 July that British Ministers remained seriously concerned about the detainees and expected Iraq to produce information on all the outstanding files. The International Committee of the Red Cross chaired a meeting of the tripartite commission—coalition countries, Iraq and the ICRC—in Geneva on 1 July at which the Iraqi delegation gave its initial response to 71 out of the 609 inquiry files passed to Iraq by the ICRC over 18 months ago. We are demanding that Iraq offer information on the other files very soon. A further tripartite commission will be held in two months' time to review progress.

  Middle East
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's support for the Washington accord on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We announced last week an extra £5 million of assistance for the new Palestinian Administration, £3 million for immediate running cost needs and £2 million for bilateral technical assistance. Much of these funds will be for the Palestinian police force. All this is in addition to the £70 million we have already pledged in aid to the Palestinians over the next three years, through bilateral and multilateral channels.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Ministers who have visited(a) Bahrain, (b) Egypt, (c) Iran, (d) Iraq, (e) Israel, (f) Jordan, (g) Kuwait, (h) Lebanon, (i) Oman, (j) Qatar, (k) Saudi Arabi, (l) Syria, (m) the United Arab Emirates and (n) the Yemen since 1979, together with the purpose of each visit; and which Ministers they met.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No central record is kept in the FCO of overseas travel by Ministers from other Government Departments.

  Since June 1983 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have made the following visits to these countries:
  683
  Information about visits prior to June 1983 and information about Ministers met during the the visits could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Country/Minister

  Date

  Purpose of visit

  Bahrain

  Mr. Luce

  January 1985

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  March 1986

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  February 1988

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  February 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  March 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  October 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  May/June 1994

  Bilateral

  Egypt

  Mr. Luce

  November 1987

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Luce

  May 1985

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  September 1986

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  November 1987

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  December 1988

  Bilateral

  Mr. Patten

  March 1989

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  November 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  October 1990

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  February 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  December 1991

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  May 1992

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  May 1993

  Bilateral

  Baroness Chalker

  November 1993

  Bilateral

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd

  May 1994

  Middle East Peace Treaty

  Iran

  Mrs. Chalker

  April 1991

  Bilateral

  Iraq

  Mr. Luce

  November 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  February 1988

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  February 1989

  Bilateral

  Israel

  Mr. Luce

  November 1983

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  October 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  December 1985

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  December 1987

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  February 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  October 1990

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  May 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  July 1993

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1994

  Bilateral

  Jordan

  Mr. Luce

  November 1983

  Bilateral

  Mr. Luce

  March 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  September/October 1986

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  November 1987

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  February 1988

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  February 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  May 1990

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  September 1990

  Bilateral

  Mrs. Chalker

  September 1990

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  March 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  July 1993

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1994

  Bilateral

  Kuwait

  Mr. Luce

  December 1983

  Bilateral

  Mr. Luce

  April 1985

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1986

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  December 1987

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1989

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  February 1989

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  February 1992

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  May 1992

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  May/June 1994

  Bilateral

  684

  Country/Minister

  Date

  Purpose of visit

  Lebanon

  Mr. Luce

  September 1983

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  October 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  December 1985

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  June 1991

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1994

  Bilateral

  Oman

  Mr. Luce

  December 1983

  Bilateral

  Mr. Luce

  January 1985

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1986

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  February 1987

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  November 1987

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1989

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  December 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  March 1990

  EC/GCC

  Secretary of State

  September 1990

  Bilateral

  Qatar

  Mr. Luce

  April 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Luce

  April 1985

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  March 1986

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  October 1988

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  March 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  October 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  May/June 1994

  Bilateral

  Saudi Arabia

  Secretary of State

  January 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Luce

  March 1985

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1986

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  February 1987

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  December 1987

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  October 1988

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  May/June 1990

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  September 1990

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  February 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  February 1992

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  September 1993

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  May 1994

  EU/GCC Ministerial

  Syria

  Mr. Luce

  December 1983

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1984

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  December 1985

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  March 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  June 1991

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  October 1993

  Bilateral

  United Arab Emirates

  Mr. Luce

  December 1983

  Bilateral

  Mr. Luce

  March 1985

  Bilateral

  Mr. Renton

  March 1986

  Bilateral

  Mr. Mellor

  November 1987

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  October 1988

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1989

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  May 1989

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  September 1990

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  October 1991

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  December 1992

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  September 1993

  Bilateral

  Yemen

  Mr. Renton

  February 1987

  Bilateral

  Secretary of State

  January 1989

  Bilateral

  Mr. Waldegrave

  December 1989

  Bilateral

  Mr. Hogg

  December 1992

  Bilateral

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current progress in the middle east peace process.
  685
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I welcome Mr. Arafat's return to Gaza and Jericho which symbolises progress in the peace process. We will continue to provide assistance to his new administration. We welcome recent progress on the Jordanian track of the peace process and hope for progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures to reduce unemployment were decided by the European Council at Corfu.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Council discussed the follow-up to the action plan to reduce unemployment which was agreed at Brussels. They endorsed the Commission's decision to set up a group of independent experts to examine the burden of Community and national legislation on business. They agreed a list of 11 priority trans-European network transport projects. They also received a report from the Bangemann group with recommendations for action to exploit opportunities in the field of information technology and agreed to follow up the issues raised in the report.

  Germany
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet his German counterpart to discuss Anglo-German relations.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  When Dr. Kinkel and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meet regularly, as they do on both bilateral and multilateral occasions, they review our bilateral co-operation. I met my German counterpart for talks yesterday and my right hon. Friend will be meeting Dr. Kinkel at the special European Council on 15 July.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the trial of four British passport holders being tried for subversive activities in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A magistrate has decided that there is a case to answer and the men are scheduled to appear before a jury in the High Court in September. They enjoy regular consular visits from the British high commission and are in good health.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports are sent to the European Union about the operation of the Economic Community of West African States monitoring group initiative in Liberia; to what are the reports mainly directed; and if they are publicly available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Secretary-General's progress reports on the United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia, UNOMIL, include reference to the ECOWAS monitoring and observing group, ECOMOG, and provide comprehensive accounts of political, military and humanitarian developments. These reports are 686
  available to all member states, including the European Union and are also available publicly in London from the United Nations information centre. A copy of the fifth progress report has been placed in both Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if proposals exist for a European Union mission in Liberia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government about its failure to obey a Federal High Court order to produce Chief Abiola in court on 30 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Chief Abiola was finally arraigned in court in Abuja on 6 July. Together with our EU partners, we have made clear to the Nigerian Government the importance we attach to the rule of law, and respect for human rights. Putting Chief Abiola on trial cannot resolve Nigeria's political problems.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will describe, in each case, the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from the first sentence of paragraph 2.4, the second sentence of paragraph 3.1, and from the whole of paragraph 3.3 of Council of Europe recommendation R(85)20; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reservation on the first sentence of paragraph 2.4 was made because the Government did not believe that individual notification of data subjects at the time of collection should always be required.

  The reservation on the second sentence of paragraph 3.1 was made because United Kingdom law does not require an individual's consent to be obtained before data about him are disclosed.

  The reservation on paragraph 3.3 was made because in the Government's view it is impracticable for controllers of marketing files to know to whom their lists have been provided by the original recipients of the lists.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from principles 6.2 and 6.3 paragraph 2 of Council of Europe recommendation R(91)10; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reservations on principle 6.2 and principle 6.3, paragraph 2, were made because these provisions go beyond what is required by United Kingdom data protection legislation.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16
  687
  June, Official Report, column 640, whether he will in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from principles 2.2 and 2.4 of Council of Europe recommendation R(87)15; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reservation on principle 2.2 was made because in the Government's view it would be undesirable to provide the information in question in some circumstances.

  The reservation on principle 2.4 was made because in the Government's view this principle could seriously inhibit the police in preventing and detecting crime.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will, in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from the second sub-paragraph of 1.2, the second sentence of paragraph 3.3, and from paragraph 5 of Council of Europe recommendation R(86)1; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reservation on the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 1.2 was made to ensure that the recommendation did not apply to occupational pensions schemes in the United Kingdom.

  The reservation on the second sentence of paragraph 3.3 was made because United Kingdom law does not require consent before personal data may be obtained from third parties.

  The reservation on paragraph 5 was made because the United Kingdom does not have legislation governing the use of the national insurance number.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from extending the Council of Europe recommendation R(83)10 to manually processed data; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reservation was made because United Kingdom data protection law does not apply to manually processed data.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 640, whether he will in each case describe the specific inconsistency which obliged the United Kingdom Government to enter a derogation from paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 5.1c, and 7.1 of Council of Europe recommendations R(90)19; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reservations on paragraphs 3.3 and 5.1.c were made because these paragraphs depend upon the individual's consent which is not required under United Kingdom law.

  The reservation of paragraph 3.4 was made because in the Government's view the paragraph is unnecessarily restrictive on businesses which use non-cash means of payment.

  The reservation on paragraph 7.1 was made because the paragraph could require the data subject to be given access to security information.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of recent discussions on the future of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proegress of recent discussions on the future of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The 29th plenary session of the Sino-British joint liaison group was held in Hong Kong in June. Full agreement was reached, after seven years of negotiations, on the future of the military estate in Hong Kong. Agreement was also reached, among other things, on the continued application to Hong Kong of nine multilateral treaties on merchant shipping, the text of two new bilateral treaties on extradition and investment and the localisation of three more items of United Kingdom legislation.

  Poland
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of Poland's borders.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully respect Poland's sovereignty, territorial integrity and the involability of her borders, in accordance with United Nations and Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe principles.

  GATT Headquarters
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the retention of the headquarters of GATT, now to become the World Trade Organisation, at Geneva; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Swiss and German Governments have put forward generous and attractive offers of sites for the headquarters of the World Trade Organisation in Geneva and Bonn respectively. The British Government could support a consensus in favour of either place; but we see some advantage in the WTO remaining in Geneva to avoid the disruption of a move.

  Gas-related Deaths (Spain)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make joint representations with the Irish Foreign Secretary to the Spanish authorities about further gas-related deaths of British and Irish citizens in Spain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. There is no evidence that the recent deaths in the Canary Islands from carbon monoxide poisoning were connected. Nor is there any evidence that a criminal offence was committed in connection with the death of the British national. If they wish the family can make a claim for compensation through the civil courts.

  Macedonia
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EC's policy on trade with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
  689
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Trade is a key way of promoting prosperity and stability. We hope to see the 690
  early lifting of Greek trade restrictions with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the resolution of their bilateral dispute.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Teachers: Funding and Redundancies
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their estimates of the number of teachers likely to be declared redundant as the result of the Government's not meeting in full the cost of this year's 2.9 per cent. pay increase and their cutback in funding under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government accepted the recommendation of the School Teachers Review Body. Decisions about teacher numbers fall to be taken at the local level and it is for individual employers to judge how best to implement the award. It is for each recipient of Section 11 grant to decide how to proceed in 1994–95, although an encouraging number have notified the Home Office that their projects will continue unaffected. Information is not held centrally about the particular arrangements to be adopted by grant recipients in managing any staff reductions.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to research done by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, as many as 5,000 teaching posts in the country as a whole may have been at stake? Is she further aware that the teachers most affected are often the more experienced and mature, and that their deployment to alternative posts is frequently blocked because of the appointment of younger, less experienced, cheaper teachers? Is she also aware of the damage being done to the work of integrating children of ethnic majorities in places such as south London and the West Midlands? What detailed research was undertaken by her department on the implications of all that before the present course was undertaken?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the survey of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers has not yet been borne out, and so we do not have, nor indeed does it have, information as to whether those figures are true because they are speculation on its part. We all know that it is better to have real evidence, and therefore I reserve comment on that matter. All I can say about the information that the noble Lord presents about mature teachers and schools taking on younger teachers is that it is very much a policy to be determined at local level by the governing body as to who it employs. We do not wish at government level to interfere with teacher employment and recruitment: policies.
1812
On Section 11, there is a good deal of evidence that local authorities are ensuring that, if their need to employ teachers to help children with second languages is a priority, they are doing so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that rather than a cutback, since we came to power there has been a huge expansion in expenditure on education, from £25 billion in 1979 to £32.6 billion this year? Rather than a cutback, that is an increase in expenditure on education in real terms of £7 billion. I am sure that that is good value for money.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the figures given by my noble friend, and I can add to them. The real terms increase in teachers' pay, discounting inflation, is 57 per cent., and in case someone should stand up and say that the number of pupils has risen, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in real terms over 1979 on the amount spent on children. Class sizes are smaller than when we came into office in 1979 and more teachers are employed. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said, there are 2,000 more teachers on the payroll today than there were this time last year.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sure that the House was interested to hear that it is the job of teachers' employers to manage the situation. Is the Minister aware that there are two categories in this area? The first is school governors, who have cash limited budgets on an annual basis and who are not permitted by law to overspend their budgets, and the other is the LEAs, which are in some respects employers of teachers but which have no power to intervene at the school level. When the Minister says that the employers should manage the problem, do the Government visualise giving more powers to LEAs to enable them to do that job or relaxing the restrictions on school governors so that they can do the job?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what message the noble Lord is giving in his question. Is he, on the one hand, asking for a totally open-ended budget for education? If that is the case, I would argue that it is not possible to divorce education from the need to live within the means of the country as a whole. Secondly, in terms of recruitment policy, the people best equipped to know what kind of teachers, competencies and expertise they need to employ at school level are the schools' governing bodies. That is where the power to recruit lies.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, if the funding under Section 11 is cut back and channelled through the single regeneration budget, it is unlikely to be returned in full measure to all schools that receive it? Does she further accept that that would do grave damage to the capacity of schools, particularly those with a high proportion of ethnic minority pupils, to deliver a proper education for their youngsters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to address the fact that a tension exists, because the single regeneration budget which will operate from next year is a wholly new system. The

1813
Department for Education is most anxious about how that should operate and that it should not operate seriously to disadvantage those areas of the country in which English as a second language is a particular priority. But we are not yet convinced that the reduction in the support for Section 11 spending is a serious issue and is resulting in large cutbacks in the numbers of teachers involved. However, the right reverend Prelate is right to be vigilant about how the new system will work.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister says that she would rather rely on facts than speculation. Is she aware that as regards the schools specifically surveyed by the ATL, no fewer than 1,732 notices of intended redundancy had been issued, and that extended to the country as a whole that brings us to the figure of 5,000? What does the Minister's department intend to do about the loss of the most experienced teachers, the adverse effect on class ratios and the damage to the work in integrating children from ethnic minorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I went back over the past 10 or 15 years to look at what was happening at this time of year I should find similar speculation about the loss of teachers. Each year the situation is never as bad as people speculate that it will be. We can all carry out surveys and extrapolate their meaning across 25,000 schools. I make no apology for being more concerned with facts than speculation, because only facts will tell us what is happening out there. While we know that there are tensions about funding and spending, we also know that more money is being spent and more teachers are being employed. Those figures were given by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. The situation does not live up to the doom and gloom that are being peddled by the noble Lord.

Legal Aid: Expenditure
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to restrain the growth in the cost of legal aid to the taxpayer.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry):My Lords, the Government are taking many measures to control the growth in legal aid expenditure. These are set out in the Management Statement for the Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor's Department's Strategic Plan, copies of which are available in the Library.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, notwithstanding that, is my noble and learned friend aware that legal aid is being provided in some very expensive cases— notably that of Hashim v. The Arab Monetary Fund, where the costs run into millions? Is there any indication that the Government are prepared to cut out the grant of legal aid in these expensive cases where large sums of money are involved and there is no question of poverty or relief?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, your Lordships and my noble friend will appreciate that the present scheme must be applied in any existing case. My noble friend raised the question of whether something should be done to adjust the scheme. The type of case to which my noble friend referred—that is the Hashim case but there have been a number of others—obviously raises questions as to whether some adjustments in the regulations are appropriate. On the other hand, it is not a matter which can be rushed, and obviously my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has it under consideration.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister recall the Question that was raised in the House some weeks ago relating to the Iranian gentleman who had received £4 million in legal aid? Is he aware of a report in last weekend's responsible press that further substantial sums of money are to be made available to that gentleman in order that he can continue his court case? It is a financial case, but I understand that fraud is alleged. Does the Minister believe that the Answers that he gave on that occasion and today satisfy people that there has been equal treatment in the allocation of funds for legal aid as regards the citizens of this country when a non-British national is afforded sums of money on this scale? When will the Government do something about it instead of just talking about it?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the legal aid fund is available to provide legal aid to any person who fulfils the criteria and who is involved in litigation in England and Wales. That includes people from overseas. As I said on a previous occasion, there are to some extent comparable schemes elsewhere to which British nationals have access. But the question raised by the noble Lord is whether in this case the payments have been properly made. On the previous occasion I indicated that the matter was carefully looked at and that eligibility was assessed by the benefit agency. There are mechanisms for an investigation of these matters. In the event of Dr. Hashim being successful in the litigation, there are mechanisms for those sums of money to be recovered by the Legal Aid Fund. Your Lordships must be satisfied that the matter is being properly conducted.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must understand—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have tried to get the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to explain why the cost of civil cases in Scotland is about half that in England. Will the Minister tell me whether it is because Scots lawyers are less long-winded or less greedy?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it would be rather contentious to start comparing the two sets of lawyers. However, it is fair to say that the legal aid schemes in Scotland and England are structured differently, and that may be reflected in different levels of fees. As I said on a previous occasion, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has several initiatives under way; in particular, in connection with

1815
the introduction of standard fees. We hope that that will lead to a reduction in some of the payments which have been made in the past.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that by far the most helpful advance in restraining the cost of legal aid in England and Wales lies in an appreciation of our civil procedures in the direction of shortening the length of cases and having a number of preliminary hearings in order to reach an alternative settlement of disputes?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble and learned friend refers to a very important aspect of the matter. Reform of civil procedures will, one hopes, bring benefits not only to the Legal Aid Fund but also to ordinary litigants who are not legally aided. As my noble and learned friend said, that benefit will feed through to the Legal Aid Fund.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I assume that he is—that at a minuted meeting in the Lord Chancellor's Department on 24th March last year between the Lord Chancellor and representatives of the legal profession and the advice agencies concerning the cuts in eligibility for legal aid, the Lord Chancellor stated in terms that he would like to reverse those cuts if opportunity arose in the future? Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that it remains the Government's ambition to reverse those cuts if circumstances permit?
Does he accept that the effect of the eligibility cuts introduced in April last year is that only the poor or the very rich have access to the courts, and that middle-income Britain is left out in the cold?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords will be aware that the legal aid scheme is very generous. According to latest available figures, expenditure on legal aid last year was £1,211 million, which was an increase of £118 million on the previous year. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to paint a picture of a miserly scheme. Of course, if in due course, as a result of the reforms that I have mentioned, it is possible to gain more control over legal aid expenditure, it would be desirable to admit as many people as possible to the scheme. But, first, we must get expenditure on legal aid under control.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is it the ambition of the Government, in any event, to reverse those cuts if financial circumstances permit?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that I have just answered that question.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, has not the action which the Government have taken to restrain costs been quite simply to delay the payment of fees?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, no, not at all. As I said, there are several initiatives—in particular, initiatives to introduce standard fees. In that way we hope to avoid, for example, the delays in taxation of fees and so on. We hope that the initiatives will result in quicker payment of fees.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is obviously right to say that there are certain cases for which legal aid is not appropriate. But does the noble and learned Lord agree that the way forward is that suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham; that is, a reduction in costs to bring actions before the courts? In addition to the suggestions with regard to procedure made by the noble and learned Lord, will he also consider whether part of the costs is not due to the rapacity of the legal profession whose members seem to require large dollops of jam put on bread which is already thickly spread with butter?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that a reduction in the complexity of civil procedures is the way forward. The same also applies to some extent in relation to criminal procedures. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has set up a committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to look into civil procedures. Therefore, the opportunities for counsel and others to earn fees may be reduced. In that way, the overall burden may also be reduced.

Mr. Knud Munk: CAP Proposals
2.55 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered an article by Mr Knud Munk entitled The Rationale for the Common Agricultural Policy and the European Communities Sectoral Policies; and whether they will give their views on the radical reforms proposed to the common agricultural policy.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government consider that the cost of the common agricultural policy is too high. Our objectives for further reform of the CAP include reducing support prices so that supply and demand come into better balance; removing supply controls such as quotas and set-aside; phasing out compensatory payments; and targeting remaining support more closely—for example towards structural and environmental objectives. Our aim is to secure a more market-oriented CAP under which British farmers, with their relatively efficient structure and proven flexibility, would prosper.
The article by Mr. Munk contains many ideas which reflect the Government's approach. I welcome its contribution to the important debate on the future of the CAP.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have evidently considered it possible to read and understand the document. Is the Minister aware that the population of the United Kingdom is fed up to the teeth with the common agricultural policy, which means an extra burden on taxpayers of £2 billion per year and £20 per week on each family of four?
Will the noble Earl give the House an undertaking that in the Reflection Group of the European Council,

1817
which is to meet to discuss the inter-governmental conference proceedings in 1996, Members of the Government will give serious attention to the necessity for reforming the common agricultural policy out of existence, root and branch?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government are already making their views very clear in Brussels. We are taking three principal steps. In the short term, we are pressing hard for price reductions in this year's price fixing. My right honourable friend the Minister will continue with those efforts next week. We are also pressing for the reform of those sectors not covered in the 1992 reforms —notably, wine, fruit and vegetables, olive oil and sugar. Looking ahead, yes, we shall press for support prices to be reduced still further and we are making known our views at every suitable opportunity.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it the Government's view that British farmers are spoilt, too rich or incompetent? Will the Government replace the CAP by providing a fair deal for the agricultural community, which is responsible for feeding the British public up to the teeth?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government firmly believe that UK agriculture must prosper if we are to protect the countryside and if we are to have a healthy rural economy. But it is possible to imagine that without the high levels of production-related support which currently exist. To reduce that support will not be straightforward because we do not wish to see either the UK or indeed the Community placed at a competitive disadvantage on world markets.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can my noble friend give us any idea when we can expect an assessment of the financial success or otherwise of the 1992 MacSharry reforms? What kind of sum has been paid out to British farmers for set-aside in the first year? Does the Minister have any idea of the fall in production which resulted from the 15 per cent. set-aside?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the cuts in support prices and the increase in direct payments, such as set-aside, which arose from the 1992 reforms will result in consumer savings but increased taxpayer costs. The main point is that the overall resource cost will be lower than it would otherwise have been in the absence of reform. When the reform is fully implemented, annual costs imposed by the CAP on consumers should be around £1 billion lower in the UK and around £8 billion lower for the EC as a whole. However, that calculation did not distinguish between individual years.
With regard to the last part of my noble friend's question, I believe I am right in saying—although I shall check the figure—that, across the Community as a whole, in 1993 cereal production was some 2 per cent. lower than it was in the previous year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government have the support of the French Government in the changes that they have in mind?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we enjoy the support of the French Government in many areas. We talk regularly to our opposite numbers in the French Ministry of Agriculture. I believe that there are signs that a note of realism is creeping in to French thinking which, of course, we welcome.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, despite the encouraging remarks that the noble Earl has just made, is he aware that every time the Government make such remarks the cost of the CAP seems to increase even more? Indeed, it is now running at the rate of £30 billion a year. Does the noble Earl agree that the CAP policy was formulated to suit a peasant agricultural system in a world of food shortages? As we now want a modern farming system and there is no world food shortage but a world glut, should we not work to abolish the CAP?
Earl Howe: My Lords, whatever its original aims and objectives, there is no doubt that the CAP is no longer fulfilling the role that it should. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the world has moved on. The budget for 1994 has been set at the level of the guideline, but the latest estimates indicate that expenditure will be well within it. The Commission is expected to propose an amending budget to reduce the CAP budget by around 1 billion ecu.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I am afraid that we must now move on to the last Question on the Order Paper.

Azerbaijan
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as the chairman of the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group.
The Question was as follows:
Whether they will make representations to the Government of Turkey concerning the proposal to recall the Turkish parliament to authorise the despatch of a Turkish peace-keeping force to Azerbaijan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My
Lords, we understand that Prime Minister Ciller is seeking parliamentary authority for Turkey to contribute to a possible CSCE (Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe) monitoring team which might be deployed in support of a cease-fire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We are not aware of any Turkish proposal to send a separate peace-keeping force to Azerbaijan and therefore have no plans to make representations on the subject.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the Turkish support and even encouragement of Azerbaijan's invasion of the Karabakh, does the Minister agree that to suggest that Turkish forces would be suitable as a peace-keeping

1819
force would be about as intelligent as suggesting that the Nazi SS should send in peace-keeping forces to help the Israelis with the Palestinian problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I repeat what I said in my initial Answer. We are not aware of any suggestions that Turkey is planning to send in a separate peace-keeping force to Azerbaijan. We would certainly view that suggestion with considerable concern. Turkey is part of the CSCE process and is playing a full role in attempts to reach a negotiated settlement. As a result, Turkey has indicated its willingness, along with the United Kingdom, to contribute to any possible CSCE monitoring force to which the parties to the dispute agree.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I recently sent my noble friend Lady Chalker a report about Turkish weapons, which I myself saw last week when I was in Nagorno-Karabakh, which Azerbaijan had been using in its war against the Armenians of Karabakh? Therefore, does my noble friend agree that that not only raises serious questions for Turkey as a member of NATO, but that it would also be very understandable if the Armenians of Armenia and those of Karabakh were to become deeply concerned about any pretence that Turkey might play any kind of impartial role in peace-keeping or even in monitoring?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to tell my noble friend that we have no evidence of Turkey supplying arms to Azerbaijan. In fact, Turkey has undertaken to respect the CSCE arms embargo to that region. Obviously, any evidence that my noble friend can provide will be taken with enormous seriousness. My noble friend Lady Chalker will examine such evidence with due care and take note of it. We would view any evidence that Turkey was supplying arms with extreme displeasure.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is most important to try to bring together the work of the CSCE and that of the Russian Government so as to secure peace in the area, rather than continuing with two separate initiatives? Despite what the Minister said in reply to the noble Baroness, does he also agree that it is vital to halt the flow of arms into the area? It is said that both the Greek and the Turkish Governments have been supplying arms to opposing sides in the region. Can the Minister tell the House what is being done to try to halt that flow from wherever it may come?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we have no evidence of supplies of arms from either Greece or Turkey. However, if there was such evidence of the supply of arms—and I gave an assurance that we would look at what my noble friend can provide in evidence —we would view it with extreme displeasure. As regards the first part of the noble Baroness's question, we are aware of the efforts of the Russians to promote a settlement between the parties. We are also aware of the cease-fire brokered by the Russians in May which seems to be yielding some results. Indeed, there have been only a few serious outbreaks of fighting since then.
1820
But obviously, as the noble Baroness said, it is highly important that those efforts are co-ordinated with those of the CSCE.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been a large build up of arms on the Azerbaijani side of the border? Further, what steps can the CSCE take to monitor the origin of those weapons so that the embargo can be properly enforced? Will the Minister suggest to the Turks that they themselves should bring pressure to bear on Azerbaijan not to embark upon a fresh offensive and not to attempt to import weapons against the CSCE embargo?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the whole region was, I think, awash with arms after the Russian withdrawal from the area. As I said, there is the CSCE embargo on arms supplies to the region. I repeat, we would view with extreme displeasure any breaches of that embargo. At present, we have no evidence of either Turkey or Greece breaching that embargo.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeal a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Civil Service.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Lock wood: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.
—(Baroness Lockwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [New local government areas]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 130, line 16, column 2, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: With the indulgence of the Committee, perhaps I may first make an apology for a statement that I made during the last Committee day on the Bill. At col. 706 of Hansard on 28th June I made reference to the fact that I had received a letter from the factor of the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll, supporting the proposal that Luss be taken into Argyll and excluded from its old area of Dumbarton. I have since received a letter which makes it clear to me that I had misread the earlier letter, which actually came from the chairman of the Argyll and Bute District Council. I now have a letter from Mr. Fairweather, the factor of the Duke of Argyll. I had suggested that the other letter was impressive but this letter is even more so. I apologise to Mr. Fairweather for having embroiled him unfairly in this matter.
In moving Amendment No. 23 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 24. This refers to the division of Renfrewshire into two areas. It already comprises two areas but it is proposed to divide it in a quite different way. There is little one needs to say because the people in Scotland are in no doubt at all that the boundaries were not drawn in an absolutely professional way. It appears that the boundaries were drawn to try to create a safer seat for certain people in another place than is the case at present. Subsequent to the original boundaries being drawn, local elections were held and the boundaries were amended slightly to make it even more likely that the existing Member would keep his seat.
I have received a great deal of correspondence from the people of Renfrewshire, as I am sure has the Minister. I understand that Neilston, Barrhead, and Paisley—I may have incorrectly referred to some villages—are now being split up. It is the first time that anyone has attempted to split them up since the Reformation. Since the Reformation they have always been in the Paisley presbytery of the Church of Scotland. It was suggested in Committee in the other place that even the earlier Stuarts could not split up those areas but the present Stewart has managed to do so rather successfully! The proposals are obviously very artificial.
I do not wish to add a great deal more except to say that I believe our amendments would be fairer. These boundaries were drawn in-house in the Scottish Office. There was no attempt to hold an investigation or to listen to voices in the local area. However, the district councils have listened to local voices and people in all parts of the area have said overwhelmingly that they do not wish the area to be split up in the way that is suggested in the Bill.
I hope the Minister will have some news to give us because promises were given in Committee in another place that this matter would be looked at again. I do not wish to go into too many details but there is a specific point which must be cleared up. I refer to the wrong numbering of a road in one of the schedules. As I understand the matter, the road in question is a long way from the Paisley and Barrhead area. I am sure the Minister will have details of that. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It has been customary in these debates on the Scottish local government Bill for Members of the Committee to indicate their knowledge of the areas concerned, and their credentials for discussing those areas. I lived a large part of my life in Renfrewshire—the area that we are discussing today. The Gryfe area, referred to in my title, is in the heart of Renfrewshire. Therefore, I am reasonably familiar with the provisions of this Bill as it affects Renfrew.
Under the proposals of the Government, the boroughs of Barrhead and Neilston will become part of Eastwood and will be divorced from their long-standing association with the town of Paisley. I suggest that the whole economic life and the whole community life of these areas of Barrhead and Neilston are completely integrated in the economy of Paisley. Paisley is a booming place. It has a large and expanding airport. It has the largest pigments factory in Europe, Ciba-Geigy, which I had the pleasure of opening some little time ago. Paisley is at the heart of the area. So close is the relationship between Paisley and Barrhead that when I was a youngster the Glasgow tram cars used to run right round the tramway system, when we had one, from Paisley to Barrhead. Barrhead is totally integrated with the community life, the church life and the industrial life of Paisley. Under the Government scheme Barrhead and Neilston will be moved to Eastwood. Eastwood is an entirely different area. Eastwood is a suburb of Glasgow and it is a commuter area of Glasgow. People there have a rather splendid middle class existence in Eastwood, which is nothing like the industrial complex that surrounds Paisley. The whole culture of Barrhead and Neilston is related to Paisley. It has nothing in common with the economic and community structure which exists in Eastwood.
I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that all this has been plotted to help the Conservative MP in Eastwood. That may or may not be the case, but I would not argue about that. I am arguing on totally non-political grounds that this is not a sensible arrangement of local government. In these circumstan-ces I suggest to the Minister that he looks at this seriously and in a non-political way in terms of what makes sense for local government and local administra-tion rather than impose a divorce of Barrhead from its natural association with Paisley. Barrhead would be forced to be part of an entirely different area with which it shares no common feeling of community. Consequently, I support the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this matter because of the serious considerations which have been presented.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that I may be forgiven, as a mere Englishman, if I intervene briefly in the debate on this amendment. My excuses—if I need excuses—are twofold. First, I received a civil and courteous letter from the managing director of the Renfrew district council. Secondly, I am genuinely, deeply and increasingly disturbed about the proposals of the Government for local government. Again and again

1823
one searches for some kind of explanation or some traces of popular welcome for what is proposed, without being able to find them. I very much hope that my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but my information is that the aims of the Renfrew district council are to provide first class services. That aim has been fulfilled with some distinction in that 64 per cent. of the population in the area of the district council are satisfied with the services that it provides. I am also advised— and the noble Lord who moved the amendment made this point—that the present area of the council reflects local loyalties and traditions.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will pay real attention to this issue. If the Conservative Party stands for anything, it is its concern with traditions and loyalties. On occasion there may be good reasons for disregarding them, but the reasons have to be extremely strong. The more I look at proposals for local government as they emerge, the more I begin to fear that those local traditions and loyalties are being widely disregarded over a large area.
I do not wish to be contentious or fractious in opposing the Government in this manner. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend will give answers to these questions. What advantages would flow from the reorganisation which the Government now propose as opposed to the present state of affairs? What gain would there be, and to whom, from splitting up an arrangement which seems to be working fairly happily? What would be the cost? And on what consultation have the present proposals been based?
I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept that the Government's proposals for changing local government are a source of great unease in England, Scotland and Wales. I hope that there will not be that rigid and maddening insistence that, "We have thought about the matter very carefully. We know we are right and all you people have got it wrong". This does not seem to me to be a party issue. It is of deep concern to many of us. It seems particularly strange that a minute county such as Somerset should be divided into three councils, the huge area of the Highlands should have only one council and the Government now propose to break up the Renfrew district council, which seems to be working perfectly adequately and which people of all parties are united in wishing to keep. There is a substantial burden of proof on the Government and I hope that they accept that.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will understand that I do not like standing up and challenging Ministers of a Government whom I wish to support. I hope that he will understand that I do so because I believe that the Conservative Party will lose a great deal of the strength which it ought to draw from its roots, which are embedded in just the kind of traditions and loyalties which the Government seem to be challenging now.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question. It is a very old one. I was a member of Edinburgh Town Council at the end of the 1930s until the war broke out, and ever since I have recognised a distinct feeling that people want to run
1824
their own affairs. However, if councils have to obtain permission before they can tackle any major issue there is delay and almost everybody concerned objects to that. That point has arisen in almost every area of Scotland when local authorities are formed. People want to have their own say in what those bodies should be. I am sure that that is right. They ought to be able to carry out that responsibility themselves rather than those bodies being nominated by somebody else.
I have received a particularly strong letter this morning from Kirkcaldy. Kirkcaldy is in Fife. The decision in relation to the airport has been extremely serious for the people there because it has left them with a great deal of unemployment on their hands. That need not have occurred if Rothesay had been used for the purpose for which it was intended. That is only part of the story. In essence Rothesay was a replacement for the Clyde. Some 30 or 40 years ago some half of the naval ships of the world were built on the Clyde. It has always been a mystery to me why that industry has gone, but no doubt others can explain why that happened. That should not be forgotten. Through the strength and ability of Rothesay something of the nature of that shipbuilding could be restored to Glasgow, the quality of whose shipbuilding has never been questioned or equalled anywhere in the world. Yet the shipyards have been swept aside after they did a great deal of valuable; work in the war building ships of the highest possible quality. We want to see that restored.
The same applies to a lesser extent in relation to steel. Steelworks in Scotland, particularly in the area of the Clyde, were of the highest order and the steel produced there was of the best quality. The problem was due to events and the fact that steel was not needed in such volume. It is objectionable that no one can find a purpose for it at the present time.
No one from England should think that they are disliked by the Scots. A story goes round occasionally to the effect that, "We have a new man, and he is only an Englishman". That occurs at times, but it should not be taken too seriously. A little humour is quite right and proper at times.
We want rather more control. I believe chat that would be greatly to the advantage of both England and Scotland. We want the power to have our own local government authorities, with adequate resources to do their work. They should not always have to comply with financial requirements coming from London. That is what is wanted.
I am speaking generally, rather away from the Bill, but I emphasise that that is the essence of what we should have. I do not believe that a great many people in Scotland will want more than simply to feel that their local authorities have authority and the necessary funding. That is what I wish to draw attention to on this occasion.
Lord Hughes: Unlike my noble friends who have spoken to the amendment, I have no particular knowledge of the area. Therefore, what 1 shall say arises from my ignorance rather than from my knowledge.
Am I right in thinking that when the Government first put forward their proposals for local authorities

1825
Eastwood stood as an authority on its own, and that it was during the Committee stage in another place that the proposal emerged in its present form? Having regard to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State who took the Bill through all its stages in the other place is the Member for Eastwood in this Parliament, I cannot believe that a reversal to the original proposal of Eastwood would be unacceptable to him, because I cannot think that the change was made with any enthusiasm on his part. I may be wrong but that was my impression. It was because those people were suggesting that Eastwood was being proposed in that form to suit the convenience of the Minister that alterations were made. Am I quite wrong on that?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I put my name to the amendment purely to help the Government. Many nasty things have been said and I am afraid that some of them may be true. I therefore sit down happily to await the explanation which will put everything right.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The boundaries in relation to Renfrewshire, as originally proposed in the Bill, have been subjected in another place to intense scrutiny. Indeed, as a result of the Government's willingness to pay attention to local opinion, two important changes were made to the Bill. My noble friend asked a number of questions about the basis of our local government reform. I offer no comment about those reforms proposed for England. I restrict my remarks to those proposed for Scotland. It is the fact that at the last general election every major party in Scotland in its manifesto was committed to the establishment of single tier local authority throughout Scotland. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that what has to be understood about the Scottish position is that it is not simply a matter of moving boundaries between existing unitary local authorities but of removing a regional tier. For example, if one were to examine the volume of expenditure on local government in Renfrewshire one would find that about 80 per cent. of that expenditure was spent by Strathclyde Region. While I have no doubt that a considerable number of people in Renfrewshire district, the second tier, have a high regard for the services delivered by that district council, it has to be appreciated that in establishing those new unitary authorities we are giving them the complete range of local government powers and not dividing those powers between two tiers.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I know that the Minister does not wish to be unfair. However, he says that all parties wanted a single tier structure. He must add that on the part of the Labour Party that desire was based on the fact that there would be a Scottish Assembly or a Scottish Parliament to undertake the large strategic planning and so on. We could then move to a single tier. That factor should always be added when he makes that assertion.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not in the least keen to avoid making observations on that aspect. As I
1826
believe the noble Lord appreciates, it is clearly implicit within the proposals to establish an assembly that, far from devolving power to local levels, some of the existing powers given to local governments in Scotland should be centralised and taken to an assembly in Edinburgh. The noble Lord may rest assured that I have no reason whatever to attempt in any fashion to disguise the proposal of the Labour Party.
The people of Inverclyde argued strongly for a council based on existing district boundaries on the basis that links with the major part of Renfrew district were extremely limited and that there was no community of interest. There was a subsequent and second set of representations from the Ralston area arguing strongly in favour of a link with Paisley.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is quite correct. Amendments were made in another place. However, they were the other way round: Ralston was proposed to be within the East Renfrewshire local authority area. As a result of those representations, it has been excluded from that and has been put into the Renfrewshire area.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to a mistake in the original drafting of the boundaries of the East Renfrewshire council. That mistake disappeared when the Ralston part of the area was removed and put into the Renfrewshire-Paisley part of the council.
Lord Hughes: Was I right in thinking that when the Bill went into Committee, Eastwood stood on its own?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie; No, the noble Lord is wrong. Ralston was included within it and added on to it. But that addition has now again been subtracted.
If I am asked to give some explanation of the boundary proposed for the Barrhead, Neilston area, it represents the old historical and traditional boundary between Renfrewshire county and the royal borough of Paisley. As a boundary, it had the support of a number of local councillors in that area.
The East Renfrewshire authority now follows closely the existing boundary of the parliamentary constituency. It is not that the parliamentary constituency is to follow the local government boundary. In our view it represents a well balanced authority in terms of industrial areas and housing stock. We firmly believe that it will quickly establish a strong sense of identity and will be truly responsive to the needs of the local community. The new Renfrewshire council, with a population base of some 180,000 will be well placed to secure the delivery of high quality services effectively and efficiently.
If the amendment were to be accepted, the population of the East Renfrewshire council, which as presently constructed covers some 84,000 people, would be reduced to some 60,000. I should have thought that, if the sizes of authorities were to be consistent, a number of noble Lords might question that as a desirable reduction.
We believe that the structure for Renfrewshire now strikes the best balance among the range of factors that have to be taken into account. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that there was intense scrutiny of this part of the map of Scotland in another place, that significant changes were made, and that what is now proposed should stand.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may bring the debate to a close by, first, commending the Minister's eloquence in defending the totally indefensible. If there is one proposal, among all the other matters in the Bill that is totally indefensible, it is the proposal in relation to this area of Scotland. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for his contribution. He seemed to be more in tune with the feelings of the people in our area than the Government or those responsible for drawing up the proposals. At the risk of sounding impertinent, perhaps I may lay before your Lordships the set of circumstances and the sequence of events which brought us to the position that we are in today.
As the Minister said, in the original proposal the boundaries for the specific part of Renfrewshire which includes Eastwood was a reversion to the old parliamentary constituency of East Renfrewshire, which used to be so ably represented in another place by the late Betty Harvie Anderson whom so many Members of the Committee will remember with great affection and great respect. Those proposals included the area of Ralston. Like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I do not believe in the conspiracy theory. However, there was a by-election in Ralston during the consideration of the Bill in another place. A rock-solid Conservative-held seat, which had been held consistently over all the years by the Conservative Party at local government level, was lost overwhelmingly. In a blinding flash of reality, the Government decided that Ralston should not be part of Allan Stewart's constituency and should be removed. Instead, it should be replaced with Barrhead, Neilston, Uplawmoor, and Dykehead. When Dykehead was included, mistakes were made there as well. Scottish television had a hilarious time taking its camera teams to houses where the living room was in one council area and the bedroom in another. So keen were the Government to get the detail of the proposal absolutely right that they had houses in streets in Dykehead where the living room was in one council area and the bedroom in another.
I know that one of the architects of those proposals, Douglas Mason, who was also the architect of the poll tax, obviously did not know much about bedrooms, living rooms, or Dykehead—or anything. But the Minister really ought not to try to defend that kind of fiasco.
The Minister knows perfectly well the reality of the situation and there is no point in going back to historical links. My noble friend Lord Carmichael made it clear that Barrhead, Neilston, Uplawmoor and Dykehead have always been part, since the Reformation, of the presbytery of Paisley. He knows that Dykehead, Barrhead and Neilston have always looked to Paisley as their centre and identity. They have never looked to places like Newton Mearns and the other parts of Eastwood which I hold in high regard but which have nothing in common with Barrhead, Neilston and Dykehead. The Minister knows perfectly well that what influenced the Government was local opinion. I was about to say—and I apologise for it—that it was not
1828
local opinion, but it was local opinion expressed through the ballot box in Ralston. That is what influenced the Government.
I am sad that the Minister did not give us the same assurance as was given even at Report stage in another place that further consideration would be given to this matter. I make this appeal to Members of the Committee. We have it in our hands m the next few minutes to exercise the mind of the Goverment on this important issue from the point of view of the people who live in that area. In view of what I regard, with respect, as the unsatisfactory response from the Minister, I wish to test the feeling of the Commirtee.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79, Not-Contents, 125.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Jay, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Kintore, E.

