Sitting of 14 July 1994

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

  FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 October.

  LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Administration
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to ensure that the process of administration of Northern Ireland involves the input of opinions from all political parties which support the present constitutional arrangements.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The Government are fully committed to involving all the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland in the good government of Northern Ireland. Their views are sought on all legislative proposals and at all times my ministerial colleagues and I are available to discuss issues of concern with representatives from the political parties.
    Mr. Shaw: Should not the greatest emphasis be placed on involving in the administrative process people who support the current constitution? Should we not recognise that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland and of the whole United Kingdom want to see the parties and people who support the present constitutional arrangements much involved in furthering the future of the constitution of Northern Ireland and to exclude from consultations and talks people who have no understanding of or time for the present constitution?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree. We have made it clear all along that those who wish to partake in the dialogue by which we hope to reach a political settlement must abide by the constitutional and democratic methods suitable to this country. People who have not renounced violence on a permanent and credible basis will not be part of that dialogue.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Given that the indiscretions of Mr. Reynolds have seriously damaged the rather cumbersome talks process initiated back in 1991, will the Minister
    1152
    seriously consider the proposal of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and perhaps settle for something more modest which would enable the people of Northern Ireland to work and live together, as the greater number of them clearly want to do?
    Mr. Ancram: I understand the desire of the people of Northern Ireland to see democratic institutions working again within the Province, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman's keenness to see that. However, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that my view and that of the Government is that that cannot be achieved in isolation from decisions on the other relationships involved—between the north and the south and between the two Governments. Those issues are interlocked and can be solved only on an interlocking basis.
    Dr. Hendron: Does the Minister accept that while most people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the island of Ireland believe that there must be change—that is what the talks in which the two Governments are involved are all about—only political parties that support the democratic process and have a mandate from the people can be involved in talks?
    Mr. Ancram: I certainly confirm that. That has been the situation since the current talks started in March 1991. We have made it clear that the main constitutional parties will be involved in those talks if they wish, and I still regret that one main constitutional party is not prepared to take part in those talks at the moment. I repeat, however, that the British Government will not see involved in those talks parties that have not renounced violence permanently and credibly.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the question of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the answer that he received, has the Minister read the statement made two days ago in the United States of America by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, who said that he is seeking in the present talks the reconstruction of the police? Will the Minister comment on the Irish Government's proposal to remove the word "Royal" from the Royal Courts of Justice and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to achieve some sort of a settlement?
    Mr. Ancram: I am not going to become involved in the detail of the current discussions between the two Governments, but it is clear that if they are to be successful they must be based on a broad spread agreement among the people of Northern Ireland. Anything that is not likely to secure that broad spread agreement would be unacceptable.
    Sir James Kilfedder: May I ask the Minister why I have been excluded from the talks since the beginning of the process, despite my protests?
    Mr. Ancram: I know that the hon. Gentleman has made that point on a number of occasions, and I appreciate his wish to be involved. At the time when the talks process began, however, it was decided that only the main constitutional parties should participate; otherwise there would have been a proliferation of parties seeking to do so. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman—as I have told him before—that I am always delighted to hear his views on where we should be going and that I will meet him whenever he wishes.
    Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the proposed summit will go ahead next week and that the agenda will include the setting up of structures on an all-Ireland basis? We should bear in mind the fact that even the Government of Ireland Act 1920 referred to a Council of Ireland and a Parliament for the whole of Ireland and also yesterday's announcement that the European Union would make additional money available for cross-border co-operation.
    Mr. Ancram: As I have said, I will not talk about the detail of the current conversations between the two Governments. I will say, however, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will see the Taoiseach at the Brussels Council tomorrow, where they hope to have a serious working meeting to review progress made by officials on the framework document, as well as security issues and the prospects of an end to violence. They will also consider the prospects and timing of the next bilateral summit.

    Political Talks
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent developments regarding the joint declaration.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest peace negotiations in the Province.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the Downing street declaration; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The joint declaration stands as a statement by the British and Irish Governments of fundamental principles by which they will be guided. We have made it abundantly clear that violence for political ends is incompatible with these principles and that it will continue to exclude those responsible for it from the democratic process.
    Dr. Spink: In view of recent speculation that Sinn Fein may soon respond to the joint declaration, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Government policy remains that there will be no commencement of even exploratory talks until there is a permanent and total cessation of violence? Would he care to comment on the Taoiseach's recent comments on the matter?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it clear time and again that there must be a permanent cessation of violence, and an unequivocal declaration and commitment to that cessation.
    On 12 July Mr. Reynolds, the Taoiseach, said in the United States:
    "Other parties will not sit around the table with those who reinforce their argument by the use of violence or the threat of it. That is why there must first be a lasting and definitive commitment to a purely democratic political strategy."
    That is the joint position of both Governments.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the striking features of the process since the joint declaration is the fact that the two Governments have continued to stand shoulder to shoulder in their search
    1154
    for peace? May we again put on record our thanks to the Irish Government for the constructive role that they are playing?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: They have indeed stood shoulder to shoulder. That is what makes the use of violence for political purposes so abundantly self-defeating. Those who use it in that way know perfectly well that both Governments are determined that coercion shall not be rewarded. That is the view of the British Government and also of the Irish Government. We make common cause very effectively to ensure that those who resort to violence are thwarted and defeated.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us share his disgust—and probably even despair—at the recent terrifying explosives find in Heysham, and the recent IRA attacks? May I urge him, however, not to be diverted by those events or by other pressures from the central goal of getting Sinn Fein to the negotiating table in one way or another, as that is one of the keys to peace?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is obviously desirable thatevery political party with a democratic mandate which is committed to the democratic process should participate, in one way or another, in the discussions, but people should not suppose that by continuing to resort to violence, or by justifying it, they can somehow hold up that process because they cannot—they will be left outside. So it is for them to choose—the process is unstoppable.
    Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will agree that in the joint declaration his Government define their role as the creation of agreement among all the people of Ireland. I am sure that he would also agree that that implies creating a unity of purpose and a political agreement with which all the people of Ireland can identify. How and when will that be presented to us by the two Governments so that the emphasis can shift to the legitimate political process and away from those who support and plan acts of violence?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman refers to the discussions going on between the two Governments, the objective of which is to reach a shared understanding of the sort of package that would lead and help the democratically elected and constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, with the two Governments as appropriate, to reach that overall settlement, which has been their goal since 1991. That is what we are about. Of course it is not easy. The reason why we are trying to achieve that settlement is that from time to time party leaders have said, "We cannot say how far we are prepared to go and what our bottom line would be on, let us say, strand 1 or strand 2 until we know the position of the Governments." It is therefore desirable that the Governments should demonstrate that shared understanding, if we can. It is not easy, but a lot of progress has been made. I cannot say when success will be achieved, but there are sensible grounds for believing that it will be.
    Mr. Robathan: I am sure that hon. Members are pleased to hear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Irish Government, but what tangible progress has been made by the Irish Government or what concessions have made by that Government to the concerns of the people of the North of Ireland, who belong to the Unionist majority, since either the Anglo-Irish Agreement or the Downing street declaration?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: As I think that my hon. Friend knows—I have often told him so—the co-operation between, for example, the two police forces has progressively improved over the years and in very recent times. If he consults Hugh Annesley or the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana, as I hope that he will, he will become aware of the close character of co-operation and trust which exists and of the practical ways in which they are helping each other. I do not share the view implicit in my hon. Friend's question: I know that he takes an linterest in this matter and how sincere he is, but I do not share his implicit distrust of the Irish Government or the view that they are somehow not fully committed to the defeat of terrorism—I am satisfied that they are.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Since one of the main objectives of the declaration, now more than eight months old, was to bring about a renunciation of violence by the IRA and to involve it in the political process, leading towards some form of devolution in Northern Ireland in which the leader of Sinn Fein, Mr. Gerry Adams, and the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), would both work together and play a major role, how long will it be before the declaration achieves that objective? [Interruption.]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will no doubt speak for himself—and I expect that we shall hear him—either from an upright or from a sedentary position. Both Governments made it clear at the time that the purpose of the declaration was to set out fundamental principles of democracy, of the rejection of violence and of realism. That was achieved, and that is why I said that the declaration stands. Of course, if those people who have believed—and still believe—that they can make progress towards their political objectives by violence are persuaded that they have been mistaken, that is well and good and we shall all rejoice. But if, contrary to all the evidence, they continue to think that they can make progress by violence in our democracy, that is too bad: we shall proceed with the process in which all the principal political parties have been engaged and we shall carry it through—we do not intend to give up.
    Mr. McNamara: The official Opposition entirely support what the Secretary of State has just said. On another matter, however, does he accept that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 should be amended to reflect the principle of consent?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not accept that it should be amended to reflect the principle of consent because it seems to me that the principle of consent has been well and truly established in a number of statutory instruments since the Government of Ireland Act. Everyone knows that it is the policy of the Irish and British Governments that no change in the status of Northern Ireland can or should take place, save by the consent of those who live in Northern Ireland. Both Governments have said from the very beginning—and my predecessor said from the very beginning—that absolutely nothing is precluded from being put on the table in the constitutional talks. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman—there is no need for the Act to be amended, but if someone wants to have it amended we shall examine any proposal and consider it on its merits.

    Cross-border Security
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of cross-border security co-operation.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): There is already an excellent level of co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana. Both Governments, however, are constantly striving to find ways of improving the effectiveness of security measures.
    Mr. Spring: In view of the current level of violence and the appalling acts of terrorism perpetrated in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that co-operation is taking place at the highest level, as is necessary to deal with the tragic situation on both sides of the border?
    Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is correct. Violence occurs on both sides of the border and neither country can afford to be complacent. However, I can tell the House that co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana is of the very highest level. The Gardai's record speaks for itself: last year, they recovered nearly 400 firearms, more than 25,000 rounds of ammunition and nearly 3,800 lbs of explosives, and inquiries and arrests have continued this year.
    Mr. Maginnis: With respect, the Minister is singing the same tune that we heard in 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990, and that we shall probably also hear in 1995. It is boring, it has too many flats and it certainly does not reflect the fact that, as the Minister must admit, lorry load after lorry load of explosives are being trundled across the frontier from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and that, very possibly, the Heysham bomb came from that direction, too. In the same vein, will he—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question rather than a long statement from the hon. Gentleman as a number of hon. Members are hoping to ask questions.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister face the reality that security is ineffective at the level where it counts, irrespective of what happens at the highest level between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana?
    Sir John Wheeler: I visited the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana only last week and was able to see the level and extent of the training and arrangements for the management of the Garda Siochana. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that police force is as determined as the Royal Ulster Constabulary or any other police force in the United Kingdom to confront terrorism wherever it can, and the record of success is improving all the time.
    Mr. William O'Brien: On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, will the Minister give assurances that resources will be provided to ensure that there is cross-border co-operation, and will he prevail upon the Government of the Irish Republic to do the same? If we are to develop tourism and business trade between the north and the south, which is the way to peace initiatives, we need to be sure that such traffic will be able to travel between the north and the south without interference and that there will be security at the border.
    Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that both police forces and both Governments are well aware of the importance of commerce and of facilitating the movement of traffic between the two countries. That has to be achieved within the bounds and constraints of defeating and controlling terrorism, and every effort is made to work towards those objectives.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I totally accept the Minister's assurance that there is good co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda, but does he agree that it would be helpful if certain members of the Irish Government could cast aside some of their political sensitivities so that we could enhance security?
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet Ministers from the Republic of Ireland. Through the intergovernmental conference procedure, we have the opportunity to review in detail the security arrangements between the two countries and the successes of our police forces, and to examine how they could be further advanced. We shall continue to do that.

    Political Talks
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the talks that he has had with the parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government in relation to the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met Ministers of the Irish Republic to discuss the latest political developments in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Bilateral discussions are continuing with three of the main Northern Ireland parties. I last met the Tanaiste, Mr. Spring, at the intergovernmental conference on 17 June, when we reviewed progress on the preparation of a joint framework document which might facilitate the negotiation of a comprehensive political settlement involving the main constitutional parties and the two Governments as appropriate.
    Mr. Corbett: Can the Secretary of State give us the date of the next Anglo-Irish summit, and does he propose to put on the table proposals for cross-border executive bodies in exchange for amendments to articles 1 and 2 of the Irish constitution?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have had that one already. It is not for me to say when the next summit meeting will take place. The two Prime Ministers will meet in Brussels tomorrow and will have a workmanlike discussion, which will no doubt cover the prospects for and timing of the next summit. The agenda, too, will depend upon such matters.
    Mr. Winnick: Do the two Governments recognise that the rejection of the joint declaration by Sinn Fein and the IRA, totally without justification, has led to the escalation of violence both from the Provisional IRA and from the loyalist murder gangs? Although I totally disagree with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) stands for, will the Secretary of State join me in utterly condemning the assassination attempt? We are all most grateful that the hon. Gentleman survived it, but if his children had been slaughtered we
    1158
    would no doubt have heard the same weasel excuses from those responsible as we heard from those responsible for the child murders in Warrington.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the disgraceful and disgusting attack on the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). I endorse what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has said; indeed, I said as much myself when I visited the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster at his home the morning after the attack. Only a matter of seconds saved his 14-year-old daughter from being murdered, and no doubt the intention was that the hon. Gentleman would be murdered, too. The people involved presume to speak about self-determination and their support for the self-determination of the Irish people. How can self-determination be secured, save by democracy? The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is a democratically elected representative, but those people have been elected by nobody—in their mouths, talk of peace and the peace process is no more than hypocritical blasphemy.
    Mr. Trimble: Does not the Secretary of State realise that recently we have come to the painful conclusion that, despite our willingness, the Government are not presently committed to any serious discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties and prefer instead to allow themselves to be strung along by the Irish Government and the Provisional IRA? Does not he also realise that the reported concession offered by the Irish Government over the amendment to article 3 of the constitution is utterly worthless and totally hypocritical? Is not it time to bring that charade to an end and for the Government to bring forward sensible proposals for the good government of Northern Ireland, along the lines which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience. I do not share the feelings that lead him to describe what is going on as a charade; nor do I recognise that the Government are being strung along by the Irish Government. That said, I recognise impatience. But it is the duty of us all—I am not a particularly patient man by temperament—to demonstrate as much patience as we can as long as there seems to be a realistic prospect of bringing the discussions to a successful conclusion. If it becomes clear that that cannot succeed, I shall remember and the Prime Minister shall remember that the British Government have responsibility for Northern Ireland. Then it will be for us to consider what we bring forward ourselves, unilaterally, by way of facilitating the achievement by the political parties of the kind of overall settlement which has been everybody's objective for so long.
    Mr. Alton: In combating terrorism which prevents political progress from being made in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State tell the House what progress is being made in combating the systematic organised crime which bedevils Northern Ireland and the flow of arms and weapons into the island of Ireland from state-sponsored terrorism by a country such as Iran?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Iranians have been rumbled in exactly that context. Every step is being taken to ensure that no arms reach any paramilitary organisations from any source outside the

    1159
    island of Ireland. Furthermore, while we are making progress, there is no doubt that racketeering exists on a completely unacceptable scale. We have amended the law and the new law is being applied. It will be very much easier to concentrate on that if violence for political purposes has been brought to an end. But it is a real problem of which we are well aware.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statements that he and the Minister have made regarding the possibilities of a summit next week may send conflicting signals to different parts of different peoples in the island as to the success and the determination of the two Prime Ministers and the two Governments? Will he therefore consider carefully whether it would be better in the long run if, after the officials have had their discussions this week, the two Prime Ministers at least meet formally at a summit to stock take and to discuss how far they have got and where they may be able to make progress?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: As a mere Sherpa, who does not aspire to lead the summit, it is really not up to me to say more than I have said already. The two Prime Ministers will meet tomorrow and they will be discussing the prospects for a summit meeting and the timing for it.

    Forestry
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to make an announcement on changes in incentives for private forestry in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making an announcement about the outcome of the forestry review in Great Britain shortly. An equivalent announcement on incentives for private forestry in Northern Ireland will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ross: While I welcome that reply about the statement on incentives, does the Minister appreciate that we have had tremendous success in private planting in Northern Ireland over the past few years, but we are right up against the deadline at which people must make plans to buy the small trees to promote the package? They cannot promote the package if one is not available. Can we have the statement on incentives as soon as is humanly possible?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that improvements have been made in planting in Northern Ireland over the past few years and it is our intention to build on that success with the incentive scheme review when it is announced. I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment that there is pressure on those who want to know the planting incentives for the next year and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also aware of that pressure.

    Technology Firms
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of inward investment in technology firms in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): Between April 1991
    1160
    and the end of March 1994, the Industrial Development Board has secured inward investment in technology firms amounting to some £227 million. The IDB's recent successes in this area are a very encouraging development.
    Mr. Coombs: It is clear from my hon. Friend's answer that information technology can play an important part in building up the economy of Ulster, despite the troubles which have been discussed during this Question Time. How many jobs were created in the technological sector, including information technology, last year and what was the total value of that investment?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of IT. I am glad to be able to tell him that last year the IDB had one of its most successful years ever. We secured more than 2,300 new jobs and investment of £259 million.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In view of the support that was given through the "Best of Northern Ireland" exhibition that took place in the House—one of the persons who gave that support was the Secretary of State—is not there a case to be made for holding a "Best of Northern Ireland" exhibition in the United States of America or other parts of the world, specially adapted of course? Would not that be a good way to bring inward investment to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister give his support to that idea?
    Mr. Smith: That is an extremely good idea. I should certainly like to consider it. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the IDB already organises trade fairs overseas. I recently went to a successful trade fair in Washington called "The Look is Ireland" organised jointly with the Irish trade board.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Eddie O'Hara. I am sorry—Mr. Eddie McGrady.
    Mr. McGrady: Thank you for the new baptism, Madam Speaker. It is usually O'Grady rather than O'Hara. I was interested in the Minister's response to the question. He lauded the IDB for its efforts in the past year. Will he and the Department take cognisance of the fact that many of the minority areas suffered 50 years of Unionist misdirection of industry and that that has not been corrected by 20 years of direct rule? For instance, in the past 10 years less than 1 per cent. of inward investment has come to South Down. Less than 1 per cent. of the total number of jobs created have come to South Down. Yet we are 10 miles from the central port of Belfast and in the southern part of the constituency we have a new and modern harbour. Can the Minister explain that discrepancy, which continues year after year?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are unfortunately not in a position to direct inward investors to any particular area in Northern Ireland. I should like as much the hon. Gentleman to see more inward investment in his constituency. I shall visit his constituency soon and discuss the issue with him.

    Security
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers, reservists and military personnel have been killed or seriously injured in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Wheeler: Between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 1994, six RUC officers, five military personnel and 79 civilians were killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. In addition, 131 RUC officers, 319 military personnel and 489 civilians were injured.
    No effort will be spared in bringing those responsible for terrorist crimes to justice. Already this year, 246 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences, including 54 with murder or attempted murder.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for what I would describe as those horrific statistics. Does he accept that the peace process is sadly contributing to those horrific statistics? Does he further accept the fact that we are negotiating with a country that claims part of the United Kingdom as its territory in its constitution and yet we expect our security forces to protect that part of the United Kingdom? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the sooner the Republic of Ireland renounces its claim to Ulster as part of its territory, the sooner these dreadful slaughters will cease?
    Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend has already dealt with an aspect of my hon. Friend's question. The fact is that the Republic of Ireland and its police service work as closely as they can with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the United Kingdom's security forces to prevent crimes and outrages. They will continue to do so. As to my hon. Friend's point about the peace process, the only peace process that matters is the giving up of violence and killing, and the operation of democracy.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: While we express proper concern over the security situation, does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should not allow this Question Time to pass without passing to the security forces our great congratulations on the find of explosives on the Warrenpoint to Heysham ferry, which undoubtedly saved one Member of Parliament—or maybe more than one Member—from seeing an outrage committed within their constituency? Will my right hon. Friend convey to the security forces the grateful thanks of the House for their activities in that regard?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The security forces are achieving remarkable results. They are professional. They are achieving significant results in the sense that something like four out of five potential terrorist attacks and killings are stopped or prevented before they occur. That shows the degree of professionalism, and I will gladly convey my hon. Friend's remarks to the security forces.
    Mr. Beggs: Condemnation of violence and expressions of sympathy to bereaved families and those who are maimed because of IRA atrocities are much too small a response from those who are responsible for the security of service personnel and civilians in Northern Ireland. How many more attacks on helicopters, sniper attacks, mortar bomb attacks and, indeed, blockbuster bomb explosions must occur before the Government face up to the reality that, with or without the support of the Irish Republic, we must have selective internment of the "Godfathers"? The Government should not insult our intelligence any more by
    1162
    repeating the comment made time and again that security co-operation was never better than it is today, because it must have started from a very low position.
    Sir John Wheeler: As to the hon. Gentleman's substantial point about the question of internment, it remains available to the Government and is constantly kept under review. But we must measure that possibility against the advice that my right hon. and learned Friend and I receive from the Chief Constable as to the successes of the RUC and the security forces—their achievements, the collection of intelligence and what they believe is the right policy to pursue to prevent these outrages from occurring.

    Foreign Heads of State
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations his Department has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding visits to Northern Ireland by foreign heads of state.
    Sir John Wheeler: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is consulted at official level about all visits by foreign heads of state to Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister share my concern and the concern of many in Northern Ireland that the President of the Republic of Ireland is exploiting British Government tolerance in so-called private visits which are really public engagements and reinforcing the irredentist claim of articles 2 and 3, even to the point of unveiling plaques on public buildings funded by public money?
    Sir John Wheeler: The President of the Republic of Ireland visits Northern Ireland in her capacity as a private visitor. They are working visits. She seeks to initiate those visits herself or visits at the invitation of local bodies or groups, and she is received with courtesy on behalf of the Government.

    Bill of Rights
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to publish a White Paper on the implementation of a Bill of Rights; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have no plans at present to do so.
    Dr. Godman: In light of the recommendations contained in the Opsahl report concerning the need to examine measures that will help to bring about parity of esteem between the two traditions, have the Government any plans to examine such steps, either within a Bill of Rights or in some other form?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have already introduced tangible measures to ensure that parity is obtained in employment matters. We have the toughest non-discrimination legislation in the whole of Europe. I have said that I would be perfectly willing to consider whatever may be proposed, so far as a Bill of Rights is concerned. The fundamental human right that has to be guaranteed above all others is the right to life, and that is what we are concentrating on. A great many people—I do not include

    1163
    the hon. Gentleman—who are keen on advancing a Bill of Rights are reluctant to condemn the violence that is being deployed for political purposes in this democracy.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What instructions has the Prime Minister issued this week in connection with combating the appalling level of air pollution throughout the Thames valley and in every other urban area of the United Kingdom? Can we be assured that it is Government policy that the polluters will pay and be prosecuted, rather than merely be given a ticking off and a prohibition notice? Now is the time for action to combat air pollution.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, it was a Conservative Government who established the first ever environment Department as long ago as 1970, and we take environmental matters very seriously. On air pollution, we have already agreed tight emission standards for new cars and lorries and we intend that they be rigidly enforced. We have taken the lead over the rest of Europe by introducing integrated pollution policies and we are determined to ensure that those are kept. We made it clear earlier this year in discussion documents that making the air cleaner is an important part of our policy and, where necessary, we will take action.
    Mr. Marlow: Is a single European currency a commercial convenience, or does it mean single European interest rates, a single European economy, harmonised and high levels of European taxation and, effectively, a single European state? And, if it is the latter, could my right hon. Friend tell the House that he is most unlikely ever to put it before the British people? It would give a great deal of simple pleasure to a lot of simple people if he could say so.
    The Prime Minister: I am always prepared to give some simple pleasure to my hon. Friend. As I have told the House on many occasions, a single currency would not be a practicable proposal, unless one had a proper and equally performing series of economies right across the area that would be governed by that currency. Without that, there would be the very practical difficulty that one would get large-scale structural unemployment and a massive demand for funds transferred from one part of the European Union to another. It is for that very practical reason that I do not believe that we are within many years of being able to consider a single currency.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Prime Minister yet able to tell us whether, in the context of the presidency of the European Commission, there are any candidates who do not support the social chapter?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. Lady that, since we are not partners to the protocol, it does not matter from our point of view whether they are in favour or not.
    Mrs. Beckett: But the meeting is tomorrow. Is the Prime Minister telling us that, having used the veto—so he said—to permit extensive consultations, he does not know whether any of the candidates are against the social chapter?
    The Prime Minister: I sometimes think that the right hon. Lady prepares her second and third questions before listening to the first answer. The second question bore no relationship to the answer which I just gave her, which I shall repeat. Since we are not partners to the protocol that governs that aspect of European policy, it does not matter to this country whether the new president does or does not support that.
    Mrs. Beckett: The Prime Minister, as he will be well aware, has twice run away from answering the question. Is he reluctant to answer it because he knows that, in a triumph of personal diplomacy, he vetoed the appointment of one Conservative Prime Minister from a Benelux country who supports the social chapter, and will now support the candidacy of a Conservative Prime Minister from a Benelux country who supports the social chapter?
    The Prime Minister: Oh dear, oh dear. I fear that the right hon. Lady has shown the House too clearly that she does not have a scintilla of understanding of the European policies of each of the candidates whose name has been put forward for the presidency of the European Commission. There is a substantial difference between those policies that I vetoed last week and those that are followed by any of the candidates who remain in the ring at the moment.
    The decision will be made on Friday and the right hon. Lady might then understand the distinction between the policies of a European Commission president whom I would not accept and those of a European Commission president whom I can accept.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the impending statement from the Secretary of State for Defence will be keenly awaited by many people who work in the defence contracting industry in Leeds and in many other parts of the country? Can he confirm that "Front Line First" means enhancing the capabilities of our front-line troops by giving them the best available equipment to do the many jobs with which they are faced?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend will be making a detailed statement about the matter in a few minutes and, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not anticipate that statement in detail. "Front Line First" was established to ensure precisely that we direct the resources available to the front line to maximise the fighting capacity and the cutting edge of the British armed forces.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain rose—
    Mr. Richards: Liar. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Just a moment. Let me establish who made the remark.
    Hon. Members: Stand up.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that it was Mr. Rod Richards. Is that the case?
    Mr. Richards indicated assent.
    Madam Speaker: In that case, I require the hon. Gentleman to stand up and immediately apologise.
    Mr. Richards: I withdraw my remark, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must apologise to me as the Speaker of the House for those words.
    Mr. Richards: Madam Speaker, I apologise to you.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Hain.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister establish an inquiry—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must now come to order. The matter is over and done with.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Prime Minister establish an inquiry into the way a member of his Cabinet, Lord Wakeham, and other leading Conservatives were in 1988 taken off selected Lloyd's syndicates which later suffered three years of catastrophic losses? Were they the beneficiaries of insider information while millions of pounds of losses were dumped on ordinary Lloyd's investors?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any information whatever to suggest impropriety, he should bring that information forward. Given the inferences that clearly underlie his question, under the privilege of Parliament most people would not regard it as the right way to raise that matter.
    Mr. Mans: Has any member of my right hon. Friend's Cabinet in the past advocated the abolition of nuclear weapons while at the same time suggesting that they should be retained, or suggested that we should withdraw completely from the European Community while advocating a federal Europe with Britain inside it? Have not all three contenders for the Labour leadership done all of those?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to that question is clearly, no. Had they done so, they would certainly not be members of my Cabinet.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what official engagements he has already fixed in the London borough of Southwark for the rest of the current year.
    The Prime Minister: I have no engagement planned at this stage.
    Mr. Hughes: In that case, will the Prime Minister accept a short engagement to cross the river and explain to the people of Southwark, a borough with one of the highest levels of deprivation and unemployment in Britain, whether it is the Government's policy to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest in Britain and increase public services before thinking of cutting taxes? If so, when?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the available public assistance given to people in hardship,
    1166
    both to those in work on very low incomes and those out of work, he will see that there has been a significant improvement in recent years in the resources available to deal with those problems. He will know of the significant resources put particularly into inner-city areas of deprivation like Southwark over a large number of years. What does need to be done, and it requires the assistance of local authorities and others if we are to get to the root of the problem, is to ensure that those boroughs are also prepared to co-operate with bringing private capital into the area so that a joint approach of public and private capital can maximise the improvement for people who live in poor circumstances.
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: Since the Tory Government came to power in 1979, this country has lost a considerable proportion of its manufacturing base, yet, alone among European Union Governments, this Government have benefited to the tune of £124 billion worth of North sea oil revenue. We can guess what the Germans and French would have done with that. What did the Tory Government do with it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, be prepared to acknowledge in private that employment in manufacturing industry has been on a downward trend since the 1960s, whomsoever have been in Government. It has now stabilised. The manufacturing base at the moment is broadening, not narrowing. We now have the best economic circumstances, not just for exports but for growth and manufacturing, that we have had for the past 20 or 25 years. That is readily understood by everyone beyond the confines of the Labour party.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: It is common ground in the House that the civil service is full of people of ability, honesty and integrity. Yet we would all agree—indeed, civil servants would agree—that the high cost of government and grandiose waste in building projects, for instance, are not what we are looking for. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper published yesterday, "Continuity and Change", shows that we also need improvement and cost reductions?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We can take pride in the performance of the British civil service over many years. That is evident not only in this country but by the fact that a number of other countries have copied the British civil service system. It has high standards of integrity, and we are determined to maintain that integrity and impartiality while improving the service delivered through the civil service to the people of this country, who pay for it, and to us.
    Mrs. Mahon: The Prime Minister will be aware that at the moment, no national health service patients can be placed in private health care systems or homes against their wishes if they or their relatives will incur a personal charge

    1167
    for that move. Will the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that people will retain the right to free NHS care?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Lady that guarantee: the right to national health service care free at the point of delivery is an integral part of the Government's policy, and will remain so.
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which shows that during
    1168
    the 1980s, Britain's manufacturing productivity growth out-performed that of Germany, whereas the period when we were most out-performed by Germany was between 1974 and 1979? Does not that illustrate that the time when this country was in danger of slipping into a second rate, low productivity, low wage, skivvy economy, with Mickey Mouse jobs, was not under the present Government, but rather in the heroic days of Labour's industrial strategy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has unearthed some interesting facts, which Opposition Members would do well to study. He is entirely right. The key to lasting prosperity and lasting jobs is to get the underlying economic conditions right, and then to keep them right. That is what we have done, and is what we propose to continue to do.

"Front Line First"
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the study known as "Front Line First".
At the end of the cold war there were major changes in the international situation. In response, along with all NATO countries, we have reduced the size and adjusted the balance of our armed forces. We believe that our plans for the armed forces reflect the challenges that are likely to confront us. We are determined to maintain that position, and not to drop our guard. Accordingly, I have no proposals to announce that would reduce the fighting strength of our armed forces.
Defence is expensive. This year, we are spending £23 billion, a larger proportion of our gross domestic product than most NATO countries. That amount is being reduced, as was announced last autumn. There is a continuing need to ensure that the administration and support of our armed forces are subjected to the most rigorous analysis. Only by doing that can we ensure that the money available for defence is being spent properly, and in a way which contributes to our fighting capability.
That is why I set up "Front Line First"—not to consider fighting strength, but to consider headquarters, stores, infrastructure, manning and all other aspects of defence administration and support.
I have also been determined that we should benefit from the experience and ideas that are to be found in all parts of the armed forces and in the civil service. Accordingly, we invited service and civilian personnel to contribute their ideas, and they did so to a splendid and unprecedented degree. More than 3,000 proposals were received. All those proposals were considered, and many endorsed.
We recognised from the start that strong and efficient support is a necessity and not a luxury; unless the armed forces are recruited, trained, clothed, fed and supplied in a professional and successful manner, their operational capability will suffer. Accordingly, every recommendation for change was examined against one major criterion—would it directly or indirectly affect the operational capability of the armed forces?
We relied heavily on the professional advice of the chiefs of staff. If it was concluded that a proposal would damage the fighting capabilities of the armed forces, it was rejected.
The proposals that have now emerged are set out in detail in the report published today. I have placed copies in the Library of the House. I do not have time in this statement to go through every proposal, but I should like to set out the most important of our decisions.
A number of themes have emerged from the work that has been done. First, the Ministry of Defence and other headquarters at all levels are too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic.
Secondly, there is scope for far more delegation of responsibility down the management chain. We can simplify working practices and increase personal responsibility and accountability. We should try to bring to our peace-time working practices the reliance on personal responsibility which the armed forces show so effectively in operations.
1170
Thirdly, recent experience shows that military operations are increasingly conducted on a joint service basis. Our structure should reflect that.
We intend to reduce the Ministry of Defence in central London still further, from more than 5,000 to a central core of 3,750—a reduction of more than 25 per cent. on previous plans. They will be housed in the main building and in the old War Office, instead of four separate buildings as presently planned. We have decided to form a permanent joint headquarters at Northwood, to replace the current approach where headquarters staff are drawn together ad hoc in response to developing crises.
The Procurement Executive headquarters will have 500 fewer staff. We will go ahead with the planned relocation of the executive at a single site at Abbey Wood near Bristol, but it will now be collocated with another headquarters, which will allow significant capital savings.
We have looked in depth at our arrangements for holding and distributing stores for the armed forces, such as clothing, food and fuel. We have found that modern supply techniques mean that we can reduce unessential holdings, enabling us to rationalise storage facilities while improving our ability to get stocks to the front line.
That will allow the closure of 17 depots of varying sizes in the United Kingdom. They are identified in the report published today which I have placed in the Library, and details have been sent to those hon. Members in whose constituencies they lie. Altogether the changes in our logistic arrangements set out in the report will save the defence budget more than £200 million a year and will improve operational capability by providing a more efficient supply chain that is better able to deliver essential stores to the front line.
A number of the studies took a fundamental look at the arrangements for recruiting service men and women, and our procedures for managing and training personnel. The total cost of our recruiting activities amounts to £100 million each year and is unacceptably expensive, especially when recruiting needs are low. At present, it is costing between £5,000 and £15,000 for every recruit.
It has become clear that there is scope for closer co-operation with the Employment Services Agency. Subject to the successful completion of a pilot trial, we intend to use the facilities of the 1,300 job centres as the first point of contact for those wishing to join the armed forces. That means that we can replace the existing network of more than 200 careers information offices with a much smaller specialist regional organisation. We expect that proposal to save us £25 million a year.
Given the joint service nature of military operations, we believe that it is right to combine command and staff training at senior level and create a joint services staff college. Further work is in hand to examine whether that should be located at Camberley or Greenwich, and whether junior command and staff training should take place on the same site.
"Front Line First" identified a number of ways in which we could reduce the cost of flying training. We intend to establish a single defence helicopter flying training school for all three services at Middle Wallop near Andover or at Shawbury near Shrewsbury, increase the involvement of civilian instructors and contractors in much of our flying training activity and rationalise training. That will mean that RAF Finningley and RAF Scampton will no longer be necessary, and they will be closed.

1171
Skilled medical support is essential for the armed forces, but at present service hospitals have substantial overcapacity and there is considerable scope for closer links with the national health service. We intend, therefore, to reduce the number of service hospitals in the United Kingdom from three to one, which will be situated at Haslar in Gosport, and to establish regional military district hospital units in NHS hospitals at Derriford and at two new sites, and to retain a presence at Catterick.
We have also looked at military music. This is part of the fabric of our armed forces and makes an irreplaceable contribution to morale and fighting spirit. We have therefore decided that the number of musicians and bands which I announced last year should remain. But there is a need to rationalise and reduce the costs of training.
The Royal Marines believe that training their musicians at Deal has become prohibitively expensive. The maintenance demands of the buildings, and other running costs, have resulted in costs per musician trained of up to £300,000. We therefore intend to transfer Royal Marine music training to a new location by April 1996.
I now turn to naval infrastructure. In 1993, it was decided that the Portland naval base would close by 1996, which would leave four bases at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Faslane, and Rosyth. Over the past three years, the number of ships in the Royal Navy has reduced further, and over-capacity has increased. We should not be spending large amounts of money on bases unless there is an operational requirement to do so. The money spent on excess base capacity could and should be spent on enhancing the Navy's fighting capability. The Royal Navy therefore has examined whether the number of bases could be safely reduced.
The conclusions were that Faslane on the Clyde should remain, in view of the operational need for a strategic submarine base. It is also necessary to retain at least two surface ship bases, given the substantial size of the Royal Navy. Of the three surface ship bases, Rosyth is the smallest, and is designated as the base for two of the three squadrons of minehunters and for the fishery protection squadron.
The Royal Navy has concluded that there is no strategic need to keep these ships permanently at Rosyth. We have therefore decided to move one squadron of minehunters to Faslane on the Clyde, which is closest to its normal area of operations. The second squadron and the fishery protection vessels will move to Portsmouth. That is sensible, as the fishery protection squadron operates almost entirely off the coast of England and Wales. The Scottish Office provides a fishery protection service around the Scottish coastline.
Rosyth will not, however, close. There is a continuing need for other Royal Navy-related activities at the Rosyth naval base site. These include necessary support for Rosyth dockyard, for storage, accommodation, Defence Research Agency activities, and the Defence Land Agent. Rosyth base will therefore become a royal naval support establishment continuing alongside the Rosyth royal dockyard. We will also retain the option of using Rosyth as a forward operating base should it become necessary to establish such a base on the east coast of Scotland.
All in all, these proposals will mean that over 900 civilian and service jobs will remain at the Rosyth base; 70 new jobs will be created on the Clyde. Around 700 civilian jobs will go; around 600 civilian jobs will remain.
We expect these proposals to save about £22 million a year, with no operational disadvantage. A consultation
1172
document on our proposals for Rosyth is being issued today. The royal dockyard at Rosyth is not affected by these proposals and, as announced last year, can look forward to a substantial programme of surface ship refits.
We have also looked at arrangements for the shore basing of naval aircraft. We have concluded that the naval air stations at Culdrose and Yeovilton should continue and that the Lynx squadrons now accommodated at Portland could be moved to Yeovilton without any detriment to operational effectiveness. This will save about £12 million a year.
The air station at Portland will close by 1 April 1999. This will involve the loss of 400 jobs at Portland, though some of these and about two thirds of the service personnel based there will transfer to Yeovilton.
In the aftermath of the cold war, there is no longer a requirement for the maritime HQ at Pitreavie. We therefore intend to close it in 1996. We intend to transfer some staff, together with Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland, to Faslane. The rescue co-ordination centre for the whole of the United Kingdom which we had planned to move to Pitreavie will now be set up at RAF Leuchars in Fife.
The Special Boat Service headquarters will be transferred from Poole to Portsmouth, where the facilities will meet our requirements. This will enable the closure of Royal Marines Poole. We are also rationalising Royal Marines barracks at Plymouth, and, subject to the outcome of current studies, we hope to transfer certain units to Chivenor, which is no longer required by the RAF.
We have also looked at our requirement for ranges. We have concluded that we can provide the armed forces with all the range capacity required and at the same time make savings of £7.5 million a year. This will involve the closure of the ranges at Kircudbright, Pendine, and Hurn. There will, however, still be a need for the ranges at Aberporth, and at Benbecula in the Hebrides.
Finally, so far as RAF Germany is concerned, we have also decided that we require only one air station. The Harriers and helicopters currently based at RAF Laarbruch will accordingly be redeployed to existing operational air stations in the UK. That will have operational benefit, because aircraft now based at Laarbruch often have to train over the United Kingdom.
Change on the scale envisaged in "Front Line First" is bound to have painful consequences. The overall impact of the package will mean net job reductions of about 18,700 over the next three years. Compared with previous plans, the number of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence will fall almost 7 per cent., or 7,100, and the total of uniformed personnel will fall 5 per cent—of which the Royal Navy will reduce by 1,900, the Army by 2,200 and the RAF by 7,500.
Those cuts will fall on all levels of service and civilian personnel. We anticipate that more than 20 senior military and civilian posts—that is, major-general level and above—will disappear. That will bring the total reduction in senior posts since 1990 to about one third.
A proportion of those reductions will require redundancies in the armed forces and the civil service. We will wish to deal sensitively and fairly with those who have served the nation well. The terms on offer will be the same as have applied to other recent redundancies.
It will be seen that manpower reductions are higher for the Royal Air Force. That reflects in particular the conclusions of work set in hand by the Air Force Board

1173
some two years ago. The work addressed the scope for reducing costs by civilianising or contractoring out uniformed jobs. It also looked at savings to be derived from introducing new engineering work practices, and from reducing the number of expensive aircrew occupying ground posts.
The Air Force Board endorsed the outcome of that work, which is reflected in the measures that I have announced today. Like all the other proposals that I am announcing, those manpower reductions will not adversely affect our front-line fighting capability.
I should now like to outline our plans for the future of the Territorial Army. The Government remain committed to making greater use of the reserves. There has been a detailed study of the structure and manning of the TA. One option was to make a major reduction in the size of the TA to reflect the reduced home defence role. We decided, however, to reject that option.
In future, the role of the Territorial Army should be to act as a general reserve to the Army. It will remain an integral component of our defence forces on mobilisation, and we intend to make greater use of it in peacetime. Our previous plans were for a TA with formed units of 59,000, plus a recruits pool of 4,500.
The latter is no longer necessary, but we intend to retain at its current level of 59,000 the formed units of the TA. We shall consult widely within the TA whether there should be some reroling of units or other changes within the 59,000 total, and we will announce the outcome later in the year.
We do not underestimate the challenge that the proposals I have announced represent for all involved. They will have a significant impact on the lives and prospects of many who serve in the armed forces, as well as on civilians in the Ministry of Defence. The changes are, however, essential if we are to focus our resources on sustaining and enhancing our operational capability and fighting strength. "Front Line First" has enabled us to do that. In particular, "Front Line First" has allowed us to make a number of highly significant enhancements to our front line capability, which I will outline to the House.
For the Royal Navy, I am able today to announce key equipment improvements across a range of capabilities that will enhance the Royal Navy's ability to sustain operations, as well as being of value to Britain's warship building industry. We will complete the modernisation of our amphibious capability. Last year, we ordered a helicopter carrier. Today, we are announcing that we shall shortly issue an invitation to tender for two new assault ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.
We will also extend the Royal Navy's capability for anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare well into the next century, with the invitation to tender for the design and build of a new class of nuclear-powered submarine—the batch 2 Trafalgar class, which will replace the Swiftsure class.
We are able to carry forward our programme to build a force of 25 modern and highly capable mine counter-measures vessels. Accordingly, we are today placing an order with Vosper Thornycroft for a further batch of seven Sandown single-role minehunters. Four type 23 frigates are currently on order. We plan to issue invitations to tender
1174
for a further batch during the coming year. The Government will assess the case thereafter on the basis of price and operational need.
For the Army, we can now confirm the order of a further 259 Challenger 2 tanks from Vickers Defence Systems. This will enable us to field an all-Challenger 2 fleet of tanks, improve the quality of the country's contribution to NATO's Rapid Reaction Corps and ensure that we have a continuing capability to make a significant contribution to the type of coalition operation we saw in the Gulf. This order will be very good news for Vickers and its work force of nearly 2,000 at both Leeds and Newcastle, and to the company's sub-contractors throughout the country.
An order is also being placed with Royal Ordnance at Glascoed, Gwent for 400,000 rounds of 51mm mortar ammunition.
Finally, we will use some of the additional 3,000 personnel made available last year for the Field Army to allow the Royal Armoured Corps Training Regiment, currently the 9/12 Lancers, to be given a role as a third and additional armoured reconnaissance regiment and to take its place in the front line.
For the RAF, we are placing a production order for the mid-life update of 142 Tornado GR1 aircraft. This will provide improvements to the aircraft's avionics, navigation and armaments systems. It will maintain the operational effectiveness of the RAF's long-range attack capability well into the second decade of the next century, and help to preserve British Aerospace's manufacturing base at Warton in Lancashire in the run-up to production of Eurofighter 2000.
As for weapons programmes, the Gulf conflict demonstrated the value of precision stand-off weapons to allow targets to be attacked accurately, while reducing aircraft vulnerability. We are therefore placing an order for advanced laser-guided bombs with the associated thermal imaging and laser designation pods. The bulk of the work will be done in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland, in the west country and on the south coast.
In addition, the Government believe there is a good case in principle for a new long-range air-to-ground missile, CASOM. They will continue to examine the case for CASOM carefully and, subject to the outcome of that examination, intend to open discussions with industry later in the year.
This is a substantial programme of investment in new equipment. The orders that I have announced today, and orders resulting from the invitations to tender, should together be worth about £5 billion, and are expected to sustain directly over 10,000 jobs. These decisions represent a major boost to British industry, as well as providing vital enhancements for all three services.
The success of "Front Line First" has also identified resources that can now be used to deal with other pressing priorities. I have decided that the most important priorities are to reverse the hollowing-out measures of recent years, and to increase levels of operational training.
To that end, I can announce that the success of "Front Line First" has enabled me to increase RAF operational force levels by moving 12 Harrier GR7 aircraft from the reserve fleet to the front line. I can also inform the House that the frigate and the submarine previously planned to go into mothballs within the next few years will remain in service as part of the operational fleet. I know that those proposals will be particularly welcome within the armed forces.

1175
Equipment levels are themselves of little consequence unless they are backed up by intensive and highly developed training arrangements. Here, too, I am able to announce proposals for all three services. For the Army, we shall be improving our training areas in the United Kingdom and Germany. This will allow an increase in such training of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent., particularly at the battle group level. We shall be acquiring additional training aids to allow more complete simulation training.
For the RAF, it is important that pilots should have sufficient regular flying to preserve and enhance their skills. As part of our shift of resources to the front line, I have decided that the current level of aircrew flying training hours will be increased progressively over the next three years. When completed, the increase will bring the level of flying training for each aircrew member up to 20 hours a month, a total increase of 8,000 hours a year for the fast jet force.
For the Royal Navy, we shall be purchasing additional anti-submarine and gunnery targets to allow more realistic training for ships and naval aircraft deployed away from usual target facilities.
One of the most important achievements of "Front Line First" will be progress in tri-service operational capability. I have already referred to proposals for a joint headquarters, a joint staff college and a joint helicopter school.
I am pleased to be able to say that we intend to develop a joint rapid deployment force. We have already the fighting elements of rapidly deployable forces such as the Royal Marines, the Parachute Brigade, and 24 Air Mobile Brigade. We shall be looking at how best we can develop the capabilities of those forces to enable them to intervene even more effectively and speedily together.
We shall be providing additional communications infrastructure to improve their effectiveness, and many of the equipment enhancements announced earlier will contribute directly to improving this important area of capability. The concept of the joint rapid deployment force is one that can be built on, and the overall ability of our forces to operate at speed and effectively in the sort of situation described will be a high priority for the future.
In the changed strategic environment, there is a wider range of operations in which our forces may be deployed. In this context, for the Navy, we are therefore also examining the case for acquiring and committing to NATO conventionally-armed Tomahawk land attack missiles, and we will be seeking information from the United States of America Government and from industry.
I am conscious that the changes that the armed forces have undergone since the end of the cold war have been painful and demanding for them as well as for civilian staff. The nation already owes them a great debt, and successful implementation of the proposals that I have announced today can only increase that indebtedness. That process of change needs to be managed with sensitivity and care for our people, and that we will do.
The changes are necessary and justified. They will enable us to preserve the front line and proceed with a programme of investment necessary to maintain its operational effectiveness. Today, we have demonstrated the Government's determination to preserve and enhance our fighting strength and to ensure that our armed forces,
1176
soldier for soldier, pilot for pilot and ship for ship, remain the best in the world. I commend the proposals to the House.
Mr. Donald Anderson: May I first express the regrets of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his absence today? As has been explained to the Secretary of State for Defence, he is attending his daughter's graduation ceremony today.
I thank the Secretary of State for his very long statement, which lasted 56 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-six".] Twenty-six—it just felt like 56. The starting point must surely be that our armed forces are one of our country's great centres of excellence and have a worldwide reputation, and that nothing should be done that might destroy that excellence.
Obviously, we must have time fully to digest all the details that were set out today, but we welcome elements of the statement. We welcome, for example, the announcement in relation to the territorials, who at least are likely to have some stability after three years of very substantial cuts. We welcome the greater training planned for all three services. We welcome the new equipment orders and the development of a joint rapid deployment force, for which the case is well established.
We would have little difficulty in accepting the case for cuts if operational efficiency were not thereby impaired, but is it not clear that this latest round of cuts, when 1990's "Options for Change" is only two-thirds complete, has the Treasury as its sole driving force, as the silence of Conservative Back Benchers demonstrated today? If the cuts are so clearly justified, why did they not form part of the "Options" exercise? After 15 years of Conservative government, is it a credible reason that only now have efficiencies come to light?
In short, is it "Front Line First" or "Conservative party first?" Is it "Front Line First" or "bottom line first"? Is it not a clear admission that the Government have got it wrong in the past? Was it an accounting miracle or administrative incompetence that led to the discovery by the MOD that it was spending £500 million more on research and development than it originally thought?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, because of the timing of the announcement, it will be more than three months before the House has an opportunity to debate his statement, including all the major cuts which are part of it?
Does not the experience of recent military operations, especially those in the Gulf, where more than 70 per cent. of our Royal Air Force personnel were deemed to be support staff, show how spurious is the distinction between support services and the front line in a modern integrated service community?
On contractorisation, is not the Secretary of State's faith in privatisation at least troubled by the fact that 18 front-line RAF Tornado F3 fighters have recently been taken out of service and are awaiting repair at RAF St. Athan, due to the poor standard of repairs by civilian contractors? As a lawyer, does he not fear that in an emergency a civilian contractor might well say, "Sorry, it is not within the terms of our contract," or, "These extras have to be charged at premium rates"—as happened during the Gulf operation? Are contractor personnel likely to be asked to risk their lives? What obligation will be placed on contractors to train their own people, and not just poach from a diminished MOD pool?