Bath, M.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of IIton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddingion, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Shepherd, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Haig, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Westwood, L.

Howell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Abinger, L.

Blatch, B.

Aldington, L.

Blyth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Alport, L.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Caldecote, V.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Balfour, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

1829

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Davidson, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Devonport, V.

Newall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Pike, B.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Goschen, V.

Rees, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rennell, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,L.

Romney, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Sandys, L.

Harvington, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Slim, V.

Hothfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Howe, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strange, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Kenyon, L.

[Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Torrington, V.

Leigh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Manchester, D.

Wynford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Civil Service
3.51 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the Civil Service White Paper. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the White Paper on the Civil Service, published today.
1830
"It is nearly 150 years since the Northcote-Trevelyan Report first laid out the principles of a professional Civil Service, accountable through Ministers to Parliament, recruited on merit, politically impartial and dominated by a high ideal of the value of public service. Over the years since, the Civil Service has seen the demands laid upon it change in ways that could not have been imagined then. But the core principles established at that time have remained unaltered. They have served the country well: they continue to do so.
"So today's White Paper reaffirms those same fundamental principles. They help us to live in a decent society, but they have economic value too. No one should underestimate the advantage we get from the justified reputation we have as a country in which our public service is honest, competent, and apolitical.
"Nonetheless, no organisation can stand still in changing times. The public rightly expects to see continuing improvements in the standards of service in the public sector within the resources which can be afforded. That is why this Government has introduced a series of wide-ranging reforms, now brought together under the banner of the Citizen's Charter, aimed at delivering better service ever more efficiently. These include the Financial Management Initiative, the Next Steps Programme, the Efficiency reviews and the Competing for Quality programme.
"I believe this House should pay tribute to the way the Civil Service has handled these and other initiatives. They have already produced marked increases in both performance and efficiency. The size of the Civil Service is at its lowest level since the Second World War, and the new structures are showing considerable gains in efficiency. The White Paper published today sets out how the Government sees these reforms being taken forward, and draws together the implications for the future of the Civil Service.
"One central principle of management unites all these reforms; namely, that of delegation to and within properly accountable organisations. We should now take further steps in that same direction, building on what we know works, rather than going off in a new direction.
"But it is a fact that the most radical change so far has been in those parts of the Civil Service, much the largest in terms of numbers, which provide service directly to the public. The role of departmental headquarters and of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury now needs to change too. The central role should be to set tough targets, and to monitor performance on the basis of better information than we have at present. But staff throughout the Civil Service should be given the power to manage and operate in ways which best meet their particular tasks and needs, rather than within a single, central blueprint, adequate for all but well fitted to none.
"We therefore intend to carry the Next Steps process further.
"The Government propose that departments should take greater responsibility for deciding their

1831
organisational structures, the pay of their staff, and the best mix of efficiency measures to meet the never-ending pressure to raise standards within tight running costs. Departments themselves should judge, for example, how best to use privatisation, contracting out and market testing. Centrally-driven initiatives have shown in recent years how more competition and choice improves quality and reduces costs: departments themselves must now take these well-established policies forward if we are to see the full benefit from them. The central departments should continue to measure, monitor and report to Parliament but with less second guessing of departments' plans.
"To do this, we need better information systems and modern accounting practices. The Prime Minister has therefore asked the Efficiency Unit to conduct a scrutiny on management information systems and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is publishing today a Green Paper on resource accounting and budgeting. The Green Paper paves the way for important reforms of the way we account for public money, and opens up the possibility of changes in the way the Government plan their spending, both of which will complement the changes I am proposing in this White Paper.
"Departments will be given the freedom to determine their own management structures at all levels matched to their own needs. We expect them to be tauter and flatter than now.
"The Government propose to extend the delegation of pay and grading—which at present covers around 60 per cent. of the Civil Service—to cover all civil servants, below the Senior Civil Service. I will return to pay arrangements for the latter in a moment.
"The Senior Civil Service needs to support both the collective responsibility of Government and the particular responsibilities of departments, and to underpin both policy-making and high quality service delivery. But it too cannot be immune from change. It needs changing qualities and skills to match its changing tasks. The Government published an Efficiency Unit report on these issues last winter, known as the Oughton Report, and this White Paper includes the Government's response. The Government accept the Efficiency Unit's main recommendations, but propose additional changes. Our main conclusions are as follows.
"To strengthen cohesiveness across the Civil Service and bring in all those with substantial management responsibilities, the Government propose to create a new Senior Civil Service including those broadly down to the present Grade 5 level. It will include up to three-and-a-half thousand people.
"There should be more interchange between this Senior Civil Service (and indeed the rest of the Civil Service too) and outside employees. Open com-petition should become a more normal part of the process for selecting people for senior appointments. It need not be used in every case, but it should be considered in every case. Such competitions must be
1832
superintended as now by the Civil Service Commissioners, independently of Ministers, to guard against the possibility of politicisation. I am publishing today, alongside the White Paper, a report on the future role of the Commissioners. I myself believe that if the Civil Service is as good as it should be at training and career development, most senior posts are likely still to be held by insiders, as they would be in most big firms; but we should set no targets one way or the other.
"Next, the Government propose to introduce explicit written employment contracts for members of the new Senior Civil Service. For the great majority they will provide for employment for an indefinite term, but with specified periods of notice. Fixed term and rolling contracts would also be used as appropriate.
"Madam Speaker, as figures in the White Paper show, it is a myth that the Civil Service is an organisation in which people serve as a matter of course until retiring age. Substantial numbers of senior staff have left early in recent years and this is likely to continue.
"Finally, the White Paper proposes that a new, more flexible pay system should be introduced for this group. There would be a range for permanent secretaries' pay, with the positions of individuals determined by a remuneration committee with a majority of non-Civil Service members. Below this, we propose a system of wider, overlapping pay bands broadly linked to levels of responsibility, with progression based on performance, giving more room for manoeuvre to departments to change their structure to fit their needs. As a first step, the Government will implement the wider pay ranges recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for the present Grades 2 and 3 and will ask the review body to recommend a pay range for permanent secretaries. These proposals will, in time, allow for greater differentiation in individuals' pay within the overall pay bill. No immediate pay increases are entailed.
"Madam Speaker, these proposals, for greater delegation to departments and reform of the Senior Civil Service, represent a considerable further challenge for the Civil Service. We are seeking to raise standards of service within tight control of running costs. Staff numbers will continue to fall, from 533,000 at present to significantly below 500,000, with reductions at all levels. Wherever possible, this will be achieved through natural wastage and by voluntary departures. From the autumn of this year, the Treasury will give special assistance to departments with any additional costs.
"The Government believe the Civil Service is fully capable of achieving what we have; asked of it. It will be helped to do this by the greater flexibilities and the management changes I have announced, against the background of the reaffirmation of the old strengths and values which underpin the Civil Service, which the Government have reaffirmed today, and with which, 1 believe, the whole House will concur. The Civil Service must continue to offer

1833
attractive and exciting careers to talented people who wish to serve their country in some of our most important and challenging jobs and it will be helped to do so by up-to-date organisations and structures.
"Madam Speaker, the Civil Service has a unique role maintaining our unwritten constitution. It does not belong to one government or party. The Government, therefore, plan to consult opposition parties as well as others with an interest in the proposals I have outlined today. And we will, of course, consider carefully the forthcoming report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
"The Government's objective in publishing this White Paper is to map a way forward for the Civil Service to the end of the century and beyond. The result will be a smaller Civil Service, more flexible in organisation, better able to respond to changing tasks, properly rewarded on the basis of responsibilities and performance, and offering challenging careers for both staff and managers with a reaffirmed commitment to the unchanging principle of public service. I commend the White Paper to the House." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place this afternoon. The House will appreciate that it is a complicated Statement about a somewhat complicated issue. Before I comment further on it, perhaps we can see how far at least we agree with some of the matters spoken of by the Leader of the House.
No doubt every one in this House agrees that our existing Civil Service, particularly at the higher levels, has an enviable reputation for certain qualities: its impartiality; its independence of advice, irrespective of who is in government and the nature of that government; its continuity; and, finally, its sheer professionalism. Any Member of this House who has served in any Ministry will agree that the quality of our civil servants at the topmost level is absolutely first class. Let me say at the outset that I hope that those qualities will survive this latest upheaval. But I am bound to say to the House and to the Government that I have my doubts about that.
What is the object of this exercise? What are the Government trying to achieve from the tumult that they will cause within the ranks of the Civil Service? Is it suggested that somehow or other it will make the Civil Service more impartial, more professional and more independent; or that the quality of its advice will somehow improve? I do not think so. There is not a word about that in the Statement, nor indeed in the White Paper, at which I have had no more than a glance. Introducing a competitive element for all senior jobs, for example, is hardly likely to help the objectivity of those who are already in the service, when the Government themselves, certainly in relation to the very senior jobs,
1834
will be the body which does the appointing. It certainly does not do much to foster independence of outlook or advice.
As I understand the position—as I said, it is quite complicated—the Civil Service is broadly to be split. People will move from their previous grade in the present structure to Grade 5 and then join the newly labelled body called the Senior Civil Service, which I gather will contain about 3,000 people. I presume that entry into the Civil Service prior to Grade 5—for example, from the universities—will be as it is at the moment; in other words, there will be a competitive examination and if the candidate successfully passes that Civil Service examination he or she becomes a civil servant at the lower grade. He will then work his way up gradually to Grade 5 and then jump that hurdle to become a senior civil servant. Do the grades then disappear? Who is responsible for deciding who gets what promotion and on what basis is that judged? Not only that, how is one to know who has got the promotion and the basis on which it was awarded?
I understand that the contracts of service at that level will in effect now be an open-ended contract of service but with breaks; in other words, the traditional guarantee to the civil servant that if he (or she) came into the Civil Service at an early age, worked his way up, was competent at his job and preserved his independence and impartiality, then subject to cataclysms he had a job until he was 60. It seems that that guarantee now goes. I am not sure whether that is extremely helpful so far as the independence and objectivity of the Civil Service is concerned.
It is said in the Statement that:
"Open competition should become a more normal part of the process for selecting people for senior appointments".
I am not very happy with that. It seems to me that, given the nature of the Civil Service, particularly at the topmost level—it is designed to provide impartial and independent advice to government—the onus should be the other way round; in other words, that prima facie the civil servant should be entitled to be considered first, but if in fact there is good reason, then perhaps there could be an open competition with people from outside.
The proposal seems to us to be a menu for accelerated privatisation of the Civil Service. Certainly there will be considerable job losses. The Statement itself mentions figures somewhere in the region of 50,000. It is a concept that is somewhat difficult to accept. I am not sure whether the abolition of the existing structure of pay bargaining will achieve what the Government believe it will achieve. Do we really wish to see each department negotiating its own pay contracts for the civil servants within the department? Do we believe that a civil servant in the department of education should be paid more or less, as the case may be, than a civil servant in the department of health? What will that do so far as concerns transfer from one department to another? The difficulties I foresee in relation to that part of the policy are legion.
What about quangos? Will the quangos be subject to those rigorous new conditions? Or perhaps, having been appointed, they will go ahead independently, in their own sweet way, with just a general accountability to

1835
Ministers and thereby, it is said, by some sort of osmotic or almost mystical process also be accountable to Parliament? If there is concern about the quality of the public service in this country at the moment, I can say to the Government that there is much more concern about the way in which more and more power is being given to quangos, which by definition are unelected, unresponsive and unaccountable, than there is about the operation of the topmost ranks of our Civil Service. Will the conditions of people employed by quangos come under the new system or will they be left where they are?
Two specific matters in the Statement cause me to raise my eyebrows. First, on page 2, the Government say,
"The central departments should continue to measure, monitor, and report to Parliament but with less second guessing of departments' plans".
What does that mean? Which are the central departments? Is it the Treasury and the Cabinet Office? Are the Government really saying—if so it will be welcome and I shall be delighted to hear it spelt out —that if a specific department wishes to pursue a specific policy then the central department—namely the Treasury—will not second guess that department's plans? If it means anything, that appears to be what it means. I shall be grateful to the Leader of the House if he can tell us what it means. If it means what I think it means and what I said it may mean, then I welcome it.
Secondly, is it seriously suggested that permanent secretaries should be paid different rates depending on the ministry in which they happen to be permanent secretaries? I find that an astonishing proposition. If one is in a Ministry which controls a large budget and which must take unpopular decisions, will the permanent secretaries be paid less—or more as the case may be —than the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office or one of the permanent secretaries of the Treasury? I do not see how one can differentiate between civil servants at the permanent secretary level in the way in which the White Paper appears to do.
Finally, I return to where I started. What is the aim and object of the exercise? On the whole, the Civil Service in this country has served the country well for a long period of time. Why are we fiddling with it in the way in which the Government appear to be doing in the White Paper? If somebody can tell me what the vision is, then perhaps the details may fit into place. At the moment, all I see is a degree of interference which causes me to have grave doubts as to the continuing efficiency of the Civil Service.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. While we agree with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we certainly do not take so overwhelmingly conservative a view of the Civil Service as he does.
We welcome the degree of decentralisation proposed in relation to the great mass of civil servants below the new Senior Civil Service group which is described in the White Paper. We believe that greater flexibility in the management of what are in many cases straightforward executive jobs carried out by the
1836
department—jobs very different in kind in different departments—is highly desirable. There should be more decentralisation and more flexibility. If that means of course, as I think it must—I believe that the noble 'Lord, Lord Richard, was hoping it would—less rigid Treasury control over what is to be done in different departments, that surely is something which the whole House must welcome. There cannot be a single person in the Chamber—certainly not on the Labour Benches—who has not been critical of the iron hand of the Treasury holding back developments which we all recognise to be entirely desirable. We therefore do not decry all the changes put forward in the White Paper.
I want to say particularly that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on one point. If we are to obtain this greater degree of flexibility and accountability in relation to what goes on in the Civil Service, who is appointed to jobs and how jobs are obtained, there must be a cost funding way of approaching the work done by the quangos. As I am sure the Leader of the House recognises, it is becoming a positive scandal that so much work, which is comparable to the work being done by civil servants in their respective departments, is undertaken by people who are appointed without any competition so far as we are aware, without any availability for people to apply for the jobs and with the public quite unaware of what are the terms and conditions of payment for people in the quangos. The Government must tell us why, when what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the: gander, what is good for the Civil Service is not also good for the quangos.
As I said, we are not totally critical of the proposals in the White Paper. In fact, I should particularly like to welcome one aspect. It is suggested that the Senior Civil Service will bring in all those with substantial management responsibilities. When I had the privilege of serving on the McGaw Committee for the pay of industrial civil servants, one factor which was most noticeable and most disadvantageous, we felt, from the point of view of the competent running of the Civil Service was the way in which people throughout the country who had big management responsibilities in running huge departments, spending large amounts of money, did not have anything like the same status, career opportunities or pay as the people in the policy-making departments. If the change means that the people who are responsible for those important jobs will be in the same rank and receive the same promotion opportunities and pay as people in the policy-making department, that is a development which we would welcome.
When one looks at what is being proposed for the Senior Civil Service a number of questions arise. Management has been the flavour not only of the month, alas, but of months. Of course we all welcome good management. But management is a tool; it is a means to an end. It is not a purpose and end in itself. So often in proposals put forward by the Government, and in today's proposals, one has the impression that they are thinking that, if they obtain not necessarily the right but the most fashionable and up-to-date management system, that will be the end of their problems. I repeat, management is only a tool. My old managing director

1837
used to say that accountants are extremely good servants but damn bad masters. Sometimes it would be a good idea for that old-fashioned view to be brought forward again.
As the Statement said, the object is to maintain the principles of the Civil Service. In that regard I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. If we are to have a Senior Civil Service which, without fear or favour, gives opinions to Ministers which they may not like, how will that reflect on their opportunities to have their contract renewed or to obtain advancement? That is something which we cannot sacrifice. If using the most fashionable management tools to assess performance in higher level jobs means that we lose the objectivity, the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said to Ministers when they follow some foolish will-o'-the-wisp—as Ministers are not unknown to do—that is too high a price to pay. And, as we are reforming the Civil Service, have the Government thought that the Civil Service, which gives such excellent advice to the Government most of the time, might in some small measure be made available to give advice to Opposition parties?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I can give an on-the-spot answer to the noble Baroness's last question. But, when I was a departmental Minister I always believed that it was very much in my interests to be as helpful as I could to Opposition spokesmen, particularly in providing them with the information and the other things that were necessary for them to make their own judgments. I am not too sure about advice, but it is an interesting point which I shall think about.
I start with some hesitation in view of the noble Baroness's strictures on accountants. I stand here as an accountant, but I shall nevertheless try as a humble accountant to give the best answers I can to the extremely large number of points which were made in the two contributions we have just had. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for some parts of what he said and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for rather more of her points. She found more to satisfy her than did the noble Lord.
The White Paper strongly reaffirms the Government's commitment to a first-class Civil Service based upon the fundamental principles of honesty, dedication and impartiality. But that is not enough. It also has to map a way forward for the Civil Service beyond the end of the century. The Civil Service cannot be immune from change and the public has a right to expect continuing improvements in public sector standards without increasing taxes.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Richard, directly as to why the Government are proposing the White Paper at the present time. I can do no better than to quote from Sir Robin Butler's foreword to the paper which will be sent to the staff of the Civil Service:
"I welcome the Government's decision to publish this White Paper. It confirms the Government's commitment to a key role for the Civil Service in supporting Ministers in policy work and in managing and delivering public services. It stresses the continuing importance of the values on which the Civil Service has been built".
1838
That is the basic position from which we start and that is why we have published the White Paper at the present time.
The noble Lord asked about entry to the Civil Service. There is no intention of moving away from recruitment and promotion on merit. All recruitment must be fair and open, with selection on merit. The White Paper makes that clear. It also makes clear that decisions for promotion are for permanent secretaries and not for Ministers.
The noble Lord also asked whether civil servants could reasonably expect to continue in their careers until they reached retirement age. I have to say to the noble Lord that he is thinking about a world which has long since gone. The position is not that now. Some 50 per cent. of those leaving the top three grades of the Civil Service in the past seven years retired for one reason or another early. Seventy per cent. of those who retired early did so through some form of management action.
On the influx of outsiders into top positions, it is not as if the White Paper produces a revolutionary idea. At present two-thirds of the heads of all the executive agency posts have been filled by open competition. Eight out of the 35 permanent secretaries have been recruited directly from the outside. The Civil Service greatly benefits from their skills and expertise. As each vacancy arises departments and agencies will be required to ask themselves whether it is appropriate to have an open competition. But this will not be a political appointment. It is very important to stress that any appointments from outside the Civil Service will be subject to the scrutiny of the Civil Service Commissioners. The White Paper stresses that no government own the Civil Service and it strengthens the independent safeguards against political interference.
The noble Lord suggested that this is somehow a smokescreen for privatisation. That is not so. There is nothing in the White Paper to support that view. The White Paper reaffirms on many occasions our belief in a strong Civil Service with the basic principles which we have had in this country for a long time and with which we shall continue.
The noble Lord did not quite appreciate how much change has been taking place. The reductions in the size of the Civil Service have been going on right from the days when the noble Lord's party was in government. The peak of the Civil Service, at 748,000, was in 1976. In 1994 the figure is 540,000. We envisage a reduction of some 50,000 over the next four years, which is not a huge increase in the rate when one recognises that some 33,000 have left the Civil Service over the past 15 months.
The noble Lord asked about central pay and the advantages of a delegated system. The experience of the Civil Service has shown that there are many advantages to a delegated system. Central systems are no longer judged to be flexible enough for a Civil Service which carries out a huge number of tasks and covers a wide variety of services. The noble Baroness recognised that. We believe that there is a strong case for delegated systems to encourage a clear link between an individual's pay and the contribution he makes, and therefore a much less rigid approach, giving greater

1839
opportunities for rewards for good performance, but within a system which has tight control of running expenses.
The noble Lord asked about second guessing and I think he had the Treasury in mind. I do not have a list of what are the central departments but the noble Lord mentioned both the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. Most of those who have had experience of government would include both the Treasury and the Cabinet Office in their list of central bodies which might from time to time carry out an element of second guessing. The noble Lord is quite right. What we wish to see is less second guessing by the Treasury—and he welcomes that—and less second guessing by the Cabinet Office. We want to see efficiency plans prepared by departments and reviewed by the centre so that there is less need for detailed oversight. That gives more scope for management initiatives within the departments. But we shall of course expect there to be tight control over running costs. We see that as a means of achieving increased efficiency.
The noble Lord asked me about quangos. The White Paper does not formally cover non-departmental public bodies, but many of the principles that we expect to see —and that we do see—in the existing Civil Service we expect to see also in quangos. I have with me the guidance which the Treasury sent to public bodies in June of this year. It is a note of the guidance as regards the code of conduct and the code of accountability for National Health Service boards which the Secretary of State for Health issued in April. We are determined to maintain high standards in quangos. Ministers remain responsible and accountable for them. We believe in that system.
The noble Lord also asked me about pay for permanent secretaries. Permanent secretaries are on spot rates which do not allow flexibility to reflect the respective responsibilities of individual posts. The Government think it right to change the system to take that into account. What the new system will mean for individuals will depend upon the Government's decision on the extent of the range on which we are seeking advice and on how in practice individuals are placed within it. I should have thought that it would require only a few minutes' consideration of the problems to recognise that the degree of responsibility of the permanent secretary at, for example, the Treasury is probably higher and greater than that of a permanent secretary in a relatively small department. We need to reflect that in the pay structure.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that I have answered her specific points. She is right to stress the benefits of decentralisation. She is also right to make the point that management systems are not the be-all and end-all. The policy is the responsibility of the Government. The Civil Service plays a big part in working out the management systems, but that is not the same thing as getting the policy right.
A moment ago I quoted some figures about numbers in the Civil Service. Our view is that, as present plans develop, the numbers are expected to fall significantly below 500,000 over the four-year period, although the White Paper does not set out a target figure. Indeed, we
1840
do not believe that the right way to run these matters is by setting targets for numbers. We believe in efficiency in running costs and in leaving a great deal more flexibility to individual managers so that they can determine the number and level of staff that they need to deliver their responsibilities.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, first, can my noble friend say something about the reduction in numbers to which he referred, which, as I understand it, is quite substantial, going up to 50,000'' Is it the intention that some work that is now done by civil servants will be moved from the Civil Service to secure that reduction or is it intended that the existing Civil Service staff will have to do rather more work? In other words, is it intended to shed some responsibilities to secure that reduction or is it intended simply to concentrate more work on those in the service?
Secondly, I was glad to hear my noble friend speak about flexibility in pay a moment ago. I am sure that there is a great deal to be said for a difference in the reward that is appropriate for a permanent secretary in one of the major departments as compared with one of the smaller departments. However, with whom will the decision about the pay of major permanent secretaries lie? Will it be with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury or with the Chancellor?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's last question is that it will lie with a remuneration committee on which there will be a majority of non-civil servants. It will not be a decision for Ministers. It will be decided partly by senior civil servants and partly by non-executive outsiders who are brought in to advise on this matter.
The changes that are occurring in the Civil Service will mean that the process of having a smaller number of staff in the Civil Service, which started in 1976, will continue. Our target is not to reduce the numbers; it is to achieve better efficiency within the Civil Service. Therefore, we shall seek to run those functions which remain within the Civil Service more efficiently at last. There is also a policy of market testing—that is, of testing to see whether significant savings can be made. It should be remembered that in many cases where we have indulged in market testing, the Civil Service operation has been demonstrated to be the most efficient. That is a very good thing. Therefore, the answer is that it will be both of the alternatives which my noble friend mentioned rather than one or the other.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may speak as one humble accountant to another. I am sure that the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but his central argument appeared to be that because the Civil Service is 150 years old it must therefore be changed. Why, if it is working well? The noble Lord accepts—I doubt whether anybody would deny—that our Civil Service is the envy of the world both for its impartiality and for its incorruptibility. In those circumstances, what is the noble Lord's central case?
Is the noble Lord aware that I would accept that in certain circumstances the contracting out of work can be

1841
both helpful and efficient? I do not deny that for a minute. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition related some of this to the way in which quangos work. I have not had an opportunity to read the White Paper, but the noble Lord told us that the bodies concerned would not relate to quangos. However, when he repeated the Statement he said that they would be, as he put it, "properly accountable". Can the noble Lord spell that out? How will they be "properly accountable"? Quangos are certainly not properly accountable, but the noble Lord said that this does not relate to quangos. How will those bodies be properly accountable to Parliament?
I turn finally to the question of pay. The noble Lord said that there would be a committee to decide levels of pay—presumably at all levels—on which there would not be a majority of civil servants. Can the noble Lord give us any kind of assurance that the levels of pay for the chairmen of some of the quangos will not be on the same scale as the pay of, say, the chairmen of the electricity or water boards?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think that I can answer some of the noble Lord's questions but I am not sure that I am in a position to answer them all. The central point that I am seeking to make is that this is not change for change's sake. The central point that the Statement was seeking to make was the Government's reaffirmation of the central principles of the Civil Service which has served us well for so long; and to set out how we intend to keep those central values intact and, indeed, to build upon them. This is not change for change's sake; it is to conserve what we believe to be fundamentally right and valuable. However, it is naive in the extreme —I know that the noble Lord will not mind me using that expression as one humble accountant to another —to suggest that the Civil Service is still performing the same function now as it performed 150 years ago.
The Civil Service cannot have the idea that it does not have to change, does not have to bring in new expertise, and does not, on occasions, have to recognise that it needs outside skills and that in some cases there is no way that the Civil Service can do some of the jobs —for example, in the information technology world— better than outside bodies. Our proposals are designed to manage that inevitable change.
With regard to pay, Civil Service pay will not be determined totally by outside bodies. There will be negotiations with the unions and all the things that exist now. The Civil Service management will determine the bulk of the pay of most civil servants, but there are some civil servants at the top, in particular permanent secretaries, and it will not be frightfully easy for them to determine their own pay, for obvious reasons. At that level we will have the remuneration committee to assist in determining the appropriate remuneration.
As the White Paper made clear, we are not tied down to every detail of every point. While recognising the central thrust of what we are doing, which I should have thought was self-evidently right, there are points where
1842
the wisdom of the noble Lord, with his great experience, and of others, will be valuable in determining the way forward.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I learnt, naturally with some slight regret, that the present system of filling senior posts in the Civil Service is not thought to be very satisfactory. I must confess that there have been moments in my career when I wondered why anyone from outside would want to be, say, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Nor incidentally would I think it "frightfully" easy—to use the noble Lord's word—for outsiders to assess the pay for that post, and some others I have in mind.
I have just one question. Where does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fit into all this? The Statement, I think, was silent on that point. Is it in the same position as all the other departments? Will it have to consider whether its top posts should be advertised, and so forth?
For the rest, the Statement raises questions of some importance which it is impossible to discuss in the few minutes left to us. I wonder whether the Government are contemplating allowing some time for a debate on the White Paper and the associated reports. As it happens, I have down a No Day Named Motion on the Civil Service, but there is not an abundance of time available for Cross-Bench debates, even if my colleagues thought that that was a good idea. I hope that some government time will be made available for a debate upon what is an important issue.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution and questions. He is right, we shall have to find the best way for there to be a debate on this matter, if for no other reason than that it will enable the noble Lord and others, with their great experience, to express their views at greater length than they can through questions. I am happy to discuss that matter in the normal way through the usual channels. I hope that I did not say that I was dissatisfied with the appointment of heads of departments. I pointed out that two-thirds of the heads of executive agencies are filled at the moment through open competition; that eight of the 35 permanent secretaries have been recruited directly from outside. That is an indication that the Civil Service has already moved substantially in that direction. We seek to recognise that with a more formal structure.
The question will not be decided by Ministers; it will be decided by each department. Each department, as a vacancy arises, will ask itself whether it is appropriate to have an open competition. That decision will be supervised by the Civil Service Commission and not by Ministers. The noble Lord asked me a question about the Foreign Office. The position of the Foreign Office is covered in the White Paper which states:
"The Diplomatic Service is a separate branch of the public service with its own particular needs and structures. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs will be putting parallel action in hand to cover the areas considered in the White Paper"
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask my noble friend for information.