1177
As for redundancies and the regions affected, do not these cuts represent the sacking by the MOD of 18,700 workers? Will not they have a major effect on regions such as the south-west of England, which are already reeling from Government unemployment policies?
If my hon. Friends catch your eye, Madam Speaker, they will no doubt be making constituency points, but may I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and the trade unions on their magnificent campaign which has at least partially saved the Rosyth base? That campaign will continue, particularly to keep the minesweepers at Rosyth. Is it true that the Secretary of State had to re-write the Rosyth script as late as last Friday?
What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the compulsory redundancies? Why will not the Government undertake a total cost benefit study of such decisions, including the social security and job regeneration costs? Does the Secretary of State accept that it is hardly in our national interest to transfer payments from the MOD to the social security budget?
As for particular matters affecting the RAF, for example, which will bear the brunt of the cuts, is the decision to leave only one air station in Germany final, or can we expect a further announcement?
There are many particular problems affecting the Royal Navy. How can the shore-sea ratio in the Navy, which is so vital to morale, be maintained if home-based jobs, which our sailors would expect to be available, are lost to the Navy as a result of contractorisation?
As for the new orders announced today, have not those major defence equipment orders and sweeteners already been announced—some of them many times? Are they not just a smokescreen to hide the cuts?
Can the Secretary of State tell us of any major equipment order announced today that has not already been announced, in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates, to the Defence Select Committee, or by way of a written answer—in some cases by all three methods? If the Secretary of State claims that, before today's announcement, those orders were in doubt, is he not in effect clearly conceding that we can put no faith in Government promises?
Why was there no mention in the statement of the location of the Army personnel office or the privatisation of the royal dockyards? Announcements on either would have major job implications throughout the country.
Finally, can the Secretary of State give an assurance to our shell-shocked service personnel—whose morale, as he and his colleagues well know, is fragile at the moment—that, after that further blow, there will be a period of stability? Or is that just another promise, like the promise by his predecessors when they said, "This is the end of the cuts"? Are there not further cuts on the horizon—cuts of at least an extra £2.6 billion from the financial year 1996–97?
There is still no defence review, no attempt to strike an overall balance between commitments and resources. There is no attempt, for example, to deal with key questions such as tanks versus helicopters or Tornados versus Harriers. The Government have no coherent strategy. Their defence policy is based on tactics,
1178
short-termism and accountancy tricks. Do not our service personnel and workers in the defence industries deserve better? They will receive better—under Labour.
Mr. Rifkind: After that contribution from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I understand why The Guardian, of all newspapers, this morning said:
"There is no field of politics in which Labour is less convincing than defence".
I shall try to respond to those of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that represented questions. He asked me about Rosyth, and implied that somehow the intervention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) had led to changes in the Government's policy over the past few days. That is a sign of the delusions that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East experiences on a regular basis. The proposals that I announced today are exactly the same as those that I put to the relevant Cabinet Committee a week ago, and have not been changed one iota since then.
We do not consider it necessary to retain both the bases in Germany. Because of German restrictions on flying over Germany, RAF planes now often have to fly back to the United Kingdom for training before returning to Germany later in the day. That makes little operational sense, and that is why the change is being made.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Army Personnel Centre. That has not been mentioned today because there is no change in the current position; it will be established in Glasgow.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether there was to be some stability in defence, and sought to contrast the Government's position with that of the Labour party. But the programme of new equipment and operational improvements that we have announced today is a clear demonstration of the direction in which the Government intend to head.
Compare that with the policy of the Labour party; a policy of calling for a defence review on the front line, on force strengths, on capabilities, which would threaten the armed forces with total uncertainty, not only between now and the general election but, God forbid, thereafter, in the event of a change of Government. The Labour party offers nothing but instability and uncertainty to the fighting strength of the armed forces. Today, we have demonstrated our determination not only to maintain the fighting strength but to enhance it by the various new proposals which we have announced.
Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, while there is—obviously—regret about any losses of jobs, he has the clearest possible duty to see that the support and administration of our armed forces is brought in line with the new structure of our front line? In that connection, while some of his proposals follow on from the plans, as he knows, laid out under the new management strategy, may I congratulate him on some very imaginative new proposals, which have clearly benefited from the consultation process? The investment proposals and new equipment go a long way to meet our undertaking of smaller but better.
However, as he turns to our armed forces and all in the Ministry of Defence to see that that undertaking is successfully completed, will he recognise that it has been a period of major change? If today's announcement is to mark the end of that period, will he take the opportunity to say that, while the pursuit of efficiency must always continue in the Ministry of Defence, the service and duty

1179
of our armed service men and defence personnel entitle them to a period of stability to implement those changes, and to ensure that they are successfully concluded?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend. Of course I agree with the sentiments that he has expressed. He has rightly identified that balance between improved efficiency, the search for which must always continue to ensure best value for money, and the maintenance and enhancement of the fighting strength of our armed forces. We have shown today that that is not rhetoric, but is matched by enhancements of fighting capability, of training opportunities, of the available equipment and of the way in which our armed forces can carry out their responsibilities. I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Since the exercise is described as "Front Line First", will the Secretary of State tell us what assurances he has had from the Treasury about his ability to keep every penny of the savings which he proposes to make and to apply them to the front line?
Will he confirm that the continuation of Rosyth, even in a limited way, is an acceptance of its strategic value? What is the state of readiness for that installation? What exercises, if any, will be carried out to maintain that state of readiness?
In the light of his statement, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman persuaded that it would be right to look not only at costs, but at commitments as well? In the first instance, would it not now make sense to withdraw the Royal Air Force in its entirety from Germany, since the political and military purposes for which it was located there are no longer necessary?
Mr. Rifkind: On the first question, I should have thought that the basis on which I have been able to announce a substantial increase in training, the return to the front line of defence assets which were in reserve, and our policy on a joint rapid deployment force and Tomahawk land attack missiles would have indicated clearly to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the additional savings that we have identified have been available to enhance the front line in the way I have described.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about Rosyth's future role. I have said that Rosyth's future role will be as a naval support establishment, but because of the continuing access of berthing facilities, because of the Crombie ammunition depot nearby and the other available facilities, it will be open to the Royal Navy to use it as a forward operating base, if at some future moment that would seem to be desirable.
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be appropriate to withdraw all our Royal Air Force forces from Germany. The tangible, physical presence of the Royal Air Force and the Army in Germany is part of our commitment to NATO and to the integrated military structure of NATO. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should demonstrate that, as we are doing.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend and all those who took part in the 33 defence costs studies groups, who have come up with this solution to a very difficult problem.
1180
However, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to remember that many of us on this side of the House feel that, notwithstanding the defence costs studies results, some areas of our defences are still in need of further enhancement than has been given today—noticeably the number of soldiers available, which leads to the emergency tour plot gap, which we feel should be filled.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can confirm not only that there will be a period of stability, as he has done, but that we have now reached the bottom of the cuts that we have seen for the past four years and that, as the economy improves, we shall be able further to enhance the capability of all three armed services.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for the tribute that he has paid to all who took part in the studies. I especially give my own thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who chaired the executive group and carried out much of the detailed work.
We shall keep the number of Army personnel under careful consideration. My hon. Friend will recall that we significantly enhanced the size of the field Army not only by reprieving the proposed amalgamation of the Cheshires and the Staffordshires, the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers, but by subsequently announcing a further 3,000 Army personnel for the front line for the field Army. That has enabled us to ease the situation significantly as a consequence.
Sir Harold Walker: Do the Government ever have regard to the employment consequences of their decisions? After the devastation of the coal mining industry and the railway manufacturing industry, my constituents have become increasingly dependent on the jobs provided by RAF Finningley, and now the Secretary of State is to wipe them away, too.
Will he have regard to the employment consequences and say something about the steps that the Government might take to offset the further increase in unemployment in the black spot of unemployment in my constituency? What phasing may take place in the closure of the bases?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course we are conscious that defence expenditure has important employment implications. That is why I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in welcoming the 10,000 defence industry jobs that will be saved or created as a result of the announcements that we have made today.
I am conscious that in several locations there will be job losses. It is never a very pleasant task to announce closures in any part of the country. With his background, the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to acknowledge that it is necessary to use defence resources purely to fulfil the requirements of the armed forces: they cannot be used simply to provide employment for its own sake. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that, and to accept that that is indeed the reality.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that rationalisation and the pursuit of more cost-effective armed forces should happen not purely in reviews but constantly? What is the strategic justification for this review? The world is getting more dangerous, and there are more conflicts rather than fewer, as was the case in 1989 when the cold war ended.
What is to happen to the central flying school, which is the centre of excellence for flying standards in the Royal

1181
Air Force, and is currently located at RAF Scampton, the base from which the Dambusters flew to attack the MÖhne, Sorpe and Eder dams? What is to become of navigation training, which is currently undertaken at RAF Finningley, and to rear crew training, which is also done there? What is to happen to the group structure of the RAF? Rumour has it that many of them are to be embedded in the Headquarters Strike Command.
Mr. Rifkind: The strategic background to the review is the essential requirement of concentrating defence resources on the fighting strength of the armed forces. Therefore, the redeployment that we have announced today is highly sensible for the very reasons that my hon. Friend has stated.
In answer to my hon. Friend's specific questions, we have no proposals to change the group structure of the Royal Air Force. I announced in my statement that both RAF Scampton and RAF Finningley would close. Flying training at the basic level is already in part provided by the private sector. There will be some increase in that provision.
I am conscious of the fact, however, that flying training, when it reaches the level required from military skills, can only be provided by those with military background and military capability; therefore, we will be careful to ensure that those who provide the training are fully qualified to meet the needs of the Royal Air Force. In that respect, I am very much guided by the advice of the Air Force Board.
Ms Rachel Squire: Can the Secretary of State explain what strategic, economic or military reasons he has for moving minehunting and fishery protection from Rosyth naval base, when his own advisers have told him that Rosyth can do it better and more cheaply? Does he agree that his statement on job losses involves 1,620 service personnel moving and 740 civilians losing their jobs, with the impact that that will have on the local economy?
Can he further explain why, only last July, he announced that the rescue co-ordination centre for the United Kingdom would be at Pitreavie, yet today he announced that the maritime headquarters will be moving from Pitreavie?
Finally, does he agree that his statement and his Government's defence policy amount to a betrayal of the trust, loyalty and commitment of the men and women who work at Rosyth, who have served their country so loyally for so many years?
Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Lady's strong feelings on this subject, which she naturally expresses, but she is misinformed. First, the advice that I received from the Royal Navy was unequivocally that there is no longer a strategic requirement for the ships to be based at Rosyth. If the hon. Lady considers the matter as objectively as possible, she will see the strength of that argument.
Of the two minehunter squadrons, one has the purpose of protecting the deterrent in the Clyde, and that is why it is more appropriate for it to be based at Faslane. The other minehunter squadron serves in the Gulf, the Atlantic or elsewhere, and there is no particular argument that points to one location or another as its base. As the hon. Lady must be well aware, the fishery protection service does not provide fishery protection for the waters around Scotland;
1182
it provides protection for the waters around England, Wales and the south-west of England. She should bear that point in mind.
The hon. Lady was right to point out that, in addition to the job losses, service personnel will be moving from Rosyth. It is not yet certain how many will move because, clearly, that will depend on a number of factors. [Interruption.] No, although they will not be working in Rosyth, it does not necessarily follow that all of them will leave, because 400 personnel will be working at Faslane, and it will be up to them to decide whether they wish to move.
As for Pitreavie, the announcement that we made some months ago related to the rescue co-ordination centre. That will be placed at RAF Leuchars in Fife. Although the hon. Lady is correct to point out that it will not be at Pitreavie, she will acknowledge that it will be in the same part of Scotland.
Mr. John Ward: My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that the people of Poole will be dismayed by his announcement today that the 40-year association with the Royal Marines is to be broken. Is he aware that we should be careful to ensure that any savings are spent on weapons, and not on bricks and mortar to house the Royal Marines elsewhere? In particular, will he consider what efforts the Government could make to compensate for job losses? Can he tell us what is to happen to the joint warfare school, which was moved to Poole at considerable public expense only a few years ago?
Mr. Rifkind: I can understand my hon. Friend's sadness at the move from Poole of the Royal Marines, but it will save some £12 million over the next 10 years; therefore, sadly, it was difficult not to reach the decision that that was the right thing to do. As with any other closures, there will be a consultation period of some three months, and we will carefully examine any suggestions that come forward as a result of that. The relocation of the joint warfare school is the subject of a separate tri-service study, and we will announce the outcome of that as soon as we are able to.
Mr. Bruce George: Many Secretaries of State have appeared before the House—certainly since 1985—to announce cuts. In order to achieve the Government's target of reducing defence expenditure to under 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question that his hon Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) asked? It was right to use a Nelsonian tactic against a descendant of Nelson. The Chairman of the Defence Select Committee asked, "Is this the end of the cuts? Will there now be stability ?" The House would welcome an honest answer from the Secretary of State on the subject.
Secondly, the future of the Ministry of Defence police was one of the subjects that the Secretary of State omitted from his very detailed presentation. One of the dafter suggestions of the Blelloch committee was that redundant soldiers should replace Ministry of Defence policemen who were to be made redundant. Has that idea been knocked on the head?
Mr. Rifkind: On the Ministry of Defence police, a study published today identifies the need for further work before we can reach a conclusion on the Blelloch recommendations. I answered the earlier part of the hon.

1183
Gentleman's questions in my answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), when I emphasised that we must continue the search for efficiency. No Government Department will expect to be exempted from that. My announcement today gives total authority to my statement that the Government are committed to maintaining the fighting strength of our armed forces, and we are not going to depart from that.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that he made a speech on 24 June 1993 in which he said that there would be a reduction of only 450 in the work force at Rosyth. He went on to say that there was every confidence that, if the work force applied themselves, they would increase their numbers, employment and benefits. That seems to have gone by the board. I have one simple question. Why?
Mr. Rifkind: I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend: it has not gone by the board. The statement that he mentioned referred to the royal dockyard at Rosyth, and it is heavily involved in work at the moment and ha; good prospects, and its management are optimistic. I stand by the remarks I made.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I welcome that part of the Secretary of State's statement that I hope finally removes the doubt about the future and role of the Territorial Army? Will he clarify whether, as rumoured, there is to be a significant reduction in financial provision for travel to training? Does he realise that that would affect Territorial Army units in Northern Ireland? He must know that any impediment to better training would be disastrous, and likely to undermine the fitness for role of such units.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our conclusions on the Territorial Army. With regard to his question, we are examining the issue. I can assure him that I would not want to support any outcome that made it unreasonable or impossible for members of the TA in Northern Ireland to carry out their proper responsibilities.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the contention that the world is a more dangerous place is, to put it mildly, debatable? There can be no argument about the fact that, since July 1990, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) announced "Options for Change", the threats to the United Kingdom have very much reduced. It is against that background that we must consider the desire, which is defensible, for savings in the defence budget.
My right hon. and learned Friend and his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement are to be congratulated on their achievements. It is in no small measure due to the fact that so many suggestions came from the services that quite radical reductions have been made without any effect on our front-line forces. That is a great achievement.
I have to confess that there were doubters—I was among them. We knew that the ground had been trawled over so many times, and we doubted whether the savings were there. My right hon. and learned Friend must be congratulated, as so much has been done, and the fighting effectiveness of our forces has been maintained.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I emphasise that I attach enormous importance to involving the armed forces in a series of proposals which affect them more than anybody else. More than 3,000 members of the armed forces and civil servants at the Ministry of Defence took the trouble to put their proposals to us, and many of those suggestions were found to be very sensible with regard to how we could deliver the same quality of product without having to use the same resources. It has been an enormously valuable exercise, and it is something on which we wish to build in the years to come so that we can maintain that confidence, relationship and trust.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall let questions on the statement run for a little longer, but not for too long. It has been a long and complex statement, and I want the House to keep in mind the fact that I anticipate a two-day debate on the matter immediately after we return from the summer recess.
Mr. John Hutton: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, and also his statement that tenders will be invited for new batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. Both announcements will be welcomed in my constituency.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look again specifically at the contract for the batch 2 Trafalgars? Will he make it clear that his policy is to maintain 16 SSNs in the Royal Navy? If that is the case, why does the contract for the batch 2 Trafalgars specify an original order for five, and not the three plus two which I understand was the Government's proposal?
May I also ask about the armed forces medical services? On what basis does the Secretary of State classify the medical services as support services, and not as part of the front line? How many of the 1,600 doctors and dentists who are currently in the regular armed forces will be made redundant as a result of his statement?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the industrial orders which we have made. I cannot give precise details on the batch 2 Trafalgar submarines. That is essentially because we are entering into negotiations on price, and obviously there are matters which we will wish to discuss with those who are anxious to build the boats on our behalf.
As for the medical services, we must have military medical expertise available on the front line and in combat situations when required. The particular changes which we have announced are with regard to hospital establishments within the United Kingdom. Those are important, but they can be provided on a joint basis, rather than on a separate service basis, and together would provide military medical hospital annexes which will meet the requirements of the forces.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friends will know that I set them a challenge at the beginning of the cost reduction study, which I fully supported, of reducing costs and not having to build a grandiose office block north of Bristol. They have cut civil service jobs by 7,000, but are continuing with that ridiculous project.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm to the House that, despite the four separate studies during the past

1185
five or six years into the air station at Portland moving to Yeovilton—each of which said that it would not be cost-effective—that move has now been proposed? The total job losses in Dorset, including the marines, will be 2,250. That is a very large number when compared with anything that Rosyth is currently suffering.
We will have an opportunity in Dorset to look at the figures which have been brought forward, particularly as there does not appear to be any consistency with reports which have come from people previously. Finally, what will be the effect of the third reconnaissance regiment within my constituency?
Mr. Rifkind: I can understand my hon. Friend's regret about the proposal for Portland, and I acknowledge his point. It is unfortunately necessary to propose the measure, because it will provide savings of some £40 million over a 10-year period, without operational cost. The proposal is to relocate to Somerset, which is relatively close to Portland.
The employment implications for the local community are that about 150 local people employed at the establishment and about 250 contracted staff will be affected. I acknowledge that some 1,200 service personnel will also be leaving Portland as a consequence of the proposal.
Mrs. Irene Adams: In the light of the Secretary of State's statement, will he now tell the House whether there are any plans to reduce the number of MOD employees at Kentigern house in Glasgow? Will the original target for the numbers now be met?
Mr. Rifkind: As a result of the work that has been done, we have come to the conclusion that the proposal for the army personnel centre to be in Glasgow should be confirmed. As part of the overall changes in manpower, there is likely to be a reduction in the number of people who will work there, but we are still working on the precise figure. However, the work will go to Kentigern house.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend accept my appreciation for his skill in taking the opportunity to boost the front-line services in his announcement today? As he knows, the Royal Marines are a vital part of the cultural and economic life of the city of Plymouth. Will he assure me this afternoon that no hasty decision will be taken to relocate the Royal Marines to north Devon, and that not a single Royal Marine will relocate without the fullest possible consultation?
Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that this matter must be considered carefully, and we shall wish to take into account the views of the Royal Marines themselves. The issue is being considered because city-centre sites in any city, including Plymouth, are much more expensive. As we have spare capacity in Chivenor, the Royal Marines could benefit considerably by moving to that location. No final conclusion has yet been reached and we shall wish to take account of all the relevant circumstances.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State realise that, far from portraying his announcement on Rosyth as a victory for himself, he should be thoroughly ashamed, because to most logical thinkers it is not a reprieve for Rosyth but a suspended sentence. A naval base without ships hardly fulfils the role envisaged.
1186
On the aspect of a fishery protection service, which is extremely important in Scotland, does he realise that the Scottish Office has a contract with the Royal Navy, and the Royal Navy supports the protection service when any major incident occurs? What he has said today shows that he now intends to privatise that contract. The fishermen in my area and all maritime constituencies would like clarification on that.
Does the Secretary of State agree with Professor Greenwood, of the department of strategic studies at Aberdeen university, that, without a naval base at Rosyth, the oil and gas installations in the North sea will not be offered the full protection that they require?
Mr. Rifkind: On the first question, Rosyth is to become a naval support establishment because the Ministry of Defence believes that all the other activities that currently take place on the base need to continue. That is the basis of my announcement.
On the fishery protection service, there is one fishery protection offshore patrol vessel which the Royal Navy provides for the Scottish fishery protection service. That will continue, and will not be affected in any way by today's announcement.
On Professor Greenwood's article, which I read yesterday, he is obviously unaware that, every day of the year, a minehunter—an official patrol vessel—is in the North sea and available on first call should an incident occur in the North sea, so the operational requirement is not affected by today's announcement.
Mr. Toby Jessel: I welcome my right hon. Friend's enthusiastic acceptance of the military value of British Army bands, whose high standard of excellence is the envy of the entire world, and who are trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall, Twickenham. Why is it necessary to set up yet another long study on musician training, which could have been done over the past year? Why cannot he now set up a joint services music college at Kneller Hall, which provides excellent value for money?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend need not fear that it will be a long study. It is important to see whether some of the facilities used by, for instance, the Royal Air Force to train its musicians might be relevant to other services. We are not starting out with presuppositions. The matter needs to be looked at, and I hope to be able to reach a conclusion on it in the relatively near future.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State will understand the deep disappointment in Pendine in my constituency, where 300 jobs will be lost in an area with no comparable alternative employment. There is also deep resentment that much of the work will move to Shoeburyness, despite the fact that Pendine has a long record as a centre of excellence and works efficiently and cost effectively. Why is there a bias for the south and against the regions?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course I acknowledge the quality of the work force in Pendine. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement visited Pendine and reported to me on that matter.
It is always a sadness when any establishment is closed, but we have had to review the overall requirements of the Army for ranges. Sadly, we have come to the judgment that we have a current over-capacity, so it has been necessary

1187
to indicate certain closures—and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are not related to any one part of the country.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Although the cold war has finished, the hot war in Northern Ireland is heating up. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that. This week, we have had a cruel spiral of a new departure, where politicians are to be on the receiving end of the gun and the bomb. Already, my colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has had his home attacked, and it was only by the mercy and providence of God that he and 11 people in that home were not murdered.
Another politician was shot dead in Lisburn; another councillor who has now finished his term and belonged to my party, in the Cookstown council, had his house bombed and destroyed; and a large bomb has been found. Thank God that it was found, for one can only wonder at what devastation it would have caused here on the mainland.
In keeping with that, I ask the Secretary of State, what will be the results of his proposals for the armed forces in Northern Ireland? Is it still his policy to do away with the full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment?
Mr. Rifkind: No proposals in the documents published today will in any way reduce the contribution made by the Army, or the other security forces, to the protection of the people of Northern Ireland and the battle against terrorism. That is part of the front line, and it is part of the role of our armed forces as long as there is a battle against terrorism to be waged. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can assume that that will remain one of our highest priorities.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Secretary of State aware that today will be regarded as a black day in the history of the Royal Air Force, and that he will be inflicting more damage on it than Goering and the Luftwaffe sought to do in 1940?
Does he appreciate that his anxiety for the privatisation of flying training affects the maintenance of the ethos and traditions of the service; that the quality of that training will be hard to match; that, while Britain remains a member of the Security Council, he and his colleagues will wish to ensure that Britain fulfils its international obligations in response to the growing instability in the world; and that, without an adequately sized Royal Air Force, our contribution cannot be guaranteed?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is totally out of touch with the current views of the Royal Air Force and of the Air Force Board. If he had listened to my statement, he would have heard that we have made a major announcement about the upgrading of the Tornado, one of the highest priorities of the Royal Air Force; that we have brought a squadron of Harriers into the front line from the reserves; and that we have announced important orders for laser-guided bombs, which is a very important priority at present. We have announced decisions about a number of other important related issues of that type.
The hon. Gentleman should realise that the fighting capability of the Royal Air Force determines the contribution that it can make to our security and to our national interests, and that, if resources are not
1188
concentrated in the fighting and operational capability of the Royal Air Force, the kind of rather foolish prediction that the hon. Gentleman made would indeed come true.
Mr. David Shaw: Why has music not been tackled on a combined school of music basis at Deal? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not conclude, therefore, that the IRA has now bombed the Royal Marines out of Deal? His quotation of a figure of £300,000 includes the security costs for three sites, when only one is needed for music training. Does he therefore accept that the Ministry of Defence figures are totally false and incorrect? Will he visit Deal, and meet some of the 12,600 people who signed a petition in favour of a combined school of music in Deal?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that Margaret Thatcher told me in 1989 that removing the Royal Marines school of music from Deal would tear the heart out of Deal? Will he also accept that unemployment is greater in Dover and Deal than in many regions of the country whose military establishments have been saved?
Mr. Rifkind: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings on that subject. Given the background in Deal, we have obviously considered that issue extremely carefully and tried to be as sensitive to those matters as possible. It is difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that we have done.
My hon. Friend knows that the Royal Marines themselves believe that it is appropriate for them to move to another location. He knows that the cost of the Royal Marines school in Deal is about £6 million a year. He knows that only about 15 to 20 Royal Marine musicians are trained there each year. That position could not possibly continue indefinitely. Of course we have considered whether there were other options that would have allowed the Royal Marines to continue in Deal and make other uses of the excess capability there. We have not been able to identify any coherent or sensible alternative.
There is now a consultation period of about three months, and if my hon. Friend makes proposals that we have not considered, or can identify factors that we have not correctly assessed, we will wish to consider them. However, the subject has been considered very, very carefully. I do not believe that, if one is as objective as one has to be, it was possible to come to any alternative conclusion.
Mr. Frank Cook: With a son who has now served for some months in Gorajde in Bosnia, I should dearly like to be able to take the term "front line first" at face value, but front lines are dependent on reliable logistic supplies, and the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon that 17 depots are to close.
If I may refer to one specific depot, which employs many of my constituents, I have the report which says that many millions of pounds have been spent on that establishment in the past five years, and several millions of pounds allocated to the next two years' expenditure, making it the most up-to-date component handling centre in Europe, if not the world.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question yet.
Mr. Cook: Is the depot scheduled for closure? If so, why, and how can the right hon. and learned Gentleman

1189
justify it? I am speaking about Eaglescliffe. How can he justify having spent all that money in the past five years, and more to come, with that decision in mind?
Mr. Rifkind: Those are also difficult and painful decisions, but once it was established that we could meet our requirements with far fewer supply depots and stores, we had to identify the basis on which they should be chosen, and the strong opinion of the Royal Navy was that depots should be retained that were on coastal sites rather than inland. From an operational point of view, for obvious reasons, that is more appropriate to their needs. It was on that basis that, in the cases of Eaglescliffe and of Exeter, the decisions that we have announced today have been taken.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Although the House as a whole will welcome this skilful package, will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that my constituents will be saddened at the closure of RAF Scampton, one of the RAF's most historic bases, currently the home of the Red Arrows, formerly that of the V bombers and of the Dambusters in the second world war? Will he reconsider that decision and pursue that matter with me?
My right hon. and learned Friend has told me in a letter today that he will retain the married quarters. If he has retained the married quarters, will the runway be retained? If so, is there any chance that the Red Arrows can be left at RAF Scampton? If the base is to close, will he pursue with me how as many jobs as possible, especially on the civilian side—the 250 contractor jobs, the 80 civilian jobs—can be saved and transferred to nearby RAF Waddington?
Mr. Rifkind: The background to that decision is the overall rationalisation of flying training, which will provide savings of about £40 million a year. It has inevitably led to the requirement to close several establishments, such as RAF Scampton. I will wish to listen carefully to any representations that my hon. Friend might wish to make, and to seek to ensure that, if Scampton closes, the assets there will be used in the most constructive way that can help lessen the difficulties that are experienced there and elsewhere.
Mr. Terry Lewis: When will the Minister realise that the continual drive for cheaper civilian employees in the services has a deleterious effect on the service personnel left? I have two small examples. In some military establishments, it is almost impossible to raise rugby and football teams. Guard duties have doubled and trebled, so that the personnel are on guard most of the time. What happened to esprit de corps, which is developed through such activities?
Mr. Rifkind: Esprit de corps is overwhelmingly determined by the ability of the armed forces to carry out their primary role. That is why it is important to concentrate resources on that sector. If there are cheaper ways of providing some of the back-up services—civilianisation often provides a cheaper way of meeting some of the needs—we would be neglecting our duty if we did not explore them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.50 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:—
MONDAY 18 JULY—Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
Motion on the Railways Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) order.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the estimates and supplementary estimates for 1994–95.
TUESDAY 19 JULY—Opposition Day (13th allotted day) (2nd part). Until Seven o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Water Industry" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 20 JULY—Motion for the Summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill.
THURSDAY 21 JULY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Tuesday, 19 July:
European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 7073/94 relating to Development of the Trans-European Transport Network.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 5744/94 relating to Voting and Candidacy Rights in Local Elections.
[Tuesday 19 July
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 7073/94, Trans-European Transport Networks: Guidelines; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xxiii (1993–94)
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 5744/94, Local Government Elections; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xvi (1993–94) HC 48-xx ( 1993–94).]
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1994.
TUESDAY 18 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1994.
WEDNESDAY 19 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
THURSDAY 20 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—there do appear to be a few.
FRIDAY 21 OCTOBER—Private Members' motions.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and in
1192
particular for telling us the business that we can expect on our return from the summer recess. I also thank him for the Opposition day that he has announced.
The business that he has announced takes us up to the summer recess. This summer's heat makes air pollution, particularly in London, all the more unbearable. I think that hon. Members will be wondering what has happened to the Bill to take forward the environment protection agency promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech on 18 November last year. As this Session moves to a close, I ask the Leader of the House: what has happened to the Bill that was promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech last year?
In his rush to pack us off for the summer, I hope that the Leader of the House has not overlooked important announcements that might come from his ministerial colleagues, which I am certain that hon. Members would like to hear. May we have an assurance from the Lord President that there will not be a flood of bad news announcements or any important announcements from Government Departments immediately after we have risen for the recess?
Given the substantial pressure, both from the public and in the House, for reform of the Child Support Agency, is it possible for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement on legislative changes and why they cannot take effect before 1996, before we depart for the summer recess?
Finally, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in wishing the Lord President an enjoyable summer recess. I hope that he fares well in the forthcoming reshuffle.
Mr. Newton: I forbear from commenting on the hon. Gentleman's last point. I am grateful for his good wishes for the summer recess, which are reciprocated.
I cannot hold out the prospect of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security making a further statement on the Child Support Agency before the break. Only a little over a week ago, we had a debate in which my right hon. Friend made a substantial speech.
As for announcements, there is no plot to hold things back. As one discovers in Government, timing can always slip, but we are planning to make one or two announcements before the recess, in a sensible and orderly way.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on air pollution and associated matters at Prime Minister's questions, although I acknowledge that he did not touch on the Bill. I would not wish to hold out any prospect of us trying to pass the paving Bill on the environment protection agency before the summer recess. We are looking carefully at that subject, as we are making such good progress on the main Bill.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Select Committee on Procedure is pressing forward with consideration of Prime Minister's questions, about which there has been quite a lot of publicity? I thank my right hon. Friend for the evidence that he sent to us. Will he press other hon. Members on their ideas as, although there has been a great deal of heat, the Committee has received little other evidence of how we can improve the situation?
Madam Speaker: Order. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Procedure, his points had little to do with next week's business.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure now whether I should upset you, Madam Speaker, by saying something or upset my right hon. Friend by saying nothing. I am sure that those present in the Chamber will have noted your remarks, and those of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Leader of the House accept that one statement that needs to be made before we rise for the recess is the long-awaited announcement on the future of the Forestry Commission? Does he agree that those who work in forests or are economically dependent on them, and those who enjoy public access to them during the summer holidays, need to know that the commission's future and its work will be secure?
Mr. Newton: I shall just say delicately that there is an inter-relationship between that question and my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about possibilities before the recess.
Mr. David Nicholson: I believe that a Green Paper has been published this afternoon about the future of the dental service and charging for it. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is great interest and concern about the subject, about which there has long been dispute in our constituencies. We have been waiting for a long time for the Government to make up their mind about the Bloomfield report. Will there be an opportunity to debate that important subject next week?
Mr. Newton: There will a number of opportunities to raise various topics next week, but I cannot promise a dedicated debate. My recollection is that my hon. Friend is an assiduous attender of the recess Adjournment debates, so I think that I can predict one topic that may come up. The document published today is a consultative document and a Green Paper, and the views of hon. Members and others will be welcome.
Mr. Alfred Morris: We have just been discussing the concerns of the service people of today; but what about the boys of the old brigade, their widows and other dependants? The right hon. Gentleman will know from its organisations in Essex that the ex-service community is impatient for full implementation of the resolution approved by the House on 1 July about its problems and needs. May we have an oral statement next week about the steps the Government are taking to give full effect to that important resolution?
Mr. Newton: I was present that day and the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that I have had representations from my constituents—I discussed the subject with one of them only last weekend. I do not think that I can promise a statement or add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said at the time.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement in relation to forthcoming business in October effectively means that my constituents, who have been waiting for the legislation contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill,
1194
will not see it enacted during the summer and will therefore have to suffer the activities of new age travellers, summer raves and juvenile crime—all of which the measure was directed towards? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels, convey to those in the other place the concern of my constituents about the effect of the amendments passed this week?
Mr. Newton: I must confirm that my statement means that I do not anticipate the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill becoming law before the summer recess. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall certainly see that a message along the lines that he has set out is sent on his behalf. I would add that it is the usual—although not the invariable—practice for legislation to come into force only some months after it is enacted, to allow time for preparation, so I am not sure that the effect will be quite as dramatic as my hon. Friend suggests.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Leader of the House aware that the chief executive of the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency has stated that, from September this year, patients with GPs in one geographic area of my constituency—Highgate—will no longer be accepted for treatment at that hospital as a result of Government cuts of £30 million in the district health authority's budget? As that action totally refutes the Government's oft-stated claim that the NHS reforms are working, not least in treating more patients, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time to debate the issue next week, will he at least find time to ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to deliver a statement?
Mr. Newton: This is probably the second or third time that the hon. Lady has raised that point—I have certainly heard it once before. As I cannot promise a statement, the right course for me to follow is to make sure that her remarks are drawn quickly and specifically to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. James Clappison: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and invite my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would be possible to save some of the time being set aside in October for consideration of Lords amendments by expressing to the other place the full force of our constituents' concerns about the mischiefs that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill would remedy? Perhaps their Lordships, who do not always have the chance to consider the full force of our constituents' feelings, should bear in mind the extent of the latter's anxieties and their wish to support the good work being done by the police, whose success in reducing crime can only be enhanced by the necessary provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Newton: I have said that I very much understand the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the House who have experience of the problem, and the importance of tackling it. I shall, of course, add my hon. Friend's representations to those made a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans).
Mr. Harry Barnes: The business for next week is obviously affected by the coming three-month recess. Is not a Member without a Parliament rather like a consultant without a hospital, a naval base without ships, or a miner without a pit—redundant?
Mr. Newton: I rather think that constituencies—not just Parliament, which is certainly an important part of a Member's work—come into this point as well. The hon. Gentleman has had a running difference of opinion with me and the vast majority of hon. Members about that matter. A balance must be struck between people's ability to spend time in their constituencies and their ability to spend time here. We shall have to agree to differ about the length of the recess.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend arrange time for a debate on heart disease in the United Kingdom, given last week's report which shows our relatively poor national performance, particularly the rising prevalence of smoking among women? It would be nice if hon. Members on both sides could use our parliamentary time and our media coverage to send out a positive message to the whole of society.
Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the problem and the message. Even so, I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate next week—although my hon. Friend might find a crevice in one of the debates that we are holding.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate early-day motion 1482?
[That this House deplores the failure of Railtrack over many weeks to respond to approaches from Gorton residents and from the Right honourable Member for Manchester, Gorton, regarding the need to provide safety fencing adjacent to Abbey Hey Amateur Football Ground and to secure the sub-station at Vine Street; notes that the failure of Railtrack to make any satisfactory response to such approaches, let alone to carry out urgently the required work, could place in jeopardy the lives of children and other local residents; is concerned to note this lack of concern about such safety issues displayed by this new and unaccountable organisation; and calls on Railtrack, instead of sending out wasteful and silly propaganda folders to honourable Members, to take speedy action to deal with what are, literally, vital matters.]
It seeks to ban bull bars, which research has shown have almost certainly led to 34 avoidable deaths—mostly of children—in collisions. Is it not disturbing that the Transport Research Laboratory has said that it cannot carry out any more research on the subject because it does not have a sponsor? Is it not a reflection on what is unprivatisable in our society when an organisation such as the Transport Research Laboratory cannot fund such research, because no one has a vested financial interest in child safety?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that my total recall of nearly 1,500 early-day motions has broken down on this occasion—[Interruption.] There seems to be a view that the hon. Gentleman may have given us the wrong number for the EDM. I shall take refuge in saying that I shall examine his words and consider what action I might take.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate next week on the rail dispute, which is continuing to cause concern to my constituents? That would give Conservative Members a chance to criticise a pay demand that is four times the rate of inflation and give Opposition Members, especially those
1196
sponsored by the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, the opportunity to explain why a restructuring package that could deliver 22 per cent. increases in basic pay is not even being discussed.
Madam Speaker: I heard all that last week.
Mr. Newton: That is helpful, Madam Speaker, but as my hon. Friend says, he is concerned precisely because the situation this week is the same. There is still a strike in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. Those pursuing it should reconsider.
Even without a debate, there is, as it happens, an opportunity to consider the matter on Monday, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to be here to answer questions.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on early-day motion 1508?
[That this House condemns the Right honourable Member for Copeland for stating during the second reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill that he had 'shown constant support for the European Union', Official Report, column 700, and that whilst the Labour Party had changed on Europe his position had never changed; and notes that in October 1971 he voted against the principle of Britain's entry to the EEC when 69 of his honourable Friends, including the late John Smith, defied the Labour whip and voted in favour, that in February 1972 he voted against the European Communities Bill and that in April 1986 he voted against the Single European Act, along with the honourable Member for Sedgefield.]
It highlights the extraordinary statement by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), made in the House this week, that he had never changed his mind on Europe. A debate would give us the opportunity to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman voted against the European Community in 1971 and 1972, and voted against the Single European Act in 1986, yet now wants to persuade the House that European monetary union and the surrender of the British veto in Europe represent a sensible and consistent policy.
Mr. Newton: My total recall system has now recovered, and has put into my mind the fact that, on top of what my hon. Friend says, the right hon. Gentleman presumably stood on the Labour manifesto for the 1983 general election, which stated:
"British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain—to be completed within the lifetime of the parliament".
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have an urgent debate on the plight of rail commuters? The situation is not the same as last week's since, thanks to the selfishness of the union, long-suffering commuters will face two days a week of disruption in pursuit of an 11 per cent. no-strings-attached pay claim—this to be financed by commuting constituents whose commuting costs have already risen by 6 per cent. Those constituents have noted the decisive decision to make no comment on the dispute affecting them by the three contenders for the Labour party leadership.
Mr. Newton: I hope that the public have duly noted my hon. Friend's last point. I share his view that it is quite unjustified to hold the travelling public to ransom for the sort of increase being demanded.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Madam Speaker: I have announcements to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday 20 July.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Monday 18 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list.
As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
I also remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 21 July, up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order
5.9 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). Sadly, as you know, Madam Speaker, the hon. Gentleman cannot be present.
You will recall, Madam Speaker—who could forget?—the speech by the hon. Member for Neath last night. I draw attention to column 1124 of Hansard, where you, Madam Speaker, said:
"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."
Shortly after that, the hon. Member for Neath mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who, on a point of order, said:
"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."
By column 1129, the situation was slightly different. The hon. Member for Neath said:
"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."—[Official Report, 13 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1124–29.]
Those are two different versions, and it is difficult to see how both can be entirely correct.
Thanks to the diligence of our messengers, the board was open until 10.30 pm last night. If the hon. Gentleman's first statement was true and he went to the board at 10 pm, he could have presented his letters and they would have been stamped.
I have one of the envelopes, but I believe that the others are similar. It shows that it was stamped, not at the board but in the post office, at 1 am. Similarly, if the messengers say that they maintained the board until 10.30 pm, the statement that the hon. Member for Neath went there at 10 pm and found it closed also needs closer examination.
There is a distinct possibility that you, Madam Speaker, and the House deserve an apology from the hon. Member for Neath. I should be most grateful if you would look into the matter.
Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The entire House knows how anxious I am that right hon. and hon. Members inform other hon. Members about whom they propose to comment. I was most concerned by last night's exchanges and I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised.

1199
During business questions, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) made a remark about the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I take it that he notified the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to do so?
Mr. Anthony Coombs: No, Madam Speaker, I did not. I apologise.
Madam Speaker: I take this opportunity to remind the House that I am proud to defend the robustness of exchanges in the House but I despair sometimes at the bad parliamentary manners and behaviour displayed by some hon. Members in all parts of the House. There is another week to go before the summer recess. I hope that, come Monday, I shall see some improvement.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall the frequent attempts to establish better facilities for Line of Route visitors. One suggestion is that they could use some of the facilities available in the banqueting rooms. Yesterday, the serious allegation was made that a Member of Parliament was offered a sum in excess of £10,000 a year to book banqueting rooms in the name of an unidentified body.
In the past, I have tabled parliamentary questions asking for lists of all companies that use the banqueting rooms in the names of hon. Members. That information has always been denied to me and to other hon. Members. In view of the seriousness of the allegation made yesterday and of another—that American visitors were buying places at banqueting room functions—will your office, Madam Speaker, undertake to publish the details that I have sought to ensure transparency and so that we all know what is happening in respect of banqueting room bookings?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for the Chair, but it is a serious point that might be referred to the Catering Committee.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), asked a question about bull bars. Today, in the European Legislation Sub-Committee on Road Safety, the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave the clearest sign that a statement about various traffic matters that is likely to include provisions relating to bull bars will be made next week. I am afraid that I did not get permission to mention his name.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps my remarks today will be taken to heart by all hon. Members present—and I hope that those who are not present will take the trouble to read Hansard and learn my views.

BILL PRESENTED
  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (WALES)
  Mr. Barry Jones, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. John Marek, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Roy Hughes and Mr. Martyn Jones, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Wales, discrimination against disabled persons on the grounds of their disability; 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 153.]

Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
5.15 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1568), a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
It has become something of a modest tradition that, whenever I rise to speak on fishing matters, others seek to intervene to make their points. I shall be happy to give way to right hon. and hon. Members during the course of my remarks, provided that they will do me the courtesy of not attacking me at the end of the debate if there is not sufficient time for their own contributions.
Commercial fishing is an important industry. Last year, landings in the United Kingdom and abroad were worth £517 million. Its activities help to support our coastal communities through the direct provision of employment and indirectly, through processing, harbour and related industries. That income also helps to maintain the infrastructure and sheer attractiveness of many of our coastal areas.
Everyone connected with the fishing industry knows that its long-term future and viability are closely linked to the need to achieve a proper balance between the fishing effort represented by our current fleet and stocks of fish in the sea. The problem was brought home most graphically to me when I prepared recently for a Radio 4 interview on the state of fish stocks in the North sea. Probed by the interviewer, I was able to tell him that over the last decade the spawning stock of cod had dropped 58 per cent. and catch levels by 40 per cent., while fishing effort remained about the same. That emphasises all too clearly the problems that we face with all the main white fish stocks.
Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend have any comment to make on press reports of European Commission proposals, particularly in relation to Spain and Portugal? All sorts of disturbing stories are flying around.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend anticipates my further comments on control of fishing effort. Only today we received by fax from Brussels detailed information on the Commission's proposals. Those details were presented to a technical committee meeting in Brussels this morning. Some comment has been premature, to say the least, and ill informed. I am an assiduous reader of Fishing News, and draw my hon. Friend's attention to a most statesmanlike and considered comment by Mr. Bob Allan, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Fishing News reported that he
"was concerned at the proposals but stressed that as yet no detailed document had been issued. Caution was necessary until the full details and their likely effects could be evaluated, although the likelihood of an across the board days at sea regime being introduced had been foreshadowed at the April Council meeting on Spanish access."
I think that that is a very proper stance. Mr. Allan was right to caution us against jumping to conclusions: these are very early days.
The proposals respond to the wider issue of the control of the effort represented by the Spanish fishing fleet in the light of the removal, under the accession treaty, of the basic and periodic list system. They cover waters from the Shetland islands all the way around the western

1201
approaches, including the area known as the Irish box, and through to the English channel. They constitute a comprehensive package, but we shall want to examine them in the utmost detail. To that end, we have already arranged a meeting with the industry next Thursday, 21 July. It is unlikely that the Fisheries Council will discuss the matter in detail until its meeting on 23 November, so everyone will have ample opportunity to consider it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will all the papers be available to hon. Members representing maritime constituencies? These matters are of great concern to us all, and we should like to study them in detail before making our own responses.
May I ask the Minister, in his meetings with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation or any other organisation representing the industry, to ensure a faster response than that given by the federation in September 1993 in regard to reducing the fishing effort? In fact, no official response has yet been received.
Mr. Jack: I apologise for that. I have certainly done my best to keep the Scottish industry informed of developments. I assure the hon. Lady, and other hon. Members with fishing constituencies, that I shall be happy to discuss the proposals once we have had an opportunity to study them in depth. My door will be open. It is important for the proposals to be properly understood; when hon. Members have had time to consider them, they will be able to register their views on how their constituents will be affected with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for agriculture and the environment.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister said that he would meet representatives of the industry next Thursday. There is currently great concern in the port of Portavogie, which the Minister visited last year, about the reported decisions being made in Brussels. As the Minister said, these are still only proposals and we do not know the details, but can he assure me that the Northern Ireland fishing industry will be represented at that meeting as its representatives were clearly not aware of it when I spoke to them today?
Mr. Jack: At this very early stage, I shall be discussing the proposals with my officials. Representatives of the industry are not coming to see me yet, but I am sure that they will want to come and knock on my door—which, as always, will be opened with pleasure. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, however, and I shall ensure that the views of Northern Ireland fishermen are taken into account.
I am, of course, aware that the proposals are as important to people north of the border as they are to those south of the border, and to all who fish the waters of the western approaches. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the door has been kept firmly shut in the past, certainly in regard to Spain and Portugal and the North sea. That has caused concern to many hon. Members, and the change of policy is, in its own way, good news.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance which I am certain he can give easily?
1202
Fishermen in the south-west fear that Portugal and Spain will always do better than Britain. Will my hon. Friend ensure that our industry in the south-west is properly protected?
Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend has raised an important aspect of the whole question of effort control. Ours are Community-wide proposals, which will apply to all member states with rights to fish in the waters concerned. Underlying that issue is the question of enforcement. I am acutely aware of the sensitivities aroused, especially in the south-west, by the many reports of rule-breaking by other Community states. I give my hon. Friend this undertaking: along with the Commissioner, I will continue to press the point that, unless we have credible, uniform enforcement of the common fisheries policy, the policy itself will not be credible.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister gave us a categorical assurance that Spanish vessels would not be allowed into the North sea. Does that mean that they will not be able to fish for either pressure or non-pressure stocks? The Minister's approach has been to concede the principle of full Spanish accession before the details have been worked out; from a negotiating point of view, that is barmy.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman made that point to me yesterday, with a smile on his face, when he came to see my right hon. Friend the Minister and me. I pointed out to him that when we discussed the point in the December Fisheries Council it was as a result of the United Kingdom's stalwart stand that the original Commission proposal was not implemented. That would have been a blank-cheque approach: it would have removed all controls. We did not have an iota of detailed information about what would have replaced the present measures to control access to waters around our shores. If it were not for the United Kingdom, we would not now be considering an excellent effort-controlling measure.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) can smile as much as he likes, but the accession treaty has made it absolutely clear that at the end of 1995 the area known as the Irish box would go. To do nothing about that would have been a dereliction of duty. The hon. Gentleman should know me better. I felt that it was very important for us to press on to secure an agreement on the principles, which would then guide the Commission in working out the details before there could be any backsliding to weaken the controls that had been proposed to deal with the effort represented by the Spanish fleet.
This is a very sensitive matter. I think that we obtained an extremely good deal in the end, and I am glad to say that the United Kingdom took the lead in obtaining it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The debate seems to be going very wide of the scheme and the provision of grants for the decommissioning of vessels. Someone will have to explain to me very convincingly how the exchange that has just taken place relates to that subject.
Mr. Jack: The measures clearly relate to the way in which the remaining fishing effort of the fleet will be deployed after the decommissioning scheme has had its effect. I think that hon. Members have been probing to find

1203
out how that effort would be controlled, and how those fishing around our shores would interact with other Community members. Part of the proposals relate to the achievement of Community-wide effort reduction programmes within what is known as the multi-annual guidance programme.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my intervention relates directly to decommissioning. I give you my word on that. I have some experience of the industry.
As a fishing nation, we are badly adrift in terms of our multi-annual guidance programme. Given that the measure by which it is defined—a reduction in fleet tonnage and power—is so crude, what progress has been made in Brussels to arrive at a sensible and effective measure of fishing capacity? Surely the Minister agrees that a reduction in tonnage and power does not necessarily lead to a reduction in fishing capacity.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman may have got his terminology slightly mixed up. We are talking about controlling fishing effort, which has a direct relationship with both the capacity of a vessel and its power. That is the formula to which the multi-annual guidance programme refers. We do not take a single approach to the controlling of effort: other measures are involved, which I shall outline shortly.
I highlighted earlier the difficulties involving cod stock and the rest of the whitefish stocks in the North sea and I made the point that it was a Community-wide problem. With that in mind, the Government sought in 1993 to introduce a series of measures to help to reduce the fishing effort of our fleet and to meet our share of the Community-wide reduction programme—the multi-annual guidance programme. A key part of the MAGP was the £25 million decommissioning scheme, with which hon. Members will be familiar from the debate on 7 July last year.
At that time, we made it clear that the scheme would be introduced over a three-year period so that we could closely monitor its results and, if necessary, adjust the qualifying criteria to ensure that the money available removed the maximum amount of effort possible, moved us towards meeting Community sectoral effort reduction targets and gave good value for money to the taxpayer. It is perhaps worth reflecting that in addition to the decommissioning scheme the Government spend on the industry some £16 million a year on fisheries research, about £12 million on vessel safety, grants for processing and port improvements, and a further £22 million on enforcement.
Mrs. Ewing: In the context of decommissioning, is it not true that only £11 million of the £500 million allocated for decommissioning schemes in the European Union between 1987 and 1992 has been taken up by the Government? How will they square that circle? If we are to have a decommissioning scheme, it must be effective to meet the requirements of the MAGP.
Mr. Jack: I hope that my remarks on this matter will illustrate clearly to the hon. Lady that we have an effective scheme, that we want to spend our total of £25 million, and that the scheme will—with other measures—make a significant contribution towards meeting our target.
1204
Even with that in mind, the last time that decommissioning was debated in the House, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) chastised me for the size of our decommissioning scheme and went on to try to outbid me. I noted at the time, however, that he broke the Labour party's first and only commandment—"Thou shalt not give any promise"—by making his outbidding a firm spending commitment. In so doing, he merely illustrated the Opposition view that every problem can be solved with money. That is classic short-termism and does not face the need to address, as the Government have addressed, the importance of having a package of measures designed to benefit stocks in the long term by further reducing fishing effort. Our effort reduction package deals with the current structural problems and helps to conserve fish stocks now and in the future. The package comprises technical conservation measures, licence penalties and decommissioning.
The industry has presented some useful suggestions on technical conservation. We have evaluated them and are now discussing them with the European Commission. It is our hope that those measures can contribute to achieving our MAGP target. In addition, we have a system of licence penalties whereby capacity must be given up whenever existing licences are transferred or aggregated—for example, by an owner who wishes to license a new, more powerful vessel. The industry has asked us to reconsider improving the scheme's operation and we have agreed to do so.
Decommissioning lies at the heart of our effort reduction policy. So far, the 1993–94 scheme has removed 135 vessels, about 4,800 tonnes of capacity, at a cost of £7.8 million. In a recent announcement, we made it clear that we now wished to deploy the remainder of our £25 million. The scheme represents the next step along that path for the year 1994–95. A total of £8.9 million will be available, a sum which incorporates the underspend on the 1993–94 scheme. The rules of that round will be familiar because the scheme is closely based on the successful 1993 scheme which, by using a tendering system, enabled us to remove the maximum amount of active capacity with the available funds.
In a nutshell, the scheme provides for owners of eligible vessels to submit tenders for the amount of decommissioning grant for which they would be prepared to scrap their vessel and surrender its licences. Details of the scheme were made public on 15 June and the closing date for applications is 15 August 1994. Applications will be ranked in terms of pounds-per-vessel-capacity unit. Successful applicants must submit proof of scrapping, deregistration and surrender of all licences in respect of a vessel before 1 March 1995.
The main criteria for determining eligibility have not changed. Vessels must be United Kingdom registered and licensed, more than 10 metres in overall length, more than 10 years old and seaworthy. We want to target active vessels, so we have also retained the requirement that vessels must have spent at least 100 days at sea on fishing trips in each of the past two years.
We considered carefully whether the scheme should be more precisely targeted—for example, by confining it to trawlers or beam trawlers—but we concluded that that would be too restrictive. There is a new requirement, however, that vessels applying should hold a full pressure-stock licence, thus focusing the scheme on vessels that fish the most vulnerable stocks. Moreover, the 100

1205
days at sea on fishing trips must have been spent in Community waters. The aim is to exclude vessels fishing primarily in distant waters where pressure on the stocks is less intense.
We are excluding vessels which were successful in the 1993 tender but were not scrapped. We included a warning to that effect in the 1993 explanatory leaflet to discourage withdrawals, and the current scheme implements that rule.
Application forms are available in local fishery offices and have already been sent to fishermen known to be interested in the scheme. We look forward to a keen response with realistic bids which will enable the 1994 scheme to be as successful and effective as the 1993 scheme in making a useful contribution to conserving stocks and achieving our MAGP targets.
Hon. Members will recall that the first round of decommissioning was linked to our proposals for days-at-sea restrictions, as the latter were intended to constrain the effort of the fleet which remained—a point which, I am glad to say, was acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mrs. Ewing: Is not the average decommissioning grant about £60,000, so that by the time vessel owners have paid scrapping charges and other charges, and settled taxation bills, many of them are left with nothing? Is the Minister satisfied that the amount of money being provided for decommissioning is sufficient to meet the needs of our fleet? Can he tell us what other aspects of effort limitation have been used by other European Union countries, as all of them seem to have used decommissioning to meet the MAGP target?
Mr. Jack: On the figure that the hon. Lady quoted, it is misleading to look at average amounts per vessel because the size range is substantial. When we opened the doors last time, 433 vessels applied under the scheme, which showed that people thought it was effective. I believe that 134 vessels were ultimately decommissioned with the first tranche of money. We have since tried to refine the scheme and to focus it more carefully.
With regard to other European Union states, the Netherlands has relied on a days-at-sea scheme to assist in meeting its targets while others have put more weight on decommissioning to remove tonnage. The hon. Lady will note that I placed clear emphasis on the question of controlling effort, particularly that of the remainder of the fleet. Other Community countries have omitted to emphasise that aspect—perhaps to their cost. The effectiveness of the decommissioning scheme is determined not just by the capacity that is taken out, but by what the remaining capacity will do.
Hon. Members will recall that we suspended the introduction of our effort reduction measure—the days-at-sea policy—because the judicial review case of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations was referred to the European Court of Justice. We always made it clear, however, that we wanted the decommissioning scheme to provide real long-term benefits to the fishing industry. The scheme will not achieve that if remaining vessels increase their fishing effort and thus undermine the impact of decommissioning. That would be unwelcome to
1206
the fishing industry and also to the taxpayers, who will want to know that expenditure is being used effectively and provides good value for money.
The industry claim that the current fleet is already fishing flat out. If that is the case, in spite of decommissioning, effort should not increase. As decommissioning progresses, we intend to monitor the fishing effort of the remaining fleet. We shall not want to be heavy handed about it, but if effort increases we shall have to take suitable effort-control measures to deal with the situation. I hope that the industry will collectively exercise restraint and so make the use of such controls unnecessary in the context of this scheme. My wish is to see a healthy, successful and responsible fishing industry. It cannot have a healthy and successful future without taking responsibility, and that includes ensuring that fishing effort does not increase.
I know from my discussions with industry representatives and with individual fishermen that they are willing to contribute to conservation and to achieving our Community targets. We are also working with the industry in other ways—for example, to improve the marketing of fish in order to improve returns. All of the measures that I have outlined are important factors in developing the long-term viability of the industry.
I look forward to continuing to work with the fishing industry, trying to chart our way through what can sometimes seem the difficult and detailed waters of complex Community schemes.
Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that if effort limitation is to be effective as a conservation tool there has to be a rough balance between the size of the fleet and stocks? How far are we from achieving such an objective?
Mr. Jack: We are some way from achieving it. I wish that we were further along that road, but it took us some time carefully to think through the question of controlling the effort of the remainder of the fleet. I have listened carefully to hon. Members with constituency fishing interests and to the industry. I had hoped that, in view of my emphasis on how we intended to deal with the remainder of the effort during this period of decommissioning, the hon. Gentleman would have understood that I have tried very hard to take to heart the messages that the industry has sent to me.
I also made it clear that we have a package of measures, such as licence aggregation. The industry has asked us about how that element of our effort reduction programme can be improved and I look forward to receiving its proposals on that subject. The hon. Gentleman will also know that we are actively evaluating technical conservation measures which the industry has sensibly put to us. They are in what could be called the appraisal stage. Once we ascertain how the decommissioning scheme, as it is now constituted, progresses, we can be clearer about the distance between that sum total of effort reduction and the target that we have to meet. The targets are now legally binding in the Community. We want to achieve those targets; if there is a gap, we shall have to examine other ways of doing so.
I hope that we are back on the right road, especially with the decommissioning scheme. We have made our intentions clear, and I commend the scheme to the House.
5.42 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: We welcome the fact that we at least have an announcement to the effect that the second phase of the decommissioning scheme is going ahead. We also welcome the fact that the underspend from the first year's round of decommissioning has been included in the global sum. The Minister will appreciate that we have pressed him on that issue several times. We are glad to learn that the money has not been lost, but has been kept within the funds available.
Our only regret is that the scheme is still the same inadequate scheme and part of an inadequate fisheries policy, as the Minister will know from his contact with the industry. The Minister told us that he reads Fishing News assiduously, so I am sure that he read the editorial entitled "Bankruptcy of Ideas", which states:
"The resurrection of the decommissioning scheme is welcome but it falls woefully short of the positive policy for which the industry has been waiting.
Some will now be able to go ahead and leave the industry, but those who want to stay—the vast majority—still have not a clue as to where the industry is going."
That causes serious problems in terms of planning and investment and confidence in the industry—problems which one or two hon. Members have made clear to the Minister.
There is also a problem with meeting the targets set by the multi-annual guidance programme. I shall refer to that in due course, because that is the underlying issue in the matching of fishing effort to available fish stocks. We now know that the first round of decommissioning took out approximately 2.2 per cent. of fleet capacity. Even with the measures that the Minister has outlined, such as licence aggregation, we are looking at a reduction of only about 7 per cent. by 1996, when, under European Community law, the Government have to meet a target reduction in the region of 20 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) rightly said.
Our failure has already been criticised by the Commission in its report on the MAGP targets. It stated that
"figures show this country"—
the United Kingdom—
"significantly outside the intermediate objective for 1993."
It is, therefore, clear that, even now, we are nowhere near meeting our targets.
Although we need effort limitation—the Labour party has always made it clear that it recognises that that must go hand in glove with decommissioning—we need a much more generous and effective decommissioning scheme if we are to make progress towards meeting our MAGP by 1996. Of the £7.5 million spent on decommissioning last year, approximately £5 million was clawed back by the Government under the Fontainebleau agreement and, of course, fishermen paid tax on the money that they received. It is, therefore, a very minor scheme. The overall sum that the Government make available to the industry and to the primary sector in general can hardly be regarded as generous.
The failure to make progress in fleet reduction and give a clear policy lead has severe consequences for the whole United Kingdom industry in denying the UK structural aid to modernise its fishing fleet, which is aging rapidly. Again, the Minister is well aware of that issue. We are simply storing up problems for the future, as is mentioned in the Commission's proposals.
1208
The UK's fishing fleet is being put at a severe disadvantage in the European Union. As has been said, in the six years to 1992, the European Union made £250 million available for decommissioning, but it was paid to other member states. Of the total of around £500 million, including construction and modernisation grants, about £11 million has so far come to the United Kingdom.
The fact that we have done so badly in getting a share of the available pot of money is a national decision, not a European Union decision. The Minister knows that. When I met the previous Fisheries Commissioner, Mr. Marin, he told me that he had repeatedly pressed the Minister's predecessors to bid for decommissioning funds because he recognised that, by not introducing a decommissioning scheme some years ago, we were building up to the problems that we now face.
The problem for the United Kingdom fleet is made worse by the Commission's proposals, although I admit that they are only proposals and we need to examine them in detail. However, if the Commission is taking on board the Government's ideas, which include a days-at-sea restriction, the logical conclusion—the introduction of standard vessel fishing days to replace the Irish box—has severe implications for the British fleet because if we have not made progress towards meeting our MAGP targets, our fleet will be far more restricted than that of other member states so that we can meet our targets. The same restrictions will not be applied to Spain and Portugal. They will be free to fish because they are nearer to meeting their targets.
Mr. Jack: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman mentioned investment in new vessels and where the money came from. He will be aware that, under the terms of the Fontainebleau agreement, the cost to the UK is something like 71 per cent. of any modernisation schemes. Will he outline in detail his own proposals? How much would he spend; on what would he spend it; and how would he judge the criteria for such schemes?
Mr. Morley: I shall be happy to answer that question. Indeed, I intend to deal with it in my proposals.
There is also the hypothetical situation—where we shall be in some years' time. I shall tell the Minister how we would find the funding for the schemes now. There are a number of ways of doing that.
The total decommissioning scheme is spread over three years; we have already had one of those years. The Labour party sees no reason why the total amount of money cannot be put into one year's allocation to achieve a greater reduction in the fleet rather than spreading it over three years. What is the point of prolonging the agony? It would make more sense to remove the overcapacity as quickly as possible rather than spreading the money over another two years.
Of course, the money has to be found within the global Government budget and I am happy to give the Minister a few pointers. For example, the Labour party could have found £350 million that has been wasted on management consultants—and their cars—in the national health service. We could have saved the £700 million that has been spent on British Rail privatisation and consultancies and the £500 million spent on the outside consultancies that saved only £10 million for the Government.
We could also have saved £3 million on the parents charter, which was sent to every house in the country whether or not any children lived there. We could have

1209
saved £500 million on the national curriculum scheme that was abandoned after being introduced. There is certainly a few bob there that a Labour Government could have saved, to put into a more effective decommissioning scheme. If the Minister would like a bit more advice on where to find the money, I should be only too pleased to give him some, although I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order if I did.
Mr. Jack: I have added up those sums and have reached £2 billion in firm commitments from the hon. Gentleman to spend on the fishing industry. I look forward to hearing what the Labour Treasury spokesman says about that.
Mr. Morley: Now we can see how Conservative central office reach all those ludicrous figures that Conservative Members sometimes throw at the Labour party.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will not two thirds of the money that this country spends on decommissioning probably be recovered from the Commission, anyway?
Mr. Morley: That is right. In all fairness and all seriousness, the £25 million being made available is a tiny sum. It certainly compares badly with the £3 billion a year spent on the agricultural sector. I appreciate that that is paid under European regulations, some of which are outside the Government's control. But when the question of the imbalance has been raised before, the Government's response is that farmers are used to such subsidies, so they are okay for the agricultural sector, but not for the fishing sector.
Moreover, presumably the Government put into their budget a sum for enforcing the days-at-sea measures, which will not have been used because of the delay caused by the court case. I should have thought that there were a few million pounds there, too—a budget that has already been committed and could have gone into the overall pool for the decommissioning scheme. So a fair bit of money could be found within existing budgets this year to enlarge the scheme and make it more effective.
The EC proposals will indeed have a severe effect on what will happen in the areas outside the Irish box, such as the south-western approaches. As I said, there is a threat of a new Spanish armada and we need more details of how the proposals will work. Certainly, we will examine them closely and consider the implications for the industry. We need a strong policy framework within which the industry can work—one that will give it stability and enable it to plan ahead.
I hope that the Minister will take into account the developments that the Opposition would like to see. First, the whole programme should be rolled into one year to try to enlarge the scheme, increase decommissioning and reduce the effort faster than the proposals suggest. We also want a far more effective decommissioning scheme, with more resources going into it—and I believe that those resources could be found.
The scheme should be more carefully targeted. The Minister touched on that subject, but it needs to be considered on a sectoral basis, where the pressure is. We also want more details about how the scheme is being monitored to evaluate its effectiveness.
There should be a stronger emphasis on the social
1210
dimension of restructuring. Of course the scheme is about decommissioning, but it does not benefit all the crews of the boats concerned. We want effective use of regional funding and the proposed PESCA programme, which the Minister has discussed with us. It is a modest programme, but it can be directed towards fishing communities and thus benefit a wider group of people.
We must consider again the disposal of decommissioned boats. As the Minister will know, I have written to him on behalf of a potential buyer from Sri Lanka, who has a firm and positive offer to buy decommissioned boats from the United Kingdom and take them to Sri Lanka. He is also prepared to obtain assurances from the Sri Lankan Government that those boats will not find their way back into the European Union fleet. I accept that we must take such possibilities into consideration, but there are ways of ensuring that the boats do not find their way back into the fleet—not least the fact that they need licences.
Approximately £8,000 of the money that owners get for decommissioning is spent on scrapping. If we could find a workable scheme, that would be to the advantage of all concerned. I hope that the Minister will consider the idea.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. Of course I shall reply to his letter. However, I have raised the question of disposal of vessels through third world countries with the Overseas Development Administration, and there are genuine practical problems involved. So far, in spite of searching quite hard, I have not yet come up with a practical scheme that satisfies all the criteria—not least the logistics of getting vessels there. Many owners, in scrapping vessels, take certain equipment out to release additional sums. On the final point about the cost, that is of course tax allowable.
Mrs. Ewing: Only 25 per cent.
Mr. Morley: Yes; 25 per cent. is tax allowable, I think. I take the Minister's point; those are serious issues, but the people behind the scheme are convinced that they can satisfy the criteria. The fact that some of the more high-tech equipment in the boats will be stripped out is not necessarily a disadvantage in low-tech fishing industries in developing countries.
We also want a proper fund, through the European Union, for an early retirement scheme in the fishing industry. I know that the Commission has considered the idea and I believe that such an arrangement would be of benefit to the overall scheme.
As a matter of urgency, the Commission should be pressed to act on a proposal from the United Kingdom fishermen's associations—the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—to react to their detailed and sensible proposals for technical conservation measures and their suggestions on how those can be built into effort limitation and taken into account. Many of us are surprised that it has taken so long to receive a response from the Commission.
There has been far too much delay and indecision on fishing in this country. We need a stronger policy. The present approach seems to encourage decommissioning by bankruptcy. That is the implication of leaving the issue for so long and not having an adequate scheme. We need stronger action to build a secure and sustainable fishing industry and a modern and prosperous fleet. The present Government approach will achieve neither of those ends.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I see that six hon. Members wish to catch my eye, arid we have precisely 61 minutes left for the debate.
5.59 pm
Mr. David Harris: For the reason that you have given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be especially brief—and I shall surprise the Minister by starting with warm congratulations. I have not always congratulated either him or his predecessor on the conduct of fisheries policy, especially over the vexed question of days-at-sea, but now I say thank you most sincerely to my hon. Friend for adopting what I consider is now the correct approach to the Government's relationship with the industry.
The Minister said that his door was always open and, as proof of that, he has agreed to see some representatives of the industry from the south-west next Tuesday on the vexed question of the monkfish quota. I have no doubt that, at that meeting, we shall also want to probe the whole issue of the proposed days-at-sea restrictions scheme, which has come, albeit in outline and preliminary form, from Brussels. I shall return to that.
My hon. Friend's attitude was summed up in his speech. If I correctly interpreted it, the latter part especially marks something of a change of approach by the Government on the vexed question of trying to bring about a better balance between fishing capacity on one hand and availability of stocks on the other. That, of course, is the central issue that has bedevilled fisheries policy for many years.
I am not sure whether I am interpreting my hon. Friend's words correctly, but I wonder what his attitude is now to the previous national days-at-sea restrictions scheme. Is he putting it completely on one side and, if so, I wonder whether he would go one step further and give a pledge that that legislation may be repealed, so that the case before the European Court could be dropped. That would be a very positive step forward in the light of his remarks, especially towards the end of his speech.
My hon. Friend said that decommissioning was at the heart of the Government's policy. That brings me to the scheme and the motion before the House. As my hon. Friend knows, I share the view of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), that the decommissioning scheme is welcome, but that £25 million over three years is not sufficient. I was one of the Conservative Members who, for many years, pressed Her Majesty's Government to reintroduce a decommissioning scheme and I was delighted when that happened, albeit as part of a wider package. However, I still believe that £25 million is not sufficient, given the scale of the problem and the difficulty of meeting our multi-annual guidance programme.
My hon. Friend is right to chide the Opposition about where the money will come from and where the increase in the funding is to be found. I do not think that the Treasury will sanction an increase above £25 million. Unfortunately, that is the reality of the situation facing us, especially in the current public expenditure climate. However, I refuse to believe that, in the quite significant budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, there is not some scope—I shall develop the point—for increasing the £25 million allocation. I am sure that some more money could be found in the budget of the Department.
The Government must find that extra money because of
1212
the plight facing the industry. All of us who have fishing constituencies know the difficulties that fishermen face. I find that the most worrying aspect of the whole situation is when fishermen come to me and say, "David, we are being forced to cheat." They would not admit that before, but they are saying it now. To make a living, they are being forced to cheat through illegal landings and black fish. That is very worrying indeed and the fishermen do not like doing it.
I know of a number of people in my constituency who, because of the pressures that they are under and because of the particular pressure of having to cheat in order to survive, want to leave the industry. That is very sad. We must enable people who want to leave the industry to do so with honour and, indeed, with some financial recompense before the restrictions being imposed on them by Europe, and by our own Government for very good reasons, are implemented. Therefore, I earnestly urge my hon. Friend and other members of the Government to look again at the whole question of the adequacy—in my opinion, the inadequacy—of the allocation of £25 million and to bring about an increase.
I was very pleased to hear what my hon. Friend said about the topic of the day: the European Commission proposals—as he explained to the occupant of the Chair earlier, they are linked with the motion—which were publicised, probably in a truncated and, possibly, in an inaccurate form, last night and again this morning. Again, I welcome his words of caution that we should wait and see the details. I will certainly do that before passing final judgment, but I view what we already know of those proposals with hefty scepticism.
I opposed our unilateral days-at-sea restrictions and I shall also need much convincing over the European measures, for the central issue is the difficulty of enforcing such a system. We all know of the fears of the fishermen and their right to hold those fears. To put it succinctly, they fear that if such restrictions are ever introduced, they will be enforced on our fishermen, whereas the Spanish fishermen in particular, who are the biggest threat that we face in the south-west, will escape, because we all know that the enforcement of measures on fishermen in Spain is just a joke. We have seen it in all sorts of forms of so-called conservation measures. They are just not applied to the Spaniards, and they are not applied in any great degree, if I may say in passing, to many of the French fishermen either. That is, of course, the weakness of the common fisheries policy and I am afraid that it may be the weakness of the proposals from Europe.
However, I take comfort from my hon. Friend's comments on that matter and I know him well enough to know that he will be scrutinising the proposals with great care and that he will not go along with anything which is to the detriment of our own fishing fleet or which would treat our fleet unfairly.
I shall conclude my remarks, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I welcome what, as I said, I sense is a completely new approach by the Government and by my hon. Friend in particular. I urge him to listen with the greatest care, as he has done already, to the sensible measures being put forward by the industry. In proposing its alternative conservation measures—the technical measures to which my hon. Friend referred—the industry has made considerable advances. It has not gone for soft options, but has put forward measures which would

1213
hurt the industry because it knows that a certain amount of pain is necessary to bring about that absolutely essential balance.
One thing is certain: if any conservation scheme is to succeed, it must have the acquiescence of the industry. The scheme must not have the total opposition of the industry. A scheme has a far better chance of succeeding if it has been put forward in outline form, at least, by the industry than if it is imposed on the industry. I welcome the whole tone of my hon. Friend's remarks and I hope that, indeed, the industry can look forward to a better and a more secure future in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government.
6.7 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I hope that I will not embarrass my near neighbour in Cornwall, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), by agreeing with so much of what he has said. I shall not reiterate the points, because we are obviously tied for time, but I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the repeal of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967. There would be a real sea-change in the atmosphere in the industry if the Government showed that that Act is behind them and that they would be prepared to look again at the technical conservation measures.
The Minister rightly outlined the context of the scheme. He outlined the conservation shortfall in meeting multi-annual guidance programme targets, especially in the United Kingdom, though not exclusively so, the economic state of our industry compared with the fishing fleets in competitor countries in the European Union, the extent of support from other member states for the industry, which is extremely relevant in the context of not only decommissioning but the whole package of support, and the new developments overnight in Brussels, which we have heard about briefly and which are extremely relevant.
Finally, he rightly paid a great deal of attention, as did the hon. Member for St. Ives, to discrepancies in implementation, monitoring and control. We all know that the United Kingdom has one of the worst shortfalls in meeting targets, though other member states are in a similar position.
I was struck by the engaging honesty of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in his place, in the Scottish Grand Committee earlier this week. He said:
"we reckon that the decommissioning scheme will take 2.2 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. over the three years, so it is not a very significant amount. If things go well, and depending on how the scheme works out in detail, it may be 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. That is of course a long way from our 19 per cent. target."
I suspect that that engaging honesty may be something to do with a Minister who is becoming somewhat demob happy. Later in the discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee, he said:
"Let me answer first the questions about fishing. I accept that it is not easy to determine at this stage how we can meet our multi-annual guidance programme targets…As I said, we might take out 2.5 per cent. or 3 per cent. a year and set the figure at 8 per cent. over three years. With the penalties on licensed transfers and aggregations, we hope to get to about 5 per cent. over the same period."
That is extraordinarily vague. It is honestly vague, but it does not alter the fact that we are a long way off the targets that the Government say that they are aiming for.
1214
In the Committee, much play was made of the scale of investment in decommissioning, and how much was coming from the British taxpayer. As hon. Members have said, the decommissioning scheme amounts to £25 million gross over three years. It is calculated that 17.5 per cent. will be drawn down from Brussels under the arrangements to which the Minister has referred. So to some extent, that £25 million is bogus. It is further reduced by the tax take.
In the Standing Committee that considered the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) sought to exempt the payments from all tax penalties, but the penalties remain and the clawback in tax is considerable. The net figure for this scheme is probably only about £2 million a year. It is minuscule, I agree with what the hon. Member for St. Ives said about that.
In the Scottish Grand Committee on Tuesday the Minister admitted:
"the money has been wrung from the Treasury after a great deal of pressure and I have been blunt with the fishing industry that there will be no likelihood of an extension of that £25 million in the current three-year period.—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 12 July 1994; c. 10–37.]
That does not explain why the money cannot be found from within MAFF's budget, notably from the budget for the days-at-sea provisions, which would have been considerable.
What is so significant about the Minister's confession is that it was the Treasury which designed the policy so that there was no assessment of the industry's actual needs. There was no equation in terms of conservation targets. There was no attempt to match up to the MAGP requirements. Most important, there was no overall value-for-money strategy. It is the mad axeman of the Treasury all over again.
The opposition to days-at-sea made it clear that, from Newlyn to Lerwick, fishermen have been, and continue to be, on the brink of economic collapse. Decommissioning in those circumstances can only be part of a larger package. Even if it were more generous, it would not be enough on its own. Decommissioning men, for example, involves huge social and economic costs in fragile economies all round our coastline, in Cornwall as in the north of Scotland. As the take-up shows, it is not sufficient in itself to achieve a dramatic reduction in the take.
Decommissioning by decrepitude in vessels is probably what the Government have in mind. It is more likely to happen than decommissioning by generous support. As I said earlier, the Minister was right to see the decommissioning package within the overall package that other member states make available to their fishing fleets. I take the example of Spain, for the obvious reason that in the south-west our fishermen find themselves in direct competition with Spanish fishermen.
For permanent decommissioning of vessels from 1987 to 1992, Spanish fishermen received 80.46 million ecu. That is discounting any cash that they received from their national Government. For temporary lay-up, they received 36.12 million ecu. In addition to that, for new vessel construction during that period, Spanish fishermen received 66.38 million ecu and for vessel modernisation they received 38.64 million ecu. That is a total of 220 million ecu from the European Union, or European Community as it then was; from the European taxpayers; from us. During that period, under only the vessel construction and modernisation programmes—because we did not have decommissioning—all that our industry

1215
obtained in draw-down from the European Community was a paltry 15 million ecu. That is a critical part of the equation that the Minister must face. One cannot divorce the decommissioning sum from the rest of the programme.
Is it any wonder that our fishermen throughout the United Kingdom believe that their competitors benefit from huge subsidy, paid for as much by United Kingdom taxpayers as anyone else, to outfish us in our traditional waters with our money? It is worth noting that, during the same period, 72 new boats were given subsidy for construction in Spain, while only two achieved that in the United Kingdom.
I do not wish to refer at length to the proposals that we heard about overnight, but it is important to identify that the western approaches and Irish box proposals seem at least to put a question mark against some of the pledges that the Minister made early in the year.
The House will recall that the Minister gave us four pledges. The first was that the North sea would be excluded. As we understand it—so far, so good—it is. Secondly, relative stability would be a principle right across the policy. Much will depend on enforcement, but we hope that that is in place. Thirdly, no extra effort would be involved in the proposals. We have to hope that that will be so. Critically, the proposals that we have heard about overnight fly in the face of the fourth pledge that we were given about the integrity of the Irish box. As we understand it, it is to be substantially modified and reduced to reflect only area 7b. If that happens, it will be damaging to the interests of west country fishermen.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of building an edifice with no foundation. We have been cautioned that these are a first set of proposals. The regulation on which the measures draw defines clearly the Irish box as an area of particular sensitivity. One of the matters that we shall want to look at is just that proposal. The proposals are a first shot. If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about negotiating within the Community, he will realise that there is still a great deal of discussion to go The reservations and fears of all fishermen whose waters are affected by the proposals, some of which he expresses clearly, will be fully taken into account.
Mr. Tyler: It is precisely because I understand the process of negotiation that I am strengthening the Minister's arm for the coming fight. I hope that he will go to the discussions with a reminder to his colleagues that hon. Members throughout the House intend to hold him to his pledges. We wish to see an Irish box that has the integrity that the Minister has given an undertaking to fight for. That brings me to the other point that I want to draw to the Minister's attention.
We understand that the new concept of standard vessels days, which looks very much like days-at-sea in a different guise, will be administered and monitored on a multi-national basis. For the reasons that the hon. Member for St. Ives gave, we do not believe that the proposal that has apparently come from the Commission that the scheme should be administered by the Government of member states would be anything like sufficient to ensure the right level of enforcement. Subsidiarity on this matter would cause acute anxiety among many other member states.
The crux of this debate and of the scheme is that for many of us, however welcome the decommissioning scheme is, it is but one block in the foundations of a
1216
substantial strategy for the industry. It is not a strategy in itself. It will not meet even the immediate conservation targets. It will not secure long-term targets without even more vigorous MAGP requirements being set, perhaps in the comparatively near future. It will not offset the failure to invest structural funds—European funds, not merely British funds—in the modernisation of our fleet. It will not put the United Kingdom fleet on an even keel to meet new competition.
In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, the Minister said:
"Currently we are moving towards our targets via decommissioning and licence penalties. We are also having discussions with the Commission on the possible contribution to effort reduction from technical conservation measures."—[Official Report, 7 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 280–81.]
Significantly, the Government are not having discussions with the industry on the substance of the proposals. That is regrettable.
The Minister referred in glowing terms to Fishing News, which we all read with great interest. I shall simply add an extra paragraph from its leader on the subject of the decommissioning scheme. It says:
"The inescapable conclusion is that the government is bereft of ideas beyond that of squeezing large chunks of the Industry into bankruptcy, and that it hopes (knows perhaps?) that forthcoming EU measures will do its dirty work for it."
At present, there is no strategy for fishing. There is no strategy to meet the conservation targets. There are real fears of effort limitation by the back door. Whatever is the maritime equivalent of an uneven playing field is what we now have in the fishing industry, and we will suffer from it.
6.20 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: This is not the occasion for a wide-ranging speech on the fishing industry in the United Kingdom, so I shall make three brief points on behalf of the fishing industry in Northern Ireland.
First, I welcome the measures proposed by the Minister. As he well knows, there was a good uptake in the first year of the decommissioning scheme in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland. I must quickly add that I fear that the uptake on this occasion will not be so good because, obviously, those who were in dire circumstances were keen to take advantage of the scheme in the first year, whereas there are no people in such dire circumstances now, so there is a serious possibility that less interest will be shown in it.
Secondly, there is a relaxed attitude in Portavogie and our other fishing ports in Northern Ireland about the arrangements for Spain and Portugal. The Minister will understand that. The fishermen in Northern Ireland do not have the anxiety that other fishermen in the United Kingdom will understandably have.
Thirdly, while we do not have the details of the news from Brussels tonight, none the less we have some information which one feels is accurate and which, if it is accurate, is most alarming for the United Kingdom fishing industry in the Irish sea. As I understand it, the Commission proposes that there should be a restriction within the Irish sea of 8,270 days at sea for the entire United Kingdom fishing fleet. In practical terms, that would mean that only about 80 United Kingdom fishing vessels will be allowed to fish in the Irish sea.
At present, we have 400 United Kingdom vessels in the Irish sea, 240 of which come from Northern Ireland. If the

1217
proposal advances to a conclusion, the number of United Kingdom vessels will be reduced from 400 to only 80. That would be disastrous for Northern Ireland, where 2,000 people are employed in the fishing industry in the rural parts of County Down alone.
Mr. Jack: It is early days, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Commission has confirmed that its effort control proposals under the permit scheme and the arrangements to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded will not prevent quotas from being taken. We must examine the detail, but I think that that reassurance is important to fishermen, who are anxious to know whether they can prosecute the stocks to which they are entitled.
Mr. Taylor: I very much welcome that intervention. I shall conclude on this subject. As the Minister said, there is understandable anxiety about the reports which have come out in the first 24 hours. They must be clarified and explained—not that I like using the word "clarification" in Northern Irish politics these days.
Today's news has caused alarm and concern within the fleet based in Portavogie. The resentment—I ask the Minister to pay attention to this point—is made worse by the further news that, whereas the United Kingdom fleet in the Irish sea is being given only 8,270 days at sea, the southern Irish fleet is being given more than 11,000 days. That distortion in favour of the southern Irish fleet seems to arise from the exercise of the Hague preference based on cod quotas.
Effectively, the Republic of Ireland, with only 120 boats in the Irish sea, gets 11,000 days at sea, whereas the United Kingdom, with 400 vessels in the Irish sea, gets only 8,270 days. The fishermen do not understand that. I hope that the Minister will carry out his promise to meet the Northern Ireland fishing industry. Certainly, I will be keen to go with him, and hopefully support him, in getting the proposals amended in Brussels.
6.25 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Minister gave his usual energetic and ebullient display—a characteristic for which he is becoming known in the industry—of making something out of nothing. The fact is that our fishing industry is in decline and severe financial difficulties, its market receipts are not at a level to keep it profitable, investment is being frightened away and the Minister is hanging all sorts of threats over it, such as Spanish accession and all the long-term possibilities of restriction of effort. That is the state of the industry on one side.
On the other side, frankly, the Government do not have a policy on fishing. The policy they had, to which they attached all the importance they could, has effectively been shot from under them, and they have not developed a new policy to replace it. It is desperately urgent that the Government develop a policy on fishing to give the industry the confidence it needs to sustain itself through to the better future which must lie ahead, despite the effective limitation of effort.
The problem is that the Government's policy was a twin track one. The first part of the policy was decommissioning—the scheme is part of that policy. However, it was too
1218
little, too late. The scheme was not adequate, and it came in much too late. To reduce the effort, the decommissioning scheme was coupled with the days-at-sea limitation, on which the Government set their heart and to which they devoted all their efforts. That is the second half of the policy. Effectively, it has been shot from under them. They will not concede that the policy is dead. They want to hang on to a policy which cannot work. Even if the European Court rules in their favour, the policy cannot come in for well over a year—certainly not early enough to have any substantial effect on the effort.
As I told the Minister yesterday, the Government's days-at-sea policy is essentially necrophilia—the more dead it is, the more they love it. They must admit that it is a goner. It will not work. It should never have been introduced, because it is a monstrous measure—it is unfair and unreasonable. Only officials in their ivory towers apportioning catches as though they could deal with things in that sort of rational way could develop it. The Minister should not have introduced the policy, and he should now concede that it is dead.
When the Minister concedes that the policy is dead, it will become clear that the present decommissioning scheme is too small; it must be increased. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has suggested £40 million as a decommissioning scheme. I would put the figure higher. It is clear that the thinking behind the Commission's previous report is that we must have a bigger decommissioning scheme.
It is wrong for the Minister to quibble about where Labour would get the money to pay for the scheme. Most of the money comes from Europe in any case. If we recognise that the days-at-sea limitation, with all the attendant framework of regulation and supervision, is going, that would save about £6 million to £7 million—I do not know the exact figure. The Minister could take the first step by bringing forward all the decommissioning money in one splurge to put some money into the industry, because that is what it desperately needs.
Other European countries are in a much healthier position, vis-a-vis their multi-annual guidance programme targets, simply because they brought forward and implemented earlier bigger and better decommissioning schemes, coupled with rational restructuring of the industry.
Between 1987 and 1992, £250 million of European funds, to which we contributed, were spent by all the other countries on decommissioning their vessels. That is why they are in a much better position than we are. That is why we must go down the road they have shown us, which the Minister, or his predecessors in the Department, should have taken some years ago.
Now, we have been forced down it and the Minister should say, "I'm sorry, we got it wrong. We tried the twin-track approach. One track won't work and we must therefore place more emphasis on the decommissioning scheme." As the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) suggested, the Minister should drop the policy. He should withdraw it. Let us have a reconciliation with the industry, which will be adamantly opposed to it, even if the policy ever comes back.
The Government should introduce a decommissioning scheme. They should couple it with a restructuring plan to bring finance for new building into the industry. We have an aging fleet. Some vessels are 25 or 30 years old and the

1219
industry desperately needs new vessels, as does the construction side of the industry, which will be decimated if the present lack of building continues.
The Minister should stop the slump—stop foreign flag ships buying licences and their use by other nations. He should show some confidence in the industry, so that it can get other outside finance. The Minister should recognise that there must be new build, which need not necessarily increase the effort as it can be carefully structured so as to ensure that it does not do so. He should couple that with a proper decommissioning scheme.
The Minister should go ahead with the technical conservation measures suggested to him by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. There was some good cheer yesterday. He said that he accepted those recommendations, which cheered me up, and that he was putting them to the Commission, which is very good. It is a learning process, and I hope that it will continue, as it is so welcome. We must approach the conservation of stocks through such effective technical measures, as it is much the best way to do so.
If the Minister does all those things, will we be able to reduce effort on the scale that is necessary? We need a 19 per cent. reduction. With decommissioning, we have so far achieved 2.2 per cent. If we spend all the money, it will probably result in a 6 per cent. reduction in effort. What will the conservation measures achieve—a 3 or 4 per cent. reduction? Perhaps the Minister can give us an estimate. Decommissioning and conservation will together add up to a 10 per cent. reduction in effort, which leaves 9 per cent. of the reduction that we must achieve by December 1996 outstanding. That is a 9 per cent. gap—half the reduction.
I fear that the Government are placing their hopes on a Europewide reduction of effort through a limitation on days at sea. Perhaps I have too suspicious a mind, but Ministers could be thinking that there will be such a limitation and that it will save their bacon. That will save them from having to introduce an unpopular measure. They might think,"We'll get away with reducing effort in that way."
The proposals for the alternative for the Irish box seem to envisage some limitation on days at sea on that basis, which is what makes me think that those proposals might be the thin end of the wedge for a European scheme. If that is the Minister's view, I hope that he will come clean.
A European limitation of effort will hit this country disproportionately hard. Our deficit is greater than that of the other fishing nations. If the European Community, rather than the Government, introduce such a scheme, it will bear most heavily on this country. Secondly, a Europewide limitation on days at sea will reduce British effort to allow Spanish effort in. We shall all be making some sacrifices as a consequence of the decision to allow the Spanish full accession to the common fisheries policy five years early.
As we have heard in every speech in this debate, hon. Members do not trust the regimes in other European countries to administer restrictions. There is a difficulty in Spain, because of the problem of Basque separatism. The Spanish central Government dare not bear down too heavily on the regional administration, which is financing much reconstruction.
Mrs. Ewing: That is good coming from Grimsby.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady would like a similar regime in Scotland. Everyone knows that the Spanish are not going to enforce what is necessary on the Basques.
A European days-at-sea limitation will not work, and it will not save the Minister's bacon. He has to do something. He must produce a British national policy along the lines I have suggested. He was wrong to mutter as he did in his speech that, unless the industry behaves responsibly, the Government will have to return to limitation of effort.
Having been defeated on his original policy, it is his responsibility to go back to the industry and say, "We want to work out a national plan for fishing with you." He should tell the industry that the Government want to develop a new industry, which can inherit the future, and that they want to work together to restructure the industry to ensure its survival as an effective, efficient and well-organised fishing force.
6.35 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I must, of necessity, be extremely brief, so I shall not rehearse some of the arguments that I mentioned in interventions on the Minister.
The fishing industry is a critical industry in Scotland in particular, and it is important in my constituency. Debates on the fishing industry seem, however, consistently to be downgraded. I do not mean any criticism of the important statement that had to be made earlier today. Obviously, defence is also a major issue in my constituency and in Scotland.
There is a feeling, however, that we debate the fishing industry either late at night or in short debates. The Government must study our mechanisms for considering the issue, especially since the common fisheries policy is of great importance as we look forward from the Maastricht developments to the accession of four additional states, although not all of those will be fishing nations.
We are working in a policy vacuum. The Minister mentioned the vagueness of the present proposals, said that we are moving forward to a Fisheries Council, said that he would then report back, and so forth. That leaves the industry in a state of uncertainty.
If we are to consider the framework regulations that the Commission is developing in Brussels, we need clear Government guidance on how they will relate those regulations back to the industry and to its representatives in this House—Members with maritime constituencies—and how they will ensure that clear guidance is given on how any agreement reached will be monitored, controlled and honoured.
The key issue and centrepiece of the whole debate is a policy on fishing effort. Decommissioning is a part of that policy. Spanish accession, the North sea, the Irish box and the maintenance of relative stability are all fundamentally important to this great industry, which we all respect so much.
If we achieve a level fishing playing field within the European Union for all our fishing communities—perhaps that is not the correct analogy when we are talking about fishing—I want clear guidance from the Minister on how the Government will ensure that such agreements are monitored, controlled and honoured exactly.
For fishermen in my constituency, one of the most important issues is that they feel that they are not on a level playing field. Can we have some more details? I know that

1221
the Minister wants to jump to the Dispatch Box, but perhaps, in light of the time available, he will cover that question in his closing speech or in a letter.
On the recommendations made by people in the British industry, there are differences between the Scottish and British industries. Can I have clarification of whether the Scottish Office is considering the serious recommendations, relating to square mesh panels, made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation? The recommendations being made by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations are not compatible with the species which are caught in the North sea.
The PESCA scheme is very important, because at the moment there is no guarantee that crewmen will have any share in the decommissioning, and it is often dependent on the owner's attitude. Will the Government ensure that any pressure which comes to bear on the PESCA funds ensures that our crewmen will be treated the same as crewmen elsewhere within the European Union, because it seems that every other member state is pushing in that direction?
Is there any way in which Ministers can reduce the bureaucracy which fishermen have to face? It seems that, every time they turn around, there are more and more regulations and forms to fill in. That is a part of the irritation which is felt towards the common fisheries policy and towards the Government's regulations. May we have some guidance on how that can be reduced?
6.40 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: It seems that we in the fishing industry suffer from the law of diminishing returns. The more we shout that we need more time for a debate on the industry, the less time we get. I do not want to waste time on that, as fortunately the industry is not in an absolutely immediate crisis.
We welcome the scheme so far as it goes. The fact that we have argued that it is not enough and that we are 50 per cent. under the multi-annual guidance programme target is not a matter of mathematical certainties or equations. The longer that we do not meet the target, and there is no obvious way of making the target, the more likely it is as we approach 1996 that even greater effort limitation will be forced upon us. Prices will become more severe, and we do not know how that will be met.
In view of the time, I shall be extremely brief. The Minister said that the Government will be monitoring the fleet's fishing effort and that it would not be done with a heavy hand. But the opposite of a heavy hand is not necessarily a light touch. We need a clear explanation as to how that monitoring will take place. A balance must be struck between the bureaucratic rules and proper effective monitoring. The Minister must try to strike that balance.
I want to emphasise, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) did, the importance of the PESCA scheme and of looking at compensation for crewmen who have lost their jobs. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Employment which is currently running a voluntary scheme for trawlermen who have lost their jobs?
The Department says that someone can qualify for compensation only if he has had two years' continuous employment with the same employer. In Aberdeen in particular—I know that similar things happened elsewhere
1222
in the country—all trawlermen were employed by the Aberdeen Fish Vessel Association, and one could not get a job unless one was registered. The association told the crewmen on which boats to sail. If they transgressed, there were subsequent disciplinary proceedings which were jointly operated by the owners and the trade unions.
The Department of Employment is saying that that association is now an agency and, since it is an agency, the men do not qualify. In going for the PESCA scheme, and after having a word with the Department of Employment, the Minister should not be too rigid. These people have had their livelihoods taken away and there is no prospect that they will be restored. I ask the Minister to please go for the PESCA scheme and to look at the way in which the rules are applied. He must ensure that the Government apply compassion and flexibility because that is necessary for people who have served the industry well.
6.43 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I pointed out earlier, if effort limitation is to be effective as a conservation tool, the fleet must be in some kind of rough balance with the sustainability of stocks. To believe that effort limitation, even when it is based on a permanent system, equals capacity reduction—this is the point that I made to Minister, who claimed that I had my terms mixed up—flies in the face of history and experience.
Applying effort restrictions while the fleet is well over capacity will lead inevitably to hardship and, in many cases, to bankruptcy. That is the fact of the matter, especially where I come from where we have an aging fleet. The communities, as the Minister well knows, are utterly dependent upon the fishing industry, and the industry is part and parcel of the culture of the communities.
Effort restrictions do nothing to produce an efficient and well-balanced United Kingdom fishing fleet, and the Minister must face up to that. In my view, we need an effective and larger decommissioning scheme to achieve that rough balance, but I think that we are a long way from that.
I have mentioned the multi-annual guidance programme criteria that the Minister used, and those relate to a reduction in the fleet's tonnage and its horsepower. I believe that the European Community is attempting to arrive at a scheme by which we can measure fishing capacity. That is an enormously difficult task, but, in the long run, it is better than the crude criteria which underpin the MAGP.
The decommissioning scheme must allow for the renewal and reinvigorating of aging fleets. Many of the fleets from the Western isles and from some of the fishing communities near where I live, such as Campbeltown, Tarbert and Greenock, have very old boats. The fleets need to be replenished and the scheme must allow for the rebuilding of the fleets.
I have been given strict instructions to sit down at a specific moment, and I sometimes obey orders; not always, but sometimes.
We must look at the people who crew the vessels. Fishing, as the Minister has said on a number of occasions, is the toughest and harshest occupation in the United Kingdom. It is much too tough an occupation for me. I tried it as a kid of 15 and I happily acknowledge that it

1223
needed only one north Atlantic gale to put me ashore for ever. I have been to sea since, but I am always glad that it is not my occupation.
I have brothers who work on trawlers so perhaps I should declare an interest. It is important that the crewmen are protected along with the skipper-owners of fishing vessels. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and my hon. and old Friend for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—[Interruption.] These men, their families and their communities must be protected. It seems to me that representing a maritime constituency—[Interruption.] I could do without this heckling from my hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Hughes: My apologies.
Dr. Godman: I represent a maritime constituency which has been helped to some extent by European Community structural funds to aid those areas suffering because of declining industries. For example, the Renaval programme assisted constituencies such as mine which have suffered from the decline in the shipbuilding industry. Why should not there be a similar scheme for fishing communities?
Why should not there be a scheme which allows for compensation to be paid to the men who crew the vessels? That should be a part of the European Union scheme for giving protection to those communities. In many of those scattered communities, such as Portavadie—or even Grimsby—and some of the other communities which my colleagues and I represent north of the border, there are very few alternatives for those men who have been put ashore, perhaps permanently. The men must be looked after and the scheme must allow for refreshing the fleet. An aging fleet is no good to anyone as it presents additional safety hazards to the men who crew the vessels. The decommissioning scheme must not obstruct the renewing of those fleets.
6.49 pm
Mr. John McFall: May I sum up the debate briefly and pick up a few points that hon. Members have made?
In an intervention in the Minister's speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked for an assurance that the Spaniards would not gain access to precious and non-precious stocks in the North sea. Will the Minister deal with that matter when he winds up?
In his speech, the Minister said that, if necessary, the Government would take measures to monitor the fishing effort of the remaining fleet after decommissioning. Given that they wish to restrict the efforts of the remaining fleet, how will they go about that with no days-at-sea scheme?
On the question of how we shall meet the shortfall of what the present decommissioning scheme takes out, the Minister spoke about capacity, aggregation and conservation measures. But how does he propose to fill that gap? In the Scottish Grand Committee the other day, the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), said that over the next three years the scheme would take out 2.2 to 2.5 per cent. and that, on a good day—when have the Government had a good day in the past few years?—it would take out 8 per cent. That still leaves 11 per cent. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, the Government are being extraordinarily vague. That point must be clarified.
1224
The Government keep mentioning £25 million. In the Scottish Grand Committee the Minister was pressed on that matter and I said that the Government would recover approximately £17.5 million from Brussels, leaving a net bill for the Exchequer of £7.5 million. That amount will be further reduced by the taxation paid by fishermen in the form of decommissioning grants. Ultimately, therefore, the total sum could be £5 million, which is small beer by any means and shows that the Government are not considering the matter seriously. More resources are definitely needed.
The Minister mentioned the Commission. At what stage are the Government's discussions with the Commission about substituting conservation measures for days at sea? The industry feels that the Government are getting nowhere with that issue and that the Minister hopes that this scheme will fill in part of the multi-annual guidance programme gap. If that is true, the Government's argument does not hold because, to date, the Commission has not said that it will accept conservation measures as part of effort reduction. How, then, will the Government make up the shortfall in effort reduction? Will it be made up by extra restrictions on the United Kingdom fleet? Is that the Government's secret agenda? Do they want the Commission to do their dirty work so that they do not get their hands dirty?
The days-at-sea measure is currently being examined in court. If I may draw an analogy, the Government have just one golf club—one policy—on this matter. While the court case prevails, they should discuss a range of measures with the industry and decide how to proceed. It will be another year before we know the outcome of the court case, so it is inadequate for the Government to have no alternative strategy in the meantime. One can only conclude that their policy is to let the British fleet fade away while our modernised rivals wait over the horizon to take up the fishing opportunities which the Government, because they lack a decommissioning policy, are in danger of denying our fishermen.
It is also inadequate for the Government to wait for the Commission to rescue them. They spout anti-European rhetoric, yet they wait for the European Community to rescue them. They should be up front with the industry and discuss a range of measures to show that they are concerned about the matter. That is the least that they should offer while we accept the measure on offer tonight.
6.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that it is sad that we do not have more time to debate fishing. All hon. Members have had to curtail their speeches, as I will in summing up the debate. However, I shall try to answer a number of points that were raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) for welcoming unreservedly our decommissioning proposals. They are a valuable step forward and I am glad that we are continuing the decommissioning scheme for this year and next. At least it is clear to fishermen that there are two decommissioning tranches to apply for. Given the number of applications for the last scheme, which will finish in April, I have every confidence that there will be a number of applications and that those will be distributed fairly throughout the country, as they were last time. Each

1225
area has a fair amount of decommissioning. It is unfortunate that fishermen must destroy boats but that step is definitely necessary because, all too frequently in the past, if boats were not destroyed they somehow worked their way back into the fishing fleet.
Throughout the debate Opposition Members have uttered their usual cry that the Government are not doing enough and have implied that they would spend their way out of the problem. No one was more emphatic about that than the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who said, "£40 million? No, higher still. Spend, spend, spend." If Governments took that attitude whenever a problem arose and simply bought their way out, it would result in higher inflation, higher interest rates and, inevitably, higher unemployment. One must look at the overall picture before demanding huge sums of money from the Treasury. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was kicking to touch when he was challenged about the total to which he has committed the Labour party, but I shall not push him on that as I am sure that it was slightly tongue in cheek.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked about the PESCA scheme. We are anxious to proceed with that scheme and I shall take up the point that he raised with the Department of Employment. If a misunderstanding or failure has occurred within the agency for training, we shall endeavour to help and improve the situation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke of the uncertainty that has been thrown into the pool by the Commission's announcement today. We were all surprised that it was made today. We have officials discussing the matter in Brussels and shall make an announcement as
1226
soon as we can. However, it is wrong to create fears and despondency before the matter has even been discussed and before we have consulted the industry. Fisheries Councils will take place in September and November, when the matter is likely to be discussed in detail. It is wrong to think that a decision has been taken today in Europe; it has not. They are simply proposals that we must consider in much greater detail.
We have continuing discussions with the fishing industry. I am glad to have such discussions as often as possible with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The constructive views of the federation are extremely valuable when we have discussions in Europe. Its representatives and those of its English counterparts usually attend the meetings and we are able to speak to them while discussions are going on in the chamber.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) read what I had to say in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday. Perhaps my addition was not very obvious to him, but 2.2 per cent. a year for three years is not far away from about 7 per cent., plus the percentage that we hope to obtain from licensing. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that it is very approximate, because it is the closest that we can get. One does not know how many boats will come forward this year for decommissioning. One cannot possibly tell to within half a per cent. the amount that we shall be able to take out of effort this year until we have—
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [11 July]
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 1568), a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [Lords]
As amended, considered.
London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [Lords]
  Clause 2

    INTERPRETATION
    7 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 38, after 'areas"', insert
    ', subject to any order under section 31 (Alteration on limits of jurisdiction) of this Act,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 31, page 11, line 21, leave out 'limits of jurisdiction', and insert
    'designated areas, as defined in section 2 (Interpretation) of this Act,'.
    No. 4, in page 11, line 26, leave out from 'area' to end of line 29.
    No. 5, in page 11, leave out lines 30 and 31.
    No. 6, in clause 34, page 12, line 38, leave out subsection (7).
    No. 7, in page 12, line 40, after 'section', insert '31 or'.
    Mr. Spearing: May I, as a preliminary, seek guidance from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Since the grouping was put together earlier this week, certain events have happened which I hope to describe. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible, if necessary—I hope that it will not be necessary—to have a vote on amendment No. 4 and perhaps on amendment No. 6. I very much hope that the reply which the promoter will be able to provide will not provoke that, but it is a point which I would wish to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset, which is the proper time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker indicated assent.
    Mr. Spearing: Thank you very much.
    The Bill has had a long and complex path through the other place and this House. There was a two-and-a-half-hour debate in March, when the Members of Parliament for docklands constituencies gave the Bill a cautious welcome, heavily hedged with qualifications, before it went to the Unopposed Bill Committee upstairs.
    One of the main objections of docklands Members of Parliament was that the Bill was being promoted by a public body, in effect wholly controlled by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which was due to disappear in two or three years' time. Upstairs in Committee, we obtained an amendment by the Unopposed Bill Committee that where the area of designation in this area for byelaws under the Act was to pass from the London Docklands development corporation to other organisations, unspecified—private or public, perhaps as yet unfounded, and perhaps the proposed royal docks management authority in the case of my constituency—it would need a parliamentary affirmative resolution before the power to make byelaws passed from the LDDC. Happily, that was achieved.
    However, docklands Members of Parliament were worried about other matters, both procedural—in terms of power and law-making powers—and in terms of substance: Those have been grouped in the selection which you have
    1228
    made, Mr. Deputy Speaker—amendment No. 1, and amendments Nos. 3 to 7. If it would be convenient for the House, as they are grouped together, I think that I had better discuss all the matters as they arise. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will be able to reply to the group en bloc.
    Amendment No. 1 relates to clause 31. Clause 31 gives power for the Secretary of State, by an order which does not have to come before the House—in the jargon of our House, a negative order, which means that it does not have to come to approval but it can be disapproved of, if necessary, by motion—to change the areas for which byelaws can be made.
    The first query that we had about that clause—rather late in the day, but that is what parliamentary scrutiny is about—is that it was entitled,
    "Alteration of limits of jurisdiction".
    That is ambiguous, because anyone reading it might think that it was the jurisdiction of the LDDC over its own statutory area. That was the first reading of many people, including some people well versed in reading law.
    However, the area with which we are concerned in the power to make byelaws is not the area of jurisdiction. In practice, it is the area which in the definitions clause is called "the designated areas". I was shown those on a map, which is upstairs in the Private Bill Office, and no doubt also in one or two places in docklands. I thought that that was not very clear, and that it might be the subject of court action later. That is what we are here for. This is not a Government Bill: it was initially drawn up by people outside the Government.
    I drew that matter to the attention of the LDDC and its advisers—admittedly, late in the day—and they took the point at once. They said, "Yes, of course it does not mean the only jurisdiction; it means the designated area, and we shall change it." At their suggestion—indeed, in their wording—amendments Nos. 1 and 3 were tabled, which make it absolutely clear. I am happy to start on that note of happy accord. Let us hope that it continues.
    I have not read out the amendments, but no doubt Hansard has got it all down because I am speaking to those amendments.
    Having got off to that good start—I know that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will probably agree because there has been some conversation about that matter—I shall discuss a rather more difficult matter, relating to amendment No. 4. It relates—I had better read it—to a rather controversial part of section 31, which defines the areas of land which, in the future, the Secretary of State can expand or expunge. The one to which I take special objection—I think that that is not too strong a word—reads as follows. I shall summarise section 31(2).
    "The Secretary of State may by order made under this section alter the limits of jurisdiction so as to—"
    and in (a) there is a description of any land in Newham, Southwark or Tower Hamlets, which is situated within or adjacent to the development area, and then:
    "(2)(a)(ii) adjacent to any land which, not being situated within or adjacent to the…development area, is adjacent to any land for the time being comprised in the designated areas".
    That is a lot of jargon, but constituency Members of Parliament will be affected. I confess that during the months that the legislation has been in both Houses I did not look at it sufficiently closely. It says, in ordinary east London English, that, on the designated map, or in schedule 1 to the Bill, which sets out the dock areas, which,