1843
There is an important but small element in different departments of the Civil Service which has to be legally qualified with specialised knowledge with a specialised career structure and methods of recruitment and selection. Is there anything in the White Paper, or does my noble friend know anything, about whether there is any change in those posts, and, if there is, in what way?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, such people will be covered by the broad thrust of the White Paper. There are no proposals in the White Paper for wide-ranging reform of those posts, or, in particular, as my noble and learned friend is aware, of the highly specialised experts whom the Government value greatly, especially at this time of the year. I refer of course to those who draft the Bills and the amendments to them.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has said, about which I should like to ask one or two questions. It is a pity that the White Paper does not cover quangos, because they have proliferated and now form a major part of this country's public service. How much of the diminution in the number of civil servants is a result of people who have merely been transferred to quangos?
Secondly, the noble Lord pointed out, quite rightly, that one of the great virtues of the Civil Service tradition has been its political impartiality. We have seen in answer to Questions tabled in this House that the appointment of people to quangos is highly politicised. What steps are to be taken to deal with that question? It is a grave defect of the White Paper that it does not deal with how people are appointed to quangos. Will the noble Lord please tell us whether any steps will be taken to ensure that quangos are not overwhelmingly politicised, as they have been shown to be up to date?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not accept the premise behind the noble Lord's question—that the appointment of people to quangos has been over-politicised. What is important is that they should operate to high standards. Government departments responsible, plus the Treasury, have been active in assuring that standards within quangos are improved. Of course accountability for quangos is with Ministers in this House and another place. I believe that that is how it should continue to be.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have a leading question to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, if he does not mind. It has been in my mind ever since he first started the Statement this afternoon. Have the Government any reason for self-doubt in these matters? Have the Government considered whether they themselves have the intellectual competence and administrative competence to make decisions of this kind? I ask the question because, over the past few years, as indeed has been revealed by the National Audit Office, the Government have spent £500 million on consulting outside consultants. These are questions of grave public principle of the utmost importance to the nation as a whole. They are about public standards
1844
during a time when, under the leadership of the Government, there has been an abysmal decline in those standards.
The Government have spent £0.5 billion on outside consultants. The remarks made by the noble Lord today, in particular those about market testing—although I do not know what relevance market testing has to the composition of the Civil Service—are trotted out in the words of management consultants' reports. In fact, the noble Lord's whole speech reeked of it; it completely lacked originality.
I put it to the noble Lord, who is an accountant like myself, that it would be far better to take the whole proposal back to the Cabinet and to say to them, in as friendly and chummy a manner as possible over the Cabinet table, "Do we really know what we are talking about or have we merely taken the words of consultants, dressed them up in gloss and presented them to an admiring public?".
I cannot help believing that the noble Lord, being as intellectually honest as he is, will not have the slightest hesitation in taking that course, in particular in view of the fact that, on all public counts, all accountability and all means of measure, this Government are probably the most incompetent since that of Lord North and the departure of the American colonies.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, of course, the whole House enjoys the noble Lord's contributions. I realised that the time was moving towards 20 minutes but I did not want to stop him in full flow, not that I had any intention of doing so. However, I am not too sure that there is much for me to answer. I believe that the charges are wild and unsubstantiated, and I refute them absolutely and completely. The noble Lord appears to have missed the essential points of the Statement. I recognise that perhaps it came a little quickly for him and I suggest that he reads it and studies it a little more carefully.
The noble Lord said that the Government are arrogant—he used other phrases which trip off his tongue like everything else—and that they spent £0.5 billion on outside advice because they did not know the answers to the questions. Those ideas do not hang together; one cannot be arrogant and then say that one does not know the answer. The fact of the matter is that a great proportion of those consultancy fees was spent on trying to obtain management consultancy advice on acquiring information technology systems and computer systems for social security and so forth. The Government freely admit that. There is no one in the Civil Service who knows as much about those systems as those in the outside world, where there is a great deal of expertise. The Government should be congratulated on seeking expertise where that exists. We must bear in mind that the Government's annual bill for information technology is approximately £2.2 billion per year. A government who have been in office for however long they have—and are likely to be in office much longer —need to spend a great deal of money on information technology and I should have thought that they would be congratulated on trying to do the job properly.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, has consideration been given to a two-way movement between the Civil Service and outside bodies, such as industry and commerce? If so, how is that to be monitored? Is it borne in mind that that approach was valuable during the war and that its value subsisted afterwards? In particular, could that not be applied to the point mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, for which the American system might be a model?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of the noble and learned Lord's question. There is a considerable amount of interchange between the private and public sectors. I would wish to encourage that as much as possible, which is a view that goes right through Whitehall.
I have doubt about the final part of the noble and learned Lord's question. I am not attracted to too many fixed-term contracts in the pattern that one sees in the United States, although they have a part to play. It imposes upon the Government and the Civil Service pressures of the kind which are totally undesirable in the nature of attempts to become political. I am in favour of two-way exchanges at all levels of the Civil Service and would like to see that encouraged. However, other than in special circumstances, I am not in favour of fixed-term contracts. They have a part to play but we should not encourage too many of them.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
4.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved. ]
Schedule 1 agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Convener and depute convener]:
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert (", and in the case of an equality of votes the convenership shall be determined by lot as between those who received an equality of votes.").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear from the outset that in an election of the convener of a council the convenership shall be determined by lot in the case of a tied vote for such office.
Section 3(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which this Bill repeals, mentions specific provision for the situation in which there is an equality of votes in the election of a council's chairman and requires the drawing of lots. Schedule 7, paragraph 5(ii) of the 1973 Act, which is not repealed by the Bill, provides for the person presiding at the meeting of the council not having a second or casting vote where there is an equality of votes in the election of a councillor to any particular office or committee, in which case the decision is by lot.
I suggest that it is preferable to follow the example of the draftsmen of the 1973 Act and to make it clear in the legislation that, in the case of equality of votes in the election of a chairman of a council, at any time the election shall be determined by lot. I believe that
1846
explicit provision for a solution to this matter should be made on the face of the Bill, rather than having to refer back to a general provision in the earlier Act.
This is a simple amendment and I hope that it will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I support the amendment. The justification is that Section 3(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 makes special provision for the situation in which there is an equality of votes in the election of a council chairman and it requires the drawing of lots. I must admit that until I saw the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, I had thought that that was the done thing because it has happened in a number of cases. It happened in Falkirk and it certainly happened a couple of times in Cumbernauld and Stirling. Therefore, I agree with the proposal.
It is preferable to the prolonged methods that were used and suggested otherwise. As long as there was agreement that that is the right way to proceed, it was reasonable. Therefore, for the sake of efficiency in local government, I hope that the Committee will support the noble Earl's amendment.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: As Amendments Nos. 26, 26A and 27 are grouped together, I should like to speak now to Amendment No. 27. But, with great respect, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, will have an opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 26A because I do not believe that he has yet done so.
Perhaps I may deal now with Amendment No. 27. This is a unique occasion for me because it is the first time in all the times that I have tabled amendments to various Bills that I have received support from other noble Lords. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Hughes, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for their support.
Before the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland, there were a number of Royal appointments in Scotland: for example, the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the Lord Advocate and the Lord Provost of certain Royal burghs. I believe that the title Lord-Lieutenant goes back several centuries. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has also studied the position of Lord Provost. He was Lord Provost of Dundee. He knows something about the ancient royal boroughs which had a royal charter.
To bring us more up to date, lieutenancies in Scotland are appointed by the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c.9). The special position of the Lord Provost of a city, being by virtue of his office the Lord-Lieutenant of that city, is covered by Section 131 of that Act.
I shall quote the relevant parts of Section 131 as it will read, as amended by paragraph 119 of Schedule 13, which is to be found at page 210 of the Bill.
Subsection (1) will state:
"Her Majesty… shall appoint a lord-lieutenant for each area of Scotland; and… may appoint lieutenants for each area of Scotland".
Your Lordships can read subsections (1A) and (1B) on page 210. Subsection (2) of the 1980 Act states:

1847
"The Lord Provost of the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow shall by virtue of his office be lord-lieutenant for the district of the city concerned and Her Majesty may appoint lieutenants for each such district".
Subsections (3) and (4) are being repealed. Subsection (5) will state:
"In this section, 'area' does not include the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow".
Personally, I should not object to the chairman of a council constituted under Clause 2 being called "provost". But in the past, a provost has usually been associated with being the elected chairman of a town or borough and not the rural area of a county or district.
However, as only four cities in Scotland have their own elected councils, I do not believe that Her Majesty or Her Majesty's councils should ever be placed in an awkward position by another local authority choosing the title of Lord Provost for its chairman.
This amendment is designed to remove any doubt which may exist in the future and to preserve in statute the very special and, I believe, unique position of the chairman of a city council being both Lord Provost and Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of a particular city.
Lord Hughes: I support what has just been said by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. One of the other supporters of the amendment is my noble friend Lord Kirkhill who was Lord Provost of Aberdeen.
It is interesting to note that in this century, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee have had Lord Provosts who were in this House. It is extraordinary that Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, as far as I know, has never had a Lord Provost who reached this House, although there was a very distinguished Lord Provost who became Member of Parliament for an Edinburgh constituency. He was Lord Provost Darling of whom it was said that he knew that he was very well known in Scotland but he did not realise how well known he was in England until he got off the train at King's Cross station and was greeted by charming ladies who said, "Good evening, darling".
I looked at the 1973 Act which reads exactly the same as the present Bill, except that it includes the words:
"with the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland".
I know that in later miscellaneous legislation in about 1990 those words were taken out. The argument was that the Secretary of State did not think that it was proper that he should tell a local authority what it should call its chairman.
I was tempted to add the words in the 1973 Act, but I reached the conclusion that as there are so many parts of this Bill in which the Secretary of State is taking powers to tell local authorities what they should do, it was not for me to give him yet another opportunity to do so. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which states "other than 'Lord Provost'" asserts the situation without giving power to the Secretary of State.
The argument advanced that the Secretary of State did not want to tell the local authorities what they should do does not gel with the general picture, because he is telling the four cities what they must do: they must call their civic head a Lord Provost. Of course, I am quite certain that none of the city councils will object to that provision.
1848
The wording seems to indicate that the Government's. intention is that the title of Lord Provost should be confined to those four cities. But will it be possible to carry out that intention if the Bill gives authority to any other council to call its civic head by any title that it chooses? Will the Minister assure me that he is satisfied that the Bill as it stands will prevent any other council calling its civic head "Lord Provost"?
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to the use of the word "provost". If one looks at Whitaker's Almanack, it will be seen that, with one or two exceptions where the council has not given any information as to what it calls its civic head, the ones under the city have either chosen the title of provost or convener. Basically, where the authority is predominantly a burghal area provost was chosen and where it is a county area the word convener has been chosen, There are two exceptions to that and, strangely enough, they are both in Tayside. Perth and Kinross, which is. definitely county, calls its civic head provost and Angus. which is a very proud county title, also calls its civic head provost. However, in all the other areas, the title was convener.
Therefore, at present, the title of Lord Provost is used only in the four cities. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I hope that he will assure us that the Government believe in powers to stop other authorities using that title. I hope that they will not say at the end of the day that Lord Lyon King of Arms is the man who can stop the others. I believe that he has already had to intervene in a case: where someone was using an improper title. Incidentally, I was speaking to Lord Lyon when he received that information. do not necessarily believe that it was related to Lord Provosts; indeed, it may have been something which had nothing to do with civic titles. As I said, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment so that the matter is placed beyond any doubt. However, if he does not accept the amendment, perhaps he can given Members of the Committee the assurance that the title will be confined to the four cities.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. At present, the wording of the Bill seems to me to be highly ambiguous and would leave it open to other authorities to aspire to call their leader the Lord Provost. I do not know how apocryphal the story is, but I am reminded that for many years. Perth had a. Lord Provost along with the other four cities. The story goes that Queen Victoria, while travelling from London to Balmoral by train, often used to leave her sleeper and get off at Perth in the early hours of the morning to have breakfast in the station hotel. On one occasion, perhaps feeling a little sleepier than usual, she inadvertently referred to the welcoming provost of Perth as "My Lord Provost". He was not slow to take advantage of that royal slip of the tongue. I do not believe that we want future slips in that respect. Therefore, we need clarity on the matter.
Lord Kirkhill: I intervene because if anyone in Aberdeen found out that I had not spoken in the debate, I would probably be hung, drawn and quartered, or whatever the modern equivalent of that particular phrase may be, when I returned to the city. I must apologise to the Minister for not being present at Second Reading or indeed at any earlier Committee stage. However, I believe that the Minister knows that I have certain responsibilities in the Council of Europe. That means that my attendance here is sometimes of a sporadic nature.
I support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I should especially like a reassurance from the Minister that the Bill as drafted does mean that only the four cities will be able to call their civic head Lord Provost. In my view there are two principal reasons why a distinction needs to be made. First, there is the historic reason. Traditionally, citizens of the four principal and main cities want that area of demarcation and, if you like, embellishment for their civic head; indeed, it is part of the tradition of those four cities. Secondly, there is the question of the lieutenancy which is involved in the case of each of the Lords Provost.
Perhaps I may be anecdotal for a moment. During my four years in office in the City of Aberdeen between 1971 and 1975, on certain occasions I found that I might spend almost one week on lieutenancy duties. In part, that was because Her Majesty is frequently within the city boundary of Aberdeen because of the proximity of Balmoral. However, there is very much more to it than that. For example, foreign embassies in London constantly got in touch with one because one was Lord-Lieutenant of the major city, and so on. I need not develop that point, because I am sure that Members of the Committee will get the thrust and the impulse of my remarks. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said all that can be said on the matter. I give general support to the amendment of the noble Earl.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I always admire the meticulousness with which the noble Earl carries out his research. His reasoning is impeccable. The amendment is easy to understand and, I believe, has the support of the whole Chamber. The Minister now has the chance to accept his noble friend's amendment which is a very simple one. Indeed, he does not need to give any other assurance: all he needs to do is to accept the amendment. However, if he does not accept it, he will arouse great suspicions in my mind as to his motives. I trust that the Minister will be able to allay those suspicions, which are not of a nice character, by accepting the noble Earl's amendment.
The Earl of Minto: With the leave of the Committee, I am afraid that, due to the length of the debate on the Statement, I completely forgot about the groupings. I therefore failed to move Amendment No. 26A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I must remind Members of the Committee that we are discussing Amendment No. 26 at present.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that the three amendments are grouped together. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I must remind him that he now has a chance to speak to his amendment, but it is not a question of moving it at the moment.
The Earl of Minto: The noble Earl is very kind to have clarified the position I am most grateful to him. The object of Amendment No 26A is very simple indeed: it is to ensure that it is not a question of choice but that it is a question of certainty that the council,
"shall make provision for—

(a) the duration of the term of office (which may not extend beyond the next ordinary election of the council);

(b) the procedure for early removal from office, of the convener and the depute convener"

who would be elected under the terms suggested in Amendment No. 26.
Lord Hughes: Following on from the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on the Lord Provostship, I should have said that I also wanted to support the noble Earl, Lord Minto, on Amendment No 26 Incidentally, in the unlikely event of the Minister accepting the amendment, perhaps he will ensure that the spelling of "convenership" agrees with the Bill and reverts to the Scottish spelling instead of this bastard English term.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was anecdotal as I now propose to be There was an occasion way back in 1947 when the Lord Provost of Dundee died in office and another Lord Provost had to be elected by the council When the Lord Provost was not in the building, the chair was occupied by the senior bailie. Two candidates were nominated for the position: one by the organisation which in those days called itself "the moderates" and the other by the Labour Party. The senior bailie was a Labour member When it came to a vote, each candidate obtained 18 votes, whereupon the senior bailie in the chair gave a casting vote in his own favour. He only held the office for the remainder of the deceased Lord Provost's term, but during that time grave doubts arose as to whether he had been properly elected Lord Provost I do not think at that time it was generally understood that this matter would be decided by the drawing of lots The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has made it absolutely clear that a case like this should not be decided by the casting vote of whoever happens to be in the chair.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall deal, first, with the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, Amendment No. 26. The raft of local government legislation prior to this Bill is certainly complex. There have been some repeals, but as the noble Earl clearly appreciated, there are some provisions that remain extant Indeed, as he indicated, paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 7 to the 1973 Act already requires all appointments, in the case of an equality of votes, to be decided by lot Therefore there is nothing between those who have supported this amendment and the Government As I understand it, the only purpose that the noble Earl ultimately had in moving the amendment was that he considered it might be more appropriate to

1851
have such a provision on the face of the Bill. I resist his proposal for the following reason. There would, in our view, be an unnecessary duplication in statute of a provision on which we are both agreed. It is on that narrow point that I would invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
I have no doubt that the Committee has listened with interest to the accounts of the origins of the position of Lord Provost in Scotland. Undoubtedly in the great cities of Scotland for many years it has been a proud office. As the clause makes clear, it is intended that,
"The convener of each of the councils of the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow shall … be known by the title of 'Lord Provost'".
There is no intention that that should be removed or altered. The only question that arises is whether some restriction should be placed on the face of the Bill to prevent any other presumptuous local authority trying to usurp that proud distinction which has been conferred on the four cities.
I believe it was my noble friend Lord Balfour who referred to my following point. Back in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981, the requirement that the Secretary of State's consent be sought if any special title were to be taken, other than convener, was repealed. Given that, it would be simple enough to attempt to do so if some presumptuous rural district council wished to have at its head a Lord Provost. So far as I am aware, none has sought to do that at any time. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has correctly identified, both Angus, and Perth and Kinross, have resolved that their convener should be known—and indeed is still known —as Provost.
I would have thought it extremely difficult for any non-city council to prove any historical title to call its convener Lord Provost. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the tale which has been told about the city of Perth. I do not know whether that city has a sounder basis for calling its convener Lord Provost. I invite the Committee to allow this amendment to be withdrawn because I would like to check this matter through rather more thoroughly. I would not like to deprive Perth, or Perth and Kinross, of the title if they have a valid claim to it. I would have thought it inappropriate to exclude them from such a title if they have a valid basis for claiming it. I also wish to ensure that this is not an area in which Lord Lyon should give a ruling. It would appear to us to be a matter of precedence. It may be that he exercises an interest in the precedence because, as has been pointed out, those four Lord Provosts who are at present in post in Scotland are always ex qfficio Lord-Lieutenants. However, this is a matter that I should like to explore more thoroughly with him. The broad intention to which the noble Lords have spoken is understood and it is in large measure shared by the Government, unless there is some unlikely authority that could claim that title by historical right.
I now turn to Amendment No. 26A. I can certainly appreciate the sentiments that prompted the noble Earl to table it, but it cuts across the general principle that as much as possible relating to local management should be left for local decision. Under existing legislation once
1852
a convener or depute convener is appointed, he remains in office until the next council elections. There is no mechanism for removing the incumbent at an earlier date. It might be invidious to try to identify an example where, under existing practice, that might have been desirable, but looking to the future it is in harmony with the thrust of our proposals for the review of internal management that Clause 4(3) gives authorities flexibility and freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to introduce standing orders on these matters. I would not wish to impose greater rigidity than is necessary. For those reasons I hope that the noble Karl will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Hughes: I am glad that the Minister has said that he would like to consider this mailer further. I am not certain that he is on strong ground when he said he doubts whether any other authority would be so presumptuous as to take the title we are discussing. Perth has been mentioned. I believe that there is a real danger, if the Bill remains as it stands, that Perth will seek to have its head called Lord Provost. The city of Perth had a Lord Provostship until 1973, but then it wa.5 the city of Perth. It was not as it is now—and as it will be—the county of Perth and Kinross. It would be totally inappropriate if the county of Perth and Kinross chose to claim the title of Lord Provost.
As a former Lord Provost of Dundee, I admit that Perth had a Lord Provost long before Dundee had one. I believe it was in the time of King James VI that there was an argument as to whether Perth or Dundee was the more important place. The King said, "We prefer our loyal burgh of Perth to our loyal burgh of Dundee". In the hierarchy the Lord Provost of Edinburgh was followed by the Lord Provost of Perth. It remained that way for a long time until the Lord Provost of Glasgow, on the occasion of processing to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, said that he was prepared to march behind the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, but if he had to march behind anyone else he would go home instead. The Minister must take into account the fact that if the Bill remains as it is, there is no one who could stop the county of Perth and Kinross claiming, for the first time in history, that a county could have a Lord Provost.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to add a few more words to what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said. Let us suppose that that happened. Does it mean that Her Majesty must appoint the Lord Provost of Perth as a Lord-Lieutenant, because I think that the two are distinctly connected? That is one of the reasons that I have put down the amendment. She, through her counsel, can choose virtually any worthy person to be the Lord-Lieutenant for any other area in Scotland However, it is the strange and unique position that the Lord Provost of a city is virtually the elected head of that city, who then becomes Lord-Lieutenant. That is one of my reasons for putting down the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: Perhaps I should intervene because the discussion is about Perth. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, 20 years ago we enjoyed the

1853
privilege of having a Lord Provost. The situation changed and we became the counties of Perth and Kinross. The situation may change again at some stage. Therefore, it is right that the Minister should have another look at the matter rather than accepting it now.
There was a time when St. Johnstone was the joint capital with Edinburgh. These matters need to be considered very carefully. Perhaps there should be a reservation that the matter should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State at the time. That would allow flexibility. None of us knows what will happen in the next 20 to 30 years.
Therefore, I hope that those who move the amendments will accept that the right course is to have another look at the matter and perhaps make the provision a little more flexible given that history changes.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am disappointed that the Minister has to investigate these matters. I should have thought that the Scottish Office would have officials who would know about these matters and that he could have obtained the information that he wants by means of a simple message to the Box. However, I have no doubt that investigations will go on and on.
Lord Hughes: If the noble Earl withdraws his amendment I agree with him on the basis of the assurance we have been given.
The Earl of Minto: With the leave of the Committee I should like to withdraw Amendment No. 26. However, I remind the Minister that Amendment No. 26A, which I shall not move, has an influence upon a later amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26A and 27 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Elections and term of office of councillors:]
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("third") and insert ("fourth").
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment of quite a different consequence. I believe it to be very important. Its object is to retain the existing period of local government elections every four years.
In 1995 councillors to the new authorities will be elected for a four-year period. The proposed reduction to a three-year cycle will create difficulties not only in terms of the initial acclimatisation and adjustment of new councillors but also because many aspects of local authority work which may be proposed by a councillor could not be brought to fruition within the three-year timescale which is envisaged.
I had the privilege yesterday morning of chairing the council of which I am convener. It was the first meeting that we have held for such business since the elections in May. It was very interesting to note how the new council reacted to the short space of time it has between now and the elections in 1995 and how councillors tried
1854
to adjust their minds to the fact that some people would be serving on that council in a year's time as well as on the existing regional council.
Half of our councillors are new members. It came as a rude shock to them to realise that, because of shortage of time, any pledges that they may have made during the past election were not going to be honoured and that money would not grow on trees in the intervening months. That illustrated to me as clearly as it has ever been illustrated before that in the first year following an election the new councillors are dependent upon the policies of the previous council.
A council can only start to change its policies in preparation for the second year. It then has to wait throughout that period for the capital programmes and many other decisions to come to fruition. Very few of the strategic policies which are projected by a council can be implemented and fully recorded in the eyes of those who voted for the council in a period of less than four years because the council gets the jitters in the fourth year as another election approaches. Therefore the two years in the middle are of the greatest possible importance.
I am fully aware of the fact that Members of the Committee must by now know that I am convener of a council. I should like to make it clear that it is on public record in Scotland that I do not intend to stand for election in 1995. Therefore, anything I say is not said in relation to any interest on my own behalf. So it was with genuine satisfaction that I noticed when reading the Committee stages in another place that the Minister, Mr. Stewart, in concluding that elections should be held every three years, stated that the Government are attempting to strike a balance between giving the new authorities a reasonable period during which to formulate and implement their policies while remaining accountable to their electorate. I thought that that was a very fair statement.
It was also argued by the Minister (and this I did not agree with) that the present system allows the electorate to cast their local government vote every two years and that votes every three years rather than four years will enhance local authority accountability. That is not factual because the two-yearly elections are for two tiers of authorities which have absolutely no interchange of fundamental policy. Therefore, I do not believe that that statement bears any great merit.
However, I was encouraged when the Minister stated in Standing Committee on 17th February 1994 (at col. 417 of Hansard):
"that reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. In the end it is a finely balanced argument".
I believe that it is a finely balanced argument, but I believe that it is imperative that we bear in mind the lessons of experience.
The sound local government principle that those to whom services are provided should be involved in their planning is absolute. That is particularly important in terms of capital. In relation to projects, the provision of new schools or community centres takes time and we shall not be able to do that in the period under discussion. With considerable financial assistance from the Government my own council has recently built a

1855
high school. It cost £9 million. It took the period of the life of the council to deal with Her Majesty's Government, with the Scottish Office education department, with our own finances and then to get the project off the ground and built. It would be absolutely tragic if we cut off the possibilities which may apply through a four-year period by limiting it to three years.
In Scotland we are sometimes accused of being hypersensitive. But if a four-year period is good enough for England and Wales why is it not good enough for Scotland? I meet my colleagues from local government in England and Wales at conferences, and so on. Their arguments make it clear to me that they would be desperately unhappy if the period changed to three years, as is now proposed.
We also have to consider those people with whom local authorities work; for example, a health board. It has a four-year period. It would be unfortunate to lose such coterminous understanding.
One has also to project one's mind a great deal further down the corridors of time. Voters are becoming tired of voting. Although it is a marginal reduction, it is not uninteresting to note that with a three-year cycle there would be a conflicting election every 15 years rather than every four years. When one considers the European elections conflicting with local government elections, it is better if one can extend the period. In Scotland at present the voters are absolutely exhausted. They have been voting in one election after another during the past 18 months. The voters may have to vote yet again in two years' time, or whenever. From the Government's point of view, the question of cost does not lack significance.
Although I have dealt with delivery of promises, I return to the subject. If one puts democratic powers into the hands of elected persons, those persons should not stand before the electorate making promises that they cannot fulfil. They must be given an opportunity to fulfil their promises. For that reason, probably above all else, as a long term regional councillor I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Lord admirably covered the points. We believe that four years is a marginally better period. I remember the days when one-third of the council was elected each time. It was slightly disconcerting, but it had its positive side too. Councils have much higher budgets now. I hope that the Minister will see some value in the four year period.
The Earl of Balfour: With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I must point out that before 1974 local elections were held every three years and that appeared to work well between 1947 and 1974. What happened before that period I do not know.
If the term of office of a local councillor is to be four years it may discourage many young and very able persons from standing. No one will stand for election unless he knows that he can serve at least two terms. I am concerned that with the lives that many young people lead many will not be able to envisage their
1856
future for more than six years ahead. They have to contemplate a two-term period. We might lose very able people if they have to look eight years ahead. That is the only point I make in asking the Committee to consider the three year period.
The Earl of Perth: We should listen carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Minto. He has had practical experience of local government. We are considering one-tier local authorities. Therefore, the work that those authorities undertake is important and involves local people closely. One is no longer referring to a region where one might feel, "We don't know those people".
A four year period has much merit from the efficiency point of view. It is a matter of judgment. Some might believe that it is better to have change all the time but people do get fed up with elections and say, "Not another lot of papers. Not another election". There is much merit in that four year period. It gives people an opportunity to get into the ways of local government.
It is true that eight years is a long period as is six years. However, there is no certainty if one does not do well that one will even attain that period. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider seriously the four year period.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Most of the electorate are not tired of voting because they do not vote. If they do not bother to vote every four years, they will not be bothered to vote every three years.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in favour of holding elections every four years. It was indeed one of the issues considered last year by the Internal Management Working Group which comprised representatives of CoSLA, local authorities and the Scottish Office. The period between elections subsequently formed part of the internal management consultation paper.
An interesting cross-section of views emerged from that consultation. Some favoured the system which obtained prior to 1975 whereby elections were held annually for a proportion of council seats. However, the overwhelming majority favoured whole council elections. Periods of both three and four years between elections found their supporters.
In the final analysis, a decision had to be reached. In reaching the decision that three years was appropriate, we took into account the fact that prior to 1975 councillors were elected for three year periods, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has remarked.
The current system gives electors the opportunity to cast a local government vote every two years, albeit for different tiers of authority. We concluded, very much on balance, that the argument lay in having a local electorate cast its local vote every three years rather than every four.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, quoted my ministerial colleague, Mr. Allan Stewart.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. For the sake of the record perhaps I may point out that before 1975 elections were not held every three years but every year on the basis that

1857
one-third of the council retired each year. Electors were not asked to vote every three or four years but every year.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord had listened to what I said, I said that representatives were elected for a three-year period, not that there were elections every three years. I went on to say that a proportion of the seats were up for election every year.
As I was saying, my ministry colleague, Mr. Allan Stewart, said that our proposals gave the new councils a reasonable period during which they could formulate and implement their policies and keep them regularly accountable to their electorate. I do not pretend that there is any overwhelmingly powerful argument in favour of three years as opposed to four. At the end of the day, it was after consideration of where the better balance lay that we concluded that we should go for the three-year period, not least because it returned to the pre-1975 position.
The Earl of Minto: I am getting slightly muddled. I was in local government before its reorganisation and I do not remember there being total elections of the council once every three years. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord suggested that. He suggests that a council had a revolving role which frequently gave a longer life to representatives than the three years that is suggested. It came from the very fact that one was working with people who came back again and again. Frequently there was the same council time and time again, almost to the point of danger.
I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that there are no benefits. I have the document The Internal Management of Local Authorities in Scotland with me. I looked at paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 on consultation and reminded myself of what they said. I believe that there is an important significance in the reference that I made to the Minister in another place. Paragraph 6.1 of the document states:
"Any elected body needs time to formulate a programme and to carry it into effect, and conversely the electors should be given adequate time to judge whether a council's policies have proved satisfactory".
I am sorry to say that I do not consider that on the evidence I have attempted to give the Committee this afternoon three years is sufficient time to meet those two points. If it is not sufficient time in England and Wales, why should it be sufficient in Scotland? I am being forced into a position against my wishes, but if the Committee must be divided on this, then it must be. Why should the noble and learned Lord say that in Scotland we need less time to achieve results than in England? It is simply not true.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Before the noble Earl decides what he wishes to do with the amendment, the Minister has indicated that it was a nice—a difficult —decision to make as to the time. The noble Earl made the point that a revolving council is a totally different situation from everyone out and a whole lot of new people coming in. Therefore, perhaps my noble and learned friend will consider the matter between now and Report stage and decide whether there is merit in having
1858
another look at a four-year term for the whole council. Bearing in mind that the position before 1975 was totally different from what we are considering at the moment, that might be the way forward.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Some confusion has emerged over this. One has to remember that prior to the reform of local government, different systems obtained in different parts of Scotland. Elections took place every three years in every area other than in the cities and the boroughs. It was in the cities and boroughs that there were rolling annual elections for a third of the council; a third of the council was up for election each time.
I can only come back to this: it is a matter of balance. The noble Earl is a distinguished convener of an authority in Scotland. He makes the point that a four-year period is desirable, as he perceives it, to ensure that the programme that the council wishes to take forward is taken to a satisfactory stage of implementation.
Against that has to be set the desirability of the electorate having the opportunity to decide whether it thinks that the council is doing a good job. In the final analysis, on a narrow balance, our view was that three years was preferable to four. I think that careful consideration has been given to this, not only in the internal management review but in another place. Everyone appears to be agreed that there is no absolutely correct answer but that it would be desirable to leave it as it stands in the Bill.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the noble Earl makes his decision on whether to divide the Committee, I must say to the Minister that his response is worrying. On a matter such as this he could easily have accepted the advice of his noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden and taken the matter away to re-examine it.
No evidence has been presented to suggest that the four-year term which was introduced in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 has produced any problems whatsoever. The Government have produced no reason for the three-year period contained in the Bill. It seems to me eminently sensible for the Minister to take the matter away and come back in the autumn at Report stage for further consideration. If we are going to get bogged down on simple issues of this kind, it is a fair indication of the suspicion in the minds of many of us that the Government seem determined to railroad this Bill through the House in its present form. I have to say firmly to the Minister that that is not acceptable.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I think that that is ungracious of the noble Lord when, just in the course of the last set of amendments that we considered, I thought that it was accepted that the offer I had made to the Committee was that we should take the matter away and consider it. So it is an ungracious observation.
Of course, if the noble Earl wishes to divide the Committee it is a matter for him. Clearly we shall not conclude the passage of the Bill through this House before we rise for the summer. There will be an opportunity to reflect upon it. But I am bound to say that it would be difficult for me, after the consideration that was given to the matter prior to the Bill being produced

1859
and following its passage through the other place, to give any indication that in taking it away I am in any sense making an undertaking to reconsider it.
Lord Hughes: The Minister is talking about all the consideration that has been given to this. However, is he merely talking about the consideration that may have been given by his civil servants? Was this matter extensively discussed in Committee in another place? I doubt it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the Committee wishes me to say that I will take the matter away, I will. We have a great deal to get through. The noble Lord may take the summer to read through what consultation there was on it and he will discover that, following the consultation, there was a narrow balance of view in favour of three years rather than four years. If we can make progress, I will undertake to take the matter away and consider it.
The Earl of Minto: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that assurance and in that case I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) A person shall not be disqualified from being nominated as a candidate for election as, or for being elected, or for being a member of a local authority by reason of the provisions of section 31 (1) (a) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 unless he holds such paid office or employment as falls within sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 or such other paid office of employment or other place as the Secretary of State may specify by order.
( ) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very important amendment. Under Section 31 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 council employees are not eligible to stand for election to the council which employs them. Employees may stand for election to councils other than those which employ them, with the exception of certain restricted posts. The current two-tier system of local government has, therefore, generally allowed a regional council employee, such as a teacher or an engineer, to stand for election to a district council in the same area. Similarly, district council employees have been able to stand for seats on regional councils. Island council employees have, however, been barred from serving as councillors in their own areas, given those councils' unitary status.
The establishment of unitary authorities throughout Scotland will have a significant impact on the availability of people willing and eligible to serve as councillors. The pool of people able to stand for election would be substantially diminished, as is already experienced by three all-purpose Island councils that we have in Scotland at present. The effect of continuing the existing qualification rules under the Bill's proposals would be to debar 280,000 employees—that is, approximately 7 per cent. of the adult population — from standing for election to local government. That clearly reduces their rights as citizens. If a commitment
1860
to attracting elected members of a high calibre to serve in local government exists, then this problem needs to be addressed.
The noble Lord the Minister will be aware that at Committee stage in another place the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Allan Stewart, in rejecting an Opposition amendment which restricted the exclusion of those unable to stand for election to those who are already excluded under Sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, stated that,
"the problem is not that people have not considered the issue; many people have examined it. No one has presented a satisfactory answer other than the Government's. If the Opposition present a new proposal between row and Report, the Government will consider it".—[Official Report, Commons, First Scottish Standing Committee, 17/2/94; col. 467.]
However, no such amendment was tabled at Report stage, largely in recognition of the problem of dealing with this matter adequately by including such a scheme on the face of the Bill. That is rather an important point.
In recognition of the complex nature of the issue balanced against the need to avoid debarring nearly 280,000 people from standing for election as councillors, this amendment seeks to bestow upon the Secretary of State the power to make regulations indicating what type of local authority employee is eligible to stand for election to the authority which employs that person. This course of action, while continuing to debar those included under Sections 1 to 3 of the 1989 Act to which I have already referred, would allow the Minister to decide among the remainder of the local authority staff who should be debarred from standing as a councillor because of the introduction of the unitary authorities.
For instance, the Minister may be minded to allow home helps employed by the social work department to stand for election to the council, while requiring that person not to take part in decisions relating to the operation of that department. The major advantage of the amendment, however, would be that it allowed greater time to be taken in considering the problems relating to this matter rather than imposing a blanket ban as is presently proposed. Further consideration and public consultation could be undertaken prior to the final decision being agreed.
The Minister must realise that there is quite a distinct difference now that we have gone from two-tier to one-tier local government and that a lot of very good people will be lost if we do not introduce some easing of the restrictions that already exist. I beg to move.
6 p.m
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 102B, which refers specifically to the Island councils, and I shall cite particularly the example of the Western Isles. The Western Isles suffers, as do many Highland areas, from the difficulty of finding sufficient people of good calibre who are willing to spend the time on council work In the Western Isles the problem is much worse than elsewhere. The figures are these. The total population of the Western Isles is 29,600. Of that total the number of economically active persons—that is a curious phrase; I suppose it means those who are in work—is 13,385, of

1861
which 2,336 are employed either full-time or part-time by the council. So 17.45 per cent. of the employed workforce in the area is disqualified from standing. That anomaly needs looking at.
This amendment would be helpful in overcoming the difficulty in that it says quite simply that, where 12.5 per cent. or more people in the area are employed by the council, then certain exceptions can be made. It does not ask for senior employees to become members. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has already given examples, but Ministers do not need telling the difference between the Highlands and other places. This is an example where the Government ought to give some positive answer that they will look at this and make an exception which would improve the quality of representation on the Island councils.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should first declare my interest in this matter, since I am an adviser to the trade union UNISON. The union is extremely concerned about the loss, as it sees it, of the civil rights of its membership. Since it represents most of the employees who are in local government in Scotland—about 280,000, I believe—that is a very legitimate interest. The number of people who work in Scottish local government, as we have heard, represents something like 10 per cent. of the total electorate. That will not happen in England under the unitary authority system as I understand it. So there is a particular problem in Scotland.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, in relation to Scotland this matter needs special consideration because of the very high proportion of the population who will be disfranchised. We must bear in mind the interests of the staff, which I have already mentioned, and the value of such people to Scottish local government. They have a great deal to contribute —experience, commitment; it is all there. We should not debar such people from serving in a voluntary capacity, with proper safeguards. I understand the problems; I was a leader of a local authority in England —of a county borough council in Reading. We should not under these circumstances disbar people with commitment and experience from serving their communities and their colleagues in the new Scottish local government system. I hope therefore that the Minster will consider very seriously what has been said.
Lord Kirkhill: I wonder whether I might just add one point to the remarks that my noble friend Lord Stoddart has just made. As to my noble friend's latter point, I do not entirely agree with him, and I shall say why. I had considerable experience of local government, as some who are present may know, up until 1975. My experience of the system as it then was was that, if domiciled within the city concerned (in my case Aberdeen), employed though you might be by the local authority, you could stand for election. I saw and experienced no problem whatsoever with the system as it then was. Those who sought election became valued councillors, and they brought an extra dimension to decision-making. They could sometimes challenge an official view emanating from the cadre of professional
1862
advice open to the councillors as a result of their experience, sometimes gained at a different level. That brought a more interesting dimension to the decision-making process. My view is that this present Administration and their predecessor have treated most harshly those who serve local government in an employee capacity.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove in introducing this amendment said that the effect of the Bill's proposals would be to debar 280,000 employees. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, when it comes to the Island communities, we are working on a much smaller scale. In the last elections in the Western Isles there were many areas in which no one stood for the local council. That is a very serious matter. I do not know whether it has to do with employment in the local authority. However, when we reach a situation in which people cannot fill an electoral ward in local elections, democracy is at risk. If there is to be an imposition upon local authority employees, democracy becomes even more diminished.
For the life of me, I cannot see why people are considered to be suspect if they work for a local authority. What is wrong with them? Do they not have honesty or integrity? How did they obtain their jobs in the first place? Why cannot they stand for the local authority and get on with their jobs, declaring an interest? That situation may well be reflected in another place this afternoon. The Speaker of another place is about to tell Members how to behave. "Mother" Speaker—if I may call her that—is about to tell Members of the other place what they can and cannot do. Let us have the same thing in local democracy. If someone is elected as a Member of Parliament but does not know how to behave that is his or her problem. I see that the Minister is perhaps suggesting that I should not say such things, but I shall say them. Here we are debarring people from taking part in local democracy while in the other place they are debating how Members of Parliament should behave. I want to make the point that there is a lecture to be given next door and Members of Parliament are to be told how to behave, but it appears that members of the local authority are not to be trusted.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord made reference to my gestures. I was just a little concerned with the propriety of what the noble Lord was saying. He made an interesting point and I understand the parallel that he seeks to draw. I just wanted to be sure that what he says meets the proprieties of this Chamber.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I do not see that I am doing anything wrong. I make no apologies. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The people of this country are entitled to know why Members of Parliament have to be told how to behave and at the same time the Government debar perfectly reasonable people from participating in local democracy. The whole thing is a contradiction in terms. I say no more than that.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to support Amendment No. 29. I should declare that I was a local authority basic grade social worker for many years. I believe that it would be a most serious case of disenfranchisement for the whole local government staff group in Scotland if those people were to be ineligible to stand as local councillors. It is very important that local government employees should be given the opportunity to take the decisions which directly affect the industry to which they are committed.
I accept the proviso that a councillor who is a local government employee should not be involved with his or her departmental committee. Obviously, conflicts of interest could arise. I can also understand that the hypothetical situation in which all the elected members are also employees of the council would be unacceptable, perhaps verging on being incestuous. I doubt that that would ever happen.
In the search for high quality councillors there is a wealth of knowledge and talent among the local authority staff which should not go untapped. That would be equally true for the staff member's own employing council as well as his or her neighbouring council. In the industrial belt of Scotland that would be very practical and likely.
Finally, I am unhappy about the provisions for excluding higher paid local government officers from standing for election. In the district council elections of 1992, there was the galling situation in Clackmannan district whereby a most effective leader of the district council had to stand down for no better reason than that he was paid above the prescribed level, despite being a field grade officer. That was not a triumph for local democracy.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I am genuinely concerned about this amendment because I feel that no local authority employee who is elected as a councillor should ever have the opportunity to criticise a senior local government official in a meeting. I realise what is behind the amendment. However, there is that very serious risk.
I also feel that, from the employee's point of view, if he is elected as a councillor of the local authority and criticises his senior officials for some reason or other, that may be the end of any chance of him ever getting any promotion. That is why I am not happy about the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Let me say immediately that we are fully aware that the eligibility of local government employees to stand for election to their employing council is an extremely difficult issue. The difficulty with each of the amendments before us today is that neither tackles the fundamental problem of the potential conflict of interest that is inherent in any proposal to allow local authority employees to stand for election to their employing council.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that there are conflicting issues which offer up no easy answers. That has been the experience of previous inquiries which have examined the issue, such as the Widdicombe
1864
Committee in 1986 and the Montgomery Committee which looked into the issue in 1984 in the context of the Islands councils.
More recently, it was one of the issues on which views were invited in the context of the review of the internal management of local authorities in Scotland. The consultation paper, which was based on input from a joint central government/local government working party, set out as impartially as it could the arguments for and against change to the existing rules,. That exercise benefited from input from local authorities at both elected members and officials levels.
The responses to that consultation were particularly revealing inasmuch as they served to highlight the sharp division of opinion that exists both generally and within local government itself. Some argued for no change to the existing rules. Among those who advocated change, there was no consensus over the extent to which the rules should be changed or precisely how that might be achieved. For example, some councils argued for "guidelines" to be established to prevent a conflict of interest; others suggested identifying a range of "restricted" posts or "politically sensitive" posts.
In reaching our conclusions in favour of retaining the existing rules—this is a point that should be emphasised —we paid particularly close regard to responses from local authority organisations, such as the Society of Directors of Administration (known as SODA).
While expressing some reservations about the numbers that would be affected if the existing rules remained unchanged, SODA pointed out, quite rightly, that the statutory prohibition, which is a long-standing one, exists in order to remove the conflict (or, indeed, the potential conflict) between the public and private interest that would otherwise occur in respect of the councillor/employee concerned. SODA further pointed out that there could potentially be considerable problems in respect of the relationship that the employee would have with his employing authority or his manager through his also being a councillor.
I made reference in passing to the Widdicombe report. What it had to say at paragraph 6.36 was:
"The existing ban on local authority employees being members of their employing council is soundly based. No person in the public sector should be his or her own employer".
Similar views were expressed in the Montgomery report and in the views that Highland Regional Council offered. It was said that there would appear to be no scope for workable exceptions to that rule. Those views were shared by a substantial number of local authorities from different parts of the country. Interestingly, though reference was made to the Islands councils, where there may be a significantly greater proportion of the population employed by the authority, both Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council were firmly against any change to the rules.
Other proposals were put forward such as that those who were employees may stand for election provided they are prepared to take unpaid leave of absence during the period in which they are councillors. Frankly, that seems to me to be an extremely unattractive proposal. I cannot see those in the employment of local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland queueing up to take