    1229
    in words, are the designated areas for which byelaws can be made, those areas do not have to be inside the area of the LDDC.
    The area of the LDDC is on the map. It was in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It was the area in which the LDDC had tremendous powers over all the boroughs—planning powers, money powers, you name it. Some of the officials there and some of the chairmen and some of the board were quite nice. Anyway, they have been appointed by the Secretary of State.
    I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) in the Chamber. He has spent many hours as leader of Newham council in discussions with those powerful, albeit very polite, people. However, we are discussing an Act of Parliament which invites us tonight to authorise, not simply the LDDC, which is to some extent accountable to the Secretary of State, but any of its successors—heaven knows who they will be, to expand the area in which they can make byelaws to outside the existing LDDC.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said when discussing it with me earlier this week, that area will include the whole of Newham. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would say, as would Ministers in Committee, that the hon. Gentleman's imagination was running away with him, and that no Secretary of State would ever do such a thing. That does not matter—the law would permit him to do it.
    Is it good law? I am not sure whether it would be good law even if it were introduced by a Government, even one that I might support. It is certainly not a good law when it is introduced by an organisation that is to disappear in two years' time and is a creature of the Secretary of State. Moreover, if those powers are transferred to someone else, he or she will be able to take that action.
    It is ironic that that extension of authority was discovered only by chance. There is only one region in the so-called designated areas that is outside the LDDC. It is a bottle-shaped dock, which is not on the Thames and is not part of the Port of London authority group. It is on the River Lea in Bromley-by-Bow gasworks. It is perhaps a good thing that coal is not used for gas now, but when the gasworks operated barges used to come up and take away tar. It is sometimes known as the balancing lagoon—I do not know why—or Bromley dock, although it happens to be in Newham. It is a useful dock and would make a lovely little marina. Some people from the Mayflower centre, Canning Town, built a good boat there of concrete and metal—a useful thing for east Londoners to do. It is not used at present.
    On one side of the dock is the Cody road industrial area which the LDDC has developed. It has provided employment, which has helped to make up for the enormous job losses elsewhere. On the other side of the dock is the gas board—Bromley-by-Bow, huge gasometers, warehouses and maintenance areas.
    Earlier this week I received a telephone call. The caller asked, "Mr. Spearing, do you realise that there will be 200 redundancies in your constituency from the Bromley-by-Bow works?" I said that I did not understand. The caller said that the gas board was thinning out its staff and might go. I am not saying that it will be sold—it involves acres of land—but perhaps it will be. After the telephone call I
    1230
    thought to myself that the subject was covered in the Bill. I must confess that, but for that timely warning, I would not be making this speech.
    Is it right that an area of land that is outside the LDDC area can not only be subjected to byelaws, albeit in the public interest, but can be enlarged? Byelaws can be made by an unspecified person or organisation at an unspecified time in future, by a stroke of the Secretary of State's pen—someone in whom I might otherwise have confidence. I do not think that that is right, which is why I have tabled amendment No. 4. I originally tabled the amendment as a probing amendment. Amendment No. 4 suggests that subsection (2)(a)(ii) of clause 31 should be deleted.
    Subsection (2)(b) gives the Secretary of State power to
    "remove from the designated areas any land for the time being comprised in those areas."
    I do not like that because, although it is unlikely to happen, it can be done by the Secretary of State at the stroke of a pen. The royal docks contain much important land in the designated area. In amendment No. 6 I suggest that the matter should be subject to an affirmative resolution of the House.
    7.15 pm
    The Committee required the LDDC and, in effect, the Government to ensure that, if the power were transferred to someone else, that would require an affirmative resolution. I am saying that the powers to change or extend the area of designation should also be subject to an affirmative resolution. In other parts of the country with byelaws relating to parks, commons and national parks, that might not be necessary, but we are talking about east London—an urban area—where water facilities are important. They are lungs; they provide areas of potential recreation and commercial development may not be fully in the public interest.
    The power to make byelaws works in two ways. It can promote the public interest in terms of access, recreation and use of the water for different activities or it can be collared for other purposes. That is why it is important to protect the land, which was originally in public ownership—most of it under the Port of London Authority. It would be appropriate for the promoters of the Bill to agree that that measure should also be subject to an affirmative resolution. Future problems that may arise could be massive.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) may wish to talk about the West India docks, which contain Canary wharf. The Royal docks contain 250 acres of water and 1,000 acres of land. The area is almost as big as the combined areas of Hyde park and Kensington gardens. There are two miles of clear water from the west end of the Victoria dock, through the Connaught cutting. The Royal Albert dock is about one mile long and is used for six-lane rowing. It would be possible to turn it into an olympic rowing course, although it would cost a bit of money.
    The Victoria dock is one of the finest stretches of open water in London—comparable to or even bigger than the Welsh Harp. It is an area where young people from Newham and Tower Hamlets sail, sailboard, row and learn. It was originally launched by the London borough of Newham and is now held in trust as the Victoria dock project. Next door to the Victoria dock, people surfboard, which is an important activity. I did not know until last

    1231
    week that the gentleman who runs the activity, Mr. Chilvers, was responsible for introducing surfboarding. He even holds some patents for it.
    In east London we have a gentleman and his enterprise who were in at the beginning of an extremely important worldwide sport. Yet, horrible as it may seem—I do not want to introduce a negative tone, but I must put it on record—there is planning permission for the north side of Victoria dock which would extend the land 20 or 30 yd into the dock itself. The plans of the LDDC contain the possibility of a bridge. I have suggested that a chain ferry might be better because otherwise the magnificent marine resource might be jeopardised. I have no qualms about putting to Londoners and to the House the importance of the marine tradition of London—and I am talking about an area that represents just that. It is an area of heritage, with a dockland museum; ships may sail into it from outside—all will be subject to the byelaws.
    A so-called urban village is to be built on the side of the dock. I understand that next week the LDDC will decide on the contractors. I shall not go too deeply into the merits of that project as it would not be right, but the area lies on the border of the designated areas and the remit of the byelaws. Only a quarter of the village is designated for the construction of reasonably priced houses to rent. That replicates the mistakes that some of us believe were made previously along the river to the west. It has also been rightly said that the place is in any case more urban than village-like.
    The point is that, unless the amendment is agreed to, the Secretary of State in his Whitehall office will be able to alter byelaws in the area without getting them approved by an affirmative resolution of this House. That is why I think it necessary to secure the future of the area.
    Last Friday some far-sighted local business men—this should appeal to the Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—headed by a Mr. Bulgin arid his firm in Barking put some money into the kitty for a new sort of flexible rowing craft. It has many uses—camping, cruising, training, and so on—and it is to be known as the Buccaneer Cutter. There may be more to come. Given a fair wind in the media, people will cry, "Hurrah! Why wasn't this done before?" The Victoria dock project, under way within the designated area, is living a hand-to-mouth existence at the moment—containers, prefabricated buildings and all sorts of bits and pieces. No one knows what lies in store for the area.
    That part of London and these powers are far too important to be left to Whitehall, even in the hands of good Secretaries of State, who usually find themselves harassed by all sorts of other matters. The powers should be subject to approval in this House; if they are good powers, they will probably go through on the nod. I am asking for the sort of safeguards that citizens look to Parliament to provide them with. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will agree.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I am glad that I managed to anticipate most of the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We have enjoyed a helpful dialogue on the amendments in question. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, two of them were proposed to him, to meet his concerns, by the Bill's promoters. To be honest, they were negotiated between us.
    I had never promoted a private Bill before this one, and this has seen us engaged in a process of law making in the
    1232
    raw. This is not about making inflated speeches: it is all about looking at the dots and commas to find out what the Bill means. I hope that I shall be able to meet the concerns that the hon. Gentleman quite properly expressed.
    Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 were, as I have just explained, actually drafted by the promoters. The hon. Member for Newham, South wants to be sure that anyone reading the Bill will be able to distinguish between the area of jurisdiction of the development corporation and any successor body and the area in which the corporation or its successor can make byelaws. In theory at least, and perhaps in practice, there is a difference. For instance, the development corporation's area may include parts of three boroughs—but it might want to make byelaws in only two of them.
    The problem that the hon. Gentleman has spotted is that phrases like "limits of jurisdiction" are not abundantly clear. Do they refer to the limits of jurisdiction of the development corporation, with all its powers, including as the planning authority, or to the limits of jurisdiction for the purposes of this Bill, which is all about making byelaws?
    Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 clarify the position. Amendment No. 3 removes the phrase "limits of jurisdiction" and replaces it with
    "designated areas, as defined in section 2 (Interpretation) of this Act".
    Clause 2 says that "the designated areas" mean
    "the harbours or former harbours, docks or former docks, waterways and other lands described in Schedule 1 to this Act, together with the jetties, all of which are designated by and situated within the limits of jurisdiction, but does not include the waters lying beneath Rotherhithe Street bridge in the London borough of Southwark".
    On behalf of the promoters, I accept the amendment, and I hope that the House will do likewise. In effect, the hon. Member for Newham, South has made certain that when, in respect of clause 31, we talk about the alteration of limits of jurisdiction, we are clearly describing alterations in the limits of the designated areas. I agree with the view of the hon. Gentleman, which I strongly expressed to the parliamentary agents—that the sooner the world of parliamentary drafting can get away from all those cross-references and say what it means in plain language, instead of sending us around a Bill for definitions, the better. Certainly, I did not manage to achieve such a revolution in the course of negotiating those amendments.
    Amendment No. 1 would add the words
    "subject to any order under section 31 (Alteration of limits of jurisdiction) of this Act"
    after the word "areas". Anyone wanting to find out where the designated areas are should be aware that, once the Bill is enacted, they may have been altered because clause 31 provides the power to alter them.
    I hope that I can now help the hon. Gentleman with his exploration of those extended powers. I can quite understand his anxiety on looking at the map in the course of his research and discovering that an area falling outside the confines of the development corporation was to be included in the remit of byelaw-making powers which the Bill will give the development corporation and its successors.
    Clause 2 lists the types of land covered by designated areas, and refers us to schedule 1 for a complete description of all the places to be included. There is a sting in the tail of this explanation, but first I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 14 of the Bill. Schedule 1 lists in full the extent of the

    1233
    areas covered by the phrase "designated areas". Some of them are in his constituency, others are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), I suppose that some of them are in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and some are in my constituency. There are 13 groups in all. For the record, I shall read them out so that people who read the debate will know exactly what we are talking about: Hermitage basin, Western dock canal system, Shadwell basin—including Brussels wharf—Surrey Water, Thames Link, Albion canal, Albion dry dock and Canada Water, Greenland dock, Steelyard cut and South dock—both south of the river; the next ones are north of it—West India north branch dock, West India centre branch dock and West India south dock, Blackwall basin and Poplar dock, Millwall inner dock, Millwall outer dock and Millwall cutting, East India dock basin, Royal Victoria dock and Royal Victoria pontoon dock, Royal Albert dock, King George V dock and Albert basin.
    The perceptive reader, including the hon. Member for Newham, South, will notice that the piece of water to which he referred does not appear in that list. That is a mistake, but happily not one that need thwart the hon. Gentleman's objective. I was relieved to learn that, because otherwise the Bill would have required redrafting, and that could not be done tonight. The list should have included the Cody road balancing lagoon—the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred—because uniquely in the territory in question, that land is owned by the LDDC but is outside its boundaries. That is the dichotomy. There is LDDC land within which there are byelaw-making powers, but there is extra-territorial LDDC land in the form of the lagoon that should be in the designated area and in the schedule. As it was not included in the schedule, I asked those who advise the promoter what should be done. They advised that if something is not in the schedule but is on the map Upstairs, that map takes precedence—and the lagoon is on the map. Therefore, even if in future days people do not find Cody road balancing lagoon in the schedule, they will find it on the map.
    7.30 pm
    The authority for stating that it will be covered by the Bill is clause 3(1), which defines the extent of the measure:
    "The limits within which the Corporation shall have and may exercise the functions conferred on it by this Act"—
    and we are only talking about byelaw-making functions—
    "and within which the powers of the manager may be exercised, shall comprise the designated areas."
    That clause confronts the fact that a mistake may be made one day by stating in subsection (2):
    "If there be any discrepancy between the deposited map and the descriptions in Schedules I and 2 to this Act, the deposited map shall prevail but, for the avoidance of doubt, the designated areas do not extend to any part of the bed of the river Thames below the level of mean high water from time to time".
    Where there is a conflict, the deposited map prevails.
    It is not intended that a universal power for making byelaws should be given to the docklands corporation or to any successor authority. Having examined this as a lawyer, I accept that the powers are limited to the areas set out in the list in the schedule or shown on the map—and that, where there is a discrepancy, the map takes precedence. The powers cannot therefore be exercised in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Newham,
    1234
    North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because they are not in the schedule or on the designated map—with the exception of the balancing lagoon to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Spearing: The gas board owns many acres of land north of Cody road basin, right up to the District and Tilbury line railways. By virtue of the pressures of statute, the gas board may wish to dispose of that large area of land in the not-too-distant future. Bearing in mind that the western side is on the banks of the River Lea, is it not likely that someone may apply to the Secretary of State in future to include large parts of that land, particularly that adjacent to the water, in the byelaw area? That may be a good thing. Is that not possible?
    Mr. Hughes: That is possible, but I will deal first with the agreed amendments and then with the other amendments. We do not agree that those others are necessary, but they raise the issue of whether there ought to be the power change that relates to extending or reducing the Bill's jurisdiction.
    I have not visited the Cody road area, but I understand that it is a short distance to the north of the urban development area but still within the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is situated at the Cody road industrial estate and just off the banks of Bow creek, which is part of the River Lea. It is owned and operated by the British Waterways Board, and was built to serve the existing adjacent coal-fired gas power station. It is quite a large area of water—more than 500 ft long by 100 ft wide, and 20 ft deep. It is called a balancing lagoon because, like gasometers, its level goes up and down. Sometimes there is no water in it and sometimes there is.
    There is no public access on two sides of the lagoon because the land owned by the development corporation is fenced, and another side has a British Gas boundary fence. However, it can be reached from the creek. The logic of including it is that the Bill is about being able to regulate by byelaw, and particularly to make the dock safe for the public. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the difference between now and when the byelaws were last altered is that they then served the purposes of the Port of London Authority, when the docks were used for commercial purposes. Today, sadly in many ways but realistically, they are used for different purposes and the public have extensive access. Among the purposes of the Bill is to prevent, for example, children falling into the water. One reason that the promoter is keen, and the House should be keen, to complete the Bill tonight is so that it can be on the statute book for the summer, when the prospective danger of docklands waters not being regulated is at its greatest.
    The lagoon is included in the Bill because it is a large area of water which the public can access from the creek, and which could be dangerous—particularly because there is operational equipment at the mouth of the lagoon. Also, given that the Bill intended to include all areas of water owned by the docklands corporation, it would have been illogical not to include it—even though, territorially, it was outside the LDDC's boundaries.
    The corporation has no intention of using its powers to extend the designated areas in the vicinity of the lagoon. It is prepared to give undertakings—at this stage, that would best be done in writing—to that effect. In any event, such a proposal would also have to be justified and would be

    1235
    subject to resolutions in the House. As the hon. Member for Newham, South pointed out, where there is a designated area—the lagoon is one—the LDDC could come along and say, in relation to land next to it, "We want to take byelaw-making powers." As he also rightly pointed out, a successor could have the same motivation and intention. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, the LDDC specifically states that it has no intention of extending the areas—and it would have to return to the House if it wanted to do so.
    Ms Mildred Gordon: I am particularly concerned to get an assurance about King Edward memorial park, which is adjacent to Shadwell basin. Various developers have had their greedy eyes on that park, which was given to the community in perpetuity. One company wanted to use the jetty for tying up craft. People wanting to use their boats would have arrived in cars, so most of the park would have become a car park. The next company wanted to set up a tennis centre. Developers keep making proposals involving large areas of that park or the whole park, which would deny to the community the use of a park that it has enjoyed for many years. I want an assurance that the powers will not be extended outside the designated area to Shadwell park, which is a desirable bit of waterfront and one of the few parts that are open to the public, who can sit and relax there. I want to know that that area will not be gobbled up.
    Mr. Hughes: I hope to deal with that point, ideally in our debate on this group of amendments but, failing that, in that on the next group. I have been able to give the hon. Member for Newham, South a similar assurance in relation to the lagoon.
    I do not honestly think that it is possible for the sponsor of a Bill promoted by a corporation such as this to give an assurance that will bind a successor authority. The hon. Lady has a safeguard in the Bill, however—the only safeguard available to us. The next two amendments deal with this. As we see on page 11 of the Bill in its present form, any change—an extension of the kind referred to by the hon. Members for Newham, South and for Bow and Poplar—intended by a successor authority must be made first by order of the Secretary of State. That applies regardless of the identity of the successor authority. The power will not be transferred to, for example, Newham borough council, a trust or even a private company. It will remain with the Secretary of State. Secondly, the change must be made by order of the House. The question is, what kind of order will be involved?
    Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the promoters were keen for the byelaws to be effective by the summer because of the danger in the water areas. If that is to happen, the timetable seems extraordinarily tight. I have always assumed that byelaws must be published for consultation purposes before they are implemented.
    Mr. Hughes: I understand that, even if the Bill completes its passage tonight, it will still have to go back to the other place because it has been amended in Committee. If it becomes law before the summer recess, it is intended that, during the summer—I do not say before the summer—at least some of the powers contained in it should be used to create byelaws, but of course consultation must take place.
    1236
    Some of the community groups in our three boroughs are exerting pressure for byelaws to be created. By definition, that will be the subject of discussion with the local authorities; but the corporation tells me that it wants byelaws in place this summer to protect the public. It is not certain whether that will be achieved. If the Bill is not passed before the summer recess, it will not be on the statute book until the autumn at the earliest, and any opportunity of legislating in time for the summer will be lost.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is resisting a move to the use of an affirmative order in relation to Cody road because he considers a so-called negative order—which is made notionally; it is "laid upon the Table"—adequate for the purpose? Although it is theoretically a parliamentary procedure, it is really more a stroke of the Secretary of State's pen.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Hughes: As I remember the quotation, I shall now say, "I was coming to that"—which is, I believe, a quotation from "Alice in Wonderland"; or is it "King Lear"? I am sorry, I do not mean "King Lear"—I mean Edward Lear. There is a slight difference in tone. It must be the heat. I have not yet dealt with the relative benefits of negative and affirmative resolutions, but I want to do so. It is a perfectly proper subject for debate.
    The hon. Member for Newham, South makes two more proposals in amendments Nos. 4 and 5. Amendment No. 4 proposes the removal of the power to include in the areas designated for byelaws land—this is in clause 31(2)(a)(ii)—
    "adjacent to any land which, not being situated within or adjacent to the urban development area, is adjacent to any land for the time being comprised in the designated areas".
    At present, that could apply only to the balancing lagoon.
    Ms Gordon: It could apply to Shadwell park.
    Mr. Hughes: No, it could not. Amendment No. 4 would remove lines 27, 28 and 29 of clause 31. Let us take it from the top. Clause 31(2) states that the Secretary of State may, by order, alter the designated area to
    "include within the designated areas for the purposes of this Act any area of land in the London borough of Newham. Southwark or Tower Hamlets which for the time being is…adjacent to any land which, not being situated within or adjacent to the urban development area",
    and so forth. The land about which the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar is concerned would be covered by subsection (2)(a)(i), being
    "situated within, or adjacent to, the urban development area".
    Her park is within that area. I am sorry that all this is a bit technical, but that is not my fault.
    As I have said, outside the LDDC area, the byelaws can apply only to the lagoon, and I have given an undertaking about that. I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Newham, South in relation to amendment No. 4, which in its present form deals only with the land in question and land adjacent to it.
    Amendment No. 5 would remove lines 30 and 31—subsection (2)(b), which allows the Secretary of State to
    "remove from the designated areas any land for the time being comprised in those areas."
    The promoters resist that for what they describe as pragmatic reasons: they say that the boundaries of the byelaws—not those of the development corporation, which is dealt with by a different procedure—may need to be

    1237
    changed. I am no more of an expert than any other hon. Member, but it is clear to me that over 10, 20, 30 or 40 years—however long the Act will be on the statute book—the area where a particular set of byelaws may be wanted can alter.
    The argument is both simple and general. For example, if a piece of water within a designated area were to be filled in so that it was not dock but housing land, planning permission would be needed, but there would be no need for byelaws governing what is needed in the area of a dock. The promoters want the power to reduce the area that may, at its greatest extent, be covered by byelaws.
    Let us take a notional example from the borough and constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, South. Let us suppose that the outer limit of the areas covered by the byelaws, and listed in the schedule and on the map, included a particular piece of water and land, and the land around it, and it was decided to introduce a pontoon, or bring a piece of land forward by 100 m so that the dock became a smaller area of water. It might then be thought appropriate to bring the byelaw nearer to the water, as it were. Those are only pragmatic considerations. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman will view them as overwhelming, but the Bill will give a pragmatic power.
    The issue is whether the hon. Gentleman can do anything about it if the Secretary of State suddenly says, "I want to change the limits of the byelaws." That leads to the argument whether we should have affirmative or negative resolutions. The Secretary of State cannot do anything unless he or she comes to the House, but is that procedure adequate as a control?
    That leads to amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Amendment No. 6 would leave out subsection (7), which states:
    "An order under section 31 shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
    In shorthand, we call that the negative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 7 seeks to replace it with an affirmative order procedure by inserting section 31.
    I have rehearsed the argument on this issue with the hon. Gentleman and it is up to him whether he accepts it. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar is also concerned about the matter. I understand, and I can see, the logic of the promoter's argument; it is a matter of judgment as to whether it is appropriate. With affirmative resolutions, the Government have to find time in their business for a debate.
    Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman knows that, time after time, affirmative resolutions appear on the Order Paper at 3.30 pm and that, sometimes, Madam Speaker takes orders together. If the House is satisfied with an order and 20 hon. Members do not rise, or if it is decided through the usual channels that it should not go into Committee, it does not take much time for the order to be passed—it requires only that the Clerks call its name and the occupant of the Chair puts the Question. It can take five seconds.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the order must come to this place and we have a chance to consider it. If we do not get our act together, such orders can go through quickly, as many do. Statutory instruments were in existence long before I was elected and probably before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were elected—I do not mean that disrespectfully, but you have been here longer than me. Two sorts of protection on statutory instruments exist.
    1238
    One gives us better protection than the other—it is what the hon. Gentleman seeks. Protection through the other is more difficult to achieve.
    For the pragmatic day-to-day byelaw changes, it is argued that it is unlikely that the Government would find time—given the pressures on their timetable—or have the political will, to place an order on the Order Paper that would introduce the pragmatic, day-to-day changes in byelaws that the docklands corporation seeks. If it asked the Government to change the byelaws, the Government might say, "We are sorry, but it is not worth it. We have far more pressing things to do."
    The argument is whether to accept the procedure in the Bill or that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Is it better to have a mechanism by which the Government do not have to introduce an order in this place to change byelaws, or should we have a more difficult mechanism by which the Government have to introduce an order, with the disincentive that follows? The promoters say, "Please give us the flexibility because we are talking not about the constitution of Britain, but about the byelaws of an area of east London."
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has accepted the point that was effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham South (Mr. Spearing) that only a short time is required to pass an order. Clauses 31 and 33 allow for byelaw-making powers to be changed in respect of the area in which byelaws apply, and in respect of the body that has byelaw-making powers. If it is accepted that it is appropriate to have the affirmative resolution procedure for one of those, it is nonsense not to accept it in respect of the other.
    Mr. Hughes: I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that he was going to make a really good point, with which I would have difficulty dealing. In fact, his point was not as good as I thought that it would be. As a docklands Member of Parliament—and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is nearly a docklands Member of Parliament—I say that changing the boundaries of the docklands corporation or any other development corporation is a substantial matter because they involve planning controls and other rules, but byelaw-making powers are not in the same league.
    I should like to deal with the traditional way in which it is decided which procedure should be used. The hon. Member for Greenwich may or may not accept what "Erskine May" says on the matter. It states on page 546 that the affirmative resolution procedure is
    "used principally for substantial and important portions of delegated legislation, on which a high degree of scrutiny is sought."
    It is a matter of judgment as to whether we think that the byelaw-making powers are in that category.
    I can justify the difference. Changing the boundaries of the development corporation comes within the definition of substantial, important delegated legislation, whereas byelaw-making powers are not in the same league or of the same importance.
    I want to give a pragmatic example. In some parts of the London Docklands development corporation area, development has not yet taken place, especially in the Royal docks, which are located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, South. Therefore, the demarcation of designated areas for byelaws has been drawn in a manner that anticipates what the final built development

    1239
    will look like. We have to guess what planning permissions will be sought. The byelaws are meant to reflect the best guess of the people who have dealt with docklands planning since the corporation came into existence.
    That guess may not correspond with the actual built development that either the LDDC or its successors may agree to. It may be necessary, because the physical layout of the docklands may change, to make alterations of the byelaws. The argument is that, when planning procedures and development of the royal docks and other parts of the docklands are complete, only technical alterations to the boundaries may be needed—literally a tight redrawing. A cumbersome procedure that required going to the Government, seeking an affirmative resolution and winning an argument to place it on the Order Paper could discourage the docklands corporation or its successors from proposing such orders and the byelaws could gradually less accurately represent the areas for which they are intended.
    There is other protection, even though the hon. Member for Newham, South would like a stronger form of protection to be in place. This perhaps is the best assurance that I can give to him—clause 34(6) requires the LDDC and any successor to consult local authorities before any order is made. Of course, having consulted, the corporation can ignore representations, but I hope that the LDDC will take on board the views of democratically elected local authorities.
    I add this to the promoters—there is no reason why, for the remaining life of the docklands corporation or during the lifetime of its successors, any change to the byelaw-making areas should be made without the agreement of local authorities. Their agreement is vital and local authorities must have confidence that they are En the right place. They may become in due time the planning development control authority.
    I hope that that was the longest intervention that I shall have to make this evening. It dealt with the largest batch of amendments. They are technical, but substantive arguments have been advanced. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South is persuaded. I shall leave him to speak for himself. There is a justifiable distinction between byelaws and corporation boundaries. It is entirely credible to argue that requiring a complex, burdensome and formalised procedure will be a disincentive to appropriate change. Therefore, the easier procedure, the short route, is preferable.
    8 pm
    Mr. Spearing: The length of the very thorough speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is, I think, justification for the tabling of the amendments. I am grateful to him for the content of his speech and for the spirit in which he spoke, and I shall comment briefly on his remarks.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the drafting of the Bill. I agree that it was a difficult Bill to draft because the LDDC cuts across this country's customary habits of power and law-making. In a case such as this, where byelaws are required, a complicated Bill is required, and I appreciate some of the problems faced by the officials. However, it certainly provided a lesson in law-making.
    It is correct that the Cody road basin is not in the schedules. A relevant amendment was tabled in Committee and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it had to go back to
    1240
    another place. On a point of procedure, the Government or anyone else could, when tidying up, move an amendment to the relevant schedule to have the Cody road lagoon, or the Bromley dock—whatever one likes to call it—included in the Bill once again.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey says that we should not strike out such a provision because to do so under amendment No. 4 would mean that the areas in question would be excluded. He thought that it could mean only extending them improperly, so the areas would not go as far as Forest Gate or up the road to Plaistow because there would be no reason to do so. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he is probably right. It could be extended up the River Lea to Riverside walk—perhaps with moorings or a boatyard—in which case the retention of flexibility might be advantageous, although I go no further than saying "might be".
    I hope that the London borough of Newham, the British Waterways board or a combination of the two might have the law-making powers. That might be the best solution. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has managed to persuade me that to remove the Cody road basin from the ambit of byelaw-making as a whole might be to the public's disadvantage. The problem is that, used in the wrong way by the Secretary of State, such a provision could be to the public's disadvantage.
    The hon. Member also referred to amendment No. 5, which seeks to prevent the reduction of the areas in question. Whether in the Royal docks or anywhere else, inside or out, it should not be possible to reduce the area without putting the issue before the House, which brings us to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that it will be all right on the night and that we do not need the affirmative procedure because a negative one will be adequate.
    I must say that never in my life have I heard or read such an eloquent half-persuasive justification for the suspect negative procedure as opposed to the affirmative procedure which most of us would prefer. However, I then remembered that the hon. Gentleman has an occupation that has given him enormous skill in advocacy, which was why his argument sounded so persuasive.
    I hope that I highlighted some of the faults in the hon. Gentleman's argument by pointing out that the negative procedure does not require much of the House's time. If it is passed on the nod, it can be can be dealt with in less than 30 seconds—in fact, in 10 seconds—at 3.30 pm. As far as I know, there is no Privy Councillor here. In any event, I do not think that the mumbling takes much longer in the Privy Council—it has to go before the Privy Council, whether under the affirmative or negative procedure.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey did not mention the great virtue of the affirmative procedure, which is that it acts as a template. If an order is not good enough, the Government know that there will be a bit of a kerfuffle, perhaps involving even some of their own Back Benchers. This is not a party issue; it is an amenity issue, and other development corporations across the country might be going out of existence. The Government will avoid any trouble not by using a negative procedure but by ensuring that the affirmative procedure is all right. I remember reading a text book about this written by Mr. Jennings in the 1930s. The mere threat of opposing the affirmative procedure was enough to get an amendment withdrawn and retabled. Alas, those days are gone—we have what I call a procedural slippage.

    1241
    We must consider the practicalities. The alternative open to me is to press the matter to a Division. The extension for which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was so stretched to justify a rather dodgy procedure can, I hope, always be prayed in aid by anyone who thinks that any extension or reduction of the areas in question is unreasonable. I am, therefore, not really content because the balance is not right.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise for intervening, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was getting to the end of his remarks. Before he finishes his remarks, I should like to give him an assurance and, if he will allow me, I shall use this intervention to say that I can expressly give the same assurance to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) in relation to King Edward memorial park. I assure her that the LDDC will not extend in the way that she feared, not only because it has no intention of doing so but because Tower Hamlets owns it and would, in all certainty, have to agree. I therefore hope that the two hon. Members can be reassured in a practical rather than a theoretical sense.
    Mr. Spearing: I was about to say that there had been limited assurances, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the LDDC will disappear. However, when that happens, the affirmative procedure will be needed to decide who will succeed it. In that instance, a debate will be in order.
    The hon. Gentleman did not raise this point and I am almost arguing against it myself, but it would be in order to debate how powers are exercised, provided of course that there were sufficient people present to ensure a debate. I hope that my proposal would ensure that there would be a debate, even if it resulted in byelaw-making powers going to the London borough of Newham. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) is still a councillor, so perhaps we could have a debate to ensure that the trusteeship of byelaw-making powers was in the right hands. Even if those hands did not have the full confidence of all hon. Members, we could be sure that they would exercise those powers responsibly.
    I shall not press the amendment to a Division, despite the mass of hon. Members of all political persuasions who would come flooding in having been transfixed and persuaded by the proceedings on television that they have been watching avidly. I shall therefore withdraw the amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that he is seeking leave to withdraw amendment No. 1?
    Mr. Spearing: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 5

    GENERAL DUTY AS TO DESIGNATED AREAS
    Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
    We cleared a great deal of ground in our debate on the first set of amendments. This amendment relates to clause
    1242
    5 which I believe is perhaps the most important clause. I should perhaps read clause 5(1), which is the pith of the whole clause. It states:
    "It shall be the duty of the Corporation, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under this Act, to have regard to the desirability of securing the use of the designated areas for a diversity of purposes which may include sporting, recreational, cultural, commercial, energy-related and navigational purposes."
    That clause was not in the original Bill. It was put in by the LDDC after discussion and representations. As time goes by, we realise more about the advantages of recreation in the dock areas, not only in Newham, but in Millwall—the LDDC is proud of its centre there, although it does not cater for as many people as the Vic does—and in the Greenland dock and the South dock.
    However, the commercial operations there have not been quite as successful as some people hoped or assumed. There is little money in water sports and recreation. They are, above all, rather like our public parks—something which costs a bit of money to keep up, and ought to have no revenue charge, or at least only a notional charge, especially as people living nearby can get to them so easily. The docks are a wonderful water resource for sport; the surface never wears out and they are relatively cheap to maintain.
    However, in connection with clause 5(4), which I am about to discuss, there is a cost in keeping up the docks. We do not know the cost; it is not mentioned in the Bill, but we must pay great attention to it. There is maintenance for water areas—the locks, the dredging, the walls, the patrolling and policing, the people who open the swing bridges, those who lay down the buoys and so on. That all represents an ongoing cost, and when the Government introduced the LDDC they did not think much about it.
    Subsection (4) looks a little ominous on the face of it. It says:
    "No legal proceedings shall be brought, with regard to any byelaw under this Act, in respect of any failure or alleged failure by the Corporation or the Secretary of State to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3) above after the expiration of a period of 72 days beginning with the date upon which the byelaw is confirmed."
    We can probably reach an accommodation, but anybody reading that would think, "Good Lord. You mean that they can make the byelaw, and if something has gone wrong, after 72 days we cannot go to the court? Finished?" If people tried to go to court, the solicitor would say, "Sorry, mate, you can't. The Act says that's it. And you can't appeal against it."
    Some people reading that would be a little suspicious, because the governing subsection (1) does not give much protection. It does not say that rowing, sailing, surfboarding, sub-aqua diving and so on are a priority in the area. I believe that they should be. The area is unique. We would not think of building on Hampstead heath, or putting an airport in the middle of Hyde park, any more than we should think of filling in the Royal docks—but that is what some people once wanted to do.
    Subsection (1) gives no priority. It says simply:
    "It shall be the duty of the Corporation…to have regard to the desirability of securing the use of the designated areas for a diversity of purposes".
    It does not say that one purpose will have priority over another. I argue that the docks are a unique resource for the young people of east London, the rest of London and even further afield.

    1243
    A regatta was held on the Albert dock not long ago in which there may well have been more boats and more competitors than at Henley. In my view, it was more important than Henley, because there were more ordinary people and more young people rowing there on that one Sunday than there would have been at Henley. Nobody knew about it; nobody was there to photograph it, but in toto I believe that it was more important. However, that fact does not give those activities priority, much as I should like it to.
    If someone decided to challenge a development in the court, after 72 days, their chance would be gone. I want to know why that restriction is there, and what sort of protection we have. In expressing what I believe the priorities under subsection (1) should be, I hope that I have advertised what I should like to happen in future. I want to know why we cannot do anything after 72 days. No doubt the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will tell us why.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I can speak much more briefly on this amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have informed the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in one sense there would be no problem in accepting the amendment, but there is no need to do so. Indeed, there is merit in not doing so.
    If the Bill goes through unamended, clause 5(4) will state:
    "No legal proceedings shall be brought with regard to any byelaw made under this Act, in respect of any failure or alleged failure by the Corporation or the Secretary of State to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (2) or…subsection (3)…after…72 days beginning with the date upon which the byelaw is confirmed."
    In lay terms, it says that if somebody wants to challenge procedurally at law the making of the byelaws, that has to be done within 72 days. That gives some certainty for the corporation, as the promoters, and the Government, as the authority within the Act, but also for members of the public.
    We could do without the provision, but if it were not there it would be possible for someone to use the normal rules of court. There would be no statute expressly governing the procedure, so the normal rules of court would be used. I know for a fact what those rules say, because we have just been involved in considering them in connection with a prospective legal challenge to the Secretary of State for Health over her announcement on 10 February about Guy's hospital. The same issue arose for the people who want to keep Bart's hospital open. Because of his experience in his previous career, the Minister, too, will know what those rules say.
    The rules of the Supreme Court say that someone who wants to take out judicial review proceedings has no more than three months. But that is an outer limit. Even if people apply within the three months, the courts may still rule that they have not come as quickly as they could have done. Therefore, if someone sought to challenge after 71 days, 70 days, 69 days or even 60 days, he could be told, "Sorry, you are too late. You could have come earlier." Out of the theoretically available three months—that is about 90 days—the provision in subsection (4) gives the absolute certainty that within the 72 days one can go to court and challenge the byelaws by way of judicial review if one wants to.
    1244
    The normal reason for a challenge to the byelaws is the fact that certain procedures have not been carried out. For example, perhaps there should have been consultation and there has not been. I tell the hon. Member for Newham, South that the 72-day rule is actually a better safeguard, because it is a clearer safeguard, for his constituents and mine, and for the constituents of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and those of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—for everyone in the four docklands constituencies. It means that our people in the three local authority areas concerned could challenge within 72 days and know that they could get into court, and no one would say that they were too late.
    I ask the hon. Member for Newham, South to accept that that is a better protection. In theory, there would be 18 more days without the provision, but in practice there could be far fewer days. As the clause is written, there will definitely be 72 days. So long as people act within that period, they will definitely get through the door of the court. That is clear on the face of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's proper concerns have been met by my explanation, and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful explanation. I am grateful that it will be on the record because, as he rightly says, despite appearances, the provision is there for a purpose contrary to that which some people may assume. I shall therefore accede to his suggestion that I withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 31

    ALTERATION OF LIMITS OF JURISDICTION
    Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 21, leave out 'limits of jurisdiction', and insert
    'designated areas, as defined in section 2 (Interpretation) of this Act,'.—[Mr. Spearing.]
    Order for Third Reading read. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
    8.29 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill has had quite a long life. Like many private Bills, it has crossed over more than one Session of Parliament. It began its passage at the beginning of 1993, so it has taken about a year and a half to consider. Since it came to this place at the end of last year, it has been changed a little. It was changed a little on Report, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but it was also changed in Committee. I want to say one or two things about the changes so that the House is clear about them, because we have not had a chance to report them and I especially want to deal with a matter which may be of concern to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon).
    The purpose of the Bill is to allow the corporation to catch up, as it were, with the real world and to give the byelaw-making power for the docklands area to the people who are running it at the moment and their successors, rather than to people who ran it in the past. The purpose of the Bill is for the benefit of the community, especially

    1245
    those who visit the area, as well as those who live there. The changes made since the Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons are as follows.
    First, there have been revisions to the Bill to make it clear that the Secretary of State's power to transfer functions of the corporation relate only to functions created by or under the Bill and not to the transfer of, for example, land or assets. Secondly, charges which can be imposed by virtue of the Bill, especially under clause 8, will be reasonable. Thirdly, the transfer of functions, pursuant to clause 33, which is the matter that has most exercised the mind of the hon. Member for Newham, South as well as my own and that of other hon. Members representing the docklands, including I am sure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who speaks for the Labour party, are subject to affirmative resolution procedure. That was not the case when we began discussing the Bill, but it is now the case. The Bill has been made tougher in that respect.
    Fourthly, the Bill has been changed to ensure that concerns raised by people during its passage should be met. Those concerns were met by amendments to protect landowners or occupiers of land lying in the designated areas, or to protect those who have private rights of navigation.
    Finally, protection has been provided for a variety of affected statutory bodies, such as the National Rivers Authority, the Port of London Authority, Billingsgate market, the fire authority and the Port of London health authority.
    Since the Bill last appeared, there is also one obvious, significant and substantial change. If the House considers the way in which the Bill is laid out, it will see there is a new part III. Under the new part III, there is a list of protected provisions. I shall spend a minute explaining why they are in the Bill, because they were not listed when the Bill originally came to the House. I was alarmed to discover an issue that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar rightly raised with me yesterday. Suddenly, I discovered that parts of the Bill exclude Canary wharf. It struck me that if a byelaw-making Bill about the docklands excluded Canary wharf, it was very odd, since the biggest building in the whole of the docklands is on that site. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar may well want to make points about that matter, but I shall first deal with what has happened as the Bill has proceeded through the House.
    The new part III gives protective provision for people who have private landownership interests in the designated areas. Everybody who is not a docklands corporation landowner—all the other owners in the area—have the same protection. So if the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar owned her house and I owned a house there, we would be assured that we would receive the same protection.
    Mr. Raynsford indicated assent.
    Mr. Hughes: I see that the hon. Member for Greenwich is nodding. He is welcome to intervene, but, perhaps, he will want to deal with that point in his speech. The important matter is how we reached that position.
    Part III lists the other big landowners, which are Canary Wharf Investment Ltd., The Daily Telegraph, Clippers Quay (Millwall) Management Company Ltd., Billingsgate
    1246
    market, the London City airport, the port health authority, the fire authority, the Crown and telecommunications operators, which, I am told, means, in effect, Mercury Communications plc. Part III means that either the provisions of the Bill or byelaws made under the Bill will not apply in the areas in which those companies have landownership interests, without their consent in writing.
    In some cases, as part of the negotiations over the clauses, the docklands corporation did, I am told, enter into private agreements relating to how the consent of the bodies would be given and the circumstances in which consent might be withheld. When the Bill was drafted, it was thought—it was a negotiating tactic as much as anything else—that it was a good idea to include the privately owned land, such as Canary wharf, as well as land owned by the LDDC. I have not checked, but it sounds right that, in the area of the three boroughs concerned, and in the LDDC area, about 95 per cent. of the territory, which is mainly water, is LDDC owned, and about 5 per cent. only is owned by other people. Canary wharf may seem big, but it is mainly upwards and not along the ground.
    I am told that the LDDC had hoped that it would receive the agreement of those other landowners so that the byelaw-making powers could apply to their lands, too. However, the Bill has now reached Third Reading, those other landowners have not given their consent and, therefore, they have to be taken out of the Bill because they will not be governed by the byelaw. Therefore, the Bill does not seek to interfere with or take away the pre-existing rights in law of the owners of the land in the LDDC who are not the LDDC itself.
    The vast majority of the land is owned by the LDDC or by one of its subsidiaries. All land and waters owned by the LDDC adjacent to LDDC waters, even in private ownership, were originally included in the designated areas shown on the map, as the hon. Member for Newham, South said. That land has now been taken out of the Bill and we are left with the LDDC-owned territory alone. Had that not been done, I understand that there would have been a large fight and the private owners would have not allowed the Bill to get to this stage. That is the history of the addition of part III.
    I shall deal with one or two other matters concerning what has happened between Second Reading and Third Reading.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Briefly.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course I shall be brief.
    The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar specifically raised matters which were not do with the technicality of the drafting, but real matters of substance and concern. I hope that it is not betraying any confidence—I am sure that it is not, because she has said it many times outside the House as well as inside it—to tell the House that the matter that she had at the top of her list was that she believed that her constituents were effectively promised that the extension to the docklands light railway would include a station at Island Gardens. She made it clear that they were effectively told that that was guaranteed. When the Bill was last before the House, that had not been delivered.
    The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar raised a few other issues of equal importance, such as the lack of affordable housing on the Isle of Dogs, the lack of jobs for locals in the activities of the LDDC—a matter which I raise regularly on behalf of my constituents and which I am sure

    1247
    that my two colleagues do on behalf of theirs—delays in starting the Jubilee line extension and the specific local matter of the lack of access by the Docklands sailing club to a slipway.
    I do not seek to persuade the hon. Lady of the unmitigated merits of the LDDC. She knows that that is not my view of it. I shall tell her the facts and leave her to decide whether what could have been achieved has been achieved. As she knows, on the key issue of Island Gardens station, outside forces have intervened—we hope, to help us all.
    I am told that the corporation has contributed to the provision of 315 social housing units—homes, better called—in the hon. Lady's constituency at Timber wharves and 187 at Masthouse terrace. The corporation has also facilitated—I do not know quite what that means—65 self-build units at Maconachies wharf.
    Ms Gordon: It is only fair to point out that the 300-odd houses that were provided at Timber wharf were built to replace 500 houses that were destroyed to make way for the Limehouse link. So that is not a fair way of putting it.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is right. I was not seeking to pretend otherwise. I remember that debate. It was extremely controversial.
    Schemes have apparently been set up that would produce another 68 homes on another three sites on the Isle of Dogs. I should add from a personal point of view that there is a huge remaining need for affordable homes in Tower Hamlets, as there certainly is in Southwark and Newham. Affordable homes are needed to rent, for shared ownership and to own. We need many more of them. If we were led by need rather than demand, we would do better.
    I will tell the House what the brief says about jobs. It says:
    "It is not possible to quantify among the jobs created on the Isle of Dogs those which have gone to pre 1981 residents."
    To be fair, I do not think that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar was asking about pre-1981 residents. She was asking about residents whether pre-or post-1981. All that the corporation is clear about is that before 1981 there were 9,000 jobs on the island and now there are 20,000. Unemployment in Tower Hamlets is almost as bad, if not as bad, as unemployment in Southwark and Bermondsey. I know that many of the jobs that have been created in Southwark have not gone to people who live in Southwark, let alone to people who live in Newham or Tower Hamlets. Many people have been brought in and continue to be brought in. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and other colleagues must keep pressing within the law for much more commitment to delivering local employment possibilities for the remaining life of the LDDC.
    Mercifully, the Jubilee line extension has now begun and work is well advanced. I welcome that, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar does. I am told that the Docklands sailing and watersports centre has permanent rights to the slipway. It is not a matter for the corporation. The sailing club is entitled to make arrangements with the watersports centre. I understand that Lord Cocks has written to the hon. Lady on that matter. I hope that she will be able now to facilitate the conclusion of that for the purpose that she wanted. That is perfectly reasonable.
    The Chairman of Committees in the other place determined only last week in private business that the docklands light railway had given an undertaking to Parliament to build a new underground station at Island
    1248
    Gardens when the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham was built to replace the existing terminus station there. Docklands light railway and the corporation had proposed that Island Gardens station and Cutty Sark station on the other side of the Thames in the constituency of the hon. Member for Greenwich should be omitted from the scheme to reduce the capital costs of the project and ensure its financial viability.
    The new station must now be built as part of the project. If it is not, docklands light railway will be in breach of an undertaking given to Parliament in 1992 when the enabling legislation was before the House. That means that £3.5 million of capital costs cannot be cut from the project as originally proposed. The conclusion is that if the docklands light railway extension goes ahead—we await an announcement—it will do so only with Island Gardens station as part of it. I know that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar welcomes that confirmation of the undertaking and what the law says. All that we must do now is press the Government to make the DLR extension go ahead.
    It would be wrong of me to take up further time to put my views about what is needed in docklands. I put them fairly succinctly on Second Reading. As long as there is a London Docklands development corporation—I did not support its creation—it is important that it responds to the needs of its community. The Bill seeks to give it the power to regulate safety within its area.
    I hope that, on that basis, the House will support the Bill on Third Reading and allow it to go on its way towards the statute book soon. I have no doubt that we shall continue having debates about the merits of development of the docklands in London and about the best way forward, long after tonight. That is justifiable. I hope that that will not prevent our saying tonight that the Bill is a good thing which the House can support.
    8.36 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: On the face of it, the Bill, which empowers the London Docklands development corporation to make byelaws to regulate the former docks area, should not be a complicated or controversial measure. There is wide agreement that new byelaws should be made that reflect the dramatic change in the character and use of the docks in the past 25 years.
    In his speech on the Second Reading on 14 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described the transformation of the docks from a heavily policed working area surrounded by high walls, dock gates and high security to an area predominantly given over to leisure, public access and recreation. Other hon. Members who represent the docklands area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has sponsored the Bill, echoed that view.
    The new role of the docks calls for a different system of regulation or byelaws. On that point there is unanimity, but that is about as far as the unanimity reaches. The progress of the Bill through the House and the other place has been marked by controversy. It has raised many more questions than answers. It has unlocked an extraordinary number of skeletons, which have taxed the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey when he tried to give us answers not only tonight but on Second Reading and in the intervening period.