1865
advantage of any exception of that character. While I understand the basis on which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, puts forward his proposal and seeks to find a distinction, it would be extremely difficult to identify in Scotland at any time whether the specific percentage figure came into play or remained constant.
For all those reasons and on the basis of all the information available to us, we do not consider it to be right to change the existing rules across Scotland as a whole or in relation to specific areas which may meet the criteria of the amendment, however difficult that may be. What we suggest is in line with the findings of the Montgomery Committee and also in line with the Widdicombe proposals. Also, from what I think is underlying an earlier intervention, it is in line with the existing rules not only in England but also in Wales. It is also consistent with existing rules which prevent serving civil servants from standing for election as Members of Parliament.
While I do not dispute that it is a difficult issue, what has come clearly through from extensive consultation is that no one can set out a workable exception or offer any clear distinguishing line. On that basis, the weight of evidence adds up to a formidable case in favour of the retention of the status quo.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I can ask him, from a position of pure ignorance—if there is such a position I speak from it —whether the Widdicombe Report considered the position of small communities such as the Western Isles where, in Lewis and Harris, for example, the communities are made up of only 30,000 people. Earlier we were talking about areas of 280,000 people and so forth. But the percentages become greater the smaller the community becomes. That is one of the great problems within the local community which I tried to emphasise when I made my earlier remarks. Did the Widdicombe Report carry out any research in the Western Isles in relation to the desire of professional people and so forth to become local councillors? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the Committee as to the conclusion the Widdicombe report reached in relation to the Western Isles.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Widdicombe report was a more general application. But the Montgomery report had specifically within its remit to look to the Islands councils and at paragraph 16.4 it said,
"We recognise that this disqualification is a cause of real disappointment to many council employees in these [existing] single tier [island] authorities. We have given serious consideration to how this might be overcome, if not for all employees, then at least for certain designated groups. However, we find it impossible to draw any satisfactory distinction between those who should remain disqualified and those who should not".
My answer therefore is that the matter was carefully examined and what proved to be extremely difficult, if not impossible—there have been a large number of conflicting proposals none of which seem to have found much favour—is that no real distinction can be sustained.
Lord Kirkhill: Perhaps I can again intervene briefly. I do not wish to protract the proceedings unnecessarily,
1866
though there is a good political reason on the Opposition for always wanting to do so. However, I am now too old a Peer to want to sit around too long in an unnecessary manner. Perhaps the Minister can help me. There never was a good reason for trying to make a line of delineation. He says that there are lines of delineation that were considered but that it is difficult to know where to draw them. Why draw them at all? Why is it necessary? I return to what was said by my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar: it disenfranchises perfectly honest, straightforward, good people. Why?
Lord Hughes: The only alternative is that under the present set-up of a two-tier structure an employee for one authority may be a councillor in one of the other authorities. Is it still a condition, as I presume it is, that one can only be elected to an authority in which one resides? Is that still part of the law? If not, then somebody living in the area of one authority may seek to be elected to another authority even though he does not reside there. I do not believe that that is possible, but it may be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I, too, can make a point because this is an important matter. As everybody observed, we are disenfranchising around 10 per cent. of the Scottish electorate from serving on local authorities. We must understand that it is not easy to persuade people to serve on local authorities. It is an unpaid, grinding job that councillors do on behalf of their fellow countrymen. We must understand, therefore, that it is not easy to obtain councillors.
However, I well remember when we had an education committee in the county borough of Reading. It was composed of 18 members, two of whom came from the technical college which was run by the county borough council and two of whom were representing teachers. There was no conflict of interest in that committee. Where decisions impinged upon their conditions of service, the members did not vote and declared an interest. But on all matters to do with the administration of education and so forth, they could vote. They did not always do so; they were intelligent enough to know when they should and should not vote. That is the case for all local authorities.
The difficulties being put forward could be overcome as they were overcome on the statutory education authorities, at least throughout England and Wales. I am not an expert on Scottish matters but that may be so also in Scotland. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take that into consideration. It has been done, and is done, in all sorts of ways. It is done in industry where there are consultative committees; employees serve on them and may want to criticise their boss. I often did and never got the sack.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I recognise that it is a difficult decision to make but the longer we postpone it the more difficult it will become. It only needs someone to grasp the nettle at some point. I remember the days when a councillor, if he was serving when council house rents were reduced, was not allowed to benefit from the reduction, whether or not he voted. He was a councillor and the council voted and he

1867
was not allowed to benefit. A close friend of mine was, in Whitehall terms, a low-grade civil servant. When he was adopted as a parliamentary candidate—this is within the past 10 to 15 years—and turned up at his office the next day the manager ran down in a panic with a rubber to rub his name out of the book because he had broken some Civil Service law. He had been a councillor but when he became a parliamentary candidate it broke the Civil Service rule. The Government are worried about a conflict of interest. Many of the councillors in the big cities are contractors with important connections with the council. They will be asked not to participate in voting but no one can tell me that they do not have an influence with their friends when they are sitting round the tea trolley or wherever they may be.
I know that the Minister would probably like to find a way out of this problem, but this is a decision by the Government. If the amendment is not accepted, the Government will be making decisions for the electors. We should let the electors know exactly what the person's job is and let them decide whether they want him. It would also be very healthy if councillors had a few people from the slightly lower echelons of the council sitting on committees or even just discussing matters with them. I have found that local authorities tend to have too great a reliance on their most senior officials. Without being disrespectful to them, many of the most senior officials learnt their skills a long time ago. Perhaps they received their degrees 30 or 40 years ago. It might be a big advantage if they listened to some of the younger people who are in the technical jobs.
I have sympathy with the Minister, but I hope that he will have sympathy with the 10 per cent. of people who will be disenfranchised.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am in danger of repeating myself but three positions can be taken. The first is that there should be no restriction whatever. If such a position were to be adopted, there would be very real risk of a public perception that this was a cosy little number where people were both councillors and employees. That, in a single line, is the conclusion reached by the Widdicombe Committee and many of those consulted in Scotland. There may be a middle position: is there a line or a level of responsibility below which those employed by local authorities can nevertheless be councillors? As I have sought to point out, while a number of different proposals have been put forward, no one has come forward with any point at which disqualification should bite and has secured any general level of agreement on that.
This matter was carefully looked at in the context of the Island authorities where the problem might be thought to be most acute. The firm conclusion was that no distinction could properly be drawn. Orkney Island Council, for example, was particularly concerned about the public perception if there were to be any such change. I do not deny that it is a difficult issue but I believe that Scotland should march in step with England and Wales on this and stick with the existing rule.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wonder how European law will look on this. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has advisers on European law. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Establishment of new local authorities:]
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 130, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of the direction required by paragraph 1(1) above the number of councillors should be no less than 1680.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment: deals with the number of councillors who are due to be elected to the new authorities. Before I enter my argument I say at once to the noble and learned Lord the Minister that I am very impressed by his constant reference to the lack of consensus as a defence for his position and then to the presence of consensus as a defence for his position. One is seen as an argument for not changing the Government's position. The consensus is seen as a ganging up against the Government and therefore an argument again for not changing his position. I hope that we can get away from this consensus argument.
Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with the story of a seminar I attended only three weeks ago. I never spent such a fruitless day in my life as I did at the seminar which dealt with the responsibilities of corporate directors. The lecturer gave the 15 students a pro forma in which it was assumed that we had all been abandoned in the desert. Fifteen items were listed and we had to place in order—one to 15—the most important items for our survival. Because all 15 of us did not come up with the same answer we were told that we could not work as a team. I found that consensus argument to be absolutely amazing. I hope that the Minister gets away from that.
In moving the amendment, it is important to stress to the Minister that we are within nine months of the election to these authorities. We still do not know— there is nothing in the Bill and the Government have said nothing—how many councillors there will be in the election to these authorities. It is true that in the White Paper the Secretary of State, Ian Lang, said that it was the intention of the Government—certainly at that stage —to follow the existing district council boundaries. I say to the Minister that at the moment there are 1,601 local authority seats in mainland Scotland, of which 445 are regional seats and the balance of 1,159 are district council seats. If the district council boundaries are followed, as was suggested in the Government's White Paper, the number of councillors in Scotland would be reduced from its present level to about 1,000. Our amendment is designed to ensure that the number of councillors does not fall below 1,680.
There are good and sound reasons for that. The Minister referred extensively in the previous debate to the Widdicombe Report. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to the very same report. The report points out

1869
that the proportion of councillors to electors in Scotland is very much smaller than it is in England and Wales. We come back almost to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in relation to the constant difference between the democratic process and democratic accountability in Scotland and in England and Wales.
To be fair, the Widdicombe Committee went on to say that during its investigations, particularly in relation to Scotland, it discovered that most of the people it interviewed could name their councillor—which is more than they can do of their Member of the European Parliament or some of the other people who are elected and most who are not elected as well—and most had had some contact with their councillor. The committee did not find that in England and Wales.
The Widdicombe Committee made another very interesting point. Local authorities in the United Kingdom as a whole have a far smaller proportion of councillors to population than the rest of Europe. Examples were given from Germany and various other parts of Europe of councillors representing smaller electorates than is the case in Scotland.
If the district council boundaries are followed, the Minister must accept that there will be major disparities between different areas of Scotland. In certain parts of mainland Scotland, a councillor could represent up to 5,000 electors. However, in the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee and Perth, and especially in Glasgow and Edinburgh, a councillor could easily have to represent 10,000 electors according to the district council boundaries. I can remember parliamentary constituencies that did not have as many as 10,000 electors. All right, that is not the case now—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: They were Labour.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The Minister says that they were Labour. He had better check his facts. Those are the kind of disparities that would be produced by following the district council boundaries.
My noble friend Lord Macaulay referred earlier to the Islands where councillors would represent 2,000 electors. So, at one end of the scale, a councillor would represent 2,000 electors on the Islands whereas at the other end of the scale in, say, Glasgow or Edinburgh, a councillor would represent 10,000 electors. The Minister must see at first glance that there would be grave disparities throughout Scotland in relation to the number of electors each councillor would have to represent.
The other point that Widdicombe made should not pass unnoticed by the Minister. Widdicombe carried out a major examination of the position in Scotland after the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, making the point that the balance between elected representatives and the bureaucracy—that is, the executives—was very delicate. He said that it was absolutely essential to preserve the balance between those who were elected to the local authorities and those who were appointed to administer those authorities. During the debate on the 1973 legislation, I can well recall making the point that one of the effects of that legislation would be to reduce the number of councillors
1870
in Scotland by 50 per cent. I forecast then what would happen: that, as the democratic element was reduced, the bureaucratic element would increase. That is in the very nature of bureaucracy and that is something that we must guard against. Therefore, when the Minister replies to the amendment, I hope that he will be able to give the Committee and, indeed, Scotland, an indication of the Government's thinking about the number of councillors who would be elected to the new authorities.
Perhaps I may leave the Minister with this final word. I hesitate to make this point. The Minister should understand the effect of reducing the number of elected councillors to 1,000. Those 1,000 elected councillors would have to be set against the 7,500 people whom the Secretary of State has appointed to serve on quangos. I know that the Minister's response to that will be to say to me, "Well, you're one". That is why I was so reluctant to make that telling point, but it is a telling point because those 7,500 appointees have the power to spend two-thirds of the budget of the Scottish Office, leaving only a small part of the budget for the 1,000 elected councillors.
By moving this amendment, I hope that I have given the Minister an opportunity to spell out in detail exactly how many councillors will be elected. We need to know how many places there will be on the new authorities for elected councillors because to date—that is, only nine months from the date of the first elections—we have had absolutely no indication of that whatever. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The role of the councillor is wide and varied and it is proper that we should have the opportunity to discuss the number of councillors under the new structure of local government that is proposed for Scotland. This was also one of a range of issues considered in the context of the review of the internal management of local authorities in Scotland.
The clear message from that consultation is that each new authority area must be considered individually. The number of councillors needs to reflect local needs and circumstances. The issue does not lend itself to the setting of a minimum number, nor indeed to the setting of a maximum number.
As the noble Lord rightly stated, already, throughout Scotland, we see wide variations in the numbers of electors for district wards: for example, in Sutherland, the average is about 750 electors per ward. In Glasgow, the rations about one councillor for 8,000 electors.
The question of council size was also considered at the time of the last reorganisation by Lord Wheatley. That report recognised that a balance had to be struck between the important representative side of a councillor's work and the need to ensure the efficient despatch of council business. A maximum council size of 75 was suggested. This, I think, serves to illustrate the point that the issue is not best approached by setting maximum, minimum or even target levels for Scotland as a whole. A flexible approach is required.
What we have proposed, therefore, is that the normal rule which should be adopted for drawing up the new

1871
ectoral areas is that these should be based upon the district wards which are currently being reviewed by the Local Government Boundary Commission.
We made clear in our White Paper that we would depart from this general principle only where necessary to remove anomalies or to reflect local circumstances such as where this would produce councils that would be too large. In such cases, we would, of course, first consult with the existing councils concerned and publish proposals for public comment.
That reflects the assurances contained in the White Paper. We believe that this is a sensible approach for a number of reasons. In the first place, it will mean that in the great majority of areas, the electoral wards will be up to date and newly reviewed. This is clearly more satisfactory than any attempt to draw completely new lines on the map. Secondly, in the great majority of cases we believe that this approach would produce a sensible number of councillors for the new councils.
Balances have to be struck and other solutions investigated, but I believe that our proposals strike about the right balance. However, I remind the Committee —I made this point earlier—that our initial proposals will subsequently be subject to regular independent review by the Boundary Commission.
Perhaps I may deal with the question of whether the figure of 1,200 or so councillors, which would emerge under our proposals, is too low. As I have sought to say, it is our view that this is not a meaningful approach. What matters, ultimately, is the power of councillors to represent their constituents properly and to get things done. Single-tier local government will significantly strengthen the status of councillors in their communities, identifying them with a single local authority for the area. It will increase their ability to get things done across a range of services in a way which is inevitably restricted under a two-tier system.
I accept that the whole issue of councillor numbers is not going to be easy, but I believe that the approach we have adopted is sensible administratively and will provide in most cases councils of a size that is appropriate to their areas.
At earlier stages and, indeed, in this Committee, we have been accused of being inflexible. I must underline and emphasise our willingness to be flexible in particular areas. We shall be listening carefully to what councils and others have to say to us. Indeed, in some parts of Scotland that dialogue has already begun. While the noble Lord is correct that we do not as yet have a complete picture of the number of councillors there will be around Scotland, I have set out what we believe to be the starting point. We intend to be flexible and, where we depart from the basic rule, to go out for public comment and discussion. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment will be helpful to the process of drawing up the new electoral map. With that explanation and indication of flexibility, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the Minister for his flexible approach, but I notice that his flexibility was within his 1,200-councillor flexible limit.
1872
I hope that we can move him a bit from that between now and Report. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 132, line 5. leave out from ("1994") to end of line 7.
The noble Earl said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 32 to which I shall also speak. The purpose of Amendment No. 31 is to remove the power of an existing authority, where a casual vacancy occurs after 16th November 1994, to co-opt a member rather than hold a by-election. There is a problem here. At present, if a vacancy arises on a council within six months of an ordinary election, there is no need to hold a by-election. That is widely agreed in local government as being acceptable. But paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 would disallow by-elections to an existing council between 16th November 1994 and April 1996—a period of 17 months. I believe that that is too long.
The amendment seeks to permit by-elections until October 1995, which is much more reasonable because that is six months before the abolition of the present council and is as presently required under the 1973 Act. That takes care of the purpose of the amendment with regard to timing, but there is another part of Schedule 2 which also causes me deep concern and which comes within the same amendment.
It is undemocratic to carry through the suggestion that one can co-opt a member of a council, who would be selected by the council itself. We have democratic-ally held elections within local government so that the electorate can have its say. It is unworthy to place us in a situation where someone could be co-opted onto a council for the whole period of 17 months. There are in Scotland a number of hung councils. There are others where the political majority is small. I am not sure how the selection of a member in those cases would be carried out. Will there be guidance as to how the person should be selected?
Should the person be of the same political persuasion as the majority of the council or of the same political persuasion as the member who has left the council? It is possible that the individual might be an independent. What does one do then? This is not a good situation in which to find ourselves. The amendment takes care of it. However, I accept—I know that the noble and learned Lord is likely to aim this comment at me—that it will require electoral registration officers to keep a second record, because the amendment would require that the present electoral rolls are kept. I suspect that a cost would be involved, but I consider it to be a small cost in the interest of the democratic process. On that basis, it would be in the interest of Members of this place.
Amendment No. 32 deals with the election of a convener. Once again I say categorically that I have no personal interest in the matter. At present there is a requirement to elect a convener in April 1995 and again in April 1996. I do not believe that it is in the best interests of any council to have a convener elected in one year for a period of one year. It would be

1873
destabilising. Come 1996, it would be most unfortunate if someone chosen the previous year were asked to stand down.
As it stands, the Bill allows for a council to remove a convener if it does not want one. I consider that the matter should be left that way and that the necessity to hold an election of a convener in two concurrent years, just once, for the first time in the life of a council, is something which I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept is an unnecessary burden and destabilising. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: As we get nearer to the dinner break the Minister becomes more and more reasonable. I wonder whether I can persuade him to reconsider seriously and give a commitment, if that is possible, that the Government will return on Report and withdraw the proposal relating to co-option in the event of a casual vacancy. Let me frighten the life out of the Minister and put him off his dinner. At present, on Stirling District Council there are 10 Labour councillors and 10 Conservative councillors. The Conservatives have the majority because the provost drew the joker of clubs while the Labour candidate drew the seven of diamonds. It is as simple as that.
Let us picture for a minute that the casual vacancy is caused by the departure, for whatever reason, of a Conservative councillor. I shall give the Minister an absolute guarantee, and I should be the first to encourage my Labour colleagues to do it, that the casual vacancy will be filled by a Labour nominee. If the roles were reversed, the Conservatives would fill a Labour vacancy with a Conservative nominee. But if my original presentation is right, I can just picture Michael Forsyth hammering on the Minister's door wondering what on earth is going on and saying, "How did we get into the position where the balance of power was changed not by the electors but by this clause?". The Minister has an opportunity to save himself, if not from my wrath certainly from that of Michael Forsyth. I should have thought that that was something that would appeal greatly to the Minister.
Lord Hughes: I was going to refer also to the situation in Stirling. In the business of co-option it has been generally accepted that a party would bring in another candidate of the same political party so that the balance of power in the council did not change, but there is no legal compulsion to do that. I should not go so far as my noble friend and say what I would encourage because, after all, I have no right to stick my nose into the affairs of Stirling. The temptation for a political party to change the majority position of a council would be very great. I am certain that if the situation arises in Stirling, whether a Conservative or Labour group is faced with the temptation either is likely to succumb to it.
The Government have proposed a period of 17 months before there can be a by-election. That is a tremendous departure from the existing position and the best solution would be that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. If that were not possible, would it be possible for the Secretary of State to give administrative
1874
guidance to local authorities, stating that if during that period a vacancy occurred as a result of death or resignation the council should fill the place with a representative of the same party? I know that that does not deal with the situation of independent councillors, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. Theoretically, none of them has anything to do with any of the others. Obviously, the most suitable suggestion is that contained in the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord Kenyon: No doubt the Minister will recall that in the Welsh local government Bill a similar clause exists. However, it does not contain the final two sentences to which the noble Earl is objecting. Will the Minister explain clearly why there is that difference between Wales and Scotland? In Wales, if a councillor dies after the cut-off date there is no need to replace him; but in Scotland the replacement is to be elected by the council.
7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The example of Stirling was clearly interesting. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that in such an eventuality I would have a greater faith in the honourable conduct of Labour councillors on Stirling District Council than does the noble Lord.
There is a difficult course to steer between making a whole host of detailed provisions that would cover all eventualities during the transitional period and making no provision at all.
In coming forward with paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, we have sought to steer a middle course. I should like to emphasise also that the provisions that we have proposed follow very closely those which applied at the time of the previous reform and I am not aware of any difficulties arising from them at that time. I cannot say what the position has been in Wales but we are following through what was the position in Scotland in previous reorganisations.
We have taken the view also that those in local government are responsible people and they would not seek to abuse the trust implicit in the provision relating to the filling of casual vacancies.
I turn specifically to Amendment No. 31. This seems to accept the principle of having a cut-off date for the holding of elections to fill casual vacancies on existing councils in the run up to the shadow elections and during the shadow year.
We are firmly of the view that it makes sense not to hold elections in such circumstances. Besides the time and costs involved, there is the point made by the noble Earl about electoral registers having to be compiled on the basis of new and existing councils.
There is also the question, which we approached in previous debates, of whether candidates would be willing to come forward in such circumstances. That said, I recognise also the anxieties that have been expressed over the concept of co-option to fill casual vacancies during the transitional period. A number of perfectly valid points have been made.
As I said, there are strong grounds for not holding elections in such circumstances but I do not believe that

1875
there is a case for permitting vacancies to remain unfilled during this period. In any event, some kind of provision is necessary in the Bill to cover, for example, the eventuality not of one councillor in Stirling falling under the proverbial bus but possibly a large number of members doing so. This is, of course, in practice most unlikely to happen; but, nevertheless, it must be covered.
In the final analysis, this provision will be short-lived, given its transitional nature. As regards the 1973 Act, the transitional period was also about 17 months. It then operated satisfactorily and we see no reason why that should not prove to be the case on this occasion.
Turning to Amendment No. 43, I have to say that paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 was inserted into the Bill for a very specific and, it was intended, helpful purpose. Its removal would in practice fetter local authorities rather than assist them.
It may be helpful therefore if I explain to the noble Earl the thinking behind this provision. Clause 4(3) permits local authorities, if they so wish, to make standing orders providing for the duration of the term of office and for the procedure for early removal from office of convener and depute convener.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove the requirement to hold an election for the offices of convener and depute convener at the first meeting on or after 1st April 1996. However, this would deny authorities the opportunity to benefit from the provisions of Clause 4(3) until 1999 at the earliest.
In other words, because the council could not elect a convener on 1st April 1996 under any revised standing orders that had been drawn up in the shadow year, the convener elected in 1995 would have to remain in office until the elections in 1999; there would be no authority under the Bill to remove him.
By providing for the convener and depute convener to be elected in April 1996, councils are given time in their shadow year to make standing orders if they wish to do so. These could make provision relating to the convener's term of office or to early removal from office and could apply from the effective vesting date of the new authorities on 1st April 1996. They would thus apply to any convener or depute convener elected on or after that date. The existing convener could of course stand for re-election in April 1996.
While it is not intended that there should be regular elections and re-elections of conveners, this rather complicated device is intended to ensure that once the local authority is up and running any revised rules allowing for removal should be in place at the beginning of that period. I regret that the matter is somewhat complicated and I hope that in reading the explanation the noble Earl will appreciate exactly why we have had to resort to this somewhat elaborate mechanism.
The Earl of Minto: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of both amendments. I am not happy with his explanation of Amendment No. 31. I was surprised that the situation was similar in 1974. I must openly admit that I had not realised that. I am uncomfortable about the possibilities of there being
1876
some form of undemocratic process taking place behind the scenes which, if we had taken action, we might have prevented.
I think that I understood what the noble and learned Lord said in respect of Amendment No. 32. I am not sure whether I am still a convener because the issue appeared to be inexplicable. I shall do my best to read what was said; and on that condition, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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 Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT ALLENBY OF MEGIDDO in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Possession of firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("imitation") and insert ("replica").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which seeks to substitute the word "replica" for the word "imitation". At the same time, I shall take the opportunity to dispose briefly of Amendment No. 3. At the time that I tabled my amendments, I had assumed that Amendment No. 3 was consequential on Amendment No. 1. However, on re-reading the Second Reading debate and on examining carefully the 1968 Act, I realise that that is not necessarily the case.
Section 20 of the 1968 Act, to which Amendment No. 3 refers, deals with trespass. By definition, trespassers are up to no good and they should not be carrying even the most unconvincing imitation weapons when they are on someone else's property. Therefore, I am wholly content to allow the present wording in Clause 2 to stand and I have no intention whatever of moving Amendment No. 3.
However, Amendment No. 1 is a different matter. I am unhappy about the present wording for two reasons. On Second Reading I tried to establish the precise meaning of the word "imitation" as opposed to the word "replica", which is fairly unambiguous. By definition, a replica implies a fairly exact copy.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, speaking for the Opposition, suggested that a flimsy toy gun would not be judged by the courts to be an imitation.

1877
However, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, took a somewhat different view. He said that a water pistol could constitute an imitation gun, and you cannot get anything much flimsier than the average water pistol.
Subsequent to the debate, I met somebody who appeared to have considerable expertise in this field. He went even further than the noble Lord, Lord Renton. That individual who, for various reasons, I cannot name, claimed that what constituted "imitation" depended entirely on the circumstances; that in the dark, for example, even the most improbable objects could be held by the courts to constitute imitation firearms. Indeed, how many dozens of films has one seen over the years in which people carrying sticks under folded raincoats successfully frighten bank tellers and thus get away with large sums of money from banks; or where the hero, temporarily deprived of his actual firearm, sticks a fountain pen into the villain's ribs saying, "One move and you're dead"?
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, on Second Reading, both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, expressed the opinion that under the Bill as it stands, a householder could lawfully use an imitation firearm to frighten off a burglar. That is certainly reassuring; but there must still be grey areas.
Let us take the case of a householder who has no garage and therefore has to park his car nearby on the public highway. In the middle of the night he hears somebody breaking into his car, obviously with the intention of stealing the car radio. The householder grabs a length of broken broom handle or brass curtain rod, dashes outside, sticks it into the thief's ribs—it is a dark night—and says, "This gun is loaded. Don't move a muscle while I call the police". Would that be legal under the Bill as it stands? I await the answer with interest.
Perhaps I may now take the rather more fanciful case of a teenager who is being driven by his father to an evening sports function. The father's car is "cut up" by an aggressive driver in a hot hatchback who keeps on overtaking and then braking, having become irritated with the father for some reason. Exasperated, the teenager grabs his father's telescopic Taiwanese umbrella, which you can buy in most department stores for about £7.95, winds down the window and sticks the umbrella out of the window. Of course, in the dusk it may look like a single-barrelled sawn-off shot gun. The teenager shouts, "Lay off or I will shoot up your rear tyres".
I admit that the second scenario is somewhat far fetched, although not impossible. The first scenario is all too likely in the era in which we live. But either of the people concerned could be caught by virtue of the use of the word "imitation" rather than "replica". I await with interest the noble Lord's reply.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may offer a little assistance in this fascinating but small problem from a somewhat different angle—not as a lawyer but as a former professor of English Literature.
1878
When considering this amendment, I was driven to consult that invaluable work of reference—The Oxford English Dictionary in its complete form, some 20 volumes. I was intrigued to know precisely what the difference between a replica and an imitation might have been held to be over the centuries. I find, and I offer to your Lordships without prejudice in case it may be of any use, the fact that the word "replica", coming as it does from the Latin replicare, originally and etymologically means no more than a reply. It first appeared in the English language as late as 1824 in reference to:
"A copy, duplicate, or reproduction of a work of art; properly, one made by the original artist".
It is only by transference, form b, that it becomes:
"A copy, reproduction, facsimile".
That does not appear until 1865 in a work of fiction by Ouida.
On the other hand, an imitation is a word of much greater antiquity. In its noun form, substantive 2 in The Oxford English Dictionary, it is described as:
'The result or product of imitating; a copy; an artificial likeness, a thing made to look like something else which it is not; a counterfeit".
And to my surprise and delight, the first recorded version in English was in 1601 in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Act IV, Scene 1, line 37. The first reference to the word itself in a slightly different form goes back to 1502.
Therefore, it seems to me from a purely linguistic standpoint that a replica must be an imitation but an imitation need not necessarily be confined to replication —to being a replica. It may be that your Lordships will have to consider whether the Bill should contain the wider or very, very much narrower form because a replica must be the reproduction of something which actually exists. I offer that with my best regards.
Lord Annaly: It is the Government's view that to introduce a further category of replica firearms would only serve to create confusion and misunderstanding. An imitation firearm is defined in the Firearms Act 1968, and its definition has not caused any problem in the past. For the benefit of Members of the Committee I shall read out the definition. An imitation firearm is defined in Section 57(4) of that Act as,
"any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm… whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile".
Lord Renton: If I may say so, I rather rejoice that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has moved the amendment —although one could not possibly accept it—if only because it has given us the pleasure of hearing the erudition of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. By much deeper methods than I was prepared to deploy, the noble Lord has reached the same conclusion as I have regarding the difference in meaning between an imitation and a replica.
However, I return now to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when moving the amendment. I shall come shortly to the three reasons why, in my opinion, Amendment No. 1. is unacceptable. But before I do so, perhaps I may set the noble Lord's mind at rest. The answer to all the potential circumstances that he described is the same answer to be

1879
given in each case. In every case the court will have to decide two things: first, whether an imitation firearm has been used; and, secondly, whether it was used with the intent,

"(a)by means thereof to cause, or

(b)to enable another person by means thereof to cause, any person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person".

In other words, there has to be proof that something that looked like any kind of firearm—not a flimsy imitation or a little bit of pink plastic—was used. That is the first thing that the prosecution must prove and the court must decide. It must then be decided whether or not it was used with the "intent" described in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Having said that, I turn to the three reasons why I suggest that the amendments cannot be accepted. I must point out that it will involve my repeating, to some extent, the two excellent speeches that we have already heard. The first reason is the clear difference so vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, between the meaning of the words "replica" and "imitation". A replica would have to be an exact copy—the noble Lord mentioned a reproduction—of a particular weapon. That might be very difficult to prove; indeed, it would not necessarily be the sort of thing that had been used.
The second reason has also already been mentioned. It refers to the fact that, whereas all replicas are imitations, not all imitations are replicas. However, the third—and, I believe, the most conclusive—reason is that in this branch of the law the word "imitation" is already to be found in the statutes; it is understood; and it has proved the test of time as regards its usage. But, on the other hand, the word "replica" has not so far been used in the context of firearms legislation. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, I believe that it would be unwise for us to introduce it now.
Lord Monson: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I, too, looked up the OED as it happens, but I consulted the two-volume copy rather than the full version which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, perused. I came to the same conclusion. Indeed, we all agree that the meaning of replica is very much narrower than that which applies to the word "imitation". There is no doubting that fact. However, my amendment is a probing amendment. It was really designed to ascertain whether the use in the dark of objects which have no connection with a gun, such as piping, doweling or whatever, could be taken as using imitation guns.
I am still a little unclear on the latter, but I suppose that there is a let-out in that in the cases that I described there was no intention to cause serious harm to anyone. Indeed, it could be argued that the individuals were merely protecting themselves, even though it was not within the four walls of their own homes where they have rather more right to engage in self-defence than they have out in the streets or on the open road. I am still a little worried about this point, but I suppose one can rely on the Crown Prosecution Service not to launch any frivolous prosecutions. With that hope, rather than total assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("10") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: Although I fully appreciate that the 10-year maximum sentence proposed by the Bill as it stands would rarely be used—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, explained that to us on Second Reading —it still worries me because it seems to be disproportionate. I shall no doubt be corrected if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, in the Bill we are not talking about using an imitation firearm in furtherance of a robbery or similar crime. That offence is already rightly covered by other legislation. We are talking about merely using the imitation gun to frighten people, for whatever reason, as an end in itself. That is a fairly serious business, but does it really merit a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment?
Further, one reads in press reports that Mr. Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, proposes to introduce legislation which would impose a seven-year maximum sentence for possessing a sawn-off shotgun. A sawn-off shotgun is an extremely lethal weapon; but an imitation gun, for all the worry that it may cause people, is not lethal. Therefore, can the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, explain the discrepancy in the maximum sentence? I beg to move.
Lord Annaly: The Government support the view that the maximum penalty of 10 years, as opposed to the five years proposed by the noble Lord's amendment, is appropriate for the offence which is created by Clause 1. We are talking about a very serious offence. In the Government's view, the offence should carry a penalty which will act as a substantial deterrent to those who seek to misuse firearms or imitation firearms in that way.
The noble Lord made particular mention of the increase in the sentence from five to seven years for shortening the barrel of a shotgun to less then 24 inches under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The noble Lord is quite right to say that that is a most serious offence. However, just to put the matter into context, perhaps I may tell Members of the Committee what other offences would attract a sentence of seven to 10 years. For example, there is the offence of reconverting a deactivated firearm to fire live ammunition without being a registered firearms dealer for which one would receive a sentence of five to seven years. For possessing a sawn-off shotgun or a reactivated firearm, one could expect to receive the same sentence. Finally, for the offence of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place or that of trespassing with a firearm in a building, a sentence of five to seven years would be imposed. The seven-year sentence in relation to a sawn-off shotgun is for simple possession. Here we are talking about threatening behaviour. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with threatening behaviour. I think that that probably answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Annaly for giving the Government's reasons for sticking to the maximum penalty of 10 years. I would remind the Committee, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a maximum penalty is not to be regarded as the usual penalty. It is the maximum penalty