    1249
    The first question is whether it is appropriate to give the powers to regulate the docks to the LDDC. It has specific and special powers for the whole docklands area, but it is an unelected and unaccountable quango. Perhaps even more to the point, it is due to go out of existence within the next four years. Why we should go to such lengths—the Bill has taken an extraordinary time grinding its way through the parliamentary process—to give byelaw-making powers to a body which is about to be wound up is a cause for some astonishment.
    Mr. Spearing: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that there is a simple answer to that. The Bill is not about giving byelaw-making powers to the LDDC. It is about giving such powers to its unnamed successors, albeit by affirmative order of the House, not the promoters of the Bill.
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Indeed, I was about to say that the whole question leads immediately to the issue which has rightly exercised many hon. Members. It is the curiously worded—indeed, some might say injudiciously worded—clause 33 as it now is, previously clause 32, relating to the transfer of functions from the LDDC to its successors.
    As previously drafted, the clause gave sweeping powers to the Minister to assign the functions of the LDDC with regard to the management of the former dock areas, and possibly much wider powers—not only management powers—to anyone chosen by the Minister, without any reference to Parliament.
    On Second Reading, the Minister put forward an interesting and fascinating defence. He said that we should not get worked up about these draconian powers, because he already had them under existing legislation, and the clause was unnecessary. If that is the case, the question arises why the Government allowed their creature, the LDDC, to waste parliamentary time promoting an unnecessary clause. We never had an explanation for that one.
    Clause 33, as it now is, is indicative of the whole sad, sleazy approach which the Government take to issues of public interest and accountability. It is born of the Government's enmity to democratically elected and accountable local authorities, which would naturally be the appropriate bodies to make byelaws and manage these areas for public recreational use. That would ensure not only consistency with the byelaws applicable in other local parks and recreation areas but continuity of management because, unlike the LDDC, the local authorities—the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Newham—will continue to be there after 1998.
    If the Minister contributes to this debate, he will undoubtedly argue that local authorities have not opposed the provisions giving those powers to the LDDC. The truth of the matter is that the local authorities would undoubtedly have been more than happy to assume responsibility for the management of the former dock areas if they had been given the resources to meet the potentially high costs of maintaining the docks, the dock walls and the dock gates.
    The Government have given them no option. They squeezed their budgets year on year while lavishing £1.6 billion on the LDDC. If the three dockland boroughs had
    1250
    received a fraction of the sums paid to the LDDC, they would gladly and willingly have taken on responsibility for managing the docks—and I am sure that that is the case today.
    What will happen when the LDDC is wound up? On Second Reading, the point was expressed most forcibly both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—I quote my right hon. Friend:
    "the logic points to the return of not merely the land in docklands to the boroughs of which they are part, but to the management of the water and of the docks in whatever local authority boundary they fall."—[Official Report, 14 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 678.]
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made clear his preference—he has echoed it tonight—for the democratically elected local authorities to be the successor bodies. At the same time, he confirmed his inability to assure us that that would happen. He reported to the House that the Bill does not stipulate who should be the successor, because no decision has yet been taken. He expressed the hope that that might be clarified during the later stages of the Bill's passage. Those stages are now being completed, and we are no wiser.
    Clause 33 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may, on an application from the LDDC, transfer these powers to any person. I am sure that the Minister will find the freedom to hand over these powers to whoever he wishes very convenient and agreeable. Indeed, who knows who he will propose? Those of us who have watched the lamentable way in which the Government sold out the public interest to Tory placemen and a few Tory placewomen, as well as rewarding contributors to Tory party funds, will rightly feel concerned that this could be yet another example of the confusion of public and private interest which has become such a hallmark of the Government.
    The nub of the matter is that the management of the former docks area should be undertaken not by bodies which are not publicly accountable and do not have a responsible position, unlike democratically elected local authorities. The management of these areas and the byelaw-making powers should be given to bodies which can recognise the distinction between public and private interest, and which will be acting in the public interest.
    The Minister, from a sedentary position, frequently quoted Lord Cocks, who is a member of the London Docklands development corporation. He will recall that I was not talking about the LDDC; I was talking about the successor bodies. If the Minister will give us an indication who the successor bodies will be, and whether they will be publicly accountable—whether they will be democratically elected—I will willingly give way to give him an opportunity of doing so.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I do not intend to engage in this debate, for the simple reason that this is the second time that we have debated the issue. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, this is a Bill within a narrow compass. It has taken up a considerable amount of time not because of any of the complexities in the Bill but simply because Opposition Members have dreamed up a number of fantasies with which they have wished to detain the House.
    The Bill is more about Labour Members wishing to vent their spleen on the London Docklands development

    1251
    corporation. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that his points seem to suggest that LDDC could not distinguish between public and private interest. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give any instance when the LDDC has not acted in the public interest.
    Mr. Raynsford: The first instance that I shall give is the extraordinary way in which it has lavished large sums of public money on bankers, property developers and people who have contributed considerably to the personal profits of individual shareholders, many of whom are contributors to the Conservative party, but who have failed to meet their responsibility to meet the needs of the people of the Isle of Dogs.
    If the Minister had gone to the Isle of Dogs in the local elections earlier this year, he would be only too well aware of the dangerous consequences of the neglect by the LDDC and his Government of the legitimate concerns and grievances of local people who have seen little benefit for all the sums of money which have been lavished on the LDDC.
    I note that the Minister, in his response, sought immediately to change the subject of the debate. He did not want to answer my specific question whether there would be an undertaking that the successor body, which is what we are talking about, which would assume these byelaw-making powers, would be a democratically elected and accountable body. I note, and the House will note, the Minister's silence on that point.
    The Minister claims that the delay in the Bill going through the House is because of Opposition Members. That is an absurd suggestion. The delay has been entirely to do with trying to sort out some of the technicalities which even now—even tonight on Third Reading—still have not been sorted out. How the Government can allow their creature, the LDDC, to bring forward legislation which includes a map identifying the Cody road balancing lagoon as one of the areas but cannot get a mention of it in the Bill is simply one more indication of the problems.
    The issues of jurisdiction and areas of responsibility under the Bill are technicalities which rightly and properly should be identified by the House as part of parliamentary scrutiny. It is far from satisfactory, as we have recognised tonight, to have to allow a Bill to go through which is in some ways defective—some of the language is dubious, and there are discrepancies between the maps and the schedules—purely because there is no further opportunity to do anything about it if the LDDC is to have its powers in time for the summer.
    As I have said, the nub of the matter is that management of the former dock areas should have been undertaken by democratically elected public authorities. At the very least, the three local authorities concerned—the London boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham—should be given the first option of taking over these responsibilities from the LDDC.
    I understand that the London borough of Tower Hamlets recently made representations to that effect, and I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to the House that the three local authorities will have the right of first refusal when the LDDC comes to transfer those powers. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that point.
    While that issue has remained unclarified during the Bill's passage, other changes have been made which
    1252
    suggest that the Government's thinking points in a very different direction. I am referring to clauses 18 to 27, all of which have been inserted at the promoter's instigation in the last stage of the process under the heading "protective provisions". The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was somewhat coy about those provisions and said that he had sought a briefing at the last minute on the reason for their insertion. In his usual elegant and carefully argued fashion, he gave us some sort of defence of those provisions. It was entirely unconvincing. Other than clarifying the position of certain other public authorities—the Port of London Authority, the City corporation and the Crown—the provisions merely grant extremely wide-ranging exemptions to certain commercial interests, in particular, Canary Wharf Investments Ltd. and its associated companies.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that there was no distinction between the benefits offered to the various companies identified in the clauses. Clause 19, which is for the protection of Canary Wharf Investments Ltd., Canary Wharf Ltd., or Heron Quays Developments Ltd., has three subsections. Subsection (2) states:
    "The provisions of this Act and of any byelaw under this Act shall not apply to any land in which the company has…interest, or an entitlement to such an interest, without the consent in writing of the company."
    Subsection (3) states:
    "Subject to any consent given under subsection (2) above, nothing in this Act or any order or byelaw made under this Act shall affect any rights, powers or privileges which are vested in, or enjoyed by, the company",
    and so forth.
    Clauses 20 and 21, which deal with the protection of the Telegraph plc, West Ferry Printers Ltd., Mercury Communications Ltd., and Clippers Quay (Milwall) Management Company Ltd., contain much more restricted provisions. They apply only to byelaws, not to the provisions of the Bill, and there is no third subsection, as there is in the case of Canary Wharf Investments Ltd. Those people responsible for briefing the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were economical, at the very least, in their briefing if they implied that the clauses contained similar treatment for similar organisations.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that I have not misrepresented the views of those who briefed me. The negotiated position is certainly different for each of the landlords, and each clause deals with them differently. None the less, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the general rule still applies. It was hoped that all those organisations will sign up to the byelaws. They clearly did not, and the clauses in the Bill contain what they did not sign up to. It is certainly true that that is different for the different organisations.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that. It shows that whatever Canary wharf wants the LDDC will bend over backwards to offer.
    As we know only too well, the Canary wharf venture has been the great totem of the LDDC's activity. It proved only too clearly that throwing large sums of public money at private developers is not a guarantee of success. The Government frequently say that throwing public money at a problem is no solution. Heaven knows, they have thrown enough money at Canary wharf, and the building is still half-empty. It also proves that, because of the status and

    1253
    prestige associated with Canary Wharf Ltd., the LDDC will accept just about anything it requests to try to keep it happy. The Bill contains a clear sign of that.
    Clause 19 provides that any byelaws made under the Bill shall not affect any land in which Canary Wharf Ltd. and its associated companies have a freehold or leasehold interest or an option without their agreement. The company has an absolute veto over any byelaws proposed by the LDDC, or its successors, which affect any of the land that the company controls.
    As we know, that represents a substantial area, as it includes not merely the base of the huge 50-storey tower, but also the surrounding area and the Heron Quays site. The democratically elected local authority is not given any such power of veto. We already know the measures that Canary Wharf Ltd. has taken to restrict public access to the areas it controls. Roads are closed, and private security patrols abound. What hope is there for any rights of public access to those parts of the docks and the adjoining land surrounding Canary wharf owned by Canary Wharf Ltd. and its associated companies?
    How can that position be reconciled with clause 7, which sets out a principle with which almost all hon. Members would agree? It specifies:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Corporation, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under this Act, to have regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining public access to the waterside."
    That is a fine principle, but will it extend to Heron Quays and Canary wharf?
    What guarantee can the Minister give that the private businesses that have received huge public subsidies to construct the half-empty offices that stand on their sites will not be allowed to put up the barriers and the "No entry" signs, thus entirely flouting the principle of
    "securing…public access to the waterside"?
    The Canary wharf opt-out—that is what clause 19 allows—sets a very bad precedent indeed. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, there are similar, but not identical, opt-outs for other commercial interests—the Telegraph plc, West Ferry Printers Ltd., Mercury Communications Ltd. and Clippers Quay (Milwall) Management Company. If that is a blueprint for the future of docklands, it is a blueprint with which we are becoming all too familiar—a blueprint in which the public interest is always subordinated to the interests of the property developers, bankers and other private financial interests.
    That is why, despite the £1.6 billion in public money that has been pumped in by the Government, docklands remains a tragically divided community, which is badly hit by poverty, unemployment and bad housing. It is an area in which the conspicuous consumption and glittering office blocks of those who have done well out of the LDDC stand in marked contrast to the unmodernised, bleak housing in which too many of the Isle of Dogs residents still have to live.
    Sadly, that is why the evil of racism has been able to raise its ugly head in recent years, feeding off the justified resentment of long-standing local residents, who have received little or nothing from the huge cornucopia of riches lavished on the LDDC.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to the limited number of social homes provided by
    1254
    the LDDC in recent years. Those homes are obviously welcome, but in an area with such an enormous need for housing, where housing has become an important catalyst for social and racial conflict, any responsible organisation, exercising the sort of powers that the LDDC exercises, should study all the sites it controls to find out how many could be made available for local people in need of rented housing.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but we are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill. He seems to be going well beyond the purposes of the Bill.
    Mr. Raynsford: I shall return immediately to the provisions in the Bill. I was simply putting it in context and describing the LDDC and its failure to meet local needs, which gives rise to the suspicion that measures such as the Bill essentially provide yet further advantage for certain private interests, rather than serving the public interest or providing proper protection for the needs of local people. That is why, despite the fact that the monuments of the work of the LDDC have so markedly changed the landscape in east London, the body responsible remains profoundly unloved by local people and will be, when it is wound up, unlamented.
    The Minister ought to ponder those points. After all the public money and the dramatic transformation of the physical appearance of the area, why is the responsible body treated with such suspicion and hostility by local people?
    The tragedy is that opportunities have been wasted to secure the regeneration of the docklands, which was urgently required in the interests of the whole community, not just of one section. The Bill is in every respect typical of the whole process. There was an opportunity to create a new framework for the management and use of the former dock areas in the interests of the whole community, but sadly the opportunity has been squandered through the failure of the Government and the LDDC properly to distinguish between public and private interest, and by their unforgivable bias in favour of the latter.
    We will not vote against Third Reading of the Bill, because we want to see the byelaw-making powers in place. We see, as everyone does, the advantage in having byelaws which will provide protection for public safety and will hopefully ensure better use of the water areas. It is not our intention in any way to delay that process. I am somewhat sceptical of the claim that the byelaws will be in place by this summer, and we will all look to see whether that pledge is honoured.
    We will not oppose the Bill tonight, but we will look on it with sadness. Yet another opportunity has been missed by a body which has received so much public money and so much opportunity to change the landscape of east London for the good, but which, in practice, will disappear in two, three or four years' time, unloved and unlamented by the local residents.
    9 pm
    Ms Gordon: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to many of the points which I made on Second Reading. I do not want to reiterate those points or to answer many of the questions which the hon. Gentleman raised regarding my Second Reading speech, except on the question of Island Gardens. My

    1255
    constituents were very glad that the hearing which took place before the Lord Chairman of Committees decided in their favour. We hope that the docklands light railway and the London Docklands development corporation will not try to find a way of wriggling out of their commitment again, and that the DLR extension will go ahead with an underground station at Island Gardens.
    I wish to emphasise some of the points which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). The Bill has too many vague clauses. It concerns the management of a very large area—400 acres of water and 25 miles of paths. The Bill gives the LDDC powers to make byelaws, and to control dockside paths, the movement of vessels, pollution, parking and the landing and taking off of helicopters. In other words, it will have the same powers to make byelaws as local authorities.
    The important difference, which has already been pointed out, is that local authorities are democratically elected and are subject to public pressure. The LDDC—as we know from our bitter experience—is not. It ignores public pressure and ignores the needs of the community. Clause 33 originally empowered the Secretary of State to transfer the "assets" of the LDDC, but the wording has now been altered to "functions". That is still too vague.
    It is clear to me that the best body to ensure public enjoyment of the docks area and the best use of that great area of water which is now available for the benefit of the community is the local authority. The local authority has changed hands. The Liberal Democrat-controlled authority which existed before last May did object to the Bill but, after certain assurances, withdrew the objection.
    The new administration feels that it has the best people to ensure the public enjoyment and the development of the area for the community, but it is wary of the cost of maintaining the docks. It does not want to take on the liabilities without any of the assets. It has been told that the dock walls, which are deep under the water and 100 years old, will cost a great deal of money to repair if they start to crumble. A study should have been done well before the presentation of the Bill to find out how much money would be needed to put the docks in good repair and what funding would be needed to maintain the walls.
    I feel very much that, in two years' time when the LDDC ceases to exist, the local authority should have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, the first chance to take over the control of the designated area and of the byelaws. But it must be assured that the designated area will be endowed, so that it will have the money for maintenance. The question of funding is the only thing that would stop the local authority from wanting to take democratic control, as the area should be controlled. It must have the money to do the maintenance and development.
    The Bill says that reasonable endeavours to secure local representation on a successor body must be undertaken, but that is not clear enough. Tonight we have not been told who the successor body should be. My constituents and those of other docklands areas will certainly want the powers to be handed over to the local authority, together with the money to carry out the development needed to maintain the docks and create a good environment for the enjoyment of local people and also to develop tourism, which would create jobs and benefit the area.
    I am particularly worried about how the LDDC will manage the area. The answer on Shadwell park was not good enough. Nothing will stop the successor authority
    1256
    from swallowing Shadwell park for commercial development. The position is quite different for rich and powerful companies like Canary Wharf Investments Ltd. As I entered the Chamber tonight I saw that decisions were being made on the hoof under pressure from those rich and powerful companies. I was handed a document explaining why there should be protective provisions for those with private land ownership interests. It says:
    "there would have been a substantial risk of compensation being forced to be paid against those whose private rights were adversely affected by the provisions of the Bill."
    Mr. Spearing: I have not read the document, although I believe that it is publicly available. If those people thought that their private rights were affected by the terms of the Bill, it was open to them, if they thought fit, to petition. While I do not blame them for not doing so, that would have been the right procedure. Were not they informed of what was involved?
    Ms Gordon: I do not know what went on behind the scenes. I was simply handed a document, which I assume comes hot off the press from the promoters. Those who are rich and powerful can request last minute changes to the Bill without going through the relevant procedures, but members of ordinary working communities can get no such guarantee about a park that is precious to them.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)? Had the Bill not been amended, those in the protected provisions place, being fully aware of what was going on, would have had to petition. Had they petitioned, there would have been the mother and father of all battles because their private rights would have been affected and massive amounts of money would have had to be paid out. So the LDDC, thinking discretion the better part of valour, pulled back from making provisions in the Bill and decided that its original intention would be better avoided and thus a quieter life would be achieved for all.
    Ms Gordon: I shall return later to the exemption of private companies, particularly relating to pollution. In the meantime, I am concerned about what charges will be made under the byelaws. After my speech on Second Reading, I received a letter from National Car Parks Ltd informing me that the LDDC wanted to charge it £1,175 per annum simply for putting up a sign directing motorists to its multi-storey car park at City harbour. After some discussion, the charge was reduced to £940 but NCP decided that it was not worth while. Consequently, many motorists do not know where the car park is.
    If National Car Parks has been asked to pay such a large licence fee—in no other area has a local authority ever asked the company to pay a fee to put up a sign to direct motorists to its car park—what other charges will be made? What assurances have we that charges for water sports, for fishing rights, possibly for bringing one's chair—as the LDDC has refused to put down benches around the dock so that people can sit and enjoy the water, although I have asked many times—for use of a vessel, for use of the steps and for use of the jetties for landing, will not be made prohibitively great by the market-minded LDDC? If such large charges are made, only those people with a lot of money in their pocket will be able to use those facilities, whereas poorer people, pensioners, and youth

    1257
    —to whom the enjoyment and the development of water sports is especially important—will be forced out of the picture because they cannot afford them.
    We have no assurance that access to the water and access to facilities will be affordable, and that the LDDC will develop facilities on the water and along the dockside. It has, in the past, given money for capital programmes—for building the docklands sailing centre, for instance—but the revenue to run them is never forthcoming. We want assurances that market forces will not lead whatever happens on the dockside.
    The LDDC also has control of the landing and taking off of helicopters. If that will be profitable, will there be some type of floating landing pad on the docks, which will create more noise and more pollution for people in the area? I should like assurances that that will not happen.
    To return to the subject of the private companies, one of the private companies is Westferry Printers, and I remind the House that it is stated that the powers of the LDDC over that area will include pollution. My constituents are so worried about pollution of water and air from printing works that they have formed an organisation called Londoners Against Media Pollution. The council, in the Wapping area, is conducting a very large study, carried out by the South East Thames health authority, on volatile organic pollution. I have met Westferry Printers staff. They assure me that they are doing their best to ensure that pollutants do not go into the water and that everything possible will be done, but I do not know how much is possible and how much is being done, and I do not think that a printing works, or any other company, should be exempted from any byelaws that seek to prevent pollution.
    All in all, there are far too many question marks about the Bill. Far too many questions have not been answered. After years and years of the docks being industrial centres, we have a chance to make that area a wonderful place, where people can enjoy the water and water sports, which tourists can visit, and where developments that will benefit the whole community can take place.
    We are putting those powers in the hands of an organisation that has already shown that it will not do that. It has shown that it does not develop things in the interests of ordinary people. The succession of those powers when the LDDC winds up is very much in the air. We have been given no assurance, and we do not know whether there is any chance of the local authorities obtaining the endowment and the powers to control the docks and paths, as I believe should be the case.
    9.13 pm
    Mr. Stephen Timms: On its foundation, the LDDC embarked on its regeneration remit with an approach that, in its early days at least, largely ignored the local communities where it was based. There were several instances of brick walls being built to keep apart the existing community and the new development and its incoming occupiers, who were the intended beneficiaries of it. That created enormous resentment, and two of the three local authorities withdrew their limited representation on the board of the LDDC in response.
    In those early days it was a model of regeneration that excluded and ignored the local community and was not effective. In the middle of the 1980s, in Newham and
    1258
    elsewhere, there was a sea change in the approach. My predecessor as hon. Member for Newham, North-Fast was chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, which produced a report pinpointing the need for regeneration to provide demonstrable benefits for existing local communities. Others also made that point at the time, which led to changes in Newham.
    In 1987 the council, with the corporation, drew up a memorandum of agreement about the benefits that would accrue to the existing communities as a result of what were at that time expected to be major developments. They included a commitment to secure 1,500 homes for rent as part of the development in the Royal docks, a target of 25 per cent. of all jobs created to be taken by local residents, towards which the local authority with the corporation and others would work.
    The recession intervened and the developments have not yet materialised, but I believe that they will ultimately. It is essential that the commitments entered into and the targets set then are honoured. Occasionally we receive signs from the corporation that it may wish to renege on some of them; but I hope that that will not happen. The commitments were given and accepted on the basis that existing residents must benefit from the regeneration process. The position remains unchanged and it is important that those obligations are met.
    From 1987 until a couple of months ago I chaired the negotiating team that worked with the corporation on behalf of the borough. There has been a change in the way that the corporation has approached its task—a change for the better. There is a good and constructive working relationship between the borough and the corporation. The borough has not objected to the Bill, despite some of its regrettable features, which have been drawn to our attention this evening. I shall not object to it, but I want to make a couple of observations.
    Earlier this week I was dellighted to read in the Evening Standard some comments by the chairman of the London Docklands development corporation which I endorse. He drew attention to two key Government decisions that are awaited and that will determine how quickly the corporation is able to get on with its task of completing the work in docklands. He said that the two decisions were
    "whether Stratford is chosen as the intermediate station for the Channel Tunnel rail link and which of the two proposed sites for a river crossing, Blackwall or the East London river crossing at Beckton"—
    which he favoured—
    "are built."
    I agree with him on both those points, but I particularly want to draw attention to the importance of the decision on the location of the channel tunnel station. The verdict is not yet in—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I should say that, while a certain amount of background is acceptable, the hon. Gentleman's remarks must home in more closely on the Bill's Third Reading.
    Mr. Timms: I shall gladly do that, but I was glad to put on record my agreement with the chairman of the LDDC.
    I was surprised to read in the Bill the long list of organisations and private owners who have opted out of the byelaws. The local authorities have accepted the pressing need for the byelaws to be drawn up in order to safeguard the public interest around the dock areas. My hon. Friend

    1259
    the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) mentioned that one of the major polluters has been able to avoid the byelaws. That is alarming, and a great worry and disappointment.
    Ms Gordon: I did not say that it was one of the greatest polluters. I said that constituents were concerned that the print works in Wapping were sending out pollutants and effluence, and that a study was being done to find out whether that was true. There are also print works in the designated area that are exempt from the byelaws.
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful for that clarification. Certainly, exemptions undermine the Bill.
    My point is that I believe that there is growing anxiety among Conservative Members about the damage being done to our social fabric by the fact that the market has been allowed to rip in a number of areas, including the development of docklands. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) concluded, in an interesting pamphlet on civic conservatism which he wrote recently:
    "The crucial Tory insight is that a community has to be embodied in real institutions which are essential to sustain traditions, values and patterns of behaviour. A concern with the strength of Britain's institutions, both national and local, is at the heart of the Tory tradition. Addressing that concern is essential to representing the values of the quiet majority of the British people."
    The London Docklands development corporation started out from a strain of thinking in the Conservative party that was firmly opposed to this outlook, but it is now gaining favour—
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the special measure, in the form of the LDDC, had to be taken because the councils surrounding the area, which had run it since the war, had neglected it and huge areas of docklands were lying waste? Going down Salter road in Bermondsey is a revelation these days compared with what it was like in 1978. Surely the hon. Gentleman will allow some credit for that.
    Mr. Timms: I do not for a moment suggest that little has been achieved: a great deal has been achieved, although we might debate the mechanisms that may have led to those achievements. I repeat my point—increasingly recognised by Conservative Members—that it is extremely important that democratic institutions, locally acknowledged, play their proper role.
    This Bill will give byelaw powers to the LDDC, but the crucial question that has been asked concerns what will happen once the LDDC goes—what will happen to the powers? Will local authorities continue to be sidelined, or will, as I hope, the powers be passed on to local authorities so that the vital role that local institutions play in our community of east London can be sustained?
    9.22 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his promotion of this private Bill and on the manner in which he has dealt with the points raised this evening. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on what I think the whole House would consider to be a balanced and reasonable speech—standing in stark contrast to some other Opposition contributions on other occasions. One of the difficulties has
    1260
    been the seeming impossibility of Opposition Members ever giving credit for the many achievements that the LDDC has brought about in its part of London.
    The Bill turns on a very narrow compass. It is generally agreed that it is a worthy Bill, worthy of a speedy passage. It has taken quite a long time to pass through its stages in the House, for a number of reasons. It should be delayed no longer, and I hope that the House will give it a speedy Third Reading.
    9.23 pm
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister has referred several times to how long this Bill has taken to proceed. In an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), he even suggested that the motivation behind the speeches made by Opposition Members on these technicalities and amendments was "political". I remind the Minister of the technicalities that we dealt with tonight and the procedural matters dealt with largely on Second Reading. Of course there was an element of politics. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich dealt with those, correctly, froth the Front Bench whereas some of us—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), and myself on procedural matters—eschewed those aspects and dealt with procedural and legal matters that would be dealt with by the Minister if they were being applied to Banbury or Oxfordshire. Why not? That is what Parliament is about.
    Although the LDDC has been successful in certain respects, we had difficulties dealing with the right sort of byelaw, procedure and schedule because the measure cuts across the grain of our historic, civic control of public amenity. What could be a greater public amenity than the docks of London?
    I remind the House that the docklands light railway was initially agreed in principle by everyone—from Ken Livingstone to Sir Horace Cutler, and by every borough councillor of every party. It still does not run on Sunday.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: And it still breaks down.
    Mr. Spearing: It does not run on Sunday even when it does not break down—and if one travels from Beckton to the Bank, one must change twice.
    A Bill that is ostensibly for the future should not raise more questions than it answers. Of course there must be byelaw powers to fill the vacuum left by the Port of London Authority, for a totally different function for the docks—but speaker after speaker has shown, not on a party basis but purely on a legal basis, what will happen in two years. Who will make the byelaws then, and what will be the areas? The Bill does not say. It allows flexibility in delineation of the designated area and flexibility of the determining authority. I will not say that it is non-legislation, but it is almost delegislation.
    If the LDDC were a permanent body, we would know the answers to the questions that I suggested—but it ain't and we don't. I could hear in that phrase the voice of my former hon. Friend, Ian Mikardo. What a wonderful speech he would have made on such an issue.
    The Bill does not take us far—two years ahead at most, and then it will be left to the Secretary of State. It is not a very satisfactory Bill.
    The Bill had a rocky passage in both Houses. Some hon Members—I do not see many of them in their places tonight—talk about Parliament's arcane procedures. We

    1261
    have spent five hours today debating in the Chamber—never mind in Committee—a Bill which should not need debate of that sort.
    We are told that parliamentary procedure is able to deal with an elephant and to pick up a pin. It is much better than people think. Even this little Third Reading debate, which revealed the procedural and political vacuums that exist, would have been impossible had not one hon. Member entered the Chamber at 2.30 pm a few weeks ago and said "Object." Of course that power can be abused, but it shows that there is goodness in procedure. It has allowed Members of Parliament representing east London to express the genuine concerns of their constituents and try to bring vision to the civic administration that is temporarily—I hope very temporarily—taken away from properly elected representatives, whether for Greater London or the boroughs concerned.
    We hope that the vacuum will be filled after two years and that the questions will be answered largely by civic accountability, civic enterprise and the return of democratic government in east London.
    9.29 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.
    The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) made a valid point about public access throughout docklands, and planning permission. I think I am correct in saying that, in granting planning permission, the corporation has required public access wherever possible: that has been its policy.
    I checked to find out whether special treatment was given to the companies listed in part III of the Bill, and the answer is no. Anyone with a private interest who is in business has a right over the land along Waterside.
    There is no public access there, but it has been granted in every other area owned by the corporation where such access is possible. So far, if the owners of land have not wanted public access to be granted, they have always been able to insist that it should not be granted. I agree that in some cases it should have been granted, but at least the arrangements have been consistent.
    Local authorities have not been included in the list of protected organisations, because they do not now own any land in the designated areas: whether they liked it or not, it was all vested in the development corporation. Clause 9(4), however, states:
    "Byelaws shall not be made under this section which relate to—
    (a) land forming part of a highway maintainable at the public expense, without the consent of the highway authority"—
    which is the local authority—
    "or
    (b) land which is a walkway"
    within the meaning of the current legislation,
    "without the consent of the borough council".
    In no circumstances can byelaws override the local authority's rights as highway authority or council.
    I have dealt with the specifics of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) about private companies, and also checked the point about private homes, as opposed to big developers. Apparently, no private, individually owned homes were given rights where a walkway existed. The hon. Lady rightly mentioned areas that management companies own where there is a
    1262
    walkway; the protected list in part III includes some management companies which go on to let individually owned homes with a freehold. Clippers Quay (Millwall) Management Company Ltd. is an example. However, I understand that no individually owned home has been given a walkway to which it has been able to withhold public access.
    I also entirely share the hon. Lady's view about charges. The Bill goes as far as Bills normally do—we can only hope that it goes far enough—in saying:
    "The Corporation may make, demand and recover"
    only such charges as are reasonable. We must ensure that it never imposes charges that are unreasonable for our constituents and other users—and that includes even nine-year-old kids. We would have the right to challenge any such charges.
    I agree with the hon. Lady that we do not want a floating helipad, and I understand that the corporation does not want one either. The proposal does not seem to be floating very well itself! I am sure that we all hope that it will not come to anything. If it does, it will not be because the corporation wanted the helipad; to be fair, it has opposed them in the past, and my constituency, at least, has never had one.
    I know that pollution is an important issue in the hon. Lady's constituency. In general terms, it is not intended that the byelaws should deal with pollution, and the exemptions for Canary wharf and, more importantly, the printing companies listed in the protective provisions will in no way be to the detriment to the hon. Lady's constituents. Those companies are not exempted from the general provisions governing pollution.
    It has been brought to my attention—and I hope that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar will be encouraged by this—that clause 14 states:
    "Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (anti-pollution works and operations) shall have effect in relation to the designated areas as though references to the Authority included references to the Corporation."
    The statute law, therefore, will still govern the area. The hon. Lady's constituents and mine, and those of our colleagues, have the right to turn to the law and instigate proceedings under different environment legislation; they do not have to get someone else to do it for them. There is no reduction in the right to control pollution. Whether that legislation is good enough is a different question and the corporation does not intend to introduce byelaws.
    Mr. Raynsford: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the byelaws were not intended to be made for the control of pollution. May I refer him to schedule 3, which lists the purposes for which byelaws may be made and which includes at least three paragraphs that seem to be directly related to pollution? Paragraph 5 deals with the prevention of nuisances, which have always been interpreted as pollution. Paragraph 13 deals with the control of noise, which again is a pollutant. Paragraph 24 relates to the removal of rubbish and sewage, which is certainly a pollutant. I had understood that the byelaws would at least be concerned with such pollutants. I was somewhat surprised that he indicated that they were not a matter for the byelaws.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I hope that the record will show that I said that, in general terms, the byelaws are not intended to deal with pollution. He is right—noise, nuisance and specific forms of rubbish are in the

    1263
    schedule and so, for example, leaving rubbish bags out and industrial dumping of rubbish will be governed. It is not intended, however, that general anti-pollution legislation should be made under byelaws. Air pollution and water pollution are governed by the general law of the land.
    I was trying earlier to assure the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar that the people have the right to challenge air and water pollution by a local firm. They do not need the National Rivers Authority or anyone else to take a local discharger of polluting materials to court. The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Greenwich or I and anyone else could do that. The hon. Member for Greenwich is right—some express purposes are included in the Bill and, in a wide sense, noise and nuisance are a form of pollution.
    The hon. Lady dealt with the endowment when power is handed over from the docklands corporation to successor authorities. I am told that surveys have been conducted into the condition of various parts of the dock estate in Tower Hamlets, as well as in Newham and Southwark. The local authority in Tower Hamlets has received all such surveys—I trust that the information that I have been given on that is correct—and negotiations are taking place in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Southwark on the succession. Those in Southwark are the most advanced.
    It would be impossible to hand over control to an authority that was unwilling to receive such powers unless a deal were struck and another quango were set up, which the Government could tell to take over the body. This is an important matter and may deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich. I am instructed that there is no intention that another quango will be set up to replace the docklands corporation. The hon. Member for Greenwich says, "Thank God for that".
    Mr. Spearing: Although we are on Third Reading, questions remain. Obviously, a residual authority is required to tie up the ends—one was required with the Greater London council. Some coherent, public authority will be needed to manage dock areas, whether they be the west or the south, the Greenland dock or the Royal docks. The Royal docks management authority has been mooted. Surely that will be an offshoot of the borough council and not a quango.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I am not seeking to read the mind of Government or that of the corporation, but the prospective successor authorities include in some places the local authority—that is certainly the intention in Southwark and I know that the matter is being negotiated this year. It could be a private owner, something that I understand is being debated in some areas north of the river; or it could be a community trust; and there may well be other agencies such as that to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
    My point is that, unless the successor authorities are the creatures of Government and the Government can tell them what to do, they will not—unless they are mad—take on the responsibility of enforcing the quality-of-life requirements in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Southwark unless someone gives them the money to do so. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bow and Poplar need to ensure that the necessary deal is done. I am sure that the hon. Lady's local authority and Newham and Southwark local councils will also be active in ensuring that it is.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) asked what would happen to the byelaw-making powers after the corporation has gone. The answer is that they will remain—their life will be much longer than that of the corporation. If the Bill is passed, the corporation's successor authorities will be able to change byelaws, but those byelaws will last longer than the corporation.
    In response to the Minister's points, I must point out that the Bill has not been before both Houses for an excessively long time. It was in another place from January to December 1993 and has been before this House since December, which is a relatively short time for a private Bill.
    The hon. Member for Newham, South spent a few minutes talking about the nature of the Bill. I suppose that, after all these debates and all these words, it is only an enabling Bill after all. However, I hope that even so the House will give it a Third Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

M25 (Noise Pollution)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Patnick.]
9.41 pm
Sir George Gardiner: I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to remember when between junctions 8 and 10 there was no M25 at all. When its opening was delayed because the concrete surface cracked, there was considerable impatience among my constituents, so the partial opening in 1985 was greatly welcomed. It linked up with the further section to junction 7, and so took a great deal of heavy traffic from the A25, weaving its way—to the detriment of our environment—through the towns of Reigate and Redhill and the villages in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth).
However, no sooner was this section of the motorway in use than complaints rolled in about the noise generated by its brushed concrete surface. They came not only from those living within a 300 m band on either side, such as the populous Merstham estate and the relatively rural area of Mogador to the south and the nearer reaches of Walton-on-the-Hill to the north, but from whole communities beyond, which complained of the constant whine, or hum, from the motorway. Their case is well documented in letters to me from Tadworth's local councillor, John Chiles. As the volume of traffic using the motorway has increased over the years, so too has the constant background whine, day and night.
There were public demands for the concrete to be replaced by tarmac, which everyone judged to be quieter. At first, the Department of Transport claimed that there was no appreciable noise difference—brushed concrete just seemed louder to those driving over it, officials claimed. But that argument did not hold water for long, and it is now generally recognised that porous asphalt produces less noise than hot rolled asphalt, and far less noise than a brushed concrete surface.
At the risk of using technical language, I must get this point on record. The use of porous asphalt, as compared with brushed concrete, achieves a reduction of 6 decibels in dry road conditions and a reduction of 10 decibels in wet road conditions. In human subjective hearing terms, a 100 decibel reduction would be perceived as being half as loud. That is the penalty that those living nearby have to pay for the use of a brushed concrete surface. Small wonder that the call to switch to porous asphalt is growing all the time.
In this debate, I am concerned with noise pollution, but there are other advantages in using porous asphalt. For drivers using the motorway, it decreases spray production in wet weather, cuts down glare, and decreases the risk of aquaplaning. All these are road safety factors, which I know loom large in the mind of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. Porous asphalt is also increasingly being used in a wide range of climates in continental Europe. Yet in Britain its considerable advantages seem not yet to have been accepted.
So what is the argument against using porous asphalt? The principal argument over the years has been that it is much more expensive than brushed concrete. As recently as 10 June this year, the chief executive of the Highways Agency claimed to me in a letter that porous asphalt
"is a more expensive type of road surfacing".
Yet that myth had already been exploded by my hon.
1266
Friend the Minister himself, in a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 7 March 1994, which is recorded at column 1 of the Official Report.
Asked to compare the cost per mile of surfacing a four-lane motorway with porous asphalt with that of surfacing it with concrete, my hon. Friend replied that the approximate cost per mile of laying a typical concrete road was £1,750,000, and of laying porous asphalt only £345,000. In other words, porous asphalt is more than five times cheaper. I hope that by now that information has filtered down to the Highways Agency.
In fact, the case that porous asphalt is quieter has already been accepted by my hon. Friend's Department, yet, because of the mythical "high cost" factor, its use has been authorised only for sections of the motorway that pass through highly populated areas. Thus, the use of porous asphalt has been agreed near the more densely populated Ashtead in Mole Valley, and a short stretch alongside Merstham in my own constituency. Unless a change is announced by my hon. Friend tonight, those living within audible reach of the remaining sections will continue to suffer from the brushed concrete surface.
Yet all that section will shortly be expanded from three lanes in each direction to four. That will be with the blessing of Surrey county council, and indeed with my blessing, too. What a marvellous opportunity the widening presents to scrap the concrete surface altogether and replace it with quieter—and cheaper—porous asphalt.
The Highways Agency recently announced its proposal to widen the M25 between Sevenoaks—junction 5—and junction 7, with the M23. I understand that no concrete at all is to be used on that section. The Department has also decided to replace concrete with porous asphalt on a 12 km section of the M23 south of its interchange with the M25. I welcome that decision, but ask how it can be squared with a decision not to lay porous asphalt over the sections of the M25 with which I am concerned.
The total number of houses within the 300 m band over that 12 km section of the M23 is 271, which works out at a density of 23 houses per km. Let us compare that with the sections of the M25 between junctions 8 and 10, which under present plans are not to have porous asphalt. We find that the density of houses per kilometre is identical—23. Thus, the rationale for providing porous asphalt is the same for the M25 as it is for that section of the M23.
Even more telling is the fact that, when that density of houses along the section of the M23 which is to be given a porous asphalt surface is compared with the density of homes which are not benefiting, so far, from porous asphalt between junctions 7 and 8, we find that the density of homes in the 300 m band is 80 properties per kilometre as compared with 23. Thus, the case for giving the noise benefit deriving from porous asphalt to that stretch is overwhelming.
I can understand my hon. Friend setting his face against the logic of the case if there was no immediate question of rebuilding the highway, but that is not the case. The motorway must be reconstructed anyway to provide four lanes. So, in the interests of all those residents, not to mention the thousands who live just beyond the 300 m band, I urge my hon. Friend to seize this opportunity and to make a major contribution towards easing the level of noise pollution emanating from that section of the M25.
9.50 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) on securing this debate, and also thank him for enabling me to make a brief speech.
He has chosen to focus on the widening proposal for a section of the M25 between junctions 7 and 10. A small part of that stretch falls in my constituency. have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister over the concerns raised by the White Hill residents association and others, who have already argued for the use of porous asphalt to protect their homes from the increased noise which will occur as a result of the widening scheme.
A much greater number of my constituents are concerned with the Highways Agency's proposals for the stretch between junctions 5 and 6. My hon. Friend will know that a number of local representatives are seeking a meeting with him to discuss their concerns. For these residents, and for those, of course, who live between junctions 7 and 10, there are many anxieties—air pollution, light pollution, the safety implications of narrower lanes, surface water contamination, and the effect on side roads of newly generated traffic. But by far the greatest concern is the prospect of even higher levels of noise intrusion.
When the M25 was first proposed, the Department of Transport said that, if the bunds and noise barriers were not good enough, they would be expanded and extended. Although traffic flows and noise are much higher than originally envisaged, with a daily traffic flow of 110,000 vehicles against a design capacity of 79,000, nothing has been done.
To make matters worse, although local people are already suffering from a level of noise which many find unacceptable, they can expect a further 50 per cent. increase in traffic, with seriously inadequate noise protection.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate: the widening of the motorway presents an excellent opportunity for noise levels to be restored to those which were expected when the road was built. Higher bunds and noise barriers, together with porous asphalt, would achieve that, and, in the process, they would restore the faith of my constituents in the Department.
I pay a sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, and to his officials, who worked so closely with local people when dealing with the widening of the M23. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate has said, it has been found possible to introduce porous asphalt throughout the length of the stretch of that motorway which is being widened.
The M25, of course, is a far busier, much noisier motorway. It affects a far larger number of homes, yet there are no plans at all to lay porous asphalt at present, as I understand it, on any of the stretch of the motorway which runs through my constituency. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on that and to consider the great concern and hostility among my constituents.
9.54 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) on initiating the debate tonight. I am grateful that he has given me the opportunity to explain some of the finer points of porous asphalt and just how much my officials in the Department of Transport
1268
and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I mind about the quality of life of people who have to live near roads. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) for his kind remarks about the care with which my officials have worked with local people on the widening of the M23. I hope that, after my words tonight, he will feel a little more reassured about the M25. We shall see.
I fully understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who has spoken so powerfully on behalf of his constituents who are affected by noise from the M25. I recognise fully how distressing traffic noise can be, especially when a new road is built through an otherwise quiet area—the area which my hon. Friend represented when he was first elected to the House. Noise can be an abomination. I live in the depths of the Wiltshire countryside and, ironically, the noise from the trunk road that passes my bedroom window is considerably greater than the noise in central London. That is not a common perception.
We must, however, face up to the facts. The M25 is the busiest road in the country. It is essential for both the national and the local economy. It connects all the major radial routes to London, the southern ports, the airports and the channel tunnel. Congestion on parts of the motorway is encouraging traffic back into towns and villages around the motorway, bringing pollution and noise and making the roads more dangerous.
If nothing is done to improve the capacity of the motorway to take the increased traffic, those towns and villages will suffer even more from traffic trying to avoid motorway congestion. That would cause a return to the conditions which the motorway was built to relieve. Of course I understand that my hon. Friend's constituents do not see it that way, but when I travel the country I realise that, from a national perspective, the M25 is seen as the London bypass. It is therefore important for the economic well-being of the country that we ensure that the bypass is up to standard and able to support the wealth-creating sectors of our economy. Roads and villages that are quiet now will increasingly become rat runs—which can only be bad for residents, pedestrians, local motorists, businesses, and of course the environment and everyone's health and safety. It is to help to stop that happening that we propose improvements.
The section of the motorway between junctions 7 and 8 which runs through my hon. Friend's constituency is currently dual three lanes. It was designed to carry up to 79,000 vehicles per day. Peak-time flows are currently about 110,000 vehicles per day. The case for widening this very busy stretch speaks for itself.
The widening which started in March this year is to dual four lanes and is within the existing highway boundaries. Hard shoulders will be provided over most of the length. The cost of the works is about £45 million. The opportunity is also being taken to replace the existing yellow lighting through junction 7 with the glare-reducing lanterns which keep light spillage within the highway boundary. That type of lighting will also be used for the remainder of the stretch, for lighting is also a serious pollutant, particularly to those who live in the countryside. Fortunately, technology is helping us, and we shall take full advantage of it, by using a more friendly kind of light and a better-designed light fixture, which will allow those

1269
who prefer the darkness of the countryside to have a better chance of enjoying the peace and quiet of the countryside in the darkness if they so wish.
Where possible, the existing landscape is to be retained and improved. Large areas of additional planting are proposed. Planting will be with indigenous species and designed to blend the scheme visually, and ecologically, into its surroundings. As both my hon. Friends have vividly described, the main concerns of the residents following the public consultation centred on the existing noise from the motorway and the likelihood of it increasing with the addition of more traffic lanes. Extensive additional acoustic fences were included in the widening proposals, and the residents and the local councils considered that further measures were required, especially in the Merstham area. The proposed level of mitigation was reviewed and enhanced noise mitigation measures were announced in the decision letter issued in July last year. The enhancements include more than 2 kilometres of additional acoustic fences and raising the height of some of the existing ones.
Once upon a time, I was but an innocent motorist. I thought that a road was a road, and that the road surface was the road surface; now I know differently—it is the pavement. I now know that road surfaces matter a great deal. I shall address some of the technical arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate.
I must point out that the costs quoted in the parliamentary answer which he mentioned—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Mr. Key: The costs quoted in the parliamentary answer to which my hon. Friend referred were right, but the costs for the concrete section related to total reconstruction of the road. The costs for porous asphalt were for resurfacing only. I have had to learn the hard way—by pounding the motorways of this country—about these things. I now understand that the cost per mile of laying different substances for the pavement varies enormously and, therefore, I am not at all surprised at the variations which my hon. Friend quoted.
There are many engineering and accountancy elephant traps in these matters because the cost of laying certain materials is not the same as the cost of the entire reconstruction work. Furthermore, the life of different surfaces varies. The life of porous asphalt is comparatively short—it may be as short as five to seven years—whereas a concrete surface can last more than 20 years. Those are some of the sums which I invite my hon. Friend to consider, perhaps in his bath tomorrow when he will undoubtedly have the benefit of Hansard to refresh his memory.
It is also important to recognise that my Department cannot simply lay new asphalt if there is still life in the existing concrete pavement. Often, it is true that the existing concrete pavement has been agreed as a noisy road surface, for which substantial payments have been made to those nearby in compensation already, and a double payment would not please the Public Accounts Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East said that some of his constituents wish to come and discuss these matters with me. I will be delighted to see him, with
1270
representatives of his constituents, at the earliest convenient moment, and perhaps we can discuss that tomorrow.
The scheme includes the reconstruction of the carriageway around junction 7, which is nearing the end of its life, and provides for the reconstruction of the existing asphalt surface in conventional hot-rolled asphalt. Following requests from residents and local authorities for the use of a quieter road surface, porous asphalt surfacing is being used on a trial basis in the densely populated Merstham area.
Commercial vehicle flows on that section are high. Porous asphalt surfacing has not been used extensively on heavily used roads in this country and evidence of its durability is limited. In addition, it is more expensive than other surfacing materials and has a shorter life, so all the noise and dust of resurfacing would come round sooner.
My officials leave no stone unturned in the search for improved technology of pavements. Recently, I visited Italy to discuss these matters with my opposite number in the new Italian Government, and to visit Autostrada headquarters in Florence—a great hardship it was, too, as the House will imagine. We also pounded the Italian motorways looking at road surfaces and how they do it. Undoubtedly, we will have learnt from them, and they from us.
The section that is to be surfaced with porous asphalt will extend from Gatton Bottom in the west, through the Merstham built-up area to Pendell wood, east of junction 7. Pendell wood was chosen as the eastern termination point because the recent carriageway reconstruction ended there.
We considered carefully the requests from the While Hill residents association to extend the use of porous asphalt by a further 300 m eastward from Pendell wood to the White Hill bridge. We could not justify that as an additional expense when weighed against the likely costs of compensation and noise insulation measures which we may incur.
Following the publication of the environmental statement for the widening scheme between junctions 8 and 10 earlier this year, Reigate and Banstead borough council drew attention to discrepancies in the predicted noise levels at the point where the two schemes abut at Mogador, just west of junction 8. The consultants involved have investigated the apparent discrepancies and it has been established that the predicted noise levels at Mogador, which were quoted in the junctions 7 to 8 statement, were too low.
In recognition of the predicted higher noise levels in the Mogador area, higher noise fences will now be incorporated into the current junctions 7 to 8 widening works to reduce noise further in the area. Residents affected in the Mogador area were informed of those changes last week.
As a precaution, noise levels were reassessed for the whole scheme, which has resulted in a slight upward movement in some of the figures. Because of the extensive mitigation measures already included in the scheme, including bunds and noise fences, with one exception—Dell house at Merstham—that does not trigger the offer of further insulation, over and above that already proposed.
In calculating the noise levels at Merstham, no account has been taken of the porous asphalt surfacing because it is being used on a trial basis only. That surface treatment will, however, reduce the existing and future noise levels

1271
by about 4 decibels, which is a substantial improvement; that is in addition to the benefits obtained from the bunds and fences.
Unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, there have been some complaints about construction noise from the widening works near the main residential areas of Merstham. The contractor has now been told not to operate large plant at night. Strict noise limits are set on the works contractor's operations and agreed with the environmental health officer. Wherever possible, work is carried out behind existing noise fences and earth bunds. Lower speed limits through contraflow systems on the motorway during construction should also lead to a small reduction in traffic noise.
Proposals for widening the section between junctions 8 to 10, to dual four lanes within the existing highway boundary, were published in February. I am pleased to take the opportunity of this debate to announce the results of that public consultation. More than 200 people submitted written comments to the Department and all the opinions expressed were considered carefully. Many issues were raised but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, noise was the issue that caused most concern. We have decided to proceed with the widening of the M25 between junctions 8 and 10 generally, as described in the environmental statement. I am pleased to say that we have been able to increase the height of some of the barriers and provide extra barriers in certain areas.
I fully understand the concerns about traffic noise expressed by many of those who live close to that section of the M25. The published proposals accordingly included extensive noise fencing to reduce the noise impact of the scheme and the provision of porous asphalt through the Leatherhead area, where there would be benefits for a considerable number of people.
In addition to noise barriers, the effects of the widening works will be moderated by retaining as much as possible of the existing motorway landscape planting and earthbunding, and by new planting. To complement that planting, the scope for tree and shrub planting on land in private ownership outside the motorway boundary will also be considered. Many of the existing noise barriers will be replaced.
During the construction period, every effort will be made to minimise disruption and disturbance to local people and the local environment. The construction contract will include limits on noise levels and access routes. The length of time between the removal of existing noise fencing and the erection of replacement fencing will be kept to a minimum. Temporary fencing will be erected at the start of works, to protect the existing planting.
As has already been made clear to the House, the greatest concern expressed during public consultation was about the levels of traffic noise currently experienced by people living close to the motorway and the potential increase in noise from a widened motorway. Many people considered that the proposed provision of a porous asphalt carriageway in the Leatherhead and Ashtead gap should be extended elsewhere along that section of the motorway. I considered carefully all the representations made, but the existing surface is in good condition and, other than in the Leatherhead section, that part of the motorway passes through scattered and sparsely populated areas, with the notable exceptions of some small communities, including Downside and Walton-on-the-Hill. The proposed noise
1272
fences will help in those areas, but I am afraid that extending the provision of porous asphalt cannot be justified at this time.
However, when the carriageway is in need of major maintenance, the use of porous asphalt or other noise reducing surfaces will be considered. Porous asphalt is a well-known low-noise surfacing, but there are others. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred to the noise of ridged concrete on our motorways. We are all familiar with that when driving a car and changing from surface to surface. It can be very noisy for the driver of the car, and it can be even worse for a person who has to sit near it all day and who sometimes has to endure it in the wet, which can be even noisier.
I had to learn about the different tones which emanate from the different kinds of surfaces. I am delighted to report that technology is again on our side, and it marches on. There is a new substance called "whisper concrete" which we are trialling on the M18 in Humberside. I visited the trial site, pounded up and down the M18, stood beside it, listened and looked at it from all angles. I listened to the advice of experts, and it is true—it is a very quiet surface. It has been used extensively elsewhere in Europe.
We hope very much that we will be able to use it more widely here. We have a second trial on the A564 in the east midlands under construction at present. Initial sings from the first trial are encouraging and we are carefully monitoring how it performs on noise, skidding and durability. The skidding point is very important. We can build an almost silent surface for a road, but if one then puts a car on it, it will skid all over the place, which is very dangerous. We have to get the balance right. We hope to take decisions on the wider use of "whisper concrete" very shortly.
It will be of enormous benefit if technology has triumphed, because that surface will have a much longer life than porous asphalt. If we get it right, the surface noise generated will be about as quiet as porous asphalt 2. Details of the additional mitigation measures are given in the decision letter, which will be published tomorrow. We will now invite tenders for the design and construction of the widening works which are expected to start next spring.
On the proposals for widening westwards between junctions 12 and 15, I would like to assure the House that I am fully aware of the strength of feeling about our proposals for adding three-lane link roads to each side of the motorway between those junctions. That is the busiest stretch of road in the country and additional capacity for this section is needed if the motorway is to continue to function effectively.
Many have said that they would experience considerable difficulty in preparing for the public inquiry before the end of the year, as is currently anticipated. I fully appreciate their concerns. It is a very complex scheme and these are important issues. Therefore, in the light of those representations, I have decided that the public inquiry will not now start this year. An announcement on an actual start date will be made as soon as practicably possible.
I have also received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) on behalf of his constituents who are seeking an extension to the objection period for the draft compulsory purchase order which ends tomorrow. Since the public inquiry will not now start this year, I will of course be prepared to

1273
receive objections after tomorrow. I look forward to discussing those matters—no doubt at great length—with my hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sri Lankan Tamils
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Sri Lankan Tamils currently in the United Kingdom have not yet been notified of their status; and if he will break down the figures for those arriving before and after the passing of the Immigration Appeals Act 1993;

  (2) how many Sri Lankan Tamils who have fled Sri Lanka have been held in detention centres (a) since the passing of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 and (b) since 1990 and before the passing of that Act.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on Sri Lankan Tamils are not separately indentifiable in the statistics. Considering all Sri Lankan nationals as at 30 June 1994, an estimated 2,680 are awaiting an initial decision on their application for asylum. Of this, an estimated 860 applied for asylum after the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

  The number of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka being detained on 11 July 1994 is 22. Of these detainees, none entered detention before the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 on 26 July 1993.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources he proposes to allocate to the National Criminal Intelligence Service to pursue cases of suspected money laundering.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Funding of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is settled as part of the annual public expenditure survey. It is for the director general of NCIS to decide how best to allocate the resources available to him to deal with the range of criminal intelligence matters which fall to the organisation.

  Racial Attacks
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support is currently provided for victims of racially motivated attacks and their families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Victims of racially motivated crime are given help and advice, as are other victims of crime, through the network of local victim support schemes.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide figures of the number of incidents recorded by the police as being racial or racially motivated for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to reported racial incidents as defined by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Figures from 1985 are given in the table. Information prior to 1985 is not available.
  692

  Number of racial incidents reported in England and Wales

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1985

  5,900

  1986

  6,566

  1987

  5,305

  1988

  4,383

  1989

  5,044

  1990

  6,359

  1991

  7,882

  1992

  7,734

  11993–94

  9,762

  1This information is now collected on a financial year basis.

  ACPO definition: Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigative officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motive, or any incidents which include allegations of racial motivation made by any person.

  Zoos and Circuses
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the legislation governing the welfare of circus animals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 29 April 1994 to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), at column 341.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the legislation governing the welfare of zoo animals.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 requires that all zoos in Great Britain are licensed and regularly inspected. Under the terms of the Act, the Secretary of State has issued standards covering care and accommodation of animals, and public safety in zoos, and maintains a list of authorised inspectors. Zoo licensing and inspection under the Act is carried out by local authorities.

  Police Review
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the review of police core and ancillary tasks is confined to England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office review of police core and ancillary tasks applies to England and Wales only. I understand that separate consideration is being given to such issues in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Firearms
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the current charge for a firearms certificate is derived.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The current fees for firearm certificates introduced in 1990 are based on the previous level of fees set in 1986, which were intended to achieve the recovery of police costs in administering the firearms licensing system, uprated to take account of increases in police pay since that time.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the fifth report of the Firearms Consultative Committee.
  693
  Mr. Howard
  I have placed a copy of the annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee in the Library of the House today.

  Asylum
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for political asylum have been received in each year since 1979 to date; of these, how many have been approved; and how many individuals, including dependants, have been granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom;

  (2) how many applications for asylum have been rejected in each year since 1979; of these applicants, how many have been deported, and of how many the Home Office has confirmation on their departure, in respect of each year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information covering the years 1979–1993, for applications for asylum and on decisions made, is given in table A.

  Table A

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom and decisions, 1979 to 1993

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  11990

  11991

  1–21992

  1–21993

  EXCLUDING DEPENDANTS

  Applications received3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,905

  4,389

  4,266

  4,256

  3,998

  11,640

  26,205

  44,840

  24,605

  22,370

  Decisions3–4

  Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,431

  2,635

  2,983

  2,432

  2,702

  6,955

  4,025

  6,075

  34,900

  23,405

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  453

  574

  348

  266

  628

  2,210

  920

  505

  1,115

  1,590

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  631

  1,559

  2,102

  1,531

  1,578

  3,860

  2,400

  2,190

  15,325

  11,125

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  347

  502

  533

  635

  496

  890

  705

  3,380

  18,465

  10,690

  INCLUDING DEPENDANTS7

  Applications received3

  1,563

  2,352

  2,425

  4,223

  4,296

  4,171

  6,156

  5,714

  5,863

  5,739

  16,775

  38,195

  873,400

  832,300

  828,000

  Decisions3–4

  Total

  949

  1,797

  2,358

  2,942

  2,950

  2,011

  3,802

  4,045

  3,479

  3,888

  10,270

  6,055

  89,140

  859,050

  836,890

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum5

  525

  1,147

  1,473

  1,727

  1,185

  689

  915

  543

  464

  975

  3,335

  1,590

  8800

  81,900

  82,860

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  215

  238

  278

  311

  939

  802

  2,156

  2.815

  2,229

  2,289

  5,840

  3.610

  82,950

  821,680

  815,480

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave6

  209

  412

  607

  904

  826

  520

  731

  687

  786

  624

  1,095

  855

  85,390

  835,480

  818,550

  n/a = Not available.

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2Provisional tigures.

  3Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  4Decision figures up to and including 1991 may undestate.

  5Excluding South East Asian refugees.

  6Includes refusals on safe third country grounds, and those under paragraph 18()F (paragraph 1()1 prior to 26 July 1993) of the Immigration Rules for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  7Including dependants who applied with the principal applicant and those who arrived subsequently but before the principal application was decided.

  8Estimated figures.

  Private Prisons
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given by his Department, prior to the award of the contract to manage Doncaster prison, to the conclusions of the United States Congressional Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs report, "Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Covert Operation", published in July 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: 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 B. Landers to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question
  694
  Information on asylum seekers removed in 1992 and 1993 under the Immigration Act 1971 is given in table B. These are all confirmed departures. Corresponding information for years prior to 1992 is not available.

  Table B Removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1992 and 1993

  1992

  1993

  In-country asylum applicants removed under the deportation process

  70

  921

  In-country asylum applicants removed as illegal entrants

  3171

  4911

  Port asylum applicants removed

  9592

  1,2362

  Grand Total

  1,346

  1,819

  1Includes voluntary departures.

  2Includes any voluntary departure up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application but excludes any subsequent departure.

  about what consideration was given by his Department, before the award of the contract to manage Doncaster prison, to the conclusions of the US Congressional Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs report on the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company Covert Operation, published in July 1992.The two reports, whose conclusions conflicted, concerned Wackenhut Corporation, against whom no charges were laid. The contract for Doncaster prison was signed with Premier Prison Services Ltd which is a 50/50 joint venture wholly owned by Serco Ltd and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, a subsidiary of Wackenhut Corporation, was not involved in the matter that was investigated by the US Congressional Committee.
  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 from the United States of America.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: 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.
  695
  Letter from Philippa Drew to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 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 how many managerial staff working at (a) Blakenhurst Prison and (b) Doncaster Prison are from the United States of America.
  Neither of these prisons has any managerial staff from the United States of America.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people employed by the Prison Service or seconded to the prisons inspectorate have worked simultaneously or subsequently for private sector companies who(a) operate and (b) have tendered to operate prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: No one employed by the Prison Service or seconded to the prisons inspectorate has worked simultaneously for a private sector company operating or tendering to operate prisons. Thirty-three former Prison Service employees subsequently worked for such companies. Of these, three were former governors who had been seconded to the inspectorate.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the Prison Service agency's policy in respect of the recognition of trade unions by operators of contracted-out prisons;

  (2) what account he takes of trade union recognition in the tender evaluation process conducted by his Department when awarding the contracts to manage (a) the Wolds prison, (b) Blakenhurst prison and (c) Doncaster prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answers 13 July 1994]: 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 B. Landers to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your two recent Questions about trade union recognition at contracted out prisons.
  Whether or not a trade union is recognised at a contracted out prison is a matter for the contractor. In evaluating tenderers, the evaluation panel looks for evidence that a tenderer is a good employer with employment policies and conditions of service that are likely to recruit and retain staff of a suitable calibre to carry out the task. The evaluation includes consideration of the tenderer's industrial relations policy including how staff are consulted and what grievance procedures are in place.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff will be employed by Premier Prison Services Ltd., at Doncaster prison; at what grades; and at what rates of pay.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: 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 14 July 1994:
  696
  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 employed by Premier Prison Services Ltd. at Doncaster Prison; the grades; and the rates of pay.
  Premier Prison Services Ltd. expects to employ 365 staff. Of these about 219 will be prisoner custody officers (PCO). The operational grades are PCO, Unit Manager, Operations Manager, two of the Assistant Directors, and the Director, all of whom have to be certificated as PCO, as they have custodial contact with prisoners. There are also a number of administrative grades.
  The rates of pay are a matter for the company.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Land Registry
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether, following its establishment as a next steps executive agency in 1990, the triennial evaluation of performance has been carried out for Her Majesty's Land Registry; and, if so, what conclusions were drawn.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An evaluation of the performance of Her Majesty's Land Registry during its first three years as an executive agency was carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department and a report was completed in January 1994.

  The report concluded that the Registry had benefited considerably from its move to agency status which had been a major enabling factor in promoting sound public sector management in the Registry. By the achievement of progressively improving performance targets and the early completion of its computerisation programme, the Registry had made a major contribution to the simplification on conveyancing in England and Wales, particularly through the development of faster and easier access to the public land register.

  The general summary and conclusions of the report will be reproduced in the Registry's annual report and accounts for 1993–94 due to be published shortly.

  Divorce
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report, "Effect of Divorce on Wills" Law Com. No. 217.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have decided to accept the Commission's recommendations in its report on this topic and will introduce legislation to implement them when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs.

HEALTH

  Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in the last available year in each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country on children's health.

  Mr. Sackville
  Comparable figures are not available. There is no internationally accepted definition of health spending on specific health services.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has produced or has commissioned any assessment of the relative cost savings likely to accrue to service providers if the NHS Supplies Authority's warehousing and distribution Information Technology and purchasing functions were(a) separately market tested or (b) run by the private sector as an integrated body under principles of integrated supply chain management; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Our current assessment is that in present circumstances the National Health Service Supplies Authority seems best placed to deliver the necessary planned improvements in the national infrastructure of NHS procurement services over the next few years without loss of momentum on service levels and performance standards, and where appropriate with use of market testing or other collaboration with private sector partners. The authority plans to market test its logistics services in the context of a strategy planned to save at least £5 to £10 million a year, when fully implemented, for a more efficient and flexible service. In developing its information technology strategy it will continue to make use of market testing wherever this can add value and/or choice. In 1992–93 the value of its contracted-out computer services and equipment was £2·7 million. It achieved purchasing savings of over £71 million in 1993–94 on behalf of NHS customers, but all NHS trusts remain free on a value for money basis to make their own direct procurement arrangements or to market test all or part of such services as alternatives to using NHS Supplies as their contracted purchasing agent.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of in-patients in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust in January and March had a named qualified nurse or midwife who was responsible for their care;

  (2) what proportion of patients attending out-patient clinics in (a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March were given (i) a specific appointment time and (ii) a named qualified nurse, midwife or health visitor who was responsible for their care.

  Mr. Sackville
  This available information on patients charter standards was published in the 1993–94 hospital and ambulance services comparative performance guide, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Benzene
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been conducted into the effects on the environment and health of the increase in use of benzene in motor fuel; and if she will make a statement.

  (2) what evidence she has as to any link between benzene and causes of leukaemia; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what evaluation she has made of the genotoxic nature of benzene in the atmosphere; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Benzene is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a human 698
  carcinogen. The Department of Health's Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has advised that benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen. In certain occupational groups, prolonged exposure to levels of benzene many times greater than those present in ambient air has been associated with an increased risk of leukaemia. This evidence was considered carefully by the Department of the Environment's expert panel on air quality standards when they recommended an air quality standard for benzene of five parts per billion, rolling annual average concentration and a further target standard of one part per billion.

  Research and Training
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients declined to take part in(a) medical research and (b) medical student training in January to March.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many complaints were received by NHS patients between January and March about(a) their own access to their medical records and (b) their medical records being divulged to a third party;

  (2) how many NHS patients asked to see their medical records between January and March.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Patients have a legal right to see their own medical records. For records held on computer, access is provided for by the Data Protection Act 1984. For records kept on paper, access is under the Access to Health Records Act 1990, which came into force on 1 November 1991 and applies to records compiled on or after that date. Access under both Acts is subject to safeguards.

  Ambulance Staff
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of ambulance staff are trained paramedics in each ambulance service in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the unconfirmed results of an informal survey of numbers of paramedics and other front-line staff in each ambulance service in England at the end of 1993.

  Ambulance Service

  Total front-line stuff (including Paramedics)

  Paramedics

  Cumbria Ambulance NHS Trust

  180

  96

  Durham County Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  159

  54

  Northumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  357

  188

  Humberside Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  285

  85

  North Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  183

  61

  Derbyshire Ambulance Service

  232

  73

  Leicestershire Ambulance and Paramedic Service

  214

  60

  699

  Ambulance Service

  Total front-line stuff (including Paramedics)

  Paramedics

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport NHS Trust

  200

  80

  Nottinghamshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  250

  84

  Cambridgeshire Ambulance Service

  166

  62

  Norfolk Ambulance NHS Trust

  246

  89

  Suffolk Ambulance Service

  145

  36

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  278

  133

  Essex Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  377

  174

  East Sussex Ambulance Service

  235

  90

  Kent Ambulance Service

  375

  138

  West Sussex Ambulance Service

  175

  68

  Dorset Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  178

  134

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  321

  134

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  156

  77

  Isle of Wight Ambulance Service

  48

  31

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  168

  61

  Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust

  290

  101

  Oxfordshire Ambulance Service

  134

  62

  West Country Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  752

  206

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  165

  84

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service

  182

  108

  Shropshire Ambulance Service

  125

  45

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  276

  98

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service

  113

  63

  Lancashire Ambulance Service

  368

  142

  Cleveland Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  134

  69

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  450

  122

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance and Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  250

  101

  Surrey Ambulance Service

  288

  124

  London Ambulance Service

  1,485

  394

  Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  190

  84

  West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  523

  181

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  552

  183

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service

  585

  204

  Day Surgery
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she will be taking to ensure that British companies benefit from the expected growth in techniques of minimally invasive surgery and day case by the turn of the century.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service purchasing policy for purchase of innovative equipment of this kind is based on securing best value for money for the NHS and on encouraging through competition on equal terms all its suppliers to become more competitive on price, quality and service in both United Kingdom and world markets. Further measures to stimulate innovation are set out in the White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win".

  Cycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with his colleagues at the Departments of Transport, Education and the Environment about encouraging children to bicycle to school, in order to reduce pollution and congestion, whilst encouraging health.

  Mr. Sackville
  These Departments are represented on multi-agency working groups established under "The Health of the Nation" initiative through which we are encouraging children to take up cycling, provided that they take appropriate safety precautions.

  Hospital Births
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of babies were delivered in hospital in each health authority area in the most recent year for which figures are available.

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

  Locum Doctors
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total amounts of money spent in the national health service for the most recent year in which records are available on locum hospital doctors engaged(a) through private locum agencies and (b) through NHS locum agencies; and if she will list the above amounts in each category by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data held centrally are not broken down into these two categories.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number and proportion of patients in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust had an NHS operation cancelled between January and March.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information on the number of patients who had their operations cancelled twice at the last minute and who were then not treated within a month was published in the 1993–94 hospital and ambulance services comparative performance guide, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients attending accident and emergency departments in(a) England, (b) each regional health authority and (c) each hospital or trust between January and March had treatment which began with in (i) five minutes, (ii) 15 minutes, (iii) 30 minutes and (iv) one hour.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on when treatment begins for patients attending an accident and emergency department is not available centrally. In England 88 per cent. of patients attending accident and emergency departments were seen and assessed within five minutes of arrival. Figures for trusts and hospitals were published in
  701
  the 1993–94 hospital and ambulance services comparative performance guide, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hartley Hospital Colne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the selling price of Hartley hospital, Colne.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of individual land and property sales are commercially sensitive and confidential. It is for the regional health authority managing the transaction to determine, with their professional advisers, if the sale price can be released after completion.

  Commissioning Agencies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that commissioning agencies involve their public health physicians in the commissioning process, both as adviser on the health priorities for their populations and as co-ordinators of medical advice from provider unit clinicians.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health authorities need a range of professional and other advice if they are to discharge their purchasing role effectively. The national health service executive has discussed with representatives of the medical professions how health authorities might secure sound medical advice. As a result of these discussions EL(93)60, entitled "Medical advice to purchasers", was issued on 2 July 1993. In addition, a task force including representatives from the professions has been established to examine clinical involvement in contracting from both commissioning and provider unit perspectives. Copies of EL(93)60 are available in the Library.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish her response to the Mental Health Act Commission's fifth biennial report.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health response to the Commission's fifth biennial report has been placed in the Library today.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the reports of the working groups on high security psychiatric services and on psychopathic disorder.

  Mr. Bowis
  The reports of both working groups, which were chaired by Dr. John Reed of the Department, are being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The working group on high security and related psychiatric provision was established to consider the most effective provision of services for patients requiring psychiatric treatment in conditions of high security in England and Wales, and the relationship between such service and the secure and related services provided within national health service regions and the Prison Service, in the light of earlier reports including those of the review of services for mentally disordered offenders and in response to the report of the committee of inquiry into complaints at
  702
  Ashworth hospital. The report provides a clear analysis of the pressures and chllenges facing the services and their relationship with the wider NHS. It makes a number of recommendations on the objectives of high-security care, standards of services and the development of stronger links with related agencies which we fully endorse. It rightly emphasises the overriding importance in any future development of maintaining public confidence and public safety.

  The report also recommends radical changes in the present funding and management arrangements for high security psychiatric services. These proposals require very careful consideration in relation to our objectives for high security care and the important responsibilities which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary bears in this field. I have instructed my officials to examine these matters further with the Special Hospitals Service Authority and Home Office and to report back to me within six months. I will announce my conclusions when I have considered their advice.

  We are also publishing today, for consultation, the report of a separate working group on services for people with psychopathic disorder. The report puts forward a number of ideas relating to the law and service provision in this area, on which we are inviting comments by 31 October.

  Dental Amalgam
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by her Department of the long-term safety of dental amalgam; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Committee on Toxicity advised in 1986 that the use of dental amalgam is free from the risk of systemic toxicity and that only a few cases of hypersensitivity occur. The subsequent research findings, and recent evaluations by several authoritative national and international expert committees are consistent with that advice. The Department of Health will continue to assess and evaluate all research in this area.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements she intends to make to inform the dental profession of the publication of the Government's response to the Bloomfield report; what her policy is in respect of a comprehensive dental health service within the NHS; and when she intends to produce an oral health strategy for England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am publishing today a consultative document called"Improving NHS Dentistry." Copies of the document itself and a summary have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office. They are a response to the report of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, published in January 1993, and to that of the Health Select Committee.

  The Government's purpose in putting forward these proposals for consultation is twofold. First, we wish to strengthen and improve national health service dentistry, maintaining a high-quality service available and accessible to all and one which responds to the modern needs of patients. Secondly, we wish to build on the excellent improvements to oral health of recent years and, in particular, to improve further children's oral health and

  703
  address regional variations. We are also publishing today proposals for an oral health strategy for England. Copies have been placed in the Library and are also available in the Vote Office.

  The Government are determined that all patients will continue to have access to an NHS dentist; under the proposals, this would be the case. The Government propose to develop and strengthen the community dental service to ensure that there is an effective safety net where necessary. NHS treatment would continue to be available free or at reduced cost to those currently exempt or remitted from charges and all children would continue to receive free NHS treatment. The Government will also consult on improvements to the system of charging to encourage examination and routine treatment along the lines proposed by the Health Select Committee. One possibility is a reduced examination charge.

  The proposals would provide a more flexible system better able to match dental treatment to the varying needs of patients. There would be incentives to encourage a greater emphasis on the quality of care and prevention rather than the number of patients treated. The system for paying dentists would be simpler to operate and provide better overall financial control for the taxpayer. The Government also believe it would be fairer to dentists.

  The Government believe that, in the longer term, there is a case for moving towards a system in which local family health services authorities, or health commissions, are responsible for purchasing dental services for their area, taking full account of local need and the state of oral health. This would represent a significant change. The Government therefore believe it would require careful piloting and evaluation before any change were made. The Government propose to invite FHSAs to volunteer to participate in pilots.

  The Government also believe that the current system of remuneration for dentists should be improved. It is consulting on two options. One is for a sessional fee model which would link payment to dentists to the time spent treating NHS patients rather than the number and type of treatments carried out. An alternative approach would be a modified fee-per-item system. In both these options the emphasis would be on linking payment to the quality of care and prevention.

  These proposals follow the dental profession's request for a fundamental review of the dental remuneration system which is largely unchanged since the foundation of the NHS. We have consulted widely with the profession and taken full account of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report. We have also taken on board a number of the recommendations from the Health Select Committee. The Government note that, while there is consensus on the need for change, there is no consensus on the best way forward. The options set out for further consultation offer the opportunity of a simpler, more flexible system which responds to the needs of patients and reflects the great improvements in oral health of recent years and the changing nature of dentistry. The Government now seek the views of dentists and their patients on the best way forward.

  Supra-regional Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available a summary of the funding and levels of activity agreed for 1994–95 with centres designated to provide supra-regional services.

  Mr. Sackville
  A summary of this information has been placed in the Library as an addendum to the document "Supra-regional services 1994–95: announcement by the Secretary of State for Health".

  Carers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will give the latest figures for the number of carers in(a) Coventry, (b) the west midlands and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Bowis
  The general household survey findings indicate that 15 per cent. of adults living in private households—approximately 6·8 million people—were carers in Great Britain in 1990. Estimates are not available for the number of carers in Coventry, or in the west midlands.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Ground Safety
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the cost of necessary ground safety work in(a) Rugby League, (b) Rugby Union, (c) cricket and (d) non-league football.

  Mr. Sproat
  None. I have, however, received estimates of the likely costs of implementing ground safety work from the Rugby Football League and the GM Vauxhall Conference.

  Royal Parks (Cycle Routes)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce more cycle routes in the royal parks.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency, under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mrs Barbara Roche, dated 8 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question about providing more cycle routes in the Royal Parks.
  We currently have a cycle lane that runs around three sides of Hyde Park and joins Knightsbridge by the Albert Memorial. Apart from being able to use the Park roads, in Richmond Park cyclists may also use roads that are closed to other vehicular traffic.
  We shall be issuing a paper on cycling in the Royal Parks to interested parties for discussion later this month. This will propose a range of measures to improve arrangements for cyclists in the Royal Parks. Amongst other things, it will propose the following additional cycle lanes:
  In Hyde Park, north/south from Albion Gate, roughly following the route of the horseride, then across the Serpentine Bridge and alongside West Carriage Drive to join the current cycle lane opposite Coalbrookdale Gates;

  705
  In Green Park/St. James's Park, from Hyde Park Corner, parallel to Constitution Hill, behind Canada Gates and alongside the Mall;
  In Regent's Park, one way advisory cycle lanes from Macclesfield Bridge, either side of the Outer Circle and Park Square, to Marylebone Road;
  In Richmond Park, a purpose-built off-road track to allow cyclists to travel around the perimeter of the park.
  We propose that all cycle lanes in the parks will be specially marked in a different colour to pedestrian paths and will improve safety provision for cyclists at those points where they cross roads carrying vehicular traffic.

  Entertainment Agencies
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultation has been held between his Department and the Department of Employment on the effects of clause 25 and schedule 9, of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on the licensing of entertainment agencies.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Employment are in the lead on this matter. But my officials have kept in touch with their opposite numbers in these Departments and have ensured that they are aware of representations made to me.

  Grace and Favour Accommodation
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been spent and remains to he spent on restoring, refurbishing and decorating(a) the grace and favour accommodation occupied by Mr. Peat at Kensington palace and (b) that to be occupied by his assistant; how much has been spent on furnishing each; and what accommodation is in each residence.

  Mr. Sproat
  Fitting out apartments at Kensington palace for the director and deputy director of property services is estimated to cost £120,000 each excluding VAT and fees. This cost includes the provision of kitchen and bathroom fittings, flooring, doors, lighting, cupboards, tiling and decoration.

  The director of finance and property services is a head of department and furnished accommodation is provided. The maximum budget provision for the furniture and furnishings is £98,000 excluding VAT. No furniture or furnishings will be provided for the apartment to be occupied by the deputy director of property services.

  A substantial amount of essential structural, fire protection and other repair work estimated to cost £450,000 excluding VAT and fees has also being carried out in this area of the palace to prevent further deterioration of the fabric and to meet Bailey inquiry recommendations. Most of this work would have been necessary whether the area was to provide residential accommodation or not. It was occupied by Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone without major refurbishment from 1923 to 1981 and has remained unoccupied and uninhabitable since then.

  Structural and fitting-out costs reflect the special requirements of historic buildings, as advised by English Heritage. Reductions in salaries take account of the value of the accommodation.

  One apartment will have five bedrooms, four bathrooms, a sitting room, dining room, study, kitchen and utility room, basement room and two separate lavatories. The other will have four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a sitting room, dining room, study, kitchen and utility room, basement room, shower room and a separate lavatory.

  Channel 5 Television
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to announce the results of his consideration of the results of the recent consultation about the future of Channel 5 national television channel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government have considered whether it would be possible both to proceed with an analogue Channel 5 service and to provide sufficient frequencies for digital terrestrial television services. I am writing today to the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to tell him of the Government's decisions.

  The Radiocommunications Agency has examined a range of options, and has been helped by receiving technical proposals from a number of organisations, including the Independent Television Commission, National Transcommunications Ltd. and the BBC.

  As a result, the Government have concluded that they should amend the current assignment of frequencies to the Independent Television Commission, for the provision of Channel 5. Frequency channel 37, and a number of other frequencies will now form the basis of an analogue Channel 5 service giving coverage of about 60 per cent. of the population. It would be open to a successful applicant for the licence to simulcast the service digitally to at least 80 per cent. and possibly over 90 per cent. of the population, when the Commission has new powers to license digital terrestrial television services.

  In addition to the analogue Channel 5, as many as 12 digital terrestrial television services could be provided: up to four would be broadcast as a single frequency network, using frequency channel 35, with coverage of more than 95 per cent. of the population; an interleaved network of up to four more services could have 90 to 95 per cent. coverage, and there could be up to four more interleaved services with 80 per cent. coverage. Regional variations would be possible on the interleaved services, but not for the single frequency network.

  Digital terrestrial television would provide new and enhanced services for audiences, as well as opportunities for programme-makers, broadcasters, advertisements and the manufacturers of transmitting and receiving equipment. The frequency allocations for both Channel 5 and the digital television services will need international clearance with neighbouring countries. Technical standards for digital television in Europe are already under consideration.

  No decisions have been made about the allocation of the frequencies for digital terrestrial television to either the BBC or the Independent Television Commission, but the Government's plans allow both for the introduction of new services and for the four existing analogue services to be simulcast digitally for some years. This will encourage people to buy new digital receiving equipment. If sufficient numbers of people move over to digital equipment, it may be possible, after a transitional period of perhaps 15 years, for television signals to be transmitted in digital format only. This would allow the spectrum currently used for analogue transmission to be put to other uses. If used for mobile communications, this spectrum could support an annual level of economic activity equivalent to £5 billion in today's money.

  The Government believe that this plan will create greater choice and diversity for viewers by combining the

  707
  advantages of an increased number of television services, initially through Channel 5, with opportunities for new and enhanced services using digital transmission.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the future structure of the Sports Council.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The Government announced their proposals for the future of the Sports Council on 8 July.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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 it value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: Following the establishing of my Department in April 1992 no such direction has been given.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1992.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The information requested is as follows: all costs relate to the London region.

  Department for National Heritage (including the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and Royal Parks. Agency)

  £ millions

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 estimated outturn

  1994–95 plans

  32

  37

  38

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what accommodation is provided in which occupied royal palaces for employees of KPMG Peat Marwick.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: None.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. Sproat
  [holding answer 12 July 1994]: No organisations, agencies or other bodies relating to my area of responsibility have been privatised since 1990 and no such privatisations are currently planned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether export licences for tanks and other armoured vehicles are granted on a general, or an individual, export licence basis; and under what circumstances any exceptions to this rule can be made.

  Mr. Needham
  When it is appropriate for a licence to be granted for the export of these categories of defence equipment such licences are normally issued on an individual basis; I am not aware of any exception.

  Trade Statistics (Korea)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many cars and other vehicles manufactured in the United Kingdom have been exported to Korea for each year since 1987;

  (2) how many cars and other vehicles manufactured in Korea were imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom export statistics do not distinguish between products manufactured in the United Kingdom and those manufactured elsewhere but exported from the United Kingdom. The available information, on a country of consignment basis, is as follows:

  United Kingdom trade with South Korea in cars and other vehicles (numbers).

  Year

  United Kingdom exports

  United Kingdom imports

  1987

  6

  5,861

  1988

  13

  10,209

  1989

  8

  15,424

  1990

  68

  4,690

  1991

  121

  9,027

  1992

  68

  15,531

  1993

  29

  13,689

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom

  Nuclear Fuel Assemblies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what notification his Department received from British Nuclear Fuels before the recent export of mixed oxide nuclear fuel assemblies by air to Switzerland.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to disclose details about export licences that have been issued. Any such transfers would require advance notification, also made in confidence, through my Department to the Euratom safeguards directorate.

  Zangger Committee
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria must be met by countries wishing to be eligible for membership of the Zangger committee on nuclear export controls; and what information he has on refusals to countries applying to join the Zangger committee.
  709
  Mr. Needham
  The main criteria for membership of the Zangger committee are accession to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; potential to supply material or equipment of concern as defined in article III.2 of the NPT; and adherence to the committee's agreed conditions of supply for such items of concern. In recent years the committee has actively sought new members and refusals of applications have not arisen.

  Supplementary Protection Certificates
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many supplementary protection certificates have been granted under the terms of EC Regulation 1768/92/EEC; and what is their average duration.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As at 14 July 1994 the number of supplementary protection certificates granted by the United Kingdom Patent Office, in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92, is 138. The average duration is three years two months.

  Anglia Television
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the inspectors appointed by him to investigate possible insider dealing contraventions in certain transactions of Anglia Television shares have concluded their inquiries; whether they have had any informal discussions with his Department on their findings; and when he expects to receive their formal report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors appointed to investigate possible insider dealing contraventions with regard to the shares of Anglia Television Group plc have completed their inquiries and are expected to present their report shortly. It is normal practice for inspectors and departmental officials to have progress meetings during the course of an investigation.

  UKAEA
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the BZW report on the future of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The full report contains a large amount of commercially senstive information which it would not be appropriate to place in the public domain. However, in accordance with the Government's commitment to open government, I asked BZW to produce a summary of its report for publication outlining its recommendations and the thinking behind them. Copies of the summary have been placed in the Library of the House. BZW's study was carried out last summer and obviously precedes the reorganisation of the AEA which took effect on 1 April. The summary should therefore be read in conjunction with the AEA's annual report, which was published earlier this week.

  Petroleum Licences
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he will ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account when deciding on the award of petroleum licences in areas around the United Kingdom coast.

  Mr. Eggar
  At my initiative, which has the full agreement of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators 710
  Association, UKOOA will fund the preparation and publication of a series of 16 United Kingdom continental shelf coastal directories regional reports.

  This work will be done in conjunction with a consortium, co-ordinated by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and composed of local authorities, central Government Departments, countryside agencies and the private sector.

  Those reports covering areas likely to be of interest to companies in the 16th round will be available in draft by the end of December, and published in final form in June 1995. Prospective licensees will be expected to show that they have taken this information into account in their environment management systems for activities in the block to be awarded.

  There is concern, which I share, about the impact on the environment of licensing inshore blocks. At present there is not enough agreed data on any sensitive areas in blocks on offer.

  This collaborative project, which will take over two and a half years to complete, shows that the oil and gas industry and environmental organisations can work together for their mutual benefit. The reports will build on work already carried out by the JNCC, individual oil companies and the bodies already mentioned, as well as data contributed by knowledgeable environmental groups. This will provide valuable knowledge about the coastal and marine environment for the whole of the United Kingdom coastline which will greatly assist me in my decision making in the 16th and subsequent licensing rounds. The initiative will help environmental groups, local authorities and oil companies to discuss the issues in a more informed and co-operative way.

  Regional Challenge
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions he has had with the European Commission about Regional Challenge;

  (2) who will judge projects applying for funding for Regional Challenge;

  (3) what factors led to the exclusion of Thanet, Plymouth and West Cumbria from Regional Challenge;

  (4) when the criteria for bids for Regional Challenge will be published;

  (5) what consultations have taken place; on what dates and with whom to ascertain the news of national and local agencies about Regional Challenge.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answers 13 July 1994]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has discussed Regional Challenge with Commissioner Millan twice and has exchanged correspondence. We intend that Regional Challenge grant decisions will be taken by the Government on the basis of recommendations from the monitoring committees. Thanet, Plymouth and West Cumbria were not included because of their small population.

  Guidance on applications will be issued in due course. Officials have held discussions with local authority associations on various dates. My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters from hon. Members and others.
  711
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total allocations of objective 1 and 2 structural funds to Regional Challenge areas; and what percentage will be top-sliced for Regional Challenge per area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: The structural funds objective 1 allocations were announced in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on 27 July 1993, Official Report, column 497. The objective 2 allocations were announced in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Planet, North (Mr. Gale) on 13 April 1994, Official Report, column 230. On those occasions the allocations were given in ecu—for convenience I repeat them here in sterling for the areas eligible for Regional Challenge.

  1£ million

  Objective 1 (1994–1999)

  Merseyside

  628

  Objective 2 (1994–1996)

  North East England

  237

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  241

  East Midlands

  61

  West Midlands

  285

  Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire

  253

  Greater London

  57

  South Wales

  145

  1£ million, 1994 prices (£1 = 1.3 ecu).

  The White Paper on competitiveness referred to total prize money for the first round of Regional Challenge competitions of £150—£200 million across the eligible English and Welsh areas, which also includes some classified under objective 5(b). The term top-slicing is misleading.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 July.

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

  Intelligence Service
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate the extent to which following the passing of the Intelligence Services Act, the Government are prepared to make available to the House information on the activities of the security and intelligence agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  This Government have taken a series of significant steps in its policy of greater accountability and openness, wherever possible, in security and intelligence matters. All three security and intelligence agencies are avowed and have now been put on a statutory basis. The figure for the aggregate expenditure of the agencies is published annually. In addition, the expenditure, administration and policy of all three agencies 712
  will be subject to scrutiny by a committee of Parliamentarians—the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  It is important to draw a line between proper accountability for the agencies and the continued need for secrecy regarding operational matters. Successive Governments have refused to provide information on the operations of the security and intelligence agencies, including matters which will fall within the scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Comment on these matters, either by what is or is not said, could have a bearing on the effectiveness of the agencies, and the safety of their staff and those who co-operate with them. I made clear to the House on 6 May 1992—Official Report, column 65, that the Government will maintain this policy.

  Ex-service People (Welfare)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will be meeting representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the approval by the House on 1 July of the resolution on the welfare of ex-service people; and what representations he has had from the Legion in regard to a meeting.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: We welcome continuing close contact with the Royal British Legion and other service organisations. A request for a meeting has been received form the Royal British Legion and is being considered at present.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials of the State Veterinary Service observed the killing of mink on fur farms in November 1993; and what method of killing was used.

  Mr. Soames
  Officials of the State Veterinary Service did not observe the killing of mink on any fur farm in November 1993.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions she has taken to limit the effects of the Franco-German beef embargo on the British agricultural industry.

  Mr. Jack
  The German Government have proposed unilateral restrictions on British beef imports. These would be illegal under EC rules, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has kept in touch with the European Commission on this matter. Mr. Steichen has written to the German Government to warn them that the Commission will take legal action if Germany puts its proposed restrictions into effect.

  The French Government have not made any proposals for unilateral action against British beef imports.

  Livestock Allowances
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost in 1993 for each county in England, and in total, of payments under(a) the

  713
  sheep annual premium, (b) the Buckler cow premium, (c) the beef special premium and (d) the hill livestock compensatory allowance; and what is her estimate of the cost in 1994.

  £ million

  Region

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  Beef Special Premium scheme

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

  South West

  26·1

  6·9

  14·0

  4·7

  Wessex

  10·7

  4·6

  7·7

  1·0

  Anglia

  4·0

  2·9

  3·7

  0·0

  South Mercia

  18·3

  4·2

  7·5

  0·8

  North Mercia

  15·6

  4·3

  7·0

  2·6

  Northern

  47·8

  10·3

  10·9

  14·7

  East Midlands

  14·7

  4·6

  8·8

  1·3

  North East

  31·0

  7·8

  9·7

  8·3

  South East

  13·7

  4·9

  8·2

  0·0

  Total England

  181·9

  50·5

  77·5

  33·4

  Estimates for the value of payments under each scheme in England for the 1994 scheme years are set out in the table. The figures are not broken down by MAFF region since for some schemes applications are still being received.

  £ million

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  173

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  64

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  90

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

  26

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January–March 1994

  Fat, as percentage of energy

  41·60

  41·40

  41·70

  (40·1)

  41·30

  (39·7)

  40·40

  (39·2)

  Saturated fatty acids, as percentage of energy

  16·60

  16·40

  16·30

  (15·8)

  16·10

  (15·6)

  15·60

  (15·3)

  Sodium, grams per day

  2·50

  2·49

  2·51

  —

  2·50

  —

  2·54

  —

  Non-milk extrinsic sugars, as percentage of energy

  11·40

  11·80

  10·70

  (13·4)

  10·70

  (13·3)

  10·30

  (12·6)

  Comfrey
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations she has received from right hon. and hon. Members about the ban on comfrey products since the ban was announced; and how many of those representations were in support of the ban.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no ban on comfrey products generally, but those likely to contain the highest concentration of toxic alkaloids have been withdrawn from the market. Of 90 Members of this House who have raised the matter formally with my right hon. Friend, 22 have asked for these products to be reintroduced and 68 have expressed no opinion.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the welfare of rabbits being transported across Europe.
  714
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested by the hon. Member cannot be given except at disproportionate cost. However, the expected value of 1993 scheme payments in each MAFF administrative region in England for the four schemes is detailed in the table.

  Dietary Statistics
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest assessment of the consumption in the United Kingdom diet of fat, saturated fat, salt and non-milk extrinsic sugars; and what change there has been in the figures from those prepared by her Ministry and used to enable production of the 1991 Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report, "Dietary Reference Values".

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested, obtained from the national food survey, is in the table. The figures in parentheses take into account the contribution from alcoholic drinks and confectionery brought into the home, which were not recorded in the survey before 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The welfare of rabbits during transport is covered by provisions of directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport. In Great Britain the directive is implemented by the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 (S.I. 1992 No. 3304).

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the total areas claimed by arable farmers in England for crops and set-aside under the arable area payments scheme in 1994; how those figures relate to the baseline areas declared to the European Commission; what estimate she has made of the overshoot; and if she will make a statement on the scale of penalty that is likely to arise from such an overshoot.

  Mr. Jack
  This information will not be available until all the 1994 area aid applications have been processed. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make an announcement on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We had hoped to be able, before now, to make a statement on the Government's plans for the future of the Agricultural Wages Board arrangements. Since last year's substantial consultation exercise, there have been two significant and new factors which the Government must consider. Employers in a number of sectors of the industry are now questioning the value of keeping the present arrangements for statutory wage determination across the agriculture sector, and have raised concerns about the size of this year's minimum wage awards. They have also acknowledged that the two International Labour Organisation conventions covering the terms and conditions of agricultural workers should now be denounced by the United Kingdom. Those conventions place constraints on the industry and prevent the introduction of the flexible working arrangements required by the modern labour market. Secondly, employees' representatives are seeking leave in the courts to bring judicial review proceedings against the board on the ground that its Wages Order determinations are indirectly discriminating against part-time agricultural workers. The board met on 24 June to consider this legal challenge and we understand that employers and employees' representative are consulting over the summer. There are some substantial and complex issues on employment and equal opportunities law which need examination.

  In view of these developments, I believe that we must pause and take stock before making our decision, so that we can take account of the result of these developments, the board's decision, and of course the views expressed during and since the consultation exercise. However, to ensure that we are free to make the arrangements that the industry will need, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be making an announcement shortly on the ILO conventions Nos. 99 and 101.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Information Systems Committee
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 48, if the policy arising from the DISC network policy project is currently being used by his Department; and if he will list the agencies which are using it.

  Mr. Key
  All data communications services currently in use in the Department and its agencies are consistent with the policy. The Central Transport Group, Marine Safety Agency and Transport Research Laboratory have commenced the procurement of common data communications services in accordance with the furtherance of the policy. The Highways Agency and Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency are currently conducting wide-ranging reviews of their requirements, including data communications, and are using the policy in assessing and selecting 716
  options. The remaining agencies will use the policy similarly in considering their on-going and future requirements.

  Private Detective Firms
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what fees have been paid to Brays Detective Agency in respect of its work at the Batheaston bypass to date;

  (2) what sum has been set aside in the budget for the Batheaston bypass for employing Brays Detective Agency or firms conducting similar work.

  Mr. Key
  These questions are an operational matter for the Highways Agency. The chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, is writing to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Don Foster, dated 12 July 1994:
  A4/A46 Batheaston:Swainswick Bypass
  I am writing in response to your two recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Transport about the cost of employing Brays Detective Agency to monitor events at the Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass. This is an operational matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
  As I have explained in response to your Parliamentary Question, PQ 2694, Brays are employed by our solicitors to support them in connection with possible legal action to gain control of the land on which the Batheaston Bypass is being built. A sum of £100,000 has been provisionally set aside in the budget for the Bypass to cover our solicitors' costs in employing Brays. To date, our solicitors have paid no fees to Brays in respect of their work at the Bypass; however, a payment of around £21,000 (including VAT) is about to be made.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls or guidelines exist within his Department regarding information on protestors gathered by private detectives.

  Mr. Key
  The information collected by private detectives on behalf of the Department's Highways Agency includes photographic and video records and written evidence of observations made. All are required to be carefully collated and catalogued to ensure that they would be acceptable before a court and would assist in the preparation of legal proceedings against trespassers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what central records are kept by his Department of protestors against road schemes; and how information gathered by private detectives is collated centrally by his Department.

  Mr. Key
  Neither the Department nor the Highways Agency keeps central records of protestors against road schemes. Nor do they collate centrally information gathered by private detectives.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which part of his Department private detectives gathering information on protestors are responsible.

  Mr. Key
  The private detectives gathering information on protestors are responsible to the Highways Agency.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 703, if he will list the three other locations at which

  717
  arrangements have been made for the gathering of information about protestors; which agency was used; and what was the cost.

  Mr. Key
  This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 12 July 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the three other locations at which arrangements have been made for the gathering of information on protestors. This is a matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
  The trunk road schemes involved are the A12 Hackney Wick-M11 Link (Contract 4), the A11 Besthorpe-Wymondham scheme in Norfolk and the A4/A46 Batheaston Bypass in Avon.
  In all cases Brays Detective Agency have been used. Expenditure to date has been around £50,000 for the A12 contract, £450 for the All contract and £21,000 at Batheaston.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the order in which the road schemes costing over £1 million will be constructed in each of the regions of the Highways Agency.

  Mr. Key
  As announced in Match of this year, the following 22 new contracts for schemes over £1 million are due to start in the current financial year. These are listed by Government office region:

  Northern

  A19 Norton—Parkway Interchange Imp

  A1 Shotton Slip Road

  Al9 Arcot Hall—Moor Farm

  North Western

  M6 J20–21A Bridge Renewal

  M66 Denton-Middleton Con 2

  M65 Blackburn Southern Bypass Con 2

  A568 Windnes Eastern Bypass South

  A66 Lamplugh Junction Improvement

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  A621/M1 Link Road

  A59 Skipton to Low Lodge

  East Midlands

  M1 J21–21A Widening Phase 1

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass and Derby Spur

  A564 Doveridge Bypass

  West Midlands

  A50 Blythe Bridge—Queensway Phase 2

  M5 Junction 3–4 Lighting

  Eastern

  M40 J1A-3 Widening

  A1(M) Alconbury—Peterborough Con 1

  A13 Wennington—Mar Dyke Imp

  A428 Bedford Southern Bypass

  South Eastern

  M25 J8–10 Widening

  A34 Chieveley/M4 J13 Imp

  A34 Newbury Bypass

  A249 Brielle Way

  M4 Junction 10 Lighting

  M40 Banbury Maintenance Compound

  A2 Lighting

  M27 Junction 4 Lighting

  South Western

  M5 J18–19 Widening

  718

  A30 Honiton—Exeter Imp

  London

  Al2 Hackney—M11 Link Con 2

  Al2 Hackney—Mll Link Con 3

  A406 Silver Street—Fore Street Imp

  The order in which these will start, and decisions on starts in future years is subject to the successful completion of statutory and contractual procedures, and availability of resources.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many studies on the economic impact of road building his Department has(a) carried out itself or (b) commissioned in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which road schemes have been authorised in the last 10 years which had a negative net present value; and which road schemes in the last 10 years have been rejected at the public inquiry stage or beyond, because they had a negative net present value.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: As the information requested relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 12 July 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about which roads have been authorised in the last 10 years which had a negative net present value, or had been rejected at public inquiry stage or beyond because they had a negative net present value.
  To the best of my knowledge, no road schemes have been authorised in the last 10 years which have a negative net present value. Neither have there been any road schemes rejected at public inquiry stage or beyond because they had a negative net present value.

  Marine Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he originally proposed to publish details on sub-standard ships detained in United Kingdom ports as recommended by the Donaldson inquiry; when he now proposes to do so; and what are the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. Norris
  In making his announcement on 17 May it was my right hon. Friend's intention that details of ships detained in United Kingdom ports should be published as soon as possible. The Marine Safety Agency is preparing the information in a format suitable for publication. The first set of results will be published shortly.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by police force area the number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  719

  Injury involving HGVs, by Police Force Area: Great Britain 1989–1993

  Accidents

  Police Force Code

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Metropolitan Police

  1,733

  1,684

  1,302

  1,169

  1,195

  Cumbria

  165

  176

  154

  156

  159

  Lancashire

  220

  281

  213

  237

  281

  Merseyside

  255

  292

  283

  286

  281

  Greater Manchester

  702

  667

  606

  573

  619

  Cheshire

  475

  403

  364

  339

  418

  Northumbria

  249

  255

  232

  184

  212

  Durham

  112

  124

  120

  113

  118

  North Yorkshire

  403

  347

  351

  312

  292

  West Yorkshire

  464

  454

  499

  441

  453

  South Yorkshire

  308

  292

  286

  269

  255

  Humberside

  219

  232

  214

  261

  230

  Cleveland

  91

  69

  87

  66

  63

  West Midlands

  495

  479

  407

  421

  414

  Staffordshire

  327

  355

  368

  363

  358

  West Mercia

  382

  366

  329

  290

  257

  Warwickshire

  247

  225

  176

  172

  191

  Derbyshire

  316

  303

  277

  280

  256

  Nottinghamshire

  320

  283

  289

  267

  259

  Lincolnshire

  278

  287

  219

  245

  246

  Leicestershire

  311

  315

  294

  269

  281

  Northamptonshire

  331

  291

  263

  228

  218

  Cambridgeshire

  376

  327

  281

  272

  264

  Norfolk

  322

  255

  260

  276

  227

  Suffolk

  234

  190

  159

  166

  160

  Bedfordshire

  252

  196

  157

  146

  165

  Hertfordshire

  317

  268

  233

  210

  287

  Essex

  621

  471

  427

  418

  456

  Thames Valley

  624

  517

  528

  508

  529

  Hampshire

  474

  440

  387

  362

  370

  Surrey

  320

  306

  233

  224

  224

  Kent

  477

  456

  375

  436

  429

  Sussex

  357

  321

  294

  283

  293

  City of London

  22

  31

  9

  8

  7

  Devon and Cornwall

  365

  344

  289

  259

  293

  Avon and Somerset

  319

  290

  265

  266

  254

  Gloucestershire

  154

  141

  130

  119

  130

  Wiltshire

  212

  211

  187

  193

  260

  Dorset

  178

  161

  147

  148

  144

  North Wales

  210

  196

  212

  182

  159

  Gwent

  107

  104

  113

  90

  91

  South Wales

  212

  228

  216

  225

  197

  Dyfed-Powys

  168

  207

  206

  197

  168

  Northern

  78

  83

  43

  62

  60

  Grampian

  121

  135

  145

  126

  114

  Tayside

  134

  133

  113

  105

  115

  Fife

  68

  50

  52

  52

  47

  Lothian and Borders

  216

  175

  154

  141

  140

  Central

  79

  47

  58

  56

  50

  Strathclyde

  611

  542

  519

  480

  397

  Dumfries and Galloway

  98

  89

  100

  73

  94

  Total

  16,107

  15,063

  13,616

  13,016

  13,173

  Vehicle Excise Offences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 521, if he will provide a detailed breakdown for each NFS—no further steps—code one to eight of 492,000 vehicle excise offence reports.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  NFS 1 Unable to trace offender

  143,643

  NFS 2 No offence

  40,366

  NFS 3 Summons not served

  21,738

  NFS 4 Unable to interview

  67,970

  NFS 5 Prosecution discontinued

  9,241

  NFS 6 Specified difficulties

  34,435

  720

  Number

  NFS 7 Out of time

  38,401

  NFS 8 Unactioned/Abandoned

  106,102

  Poole
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the preferred route for(a) the new Poole harbour crossing and (b) the Poole-A31 link road.

  Mr. Key
  I expect to announce our preferred route for these schemes shortly.

  London Underground Ltd.
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of 5 June 1991, report on London Underground Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Ltd. is today publishing its three-year response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, detailing the progress which has been made in implementing the report's recommendations, and the benefits which the implementation of the report has produced since it was published three years ago. This is London Underground's final response on the implementation of the report.

  The programme of work set out by the MMC in 1991 was an extremely wide-ranging one, touching on all aspects of the LUL organisation. Implementation of 101 of the report's 114 recommendations is now complete—an increase of 33 since their previous progress report two years ago. Two of the recommendations will not now be completed in the manner recommended by the MMC. Work on the rest, which are of a longer-term nature, will continue.

  A number of the developments which have taken place since 1991 are worthy of particular mention. In November 1991, London Underground responded to a number of the MMC's key concerns with the publication of its company plan. This set out ambitious proposals for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the business. Three years on, this initiative has delivered a reduction in staff numbers of more than 20 per cent. At the same time, the quality of London Underground's services has continued to improve, with consistently strong performance against the testing service quality targets which have been set by the Secretary of State and embodied in successive customer charters.

  Nine of the recommendations in the MMC report were directed wholly or partly towards the Government. Three of these—101, 105 and 111—were about performance indicators, three—70, 71 and 77—about fares, and three—10, 97 and 98—about the financial regime under which London Underground operates.

  Overall, the position on the first six of these has not altered substantively since the Government's own response of September 1991. Since 1991 we have set for London Underground three successive sets of performance indicators, increasingly based, in accordance with MMC recommendation 101, on measured customer satisfaction and on outputs rather than inputs. For the very latest set of objectives, which I announced in May this year, six out of the 10 objectives set are assessed on the basis of customer satisfaction.

  On fares, we remain unconvinced of the case for a formal fares contract between the Government and a nationalised industry. However, in general terms, the Government do not dissent from London Underground's view that there should continue to be some real fare increases over the next few years.

  There have, however, been two important developments on the financial side. The first has been introduction in the last few months, and consistent with the recommendation 10, of a greater degree of flexibility allowing nationalised industries such as London Transport to carry forward from one financial year to the next, any underspend, up to 5 per cent. of their external financing limit, provided that the amount carried forward is sent on investment. The second,
  722
  connected with recommendation 98, has been the opening up, through the Government's private finance initiative, of a greater range of opportunities for LUL to work with the private sector. The Government welcome the fact that London Underground is currently working up a range of PFI projects, and commend London Underground for the enthusiasm and commitment with which it has responded to this important initiative.

  The MMC made a number of recommendations about long-term planning for the network. The Government are continuing to work with LUL in developing a framework for strategic planning. Any such planning framework needs to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changes in demand and other external developments, including the level of funding available. As the Government's original response made clear, it is not possible to commit public funding years in advance, because of the need for the Government to retain sufficient flexibility to deal with changes in the macroeconomic environment, and competing calls elsewhere in the public sector.