1881
for the worst example to come before the courts from the nature of the offence, which is of course described in the statute.
However, each offence can have varying degrees of severity in its application. Also, we have to consider that we are dealing sometimes with the worst type of offender. I hope I may give an example. Let us suppose that a man who has been imprisoned several times already for offences of violence uses an imitation firearm in order to perform a bank robbery and succeeds in getting a large amount of money that way. Let us suppose that he has already been sentenced for that —he may be sentenced to seven or eight years, although a maximum penalty may be much more—and the police happen to find that he has in his possession an imitation firearm with intent to cause another person to believe that unlawful violence will be used. The police would be justified in saying, "This is pretty bad. We will have to bring him before the court", in spite of all the warnings that he has been given in the past and the attempts to redeem his character in prison. In order to protect the public we need to have for this particular kind of offence the possibility of a high deterrent sentence for the worst type of case.
I do not need to repeat what my noble friend Lord Annaly has said about other cases, but I shall just mention one or two points. We need to bear in mind that the various degrees of maximum sentence that we impose by statute for somewhat similar cases bear some relation to each other. Already under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, for example, merely threatening to damage property carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which completed its Report stage last night, simple possession of a prohibited weapon also now carries a sentence of 10 years. If we did not make the maximum penalty 10 years under this Bill, it would not give the right message to those to whom it should be conveyed. Therefore I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who was fully justified in putting this amendment down, will feel that there are good reasons for retaining the maximum sentence in the Bill for the very worst type of offence.
Lord Monson: First of all, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, for his explanation of the various maxima applicable to various firearms offences. I must say it still seems to me, looking at the whole gamut of the offences he read out, that a suitable maximum for this particular offence would be nearer seven years—possibly five may be too low—than 10. However, I agree that this is perhaps a matter of fine judgment.
As I said in my opening remarks, I appreciate that the maximum is only rarely used. Nonetheless it sets a marker for the trial judge as to what the right sentence ought to be. If 10 years is the maximum for this particular offence, it seems to me, logically speaking, that it should be in line with that for the possession of a sawn-off shotgun. However, I agree that this is a matter of judgment and no doubt the department has thought the matter through clearly and arrived at what will prove to be the right decision.
1882
Any Private Member's Bill, as opposed to a government Bill, which proposes a maximum sentence for anything—whatever it may be—of as much as 10 years ought not to go through both Houses on the nod. It went through the other place on the nod but I hope it will be agreed that it is right that this should not go through this House on the nod. Some questions ought to be asked, and they have been asked. They have been answered, if not to my total satisfaction, then to my reasonable satisfaction. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application of sections 20 and 46 of 1968 Act to imitation firearms):
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("imitation") and insert ("replica").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 deals with Section 46 of the 1968 Act which gives JPs, and sheriffs in Scotland, the power to issue search warrants for guns, and by extension imitation guns, and to seize and detain them. On reflection, there is not much danger that warrants will be issued for the seizure and detention of broom handles, curtain rods or telescopic umbrellas. I do not therefore propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Civil Service (Management Functions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
7.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order will make provision for the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service broadly corresponding to the effect of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 in respect of the Home Civil Service. The latter legislation was examined in great detail during debate in your Lordships' House. It may nevertheless be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The purpose of this order, and I would stress its only purpose, is to enable the Department of Finance and Personnel to allow managers in individual Northern Ireland departments and agencies to take more direct responsibility for the management of their staff. Under the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the Department of Finance and Personnel is charged with responsibility for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, an organisation of some 30,000 people.
That workforce includes not only administrators dealing with almost the whole range of government, but also engineers, lawyers, economists and scientists. It has a common objective in its responsibility to serve the public of Northern Ireland. Otherwise the Northern Ireland Civil Service, like the Home Civil Service, is a group of discrete businesses with varying purposes and modes of operation; yet it is managed in such matters as pay and grading, allowances, promotion, probation, staff appraisal and so on as if it were a homogeneous unit.
The Government believe that the public service should be organised so as to allow its component parts to focus on their objectives and thereby provide a coherent management framework and offer a more responsive and cost-effective service to the public. That is why nine executive agencies have been created already in Northern Ireland with clearly defined aims, performance targets and budgets.
If we are to build on the progress already made in our reform of the management of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland, it is important that managers in these agencies, and in other business units, are allowed the flexibility to take the necessary decisions to achieve results within a proper framework of accountability. Within the present legislative framework, the Department of Finance and Personnel has been able to give departments and agencies only a measure of discretion in the management of their staff and then only within its responsibility to exercise general management and control. This order will permit the central department to delegate personnel functions and allow civil service managers the flexibility to meet quality of service targets and appropriately to reward and motivate staff, rather than having to apply centrally agreed conditions of service, which are recognised more and more as unsuited to the diversity of circumstances in which the Civil Service now operates.
I want to stress, however, as did my honourable friend in another place, that this order does not facilitate market testing and privatisation of civil service functions. It is concerned only with the management of Northern Ireland civil servants, not with a change in status.
The draft order was published as a proposal to give interested parties, and in particular Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the Civil Service trade unions, the opportunity to comment. The comments received were very carefully considered and responded to in detail but did not result in any changes to the draft order.
Among the comments made, the view was put forward that delegation of personnel functions is inappropriate to the small scale of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Government believe that the diversity to which I have already made reference makes it appropriate that managers in the Northern Ireland Civil Service should be able to have flexibility in personnel matters where that will help them to meet their business objectives. The order does not oblige the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate its management responsibilities, and departments and
1884
agencies will decide where delegated authority will help to improve the performance of their organisation both in terms of efficiency and service to the public.
The Government recognise that in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland its Civil Service has been a force for stability and that it enjoys a reputation for impartial service to the public, for promoting equality of opportunity and for high standards of conduct. I can assure your Lordships that departments and agencies will be required to exercise delegated authority within the basic principles of government policy and that essential standards of conduct will continue to be subject to whatever central rules are deemed necessary.
I want also to emphasise to those who may have a concern about the effect of this legislation on the morale of the Northern Ireland Civil Service that the order does not in itself change terms and conditions of service. Changes will come about only if departments and agencies see a need for them, and then only after consultation or negotiation with the staff concerned and their representatives.
I shall outline briefly the main provisions of the order. Article 3 permits the Department of Finance and Personnel to delegate functions related to the personnel management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to other servants of the Crown. This defines the application of the order and ensures that it cannot be used to move the management functions or staff out of the public service.
It is intended that where a department or agency takes a delegation it should be given maximum flexibility, but only within a proper framework of accountability. The order provides that the Department of Finance and Personnel may attach conditions to the exercise of the delegation and may withdraw the delegated authority at any time. Furthermore, the right of Parliament to raise questions about the management of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is unaffected by the order.
Article 4 of the order deals with the management of civil servants who are appointed, and have their terms and conditions determined, under statutory provision. Thus their management is not governed by the Royal Prerogative, which is the subject of Article 3. Examples are the staff of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland. Typically the Department of Finance and Personnel is required to approve their terms and conditions of service, and the order permits the waiver of the statutory requirement for such approvals. It would be inconsistent if provision were not made to permit the same flexibility in the management of those bodies, as would be available under the order to the rest of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
Those are the main provisions of the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd May be approved.—(Baroness Demon of Wakefield.)
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the extremely clear and helpful way

1885
in which she introduced the order to the House and for some of the assurances which she gave in the course of her remarks.
It is a coincidence that we should be discussing this order on the same day as the House debated a Statement on the White Paper on the future of the Civil Service —The Civil Service Continuity and Change. That prompts one or two observations on the order, which we do not intend to oppose from these Benches.
First, as the noble Baroness said, the Northern Ireland Civil Service is some 28,000 strong and is responsible for a budget of £700 million. That is a much higher ratio of civil servants to population than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is not perfect and I dare say it is not always efficient and responsive, but we should recognise the extraordinary job which it does in difficult circumstances.
I was struck by the remarks of the noble Baroness on morale. I believe that there is an ethos in the Northern Ireland Civil Service which it is important not to destroy in the quest for efficiency. It is important to try to retain a sense of a particular role in Northern Irish society and not to allow the Civil Service to become too fragmented. When I hear the Government talk of market testing (and I recognise that the noble Baroness said that there is no question of this order relating to market testing) I sometimes think that if they did a little more test marketing and a little less market testing we should all be better off.
My question for the noble Baroness is, who is answerable for the actions of the agencies in relation to delegated powers and subcontracted activities? Her honourable friend Mr. Ancram in another place drew the following distinction:
"Recipients of delegations will be made clearly responsible for the exercise of a function, but the ultimate accountability of a Minister to Parliament remains intact". —[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/94; col. 979.]
In the White Paper that was discussed earlier today, the words appear,
"delegation to and within properly accountable organisations".
One of the anxieties that people have who welcome the move to executive agencies, as we do on these Benches, is how accountability operates day to day and year to year. For instance, should the executive agencies have to set such clear objectives that deviations from those objectives can be discussed by Parliament annually? The answer is, yes probably. One could say of the old-fashioned Civil Service department that the Minister was responsible. How can ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland who feel that in some way they have not received the service which they expect and who wish to raise matters through their constituency MP receive a satisfactory answer if the line of delegation is so strung out? How does the noble Baroness see that system operating in practice?
I have one final question about personnel. It is envisaged that there will be more recruitment from the private sector. That will probably be a good thing. However, can the Minister assure us that legislation to ensure fair employment, which is so important in Northern Ireland, will be rigidly adhered to? The report of the Fair Employment Commission reveals that the
1886
proportion of public sector appointees who are Protestant men is still greater than the proportion of applicants who are Protestant men. That is an important factor. I do not say necessarily that there is anything wrong with that. However, it is important to know in the context of Northern Ireland. Will such monitoring continue under the new agency structure? Will affirmative action such as has been so notably progressed in Northern Ireland be maintained? At the same time, will positive discrimination be resisted? I shall value the noble Baroness's response.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining so pellucidly the order. But I regret that we on these Benches cannot welcome it at all. Is it not ironic, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, that it comes to us on the very day when we have heard the Statement about the strange future predicted for the British Civil Service—a future for which many have not been slow to predict a dismal doom?
We are opposed to the provisions of the order because they will, in our view, have the effect of dismembering and dismantling the Northern Ireland Civil Service for which we have a great regard, endangering the pay and conditions of its members, and severely undermining their morale which we are concerned to retain. They will be living in an atmosphere of steadily increasing uncertainty at a time when certainty, stability and assurance are more than ever vital to the work that they do.
These changes appear to have been brought forward with very little regard paid to the views and fears of the civil servants themselves, consulted though they have been, and they strike us as manifestly unnecessary. The Civil Service in Northern Ireland is unquestionably small by any standards —some say that the number is 30,000; some say 25,000 and one at least says 27,661. That is no larger than a small government department in Great Britain. Why, then, is this Irish devolution required so insistently? Is it not wasteful of taxpayers' money to insist that every department, every agency, whatever its size, must be given the right to set up and manage all its systems without benefit of any larger structure? Where, above all, is the evidence that managers in the Northern Ireland Civil Service want this new flexibility, which is being pushed down their throats?
What the order will certainly do is to contribute to what has been called "a culture of insecurity" in the terms and conditions of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Public service is not best given in an atmosphere of fear and greed, and constant uncertainty about the operation of the system is a threat to the civil servants' efficiency.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness—I do not ask her to do so when she replies tonight because it is not easy to give such answers off the cuff; if she does so I shall be even more grateful—to do two things. First, perhaps she will demonstrate how this order does not make Ministers less accountable. I contend that it must

1887
do so because there will always be other new people who can be blamed and circumstances beyond normal control which can be taken into account.
Secondly, will she define precisely what is meant by the phrase "servant of the Crown" in Article 3? When this question was asked in another place, the Minister replied that,
"The term is limited to those in Crown service".—(Official Report, 30/6/94; col. 988]
To my simple and untutored mind, that signifies no more than that a servant of the Crown is one who is in the service of the Crown. I should be grateful for any further enlightenment that can be offered.
We do not like this order. We wish it were not here. I shall not, of course, delay the noble Baroness's dinner and disarrange everyone else's by asking the House to express an opinion, but I am obliged to state that we on these Benches —both of us—are very resolutely Not-Content.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join with the noble Lords, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in thanking the Minister for the clear and precise manner in which she outlined the order. I wish to say, too, that I wholeheartedly support what the two noble Lords on the Front Benches have said in opposition to the order, and indeed in probing the real objectives of the order.
The absence of objectives clearly defined in the order is one of the matters on which I express concern. There is no precise objective of seeking to obtain efficiency, management control or parliamentary responsibility. We have to note that the order was debated in another place on 30th June and agreed only after a Division on which the Northern Ireland elected Members joined the official Opposition in the Division Lobby. As was stated, the Statement debated today in this House about the Civil Service reforms does not make the order any more acceptable to the vast majority of the Northern Ireland Civil Service employees.
I wish to put two points to the Minister. They are both relevant to the discharge of duties regarding management efficiency and overall accountability in performance and financial terms. As has already been stated, the total number employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service is equal to some of the smaller departments of the Home Civil Service, as it is described. The professionals, specialists, and management lines of communication are spread throughout Northern Ireland in different departments, as has already been outlined by the Minister. Here all those aspects would be employed in possibly one ministry.
The strengths of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to deliver services are the current span of command and lines of communication between divisions and departments. The manner in which the order proposes the discharge of duties, and for the Department of Finance and Personnel to issue authority and responsibility, takes away the great opportunities for, and awareness of, career prospects which already exist. We ought to foster and promote such opportunities in Northern Ireland. The breakdown into smaller units that the order proposes will destroy that upward movement
1888
and morale, and the incentive to complete the task with regard to delivery of services to the public. I believe that that destroys the position that exists in Northern Ireland.
To shorten what I have to say, I feel that what we are considering here is a total disruption of the pyramid structure of command within the existing Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Minister has outlined what is a cellular form of structure where each department or service would work isolated in a set compartment or cell. There would be no mobility, no lines of communication or of co-ordination. There would be no quick return if a parliamentary request were made for accountability of a particular service. The proposal destroys that. That is what I feel ought to be addressed in the order.
In essence, the Department of Finance and Personnel is the department at the top of the pyramid and it would take on the duties. Why should we have all these different departments and permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland? We want an efficient Civil Service there. The present one is quite able to adapt to the needs in Northern Ireland, which are different from those here. Much more could be achieved financially by management structures and in the services, provided financial services took over one department and let the other permanent secretaries fall into line in that management structure.
There is no need for the cellular development with little components of management accountability. It destroys the real thrust that Parliament can have on accountability and prolongs the line of communication and the response to what Parliament needs in this procedure. For those reasons, I oppose the order as it stands, verbally, but not in any way in the Lobby.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank those who have participated in this short but involved debate. First, perhaps I may say how delighted we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Blease, with us today. I am sorry that since I have had the privilege of being appointed to the Northern Ireland post he has not been able to be with us. I am also sorry that he should return to business which gives him considerable displeasure.
I believe that noble Lords have less faith in the Northern Ireland Civil Service than we have. I think that there will be no lessening of standards, and standards and fair employment principles will be maintained. The ethos and ethics are in the people, not the structure. That allows the people to have greater flexibility. Those closer to the staff and to the people whom they serve will be able to make the decisions. They will be able to help their young people to grow, which I know will give the noble Lord, Lord Blease, pleasure. We are not looking at a structure of command but at nurturing the staff and working with them to enable us to deliver the best possible service.
I am delighted to say to the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Morris, that it may be ironic that we are discussing this on the same day as the Civil Service White Paper comes out, but it is no more than a

1889
coincidence. Had it been possible not to take the business on a Northern Ireland public holiday I am sure it would have been much appreciated.
I thank noble Lords for their tributes to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. They are well deserved. The service carries great responsibility in difficult situations which will not become easier. However, we believe that it will be possible for people in the service to work in a manner which will deliver a better service. I assure noble Lords that the accountability does not change; there is no risk. The Department of Finance and Personnel, as a delegator, remains responsible for the performance of the delegation. The Secretary of State retains ultimate responsibility, both in the right of the DFP and also in the right of the other department to which the function has been delegated, because both departments are subject to his control and direction.
Perhaps I may assure noble Lords that if they, as a Minister, were to ask a chief executive in an agency to agree the objectives for the coming year with them as Minister, they would watch closely to see that the objectives were being maintained. The order will give such people the right not only to have objectives but the right to be able to make the necessary decisions to achieve them. There is no question of delegating ultimate accountability. Furthermore, it is the intention to provide Parliament with an annual statement of the delegations granted.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, questioned the meaning of the words "servants of the Crown". The term is limited to those who are in the service of the Crown. The easiest way to look at the definition is that it cannot apply outside the public service; it refers to the public service and not to the private sector.
I shall look carefully at Hansard and if I have not replied fully to any points raised I shall write to noble Lords. I am grateful for their contributions to the debate this evening. I commend the order.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask one question, as a matter of interest and for information. We on these Benches support the delegation but the noble Baroness said that the Department of Finance and Personnel has ultimate responsibility. What guarantee of minimum standards is there? How absolute is the delegation on pay and conditions of work? Are minimum standards laid down with which people have to comply although they can be varied within certain limits? How does it work?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that the delegation is within the Government's policy on such matters. The issue is that where one delegates something which is visibly not working there is the right to take the delegation back in order to ensure that it meets the standards in general. The individual detail will have to be worked out and proposed between the same civil servants who work together today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Northern Ireland) Order 1994
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main purpose of the order is to rationalise or update certain existing legislation falling to the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will be pleased, I suspect, that I do not intend to go through the order article by article, but I believe it would be helpful to the House if I remark on significant aspects.
Article 4 will allow the Department of Agriculture to provide grant aid to a wide range of proposals and development plans aimed at breathing new life into many of the deprived rural areas in Northern Ireland. The department has already promoted and financed successful pilot projects under the Northern Ireland Agriculture Act 1949, but the wording of that Act is limited in relation to rural development. The powers under this new article will enable the programme to expand to its full potential. We see the work in rural development as one of the main planks of government policy.
Article 16 of the order also provides new enabling powers to allow the Department of Agriculture to introduce charges for the use of the only lock on the Northern Ireland side of the recently reconstructed Shannon-Erne waterway, and for the use of effluent disposal facilities provided by the department for cruisers on the wider Lough Erne navigation system. This development of the waterway is something of which people on both sides of the Border can be very proud.
Turning to the other main aspects of the order, Articles 10 to 15 will amend existing legislation on the welfare of animals to provide greater protection to animals. I am pleased to assure the House of that. In particular, the order will allow legislation to be made on the welfare of animals at market, on ensuring that stockmen are given instruction and guidance on welfare codes of practice and also on livery establishments or other such premises where horses are kept as part of a business and have been outside legislation up until now.
Articles 19 to 23 make a number of amendments to the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 —again, I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to know —to strengthen the powers available to control disease in line with existing Great Britain legislation. The main practical effect of these is to enable legislation to be made dealing with situations where disease is suspected of being present and to make specific provision for inspectors to take samples or test animals. Other technical amendments are intended to give greater flexibility in applying existing provisions and in setting or amending rates of compensation for diseased animals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th May be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, this is much better. May I say straight away that we are happy to welcome this order, which may well do something to improve the state of affairs in rural areas. It makes some necessary and timely adjustments to the distribution of grants and the collection of levies.
I have just two questions. If the noble Baroness can answer them across the Dispatch Box—well. If she would prefer to consider them and write to me, I would be equally content.
Article 3 imposes a general duty on the department to achieve a reasonable balance in discharging its functions in relation to land between these four considerations: efficiency; social interest; conservation; and public enjoyment. Good. But has this not been a duty on the department in times past? Has it not always been obliged to consider the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, for example; and if not, why not? Such good practice has long been a staple of legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. Why is Northern Ireland so out of line?
Much in Article 3 reads oddly. Can the noble Baroness explain, for example, the clause:
"so far as is consistent with the proper and efficient discharge of those functions"?
It seems to me otiose, redundant, pointless and slightly beyond comprehension. I would be grateful for enlightenment.
My second question relates to a deeper suspicion. When this order was considered by the third standing committee on statutory instruments in another place the Minister of State was asked about safeguards for the welfare of animals in transportation in Article 10. This, I am sure we would all agree, is a very sensitive political issue at this time. The Minister replied:
"The Government remain committed to ensuring the best possible welfare standards for animals in transit".
Then he went on to describe some quite irrelevant activity about some Greek presidency compromise proposal at a meeting of the Agriculture Council. Will the noble Baroness be so kind as to explain precisely how Article 10 increases the safeguards on the welfare of animals in transit? I am sure that she will be easily able to satisfy my genuine curiosity, and my welcome for this order will then be all the richer and deeper.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of this order. It is a thoroughly practical order. It was not opposed in the Commons standing committee, and we have no intention of opposing it tonight. The fact that it is practical should not, however, blind us to the fact that it deals with a very important subject; namely, in the first part of it, rural development.
The proportion of the Northern Irish workforce who are employed in agriculture is of course three times the proportion in GB. So any emphasis on rural development is extremely important. What will it mean for the agricultural population in Northern Ireland? One hopes that rural development will be good for the people
1892
who were in farming. But that is a question on which I should be interested to hear from the noble Baroness when she responds.
I ask her this specifically. Article 3—quite rightly, in my view—recognises that environmental considerations must be balanced against economic interests. But I would value an elucidation of what "a reasonable balance" means. Are civil servants to be given any greater guidance than those words, "a reasonable balance", when we have important trade-offs between the environment and economic development?
Perhaps I may say just one word on the facilities on the Shannon-Erne Waterway. It is an occasion to record again what a triumph of cross-Border initiative this whole waterway is. It has cost about £30 million, and has been funded predominantly by the European Union and the International Fund for Ireland. I just wonder what implications it has on the course of the current talks in which the Government are engaged behind the scenes on the prospect for other practical cross-Border agencies that can get the two parts of the island working together in a non-contentious way on matters that are as much in their joint interest as this is.
Finally, I should like to say how much we on these Benches welcome the greater protection that is given to animals in the animal welfare measures in the later part of the order.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I welcome this particular order. It is designed to help and assist one of the major parts of the community in Northern Ireland, the farming community. The noble Baroness is playing a leading part. I sincerely thank her for her kind words earlier on.
I wish to make two points. While in the order there are a number of recommendations and a number of objectives set, I find it difficult to understand—indeed, I am backed up by some authorities into which I do not want to go at this late hour, but in particular the Ulster Farmers' Union and the president of the Veterinary Association—why both of these orders are backed only by codes of conduct. In our export and importation of animals, there is no form of law laid down that prohibits or seeks to prevent imports into Northern Ireland of diseased animals. There is no legislation laid down that prevents the pollution of the rivers or sets objectives for the environment. I feel that the codes of practice should acquire some greater strengthening by some form of legislation. Given those few remarks, I certainly welcome the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, seeing my noble friend, it is like being back in the old times regarding agriculture. Many was the time when I had to present such orders in my noble friend's place. I have to say that I did so at considerably greater length. My noble friend has been admirably concise tonight.
Perhaps I may ask her three or four questions on a number of the articles. First, on Article 3, where we have already had a look at the duty of the department to balance the interests, in looking at paragraph (a)
"the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry",
I hope that my noble friend and her department will do everything that they can—that they will shout, speak,

1893
eat and drink for Northern Ireland—at all the exhibitions of Northern Irish food and at the world food exhibitions in different countries, not least at SIAL—the world exhibition that is to be held in Paris later this autumn. I hope that my noble friend and her department will make the usual very strong impression on behalf of the Northern Ireland agricultural industry on a world scale in Paris.
Secondly, I am delighted to see in Article 4 that grants are to be continued. I hope that my noble friend will continue with the great motto: "Act fast while grants last", which was the saying of the farmers heading for Dundonald House. I am delighted that they will find the grants and will find my noble friend taking very good care. Indeed, the noble Baroness opposite seems to recall the happiness that was expressed by the fanners. I seem to recall that there was not a great deal of happiness expressed in my department.
With regard to Article 8, I notice a change in name from "Livestock Marketing Commission" to "Livestock and Meat Commission". I am sure that careful consideration and thought as well as enormous consultation went into that change. But I hope that my noble friend understands that the word "marketing" concentrates the minds of farmers-producers and all those involved in the industry that we are considering this evening.
My noble friend also mentioned Article 16—the Erne navigation charges. If any major change is to be made in the charges, perhaps she will be able to let me know at a later stage. I am intrigued by the term "drainage" in that article. In Irish terms one should never use one word when two will do and I understand that the technical term is "watercourse management", particularly that involving the Ballyconnell canal.
Finally, I support most strongly everything that my noble friend said with regard to Articles 22 and 23 on the examination and prevention of diseases and the work of the first class inspectors in the Department of Agriculture. The three major diseases—infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, Newcastle disease in poultry and Aujeszky's disease in pigs—were very rigorously controlled in Northern Ireland. We just have to look at bovine spongiform encephalopathy and examine the damage done by that disease to the beef industry, which spills over into Northern Ireland. Also, if the excellent inspectors in the Department of Agriculture do not take a very firm line on all those diseases and on all diseases as they arrive, the first class status of Northern Ireland's animal health will be jeopardised.
Finally, I ask my noble friend to check whether all the watercourse management activities carried out in the Caledon demesne in the Blackwater drainage scheme and the remedial work that was promised in my time and promised since 1991–92 have been completed. I hope that she can keep an eye on them.
I wish this order well. Perhaps my noble friend will wish to write to me. Certainly, I do not expect to hear from her this evening.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank everyone for their contribution to this order. Even in
1894
very brief speeches many queries were raised. I give the assurance that if I cannot answer them now—I shall try to be brief—I shall certainly write to noble Lords. However, I know that Northern Ireland at the moment is taking precedence over Scotland and that gives me no pain.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, the Shannon Canal came slowly and steadily but was opened this year. Usage is already showing up well. I believe with him that the more examples there are of the successes of working together to the benefit of the communities on both sides, the more we can hope to achieve.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that we are greatly concerned about the environment. Codes of practice certainly apply in Article 10; but there is legislation—fines—in other orders. We have recently seen an unfortunate example of the pollution of rivers. But I was delighted in that case to hear that the person responsible behaved very ethically and the matter was quickly reported so that it could be dealt with.
With regard to Article 3—the tightrope article—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was absolutely right to say that the department will now legally be required to do what it has in effect been doing for some time, following the commitment given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in December 1987 that the spirit of the provision in Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 would be observed in Northern Ireland. But to ensure balance in the economic development of the agriculture industry is a matter of judgment. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, it is one of our most important industries, it is of considerable size and we must be aware of the issues.
In answering on the welfare of livestock, my honourable friend moved quickly to the national scene, as it was so topical at the time that the order went through in the other place. In the new requirements this particular article will ensure that stockmen, who are responsible for marketing moves, are made aware of welfare codes and are given appropriate guidance and instructions on the provisions. That will help protect welfare.
The changes in the regeneration of rural areas must be supportive of the fanners; and, I may add, the farmers' wives who play a considerable role in rural development. We aim to do that. The name of the Livestock Marketing Commission was changed at its request. Let me say to my noble friend Lord Lyell that I understand why he is so much missed in Northern Ireland. I shall endeavour to promote the interests of Northern Ireland food—which is wonderful —around this country and others. It is one of our greatest assets; but I have to confess that I doubt whether I can drink in that job with his capacity or style.
Let me also confirm that the grants are there. It would be nice if farmers would also concentrate on getting their applications right first time so that we can pay them more quickly.
Given that my noble friend was responsible for the Blackwater scheme, I am sure that his wishes were respected. I shall check and write to him. I can assure him that it has nothing whatever to do with this order. Having said that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
8.27 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 8 [Transfer of employees:]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: We come to a set of amendments which are vital to the Bill and are of particular importance to this side of the Chamber. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden is not present. It is a subject with which she is extremely familiar and in fact she is quite an expert on it.
In my interpretation, Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are paving amendments and vital for our other amendments, Amendments Nos. 35, 36, and 37. The purpose of the proposed powers under the new paragraphs is to ensure that protections equivalent to those provided in a transfer situation by the European Union Acquired Rights Directive and by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations —known as TUPE, and I shall say more about them in a moment —are applied to staff who are transferred to a new authority as the result of local government reorganisation.
That would result in all staff in post on transfer day being transferred to a new authority on the same pay and conditions of service as they enjoyed with the old authority. By framing the amendment in that way, instead of referring to the regulations and the directive, and specifying that they will apply, any ensuing difficulty in interpretation is avoided by dealing with the substantive issue and specifying quite simply that all employees will be transferred. It also ensures that when employees are transferred from existing to new authorities their salary and conditions of service in the short term remain unaltered and in the longer term are "not less favourable" than their existing salary and conditions of service. The provisions incorporate Sections 216(2) and 216(3) of the 1973 Act.
The proposed reorganisation will have a major impact on staff in local government. In looking to the future staff are entitled to expect that their interests will be protected by statutory provisions. The present reorganisation proposals are causing great anxiety among all local government staff. Despite assurances about the majority of staff being transferred, ministerial statements referred to job losses and redundancies which, when coupled with the limited scope of current draft compensation regulations for England and Wales, are creating a great deal of insecurity in the minds of employees. The consequent effect on staff morale will inevitably affect the delivery of services. There is therefore an urgent need to remove that uncertainty by amending the legislation.
In the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland the legislation ensured that all staff would be transferred to new authorities with pay and conditions of
1896
service protected on a "no less favourable basis". The same standard of protection should therefore be provided in the current proposals.
The European Union Acquired Rights Directive and the UK Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations are intended to provide legal protection to employees in transfer situations. It is now generally accepted that TUPE applies to the contracting-out of services under compulsory competitive tendering and to a wide range of other situations, including the transfer of a single employee. A legal opinion provided in connection with the reorganisation in England and Wales stated that in many instances TUPE would probably apply; and in addition UNISON, the main local government trade union, asked the European Commission to initiate measures to ensure that the Acquired Rights Directive was applied to local government reorganisation.
However, some doubt remains. Against that background the best way to avoid continuing uncertainty and probably judicial intervention is to amend the legislation to ensure that there is a clear commitment to transferring all staff in post on transfer day to the new authorities. Also we received assurances from the European Union that everyone's pension provision must be available.
A number of educated people and people who are thought to be reasonably sophisticated are continually asking what is meant by TUPE. Though it may be slightly unusual, at this point I should like to read into the record what are the basic elements of TUPE. The Transfer of Undertakings booklet states,
"When there is a change of employer to which the Regulations apply, the Regulations have the following effect: Employees' contracts of employment are transferred from the. old employer to the new employer. Employees have a limited right to object to the transfer. Collective agreements are transferred. The new employer is obliged to maintain trade union recognition arrangements. There is a duty on the old employer and the new employer to inform and consult with recognised trade unions before the transfer. Employees who are dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer can claim unfair dismissal".
I am sure that a large number of local authority employees will be reading our debates with interest and I thought it was important therefore that those points should be recorded. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My noble friend spoke so completely in relation to this group of amendments that my contribution at this stage will be extremely small. I confine my remarks to Amendment No. 33 which seeks to substitute "shall" for "may". That is a general part of the clause which governs all the rest and reads,
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to (a) the transfer of employees from an existing local authority to a new authority with effect from 1st April 1996; and (b) any matters arising out of or related to such transfer".
I cannot imagine any circumstances where the Secretary of State will not make an order. Employees must be transferred, so what objection can there be to substituting "shall" for "may"? If the provision states that he "shall" make an order, it is merely saying what

1897
must definitely take place. I hope therefore that the Minister will find it reasonable to accept the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to support the amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Hughes, stated the important points. I merely want to stress in relation to Amendment No. 35 that it is necessary for employees to know that their pay and general conditions of employment will be transferred on the same basis as when they were previously employed. If afterwards they are then made redundant or sacked —whatever one calls it—at least they will be sacked or made redundant on the terms on which they were previously employed. That is the least that we can do. It was done in the 1973 reorganisation to give some reassurance to people who must be extremely worried about their jobs, their futures, their homes and their mortgages. The least we can do is to repeat that reassurance.
The other point is that we shall have a larger number of directors of education; for instance, directors of work and so forth. People in big jobs will be employed in small jobs. It would be foolish to lose their capacity by trying to reduce their pay. It would be more competent and economic to employ the good people who were carrying out bigger jobs to do the smaller jobs and yet be left satisfied. There is not a tremendous pool of ability to draw upon at will and it is important for all sorts of reasons that these people are reassured that their pay and conditions will not be reduced because of government action.
Those are the points I want to stress. First, I want to remove uncertainty about pay and conditions in relation to the transfer; and, secondly, I want to ensure that able people who may be employed in a smaller job stay on and use their experience for the benefit of the community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is right to stress the problems which staff suffer when reorganisations of this kind apply. Those who have not been through this do not understand exactly what staff and their families are going through. They do not know whether next week, next month or even next year they will have a job, a job which they thought was theirs for life. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will take that into account.
My noble friend Lord Carmichael gave the arguments as to why, bearing in mind the TUPE regulations, we should pass these amendments: that there should be no shadow of doubt that we have done the right thing; that there is not a case to be taken to the European Court; that we have done everything correctly and above board; and that the Government cannot be challenged either in the courts of this country or in the courts of the European Community. My noble friend was right to stress that and I hope that the Government will take it on board. After all, the existing functions of Scottish local authorities are being transferred virtually intact to the proposed successor councils which assume
1898
full legal powers and responsibilities from 1st April 1996. Therefore, it must surely be logical that the staff of the existing authorities should be transferred en bloc.
There are possible financial benefits in doing just that. While some of the immediate revenue gains may be postponed, the transitional costs are also postponed and, indeed, may be reduced through extended opportunity for the redeployment of staff. We have seen in all kinds of other reorganisations staff being made redundant, with all the costs that that incurs, only to be taken on by the same organisations in sometimes similar capacities only a few weeks, or perhaps a month or two, later. There is also the necessity to avoid employing temporary staff. That is bad in itself and shows a bad example to the people who have been displaced by such temporary staff. Many opportunities will exist in the new authorities for retraining staff and redeploying them to cater for the needs of the new authorities, thus minimising the impact of the transitional costs themselves.
Furthermore, there are organisational benefits as new authorities will need time to determine their most efficient and effective management structures. Unless all staff are given the opportunity to transfer to the most appropriate authority, the new authorities may very well find that they have got rid of the very staff they most need to run the new organisation.
It seems to me that the amendment offers the Government the opportunity to do everything right: to do it right from the point of view of law so that they cannot be challenged in the courts; to do it right from the point of view of future organisation; and to do it right for the staff who will be moved and have their lives disrupted. For all those reasons the noble and learned Lord and the Government should accept the amendments.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: As one who works daily with local government officers and staff I feel very strongly on this matter and I spoke to it at Second Reading. It is important for your Lordships to remember that the success of this transition will depend entirely upon the good will of our staff. Equally, it is important to remember the debt we owe them in having taken it for so long without any form of assurance. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that the noble and learned Lord said twice to me earlier today that since something was in the 1973 Act it must be there for good. In 1973 we did things correctly and I think that we owe our present staff as much attention now as we did then.
I would have to say to your Lordships—I am sorry if I have emphasised the fact that I work in local authorities—that there is a great deal of worry. It cannot be underestimated. I feel strongly that this amendment should receive the support it deserves. I am genuinely fearful that if it does not it could result in a great deal of hardship which would go far beyond the hardship of this Chamber and into the families of those whom we employ. On that basis I urge support for this amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am sure that everyone will have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments but the drafting of some of them, such as Amendment No. 35, leaves quite a lot to be desired. I must point out where I am a little concerned about guaranteeing employees work. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 8(4):
"No scheme … shall be made without the consent of the new authority or authorities".
We must be careful not to insist that the new authorities take on perhaps more staff than they really need or that staff are paid at a higher salary than they are at present. I feel that these matters should be ironed out by the staff commission. Equally, if there is a failure of such consent, the Secretary of State comes in to protect the staff and protect everyone else.
Those are my only concerns. Local authority staff are some of the most dedicated people I have ever met. They are extremely loyal. I have sympathy with the amendment but we cannot dictate to the new authorities that everyone should be taken on.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Everyone recognises that the issue of staff is a particularly sensitive one. The provisions in relation to staff will have been studied with particular care by all those who are affected, but it is important in this connection not to paint a false picture. The vast majority of those employed in local government will be transferred. Plainly, a school which comprises a number of teachers of say, French or science on 31st March 1996 will need the same teachers on the following day, so the teachers will transfer. As I have said, the vast majority of staff will transfer, so we are talking about a relatively small number of people who will not transfer. That is the first point.
The Committee will also note that the provisions in this chapter form a coherent whole. Clause 8 provides the mechanism for transferring employees. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, described this as a paving amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also spoke to it—which seeks to provide that the word "may" shall be replaced by "shall". I understood it to suggest that all employees should transfer. I acknowledge that that was the broad pattern of what happened in 1973. However, the question for the Committee is: what is best for the employees? We could include in the Bill some mechanism whereby all employees would transfer on 1st April 1996. The question of exactly to whom they would transfer would need to be considered. It is not feasible to have them transfer en bloc, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested. The noble Lord will appreciate that we cannot transfer all the employees of Strathclyde Regional Council to one single authority. That is why there is a reference to "the appropriate authority". That suggestion is not even an option.
One must also ask: what will happen on 1st April 1996 and thereafter? My noble friend Lord Balfour points the way on that because, as he said, the new authorities must consider what is the appropriate staffing level for them. It would be wholly unreasonable for us to inflict new staff on the authorities. Of course, we could do that, but it would mean that the real decision on staffing was being postponed until that date. The Committee must consider whether it is wise —or
1900
even kind—to those who are going to be affected by the decisions to allow them to be artificially postponed until some time after 1st April 1996, thereby leaving those people in limbo between the date on which the Bill becomes an Act and the date on which the transfer occurs.
Would it not be much better to ensure that the shadow authorities themselves have to consider the staffing that will be appropriate for the new authorities when they take over in April 1996? Would it not be better to decide that as early as possible so that decisions can be taken as early as possible and those who are going to transfer will know as early as passible—and those who are not going to transfer will know as early as possible what package is available to them and can make their arrangements accordingly?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister appears to be putting the responsibility onto the shadow authorities. If that happens, the new authorities will have no choice. They will have to accept the staff provided by the shadow authorities. We are simply trying to ensure that any authority dealing with staff (and making them redundant) does that according to the terms and conditions under which those staff were engaged.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The shadow authority considers what will happen when the reorganisation takes place. That is the whole point. It will have to consider what staff it will require. The Government believe that that is the best way forward. That is why Clause 8 provides for transfer orders to be made by the Secretary of State. As a result of an amendment made in the other place, there will be a scheme to provide for the employees who are to be transferred. Clause 9 shows the effects of such a transfer order. In very broad terms, the employees will be transferred with all the rights that would relate to their contracts if TUPE were to apply. Clause 10 provides for somebody who transfers to another local authority employer after only a short interval. Clause 13 provides the framework for compensation for those who, at any time after the passage of the Bill, find that they are to lose their jobs. That clause provides regulations governing their compensation scheme. The provisions of Clause 14 govern re-employment by a new authority. That is the broad outline of our thinking. We believe that those provisions are the best way forward.
We believe that in certain cases—perhaps in a large number of cases—TUPE will apply. There can be no suggestion—I am surprised to hear this being suggested even remotely—that UNISON has gone to the Commission in Brussels to ask it to ensure that the provisions of the Acquired Rights Directive (or TUPE) should apply. The Acquired Rights Directive binds the United Kingdom as a member state. We have fulfilled our obligations under that by introducing the TUPE regulations. The European Court of Justice has commented on our interpretation of them, but that is what we have done. TUPE is part of United Kingdom law, so there is no need for UNISON to go to the Commission to ask it to ensure that TUPE applies. There was no need for UNISON to waste its money in that way. A visit to the local tribunal or court would