  Within these constraints, London Underground is developing a more flexible approach to strategic planning, including—as recommended by the MMC—the development of a range of scenarios involving different levels of service and funding. It is also working to establish a greater understanding of the relationships between asset health, investment, and service performance. The Government welcome these steps, which will continue to be important building blocks in the evolution of future plans for the Underground.

  London has the world's oldest and most complex underground network. The task of modernising and upgrading it will be a difficult and costly one, and we need to be realistic about how quickly it can be achieved. But we believe that during the three years since the MMC report, the management and staff of London Ungerground have made a worthwhile start on this process.

  London Underground in 1994 is an organisation very different from that on which the MMC reported in 1991. While the Government have played their part by providing record levels of funding, the past three years have also seen substantial reforms and improvements in London Underground's own management, financial, and service performance. I would like to pay tribute to the MMC for the role which its comprehensive report played in initiating and directing this important process.

  Copies of LUL's response have been placed in the Library.

  Railways
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Rail Regulator will be undertaking consultation before approving access agreements for railway passenger services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Rail Regulator has today published two consultation documents, entitled "Framework for the Approval of Railtrack's Track Access Charges for Franchised Passenger Services" and "Competition for Railway Passenger Services". I am arranging for copies of both documents to be placed in the Library.

  British Rail Maintenance Ltd.
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport when the sale of British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and the level 5 maintenance depots will commence.

  Mr. Freeman
  Next week British Rail will have available, for suitable prospective bidders, a detailed information memorandum offering for sale its maintenance depots at Eastleigh, Doncaster, Wolverton, Ilford. Chart Leacon and Glasgow and an Electronic Service Centre at Swindon.

  For commercial and legal reasons, the memorandum will be available only to bona fide bidders who have signed a confidentiality undertaking. The principal areas covered by the memorandum are:

  The nature of the businesses and the overall market in which they operate;

  Future workload contracts;

  Management and employees, including pensions and travel facilities;

  The process for separating the businesses from British Rail;

  historical financial information.

  The six depots do a range of maintenance and repair work on vehicles and components such as bogies, but each tends to specialise in particular types of repair and of vehicle. The Swindon ESC repairs, produces and maintains a range of specialist equipment.

  The depots are to be sold as going concerns with workload contracts in place. Their customers will be the various businesses which now own rail rolling stock, principally the three rolling stock companies—ROSCOs—which have taken over BR's domestic passenger rolling stock fleets for leasing to train operators. Other customers include the freight businesses and Rail Express Systems, which is responsible for BR's business with the Post Office.

  The depots are being offered separately, though buyers will be encouraged to bid for more than one depot. In evaluating bids BR will have regard to a range of objectives, including the extent to which competition may be fostered in the heavy repair industry. I hope that bidders will include MEBO teams from the depots.

  BR will seek indicative bids by the end of August. I expect the sales to be completed by the end of the calendar year.

  Traffic Examiners
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport if he will list the number of traffic examiners responsible for road traffic enforcement in each county.

  Mr. Key
  The road transport enforcement division of the vehicle inspectorate is organised by area. As the areas cover more than one county an analysis by county cannot be given.

  The table details the current number of substantive traffic examiners involved directly in traffic enforcement work by area.

  A. Call-off contracts for the provision of ad-hoc advice/services on demand

  Consultant

  Period

  Paid to date

  Services provided

  Arthur Andersen & Co

  To end of July 1994

  £323,125

  Economics and financial analysis

  W. & J. Burness WS

  Ongoing

  Nil

  Legal advice

  724

  Number

  1. Highland, Grampian, Tayside

  4

  2. Strathclyde, Dumfries and Gallaway

  5

  3. Central, Fyfe, Lothian, Borders

  7

  4. Cumbria, Lancashire

  7

  5. Greater Manchester, Derbyshire

  7

  6. Merseyside, Cheshire, Clywd, Gwynedd

  7

  7. Staffordshire, Shropshire

  9

  8. West Midlands, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester

  8

  9. Gwent, Glamorgan, Dyfed, Powys

  6

  10. Gloucester, Avon, North Somerset, West Wiltshire

  6

  11. Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, West Somerset

  7

  12. Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, East Wiltshire

  8

  13. Surrey, West Sussex

  10

  14. Kent, East Sussex

  11

  15. London

  8

  16. Hertfordshire, Essex

  7

  17. Suffolk, Norfolk

  6

  18. Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire

  8

  19. Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire

  5

  20. Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire

  7

  21. Humberside

  5

  22. West and North Yorkshire

  9

  23. Cleveland, Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland

  7

  Rolling Stock Leasing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the indicative rolling stock leasing charges issued by the three rolling stock companies to train operating units, indicating for each train operating unit the specification of the rolling stock leased this year and the indicative charge for its use.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a commercial matter for BR.

  Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) of 22 March,Official Report, columns 283–84, if he will show for all consultants or other outside organisation or individuals currently or previously employed by the Office of the Rail Regulator (a) the name of the consultancy, organisation or individual, (b) the length of contract offered to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (c) the total amount inclusive of value added tax paid to date to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (d) the total amount inclusive of value added tax expected to be paid to each consultancy, organisation or individual and (e) the services required by the Office of the Rail Regulator from each consultancy, organisation or individual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: The Rail Regulator informs me that the consultants shown in the tables have been employed by his office.
  725

  Consultant

  Period

  Paid to date

  Services provided

  Slaughter & May

  Ongoing

  £260,230

  Legal advice

  Sedgwick UK Ltd

  Ongoing

  £6,374

  Advice insurance issues affecting the privatized rail industry

  B. Specific projects

  Consultant

  Paid to date

  Further payments due

  Services provided

  Kinsley Lord

  £18,048

  1—

  Review of organisation and structure

  W. S. Atkins

  Nil

  £8,400

  Health and Safety policy development and implementation

  Information Processing Ltd

  Nil

  £6,000

  Provision of advice and support on evaluation of IT network procurement

  Central Computing Communications Agency

  Nil

  £25,000

  Development of departmental information systems strategy

  Interconnect Communications Ltd

  £4,900

  £2,000

  Technical advice and support for purchase and installation of office telephone system

  1This will depend upon the detailed arrangements for subsequent stages of the assignment.

  In addition, Dr. Stephen Glaister and Mr. Gordon Pettitt have been appointed to provide advice as required in the fields of, respectively, transport economics and railway operational matters. It would not be appropriate to publish details of the terms of these personal appointments.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) of 22 March,Official Report, column 146, if he will show for all consultants or other outside organisations or individuals currently or previously employed by his Department for advice or assistance in rail privatisation, (a) the name of the

  £ million

  Linklaters & Paines

  Legal advice

  5·6

  Samuel Montagu

  Merchant banking

  2·0

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Accountancy & Taxation

  3·3

  Dewe Rogerson1

  Marketing

  0·7

  Shandwick

  Marketing

  0·0

  Ernst & Young

  Information systems

  0·8

  Richard Ellis

  Property matters

  0·4

  Sedgwick

  Insurance

  0·1

  Brodies

  Advice on Scots law

  0·02

  Travers Morgan

  Specialist advice on BRIS contract pricing

  0·0

  Ernst & Young

  Corporate finance advice on BRIS contract pricing

  0·0

  1Contract terminates on 12 August 1994.

  Future payments to these firms will depend on work done.

  £ million

  Arthur D. Little

  Research

  0·1

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Access and access charging

  2·3

  Mercer Management

  Freight and Franchising

  1·2

  Norman Broadbent

  Recruitment

  0·1

  Putnam Hayes and Bartlett

  Access and Access charging

  0·2

  Debenham Tewson and Chinnocks

  Property matters

  0·02

  NERA

  Regulatory matters

  1—

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Industry structure

  1—

  1Contracts completed prior to April 1991; information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  726
  Further payments will depend on future work commissioned.

  consultancy, organisation or individual, (b) the length of contract offered to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (c) the total amount inclusive of value added tax paid to date to each consultancy, organisation or individual, (d) the total amount inclusive of value added tax expected to be paid to each consultancy, organisation or individual and (e) the services required by his Department from each consultancy, organisation or individual; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 5 July 1994]: Consultants currently employed by the Department, the services they provide, and payments made to date are:

  Consultants previously employed by the Department, services provided and payments made were:
  727
  Contracts for consultancy advice are normally offered on an on-going basis with provision for the Department to terminate the contract.

  A number of individuals have been employed by the Department to advise on rail privatisation matters, but information on payments to such individuals is commercially confidential.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what figures are available for higher education students completing courses in the current year; and what estimates there are for how many(a) already have employment to go to (i) in their chosen career and (ii) in a temporary capacity and (b) will be claiming income support and related benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information is not yet centrally available on the numbers of graduates completing their studies in this academic year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what figures are available for drop-out rates in higher education for each term in the academic year for(a) dependent students and (b) independent/mature students for each academic year from 1980–81 to 1993–94; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Estimated United Kingdom education wastage rates for full-time and sandwich students studying for first degrees are published in the Department's annual report. The figures for the academic years between 1982–83 and 1991–92 are in that table. Data are not available on a termly basis and do not distinguish between students on the basis of mode of support or age.

  Academic year

  Percentage

  1982–83

  13

  1983–84

  14

  1984–85

  15

  1985–86

  14

  1986–87

  16

  1987–88

  17

  1988–89

  14

  1989–90

  16

  1990–91

  15

  1991–92

  17

  Source: Table 14: Department for Education and Office for Standards in Education: Departmental Report 1994

  Mature Students
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the figures for(a) mature students returning to education and (b) school further education leavers continuing in further education/higher education for each academic year from 1980–81 to 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  Numbers of mature home entrants—defined as those aged 21 and over at the start of an undergraduate course and aged 25 and over at the start of a postgraduate course—and home entrants of other ages to higher education are shown below. Data on the academic year beginning 1993 are not yet available.
  728

  Great Britain

  (000s)

  Academic year beginning

  Mature entrants

  Other entrants

  Total

  1980

  134·9

  180·9

  315·8

  1981

  139·7

  189·8

  329·5

  1982

  139·8

  193·1

  332·9

  1983

  149·7

  190·9

  340·6

  1984

  151·2

  192·8

  344·0

  1985

  168·3

  192·3

  360·6

  1986

  186·4

  191·7

  378·1

  1987

  186·6

  196·0

  382·6

  1988

  203·7

  199·8

  403·5

  1989

  216·2

  217·6

  433·8

  1990

  236·8

  231·6

  468·4

  1991

  278·2

  259·3

  537·5

  1992

  319·4

  281·6

  601·0

  Data on entrants to further education are not available on this basis.

  Sources: Mature Students in Higher Education Statistical Bulletins.

  Students (Employment Statistics)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what figures are available for students graduating in 1993 having entered(a) full-time careers, (b) temporary part-time employment, (c) post-graduate courses and (d) unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The first destinations of United Kingdom domiciled first degree students graduating in academic year 1992–93 from UFC-funded universities in England whose destinations are known are shown in the table:

  Numbers

  Employment

  28,700

  Further study

  15,500

  Not available for employment

  2,800

  Believed unemployed

  5,700

  (Source: Universities' Statistical Record)

  Some 9 per cent. of those identified in the answer as being employed reported themselves as being in temporary employment expected to end before 31 March 1994. In many cases these graduates continue in employment after this date. Information on the full or part-time status of employment is not centrally available.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimates are available for people intending to pursue(a) further education courses and (b) higher education courses for the academic year 1994–95; and of these what percentage are (i) school further education leavers and (ii) mature students returning to education.

  Mr. Boswell
  As at May, the number of applicants through central schemes to full-time higher education courses for admission in 1994 stood at some 378,000—virtually the same level as at May last year. This information is not broken down by the age of applicants, or their previous educational experience.

  Information is not collected centrally on applicants for further education courses since there is no central admission mechanism for further education colleges.

  EC Youth and Education Councils
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) of 5 July,Official Report, column 127, what was the voting record of each member state at the meetings of the European Community's Council of Youth Ministers and the Council of Education Ministers held on 6 and 21 June.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Council of Youth Ministers and the Council of Education Ministers respectively adopted common positions on the Youth for Europe III proposal and the SOCRATES proposal by unanimity. The Council of Education Ministers also adopted conclusions on the cultural and artistic apsects of education, again by unanimity. Votes were not taken on the other matters under discussion.

TREASURY

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date the figures in his answer of 8 January 1990,Official Report, columns 555–56, concerning real earnings after tax and child benefit, on the breakdown between manual and non-manual males to take account of the change in real earnings since April 1989 as well as changes in taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is given in the table.

  Increases1 in real earnings2 after income tax3 and child benefit of a married man with two children4, between April 1979 and April 1993

  Point of earnings distribution

  Percentage increase

  Manufacturing

  Non-manufacturing

  Manual males

  Lowest decile

  7

  9

  Lower quartile

  12

  15

  Median

  18

  19

  Higher quartile

  23

  22

  Highest decile

  28

  26

  Average earnings

  20

  20

  Non-manual males

  Lowest decile

  19

  21

  Lower quartile

  29

  30

  Median

  38

  41

  Higher quartile

  47

  49

  Entitlements for 1994–95 cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends Cash limits on Votes

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  II

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas representation

  13,940

  II

  3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  External broadcasting and monitoring

  2,749

  III

  4

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Agricultural, food and fishing services

  594

  III

  5

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Departmental research, advisory services and administration

  358

  IV

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and administration

  2,750

  V

  1

  Department of Employment

  Programmes and central services

  2,000

  V

  2

  Department of Employment

  Employment Service

  240

  V

  3

  Department of Employment

  Health and Safety Commission and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  654

  VI

  1

  Department of Transport

  Highways Agency

  45,192

  VI

  2

  Department of Transport

  Administration and transport services

  2,000

  VI

  4

  Department of Transport

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2,000

  VI

  5

  Department of Transport

  Roads and local transport

  2,552

  VI

  8

  Office of Rail Regulation

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  1,058

  VII

  5

  Department of the Environment

  Central environmental services, etc.

  836

  VII

  6

  Department of the Environment1

  Property Holdings and other services to government

  1

  730

  Point of earnings distribution

  Percentage increase

  Manufacturing

  Non-manufacturing

  Highest decile

  53

  57

  Average earnings

  45

  48

  Source: New Earnings Survey data and RPI (all items).

  1The increases shown do not relate to the same individuals at the different dates.

  2Earnings are those for full-time males on adult rates in Great Britain.

  3For April 1979, income tax is based on the tax regime in the Finance Act 1979.

  4Two children, both aged under 11.

  Manufactured Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps the Government take to predict the volume of imports and exports of manufactured independently of past and future movements in nominal and real exchange rates against both the ecu and non-ecu currencies;

  (2) what account the Government have taken of the divergent movements in both the nominal and the real exchange rate between the ecu and non-ecu currencies in recent years in producing economic forecasts.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's forecasts, including those for export and import volumes, are given in the summer economic forecast. As discussed there, they reflect a range of influences including competitiveness, world trade and domestic demand.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1994–95 resulting from the carry-forward of capital and running costs underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes.

  Mr. Portillo
  A list of entitlements totalling £523 million for capital expenditure and £269 million for running costs is shown in the following table.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, individual cash limits and running costs limits will be increased when entitlement is taken up.

  The total increase in cash limits resulting from the take-up of end-year flexibility will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  731

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  VII

  10

  Ordnance Survey

  Ordnance Survey

  1,354

  IX

  3

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  Administration of Justice

  1,554

  IX

  5

  Public Record Office

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  IX

  12

  The Crown Office, Scotland

  Procurator Fiscal Service and Lord Advocate's Department: administration

  597

  X

  1

  Department for Education

  Schools, research and miscellaneous services

  3,538

  X

  4

  Department for Education

  Administration

  1,886

  XI

  1

  Department of National Heritage

  Museums and Galleries

  134

  XI

  2

  Department of National Heritage

  Arts

  818

  XI

  6

  Department of National Heritage

  Royal palaces, Historic Royal Palaces Agency, Royal Parks Agency, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage

  998

  XII

  1

  Department of Health2

  Hospital, community health, family health services (part), and related services, England

  236,920

  XII

  3

  Department of Health2

  Administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England

  15,898

  XII

  6

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  318

  XIII

  4

  Department of Social Security

  Administration and miscellaneous services

  10,980

  XIV

  2

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Agricultural services, agricultural grants and fisheries, Scotland

  2,000

  XIV

  3

  Industry Department for Scotland

  Training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland

  3,508

  XIV

  7

  Scottish Office Environment Department

  Housing and environmental services, Scotland

  204

  XIV

  12

  The Scottish Home and2 Health Department

  Law, order and miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland

  1,338

  XIV

  14

  The Scottish Home and2 Health Department

  Hospital, community health, family health (part), and other health services and NHS trusts external financing, Scotland

  22,592

  XIV

  17

  Scottish Education Department

  Education, arts and libraries, Scotland

  474

  XIV

  19

  The Scottish Courts Administration

  Administration of Justice, Scotland

  416

  XIV

  21

  The Scottish Office

  The Scottish Office: administration

  167

  XIV

  22

  The Scottish Record Office

  The Scottish Record Office

  982

  XIV

  23

  The General Register Office for Scotland

  General Register Office for Scotland

  237

  XV

  2

  Welsh Office

  Agricultural support and services, fishing; regional assistance and industrial development, Wales

  7,359

  XV

  5

  Welsh Office

  Tourism, roads and transport, housing, other environmental services (including civil defence), arts and libraries and health and personal social services, Wales

  3,479

  XV

  8

  Welsh Office2

  Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales

  5,344

  XVI

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  Administration, law, order, protective and miscellaneous services

  1,561

  XVII

  1

  H.M. Treasury

  H.M. Treasury

  2,000

  XVII

  5

  Inland Revenue

  Administration

  695

  XVII

  9

  Department for National Savings

  Department for National Savings

  488

  XVII

  12

  The Office of H.M. Paymaster General

  The Office of H.M. Paymaster General

  1,023

  XVIII

  1

  Cabinet Office

  Office of Public Service and Science

  1,544

  Total Voted

  409,330

  1This is a token Vote. Carryforward will be taken in the form of increased appropriations in aid of £13,642,000.

  2Special health scheme.

  Cash limits on non-voted expenditure and NHS Trusts external financing limits 1993–94

  Cash block

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  DOE/HC

  Department of the Environment

  Grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England

  434

  DOE/NT

  Department of the Environment

  Net capital expenditure by the Commission for the New Towns and Letchworth Garden City Development Corporation for housing, roads, commercial and industrial investment and certain water services

  1,628

  DOE/UA

  Department of the Environment1

  External financing requirements of Urban Development Corporations in England, grants to local authorities and other bodies under the urban programme, the derelict land reclamation and city grant programmes (including associated LA credit approvals), grants for urban and housing projects under the City Challenge Initiative and other expenditure for inner cities initiatives

  35,025

  DOE/LACAP

  Department of the Environment

  Basic credit approvals to local authorities in England for housing, transport (except passenger transport authorities), education, health, 'other services' and Home Office (fire services in shires only). Supplementary credit approvals, specified capital grants and certain other grants to local authorities in England for housing. Supplementary credit approvals to certain local authorities for all capital purposes to offset some categories of commutation losses

  530

  732 733

  Cash block

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  DOE/OES

  Department of the Environment

  Supplementary credit approvals for other environmental services in England, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and the Isles of Scilly (water and sewarage)

  2,384

  DOT/LACAP

  Department of Transport

  Supplementary credit approvals for transport in England. Basic credit approvals for passenger transport authorities

  9,155

  DOH/LACAP

  Department of Health

  Supplementary credit approvals for health in England

  1,185

  LCD/LACAP

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Supplementary credit approvals for magistrates' courts in England and Wales

  700

  MAFF/LACAP

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  Supplementary credit approvals for flood defence and coast protection and harbour improvements in England

  780

  NID1

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Services in Northern Ireland broadly analogous to services in Great Britain covered by cash limits but including family practitioner services

  12,731

  SO/LA1

  Scottish Office

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for roads and transport, water and sewerage, police, education, social work services, general services, urban programme, river purification and civil defence

  11,850

  SO/LA2

  Scottish Office

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for housing. Capital expenditure by New Towns in Scotland for housing and other environmental services

  13,215

  WO/LACAP

  Welsh Office

  Basic credit approvals for local authorities in Wales. Supplementary credit approvals for all services (except urban programme and urban development grant) and housing capital grants

  7,422

  WO/UA

  Welsh Office2

  Supplementary credit approvals and grants (both capital and current) to local authorities in Wales in respect of the urban programme and Urban Development Grant. Urban Investment Grant and expenditure by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  4,140

  NHS Trusts (Scotland)

  Scottish Office

  7,116

  NHS Trusts (Wales)

  Welsh Office

  5,414

  Total Non Voted and NHS Trusts

  113,709

  Total Capital End Year flexibility

  523,039

  1DOE/UA has been superseded by 1994–95 cash block DOE/RI, which incorporates all the elements which were included in DOE/UA as well as programmes which have been transferred from other departments and elsewhere within DOE. The EYF entitlement has been calculated on the basis of capital underspends covered by DOE/RI.

  2Entitlement will be taken up on Class XV Vote 5 and WO/LACAP.

  Entitlements for 1994–95 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running costs underspends

  Department

  £ thousands

  Overseas Development Administration

  860

  Intervention Board—Executive Agency

  1,012

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  7,329

  Trade and Industry

  14,549

  Office of Telecommunications

  171

  Department of Employment

  14,961

  Department of Transport

  4,743

  Department of the Environment

  8,669

  Property Holdings

  1,906

  Office of Water Services

  1,017

  Charity Commission

  920

  Home Office

  41,543

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  2,177

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  94

  Crown Prosecution Service

  5,404

  Public Record Office

  196

  Crown Office

  631

  Department for Education

  4,061

  Department of National Heritage

  1,902

  Department of Health

  12,107

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  1,512

  Department of Social Security

  66,474

  Scottish Office

  5,810

  Scottish Courts Administration

  677

  Scottish Record Office

  231

  General Register Office

  307

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  95

  734

  Department

  £ thousands

  Welsh Office

  948

  Northern Ireland Office and Departments

  13,324

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  4,315

  Customs and Excise

  26,329

  Inland Revenue

  17,274

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  171

  Department for National Savings

  879

  Central Statistical Office

  105

  Government Actuary's Department

  132

  Office of Public Service and Science

  5,555

  Cabinet Office

  712

  Privy Council Office

  160

  Total

  269,262

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the triennial review of the Royal Mint.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The triennial review of the Royal Mint executive agency has now been completed, and a summary of the evaluation report has been placed in the Library.

  The Mint provided United Kingdom coins in the quantities and at the times required by the public. It also maintained its position as the world's leading exporter of

  735
  coins taking more than 50 per cent. of the available market. During the three years covered by the review, the Mint achieved an average annual rate of return of 23·2 per cent. compared with a target of 12·5 per cent. and exceeded most of its other performance targets.

  While I have decided that there should be no change in the Mint's status as an executive agency, I have asked officials to review the arrangements under which United Kingdom coins are purchased so as to encourage further improvements in the Mint's performance.

  Procurement
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in improving value for money in Government procurement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Treasury has today published the annual report of its procurement group on progress made in Government procurement.

  The group offers advice and guidance to Departments on policy, best practice and the achievement of value for money in public procurement and the management of construction projects.

  The report notes that most Departments significantly exceeded their 1992–93 purchasing savings targets. These targets are set to encourage them to seek better value for money in procurement. In the sample area, where total spending is £3·4 billion, savings of £166 million were registered. For 1993–94 Departments have set a collective savings target of 3·5 per cent. The main message of the report is that while progress continues to be made in improving performance in Government procurement, in the management of construction projects and in increasing professionalism and value for money, further work is required if procurement staff are to take full advantage of market opportunities.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the annual report of the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Nelson
  A copy of the board's report, made in accordance with section 117 of the Financial Services Act 1986, was laid before Parliament today. The report covers the period from 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  EC Budget Contribution
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the principal reasons for the difference between the projected gross United Kingdom contribution after abatement to the preliminary draft budget of the European Communities for 1995 and the 1994 gross contribution; and what action he is taking on this.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The main reasons are the lower abatement of our VAT contributions in the 1995 preliminary draft budget relative to the 1994 Budget, because our net contribution in 1994 is relatively low; the higher rate of growth in the United Kingdom's economy relative to that of other member states; and the
  736
  increase proposed by the Commission in the 1995 PDB. The latter is currently under negotiation and will be given First reading by the Budget Council on 25 July.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Nelson
  [holding answer 12 July 1994]: Forward: Civil Service Catering, which was formerly part of the Treasury, was privatised in February 1994. There are no plans for any further privatisations at present.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) those contracts awarded by his Department to private sector companies as a result of the Government's market-testing policy and (b) the total number of bids for each contract awarded to private sector companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Service

  Number of contracts

  Number of bidders

  Review of scope for market testing

  1

  4

  Library services

  2

  10

  Economic Model Building

  1

  4

  Personnel Statistics1

  1

  6

  Treasury Security Guard1

  2

  14

  1Still in progress.

EMPLOYMENT

  Cricket Professionals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what decisions were made by his Department in the case of John Pollard, cricket professional for Ebenwood cricket club, and his applications for a work permit over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department has approved work permit applications by Evenwood cricket club to employ John Pollard in each of the last three seasons. The latest application was granted on appeal following confirmation of Mr. Pollard's first-class status.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates are available for average wages currently being offered to school leavers in(a) full-time permanent jobs, (b) part-time jobs and (c) temporary employment for (i) England, (ii) the north-west, (iii) Lancashire and (iv) Burnley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information taken from the new earnings survey is given in the following table. Information is not available for the north-west, Lancashire and Burnley because the sample sizes are too small.
  737

  Average gross weekly earnings of employees on all rates—pay unaffected by absence: April 1993

  England

  Including overtime £

  Aged 16—full time

  97·5

  Aged under 18—full time

  109·6

  Aged 16—part time

  39·2

  Aged under18—part time

  44·0

  Source: April 1993 New Earnings Survey.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what figures are available for school leavers unemployed(a) upon leaving school, (b) one months after leaving, (c) one to three months after leaving, (d) three to 12 months after leaving and (e) one to three years after leaving.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information taken from the most recent youth cohort studies of England and Wales is given in the following table:

  Proportion of school leavers who were out of work after leaving school

  16 and 17-year-old school leavers Per cent.

  18-year-old school leavers Per cent.

  Percentage remaining out of work immediately after leaving school

  20

  30

  Percentage remaining out of work 1 month after leaving school

  17

  24

  Percentage remaining out of work 3 months after leaving school

  10

  13

  Percentage remaining out of work 12 months after leaving school

  2

  2

  Source: The Youth Cohort Study of England and Wales. (Data for 16 and 17 year old school leavers was taken from Cohort 6 Sweeps 1 and 2 which were conducted in Spring 1992 and Spring 1993 and data for 18 year old school leavers was taken Cohort 5 Sweep 3 which was conducted in Spring 1993).

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what figures and percentage terms are available for school leavers(a) entering part-time employment, (b) entering full-time employment and (c) entering temporary employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information in the following table has been taken from the youth cohort study of England and Wales. The study does not collect information on those young people who are in temporary employment.

  Proportion of young people in full-time or part-time employment in the spring after leaving school

  16/17 year olds Spring 1992 Per cent.

  17/18 year olds Spring 1993 Per cent.

  18/19 year olds Spring Per cent.

  Percentage in full-time employment

  39

  39

  59

  Percentage in part-time employment

  5

  10

  11

  Source: The Youth Cohort Study of England and Wales (Cohort 6 Sweep 1 and 2 and Cohort 5 Sweep 3).

  Race Relations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will consult local authorities before authorising any changes in the administration of the race relations employment advisory service or obliging market testing of the service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no need for the Department to consult local authorities before making any changes to the administration of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service or market-testing the service. RREAS is a self-contained organisation which offers advice and guidance on racial equality in employment directly to employers in the private and public sectors. There is no reason why any changes in its administration or management should impact on the work of local authorities.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria his Department is using in considering whether the race relations employment advisory service should be market tested; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's policy, as set out in the White Paper "Competing for Quality"—November 1992, Cm. 1730—is to provide high-quality public services in the most cost-effective way.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of the working week for those in full-time employment in the United Kingdom and in the other countries of the European Union.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimates from the spring 1993 Labour Force Survey for the United Kingdom show that the average usual total weekly hours worked by full-time employees in their main job was 43·5 hours.

  Most recent international comparisons of average hours worked relate to LFS results for spring 1991 and are published by EUROSTAT. These estimates are given in the table:

  Employees working Full-time

  Average hours usually worked per week

  United Kingdom

  43·4

  Portugal

  41·5

  Spain

  40·5

  Ireland

  40·4

  Greece

  40·3

  FR Germany

  39·8

  Luxembourg

  39·8

  France

  39·7

  Netherlands

  38·9

  Italy

  38·7

  Denmark

  38·4

  Belgium

  38·0

  EU 12 average

  40·3

  Source: EUROSTAT Labour Force Survey results 1991.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people(a) joined and (b) left the unemployment register for each of the last 12 months for (i) Burnley, (ii) Lancashire, (iii) the north-west and (iv) England; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the numbers of people entering and leaving claimaint unemployment on the unadjusted basis can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what figures are available for(a) Burnley, (b) Lancashire, (c) the north-west and (d) England for those unemployed by duration of (i) less than three months, (ii) three to 12 months; (iii) one to three years and (iv) three years and more; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the levels of claimant unemployment by duration is available on the unadjusted basis only, for the months of January, April, July and Otober. It can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response his Department is making to levels of unemployment among ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Service provides a range of specific measures aimed at helping unemployed people obtain work, including those from ethnic minorities. Training programmes administered by training and enterprise councils on the Employment Department's behalf are available to all those eligible, regardless of their racial origin. The Race Relations Employment Advisory Service, and various ED publications, help employers to provide equality of opportunity.

  Training
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to ensure that adequate training provision is made for young people with special needs under the commitment to youth training made in the White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win".

  Miss Widdecombe
  The White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" restates the Government's commitment to the guarantee of a suitable training place to all 16 and 17-year-old school leavers who are unable to find a job and are seeking training. The guarantee is delivered locally by training and enterprise councils and meets the needs of individuals whatever their ability or training needs.

  Employment Schemes, London
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) for how long unemployed people are currently waiting to attend the job search seminars at each employment centre in the London region from the date they first applied;

  (2) for how long unemployed people are currently waiting to take up the new Restart courses at each employment centre in London from the date they first applied;
  740
  (3) for how long unemployed people are currently waiting to attend the job review workshops at each employment centre in London from the date they first applied.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Jim Dowd, dated 14 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions regarding how long unemployed people are currently waiting to attend Job Search Seminars, Job Review Workshops and New Restart Courses in each employment centre in the London region from the date they first applied. I am replying in the Chief Executive's absence.
  Employment Service (ES) programmes are designed to give specific help to unemployed people at certain stages of their unemployment. Job Search Seminars and Job Review Workshops are available to clients who have been unemployed for 13 weeks whereas New Restart is a mandatory programme for clients who have been unemployed for two years. The ES and the client will only gain maximum benefit from the assistance and guidance offered by any particular programme if the referral is made at the appropriate time. The ES Structure review which was implemented in April this year has placed the responsiblity on our District Managers to provide suitable ES programmes and ensure that those programmes are filled. By devolving responsibility in this way we aim to ensure that programme waiting lists are reduced and that the right provision is in the right place at the right time.
  Greater London is divided into nine District Offices covering 147 Employment Service Jobcentres, Jobcentres and Unemployment Benefit Offices. In order to supply an immediate reply to your questions I have contacted a representative sample of offices in each of the nine Districts and can give you average waiting times for each of the programmes as follows:
  Job search seminars. The average wait is two-three weeks north of the Thames and four weeks south of the Thames.
  Job Review Workshops. The average wait is two-three weeks both north and south of the Thames.
  New Restart. The average wait is three weeks both north and south of the Thames.
  The above figures indicate that in London, generally, our local management policy is working but we are not complacent as we know that waiting lists for some programmes in some Districts are longer. I have asked our Programmes Manager, David Young, to review programmes provision to ensure that our clients' needs are best met in all Districts.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Helen Tinney
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive updates its practices and procedures to take account of the report of the fatal accident inquiry into the death of Mrs. Helen Tinney of Gorbals, Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 July 1994]: The Health and Safety Executive has studied the report on the fatal accident inquiry with care. The executive is promoting and participating in a revision of the British Standard, No. 5607/BS6187, which sets out the technical requirements applicable to the use of explosives in demolition. The revision will take into account the demolition by explosives of high-rise buildings.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  BBC (Security Passes)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) how many passes giving access to the Palace of Westminster, other than Lobby or Gallery passes, have been allocated to the British Broadcasting Corporation;

  (2) how many Lobby and Gallery passes have been allocated to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that the British Broadcasting Corporation has been issued with 42 photo-identity passes for the Press Gallery and Lobby, and with 102 such passes for other parts of the Palace of Westminster.

  Jubilee Line Construction
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what effect the current delays in the construction of the Jubilee line will have on the timetable for the new building for parliamentary offices.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  My Committee fully recognises the critical effect of the rebuilding of Westminster station on the construction programme of the new parliamentary building. It therefore recommended in its second report of Session 1991–92 (HC 358) that a steering group of officials should be established to monitor progress, to give directions to the project teams of London Underground Ltd. and the new parliamentary building on matters affecting the interface between the two schemes and to report monthly to the Committee. That group includes in its membership the managing director of LUL and the director of the Jubilee line extension project. The Committee's recommendation was subsequently incorporated into the legal agreement between the House and London Underground which now governs the development of the site.

  The Committee has now considered the second of these monthly reports and has been advised by the steering group

  Income Support claimants by age, gender and region (thousands)

  North western region

  England

  Age

  Males

  Females

  All claimants

  Males

  Females

  All claimants

  16–19

  22

  22

  44

  137

  129

  266

  20–29

  114

  110

  224

  712

  617

  1,329

  30–39

  74

  64

  138

  493

  999

  892

  40–49

  52

  37

  89

  333

  224

  557

  50–59

  39

  27

  66

  245

  152

  397

  60–69

  37

  35

  72

  224

  192

  416

  70–79

  19

  59

  79

  111

  339

  450

  80+

  17

  83

  100

  115

  485

  599

  All ages

  375

  437

  812

  2,370

  2,536

  4,906

  Notes:

  Source: Income Support Quarterly Enquiry, August 1993.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. The North Western Region is one of the Social Security administrative regions used by the Department prior to 1988.

  Benefits Repayments
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances private individuals are required to repay contributory, non-means tested benefits 742
  that, after four months on site, work is not proceeding as well as expected; is behind schedule; and that LUL has instructed its contractor to reprogramme the work. The Committee has been advised by the steering group that, notwithstanding these delays, LUL is confident the site will be handed back on schedule in February 1997. The Committee nevertheless remains concerned about this slippage so early in the programme and has therefore invited the managing director of LUL to complement his contribution to the steering group with regular meetings with the Committee. That invitation has now been accepted and the first of these meetings is expected to take place this autumn.

  The target date for completion of the new parliamentary building remains at August 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) claimed and (b) were awarded non-contributory invalidity benefit following entitlement to statutory sick pay where the claimant suffered an industrial injury for the period (i) between April 1992 to April 1993, (ii) April 1993 to April 1994 and (iii) in total since April 1983.

  Mr. Scott
  Information from April 1992 is not yet available and figures from April 1983 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what figures are available for people claiming income support by(a) gender and (b) age for (i) Burnley, (ii) Lancashire, (iii) the north West and (iv) England for the latest month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  to his Department; what plans the Government have to extend the scope of such repayments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Repayments of benefit can be required when an adjudication officer decides that an overpayment
  743
  has been caused by a person's misrepresentation, or failure to disclose, any material fact; or when there has been a civil action under common law.

  In certain circumstances, legislation provides for recovery of moneys paid to individual benefit claimants, thus

  (1) when Income Support is paid (or paid at a higher rate) because of the late payment of a contributory or other non-means tested benefit, the sum involved may be recovered before any payment of arrears is made.

  (2) an amount equivalent to the value of relevant benefits should be deducted and paid to the Department for cases which fall under the provisions of the Compensation Recovery Scheme. Normally this deduction is made by the compensator just before the personal injury damages are paid to the individual who made the claim.

  We have no plans to extend the scope of these arrangements.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the next edition of "Households Below Average Income" statistics will be published.

  Mr. Burt
  The new edition of the household below average income—HBAI—statistics, covering the years 1979 to 1991–92, has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The figures show that average disposable household incomes have grown in real terms by 36 per cent. between 1979 and 1991–92. Increases were not confined to a few top earners, and there have been appreciable increases in average incomes for all family types and economic status groups. Pensioners have done particularly well, with pensioner couples showing an increase in average income of up to 56 per cent. after housing costs and 46 per cent. before housing costs.

  A complex picture emerges in the outcomes for the lower-incomes groups. This edition captures a particular point in the economic cycle when unemployment peaked, prior to the downward trend that followed. Interest rates had begun to fall, but were still much higher than their current levels. Another significant fctor is the potentially misleading impression given by the very low incomes reported by an increasing number of self-employed families. Analysis, in particular of the expenditure of these households reporting zero or negative incomes, shows that their spending patterns would place them in the top half of the income distribution. Indeed, there is evidence that the living standards, as measured by expenditure, of the bottom income 10 per cent. may be no lower than that of the second 10 per cent. There has also been a marked increase in their possession of consumer durables. The results shown in HBAI for the lowest income group cannot, therefore, be interpreted simply and should be treated with some caution.

  The new family resources survey, which is due to replace the family expenditure survey as the data source for HBAI, will place special emphasis on gathering information from households on low incomes and so should help to improve the reliability of the information.

  Carers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of the social security budget is allocated for the financial support of carers;
  744
  (2) what was the total cost of the allowance paid to carers in the last year; and how many carers received the invalidity allowance;

  (3) what proposals there are to increase that part of the social security budget applied to the carers allowance and carers invalidity allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Carers may be entitled to a wide range of benefits and financial support, which are not subject to cash-limiting or budget-allocation.

  Expenditure for 1994–95 on invalid care allowance, which is specifically intended for carers, is estimated to constitute 0·61 per cent. of the social security budget, excluding administration.

  The estimated expenditure for invalid care allowance for 1993–94 is £433 million1 and £510 million for 1994–95.2

  The latest estimate of those in receipt of ICA is 249,988 as at 4 July 1994.3
  Notes1From the Departmental Report 1994.2From the Departmental Report 19943Source: the ICA Unit, based on 100 per cent. count, subject to amendment.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers(a) receive and (b) do not receive the invalid care allowance (i) nationally and (ii) in Coventry.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 4 July 1994, there were 249,988 people in receipt of invalid care allowance in Great Britain.1 Figures are not available for numbers of carers in receipt of ICA in Coventry and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the numbers of carers not in receipt nationally or in Coventry is not available.

  1Source:—the ICA Unit, based on 100 per cent. count, subject to amendment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what precentage of carers receive the carers invalidity benefit(a) in Coventry and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Scott
  No such benefit as carers invalidity benefit exists, however, it is estimated that nationally 3·71 per cent. of carers receive invalid care allowance. Separate figures are not available for Coventry.

  Source:

  1Based on General Household Survey 1990 estimate.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to bring the carers allowance in line with national average earnings.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so. Invalid care allowance provides a measure of income maintenance and is not intended to be a wage for carers.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received from carers organisations regarding(a) the carers allowance, (b) the stress factor and (c) the carers disability allowance;

  (2) if he will name the carers organisations who have made representations to him about help to carers (a) from Coventry and (b) nationally;

  (3) how many individuals have made representations to him about help for carers.

  Mr. Scott
  In the year ending 30 June 1994 representations were received from Coventry Carers
  745
  Forum, and other organisations including Caring Costs, Carers National Association, Alzheimer's Disease Society, Oxfordshire Carers Forum, Sutton Carers Forum, Barnet Carers Forum, RADAR.

  Representations were also received from 266 individuals.

  Representations have been received regarding the rate at which invalid care allowance is paid and the conditions of entitlement to ICA. These sometimes refer to the stress involved in caring.

  No such benefit as carers disability allowance exists.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he plans to the carers allowance and carers invalidity allowance for the current year.

  Mr. Scott
  As a result of the European Court ruling in the case of Thomas and others, we will shortly be legislating under the European Communities Act to equalise the age limits for claiming invalid care allowance and severe disablement allowance for men and women at 65.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his proposals for encouraging more people to become carers.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government recognise the contribution made by carers to society, and will continue to keep carers' benefits and other assistance under review.

  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount spent in each year between 1988–89 and 1993–94 on rent rebates and rent allowances both in current prices and in constant 1993–94 prices; if, following the Treasury's Summer Economic Forecast 1994, he will publish projections for each of the years from 1994–95 to 1996–97; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is in the table. The projections for 1994–95 to 1996–97 will be announced at the time of the Budget and will be published in due course in the departmental report.

  £ million

  Year

  Rent rebate

  Rent allownace

  Expenditure in cash prices

  1988–89

  2,718

  1,055

  1989–90

  2,946

  1,336

  1990–91

  3,345

  1,579

  1991–92

  3,675

  2,322

  1992–93

  4,347

  3,257

  11993–94

  5,004

  3,817

  Expenditure in 1993–94 prices

  1988–89

  3,581

  1,390

  1989–90

  3,629

  1,646

  1990–91

  3,813

  1,821

  1991–92

  3,940

  2,490

  1992–93

  4,488

  3,363

  11993–94

  5,004

  3,817

  Data source: The 1994 Social Security Departmental Report.

  1The figures for 1993–94 are estimated expenditure only.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average time taken to process housing benefit claims last year.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. Latest available data, for 1992–93, show that 75 per cent. of all claims to housing benefit were processed within 14 days of the local authority receiving all the relevant information.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Child Support Agency staff have received performance-related pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 13 July 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on performance related pay within the Child Support Agency.
  The Child Support Agency operates its performance related pay scheme within the terms of the national pay arrangements agreed by the Treasury and Civil Service Trades Unions.
  The level of any individual's performance related progression is governed by the Agency's annual performance appraisal arrangements. Each member of staff is set a number of work and personal objectives, tailored to meet their experience and ability, which are assessed each year by their line manager. Any entitlement to performance related pay is then awarded in recognition of the level of performance achieved.
  There is no direct correlation between the pay of staff employed by the Agency and the amount of maintenance they secure or the number of absent parents they locate.
  The Agency now employs 5,268 permanent staff, including 488·5 in Northern Ireland, all of whom are eligible for consideration for an award of performance related pay based upon the agreed arrangements which are available for inspection in the Library.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much the public appointments unit cost to run in 1993.

  Mr. David Davis
  The cost of running the public appointments unit in 1993–94 was £237,820.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff are currently employed in the public appointments unit.

  Mr. David Davis
  Apart from the director and deputy director, who combine these roles with other duties in the OPSS, there are nine staff, two of whom work part-time.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether all Government Departments are subject to the citizens charter.
  747
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. The citizens charter applies to all public services and the regulated privatised utilities.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key performance targets he has set for the Civil Service College executive agency for the current year.

  Mr. David Davis
  The key performance targets for the Civil Service College executive agency for 1994–95 are:

  to breakeven in accrual accounting terms taking into account the Central Payment from the Cabinet Office (OPSS);

  to earn £600,000 from consultancy work;

  to attract 7,800 students at Grade 7 or above;

  to attract 990 students from the private sector;

  to earn 80 per cent. of course evaluations in the two highest (of six) categories.

  There is also a longer-term objective of obtaining a 10 per cent. increase in efficiency over the period 1991–92 to 1995–96.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets have been set for the Central Office of Information in 1994–95.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Central Office of Information has five targets for the 1994–95 financial year. They are:

  (i) to break even in current cost terms after recovering all costs, including interest on borrowings;

  (ii) to achieve a 2 per cent. reduction in unit cost of output in real terms, while maintaining suitable levels of quality;

  (iii) to equal or better the proportion of work delivered in accordance with client specification during 1993–94;

  (iv) to equal or better the proportion of work delivered on time during 1993–94; and

  (v) to achieve an average score of 7.7 out of 10 for the new COI customer satisfaction index.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the legal fees incurred by the Cardiff Bay development corporation form part of its management running costs.

  Mr. Redwood
  Legal fees incurred are charged to the administrative running cost and programme budgets as appropriate.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by wave the start-up costs for each NHS trust hospital.

  Numbers of school children killed and injured in Wales 1991–19931.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  42

  2

  59

  0

  50

  Colwyn

  0

  38

  0

  40

  0

  47

  Delyn

  1

  78

  0

  65

  0

  52

  Glyndwr

  0

  31

  2

  34

  0

  36

  Rhuddlan

  0

  52

  0

  68

  0

  46

  Wrexham

  2

  85

  0

  51

  4

  61

  748
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Prior to their operational dates, the contribution made available for the shadow running period of established NHS trusts was as follows:

  1992 £104,000.

  1993 £215,000 (South and East Wales Ambulance £300,000).

  1994 £275,000.

  Welsh Consumer Council
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is responsible for control of the spending in Wales of the Welsh Consumer Council.

  Mr. Redwood
  The President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the funding of the Welsh Consumer Council, through the Department of Trade and Industry's grant to the National Consumer Council. The control of the WCC's expenditure rests with the NCC and the council itself.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in regard to the future institutional arrangements for the Environment Agency in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Discussions on the future institutional arrangements for the Environment Agency are taking place between the Ministers involved, and at official level, on a continuing basis.

  Schools (Road Safety)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each education authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole, the number of primary and of secondary schools operating road safety programmes in each of the last three years; and what was the percentage of such schools as a proportion of the total number of primary and of secondary schools in each case.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to collect details of road safety education programmes in primary and secondary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have no such plans at present.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many school children were(a) killed and (b) injured in road accidents in each of the last three years for which information is available in each district and county council area and in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the following table:
  749

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Clwyd

  3

  326

  4

  317

  4

  292

  Carmarthen

  1

  37

  0

  47

  0

  39

  Ceredigion

  0

  43

  0

  42

  1

  42

  Dinefwr

  0

  22

  0

  25

  0

  24

  Llanelli

  1

  43

  1

  49

  0

  38

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  0

  45

  0

  53

  0

  29

  South Pembrokeshire

  0

  42

  0

  35

  0

  96

  Dyfed

  2

  232

  1

  251

  1

  268

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  51

  0

  42

  0

  31

  Islwyn

  0

  24

  0

  29

  0

  19

  Monmouth

  1

  48

  1

  33

  0

  37

  Newport

  2

  84

  0

  79

  0

  60

  Torfaen

  1

  62

  0

  47

  2

  29

  Gwent

  4

  269

  1

  230

  2

  176

  Aberconwy

  0

  35

  0

  39

  0

  37

  Arfon

  1

  43

  0

  32

  2

  121

  Dwyfor

  0

  21

  0

  12

  1

  17

  Meirionydd

  0

  29

  0

  43

  0

  32

  Ynys Mon

  1

  32

  0

  48

  0

  48

  Gwynedd

  2

  160

  0

  174

  3

  255

  Cynon Valley

  0

  25

  0

  35

  0

  37

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  34

  0

  46

  0

  35

  Ogwr

  0

  81

  1

  97

  1

  92

  Rhondda

  0

  61

  1

  70

  0

  64

  Rhymney Valley

  4

  65

  1

  54

  1

  74

  Taff Ely

  0

  69

  1

  68

  0

  68

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  335

  4

  370

  2

  370

  Brecknock

  0

  31

  0

  33

  0

  22

  Montgomeryshire

  0

  42

  0

  25

  0

  31

  Radnorshire

  1

  10

  2

  17

  0

  7

  Powys

  1

  83

  2

  75

  0

  60

  Cardiff

  1

  227

  2

  192

  1

  187

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  70

  1

  56

  2

  69

  South Glamorgan

  1

  297

  3

  248

  3

  256

  Lliw Valley

  0

  40

  0

  51

  0

  42

  Neath

  0

  51

  1

  41

  0

  51

  Port Talbot

  0

  44

  0

  46

  0

  35

  Swansea

  0

  150

  1

  180

  0

  138

  West Glamorgan

  0

  285

  2

  318

  0

  266

  Wales

  17

  1,987

  17

  1,983

  15

  1,943

  1The number of school children is defined as the number of school pupils under the age of 17.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, (1) pursuant to his oral statement of 7 July,Official Report, column 470, on what date he made the request to the Welsh Development Agency to set up an independent investigation into the Cynon valley land deal;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the appointment of new accountants to succeed KPMG Peat Marwick in examining the agency land deal as described in his oral statement of 7 July, Official Report, column 465; whether
  750
  his Department's secondee from the National Audit Office Wales regional office will continue with the inquiry team; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning (a) the completion of the KPMG Peat Marwick section of the investigation into the Cynon valley land deal, (b) the commencement of subsequent phases of the investigation and (c) the procedures to be used to select the company to be used to complete the investigation;

  (4) on what date the secondment of the secondee from the National Audit Office Wales regional office to his Department commenced; for how long is the period of her secondment; and if he will specify what the duties of the secondee are in relation to (a) the investigation into the

  751
  Welsh Development Agency land assembly deal for the Tesco supermarket in the Cynon valley and (b) other matters contained in the job description pertaining to her secondment.

  Mr. Redwood
  In March this year, I asked for this and other matters concerning the agency's involvement at Aberdare to be investigated. The arrangements for handling the investigation, are a matter for the agency.

  There is currently no secondment from the National Audit Office to my Department. An internal auditor from my Department was seconded to KPMG Peat Marwick to assist with the investigation and she is now assisting Grant Thornton who have been appointed to continue and complete the work.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for strengthening the guidelines issued to the Welsh Development Agency debarring the agency from any act of discrimination in favour of one private company over another; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The management statement issued to the agency requires the agency to act in a way which promotes high standards of probity, including the promotion of regularity, propriety and value for money. I see no need for further guidance.

  Public Land Sales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current guidelines covering the sale of public land by tender.

  Mr. Redwood
  The most recent guidance to Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies on the disposal of land and buildings is set out in Chapter 32 of "Government Accounting" and HM Treasury's "Dear Accounting Officer" circulars 4/88 and 13/92. Guidance on the disposal of NHS land in Wales is contained in the NHS handbook of land transactions. Guidance to local authorities is provided in Welsh Office circular 19/93.

  Development Boards
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 7 July,Official Report, column 463–65, (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the appointment of Chestertons as estate agents to advise on the agency's Cynon valley land deal (a) by open tender and (b) without tender;

  (2) what arrangements he is making for securing additional consultancy assistance to guide the process of transfer of Development Board for Rural Wales functions to local authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  I myself have had none.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in relation to the chairmanship of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  The matter is still under consideration.

  Municipal Bus Companies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines were applicable in respect of the consents required from his Department for the disposal of municipal bus companies, their garages, fleets and miscellaneous and financial assets to private companies as applicable in 1991, 1992 and 1993; and if he will list the occasions on which such consents were sought during each of those years and the date of each of the(a) applications and (b) approvals or otherwise.

  Mr. Redwood
  Comprehensive guidance was issued to appropriate local authorities in December 1988.

  Only one request for consent to dispose of a municipal bus company has been received since 1991. That related to Cynon Valley Transport. The request was made on 15 October 1991. Consent was denied and the Council informed on 18 November 1991.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the occasions on which a direction has been given by his Department to any non-departmental public body in Wales varying its powers or giving consent to a request for such a variation for each of the last five years; and what provision was made to attach a note describing such a direction to the annual accounts of(a) his Department and (b) the relevant non-departmental public body.

  Mr. Redwood
  No such direction has been issued in the last five years.