1901
have been a visit far enough because TUPE is part of the law of Scotland, as it is of the law of any other part of the United Kingdom. We do not need anybody to tell us that.
The simple fact is that the Acquired Rights Directive is part of UK law by virtue of TUPE. We do not need to be told any more about it. Indeed, I was interested to see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, championing European law in that way. That was unusual, but inspiring. The noble Lord can rest assured that the tidal waves of European law have reached high enough up the estuaries of Scotland for us to be quite confident that TUPE and the Acquired Rights Directive apply.
However, those provisions do not apply in all cases. As with any other legislation, one has to consider the provisions alongside the facts of a particular case. One has to decide whether particular employees are or are not covered by those provisions. If they are covered by them, they can invoke those provisions as they could any other piece of law. If they are not so covered, they cannot invoke them. We believe that some employees will not be entitled to invoke the Acquired Rights Directive. Some of them may be transferred by virtue of the transfer orders of Clause 8. That will depend upon the circumstances. Where they are not covered by such an order, or the TUPE regulations, they may apply for one of the jobs in an open competition and they may obtain a job.
In that connection, Amendment No. 37A which forms part of this group of amendments and is in general part of the same issue seems to suggest—I understood it to be suggested during the debate—that when people apply for a new job they should carry with them all the terms and conditions of their existing jobs. That seems surprising. If one advertises a job surely the people who apply for it apply for it under the terms upon which it is advertised. It would be strange if someone who happened previously to be a director of some service on a particular salary could not apply for a new job except upon his existing salary terms. If that were to be the case, it is hard to see how he would ever win a job if other candidates were applying for it on other terms. With the greatest of respect to those who put forward the amendment, that seems to be muddled and not something that happens in the real world. Surely we expect that, on the reorganisation, those who are not transferred and choose to apply for jobs will apply for them and be appointed to them on the appropriate terms.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Has the noble and learned Lord ever considered how such a person would feel? If an able man has to apply for a lower job at less money he will feel upset and look elsewhere. We shall lose that man. That is a human characteristic.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I recognise, of course, that someone who loses a job in which he is paid a high salary and who has to apply for a job at a lower salary will find that disagreeable. That does not mean that it makes any sense for a smaller council, which may not be able to afford to pay such a salary or which might find that its whole salary structure was distorted by the payment of such a salary, to employ a person if that
1902
person could be employed only on his previous salary. That does not seem to be a realistic solution to the problem. If there are people who lose their jobs—it is accepted that there may be some—they should be free to apply for other jobs on the same terms as anyone else.
Although I understand the sentiments lying behind the amendments, they are not sensible in the overall context of the Bill. One must hope that when the reorganisation takes place people will understand as soon as possible their position and make the appropriate arrangements in the light of that. As I say, the amendment would not solve the problem. The TUPE regulations do not solve it. Even under the TUPE regulations it is recognised that economic, technical and organisational reasons are reasons for dismissing people. The regulations provide no panacea. There is no panacea for such a situation. When there is a reorganisation the best thing is for people to find out as soon as possible what the position will be. That points strongly in favour of the policy enshrined in the Bill.
Lord Hughes: I did not catch what the noble and learned Lord said in relation to Amendment No. 33 relating to "may" and "shall". Would he be kind enough to repeat what he said?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I said that in so far as the amendment was not just a paving amendment, and if its intention was to oblige all employees to be transferred on 1st April 1996, that could be done. One could have a Bill which provided, as the 1973 Act did provide, for everyone to be transferred and for orders to be made transferring everyone on 1st April 1996, but that would solve none of the real problems. The best way is for a decision to be taken in advance as to which employees should be transferred. Those who are not to be transferred should be able to know their position and make their arrangements accordingly.
Lord Hughes: Amendment No. 33 has nothing to do with all employees. It merely alters the clause as it is at present. It provides:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to".
The amendment relating to "all" is the subsequent amendment, and is not affected by Amendment No. 33. Perhaps I may point out that we should be consistent in Clause 8. Clause 8(5) reads:
'The Secretary of State shall by order".
I see no reason why subsection (1) states "may" while subsection (5) states "shall". It is obvious that under subsection (1) the Secretary of State will make an order. If there is anywhere that there might be doubt it is subsection (5) rather than subsection (1).
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I took the amendment in the same way as it was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, when he opened the debate. He understood that it was a paving amendment for Amendment No. 35. The word "shall" would imply that an order relating to all employees had to be made. That is undesirable. I am happy to say that the Secretary of State will be making such orders. There is no question about that. What he

1903
will not be doing is making them in respect of all employees. In connection with the other amendment, I was taking that as a paving amendment.
Lord Hughes: The noble and learned Lord is entirely overlooking the fact that the amendment can stand even if none of the other amendments comes into effect. Obviously, it can be regarded as a paving amendment, but it can stand on its own.
It is ridiculous to provide that the Secretary of State "may" make an order but not that he "shall" do so when in the same circumstances subsection (5) provides that the Secretary of State "shall".
It has always been said that one should be consistent by using the same terms. Nowhere would that be more appropriate than in one particular clause of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord must do one of two things; he must alter "may" to "shall" in subsection (1) or he must alter "shall" to "may" in subsection (5). If the noble Lord says that that will be done anyway, it does not matter which way it is done provided that each case is the same.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not wish to prolong this particular debate. I am sure that the noble Lord is familiar with the fact that the formulation in subsection (1) is well precedented and is often used in connection with an order-making power. That applies whether or not it is likely that it will be used.
The noble Lord wished to know why "shall" appears in subsection (5). I understand that it results from a concession that was made in another place to help to protect the special position of the fire brigade and the police force. The use of "may" is precedented and I have already said to the noble Lord that we envisage that such orders will be made.
Lord Hughes: All I can say now is that I give up!
Lord Monkswell: One of the purposes of the amendment is to provide reassurance to local government employees who face a difficult time ahead because they do not know what their future will be. The noble and learned Lord mentioned one category of local government employees—the teachers. I wish to press him a little further on that subject. Will the Government assure us that if the reorganisation occurs at the same time as a reduction in the revenue support grant for education, with the implication that some teachers must be made redundant, the transfer associated with the reorganisation will not be used as an excuse for making teachers redundant?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Of course, there is no intention of doing that. The employment or non-employment of teachers will be a matter for the new authority. I was simply making the point that if on 31st March a local authority had a school in its area the new authority taking over on 1st April will have to man the school in the same way as did the previous authority on the previous day. In that situation, the teachers in that school will transfer, unless there is some peculiar circumstance. The vast majority of the services which had to be carried out on 31st March, will have to be carried out on 1st April.
1904
The idea that this will be an occasion for a huge number of redundancies is beside the mark. The number of redundancies will be comparatively small and will be in certain grades rather than those in those which, for example, cover teachers.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This has been an important debate because we have been talking about human beings, about staff. I am getting worried about myself because I am beginning to feel sorry for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He has my sympathy because this is not the first local government Bill that the noble and learned Lord has dealt with during this Session. He had ministerial responsibility in your Lordships' House for the Welsh local government Bill. He must be confused. In the Welsh local government Bill, that scheme is now clearly laid out. In relation to the transfer of staff in that Bill, for which the noble and learned Lord was responsible in your Lordships' House, there is now an undertaking that the new authorities will take over all the contractual obligations of the existing authorities. That was contained in a statement made in another place by Sir Wyn Roberts in Hansard of 16th June.
The statement went even further. Sir Wyn Roberts laid out the redundancy payments scheme, explaining that an employee under 50 years of age who was made redundant—in other words, who did not transfer because the new authorities could not find a place for him—would receive a maximum payment of 66 weeks' salary and there would be a minimum floor below which the payment would not fall.
The crucial point and the major difference is that in the case of the Welsh local government Bill, for which, as I say, the noble and learned Lord was responsible, a clear scheme is laid out to protect the employees. The local government employees in Scotland, as in Wales, have contracts of employment. It was noticeable that the noble and learned Lord did not deal with the question of those contracts. I admire his confidence. He used the example of teachers. He said that if the new authority had a school on 31st March, the same number of teachers would be needed on 1st April. But that is not what the new authorities are about.
I apologise to the Committee for returning to the example of Central Region. If the new Stirling unitary authority has a primary school which is under-pupilled and the new Clackmannon unitary authority has a primary school which is under-pupilled, there is a strong possibility that one or other of those two authorities will buy the spare places in the primary school which is under-pupilled. In those circumstances, one of the schools will close. Therefore, there is no guarantee that all teachers will transfer on 1st April 1996. In my view, the only two groups of local authority workers who can have any confidence in a continuation of employment are police officers and firemen. I do not: see any other guarantees which could be given to any other groups of employees.
Perhaps I may deal now with the whole question of TUPE. The noble and learned Lord went into some detail about the directive and about its inclusion in UK

1905
law as a result of an amendment to employment legislation. There is now a strong body of legal opinion that says that if an employee is made redundant as a result of a transfer under local government reorganisation, that would be an unfair dismissal. The economic, technical and organisational question would not apply. There would be strong grounds for those employees pursuing a case of unfair dismissal.
The noble and learned Lord said that there will be no large-scale redundancies. I know what the Government are depending upon. They are depending upon the present authorities encouraging staff to take redundancy payments or to accept severance arrangements between now and April of next year, or certainly between now and 1st April 1996, so that the cost of those redundancies does not fall at all on the new authorities. That is where the Government's estimates of the cost of reorganisation go awry because they are depending heavily on the existing local authorities bearing the costs brought about by fairly substantial redundancies before reorganisation takes place. That is how they reach their 700 to 800 figure.
When one talks to local authorities a more realistic picture is presented. The figure of expected redundancies is certainly much higher than 700 to 800. That figure is for redundancies under the new authorities, not under the existing authorities, and not as a result of the transfers, amalgamations or changes to unitary authorities or single-tier authorities. It has nothing to do with that. The Government expect existing authorities to encourage present employees to accept severance arrangements in anticipation of the authorities disappearing. I am no professional, but my strong advice to staff would be not to bite that carrot; they should not take it. They should wait until the new authorities come into being.
I return to the proposals contained in the Welsh local government Bill. I am not sure whether that Bill will return to this Chamber. I see that the noble and learned Lord indicates that it will not do so. But even the regulations that the Secretary of State has given an undertaking will be laid by November 1995, following the initial elections, will be published in three sets. First, there will be the regulations for those who do not wish to transfer, setting out the conditions upon which they will be treated; secondly, there will be another set of regulations for those who do transfer; and, thirdly, there will be yet another set of regulations for those who are made compulsorily redundant, although the Secretary of State naturally hopes that there will be no such redundancies.
That is a vast difference from the way in which local government workers in Scotland are being treated. At least local government workers in Wales at present know roughly—though not down to the last detail— where they stand. But no one can say that about local government employees in Scotland. Indeed, they have absolutely no idea of what will happen. To suggest that all that should be left until the new authorities come into being is only adding uncertainty to uncertainty.
In conclusion, I must tell the noble and learned Lord that, in my view, we need time to give this part of the
1906
Bill further consideration. It is not a trivial matter. One of the greatest resources that Scottish local government has is its staff. We must treat that resource with the greatest of respect. Therefore, we need time to give further thought to the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the absolute guarantee that we shall return to such matters on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 37A not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Remuneration of employees of local authorities]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7, line 51, at end insert:
("(9) An order made under subsection (8) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 38 follows very much the discussion that has just taken place. We now find ourselves with a series of clauses that deal with the more sensitive of the human issues regarding the changes that will flow from the Government's proposals for local government reform. I have no doubt that there will be a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, so I shall confine myself to the rather narrower point that I should like to make by way of my amendment.
I speak from these Benches, but I am really commending to the Government the views of the 10th report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this Chamber. In dealing with Clause 11(8) the Committee drew attention to the contents of the clause and suggested that this Chamber might wish to consider whether the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate for orders made under that provision.
I notice from the report of the committee (under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy) that the Government said that they were ready to consider the matter further. I shall only add that it is an extremely sensitive matter for which there are views on both sides. Indeed, they are views about the problems of excessive expenditure in terms of the transfers that finally take place and there are also very strong views about equity and justice for the people who are affected.
The clause proposes that the Government should be bound by an advisory body that they propose to set up, but without the final possibility of parliamentary review by the annulment procedure. We have had some discussion, inevitably, in the course of our debates on the degree to which the Government seem to resort to quangos in terms of their policy-making. I should have thought that, in view of the extreme sensitivity of these issues, the Government would be well advised to adhere to what is certainly the implied advice of your Lordships' own Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and ensure that at the end of the day there is a parliamentary recourse and that an annulment procedure is available. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I think it is sufficient if I indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the

1907
Government are happy to accept the amendment which he has moved. It does, as he said, put forward the view of the scrutiny committee. It brings the second order-making power in this clause into line with the provision on the first order-making power. I agree that it is entirely appropriate and I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This moment feels like Cowdenbeath winning the European Cup. This is the first amendment that we have had accepted. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, on his eloquence. I will take a leaf out of his book and not talk too long. This provision, to a certain extent, meets only in a minor way the objections that we have to Clause 11. Although now the Secretary of State will have to lay an order and that order can be annulled by both Houses, I think it is worth while pointing out that the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State takes in Clause 11 are unprecedented in employee/management relations. There is the power to control increases in salaries; to decide the level of an offer that should be made to staff, and to interfere in almost every aspect of employee/management relations. That is unprecedented in the field of industrial relations. From time to time we have referred to the 97 items in the Bill which give powers to the Secretary of State, a substantial number of which are contained in Clause 11. But having said that, and against the background of the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I am content to leave my comments at that.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Question is put, I wish to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for agreeing to this amendment. In our long hours of work here it is a rare experience to have an amendment accepted by those on the Government Front Bench and we want to make the most of it. I thank the Minister very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Staff commission:]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 41 is accepted, I cannot call Amendment No. 42. I now call Amendment No. 41.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to delete the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the staff commission. The principal intent of the proposed amendments to Clause 12 is to specify in the primary legislation the exact role of the staff commission. The intention that the Staff Advisory Committee and the subsequent staff commission is to be an independent body is not doubted. However, the perceived independence of the staff commission is questionable if the Secretary of State has powers to direct the staff commission. The power of the Secretary
1908
of State to give directions to local authorities should only be at the request of the staff commission in carrying out its statutory functions. Only by removing that power of the Secretary of State to direct the staff commission can it be perceived to be operating completely independently in respect of its remit.
Amendment No. 43 is grouped with the amendment. The purpose of that amendment is to delete the wording as indicated in the amendment. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The effect of the amendments would be to remove the provision specified in relation to the staff commission. There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence of the staff commission. The intention is that the Secretary of State might give the staff commission directions to ensure that it carried out its functions in an acceptable manner. For example, he might direct that it should establish an appeal mechanism to hear cases relating to employees who felt that they had been unfairly treated. That is the type of action which is envisaged in the provision.
It is also envisaged that in certain circumstances it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to direct the commission to investigate the arrangements being proposed by a particular authority where those arrangements seemed to be out of line with the general arrangements of other authorities. The purpose is to provide the Secretary of State with advice on that particular matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, did not speak to Amendment No. 43, which covers the second part of subsection (4) (c). It relates; to the payment of expenses incurred by the commission in doing anything requested by a particular authority. The purpose of that provision is that the Secretary of State could give a direction to an authority where that authority had asked for a particular service from the staff commission. In that instance it would be thought appropriate that a direction should be given as to payment for that particular service which had! been requested by the authority.
The amendments appear to proceed on the basis that the provisions in the Bill are designed in some way to fetter or interfere with the independence of the staff commission. I can assure your Lordships that they are not. They are intended to deal with the type of situation which I have outlined.
The Earl of Minto: It was my pleasure to welcome the Staff Advisory Committee to my region not long ago, since Borders Regional Council happens to be the first council in Scotland to have established a joint advisory committee with four districts in preparation for Royal Assent of this Bill. During the meeting, which lasted for about two to two-and-a-half hours, it was my clear impression that the Staff Advisory Committee was made up of strong-minded and independent members —both female and male—under the chairmanship of Mr. Peggie, who is a highly respected chairman. He has in the past been chief executive of Lothian and an ombudsman. I find it extraordinary to consider that the Secretary of State should wish to take powers over and

1909
beyond the body which has been set up to act eventually as a staffing commission. I am not taken by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I do not believe that they pertain. If the Staff Advisory Committee (as it now is) is doing its job, it ought to have sufficient knowledge—I am certain that it does—to take account of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. I support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sounded very reassuring. We shall wish to read what he said. However, I hope that he understands the sensitivity of trade unions in this matter. They may well see the issue as a threat to their negotiating rights about many factors including superannuation, conditions of service, and so on. I hope he understands that the amendment is relevant. There are serious fears that the Secretary of State might have wished to interfere in reasonable arrangements which have been continuing successfully for a long period of time. As I said, the noble and learned Lord sounded very reassuring. We shall read his remarks with interest.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I also felt that the noble and learned Lord was reassuring. I am sure that he spoke with total good faith. However, what happens ultimately will not necessarily follow the thoughts genuinely conveyed to the House.
What worries me about the Bill is that although we spend a great deal of time on boundaries, and the concept of the Bill was to make democracy better by changing from a two-tier to a single-tier authority, we now seem to be in a position which is dangerous and important for many public employees. It is the wrong thing to say to the Scottish Office, but the matter is Treasury led. Every measure seems not necessarily to improve democracy but to reduce staff quite drastically. If that is so, after all these years in power the Government have not been able to use their considerable influence to slim down local authority staff. If, as it appears, there will be a large number of redundancies, I find the situation very threatening.
However, the noble and learned Lord's statement on the independence of the commission was reassuring. We shall keep a careful eye on the whole matter as it develops. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, the regulations made under this section shall amend Regulation E2 of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Regulations 1987 so that any person who—

(a) is the holder of any such office or is in any such employment as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection; and

(b) attains or has attained the age of forty-five on or before 31 March 1996 but has not attained the age of 50 at that date; and

1910

(c) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed, shall be eligible to receive the benefits payable to or in respect of him under the relevant superannuation scheme on the date he attains the age of fifty.").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I beg to move Amendment No. 45 and for the convenience of the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 46.
The amendments deal with pension rights and severance payments for staff of local authorities who are made redundant as the result of the reorganisation. Amendment No. 45 suggests that the pension age for those who are made redundant and who are entitled to receive their pension at the point of redundancy should be reduced from 50 to 45 years of age. There is a good reason for arguing that case.
Before I present that reason to the Committee, perhaps I should explain that the present position is that any local government employee who is made redundant under the age of 50 has to wait until he is aged 60 before he can receive his superannuation pension payments. Any local government employee who is made redundant at the age of 50 or over receives his superannuation pension payment immediately he is made redundant.
The reason we argue for that in Amendment No. 45 is this, and we urge the Government to accept the amendment. The Minister himself said earlier this afternoon that substantial numbers of people had left local government service over the past few years. They have been of the older age group and therefore the age profile of the staff who work for local government is now much younger than it has ever been in the history of local government in Scotland. A strong possibility is that anyone made redundant as a result of this reorganisation could easily be under the age of 50 because local government in Scotland has run out of elderly people to make redundant. That is a proposition which I hope the Government will seriously consider. The age at which a person is made redundant and can receive his superannuation straightaway should be reduced from 50 to 45.
I turn to Amendment No. 46 and severance payments. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the arrangements that have been announced in another place in relation to Welsh local government workers. It may seem strange to the Committee that in Amendment No. 46 I argue for much more generous arrangements in relation to local government workers in Scotland against the background of the Bill. The precedent for my submission is the treatment that local government workers in England received when, first, in 1986 the Greater London Council was abolished, followed quickly by the abolition of the metropolitan counties. At that stage, local government workers who lost their jobs as a result of the abolition of those local authorities received up to a maximum of 86 weeks' severance payment. We argue for the same treatment under this Bill for local government workers in Scotland as was received by local government workers who lost their jobs as a result of the abolition of the GLC in 1986 on the one hand and the metropolitan counties on the other.
This evening of all evenings, it is possibly worth while mentioning that until the present time—and we do not know what the future holds, we are in the same

1911
position tonight as many civil servants, we do not know what the future holds for them—the maximum number of weeks that a civil servant would receive if he were made redundant is 156 weeks, three years. We are not asking for that, but we certainly ask for the same treatment as was given to the GLC workers and the metropolitan county workers.
There is one other point before I resume my seat. It is the question of employees who are made redundant and who are over the age of 50 but not yet 60. It is common practice in most public authorities and many private companies that in such a situation the employees are given added years to enhance their pension as if they had worked to the age of 60. Amendment No. 46 would have that effect as well. It is quite common practice throughout many public authorities and in private industry that where employees are made redundant over the age of 50 they are given the opportunity to uprate their pension as if they had worked up to 60.
I hope that what I have said has persuaded noble Lords opposite at least to have a detailed look at this matter. If we cannot get a generous response from the Government tonight, perhaps we can find them in a much more generous mood in October when this House returns.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to support the noble Lord in Amendment No. 45. Obviously, I also support Amendment No. 46, but this particular amendment is very important. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made it quite clear that what we are trying to do here is enable people who are made redundant over the age of 45, when they reach the age of 50, to trigger the superannuation benefits.
I know some young people of 45 and over who are looking for jobs. It is perfectly true that today it is extraordinarily difficult to get one. Employers look for people who are developing and very often, for some extraordinary reason, people of that age are considered to be past it, although they are in the prime of life, having been removed from the job that they know well. All that we ask in this amendment is that such people, if they so wish, can trigger the superannuation benefits when they reach the age of 50. The Government must see that this is a reasonably fair process and that it would certainly alleviate the distress that is bound to be felt by many people who are made redundant at that age.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I, too, hope that the Government will accept these very reasonable amendments. As has already been pointed out, once people are over the age of 45 they are virtually on the shelf. We have to emphasise that the staff of local government in Scotland did not ask for this reorganisation. It has been foisted, or at least imposed, upon them against their will. Many of them believe that the existing forms of local authority have performed reasonably well and they do not wish to alter them. This is being done against their will.
Undoubtedly, bearing in mind that there is still high unemployment not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom, those people will find difficulty in
1912
getting work. They are therefore entitled to be treated generously. The people in local government in Scotland would be entitled to feel outraged if they were treated any worse than were the staff of the metropolitan authorities. Those of us who do not live in Scotland —we may have some connections with it but live in England—are very sensitive to the views of our countrymen north of the Border. We do not wish them to be treated any worse than people south of the Border. They are entitled to equal treatment. We do not like them to feel resentful against their southern compatriots who, after all, wish them well and wish them to be treated decently and equally. Therefore, I hope that the Government will get up and say what marvellous amendments these are and that they are prepared to accept them with alacrity.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Hope springs eternal, but it is not always realised. I cannot fulfil the noble Lord's hope on this occasion.
I stood at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, during the passage of the Welsh Bill. During the course of that Bill I had the pleasure of hearing a not entirely dissimilar speech to that delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Let me make quite clear that I am more than well aware of the provisions relating to the same matter in Wales. I was roundly criticised on a number of occasions during Committee and Report stages for not having brought forward for Wales at those stages the particular draft regulations proposed in connection with this matter. The position is that they have become available for Wales only very lately.
The reason why the regulations are not available for Scotland at this stage is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, having gone to all the double of setting up a staff advisory committee (which in due course will be a staff commission)—a body whose membership has been widely welcomed—has thought it right, in the spirit of the legislation, to seek its views on the regulations which might be made in terms of Clause 13 when in due course that power is available.. Had he not done that, I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite would have been ingenious in criticising the Government. He will wish to consider the committee's advice as to whether there are any particular circumstances in relation to Scotland which would have a bearing on the regulations which he should make for Scotland.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that in broad terms one would expect the kind of compensation for Scotland to be similar to that available under the current proposals for England and for Wales. That seems to me to be a true comparison rather than a comparison with the provisions for the GLC in 1986. It seems to me that if the provisions for England, Scotland and Wales are the same or broadly similar, it fulfils the necessity for equality which I and I am sure all Members of the Committee entirely accept.
Having said that, my right honourable friend rightly wishes to consider any particular observations that his advisory committee might make in respect of the regulations. It is for that reason that they are not yet available.

1913
At this stage I cannot predict the content of the regulations. However, noble Lords may have seen the provisions for Wales and those for England, which will give some indication of what is in mind. So far as concerns pensions, there is no need for any new set of regulations for people of 50 and over. They are already covered by regulations made in 1979 which deal with their pensions, provide for additional years and so on. What the regulations will provide for those who are differently placed is a matter to be considered once the advice of the committee is available. In due course, the regulations will be available. No doubt they will be consulted upon and at that stage noble Lords will make known their views. I believe that that is the correct way forward; the amendment seeks to pre-empt, in a way which is not proper nor desirable, the content of the regulations. In due course the content of the regulations will come into being, once consultation has taken place.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps I can ask a question. Under Clause 13 the Secretary of State deals with compensation for loss of office and so forth. I was wondering whether the matter would be improved if the staff commission, found under Clause 12, which is to investigate the position, was brought into the provisions of Clause 13. The staff commission is not mentioned in Clause 13 and I feel that it should be.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The Committee will have observed the terms of Clause 12 and in particular of subsection (2) (c) which, as part of the functions which may be conferred on the staff commission, includes the function of advising the Secretary of State as to the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of members of staff. That would cover the situation to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am a little disappointed in the reply of the noble and learned Lord. I thought he would comment on the specific plight of those aged 45 and over who are made redundant. It is a human situation, particularly in today's economic climate and the difficulty that people experience in obtaining work. Can the Minister comment specifically as to whether or not he thinks that marginally it must be right that if someone over 50 is entitled to claim the benefits, then someone who is still redundant at the age of 46 or 47 should be able to do so also when he reaches 50?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Obviously the plight of the group to which the noble Lord refers can be serious. There are other situations which are also serious. I accept that. But I cannot say what is the appropriate method of dealing with that group. It is a matter which must be considered. The Secretary of State is considering the views of his advisory committee on the appropriate compensation regulations. I have no doubt that the plight of those people will be one of the matters which in due course he will wish to consider. What the appropriate result will be I cannot predict.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He encourages me to withdraw the
1914
amendment on the basis that, if the staff commission recommends to the Secretary of State that the age should be reduced from 50 to 45 and if the staff commission recommends to the Secretary of State that those retiring over the age of 50 should be given the same generous treatment—not too generous—as was given to the workers in the GLC and the metropolitan counties, that is advice that the Secretary of State will seriously consider. I hope that the job will not be done the other way round; in other words, that the Secretary of State tells the staff commission what he wants it to say.
I shall withdraw the amendment on the basis of what the noble and learned Lord said. I am always interested when I hear potential "wearers of the red jersey"—as we say in Scotland—talking about pensions. For those Members of the Committee who do not know what potential "wearers of the red jersey" are, it means High Court judges. Whenever I hear potential High Court judges discussing pensions I am always interested in their views.
My final word, before I withdraw the amendment, is to my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I will never accept that anyone over 50 is on the shelf. I can find many people who will testify to that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 15 [Transfer of property:]
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert:
("( )An order under this section shall require a new authority (that is a local authority, residuary body, joint board, or water and sewerage board), to establish a professional property management and advice facility, within its core management structures; and with the object of managing the procurement and care of all property transferred to the authority, and providing a professional advice service to the managers of devolved properties".).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 48A. I say at once that I did not think up the amendments, nor would I claim the credit for them. They come from the Association of Chief Architects of Scottish Local Authorities which is worried about the whole question of transfer of property.
Local government has three major assets. The first has been mentioned extensively in our debates. I refer to the staff. The second is the finance that is available to local authorities. The third is the crucial asset of property. It is not the case that property will just be transferred from one local authority to another. Much of the property will be transferred to ad hoc bodies. The joint boards that are to be established will have property transferred to them: in the case of the police, the police buildings and police property; in the case of the fire brigade, the fire brigade property. Substantial amounts of property will be transferred from local government to these ad hoc bodies.
I support the view of the Association of Chief Architects, as contained in the amendments, that there

1915
should be a professional input at core management level in relation to the transfer of property. I hope that the Minister will give this the most serious consideration because it involves high-value property in respect of which professional advice is of the utmost importance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Although there is provision in the Bill for property to be transferred—perhaps from an existing regional council to, for argument's sake, a water board—I wonder whether there should be a provision as existed under the old feu charters, whereby the new authority could not dispose of a transferred property without the approval of the successors to the original owners of the property. In other words, in the case of a water board property, the new authority would have to go back to the local authority and get approval before it could dispose of the asset. There needs to be some provision within the legislation in relation to this point. The old-fashioned feu charters might be a way of doing that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Earl put forward an interesting proposition. One problem that might have to be confronted if his proposal were adopted is that some of the bodies from which the property might be transferred might, in law, have disappeared. It might be difficult in some circumstances —I am not saying that it would be difficult in all circumstances—to discover whether or not those bodies had given their consent or approval to such a transfer. Nevertheless, I am happy to reflect on what has been said.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the property of local authorities in Scotland is an extremely important matter, as is the value of their experienced staff. I entirely agree with the noble Lord further that, where property is to be transferred, it merits careful and professional consideration. I say with some reluctance that where we may part company is that the amendment would insist that local authorities should make that provision in a particular way. Some councils may, for example, choose to use outside contractors for much of their work. Like any other function, that is a matter for the councils themselves to decide. Therefore, in our view it is inappropriate for such a restriction to be imposed. If anything, we are seeking to loosen the reins on local authorities and the ways in which they choose to organise themselves. Although I do not depart from my agreement with the noble Lord on the importance of ensuring that that is done properly, it seems unduly restrictive to insist that it is done in a particular way.
As we have reached amendments dealing with property, I hope that I can assure the Committee that the Government will be giving careful thought to the contents of any transfer orders. As the Committee will be aware, our intention is to discuss the detail with local authorities and with the property commission, if such a commission is set up—I stress the conditionality of that —before making any orders. Therefore, although I do not disagree with the intention of the noble Lord (or those who invited him to table the amendment which has enabled us to have this short debate) the suggested route seems unduly restrictive.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I should point out that it is now 10.7 p.m. and, so far as I can see, we are now one-third of the way through the evening's business as projected on the Marshalled List.
Is it proposed that we sit here until goodness knows when tomorrow morning to discuss these matters of great importance to the people of Scotland? These matters deserve our attention and should not be treated as an adjunct to the parliamentary procedures of the United Kingdom. I am supported not only by my noble friends when I say that it is absolutely disgraceful—it could be put more strongly than that—that we should be considering such a major piece of legislation (which runs to goodness knows how many pages) at this hour of the night.
I say that particularly in the light of what the Secretary of State said in the other place about taking another look at Scottish legislation. He referred to how Scottish legislation will be dealt with so that we can all talk about it in Scotland, and all that nonsense However, here we are with about 20 or 30 Members of your Lordships' House present to discuss such a major change to Scottish legislation and it looks as though we shall have to be here until two or three a.m. I can tell your Lordships that I am not prepared to sit here until three a.m. although we are discussing matters of great importance to the people of Scotland. If that is what the; Government want, their representative, the noble and learned Lord, should tell the people of Scotland that that is how they want us to discuss such matters of great moment to the people of Scotland. He should send a message home telling the people of Scotland that we have to discuss such business at two or three a.m. How many people in the world could discuss such things rationally at two or three a.m.? I can think of an answer to that.
How many people make serious decisions in their lives at two and three o'clock in the morning? It is projected that the debate will go on until two o'clock in the morning. I am not going to sit until that time discussing the lives of the people of Scotland. I speak from the Back-Benches. I have no authority to speak for anybody else, but I hope that my Front Bench colleagues will support me. I have not even discussed it with them, but I think that it is disgraceful.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not sure what to say to the noble Lord. I have discussed matters in the past with the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Carmichael, rationally, in detail and with great expertise until much later than three o'clock in the morning. I do not want to sit unnecessarily late; but we have important matters to discuss. I say with respect that if the noble Lord had been here over the past one and a half hours, he would have heard some extremely sophisticated debates on matters of great importance. I hope that we can now continue to make some progress on the Bill. It is important that we do so.
Lord Hughes: In the other place, the Committee considered the Bill much longer than we are going to be doing, but at least it considered it under provisions where it stopped at 10 o'clock at night.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I am spurred to my feet by the noble Lord's remarks. We are all a bit older than we used to be, and as a rule I come here to make what my noble and learned friend tells me are unhelpful speeches in support of the Government. I am bound to say when I hear that we should not be sitting until two o'clock, that takes me back to what I call the vintage days in another place. I remember the late Lord Ross relishing keeping us up until three in the morning, with no sign of fatigue or anything like that. I well recall when discussing a Bill to do with credit lending in Scotland being kept up until half past three discussing numerous amendments, and then tottering off to catch the five o'clock aircraft to the Highland Show in Edinburgh.
One was younger then; but I must say that I think the Opposition are losing their spirit a little if they are complaining. The noble Lords on the Front Bench are carrying out a remarkable exercise of speaking for a certain length without giving the slightest impression that they are spinning matters out. I do not believe that they are. I would not dream of suggesting that. It takes one back again to the days when the great exponents of Labour Party opposition (Mr. Ross and Mr. Willis) would talk for an hour on the difference between the words "shall" and "may". We endured it all, and we came up smiling. I strongly recommend to the Opposition that they do not give the impression of lacking the spirit and lustre of opposition.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before returning to the amendments, perhaps I can say that the only reminiscence I will share with the Committee is that many times, at five o'clock in the morning, when I was in another place, I used to say to myself, 'To think I left the Post Office to get rid of these early rises"! That was in the days when I never got to bed, so perhaps we could continue for some time yet.
I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive comments on the amendments. Against the background of those constructive comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 17 [Educational endowments]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 13, line 18, at end insert (", and any such scheme shall continue in effect the provisions of any scheme made by an existing authority in accordance with section 105 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 the terms of which have been agreed by a new authority or authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not comment on the timing in the other place except to say that noble Lords who were Members there will remember that on some mornings, in particular during debates on the Finance Bill, you were grateful for the terrace because you felt like jumping over to cool down. Perhaps when looking back one takes a slightly romantic view, but at the time it was pretty dreadful and I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that.
The justification for the amendment is that the transfer of educational endowments should as far as possible be achieved via agreement between authorities rather than a decision of the Secretary of State, whose powers should be used only when no agreement between authorities can be reached. Subsection (7) limits the Secretary of State's powers to make no more change than appears to him to be necessary or expedient following local government boundary changes. In reality, that is a wide-ranging power and it allows decisions that should be made locally to be taken by a central authority.
Subsection (6), although detailing the extent to which the Secretary of State may act, overlaps with Section 105 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. It is important that clarification is given by the Minister as between this provision in the Bill and Section 105 of the 1980 Act. No provision is made in the Bill to allow local authorities the possibility of reaching agreement on the transfer of educational endowments. We believe that safeguards are required to ensure that endowments are not weakened in their effect or operation and that the original purpose intended by the people who left the endowment is not lost during the transfer.
One of the ways in which that may be achieved is to ensure local relevance by providing for and facilitating the operation of agreements between authorities where an endowment has to any extent been vested in the existing local authority, which may be divided by this Bill into different unitary authorities. Many such cases must occur in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Lothian and Strathclyde in particular.
The amendment allows the new authorities to reach agreement among themselves on the future of the endowment rather than passing that power to the Secretary of State. The local authority, through its local knowledge, will be able to ensure that the spirit of the original endowment is continued.
The noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will remember that in relation to one of the health Bills for Scotland there were tremendous problems with endowments to hospitals. Two days were spent in Committee discussing a famous case in Edinburgh. Great delicacy was required in obtaining agreement with local people as regards the intention of the person who left the endowment. Such problems will arise in connection with educational endowments, in particular as boundaries will be changed. Someone may have left an endowment for a particular area—perhaps a small area—but after the new boundary changes all will be different.
I do not know what will happen to some of the endowment for Paisley Grammar School. We were talking about Eastwood earlier today—it seems a long time ago now—and we wondered what would happen. Under the new set-up, many endowments to Paisley Grammar School will not necessarily go to the catchment area of the old grammar school. If we are going to keep faith with the intention of those who have left the endowments the matter must be treated with great delicacy. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment would require that any scheme which is made under Clause 17,

1919
the terms of which were agreed by the new authority or authorities concerned, should also continue in effect the terms of any earlier scheme made under Section 105 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
We believe that such a provision would unnecessarily restrict the Secretary of State's ability to promote schemes which best reflect the circumstances of a particular endowment in relation to the effect of local government reform. Such a restriction would, we believe, be undesirable.
Of course, on frequent occasions there will be cases where a scheme put forward by an existing authority is fully acceptable to the new authority or authorities concerned and is fair and reasonable in itself. In that situation there will be no cause for the Secretary of State to intervene and he will be able to accept it as presented.
In other cases, however—perhaps involving several authorities—the degree of agreement may be less clear-cut or the overall reasonableness of the scheme may be less evident. The Secretary of State needs freedom to consider all the relevant factors in drawing up a scheme in those cases.
I hope that it will be appreciated that given the divisions that there may be into a number of new authorities, such freedom should be given to the Secretary of State. If well-prepared schemes are put before him and the division is obvious and fair, clearly he will not wish to intervene at all. But a residual discretion would seem appropriate to guard against an unreasonable proposal that is put to him.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Of course, I accept that there may be problems and that someone must have the ultimate responsibility for solving them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord has expressed differently the sentiments that I was trying to express. I hope that this matter will be treated with great delicacy because of the local nature of the property. We should respect the wishes of the people who have left the endowments. I hope that that message will be accepted and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Interim committee

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall establish an interim committee with the power to consider, and as it deems appropriate to approve, applications for grant aid from voluntary organisations in good standing funded by existing councils in 1995 whose funding applications to existing councils for the year 1996–97 and/or to new councils for the year 1997–98 have been refused or delayed.

(2) The committee shall number not less than five and not more than seven members chosen from among people with knowledge and experience of the voluntary sector, at least two of which shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and at least one of whom shall be chosen from a list drawn up by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, with a convener appointed by the Secretary of State.

(3) The committee shall operate from an appropriate date in 1995 to an appropriate date in 1997 as determined by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is based on the fact that the Scottish local authorities provide voluntary
1920
organisations with funding of around £100 million per year. With their narrow financial margins, voluntary organisations are exceptionally vulnerable to the loss of council funding or to delays in council funding decisions.
The transition to a new structure of local government will create a risk of both cuts in funding and delays in funding decisions. Those delays can be quite catastrophic. Extremely efficient organisations may be threatened and may even disappear because of cash flow problems. In the past 10 years we have seen many businesses fail because of those problems.
Local councils will probably have to absorb some of the costs of local government reform. They may view their discretionary funding of voluntary organisations as a soft option and may cut that funding. However, I should say that the councils in my area which an; looking after voluntary organisations will go a long way towards making sure that they are able to continue with their work.
Region-wide organisations funded by regional councils which are due to disappear will be particularly at risk. Of course, the scope within which regional councils are able to operate is considerably greater than may be possible in relation to the smaller councils which are to be created. Successive councils will not only have to agree in principle to continue funding but they must agree also on how to share the costs when organisations straddle the borders of the new local authorities.
The transition will also generate considerable scope for delays in budget planning and funding decisions. In 1995–96 the staff of existing councils will be uncertain about the future. The existence of shadow councils from 1995 which will have powers to withhold approval of funding decisions relating to over £100,000 revenue or £1 million capital will carry its own potential for delay. When the new councils assume authority in 1996, they will still be struggling with the managerial and financial uncertainties of transition.
The proposed addition seeks to give voluntary organisations a "last resort" funding facility in the form of an interim committee established by the Secretary of State with the power to award grant aid to voluntary organisations whose funding has been cut or delayed during the transitional period.
The proposed interim committee could operate on behalf of the Secretary of State under his various powers to grant aid to local authority organisations. To discourage local councils from offloading their funding of voluntary organisations to the interim committee, the Secretary of State may need the power to recoup the value of any grant aid from the next year's revenue grant to the council in whose area the funded voluntary organisation operates.
I believe that the arrangement as suggested in the amendment is a neat arrangement. I hope that the Minister realises the very important work voluntary organisations carry out. Of course, he may be aware that the amendment has really been sponsored, because of a great deal of worry on the part of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. I hope that the Minister will treat it with sympathy. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am rather anxious about the proposed new clause, although I have much sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. My worry is that the committee will be almost entirely made up of persons who are connected with the voluntary sector or with voluntary organisations. In such cases, I believe that they might even be fighting among themselves. Very often it is much better to have a committee that has no direct interest—which, of course, the proposed committee is bound to have—in its own affairs. You must have independent people. That is the part of the amendment that I do not like.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support the amendment, which seeks to prevent difficulties during the transition from the existing arrangements to the new councils and, in so doing, to protect the position of those voluntary sector organisations which have a definite need for local public funding, rather than relying on direct donations by the public through charitable collections. I have in mind those vulnerable voluntary organisations whose work is useful and necessary but which will never be seen as having much popular appeal.
Such organisations are those seeking to help people with problems of alcohol, drugs, domestic violence, offending behaviour, cultural discrimination, victims suffering from various diseases and those in other unpleasant situations. In many respects those organisations need to operate in a somewhat covert manner so that they can protect their client groups and gain their confidence. All such organisations, whether they be, by my definition, popular or covert, need to secure and maintain a steady flow of funding to enable them to carry out their task in the Scottish community.
I believe that the provision of an interim committee to oversee the transitional period and to act as a longstop would have merit. I recognise the fact that the new councils will have the complete right and opportunity to make their own decisions about funding once they are in place. It would be a great pity if any voluntary organisation had to close down its operation due to a temporary hiccup in funding during the transitional period.
10.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have great sympathy with this amendment, although I find myself in considerable agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, over the potential composition of the suggested committee. But certainly the all-party Scottish children group is very worried about funding for voluntary organisations during the transitional period because a break in funding could easily mean the total collapse of a particular organisation. The work which these organisations do in support services for, particularly, special needs children is very valuable indeed; and once it was lost it could never be replaced.
Lord Hughes: I cannot agree with the criticism which the noble Earl made when he said the committee appeared to be composed almost entirely of people from the voluntary organisations. The committee will
1922
comprise no fewer than five nor more than seven members; and of these only one is referred to in the amendment as being,
"chosen … by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations".
Two shall be chosen by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. They may be taken as representative of the people who at the end of the day will have to find the money. Therefore, I believe, a balance is achieved there.
The other two members, or the other four as the case may be, will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will appoint people who have knowledge or experience of voluntary organisations. They of course could include people who were not members of voluntary organisations but who were familiar with the type of work which they did and were familiar with the causes which experience has shown could not be financed from either national or local taxation but were dependent on moneys which these voluntary bodies could provide. I believe the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was supportive of the amendment but also wondered whether too much emphasis was being laid on the voluntary organisations. I hope that what I have said has allayed their fears in that regard. This committee will be a balanced body as two of its members will be selected by the spending authority and others by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I have strong sympathy with the purpose that lies behind this proposed new clause. I will not comment on the composition of the text of the clause; but I would say to the Government that one of their reasons for justifying radical local government reform is that the nature of operations of local authorities has changed greatly over recent years and in many ways they enter into partnership with outside providers of services rather than doing things for themselves as they have done in the past. Of course one of the most fruitful partnerships that has grown up is between local authorities and voluntary organisations. It is, I think, vitally important to find a mechanism for the transition period that enables that partnership to continue uninterrupted and not become destabilised so that when the new structure is finally in place that kind of partnership can continue to flourish.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I fully recognise the anxiety that local government re-organisation should not cause disruption to voluntary organisations. I recall that on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom—who is, I believe, honorary president of the SCVO—made his worries over this matter clear. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that this amendment has at least been prompted by that organisation. I should say at the outset that there is one matter on which I have some disagreement with the noble Lord and perhaps he might explain to me—not on this occasion but on some later occasion—how he gets the figure of £100 million. I certainly accept that a considerable amount of funding is provided to voluntary organisations in Scotland from

1923
local government; but my understanding is that it is less than a third of the figure that the noble Lord gave of £100 million but we might discuss that at some—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: When the Minister considers that this figure includes capital as well as revenue, it may be bigger than he thinks. However, I will try to check up on it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should be grateful, as a matter of information, to know how that figure is arrived at.
We value very highly the important role played by the voluntary sector and volunteers within our society. We are anxious that any disruption should be minimised and that the voluntary sector should be well placed to take advantage of the increased opportunities, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, indicated, for partnership with local authorities by playing a greater role in the delivery of services in the new unitary authorities.
SCVO has met with my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Industry at the Scottish Office. SCVO suggested a number of actions which might smooth the transition for voluntary organisations. My honourable friend gave SCVO two undertakings.
First, he undertook that the Scottish Office would give guidance to the new authorities in their shadow phase on the key role of the voluntary sector and the importance of avoiding disruption and delay in decision making.
Secondly, he undertook that the Secretary of State would make a direction under Clause 56 of the Bill requiring each existing authority to inform shadow authorities of all the funding which the existing authorities presently give to voluntary organisations, whether by means of grant, service agreement or contract. That direction is designed to ensure that the new authorities are aware of the full extent and purpose of the existing authorities' funding of the voluntary sector and, in particular, of the full range of annual discretionary grants. That information will then inform their decisions on assistance to the voluntary sector.
In addition, it was pointed out that the Bill provides that all existing liabilities, obligations and contracts entered into by existing authorities are to be transferred to the new councils. That will clearly safeguard contracts with voluntary bodies.
Also discussed at that meeting with my honourable friend was the proposal currently before us in new Clause 17 that a central committee be set up on an interim basis with a power to give grant to voluntary organisations whose funding application had been refused by one of the new authorities.
I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friend Lord Balfour and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the anxieties that they expressed. We would also be anxious that such a proposal would be unworkable. It would involve the setting up of an administratively complex system which would require the obtaining of information from local authorities and others to enable a centrally appointed committee—not a local government appointed committee—to make properly informed judgments on what could be a very large number of
1924
cases. It would probably require the recouping of part of the revenue support grant from local authorities to finance the reserve grants.
More importantly, it would remove the decision making process from the local level, where I would have thought that it would be agreed on all sides of the Chamber that it rightly belongs. We would be setting up a central committee whose only role would be to substitute its decisions for those of local authorities. We do not think that proposal is either workable or wise. When I contemplate how many times the Secretary of State has prospectively been criticised for intervening unnecessarily, that would seem to me to be a power and circumstance of appointment that he would not wish to take on.
While I have to indicate that we do not accept this particular proposal and I invite the Committee to reject it, we take the concerns of the voluntary sector seriously. We understand the problems and we are giving careful consideration to a further proposal which was put to us; namely, that the total amount which is paid by local authorities to voluntary bodies by means of annual discretionary grants should in some way be protected or ring fenced. I appreciate that there are those with a background and experience in local government who are wary of any proposal to ring fence any funding in local government. It is for that reason that we wish to give careful consideration to the matter. I hope that it will be accepted that we wish to consider the matter very carefully because we recognise the concerns which have been expressed to us.
The proposal before us raises some complex administrative issues. If it were decided to go ahead with the proposal on ring fencing, the Bill contains special grant powers in Clause 165. However, I think that we would wish to reflect carefully on the points made in the debate before reaching a decision on whether to use the powers available.
I do not think that it is necessary at this stage to engage in further elaboration or discussion of the issue, but I hope that those who have a concern at SCVO, and others who have written to noble Lords, will offer their views on the matter and we shall see how we can take it forward. The issue is not without complication. However, I hope that it will be appreciated that we understand the concerns and would like to resolve the problems.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has given us a little hope. I do not think that any of us believe that ring fencing will exist in perpetuity. After all, local authorities review contributions regularly. The councillors know from experience in their areas that organisations have done their job, or that new organisations exist. There is a continual movement. We should not be too worried about the idea of ring fencing. I should be quite happy if the Secretary of State were to agree to make good for a limited period before the handing over to the new local authorities. I do not say that it is an easy matter. Voluntary organisations may be involved in harder work: instead of going to the big authority they might need to go to many smaller organisations to obtain the same money. Nevertheless,

1925
the Minister has given us a little hope. I hope that the voluntary organisations feel that at least he is sympathetic.
I am still worried about the money aspect. The £100 million may seem a high figure. I am sure that the Minister has a fair idea. However, I shall seek to find out the figure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48A not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Residuary bodies:]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 132, line 30, leave out from ("and") to end of line 32 and insert (", provided that not less than one and not more than three members shall be appointed from amongst members of a council or councils within the area covered by the residuary body and nominated by them; and the members of the residuary body shall appoint one of their number to be Chairman and may appoint another to be Depute Chairman of that body.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 49, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 to 53.
This group of amendments is important. It is important that decisions about the future use and destination of local authority property should be informed by an understanding of the area and of the historic and the current operation of the councils within it. It is therefore important that the membership of the residuary body should include elected representatives from within the area, nominated by the relevant councils. This is an essential provision to ensure democratic accountability of the workings of the residuary bodies and to ensure that any decisions on local authority property take into account the needs of services provided by local government and not simply the maximising of the value of the assets.
With regard to Amendment No. 50, it is important for corporate bodies responsible for dealing with assets in public ownership and created under statute to be publicly accountable and to be seen to act solely in the public interest. Any suspicions in the public mind about the motivation for decisions on public assets and public funds undermines the effectiveness of the body and the general trust in the discharge of their business. There is perhaps also, of course, the future possibility of being able to build up the funds and assets that have been so helpful. To avoid such consequences many bodies, including local authorities, are obliged to maintain for public inspection registers of the interests of their members.
There is no reason why the same principles should not apply to residuary bodies which will be dealing with the future destination of assets acquired through time out of public funds. Therefore, all members of such residuary bodies should be obliged to notify any interest which they have and those should be recorded in a register which is open for public inspection. This is a minimal safeguard for the public interest and applies already to many similar bodies.
I hope that the Minister will take the parallels with the Palace of Westminster and the importance of
1926
disclosure. In the other House there is a register—not in this House where we do not expect anything, but by and large people make clear what their interests are.
On Amendment No. 51, members of residuary bodies should be subject to the same penalties for non-compliance as members of local authorities, given that they are dealing with local government assets. For example, it would be unjust if a member of the residual body, who was also a property developer, did not disclose a personal interest which he or she may have in an asset to be disposed of by the residual body. That is an obvious point, but also one which we should make sure we emphasise.
Amendment No. 52 makes it clear that local authorities should be obliged to make information about their meetings available to the public in advance and hold their meetings in front of the public and the press, except where—the usual conditions—private or confidential information is dealt with. As residuary bodies will be dealing with local authority assets and are likely to be taking decisions affecting assets which have been acquired with public funds over the years, it is right that their proceedings should be open to public scrutiny under the same rules as local authorities. This amendment therefore seeks to apply those rules as laid down in the access to information legislation to the proceedings of residuary bodies.
Finally, the purpose of Amendment No. 53 is to make it a statutory obligation of the residuary body to prepare and publish an audited statement of accounts. The accounts of a residuary body should be subject to scrutiny by an independent accounts body and the same requirements to prepare and publish audited accounts as in the case of local authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
These are technical amendments, but I think that they are the least which should be asked of the residual bodies which will handle a large amount of valuable assets. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be sympathetic. Although he may not like the exact wording I am sure he could find the correct form to meet the spirit of the amendments. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I shall not detain the Committee for long, I shall simply give my rough notes on this group of amendments. First, ensure local elected members have a knowledge of the area. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has made that point. Secondly, check people's financial connections and punish them if they do not disclose the connections. Lastly, the same access to information should be given by the residual body as by local authorities, and accounts should be kept and audited.
This appears to me to be a good summary of the need for the five amendments. I hope and trust that the Minister will give us a sympathetic answer because they appear to be very practical indeed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can fully appreciate the concerns which have motivated this group of

1927
amendments. If a residuary body is appointed then every local authority in the area in which it will operate will have an interest in its actions.
That said, I am not wholly convinced that the approach proposed in the amendment is a sensible way of proceeding—particularly, at this point, in Amendment No. 49. Leaving aside the possibility that it leaves open the scenario of a residuary body comprised entirely of local authority members —in which case why have such a body in the first place? —I think that there are real dangers in a selective approach which would allow representatives of some authorities in the body's area to be members of that body while others were not represented.
While I would do nothing to cast any doubt upon the integrity of any local authority member, I think that such an arrangement could give rise to dissatisfaction among the authorities directly affected by the actions of a residuary body.
Those authorities which did not have a representative directly on the body could feel that their interests might be adversely affected in comparison with other authorities that were represented. That would not be helpful in a situation where the residuary body's principal function was to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of assets.
Nevertheless, I fully agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord that the residuary body should have a good knowledge of the local authorities with which it is working. I am therefore happy to give the Committee the assurance that in appointing members of any residuary body the Government will give careful consideration to the need to have good links with the councils concerned.
We envisage the appointment of a residuary body as being very much something that will be done with the agreement of the local authorities in a particular area, as a response to their view that such a body would facilitate the restructuring process in that area.
I wish to stress that any such body would not be set up in opposition to local government, or indeed as an alternative to it, but as a facilitator. The provisions of Schedule 3 should be seen in that light.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, I have listened to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord. I agree that their aim is laudable: to ensure financial propriety in appointments to a residuary body. I do not think that there would be any Members of this Chamber who would disagree that it would be wholly inappropriate for any member of a residuary body to have any financial or other interest which he or she did not declare and which might affect that person's performance.
In practice, however, I do not think that these particular provisions are required. Paragraphs 4,5 and 9 of Schedule 3 are tried and tested provisions. Similar provisions can be found in the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 and in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, and they establish a standard code of conduct relating to appointments to non-departmental public bodies in Scotland.
Turning briefly to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, again I have listened to what the noble Lord said. What
1928
is common to the amendments is an attempt to apply similar disciplines to local authorities and to residuary bodies. Indeed, that imposition of a discipline is the very purpose of Clause 18(2) of the Bill. This allows any existing local government legislation to be applied with or without modifications to residuary bodies. So, while I have great sympathy for what the noble Lord has put forward in terms of his amendments, my rejection of them is not on the basis that they are unworthy but simply that they are unnecessary. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister certainly gave us a fair amount of hope in what he said. We always know that the wording that we put forward is never satisfactory to the Minister and to the department.
The real point that we are trying to make is that nothing should be done that would weaken public trust in a residuary body or an elected council. With the assurances that the Minister has given me, and in the hope that we shall get the right wording at some point —or that the Bill covers it already, which he seemed in large measure to suggest—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Joint committees and joint boards]:
The Deputy Chairman (Baroness Cox): I should point out that if Amendment No. 54 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 55.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 17, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert:
("(c) it appears to those authorities that incorporation of that joint committee (or proposed joint committee) as a joint board would provide for the more effective discharge of its function, the authorities may resolve to establish such a joint board.").
The noble Lord said: This series of amendments has four main themes running through it, with which I shall deal quite briefly. That is not to diminish the importance of the issues that we are discussing.
The first main theme running through these amendments is to take away from the Secretary of State one of the powers that Clause 20 of the Bill gives him - to establish or convert joint committees into joint boards. Amendment No. 54 makes it absolutely clear that the joint board should only be established at the request of the local authority and that the Secretary of State would then either give or withhold his consent. It should not be for the Secretary of State to convert a joint committee to a joint board. I should add that if the Secretary of State retains those powers, there is a serious danger that through the creation of compulsory joint boards the Secretary of State could, in effect, reorganise local government yet again by instructing joint boards to be created and passing the responsibility from either a

1929
politically controlled council or a non-politically controlled council to a council of a different political complexion.
The second theme is the whole question of the local authority asking the Secretary of State's permission to convert a joint committee to a joint board, the Secretary of Stage giving his permission and ipso facto agreeing to the establishment of a joint board. Our amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should not then retain the power to dissolve the joint board, having given his agreement to the establishment of the joint board in the first place.
The third theme is the requirement on a unitary authority to publish in a national newspaper its joint arrangements. The example I draw out is that the people of Clackmannan would be entitled to know whether the social work services were being provided not by Clackmannan council but by Fife council. The whole reason for the Government's reorganisation is that the local authorities were getting out of touch with their electors. In order to keep them in touch, in our view it is necessary to ensure that people who live in that local authority know from where their services are being provided, especially in the joint arrangements.
The fourth and final theme is that of the requisitions demanded by the joint boards. We argue in our amendments that those requisitions should be disregard-ed for capping purposes because the councils will have no control over the requisitions levied by the joint boards. Therefore, it seems to us to be inequitable to have those included for capping purposes. On that basis, I beg to move the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate that the concise fashion in which the noble Lord has dealt with this matter does not understate his concern that this particular issue should be examined carefully. Clearly, not only in this Chamber but in another place and generally in Scotland, this is a matter that has caused some concern.
Before I consider the amendments in detail, I should like to make it clear that the Government see this clause as increasing the options available to local authorities in deciding the best methods of service delivery. The concept of setting up joint boards using secondary legislation is new, but it was supported by the vast majority of those responding to the Government's consultation paper on internal management. It offers local authorities the opportunity to set up stable and binding arrangements with each other should they wish to do so.
Turning to the individual amendments, I believe that Amendments Nos. 54 and 56 reflect a misunderstanding of what the clause intends rather than a difference of intention. The main difference between a joint committee and a joint board is that the latter is much more difficult to leave than the former.
This is important for local authorities since it offers members of a joint board an assurance of stability: they know that one awkward member could not simply walk away from an arrangement. To do so it would need the
1930
Secretary of State to lay a new order under the provisions of the new Section 62C being inserted in the 1973 Act. Amendment No. 54 would take away that safeguard and leave a joint board no better than a joint committee. As such, I do not think it would be supported by local authorities.
Turning to Amendment No. 56, which seeks to ensure that the membership of any joint board is confined to members of the relevant authorities, the Committee may wish to note that Section 235 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 already defines a joint board as,
"consisting exclusively of persons appointed by the local authorities".
There is therefore no question of anyone such as the Secretary of State having a say in who is appointed to a joint board. The reference to the new Section 62A(2) relates purely to such things as the total number of members, which has in any case to be agreed by the councils concerned.
Moving on to Amendment No. 55, a similar amendment was of course considered in another place. At that time my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government pointed out a number of aspects that did not appear to have been considered. From what has been said today, further thinking has clearly taken place on this provision and the Government have some sympathy with the thrust of the amendment. Accordingly, I can indicate to the noble Lord that I can take this amendment away to consider whether an appropriate amendment can be brought forward by the Government at a later stage.
Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 effectively delete the Secretary of State's power to insist on a joint board should councils patently fail to provide a satisfactory service. I should make it quite clear—and I hope it will be understood—that this power will not be used lightly. Indeed, the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues would hope that they will never have to use it. It is essentially a reserve power of last resort. However, should it be needed, it would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, with the affirmative resolution procedure required.
Turning to Amendment No. 59,I agree that this also has some merits. However, it has one major disadvantage which in the Government's view rules it out. Effectively the amendment would mean that an individual council could block indefinitely the abolition of a joint board on which all the other members were agreed. That would seem to us to be unfortunate. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State would not intend to use the power to dissolve a joint board against the wishes of all its members, except in the type of circumstance I outlined.
Finally, turning to Amendment No. 60, it was argued that the levy demanded by a joint board could lead to a council breaching its capping limit. I would hope that in practice councils would be more sensible than to allow that to happen. It certainly does not occur at present. The members of existing police and fire boards come to mutually acceptable arrangements for the funding of these bodies. There is no reason why similar arrangements should not be negotiated in future.

1931
I invite the Committee to resist Amendments Nos. 54, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60. But, as I indicated to the noble Lord, I accept the principle of Amendment No. 55 and am happy to take it away for further consideration.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The great secret in politics is to quit when one is ahead and even when nothing is ahead for me. I beg leave therefore to withdraw Amendment No. 54.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 55 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Duty to prepare decentralisation schemes]:
Lady Saltounof Abernethy Lady Saltounof Abernethy moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 20, line 31, after ("councils") insert ("or, when no Community Council exists, other organisations representing broad community interests").
The noble Lady said: I beg to move Amendment No. 61 standing in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who has hurt her leg and is obliged to rest it. She is very sorry indeed that she is unable to be present to introduce the amendment herself.
The noble Baroness put down the amendment after consultation with the Scottish Community Education Council, of which she is an Honorary Fellow and past chairman. Clause 23 requires each new authority to draw up a draft decentralisation scheme and to make it available for public inspection and comment before it is finalised. Subsection (4) requires, in addition, that the local authority consults the community councils in its area about the draft scheme. That is only proper since they are the bodies best placed to reflect broad local opinion as to the convenience and user-friendliness of the proposals.
The weakness is that many urban and rural areas are not covered by community councils. Recent research by Strathclyde University suggests that at present this amounts to a quarter of Scotland, with a particularly uneven spread in urban areas. Even allowing for any new community council schemes which local authorities may set up under Clause 22 of the Bill, coverage is still likely to be far from universal. This amendment would ensure that, where community councils do not exist, communities would be consulted by way of some other organisation in a position to reflect broad public opinion.
Bodies which could be consulted vary widely. In some urban areas and housing estates, organisations exist which are representative of a particular neighbourhood; for example, the Drumchapel Community Organisation Group, which, interestingly, has turn-outs at its elections greater than those of the district council. The Government recognise other representative community bodies in their urban regeneration programme, examples being the Wester Hailes Representative Council and the Castlemilk Umbrella Group. Elsewhere a council for voluntary service might be suitable, or in rural areas a village hall committee; and so on.
The wording of the amendment is probably not perfect, but we hope that at this stage your Lordships and the Government will accept that a widening of the provision in subsection (4) is necessary. The success of the new councils will be heavily dependent on sensible decentralised ways of working and on the public being aware from the outset that they are being listened to and considered. That, after all, is what the Citizen's Charter is all about.
LordFraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lady for moving the amendment. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, takes a particular interest in this matter and it is very regrettable that she is unable to participate at this time in the Committee stage of the Bill.
We have a great deal of sympathy with the objective behind the amendment. It seeks to ensure community participation in the formulation of decentralisation schemes and that is, of course, eminently to be desired. The difficulty with the amendment relates to the imprecise nature of the term,
"other organisations representing broad community interests".
That contrasts with the community councils referred to in the Bill, which are statutory bodies. In practice it would be very difficult for authorities to identify all such organisations falling within that broad definition.
I believe, however, that there is in practice very little between the position as currently set out in the Bill and that proposed by the amendment. Clause 23 provides for the new councils to publish their decentralisation schemes in draft form and to consider any representations about their proposals. There is ample scope, therefore, for all community organisations to have their say in respect of all areas—not just those where community councils are not in existence.
We have already seen in Highland an excellent example of community involvement. Although it will ultimately be for the new councils themselves to determine the nature and scope of decentralisation for their areas, Highland Regional Council has produced a consultation document on decentralisation with a view to exactly what the noble Lady would wish—that is, stimulating debate on this very important issue. Several thousand copies of the council's consultation document were distributed to community councils, public bodies, voluntary organisations and the general public. The council's document has been the subject of much media interest and has been considered at a number of meetings across the Highlands.
Noble Lords may also wish to be aware that a recent study carried out by the Community Councils' Resource Centre in Glasgow showed that each of Scotland's district and islands councils had established community council schemes. Out of a possible 1,346 community councils, 1,119—that is 83 per cent.—were active. That is a substantial figure and I hope that the numbers of active community councils will continue to grow. That is, however, a matter for communities themselves.
To sum up, I believe that the provisions as currently set out in the Bill, coupled with a responsible and positive approach to decentralisation by the new councils—there is no reason to believe that they will

1933
adopt anything other than such a positive and responsible attitude - could provide a framework within which there can be maximum participation by local communities, not just community councils. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lady will be reassured and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his full reply. I hope and trust
1934
that this will work out as he anticipates. My personal reservation is that, unless there is some onus on a local authority to consult some specific body, the kind of consultation that the Minister envisages (through advertisements etc.) will fail by reason of public apathy - exactly that same apathy as leads to so few people coming out to vote in local authority elections. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 24 [Transitional provisions: finance]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 21, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert:
(""Transitional provisions.
Section 94(2) above shall not apply in respect of financial year 1996/97." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient if I also discuss Amendment No. 63. These are important amendments. I hope that the Minister will realise that they are transitional and that we are not trying to do something by the back door. As the Minister knows, Section 94(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides the legislation on which the Secretary of State's council tax-capping powers are based. Under those powers, he can seek a reduction in an authority's council tax level if he considers that its expenditure is excessive or that its increase in expenditure is excessive. In the normal course of events, the basic expenditure is measured by comparing the authority's budget for the relevant year with its grant-aided expenditure for that year. The increase in expenditure is measured by comparing the authority's budget for the relevant year with its budget for the preceding year.
In considering the new authority's budget for 1996–97, no directly comparable preceding year's budget will be available against which to measure the increase. Any attempt to create a comparable budget for that purpose would be inappropriate and would inevitably incorporate subjective and questionable assumptions. If the amendment is not accepted, the Secretary of State will be given the power to create a figure which will be used as the basis for comparing the new authority's expenditure in the first year.
To create a figure which truly reflects what the budget of the new authorities would have been in 1995–96 will be impossible. It will not merely require most regional and some district budgets to be disaggregated—that would be an extremely difficult and complicated task—it would also require account to be taken of the varying economics and/or diseconomics of scale which apply in each region.
The possibility of applying any consistent basis of year-on-year comparisons would also be affected by the inclusion of transitional costs, and, in particular, by the fact that residuary bodies may be set up in some areas while in others the wind-up will be carried out by the new authorities. The figure decided by the Secretary of State will, however, be crucial to the new authorities, depending upon the capping rules applied. It would effectively set budget limits for the new authorities for many years ahead.
Amendment No. 63 is designed to provide for the full costs of the shadow authorities to be met by the Government outwith the local government settlement, and to ensure that no additional costs fall on council tax payers. The Secretary of State's public expenditure plans, announced in December and confirmed in Committee by the Minister for Local Government, contains provisions outwith the local government
1936
settlement of £23 million in 1995–96 to cover the estimated costs of the new authorities during the shadow period. It is presumably from that provision that the Secretary of State will make the grants identified in the clause.
The Minister will know that the CoSLA report, Local Government in Scotland: A critical evaluation of costs, states that the cost of preparing for change could be as much as –75 million, although it makes it clear that some of those costs will be met by the old authorities prior to the shadow authorities being formed. Borrowing consent will allow the shadow authorities to spend beyond the level of grant received, but the overspend will require to be funded by increased council tax bills in 1996–97.
During consideration of a similar amendment in another place the Minister, Mr. Stewart, rejected the amendment as giving the shadow authorities a licence to print money. But that is not the case, given that shadow authorities will not be involved in the delivery of services; rather they will be concerned with establishing themselves and planning for the future. However, given that the Secretary of State has at present allocated only £23 million to cover the costs of establishing the new authorities, while it is suggested that the actual cost will be much higher it is wrong that the additional costs will be borne by the council tax payer.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Government finance the full transitional costs required to create a local authority structure upon which they have insisted. It was the Government who wanted it, not the local authorities. The amendment provides also the opportunity to air more fully than was possible at an earlier stage the whole question of how accurate or otherwise is the Government's overall estimate for re-organising local government in Scotland.
In that context, the transitional and the ongoing cost estimates provided to date by the Government have been questioned, and severe doubts have been expressed in many quarters as to their validity. With that in mind, it is not just essential to ensure that as the re-organisation proceeds sufficient new money is made available to fund the expenditure of the shadow authorities; there requires to be confidence in, and confirmation of, the overall level of expenditure which will be incurred. That is particularly so given that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the financial implications of the re-organisation will fall to be met wholly within his Scottish block allocation. It follows, therefore, that in the unlikely event that the Secretary of State's estimates are correct—we are always suspicious of them—to the extent to which the transitional costs are not all met from ongoing savings, they will require to be funded at the expense of other essential public services in Scotland.
However, if as is widely considered likely the transitional costs turn out to be higher and/or the expected ongoing savings do not materialise, the impact on those essential services and on council tax levels could be significant and crippling. These various issues can be given a wider airing.
We have a sheaf of notes that the Minister may want to peruse, although I am sure not at this time of night.

1937
We have plenty of available and well-documented evidence to show that this is a real danger. We hope that the Minister will look at the points that have been made and give them serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I wish to comment on Amendment No. 63. The Secretary of State is to provide money that he considers appropriate, which appears to me to be a little too narrow. Having paid £55,000 for a Touche Ross report, it gave figures which varied widely. The whole transitional period must be fraught with difficulty and be very difficult to estimate.
We have experience of the 1973 reforms when, I understand, the costs were vastly greater than estimated. In this case, it is reasonable to say that the money will be provided to meet the costs. I noted what was said by the Minister of State about it being a licence to print money. However, during the transitional period the transitional bodies have no reason to throw money about and the Secretary of State can still have a great deal of control. Considering the inaccuracy of the forecasts which have been made and the experience of the past, the amendment is sensible.
Lord Hughes: I suppose that when the Secretary of State decides to make available such money as he considers appropriate, he will be taking account of what money has been spent. If it appears to him that the authority cannot be accused of having thrown money about needlessly it is unlikely to suffer in the result.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The purpose of Amendment No. 62 is to prevent my right honourable friend from using his capping powers against the planned new councils in 1996–97. We regard it as essential that capping arrangements should apply to the new councils in their first year of operation. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord if I say that we are unable to accept the amendment.
Clause 24 makes special transitional arrangements relating to the year 1996–97 to enable the Secretary of State to propose a reduction in the level of council tax set by a local authority; in other words, to cap it if necessary.
Section 94 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Local Government Finance Act 1992 enable my right honourable friend to take capping action against an authority where he considers that the planned expenditure of that authority for the year ahead is excessive, in absolute terms, or where there has been an excessive increase in its planned level of expenditure as compared with the previous year.
Without special transitional arrangements provided for in Clause 24, it would not be possible for my right honourable friend to use the second leg of his capping powers—namely, the power to cap an authority where he considers that the year-on-year increase in its level of planned expenditure is excessive. This clause, therefore, gives him the power, after consultation with CoSLA, to specify a notional budget for each new authority for 1995–96 against which the actual budget for 1996–97 can be compared in order to determine whether there has
1938
been, in the Secretary of State's opinion, an excessive year-on-year increase in any authority's level of planned expenditure.
As many noble Lords will no doubt recall, the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland in 1975 saw a distinct surge in local authority expenditure. The powers available to the Secretary of State in Clause 24 would prevent any repetition of this on this occasion, and they are vital therefore in order to protect local taxpayers from any of the new authorities indulging in excessive expenditure in their first year.
Clause 25 at present provides that the new local authorities will be funded during their shadow period —that is, from the date of the first elections in April 1995 to 1st April 1996 when the new authorities will become operational—either by grants provided by the Secretary of State or by borrowing subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. I wish to make it clear that the Secretary of State has not yet reached a decision on which of these funding methods should apply or, indeed, whether it would be sensible to have a combination of the two options.
The effect of Amendment No. 63 would be to oblige the Secretary of State, if he decided to grant-aid the shadow councils, to pay not such grant amounts as he considers appropriate but whatever amount the shadow councils actually decide to spend. In other words, acceptance of this amendment would effectively mean that the Secretary of State was signing a blank cheque as regards the payment of grant to the shadow councils. Patently the Government could not countenance that.
The clause as it stands enables my right honourable friend to exercise an appropriate measure of control over the shadow authorities' expenditure, and that is entirely in keeping with his responsibilities. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend recognises fully the need for the new councils to incur expenditure during their shadow period. He made provision for estimated expenditure of £23 million in his 1993 public expenditure plans, and he has made it clear that he will consider sympathetically requests for either grant or borrowing consent in order to fund that expenditure.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sure that the Minister did not believe for a moment that I thought that he would accept the amendment. The new authorities will need some guidelines on which to work. I hope that the Secretary of State will at least be able to make life rather easier for those new authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Financing of new authorities prior to 1st April 1996):
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Valuation areas and authorities and appointment of assessors etc.]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Education]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 26, line 31, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
The noble Lady said: I am not very happy that Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 are grouped with the other amendments because they have very little to do with them. I hope that the Committee will agree to take those three amendments separately.
I must also say that these amendments and many of the others which I shall be moving at a later stage, except the ones concerning the transitional arrange-ments, would not be necessary if we could be certain of having comprehensive legislation for children in Scotland during the next Session of Parliament. It is because we are not that the amendments are so important.
The three amendments seek to ensure that all education committees will contain at least one member with expertise in the requirements of children with special educational needs. Of course, it will still be the case that each new council will have a duty to provide for children with special educational needs, but there can be wide divergencies in how well that duty is carried out.
There are a number of particular reasons why it is important that education committees should have adequate expert advice in special educational needs. Before needs can be met they must be properly assessed. That is a complex process which should draw on many professional sources, as well as fully involving the child and the family. There must be expertise at a senior level to ensure that each council has both the staff and the system to carry out assessments. Those assessments are vital, not just for individual children but also so that there can be proper planning for the future, especially for educational needs which are not currently being met.
With so many more councils it could be more difficult to plan services for children with specialised needs who are relatively thinly spread across Scotland. We hope that there will be co-operation between councils for those children, but that would be greatly helped by having experts on each education committee. Obviously the amendments would help to ensure that sufficient importance is attached to special education.
When allocating scarce resources there may be a temptation to focus on the needs of mainstream pupils at the expense of the smaller group of children with special needs. Some groups of children, such as those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, may not be particularly popular with other parents or with councils. In particular, provision should be made as local as possible. Smaller councils may find it easier to buy in places at special schools and to provide local, integrated support services which are increasingly what parents would prefer. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I very much sympathise with what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is proposing. However, what concerns me is the fact that the clause talks about an education committee. I feel that the noble Lady is suggesting that we should have a probably very highly qualified person dealing with children who have special educational needs. The other "persons" who are to be appointed to the committee under the clause are,
"one representative of the Church of Scotland"—
that is fair enough—
"one representative of the Roman Catholic Church",
and paragraph (c) sets out further particulars as regards one or two further persons. However, in my rather limited knowledge of education they do not seem to me to represent the kind of person whom the noble Lady wishes to introduce. I say that because I believe that she would like a very special person to be included on the committee. I wonder whether we shall be able to find such a person to sit on the education committee. Perhaps such a very special person should be on the education staff, or even available to the staff, where he or she is really needed. I fully sympathise with the noble Lady's proposal, but I am not sure that the amendment is the right way to do it.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am not sure whether it would be appropriate at this stage to speak to the amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 67A, 68, 70B, 162 and 163. I fully understand and support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in her submission that in many ways her arguments are completely different from the arguments contained in these amendments. Briefly I shall just explain these amendments.
Amendment No. 67A suggests that,
"two teachers employed in educational establishments under the management of the authority",
should be nominated to serve on the committee and be,
"nominated in such a manner as may be determined by the authority".
It may well be that the authority will ask the professional associations representing the teachers to nominate two of their members to serve on the committee. I need go no further on that.
Amendment No. 68 concerns the number of members on an education committee. This amendment merely fills out the detail that the Government have in their own clause. It puts some meat and some flesh on the bones of the Government's clause. I really do not see that there can be any objection to the Minister accepting that amendment.
Amendment No. 70B concerns a much wider matter and deals with the director of education. Perhaps even at this late hour it provides the Minister with an early opportunity to indicate the Government's thinking in relation to the director of education. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 are merely consequential and follow from the other amendments to which I have just spoken.
The Earl of Balfour: I hope I may return to this amendment. I thought the two groups of amendments were being taken separately. As regards the amendments on which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has just spoken, I would like to point out that the words of the

1941
proposed subsection (7) in Amendment No. 68 are almost identical to subsection (5) of Section 57 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which deals with the appointment of committees. The provision in the Act covers all committees: the provision in the amendment would cover only education committees. Section 57 deals generally with the appointment of committees and follows on from Section 56 which deals with the arrangements for the discharge of functions by local authorities. From that point of view I feel that certainly the middle part of Amendment No. 68 is not required. I am not an expert on education and I am not quite certain how Schedule 10 to that Act would apply in this particular case.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In view of the request by the noble Lady that we deal with certain amendments —I think she was moving Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 separately—I have my response slightly confused. I hope I will be forgiven if I do not put it together as coherently as I would like. I will certainly be prepared to respond again if I have omitted anything in error. I recognise, though, that the noble Lady is concerned about the effect that local government reform may have on the provision for special educational needs, and that she has put forward these amendments to ensure, as she sees it, that this sector of education is represented on any committee that may be set up to deal with education. I hope that she will accept that we are wholly in agreement that the education of children with learning difficulties should not in any way be compromised. However, I am convinced that the changes which the Bill proposes will not have that effect.
The purpose of Clause 31 is to give the new authorities maximum flexibility in their internal organisation. It will in future be a matter for an authority's discretion whether to appoint a committee to deal with education and, should it do so, to decide what expertise members of such a committee should have. Only one half of the members of that committee need be members of the authority. There is, therefore, ample opportunity, should that authority so wish, either to appoint one of its own members with expertise in special needs or to co-opt someone else who has such expertise.
We believe that education authorities must be given discretion to establish structures which best suit their local needs and interests. As I have said on previous occasions, to involve any degree of prescription in that way would cut against the grain of our general intention.
Amendment No. 67A seeks to reinstate a requirement for educational committees to include teacher representatives. The arguments here are again similar to those I have just explained. We wish to give the authorities maximum reasonable discretion in decisions on their own internal management. That is why we have limited the requirements on membership of committees of education to require only that, as at present, such committees should include three Church representatives. The Churches have taken part in this way for
1942
many years and the consultation that we carried out on internal management last year did not show a strong desire to change this.
No other group of staff has the right to sit on committees. The present requirement to appoint teachers is not consistent with our policy of trusting authorities to organise themselves according to their needs. However, I stress that the new authorities will still have the power to appoint teachers to committees if they so wish.
Without wishing to be unpleasant, perhaps I may point out that the amendment is technically defective.
The group of amendments to which the noble Lady took some exception—and I understand why she did so —also contains a more general set of propositions. It may be helpful if I explain briefly why we decided that new councils should have a discretion in this particular area. They were not simply dreamt up. Our proposals emerged from a working group which included representatives of CoSLA, the Local Authority Accounts Commission in Scotland and the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland. That group concluded that the statutory requirement for an education committee would unnecessarily restrict authorities which should have the flexibility to establish committee and management structures that best reflected local needs and circumstances.
We consulted extensively on these proposals: 51 per cent. of those who commented favoured repeal of the statutory requirement for a committee; 52 per cent. were against the post of director of education being retained.
Be that as it may, these proposals do not in any sense, and are not intended, to devalue the importance of the education service. Nor do they reduce in any way local authorities' statutory duties in relation to education.
I turn now to the substance of the other amendments. I wish to resist Amendment No. 68. It seeks to add three subsections to the new Section 124 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The first two are unnecessary as they duplicate existing statutory provisions. The third is defective as it refers to Schedule 10 to the 1973 Act, which is to be repealed in terms of Schedule 14.
Amendment No. 162 will also be resisted. It reintroduces a definition of the term "education committee" which would be required only if Amendment No. 68 were accepted.
Amendment No. 163 is a very important amendment, and I have no doubt that Members of the Committee have received a volume of carefully developed representation from some very serious individuals involved in education in Scotland. The amendment would seek to reintroduce a requirement to appoint directors of education. As I have explained previously, our position is that that should be for each authority to decide. Perhaps I may also say that the amendment is technically deficient.
What we regard as important is that, even if we were not repealing the statutory requirement, Amendment No. 70B would be both undesirable and unnecessary because it would achieve no more than is already possible under the present statutory arrangements. For example, Amendment No. 70B proposes that directors

1943
should be suitably qualified and experienced, but without explaining what qualifications or experience would be suitable. Education today encompasses a broad spectrum from pre-fives to 16 to 18 year-olds and from special educational needs to community education. Its very width argues against a specific qualification, and even the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland—I met it recently—did not argue in favour of that.
As regards the responsibilities of directors of education, these already extend to services other than education. For example, the director for Orkney has responsibility for leisure and recreation; and the director for Dumfries and Galloway has responsibility for library services.
The proposal that directors should have the length of their contracts determined when they are appointed is also unnecessary because authorities may already do this.
I emphasise again that the thrust of our reforms is to increase flexibility and local accountability. I do not believe that our proposals are intended to put the education service at risk, and I would be concerned that anyone should think so. They are designed to strengthen local government by giving local councils a discretion to take the decisions according to the needs as they see them. It is on that basis that we would resist the amendments, not because we undervalue the importance of those who participate in education in Scotland.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before we return to these matters after the parliamentary Recess, I hope that the Minister may be ready to give at least some further consideration to the continuation of the statutory post of director of education. I do not wish to take up time at this stage. However, education is a very vital and important part of the whole Scottish tradition. The post of director of education is deep in that Scottish educational tradition. It is a distinguished post which carries great weight in Scottish life. To consider abolishing the statutory requirement to have a director of education on the basis of some poll is a very serious step to take. I listened carefully to the Minister; he seemed to say that he had a 52 per cent. poll in his favour.
I do not wish to press the matter further at this stage. But I think that to make optional the statutory position of the director of education in Scotland, so proud of our education tradition—I believe that that position is being preserved in both England and Wales—seems a very grave step indeed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, invited me to give a statement on how we saw things at this time, rather than to reach a definite conclusion on the issue. I do not place particular emphasis on the 51 per cent. and 52 per cent. figures that I gave.
I place some emphasis on this. I hope that the noble Lord will read what I say. There was wide consultation on this matter, and that was the conclusion that was reached. Again, I can only conclude by emphasising
1944
this. It is not to underestimate the value of directors: of education. I would anticipate that a vast number of local authorities in Scotland, if not all, will appoint directors of education. It is to give them the flexibility to determine their own arrangements that we resist the amendments. It is not because we do not believe in the traditional importance attached to education in Scotland.
Lord Hughes: As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the only restriction being placed on education authorities is that not less than half the members must be elected representatives and they must appoint three or, in the case of the Orkneys, four representatives of religious bodies. I believe I am right in thinking that all or most of the other amendments put forward can be put into effect by an education authority at its own decision.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If I have understood exactly what the noble Lord said, my answer is shortly, yes. There is a limited requirement on who must be on such a body. The very discretion that we propose they should have I hope would allow those local authorities to cover just the kind of anxieties that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, indicated in opening the debate on this group of amendments.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I think it is appropriate that the noble Lady should have the last word on these amendments. I rise simply to indicate to the Minister that I give notice that we will want to return to this at Report stage. It is a very important issue and the Minister has called in aid a poll that was taken. As I understand it, that poll was from within the professions but the problem has been created for us—not by us—by the approach taken in the original response to the White Paper by the chief executives of local authorities. That is what is behind the problem. The System Three poll was also commissioned by Strathclyde Regional Council and in it a substantial majority of the other element in this argument, the important element of parents, expressed the opinion that directors of education should continue to be a statutory requirement. Having said that, I give notice that we will want to return to this at Report stage.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: After 14 years in this House, it comes as no surprise to me that my amendment is defective. I think that I have only once had an amendment accepted lock, stock and barrel and not been told it was defective in all that time.
I am not suggesting that small councils cannot provide good services, because some of the current smaller councils have a strong commitment to high quality special education services and the integration of disabled children. However, they admit that such an option is expensive and requires a strong political commitment. We need a mechanism to encourage the same degree of commitment, and that is one of the things that the amendment was designed to provide.
I was interested in the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, which seemed valid to me. Meantime, I would like to read what the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 69:
Before Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Further provision relating to special education
..After section 22D of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted—
Further provision relating to special education.
"22E.—(1) An education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for his consent any proposal of theirs to which this section applies and shall not implement such a proposal without his consent.
(2) A proposal to which this section applies is one to—

(a) discontinue a special school or a pan of it;

(b) amalgamate a special school or a part of it;

(c) change the site of a special school; or

(d) discontinue a service provided primarily to meet the needs of children with special educational needs;

where the number of children attending the school or, as the case may be, using the service, who reside in an area other than the area of the local authority is greater than 30 per cent. of the total number of children attending the school or using the service."").
The noble Lady said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. The new clause in Amendment No. 69 would ensure that a school or service for children with special educational needs which is used by significant numbers of children from outwith its council area cannot be closed by the council without the consent of the Secretary of State.
At the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, gave a welcome reassurance that, following reorganisation, children with special needs could continue to attend the same school as before. However, that reassurance will apply only if that school continues to exist.
There is a very real possibility that specialised services will be at risk, particularly in the inevitable disruption of the first few years following reorganisation. Some authorities will inherit special schools with a large number of children from other areas. They will be paid by the other councils for those children but they may still feel that the buildings, facilities and expert staff should be used for their own children. They will have no guarantee that the other councils will continue to send children to the school. They will not hold the records of needs for all the potential future students, so planning will be uncertain.
For all those reasons a small council may decide that it cannot sustain what is a resource for a much larger area. Even a large council such as Glasgow may not be prepared to continue to run a disproportionate number of the special schools in the Strathclyde area.
There is a consultation procedure before a school can be closed, but parents of children from outside a council's area have no votes and therefore have relatively little effective clout. As the law stands, a school which is more than 80 per cent. full cannot be closed without the consent of the Secretary of State. The amendment simply extends that provision to a wider group of special schools and facilities.
The 80 per cent. rule on its own is not adequate protection. Special schools may be very small and two
1946
children leaving could take a school which was virtually full outside of its scope. Also, the rule only covers schools and not other specialist facilities. This amendment is not intended to prevent the change and development of services. It is a fallback power to ensure that vital services are not lost.
Turning to Amendment No. 70, children with special needs do not depend only on schools but on a range of people and resources, including educational psychologists, learning support teachers, and sometimes specialised aids for particular impairments. There will be a number of cases where the resource or employee will be transferred to one council and some of the children using the resource will transfer to another. Of course, the authority where the child lives will have a duty to meet the child's needs, but they will be dependent on another council to meet that need. As the Bill stands, that other council will have no duty to help the children who formerly benefited from the service that they have inherited. It would hardly be surprising if, in some cases, they decide to direct resources away from services which benefit children throughout a wider area to services for their own children.
There is recent experience of the problems that can arise where one body has the statutory duty while another body has the necessary facilities. Many children with special needs require speech therapy. Where that is included in a record of needs it is the responsibility of education authorities to ensure that the child receives it. However, speech therapists are employed by health boards. The assumption was that boards would co-operate with education authorities, but sadly that is not always the case. It was not until the media uncovered hundreds of children without speech therapy and many took legal action that effective steps were taken to resolve the situation. This amendment seeks to avoid the same thing happening again.
As well as protecting individual children, this amendment could help to ensure that specialised expertise is not lost. For example, each council will have an educational psychology service. However, a council may not inherit a psychologist with particular skills in, for example, deafness. The duty to co-operate would give an impetus for the council which does employ those specialists to allow them to assist deaf children over a wider area rather than undertake a more general role within their own council. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise to my feet at this very late hour to speak very briefly for the first time on this Bill, for the simple reason that the noble Lady's amendments make tremendous common sense to anybody who knows anything about dealing with special needs.
As the term "special needs" would suggest, it covers a vast range of difficulties. It is almost inconceivable that any one authority of any size will have all the necessary expertise to deal with all those difficulties. You are talking about everything from motor difficulties, movement difficulties and wheelchair difficulties to people with perceptual difficulties. All those will come under the heading of special needs.
It is very common practice in all parts of this country to transfer people between authorities and to other forms

1947
of teaching, and also between other forms of support outwith the education system when people are inside it. I hope that the Government will be able to see their way, if not to including these amendments, to making sure that this type of facility is allowed for in this Bill. There is no way that providing children and young people with the education that they need can be guaranteed unless you are able to pool the resources of all those authorities that can physically be reached.
Midnight
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his brief contribution to this important debate. I am sure that on all sides of the Chamber there is a very real anxiety that the provision made for children with special educational needs should continue to be protected. In that I am sure that we are at one.
But my response to Amendment No. 69 tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is that in our view it is unnecessary because there are already in place extensive safeguards for the stability of special schools and for necessary services for children with special educational needs.
The Education (Publication and Consultation etc.) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 apply to special schools in just the same way as they apply to other schools. The noble Lady narrated some of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State is already involved. Our conclusion would be that he is so involved that there are no changes of significance affecting special schools which do not require that participation by him.
Our conclusion is that the amendment would not add to the safeguards in any meaningful way. However, the noble Lady provided some detail. I shall read carefully what she had to say and if I consider that there is some supplement that might be given to the protection that she wishes to ensure is there, I shall advise her before we return to this matter at a later stage.
I wish to resist Amendment No. 70 for the following reasons. First, the amendment seems to be based on something of a misunderstanding of the effects of the Bill and the statutory provision for special educational needs. Specifically, no services as such are to be transferred from the old authorities to the new.
The Bill creates new authorities. In making the new authorities education authorities, the Bill automatically makes them subject to the same statutory duties as existing education authorities with regard to children and young persons with learning difficulties. Therefore they will be bound by law to ensure adequate and efficient provision for pupils with such special educational needs. To carry out such a duty effectively, authorities will need to ensure access to the necessary support services.
In view of those safeguards, I hope that the noble Ĺady will understand that her amendment is unnecessary. But, as I indicated, I shall look to see whether there is any additional matter in what she said.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said. I wonder whether we are slightly at loggerheads on
1948
Amendment No. 70—or rather that there is a slight misunderstanding. It is not that the services would have moved, but the places that they were would be in a different authority from the authority where they had formerly been situated.
However, I shall read carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. I am grateful to him for his undertaking to do the same by me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 27, line 51, at end insert:
("(4A) Every council shall have regard to the desirability of providing an adequate common service for the stocking and professional support of libraries in the schools for which it is responsible and for this purpose shall take account of such services of this nature as have been provided by existing regional councils in its area.
(4B) Where two or more councils are of the opinion that the most satisfactory means of providing such a service as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above would be by establishment of a joint service they shall exercise their powers under subsection (2) (a) above whether or not a joint board or committee for the carrying out of other education functions has been established.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the central back-up services for school libraries, which are at present provided by all nine regional councils in Scotland and which I believe are seriously at risk as a result of the degree of fragmentation into smaller authorities caused by the reorganisation. The amendment is identical to one moved in Standing Committee in another place. I mention that because I believe that it was the only amendment moved in the committee on an all-party basis; that is, all four parties in the committee put their names to it. The amendment would require all new councils to have regard to existing school library services.
I understand that in the discussions in another place, although the Government resisted the amendment, they stated that they accepted its purpose and undertook either to table their own amendment or to deal with the point by means of regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 57. My understanding is that the Government have since decided that they prefer the second option of regulations and gave assurances to the Scottish Library Association, which is anxious about the matter, that it will be consulted not only in general on the point, but also on the actual text of the draft regulations.
The Scottish Library Association is grateful to Ministers and to the Scottish Office for their understanding on this important issue. I mention that because I want to place their appreciation on record in your Lordship's Chamber. However, I want to press the Minister a little further and ask that, when his officials are implementing the undertaking—which I hope he will endorse this evening—he ensures that there is some degree of pressure on the matter. It will not be enough for the regulations simply to allow councils to co-operate in running joint services for central school library back-up services. What is needed in the

1949
regulations is something like the text of the amendment: an obligation on councils to co-operate in the quality of the service.
The regulations should make clear that councils should consider acting jointly on this important aspect of education even if they decide not to act jointly on other aspects of educational functions. I can foresee that, for all sorts of reasons that we all recognise—political and otherwise—councils may not want to pool the entirety of their education services. But we do not want to see Scotland's excellent school library services imperilled as a result of the reorganisation. I do not believe there is any need for that, and I hope that the Minister can give the Committee, and those concerned with the school library service in Scotland, reassurance and confidence on those points. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for tabling this amendment because it gives me an opportunity to discuss what I always felt was one of the disadvantages of the present system of local government in Scotland; that is, that education and school libraries are run by the region, but that the general libraries to which most of us can go are run by the district council. This is a lovely example where I am glad to say that they will both now be run by the same authority.
This is a field where I hope that grants and assistance can be available to provide books. Children must be able to obtain books and learn the valuable lesson of reading books of all sorts. Equally, it is awfully nice if their parents can borrow from a library the books that are so often necessary. Unfortunately, books are ever increasing in cost and it is a great expense.
I am extremely grateful that the amendment was tabled. It is a most important issue and a situation where I should like to see special assistance given. I know that some of my local schools have suffered recently because they have not been able to obtain the books that they wanted.
The Earl of Minto: I wish to make one brief comment in regard to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In point of fact, not all regional authorities in Scotland share the responsibility with the districts. Some have total responsibility for both schools and the public library service.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, indicated in moving the amendment, when an amendment on similar lines was tabled in another place it did indeed enjoy all-party support. Following the debate on that amendment the Government gave a commitment that the spirit of the amendment would be met either by a government amendment at Report stage or by regulations tabled by the Secretary of State. In the event it was decided that secondary legislation would be the preferred and more flexible route. I should like to take this opportunity to indicate to your Lordships that the commitment made then still stands. The Government will be consulting in due course on the proposed regulations. I should like to make clear, in answer to the question which the noble Lord addressed
1950
to me, that I am happy to give the further undertaking that the Scottish Library Association, to which he referred, will be consulted before the regulations are tabled. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter and to the other noble Lords who contributed to the debate.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70B not moved.]
Clause 33 [Structure plans]:
[Amendment No. 70C not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 70D:
Page 28, line 10, at end insert ("and shall fully take account of the need to integrate land use and transport policy.").
The noble Lord said: The words of the amendment sound like a maxim on which one cannot be contradicted. It is quite obvious that in any structural long-distance planning one has to take into account how the rivers run, how the towns have been, where industry should go, where industry should not go, where shopping centres should be situated and the whole social and environmental life of the area. The area needs to be a properly structured area. This is a very competent amendment which, although it appears to be simple, is very necessary in the shaping of a joint structure plan area.
The second amendment to which I wish to speak is Amendment No. 71 A. It is an important amendment and one on which the Town Planning Association and the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland were particularly helpful. They were particularly insistent that a structure plan needs a plan board. It is not enough to have a joint committee. The essential thing is that the strategic planning and transportation joint board should have a separate existence and a separate purpose. Indeed, it should be motivated by that. Although it is a joint board, its separate existence and purpose are extremely important.
The question of having a joint committee should be resisted because such a committee would not have that separate existence and separate purpose. If you have a joint committee, it is apt to concentrate on the needs of its own council area and to have an attitude of "not in my back yard" or even of "in my back yard" in the case of desirable areas, while not taking account of the needs and development of the whole area. Again, it appears to us that the joint board must be instituted. We must not depend on joint committees.
Strategic planning will become more and more important in the future because of the environmental dangers that are evident in this hot spell. A Los Angeles-type smog is descending on London. Such factors need to be taken into account.
In speaking to Amendments Nos. 70D and 71,I shall not say any more other than that the establishment of the joint board, with its own existence and purpose, is essential for long-term strategic planning.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Although I did not move Amendment No. 70C, that was not an intellectual decision; it was a matter of not managing my papers well. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 71 and to point out that if the Government were to accept it, they would have to incorporate the provisions of Amendment No. 70C also.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, the purpose of Amendment No. 71 is to ensure that before the Secretary of State designates structure plan areas, he consults with planning authorities affected, adheres to objective guidelines and has a duty to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in designating areas.
It is essential, when the Secretary of State designates the structure plan areas under the powers given to him by the Bill, that he can demonstrate that the areas he so designates are wholly appropriate for the delivery of an efficient structure planning system. Thus, the Secretary of State must ensure that there is acceptance among the local authorities concerned that the area defined is the correct one for effective strategic planning.
Local authorities will be required to work jointly on the preparation of structure plans in the areas defined and it is essential that these local authorities can have confidence that the area covered by the structure plan is suitable for strategic planning purposes. On this basis, provisions should be included in the Bill, which requires the Secretary of State to consult with the local authorities concerned before finalising any structure plan area.
During the debate on structure planning in the House of Commons, the Minister, Mr. Stewart, said:
"On determining the areas for structure plans, I can give the Committee the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider those relevant matters and will consult with the authorities involved".—[Official Report, Commons, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10/3/94; col. 1088.]
CoSLA, which is involved in such matters, believes that such a duty should be included on the face of the Bill, as indicated in the amendment, given the importance of structure planning.
In the event that the Secretary of State does not agree with the representations made by local authorities in response to proposals for structure plan areas, it would be extremely helpful, in the interests of openness and in making clear the parameters within which the Secretary of State wishes to see strategic planning developed in any area, that he makes clear in writing to the authorities what view he has taken of the representations.
It should be stressed that joint arrangements for structure planning will have less chance of success if there is a lack of acceptance by the authorities involved in the joint process that the correct area has been identified. I commend the amendment to the Minister. There are a number of amendments grouped with this amendment which I support, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
The Earl of Minto: My name is associated with the amendments spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. They have given such a clear explanation of the amendments that I do not wish to add much. I would like to say
1952
merely that from experience there is a great difference between the reactions of joint committees and those of joint boards.
When the Bill was first published it was that area of the Bill above all others which was drawn to my attention by the whole of my council. One does not get areas of Scotland working well if it is left entirely to them in joint committee structures. There is a serious need for joint boards on this occasion. That may surprise the noble and learned Lord because he has heard me speaking against joint boards on a number of amendments and on Second Reading. There are places for them within authorities, and I believe this to be one. The Scottish Society of Directors of Planning and the Royal Town Planning Institute have produced amendments for us to bring before the Committee which have considerable merit from the point of view of local government in Scotland.
The Earl of Glasgow: I support my noble friend Lord Mackie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this group of amendments. One point that has always disturbed me about the whole Bill is the assumption that single tier systems are, by definition, good, more efficient, more labour saving and more accountable and that two-tier systems are almost by definition bad. That is rather like the presumption that privatisation is necessarily good and nationalisation is necessarily bad. Sometimes the thinking seems to stop there.
I suggest that in some cases single tier government is good and more appropriate for one particular area of Scotland and in other cases two-tier government works better. Large conurbations such as the Strathclyde conurbation can be seen to work better under a two-tier system. One of the reasons why it works better is that the Strathclyde conurbation, which consists of about one-third of the population of Scotland, has an umbrella body—Strathclyde Regional Council. At the moment it is responsible for strategic planning and an integrated transport system. That is something that cannot be handled comprehensively by individual authorities within the conurbation.
I know that the Government recognise the importance of strategic planning. Yet, as my noble friends have mentioned, the present Bill leaves that to joint committees. The Government accept that joint committees, which represent the relevant local authorities, will inevitably have conflicts of interests as regards strategic planning for the whole area.
At least joint boards, as proposed in the amendment, would have some real authority and could make overall planning and transport decisions that were independent of any individual local authority. The joint board would then be responsible for the structure plan for its area that would go forward to the Secretary of State for approval. At present, a number of alternative plans are submitted to the Secretary of State by, almost certainly, dissenting local authorities, all with their own axes to grind.
With the imminent abolition of, as I see; it, the workable two-tier system, in particular in the Strathclyde area, the set of proposals in this group of amendments is at least preferable to the joint committee

1953
scheme proposed in the Bill. They can preserve at least something of what is best in the present two-tier system. I sincerely hope that the Government in their hearts will believe that too. I add my support to this group of amendments.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may deal with the amendments in a slightly different order. Amendment No. 71 seeks to impose a duty on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to have regard to certain specific issues and to consult planning authorities before making an order designating structure plan areas. I repeat that our underlying objective in this legislation is to give the new authorities the flexibility in the making of their own arrangements to reflect the different circumstances of the different parts of Scotland. That applies as much in relation to earlier debates on education and other responsibilities as it does in relation to planning.
I emphasise that in drawing up structure plans, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have regard to matters of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of their resources, as Amendment No. 71 suggests. But he will also want to consider a wide range of other matters, including roads, transportation and the way people travel to work, shop or search for a house. While I do not reject the importance of concentration on these particular matters, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that I would consider it inappropriate to single out any specific issue in the Bill. Indeed, if this amendment were accepted, it would be necessary to decide what other topics ought to be considered in a similar matter.
Amendment No. 70D deals with joint planning and transportation committees. I am not at all displeased that there is a desire on behalf of those who contributed to the debate to ensure that land use and transportation policies are integrated in the preparation of structure plans. However, I am bound to say that I do not consider that the particular method of achieving this is appropriate or necessary.
The current legislation in respect of structure plans is widely cast and structure plan authorities are free to include and to co-ordinate land use and transportation issues in their plans where they consider it appropriate so to do. Thus, there is no bar whatever to co-ordinating these matters in structure plans and there is no intention to alter these arrangements under the new structure. Accordingly, it seems to us that specific reference on the face of the Bill is unnecessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, correctly anticipated that, were it not for the lateness of the hour, I should take some pleasure in twisting his tail because he and others have so vigorously rejected the idea of joint boards; and yet as we deal with specific areas of local authority responsibility, it is those who were opposed to Clause 20 who are now enthusiastic advocates of its use in a particular set of circumstances.
We still wish to persist with our objective of leaving the maximum discretion with the new councils, leaving them to devise their own arrangements for fulfilling their functions in relation to the preparation of structure
1954
plans. But of course I appreciate that there may well be circumstances—and I bow to the noble Earl's greater experience of local government—in which it may prove difficult to achieve that without the use of joint boards.
Of course, under Clause 20 local authorities will be able to request my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to establish a joint board in the event of failure to settle matters sensibly. But even if the parties do not make the request and even if they are at each other's throats to such an extent that they will not make such a request to him, I should highlight the fact that Clause 20 enables the Secretary of State to set up a joint board and to direct planning preparation by one or more of the authorities.
Contrary to the view expressed by the noble Earl, we hope that it will not be necessary to establish joint boards. However, I hope that he will be reassured by the knowledge that should it prove to be necessary, powers exist for that. Therefore, what is proposed in this group of amendments is essentially a duplication of powers already provided in the Bill.
12.30 a.m.
The Earl of Minto: Perhaps I may pursue one matter with the noble and learned Lord. We spoke earlier about flexibility for the new authorities. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am strongly in favour of that. He has my complete support in that regard.
It is helpful to know whether or not something works from experience, but there is no experience to show that what is proposed in this Bill will work. That is what is fascinating. We have experience of joint boards and we know that in certain circumstances they work amicably, without friction. It is unfortunate that we should be invited to wait until things go wrong. The odds are that that will be the case. I am sorry to say that in these circumstances the —I hate the word—NIMBY syndrome may prevail and selfishness may play a leading role. Sooner rather than later, the Secretary of State may find that he must view this particular circumstance and he may wish that he had taken on joint boards in the initial stages.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Due to the lateness of the hour I shall not continue the argument. I believe that the Minister has made a tremendous mistake by not agreeing to the creation of joint boards, with their definite purpose and separate existence. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, agrees with me in that regard. Of course, joint boards may have different purposes and different applications. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 74 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 28, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert:
("(5) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament." ").
The noble Lord said: The designation of structure plan areas is a most important matter and one which should be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The

1955
amendment would require parliamentary time to be found to debate such important matters and allow Members of both places to comment on the proposals and raise matters of concern. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am a little confused. I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Lord, but I thought that we had already dealt with this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I apologise. In the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No.75 A:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
( "Emergency planning areas
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order designate areas (emergency planning areas) in respect of which authorities shall provide an emergency planning service.
(2) Every local government area in Scotland shall be included in an emergency planning area.
(3) Each area designated by the Secretary of State in terms of subsection (1) above shall be of such a size as will be capable of providing an effective strategic emergency planning service.
(4) Authorities whose areas are included in an emergency planning area shall engage suitable staff sufficient to provide the service detailed in the foregoing subsection.
(5) Where an emergency planning area includes the area of more than one authority the authorities concerned shall perform the emergency planning service in accordance with such arrangements as they might agree for that purpose under sections 56 (discharge of functions by local authorities), 57 (appointment of committees) and 58 (expenses of joint committees) of Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
(6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The proposed new clause deals with the requirement placed on local authorities to establish emergency planning areas. I need not speak at any great length on the matter because I am sure that the Minister understands and accepts the essential need for the designation of such emergency planning areas. I shall give Members of the Committee three brief examples all of which I know well. In my old constituency of Falkirk and Grangemouth, which is a very high-risk area because of the petro-chemical sites, there is at present a strategic planning area to deal with emergencies.
If the Government's position prevails in relation to three local authorities in Central Region, as distinct from the one that I would like to see, the problem is that, in the event of an emergency at Grangemouth, most of the serious casualties would not be taken to Falkirk but would be taken to Stirling. There would be a need to co-ordinate between the three authorities as regards emergency planning procedures.
The same difficulty does not apply in Fife where they have the electric gas plant at Mossmorran and the terminal at Braefoot Bay. However, in my view, a difficulty would prevail at Hound Point terminal, the off-shore terminal in the river Forth. It is all those high-risk areas where, thankfully, we have not had any major incidents. Of course, we have some serious incidents but none of a major nature where there has been a substantial number of casualties. Nevertheless, the risk remains. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary
1956
to write into the legislation by way of the proposed new clause the need to establish such emergency planning areas. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is indeed important for local authorities to have in place effective arrangements to mitigate the effects of any disaster which may befall the community. It is for that reason that in recent years we have encouraged local authorities to make use of their civil defence grant in the most flexible way. For some time now local authorities have aimed to provide for a proper and effective response to any eventuality.
Our view is that the existing legislation is fully compatible with that flexibility and that it achieves a maximum value for money from the civil defence grant that we pay. I am pleased to report that in Scotland much progress has been made under that approach and an excellent level of emergency preparedness now exists. That was borne out not just in theory but also by the local authority response to the major disasters at Lockerbie, on the "Piper Alpha" and, more recently, to the Tayside flooding and the "Braer" incidents.
In conjunction with the local emergency services, local authorities have developed planning arrangements appropriate to their local circumstances. We believe that they represent a sound basis on which to ensure continued, effective emergency planning in the revised local government structure that we now propose.
Again, we believe it is appropriate for the new authorities to determine, in the light of their local circumstances, the precise arrangements which are necessary to ensure an appropriate level of emergency preparedness. The noble Lord has given the example of those authorities around his former constituency. They will have particular circumstances to which they ought to be prepared to respond, and in our view it would not be right for us to prescribe what their arrangements should be.
While I acknowledge, of course, that the present regional structure will in one sense disappear, it is worth emphasising that the existing police force and fire brigade areas will continue and these could well provide a basis for continuing co-ordination among the relevant emergency planning agencies. While, as I indicated, we consider it is for local authorities to consider the feasibility of their arrangements, we stand ready to assist and to continue to work closely with the local authorities and emergency services on the ongoing development of local emergency preparedness. My officials have in fact contacted chief executives regarding the possibility of discussing the way forward and I am sure that in due course these talks will help to shape the delivery of both civil defence and emergency planning under the new proposed revised structure. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that we share his concern to ensure the right arrangements are in place.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This has been a brief but reassuring exchange of views on emergency planning areas. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of the 1972 Act:]
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75B:
Page 136, leave out lines 31 to 41.
The noble Lord said: These amendments with regard to the police have been put forward by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and seem to us to be extremely sensible. The purpose of Amendment No. 76 is to ensure that the impact of an amalgamation scheme on police effectiveness and local accountability is taken into account. That is obviously very important. Section 20 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 empowers the Secretary of State to amalgamate police forces in the interests of efficiency. The amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I believe we were on Amendment No. 75B. The noble Lord is now addressing himself to the very important Amendment No. 76. But I think that Amendment No. 75B was considered along with the structure plan amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that Amendment No. 75B has been discussed?
Noble Lords: Yes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Can I take it that the amendment is not moved?
[Amendment No. 75B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 75C and 75D not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Amalgamation Scheme]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 30, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, in making an amalgamation scheme, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of said scheme on local accountability and the ability of the police forces concerned to discharge effectively their duties under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to proceed. I apologise if I made a mistake earlier. I think I can go straight ahead from where I left off, if the Committee can remember that far back. The whole point is that the amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State will also have regard to local accountability when considering an amalgamation scheme. In the present trend towards, we hope, more local policing, I think this is important. There is anxiety at the recent trend of removing power from the local level in terms of police funding to a centralised point in recent years.
While policing policy currently emphasises the bringing of the police nearer the community through such policies as increasing the number of constables on the beat or placing an emphasis on neighbourhood policing, merely allowing an amalgamation scheme to progress solely on the grounds of efficiency ignores the points I have made. That is true, and it is recognised by a number of people. I believe that Amendment No. 76 deserves the support of the Government.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 77 and 79 is to incorporate the provision contained in the Police (Scotland) Act. CoSLA welcomes the Minister's rejection of a national police force but is concerned that local inquiries are rejected as being merely time-consuming. We believe, in the context of amalgamation schemes, that local inquiries have an important part to play.
The purpose of Amendment No. 79 is to ensure that an amalgamation scheme is approved by both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is essential in view of the importance of an amalgamation. It is important that local accountability is taken into account as well as efficiency. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am delighted that we now have the right amendment. In answering the noble Lord, I shall similarly speak also to Amendments Nos. 77, 79 and 159.
Section 20 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 empowers the Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes if he considers it expedient to combine police areas in the interests of efficiency.
Amendment No. 76 refers to effectiveness. Changes made in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill will provide for references in the Police (Scotland) Act for efficiency to be construed as including effectiveness.
The amendment refers also to accountability. In considering in future the desirability of changing the combined police areas to be established under the Bill, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Scotland would give a high priority to ensuring local accountability. Indeed, accountability is one reason why we are not proposing changes to the existing police areas in the Bill.
I see no reason, therefore, to include the amendment and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 77 would largely reinstate the existing provisions of Section 20 of the Police (Scotland) Act requiring a public inquiry in the case of amalgamation schemes proposed by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 159 would have a similar effect on Section 36 of the Fire Services Act 1947 in relation to administration schemes.
I am well aware, from previous Bills dealt with in this Session, of the strong feelings which may arise from changes to police or fire areas. We would not wish to ignore local views or to decline to respond to local objections which are put forward. But we see serious disadvantages in the elaborate public inquiry procedures which apply in the current legislation.
Under present arrangements, if the Secretary of State is inclined to initiate compulsory amalgamation of police areas, he is required to publish details of the proposed scheme, to invite objections and then, if any of the interested police authorities object, he is obliged to set up a local inquiry. Once the inquiry has been held the Secretary of State must consider the report and may then determine whether the amalgamation should proceed. While the Secretary of State must listen to the views of the inquiry, he need not follow them.

1959
Similarly, what is proposed in Amendment No. 159 is that any change in the structure of the fire service should be the subject of a public inquiry unless all the fire authorities concerned agree to it. This would mean that, although most of the fire authorities concerned and the Secretary of State were all in favour of a proposed change, one recalcitrant authority would be able to impede that proposal for a considerable period by insisting on a public inquiry.
If the Secretary of State were to propose changes to the combined police and fire areas established under the Bill, he would consult fully and would be obliged to give his reasons for not accepting objections put to him during consultation. We believe that to be a less protracted and expensive procedure but one which nevertheless gives sufficient opportunity for objections. I hope that the Committee will accept that that is a reasonable procedure.
With regard to Amendment No. 79,I can appreciate, as always, the attraction of affirmative resolution procedure for police amalgamation schemes. Perhaps the noble Lord has noticed the provision for affirmative resolution procedure in equivalent provisions for England and Wales in the police Bill. However, those English provisions are by no means identical to ours. In particular, amalgamation schemes under the police Bill could amend primary legislation. No Scottish scheme could achieve the same. It is for that reason that I draw a distinction and invite the noble Lord also to withdraw that amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the noble Lord indicates his intention in relation to the amendment, perhaps I may indicate that in view of what the Minister said in relation to Amendment No. 159, it would not now be my intention to move Amendment No. 79A.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may invite the noble Lord to reconsider that.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: With that kind of temptation, who can resist?
The Earl of Minto: My name is associated with Amendment No. 77. With the leave of the Committee. I understand what the noble and learned Lord says. In point of fact it would be terribly easy for this specific system to be abused. The point of the amendment is to ensure much more rigorous and open examination of any amalgamation proposal. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will necessarily wish to press the amendment. However, we should make a point on the issue.
There is concern in Scotland about a single police force. It would not be difficult—I do not suggest for one moment that it is in the mind of the Government at present—for such a situation to be arrived at. I believe that the tightening up contained within Amendment No. 77 has a good point to it. It is for that reason that I was pleased to put my name to the amendment. I shall leave it to the noble Lord to decide what to do about the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I do not think that I shall make as big a mess of withdrawing the amendment as I did on moving it. However, that shows the dangers of plugging on at this time of night when we are all becoming rather weary and hot—the air conditioning seems to have gone off a little.
It is an enormously important subject. There are many fears. The noble Earl has expressed fears about the move towards a single force. We shall read what the Minister said and may return to the issue at a later date In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 78 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 79 not moved]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Fire services]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 32, leave out lines 34 to 41.
The noble Lord said: With bated breath and eager anticipation, I merely beg to move formally Amendment No. 79A standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that perhaps we have gone far enough tonight. However, I thought we might just go to this amendment. I wish to explain to the Committee that the amendment is essentially a technical one relating to the preparation by fire authorities of establishment schemes for their areas. I simply wish to say to the noble Lord, so that he does not think I am in any sense pulling a fast one on him, that he may have a point with this skilfully debated amendment promoted by him.
I propose to take the matter away and look at it again before Report. It may be that I shall return with an amendment to meet the point that he has so skilfully made.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The age of miracles has not yet passed. I am very grateful to the Minister for his generosity and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at four minutes before one o'clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: REVENUE APPORTIONMENT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: REVENUE APPORTIONMENT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION
  NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT
  NATIONAL FOREST PROJECT
  GUATEMALA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  GUATEMALA: HUMAN RIGHTS
  UN DOCUMENTS: ELECTRONIC ACCESS
  UN DOCUMENTS: ELECTRONIC ACCESS
  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS: EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS: EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
  HEALTHCARE IN LONDON: FIGURES
  HEALTHCARE IN LONDON: FIGURES
  HELICOPTER SHOOTING DOWN: US INQUIRY
  HELICOPTER SHOOTING DOWN: US INQUIRY
  PEERS' EXPENSES
  PEERS' EXPENSES
  TURKISH ASYLUM SEEKERS
  TURKISH ASYLUM SEEKERS