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales in relation to the publication of the district auditor's report of April 1994 on allegations of expenses irregularities by the previous chief executive of the authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The publication of the report is a matter for the authority.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the recent violent suppression of a peaceful demonstration in Jakarta and the suppression of three publications was raised at the meeting of the consultative group on Indonesia in Paris on 7 and 8 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Indonesian Government are well aware of the importance we attach to respect for human rights, including freedom of expression. We underlined our concern about the recent curtailment of press freedom to the Indonesian delegation in the margins of the July meeting of the consultative group for Indonesia. The revocation of publishing permits for these three publications is a retrograde step and disappointingly inconsistent with the greater spirit of openness which has prevailed in Indonesia in recent months.
  753
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the remit of the United Nations Human Rights Commission's team in Indonesia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Human Rights Commission does not have a "team" in Indonesia. However, the special rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions has just visited Indonesia and East Timor at the invitation of the Indonesian Government, in compliance with the undertaking given to the Human Rights Commission in March 1994. The special rapporteur will report to the 51st session of the United Nations Commission.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Indonesia regarding the recent issue of a warrant for the arrest of Adnan Nasution; what information he has on Mr. Nasution's whereabouts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 6 July at column 208.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Indonesia regarding the banning of three publications on 21 June and the violent suppression of a peaceful demonstration in Jakarta on 23 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Indonesian Government are well aware of the importance we attach to respect for human rights, including freedom of expression. We underlined our concern about the recent curtailment of press freedom to the Indonesian delegation in the margins of the July meeting of the consultative group for Indonesia. The revocation of publishing permits for these three publications is a retrograde step and disappointingly inconsistent with the greater spirit of openness which has prevailed in Indonesia in recent months.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what input his Department had into the first interdepartmental export promotion committee on 5 July; and if he will make a statement on the ways in which non-proliferation controls will be integrated into the export expansion strategy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The ministerial conference on exports and trade development on Tuesday 5 July was the first meeting at ministerial level of the Whitehall Export Promotion Committee. The committee was set up in 1992 and is run by the FCO/DTI joint export promotion directorate. At present, both the chairman and secretary of the committee are members of the FCO.

  The ministerial conference was chaired by the President of the Board of Trade. The Minister for Trade, spoke about DTI export promotion activity. My right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for commercial work within the FCO, gave a detailed presentation on the FCO's role in the jointly run FCO/DTI Overseas Trade Services and, in particular, on the range of commercial activity at FCO posts overseas.
  754
  Non-proliferation issues were not discussed at the conference. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) is the DTI Minister responsible both for export controls and export promotion. The DTI has a continuing awareness programme to keep exporters informed of the United Kingdom's non-proliferation obligations. Goods of proliferation concern, which are included in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, may be exported from the United Kingdom only under the authority of a licence guaranteed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to her replies to the hon. Member for Barrow, and Furness (Mr. Hutton) of 5 July,Official Report, column 138, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Australian resumé paper and the draft treaty texts for a comprehensive nuclear test ban to which he refers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have arranged for copies of the Australian paper to be placed in the Library of the House. It is not the intention of the two working groups to make their draft treaty texts available outside the comprehensive test ban talks. These texts will form the basis of negotiation in the next session.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of his departmental paper NPRO 29 (93–94), dated 10 February 1994, on United Kingdom policy on weapon proliferation and control.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no record of a paper of this reference and date on this subject. I set out our policy on non-proliferation to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 6 July.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria exist for eligibility of countries to join the nuclear suppliers group; and what information he has on refusals to applicant countries to the nuclear suppliers group.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An invitation to join the nuclear suppliers group is subject to consensus decision on a case-by-case basis by subscribing Governments. Criteria for membership of the NSG include commitment to non-proliferation including being party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or equivalent regional arrangements; adherence to the NSG guidelines; potential to supply items controlled by the NSG; and establishment of effective controls on the export of such items. The NSG has publicly appealed to all states to adhere to the NSG guidelines and apply controls to their exports of nuclear materials and equipment.

  Caspian Sea
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the Caspian sea with the Russian Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have not personally discussed the Caspian sea with the Government of the Russian Federation. I have nothing to add to my answer of 8 July to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), at column 425.
  755
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of recent correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government on the subject of the status of the Caspian sea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Copies of recent correspondence will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Red Mercury
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to obtain from his Russian counterpart a copy of the memorandum signed by President Yeltsin authorising the Russian concern Promekologiya to produce and export red mercury; and what discussions he or his Department officials have had with the Russian Foreign Ministry over the control on the proliferation of red mercury.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are approaching the Russian authorities to ascertain the authenticity of the memorandum. However, we have no evidence to suggest that a substance known as red mercury has any potential uses in nuclear weapons.

  Korea
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of when the per capita income of Korea will be greater than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to IMF statistics, the per capita income in 1992 in south Korea was $6,747 and in the United Kingdom $18,370. In recent years, South Korea's economy has grown faster than our own. But forecasting comparative growth rates any distance into the future is an unprofitable business.

  BBC Television Series
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what benefits accrued to his Department from the recent series of BBC television programmes on the work done by departmental civil servants and diplomats; and what review of the impact of the television exposure of his Department's work has been conducted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No review has been conducted, but comments from a wide range of sources suggest that the series has done much to extend and improve public knowledge of the work of the FCO.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the final decision of the European Court of Justice on the European Commission's action in respect of the Greek unilateral embargo on Macedonia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Such cases can take up to two years to complete. We would expect a decision by the court towards the end of next year.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have occurred in the relationships between the United Nations 756
  Operation in Somalia and the administration in north-west Somalia; and what effect these changes have had on the levels of resources and services in the area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None that we are aware of.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payment his Department has received from the United Nations for the deployment of British troops in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations reimbursement received in financial year 1992–93 totalled £191,663·25, in financial year 1993–94 £20,842,552·45, and in financial year 1994–95 to date £3,158,323·10.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of the chair of the United States Congress's Africa Sub-Committee's(a) visit to Nigeria and (b) initiative in respect of democracy in Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware of any plans by a United States congressional sub-committee to visit Nigeria, or of any other United States initiative on Nigeria.

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role was played by the Trafalgar House engineering subsidiary at Blockberg in South Africa during the period from 1980 to 1991 in regard to the Iran-Iraq war; and what assistance was granted by the United Kingdom in achieving that role.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for the company concerned to answer for the activities of its South African associates; I am not aware of any assistance provided by Her Majesty's Government to these associates.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland through which legislative processes any proposed changes to the structure of the Forestry Commission will be made.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The legislative processes required cannot be identified in advance of decisions to make changes to the structure of the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the name, location and area in hectares of each piece of Forestry Commission land sold since 31 December 1992, indicating the date upon which the land was sold and where possible the name and address of the purchaser and the price paid.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission in each calendar year up to and including 1993 are held in the Library of the House. The lists show the name of the purchaser and the price paid where the purchaser has
  757
  agreed that such information can be made public. The precise date of each sale could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A list of forest land sold in 1994 will be placed in the Library early in 1995.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 9 May 1994, at column 48.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of the Forestry Commission review process.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The estimated cost of the forest review group was £832,667.

  Land Schemes
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in 1993 in Scotland 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 Hector Monro
  The schemes to which the hon. Member refers do not operate in Scotland where different schemes are available to meet different environmental concerns and circumstances.

  Building Standards
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to change the building regulations for houses in relation to the introduction of requirements for(a) level access at ground floor, (b) minimum sizes of rooms, (c) circulation space and (d) other barrier-free needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend intends to consult on a range of building regulation requirements which could be applied to the design of new dwellings for the benefit of disabled people; and we are currently considering comments from a wide range of organisations concerned with disabled people on what topics should be covered in this consultation. Any new requirements would not apply retrospectively to existing dwellings.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Scottish Homes concerning the introduction of accessible standards as a condition of the granting of housing association grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No specific discussions have taken place. The allocation of, and conditions for, funding to registered housing associations are matters entirely for Scottish Homes. I am, however, aware that Scottish Homes supports the barrier-free concept.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to revise the design guides, known as housing handbooks; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are considering what action might be taken in the context of the 758
  recommendations of the Ewing committee on housing for people with physical disabilities, published earlier this year, on the handbooks for housing for elderly and disabled people. The advice contained in the handbook on local house condition surveys is being revised by Scottish Homes. There are no plans to review the remaining parts of the "Scottish Housing Handbook".

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will consult Disability Scotland, its member organisations, local authorities, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and other interested parties on the issue of the introduction of a bill of housing of rights for disabled people; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has to issue guidelines to Scottish Homes, the new town development corporations and local housing authorities on appropriate conditions of sale for public housing sector stock in relation to the housing needs and requirements of wheelchair users and others with similar needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are considering the recommendations of the Ewing committee on housing for people with physical disabilities, and the matters which the hon. Member has raised will be relevant to that process.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is Government policy that the code of practice for water and sewerage authorities and river purification authorities on conservation, access and recreation remains voluntary.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Yes.

  Area Tourist Boards
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reorganise area tourist boards covering central Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 21 March, at columns 46–47.

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the annual report and accounts of the Registers of Scotland executive agency will be published.

  Mr. Lang
  Copies of the annual report and accounts were laid before both Houses and are published today.

  Historic Scotland
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the annual report and accounts of Historic Scotland for 1993–94 will be published.

  Mr. Lang
  Historic Scotland's annual report and accounts for 1993–94 are being published today. Copies have been laid before both Houses of Parliament and placed in the Libraries.

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the accounts statement of the Scottish Record Office executive agency will be published.

  Mr. Lang
  Copies of the accounts statement for 1993–94 have today been placed in the Library.

  Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the annual report and accounts of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency will be published.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today published the report, copies of which have been laid in both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Royal Dockyards
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when tenders for the proposed sale of the royal dockyards will be sought.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has today invited tenders from industry for the proposed sale of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth. A memorandum of information has been issued to the trade unions, and I am arranging for copies of this to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future role and size of the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In June last year, I explained to the House that changes in the international situation had provided us with the opportunity to introduce new roles for the reserves, and I announced detailed proposals for changes to the structure of the Navy's and RAF's reserves. I said that we were also examining the operational requirement for the Army's reserves and hence the size and shape of the Territorial Army. We have now reached certain conclusions.

  The role of the Territorial Army will be to act as a general reserve to the Army. It will remain an integral component of our defence forces on mobilisation, and we intend to make greater use of volunteers in peacetime. My announcement in April about the deployment of a composite TA platoon and company to the Falkland Islands was one example of this. We shall also be examining the scope to utilise the TA in new tasks, such as providing exercise opposition forces and in public duties. A specific new role will be to transfer the flying support to the Field Army currently provided by 658 Squadron Army Corps to 666 Squadron (Volunteer) at Netheravon. As a consequence 658 Squadron will be disbanded from April 1995. Two other new tasks will be to role a TA unit as the Army's Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defence Regiment equipped with the Fuchs armoured vehicle; and another as an armoured delivery regiment. These will be challenging and exciting roles for the units concerned.

  The formed units of the TA will be retained at their present planned size of 59,000. The recruits pool of 4,500, which was introduced in 1992 as a margin to enable the TA
  760
  to hold untrained TA personnel above its establishment, is no longer necessary because of the reduced threat to the United Kingdom and the consequent reduction in the level of readiness required of the TA. The recruits pool will therefore be abolished. The detailed structure of the TA is also being examined. This may lead to proposals for re-roling units or other changes. The TA itself will continue to be directly involved in this work, and a further announcement will be made later in the year.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the Army personnel centre.

  Mr. Hanley
  In common with other support functions, the Army personnel centre, APC, was closely re-examined in the course of the defence costs study. This further work has confirmed that Kentigern house remains the most cost-effective solution for the APC, and work will now continue towards its establishment although we envisage that fewer staff will be required; this will be subject to consultation with the trade unions in the normal way. It is now planned that the APC will be established in May 1996 with the takeover of functions complete by early 1997, a year later than was previously intended.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), of 15 December 1993,Official Report, columns 738–39, whether he is in a position to publish the report of the Ministry of Defence Police study team led by Sir John Blelloch.

  Mr. Hanley
  Sir John Blelloch's study team was set up at the end of 1993 to review the roles, aims, objectives, structure, pay and conditions of the Ministry of Defence Police, MDP. This work has now been completed and I am placing a copy of the final report in the Libraries of the House.

  The report recommends criteria for my Department's consideration for determining the circumstances in which an MDP presence at defence establishments would be likely to be justified by the MDP's constabulary capability or by its ability to meet armed tasks.

  The report predicts that the MDP will continue to provide an essential in-house constabulary capability, and that if the MDP were to reduce in size, it would then focus more precisely on tasks requiring constabulary powers. It further concludes that the requirement for such powers needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The study team considered various alternatives to the MDP in those of its armed roles which do not require a constabulary capability, and concluded that the use of regular service personnel on new military home service engagements, MHSE, or on local service engagements, LSE, was an option which deserved further study.

  Subject to further scrutiny, the report supports existing proposals to change the structure of the MDP to a two-tier one, comprising headquarters and basic command units. It recommends continued study of the MDP's headquarters arrangements, its training organisation, CID, operational support unit and dog services.

  The report recommends that the MDP's pay should continue to be linked with that of the Home Department

  761
  police and that their new pay structure should be used as a basis for determining MDP pay. It also makes recommendations on how the chief constable's pay should be assessed. The report also makes proposals for overtime, rest day and public holiday working reflecting the new Home Department police arrangements, and it also recommends rostering on a "best practices" basis, and that retirement ages and pension arrangements should be reviewed in the light of any further changes to provisions for Home Department police.

  Finally, the report proposes that consideration be given to extending and clarifying the MDP's jurisdiction when a suitable opportunity arises.

  The report's conclusions are now being carefully considered by my Department and further work has been set in hand where this has been proposed, such as establishing the total requirement for armed guarding and armed security tasks and for a dedicated constabulary presence; completion of the validation of the MHSE/LSE concept; and to complete certain other studies which could affect the organisations dealing with policing and security within my Department.

  No conclusions have been reached and further announcements will be made in due course on any proposals, which will be subject to consultation where appropriate.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacant dwellings are owned by his Department in each parliamentary constituency in Lincolnshire and Humberside; and how many are(a) service married quarters, (b) Ministry of Defence civilian houses and (c) former married quarters in the process of sale.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 30 June 1994, my Department owned the following vacant dwellings in each parliamentary constituency in Lincolnshire and Humberside:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Service married quarters

  Former married quarters in the process of sale

  Total

  Lincolnshire

  East Lindsey

  78

  0

  78

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  158

  0

  158

  Grantham

  212

  155

  367

  Holland with Boston

  1

  4

  5

  Lincoln

  2

  0

  2

  Humberside

  Beverley

  20

  0

  20

  Bridlington

  7

  0

  7

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  5

  0

  5

  Officers' Residences
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under which vote head of the Appropriation Accounts the official residences of senior officers are listed in respect of(a) maintenance and refurbishment, (b) staffing and (c) other items.

  Mr. Hanley
  The running costs of official residences for senior staff are listed in the following voteheads of the appropriation accounts:762

  (a) Maintenance and refurbishment - Vote 4 section A.

  (b) Staffing - Vote 1 section A for Navy staff, section B for Army staff, section C for RAF staff and Section D for civilian staff.

  (c) Other items such as electricity and other services would fall to a variety of different voteheads.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total of actual payments made as salaries to British troops for their service in the former Yugoslavia to 30 June.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs his Department has incurred through the deployment of British troops in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of the British troop deployment in the former Yugoslavia to date is some £143 million. In accordance with long-established interdepartmental arrangements, my Department recovers the additional cost of United Kingdom participation for peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Colchester Training Centre
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to market test the military corrections training centre at Colchester.

  Mr. Hanley
  A study by my Department is currently considering the feasibility of market testing the military corrective training centre at Colchester.

  Woolwich (Lake Contamination)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Woolwich Garrison Angling Society and others regarding possible contamination of the lakes on his Department's land at Woolwich.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has received one letter from the hon. Member concerning the lakes and one from a local resident concerning contamination of land at the Woolwich garrison.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about land contamination on his Department's land at Woolwich.

  Mr. Hanley
  A small amount of low-level radioactivity has been found in the ground in parts of the Woolwich garrison site. This has arisen from paint used in luminising operations carried out during the 1950s and 1960s in a workshop that has since been decontaminated. The full extent of the ground contamination is being assessed so that any necessary remedial action can be undertaken.

  Equipment
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional equipment will be available to Her Majesty's forces consequent upon his decisions on "Front Line First".
  763
  Mr. Aitken
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made earlier today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Fighting Ships
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a breakdown of the estimate of the amounts required to complete fighting ships on order and to be ordered as published in table 1 to class 1, vote 3 of the 1994–95 supply estimates.

  Mr. Aitken
  While, for internal planning purposes, programme and budgetary projections are made over a 10-year period, these lack the status of a ministerially approved programme. It is, therefore, not our practice to make available estimates of expected expenditure on individual projects beyond that approved for the current financial year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fur Trapping
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether his officials will vote in favour of the implementation of the EC import ban on furs from countries which continue to use the leghold trap or which do not have internationally agreed humane trapping standards from 1 January 1995;

  (2) what action his officials are taking to support EC regulation No. 3254 against the Canadian Government's claims that the regulation is illegal under the GATT.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government strongly support EC measures to end the use of leghold traps, laid down in regulation (3254/91) adopted by the Council of Ministers on 4 November 1991. The ban on the import of furs from countries which still use leghold traps is due to take effect on 1 January 1995. However, the regulation allows a one-year suspension of the ban for countries which have made sufficient progress towards developing alternative, humane methods of trapping. The United Kingdom supported steps by the European Commission to identify which countries had made such progress through a questionnaire. However, the Commission subsequently proposed to the management committee of officials that a one-year suspension of the ban should be offered to all countries, irrespective of the progress they had made. The United Kingdom abstained on this proposal, with the support of one other country, and made it clear that we believed that a blanket exemption exceeded the power granted to the Commission and the committee of officials by regulation 3254/91. However, the Commission's proposal was adopted by qualified majority. The United Kingdom will continue to support the objectives of the regulation.

  At a preliminary GATT hearing earlier this year, the European Commission made clear its view that regulation 3254/91 was required to implement the Community's obligations under the Berne convention on the conservation of European wildlife.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask he Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make representations to the intergovernmental panel on climate change to ensure that 764
  cost benefit analyses applied to the issue of global warming do not value the lives of people in different parts of the world unequally.

  Mr. Atkins
  The intergovernmental panel on climate change is currently preparing a revised assessment of scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the risks of human induced climate change, which will cover inter alia an assessment of methods for determining the costs and benefits of action to mitigate climate change. Drafts of IPCC's assessments will be subject to detailed review by experts and governments, and in reviewing the material that IPCC produces in this area, the Government will give careful consideration to the different assumptions that have been made.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many single regeneration budget outline bids have been submitted to each regional Government office; and if he will list all the organisations, by region, which have submitted an outline bid.

  Mr. Baldry
  Several hundred approaches, varying considerably in type and in their state for preparation, have been made to Government offices for the regions. Each regional office will make available summary information about outline bids as soon as possible.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on existing Government policy for the disposal of radioactive waste; and if he will list the legal instruments and policy statements on which this is based;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the existing Government policy for the interim storage of low-level, intermediate-level and high-level radioactive wastes; and if he will list the legal instruments and policy statements on which this is based;

  (3) if his Department is considering shallow burial of radioactive waste as an option within the radioactive waste management review;

  (4) when his Department has taken a decision to rule out shallow burial as an option for the disposal of low-level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  The preliminary conclusions of the review of radioactive waste management policy will be published later in the summer as a basis for consultation. The consultation document will set out the issues covered by the review against the background of existing policies.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the sites of special scientific interest in England, showing who has ownership or responsibility for the management of those areas and what financial support for their upkeep was given by his Department in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on individual SSSI management agreements is confidential. The number of SSSIs with management agreements and the total amounts of
  765
  payments for England are detailed in the second annual report of English Nature. The total cost of these payments in 1993–94 was £7·2 million which came from the grant in aid provided to English Nature by my Department.

  1-19 Victoria Street
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of the lease on 1 to 19 Victoria Street.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following completion of the refurbishment by the Department of Trade and Industry, a new lease will be taken from Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd. for 25 years from February 1996. The agreed market rent is subject to open market reviews at the 10th, 15th and 20th years. The tenant is responsible for maintenance and insurance. The remaining terms reflect current market practice.

  Lavatories
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what measures his Department is planning to take to ensure that lavatory cisterns in the United Kingdom continue to be fitted only with flushing apparatus which prevents the waste of water;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the. increase in the amount of water wasted annually in the United Kingdom of lifting existing byelaw requirements for water waste prevention in lavatory cisterns; and what would be the effect of such an increase on the price of water to consumers.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are committed to promoting the efficient use of water. In preparing measures to replace the current water byelaws in England and Wales we will also need to have regard to the requirements of the European Union's single market legislation and to European product standards. My Department has recently invited tenders for a research project on water economy, which includes an evaluation of various flushing devices such as those commonly used in mainland Europe.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 560, if he will list the organisations or individuals from whom he has received representations on THORP, indicating in each case when he responded to the respective representations.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the judgment on 4 March, the following organisations have sent letters about the environmental risks associated with the operation of THORP:

  Kvennalistin Group and the Women's Alliance, reply sent on 23 March;

  Trinity College Dublin Environmental Society, reply sent on 30 March;

  Saffron Walden Group Against Nuclear Weapons, reply sent on 1 April;

  Plutonium Action Hiroshima, reply sent on 5 April.

  Greenpeace, reply sent on 29 June.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages of using council tax bands as a method of charging for water.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have considered the advantages and disadvantages of using council tax bands as a method of charging for water. I remain to be convinced that a method of charging which is not based on the amount of water used will necessarily be fairer than one based on rateable values. If, however, the industry can provide analysis that supports the view that council tax valuation bands provide a fair and reasonable basis for water charging, I would be prepared to consider that evidence.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of homes in England and Wales pay flat rate charges for water supply.

  Mr. Atkins
  Just under 1 per cent. of homes in England and Wales pay flat rate charges for water supply.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the regulations to implement the EU habitats directive will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Atkins
  Draft regulations for approval under the affirmative resolution procedure were laid before the House on Monday 4 July.

  Transport and Highways Authorities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received during the local goverment review on the responsibilities of the future unitary authorities for transport and highways, including planning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received over 10,000 letters about the review of local government in England since July 1992. Many refer to specific local authority functions. As we receive the Local Government Commission's final reports for individual review areas we are looking closely at its recommendations to ensure that they enable adequate provision to be made for all local government functions, including transport and transport planning. All representations will be considered before final decisions are made.

  Business Rates, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many outstanding appeals there are against valuations for business rates administered by the valuation officer in the Harrogate area; and what is the average amount of time before appeals are settled for business rates.

  Mr. Curry
  As at 30 June there were 1,454 non-domestic rating appeals outstanding in the Harrogate district council area. The length of time taken to settle each appeal depends on the relative complexity of individual cases.

  Housing Benefits
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table setting out for each year between 1988–89 and 1993–94 the amount spent by
  767
  his Department on housing-related subsidies and grants (a) including all expenditures related to housing benefit and (b) excluding all expenditures related to housing benefit; if, following the Treasury's summer economic forecast 1994, he will publish projections for each of the years from 1994–95 to 1996–97; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Information on housing subsidies and grants for the years requested has been published in the housing chapters of the DOE reports for 1992, 1993 and 1994. Figures in the later reports supersede those for earlier years.

  No revisions have been made to the estimates as a result of the publication of the Treasury's summer economic forecast. Revised estimates will be made in due course as part of the current public expenditure survey.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the measures currently in use for monitoring ground level carbon monoxide emissions and other motor vehicle pollutants.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government fund a network of air quality monitoring stations which measure levels of motor vehicle pollutants. This includes 48 continuous automatic sites, two of which are operated in collaboration with local authorities, of which:

  30 monitor ozone,

  25 monitor nitrogen dioxide,

  19 monitor carbon monoxide,

  12 monitor fine particles (PM10) and 8 monitor hydrocarbons including benzene, 1,3 butadiene and ozone precursors.

  Nitrogen dioxide is also monitored at over 1,200 sites in the United Kingdom in collaboration with local authorities using non-automatic techniques.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2005.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), on 14 June 1994,Official Report, column 339.

  New Forest
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding his future intentions for the New Forest and surrounding area.

  Mr. Atkins
  In September 1992, the Government published a consultation document on the future of the New Forest. The document proposed to give the wider New Forest area—the so-called New Forest heritage area—a statutory designation and to apply to it a planning regime similar to that which applies in the national parks. It also proposed to establish a statutory body, based on the existing New Forest committee, to co-ordinate the management of this wider area.

  The consultation produced a very substantial response. Some 220 people and organisations gave their views to the Department, and I am today arranging for those responses
  768
  and a summary of them to be made available in my Department's Library. I have continued to receive extensive representations about these matters, totalling to the present some 1,000 further letters.

  The core of the forest is already well protected against inappropriate development through the New Forest Acts and the existence of that land owned by the Crown and administered by the Forestry Commission. The Government have recently reinforced this protection through the designation of the core forest area as a special protection area under the EC birds directive.

  However, the New Forest lies between two of the most rapidly developing areas in the south of England. The Government therefore recognised the need to protect a wider area, where the development pressures are greatest, but which is essential if the traditional management of the forest is to be maintained.

  These aspects of the Government's proposals received overwhelming support. We therefore intend to apply to the wider New Forest area, the same planning policies as would apply if that area were a national park. These policies are set out in my Department's planning policy guidance note 7 and elsewhere and I am today asking the relevant local planning authorities to ensure that in their development plans and planning decisions they apply those policies. I also intend to take early steps to amend the General Development Order to extend the scope of development control as applies in national parks to that wider area. The new planning regime will apply to the definition of the New Forest heritage area as it emerges from the current process of preparing and adopting local plans.

  A number of representations have been made to include the Avon valley in the heritage area. I have therefore also today written to New Forest district council asking it to look closely at the merits of this and consider whether there is a case for incorporating the area concerned.

  These measures will deliver the necessary planning protections to the wider area. They have also the advantage of being able to be implemented immediately without recourse to primary legislation for which there is little prospect of parliamentary time in the near future.

  The consultation revealed far less agreement about the future of the New Forest Committee. Whilst there was acknowledgement of the need for co-ordinated management over the wider area, some considered that to turn the committee into a statutory body would merely add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to the administration of the forest. Some also feared that the committee would find itself in conflict with those already charged with the management of the forest and that it might ultimately seek to usurp their roles. However, the Government have always emphasised that its proposals did not envisage a new body taking over the existing powers and responsibilities of the local authorities, the Forestry Commission, the verderers or other agencies operating in the forest.

  The New Forest committee emerged in 1990 following the New Forest review. The Government feel that, in the light of the reservations expressed about its role, it would be unwise to give it statutory status. They therefore do not intend to proceed with these aspects of their original proposals.

  The New Forest is a unique area. Not only is it a valued part of our national heritage and an internationally important range of habitats but its character is the result of nine hundred years of distinctive management. The

  769
  Government are firmly committed to the conservation of these habitats and that traditional character. I believe the steps we have taken today will greatly contribute to these objectives.

  Canada Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies he has for controlling the Canada geese population by non-lethal means; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 July 1994]: My Department has set up a working group to develop a management strategy to reduce the scale of damage caused by Canada geese.

  Later this month we intend to publish a leaflet prepared by the working group giving advice to estate managers, park authorities and landowners on legal techniques for controlling Canada geese. The techniques include a variety of non-lethal methods such as scaring, habitat management, adjustment of cropping patterns, alteration of feeding areas and fencing.

  The group will continue to develop a long-term management strategy.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 131, what information he has on exactly which method or methods have been used to kill Canada geese in London parks this year.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: This year, action taken under licence to kill or control Canada geese has included shooting and egg pricking.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research will be undertaken to discover the proportion of the population which(a) was aware of his Department's smog alerts, (b) took action to avoid possible health effects and (c) took voluntary action based on his Department's advice to minimise air pollution during the pollution episode which started on 2 July.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department issued a press notice on the afternoon of Friday 1 July, warning that poor air quality was forecast. The notice was distributed to 275 media outlets and individual reporters, and resulted in over 30 press articles from 2 to 6 July. The number of phone calls to the air quality bulletin freephone line increased substantially. I drew attention to the Government's advice in the course of radio and television interviews over this period.

  My Department regularly commissions, and acts upon, research on the public's response to air quality bulletins, and has already commissioned a survey on public awareness and actions during the recent episode.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many air pollution measuring stations are in the Manchester area; where the stations are located; how the public are notified of the readings; and what measures are taken when dangerous limits are recorded.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: The Department of the Environment monitors air pollutants in the Manchester area at one continuous automatic site, and,
  770
  with the co-operation of local authorities, at 41 sites using non-automatic techniques. Details of site locations and pollutants measured are in the tables.

  Information from all the Department's national automatic monitoring sites, including the site in Manchester, are used to provide air quality bulletins to the public, giving daily information on air pollution via a Freephone helpline, Ceefax and Teletext and a variety of other news media. The bulletin includes information on levels of pollutants together with a forecast and health advice on what to do should levels become high. In addition, information from the Department's non-automatic monitoring sites is published periodically.

  1. Automatic Site

  Pollutants Monitored

  Site Location

  Grid Reference

  Oxides of Nitrogen, Carbon Monoxide

  St. Peters Square, Manchester

  SJ 838 980

  2. Non-Automatic Sites

  Pollutants Monitored

  Site Location

  Grid Reference

  1. Smoke/SO2

  Bolton 24

  3715 4092

  Farnworth 8

  3739 4061

  Horwich 1

  3637 4118

  Bury 9

  3819 4116

  Manchester 11

  3838 3981

  Manchester 15

  3875 3985

  Manchester 21

  3847 4023

  Oldham 13

  3920 4057

  Middleton 3

  3871 4063

  Cheadle and Gatley 6

  3859 3886

  Ashford-Under-Lyne 8

  3939 3992

  Trafford 1

  3810 3958

  Ashford-in-Makerfield 1

  3576 3991

  Leigh 4

  3662 3999

  Wigan 8

  3592 4056

  2. NO2 (National Diffusion Tube Survey, 4 sites in each Local Authority Area)

  Manchester

  1N

  3846 3983

  2N

  3875 3985

  3N

  3867 3926

  4N

  3879 3995

  Oldham

  1N

  3051 4933

  2N

  3051 4937

  3N

  3012 4889

  4N

  3054 4926

  Rochdale

  1N

  3920 4157

  2N

  3920 4157

  3N

  3899 4122

  4N

  3888 4135

  Stockport

  14N

  3922 3869

  15N

  3920 3871

  16N

  3928 3857

  17N

  3928 3873

  Trafford 1N

  3810 3989

  2N

  3745 3945

  4N

  3749 3879

  5N

  3768 3909

  Wigan

  1N

  3651 4004

  2N

  3662 3999

  4N

  3658 4017

  5N

  3656 4002

  3. Toxic Organic Micropollutants

  Law Courts, Manchester

  3834 3982

  4. Lead

  Manchester

  3817 3876

  Development Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many permanent jobs have been created in each development area in each year since 1981 net of(A) losses and (b) relocations from the adjoining localities.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 11 July 1994]: Reliable data on net employment In urban development areas are not available. Gross jobs created by each urban development corporation up to 31 March 1994 are as follows:

  Number

  Birmingham Heartlands

  611

  Black Country

  11,397

  Bristol

  2,250

  Central Manchester

  4,677

  Leeds

  8,218

  London Docklands

  71,889

  Merseyside

  10,605

  Plymouth

  0

  Sheffield

  10,096

  Teesside

  11,469

  Trafford Park

  14,813

  Tyne and Wear

  16,242

  Total

  162,267

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of benefit claimants in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The latest available figures show that the number of successful benefit claims in Northern Ireland is 1,094,426. This figure will not equate to the number of individuals receiving benefit because there are claimants who receive more than one benefit.

  Police
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the new chairman of the Police Authority to discuss the grading and pay of police officers.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The new chairman of the Police Authority has not requested a meeting on this subject. Were he to do so, the Secretary of State would be delighted to meet him.

  Cross-border Security
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government in regard to cross-border security co-operation.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring).
  772
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent the Anglo-Irish and the Downing street declaration have had a material impact on cross-border security co-operation and operations against terrorism in the Province.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The greatly enhanced co-operation in opposing terrorism, which is so apparent since 1985, in large part derives from the closer relations resulting from the agreement and the declaration.

  Security
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the right hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Sweeney).

  Cross-border Institutions
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held on setting up cross-border institutions.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The British and Irish Governments have been discussing the possibility of producing a joint framework document to aid the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland in reaching a comprehensive political settlement. "Strand Two" matters have been among those discussed.

  Downing Street Declaration
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about progress to peace based on the Downing street declaration of December 1993.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  One-parent Families
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families with children, and what proportion of all such families, live in households headed by one parent; and what percentage of those receive income support.

  Mr. Ancram
  The 1991 census of population enumerated 38,060 households with dependent children headed by one parent in Northern Ireland. This represents 17·6 per cent. of all households with dependent children. The figure for the percentage of families headed by one parent in receipt of income support is not available but as at May 1992 regardless of status as head of a household or not, there were 35,380 one parent families in receipt of income support.

  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to the review of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Mr. Ancram
  The arrangements for the review are currently under consideration and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Investment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about future investment intentions in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continued interest in these matters. I receive representations from many quarters and I am pleased to record that the Industrial Development Board has just completed its best-ever year of inward investment.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures for business investment; and what were the figures in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Comprehensive information on investment in production industries for United Kingdom regions is available only from the annual census of production. The most recent figures from ACOP relate to 1991 and show that net capital expenditure by manufacturers in Northern Ireland amounted to £333·8 million. Corresponding figures for 1990 and 1989 were £330·7 million and £300·8 million respectively.

  Parades
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding the conduct of the parades on the anniversary of the battle of the Boyne.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Parades marking the anniversary of the battle of the Boyne were held at 19 major venues throughout Northern Ireland on 12 July, and passed off without serious incident. Policing arrangements at parades 774
  are an operational matter for the RUC who, in fulfilling their responsibility to maintain public order and safety, consulted widely beforehand with both parade organisers and local communities.

  Inter-party Talks
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the inter-party talks.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Dr. John Catford
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General what consultations he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service, Wales region, in relation to the decision not to proceed with charges against Dr. John Catford with respect to the allegations of expenses irregularities while chief executive of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  The decision to which the hon. Member refers was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. The only involvement of my office in the case was to procure briefing for the purposes of replying to previous questions by the hon. Member.

  Juvenile Criminals
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to improve the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to juvenile criminals.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service continues to train lawyers as youth offender specialists with responsibility for reviewing files involving alleged offences committed by juveniles. The revised "Code for Crown Prosecutors" sets out the balance to be struck between the interests of young offenders and those of the community. Time limits in cases involving juveniles have been agreed with the police and courts to achieve swifter justice.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Falkland Islands: War Crimes Inquiry
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
When a decision will be taken whether or not to prosecute any of those who served in the Armed Forces in the Falklands as a result of the investigations instituted by the Secretary of State for Defence.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions has today announced that she has concluded her consideration of the inquiries carried out by the Metropolitan Police into allegations that criminal offences had been committed by members of the Parachute Regiment during their operations in the Falklands Islands in 1982.
Her consideration was assisted by advice from First Senior Treasury Counsel. She has concluded that the evidence is not such as to afford a realistic prospect of conviction of any person for any criminal offence and has therefore decided that no criminal proceedings should be instituted.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Law Officers, whom she consulted and who separately considered the case, agree with this conclusion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with a sense of heartfelt relief and gratitude for the statement that he has made. I also thank all Members of your Lordships' House on all sides for their sterling and steady support in this rather sad affair.
Will it be possible in future to adhere to the tradition that if our men on active service are to be charged with murder of enemy forces the matter might remain within the remit of the Judge Advocate General and not the civil prosecuting authority?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question of whether the matter can be within the remit of the Judge Advocate General depends on the circumstances of the individual at the time of the investigation. As I said to your Lordships earlier, I understand that the Judge Advocate General did not consider that it was appropriate that he should be consulted at any stage in this matter. It was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions in the circumstances of the case and I believe that the correct procedure has been followed in this difficult matter, with the result that I have intimated to your Lordships today.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is not the position that the Metropolitan Police report was delivered to the Crown Prosecution Service three-and-a-half months ago, that the director considered it fully and with anxious care, that she would have consulted with the Attorney-General and taken the advice of Treasury Counsel, and has reached a wise and considered conclusion which gives pleasure to the House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful. It is worth saying that in this investigation there were allegations other than those contained in the book: to which reference was made earlier during the course of these matters. Statements have been taken from more than 400 witnesses and the documentation that was produced as a result was extremely considerable. The amount of work that had to be done after the report was received was voluminous and important and it required a degree of deliberation that it has now been able to obtain. I am grateful for the remarks made about the nature of the decision and the process by which it was reached.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not a great relief to all of us and may we not express the hope that other countries will follow our example in applying the rule of law in the most extreme circumstances?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that observation. It is always difficult to undertake an investigation of this kind, in particular when it becomes a matter of public record. On an earlier occasion the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said— and I thoroughly agree with him—that we must be seen to carry out our international obligations in this matter and, when we do so, do it thoroughly and well. That is what has happened here and I believe that this is a good example for others to follow in similar situations.

New British Library
3.6 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the construction of the new British Library began, how much has so far been spent on the project, and when it is expected to be completed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, construction of the British Library began at the St. Pancras site in April 1982. To the end of May 1994 a total of £336 million had been spent on the project. It is not possible to say when the whole building will be completed until solutions have been found for the various technical problems that were discovered in the first phase of the building. We hope to have them by the end of August, after which time a programme for the completion of Phase 1A can be drawn up. Progress on the completion phase of the building continues satisfactorily and construction is on schedule to be completed during 1996.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming that this monstrous white elephant has taken years more than scheduled, that most of the £450

1963
million budget has been spent and that the Government still have no idea when it will be finished or how much it will finally cost. Will the Minister further confirm that among the scandals already exposed are miles of cabling installed and ripped out, ceilings totally ripped out because one piece of insulation tape was hanging from them, 27,000 roof tiles bought and rejected because the natural colour was felt to be "not quite right" and vast sprinkler systems and shelving installed and removed at great cost in time and money?
In the light of that, can the Minister honestly deny that, under the responsibility of her department and, to be fair, her predecessors—but not political predecessors —this piece of administrative and management bungling is, as one high official close to it described, the worst piece of management and administrative malpractice in Whitehall history?
Baroness Trumpington: Well, my Lords, what a charming way to start the day!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is only the start!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the main technical issues affect the first phase of construction. The principal difficulties, as the noble Lord said, relate to damage to electrical cabling and concerns about the longevity of the sprinkler system. The earlier problem of the book shelving installation has been fully resolved to the satisfaction of the British Library. Until the faults were discovered, there was no reason to believe that there were problems with the arrangements in place for quality assurance. Clear responsibility for quality control rested with the installing contractors, the construction managers, the design team and project managers. The Government do not abdicate from their responsibilities for the project but they had to rely on those parties for the proper execution of the work. It was they who had the only source of expertise while acting as our agents.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recollect that on 11th December 1991 I asked an Unstarred Question on this very matter? I drew attention to the mismanagement that had dogged this enterprise for many years. I asked whether one project manager could be appointed so that the buck was not continually passed from the OAL to the PSA, from the PSA rapidly to Laings and from Laings to sub-contractors. Does the Minister also recollect that her noble friend Lord Astor gave me an assurance that new management techniques and principles were in place and that costs were firmly under control? Has one project manager ever been appointed? That is the only way in which you can control the mismanagement that has taken place.
Is it also true that some of the incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred are in fact corrupt practices? Is it true that quite unnecessary work has been done in order to keep the pot boiling and the sub-contractors milking the public purse from the public udder?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the construc-tion of the building is the responsibility of the
1964
Government. Once complete, it will be transferred to the library's ownership. The memorandum submitted in evidence to the National Heritage Select Committee for its hearing on 30th June set out the management arrangements and the positive steps taken to improve those arrangements. A copy of that memorandum has been placed in the Library.
With regard to allegations of impropriety, two allegations have been made during the 12-year life of the project. They have been investigated and no evidence of fraud was found. No further action is currently being taken. If the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has any specific evidence, we should be happy to pursue the matter further.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister give some indication of what is now the revised budget of the project? Will she give us an indication also of the size of the claims which I presume will be made against those who are responsible for the overrun?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Secretary of State gave evidence to the National Heritage Select Committee on 30th June during which he stated that because of the technical problems, the £450 million cash budget was likely to be exceeded; and the Treasury is aware of that. The Secretary of State said that it remains his intention to return to the cash budget when all the commercial issues are resolved and final accounts settled.
It is not possible to say by how much the budget will be exceeded while we are still discussing the technical problems and before we are able to draw up a programme of work. We shall need to discuss figures with the Treasury when we are clear about the position. It would be unwise to make our commercial strategy known publicly.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, while I agree that there have been many disappointments along the way, I believe that the House should realise that when it is completed, it will be the finest national library anywhere. It will be far better than any library in America or in Europe. We shall be extremely proud of it when it is finished.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I really am grateful to my noble friend. I agree entirely with what he said. On the question of costs, perhaps I may draw a comparison with the Bibliothèque Nationale de France which is costing £800 million to £900 million.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, would not a fairer comparison be with the cost of the splendid new Glyndebourne? I recognise that that is on a different scale, but it is not irrelevant. Is the noble Baroness telling us that no one can be identified as being responsible for all those technical problems? Those technical problems are being used as an excuse. Who has been sacked or who has got into trouble over that matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the comparison with Glyndebourne, in principle, no doubt it would have been better to have gone ahead

1965
quicker but availability of public funds for Phase 1A did not permit that and so design and construction took place in parallel.
As to who is to blame, it will be a complex matter to establish the extent of liability of the many parties who may be involved. We have set up a high-powered team to deal with the commercial issues. It would be unwise to comment at this stage on the question of blame while sensitive issues are being considered and delicate negotiations undertaken with contractors.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this story is becoming rather like the story of Penelope's shroud? Can she convince us that anyone in government circles has the cunning of Odysseus needed to deal with it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought Penelope had a box.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is not one of the unfortunate consequences of this sad affair that the arts feed from the same departmental udder, which is why I pressed the then Prime Minister as long ago as 1987 for a total separation of the funding for this project, so that it would not have an affect on the arts budget? Will the Minister assure the House that if it continues to milk from the same udder, the arts will not be affected by the ongoing expenditure?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell would do well to read the Secretary of State's recent reply to the Select Committee. He would find a great deal of information which might add to his knowledge.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, contrary to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I have made many inquiries about this monstrosity at King's Cross and I understand that even when it is complete, it will be totally inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. Is it not a sobering thought that despite our modern equipment and technical knowledge, it will have taken longer to complete that building than it took to replace this whole building after the great fire?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise for the length of my answers, but I cannot do anything about it. There will be 130 more seats than there are at present. Readership patterns have changed since the plans were first drawn up. Advanced computerised systems will enable the more efficient use of readers' seats and will mean a faster turn-round of readers. An increasing number of readers now avail themselves of the library's services at some distance from the reading rooms. Documents are delivered to them. Continued developments in new technology are likely to increase that trend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, indefensible though the history of the building has been, according to the plans that I have seen, I believe that when it is completed, the building will be a matter of pride for the country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
Noble Lords: Next Question, next Question.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there is only one more Question on the Order Paper. Before the Minister finally sits down, perhaps I may say that although the Minister and I often enjoy jokes together, this is a serious matter. Will she not confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is absolutely spot on? When the last budget allocation for arts was made, there; was the first ever cut in the Arts Council's allocation. It was stated specifically at that time that that was because of the huge amount of money allocated to the British Library project.
Will she confirm that there have been four inquiries into this matter—two by the Minister's department and two by the National Audit Office? None of that has been put into the public domain. Would it not be helpful if the Government were to announce a full and proper public inquiry into this scandal?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is a difficulty with regard to an inquiry because, for example, Kennedy and Donkin has prepared a report on the electrical cabling and that report is commercially sensitive. I know that the noble Lord will understand that. But, as promised, the Secretary of State sent a copy of the report to the National Heritage Select Committee on the understanding that confidentiality is observed. It is a very serious question. We all wish to be extremely proud of the library when it is completed and I assure your Lordships that my department is taking every possible step to ensure that the building is completed in 1996.

Public Expenditure
3.20 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the public expenditure in the last year for which figures are available on education, health and social security; and what percentage change this represents since 1979–80.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, general government spending in 1993–94 as published in the statistical supplement for the PSBR on education, health and social security is estimated to be £33.7 billion, £36.2 billion and £87.1 billion respectively. Those figures represent real increases in spending since 1979–80 of 30 per cent. on education, 58 per cent. on health and 76 per cent. on social security.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for those most startling figures in real terms. Is it not a fact that if he were to commission an opinion poll around the country —and we have seen the satisfactory results from the Opposition's point of view in that respect—it would show that most people believe, and constantly say in every newspaper and on every channel, that there have been cuts and

1967
underfunding in almost all those areas? Can we get the true story across to the country so that people know that this Government have provided benefits in all those areas?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for providing us with the opportunity today to reassure the House and the country that we have been able to increase funding in those vital areas for both the vulnerable and for investing in the future by the amounts that I have been able to announce. However, it is right to draw my noble friend's attention to the need to control Government expenditure. We are committed to that and we shall continue to do so. But, as I said earlier, we shall continue to ensure that the appropriate investment is made for those who are vulnerable and for those on whom we depend for the future.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the increase in social security expenditure and the rate of increase on all the estimates will continue to grow over the next 10 years or so? In those circumstances, is it not now clear that there is a case for a serious inquiry as to whether any government can support future levels of social expenditure on the present basis?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the rate of increase in social security; indeed, it has increased by something in the order of 3.75 per cent. annually in real terms since 1979. I believe that we need to take steps to control the rate of that growth and, at the same time, create a modern system which is effective in meeting genuine need while encouraging independence through greater work incentives. I can assure the noble Lord that we have taken the first steps in that regard with the reform of invalidity benefit and with the introduction of the jobseekers' allowance. Obviously there is more to be done and we shall certainly keep a fundamental review of social security spending to ensure that that continues.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, in view of the figures given by the Minister, can he say what has gone wrong in society both before 1979 and since that time? There has been a 76 per cent. increase in social security expenditure. What is the cause of it? What has happened?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the figure has risen for a large number of reasons, many of which are demographic; for example, there is an increased number of elderly people relying on pensions. In addition, spending on the long-term sick and disabled has increased by about 225 per cent. over the years. I can assure the noble Lord that the increase in social security expenditure has not come about as a result of the increase in unemployment. It has grown by some 3 per cent. a year, even if one excludes unemployment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, among the figures that he announced the Minister indicated a very substantial increase in spending on the National Health Service. Can the Minister tell us why very prestigious and non-political bodies such as the BMA—and, lately,
1968
the health service ombudsman—are very severe in their criticisms of the NHS under the present Secretary of State? In the interests of people who rely on the NHS, is it not to be hoped that she will be one of the first casualties of the reshuffle?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "Well, they would wouldn't they?" However, I can assure the noble Lord that expenditure on the health service increased in terms of a percentage of GDP from 4.5 per cent. to 5.7 per cent. At the same time, over 52 per cent. more patients were treated in 1992 than in 1979. The average in-patient waiting time is down from nine months to five months since the waiting times initiative began in 1987. Indeed, I could continue and give the noble Lord many more statistics, but I shall simply tell him that we are spending more on the health service and we are spending it much more effectively.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the perception of the National Health Service is as low as has been alleged, can my noble friend the Minister explain why it is extremely rare to have more than 10 people at a statutory annual general meeting of a trust hospital?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend's question. I believe that the point my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was trying to make is that a certain amount of disinformation has been circulated over the years about levels of government spending on such vital services. We are trying to make it quite clear to the party opposite, and to the whole country, that spending on health and on social security will be maintained at an appropriate level.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the figures given in real terms. However, is the Minister aware that the 1980 public expenditure White Paper changed the definition of the word "reality"? For example, is he aware that expenditure on books is now quoted in relation to the RPI and not the price of books? The Minister quoted a figure for the increase in social security spending. Can he give the House the comparable percentage figure for increases in the number of people on income support?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting that we have fiddled the figures I utterly reject that allegation. As I made quite clear in my initial Answer, we have increased spending in those three areas; for example, on education by some 30 per cent. on health by 58 per cent. and on social security by 76 per cent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of how much money is spent but whether or not we are getting value for money? The general perception by people is that the services that were mentioned are now worse than they were in 1979. Therefore, is it not a fact that a great deal of the additional expenditure to which the Minister referred has been wasted due to sheer incompetence and the ridiculous reorganisations that have taken place under this Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may give the House the figures from the three departments concerned to refute what the noble Lord says. First, I shall repeat what I said about the health service. Some 52 per cent. more patients are now being treated on the NHS. As regards education, we have now seen the staying-on rate for 16 year-olds grow from about 42 per cent. in 1979–80 to 72 per cent. in 1992–93 and the figure is still rising; indeed, it is now possibly 73 per cent. As regards social security, I return to the increases in spending on the long-term sick and disabled where we have seen increases in real terms of some 225 per cent.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, how can the Minister say that the Government are determined to maintain payments to the long-term sick and disabled when legislation passing through your Lordships' House not many weeks ago was designed to change the entitlement to payments for those people from a six-month qualification period to a 12-month qualifica-tion period. Is that not an action designed to reduce expenditure rather than to maintain it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the incapacity Bill which has just passed through your Lordships' House was not designed as a cost-cutting measure; it was designed to ensure that the benefit went to the appropriate people. I believe that the noble Lord would be the first to agree that invalidity benefit should go to those who are incapable of work and not to those who should, quite properly, be seeking work or on unemployment benefit.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the reason that public expenditure has increased in those areas is partly because of the long-term success of the economic policy of the Government since 1979? Further, so far as concerns social security benefits is not my right honourable friend the Minister of State right to insist that those people who are taking benefits incorrectly and illegally should be rooted out? Should not every party support the Government in that regard?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I understand that a possible leader of the party opposite has been making noises to exactly the same effect; namely, that benefits should go to those who are entitled to them. For that reason, we sought reforms to invalidity benefit to ensure that it went to exactly those people who needed it and not to those, as I said earlier, who are capable of work.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm to his noble friend Lord Clark that in the period we are discussing the economy has grown by 24 per cent. which is the lowest rate in real terms in any comparable period since the war? Will he also confirm that in this period social security expenditure has increased by 76 per cent. not because individual benefits have increased in real terms but because the number of benefit recipients—the number of people forced to live on benefit—has increased over this period? Is it not clear that this Government have created a dependency culture defined by the denial of opportunity to so many of the British people and perpetuated by a Government
1970
who use their own economic failures as an excuse to cut those programmes which would give people the skills and employment opportunities to enable them to help themselves?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made quite clear earlier, if the noble Lord had been listening to me, the vast majority of the growth in the social security budget has been as a result of demographic changes and of greater spending on the long-term sick and disabled. A very, very small proportion is as a result of increased unemployment. As I said, the social security programme has grown successively by some 3¾ per cent. in real terms. If you exclude unemployment from that, it has still grown by 3 per cent. per annum in real terms.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. Is it correct that the figures he quoted for patients treated in the National Health Service contain, in some cases, patients who have gone to hospital for a number of small complaints and, having gone from department to department, have been counted as a separate case by each department? Is that the case?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness precisely but what I can say is that the number of individual patients who have been treated—that is the vital thing—has increased quite dramatically in the years we have been in office when we have increased funding on the health service.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Cranborne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on defence, Front Line First.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): 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 Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 38 [Roads]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 33, leave out lines 17 and 18.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 to 87, 87A, 88 to 93, 93A, 94 and 95. This group of amendments paves the way for the more important amendments on transport. These amendments all seek to enforce the powers of local authorities who will be responsible for local roads after the Government have made many of their roads trunk roads.
Amendment No. 93A is a technical amendment relating to the proposed register which roads authorities will have to keep under the terms of the New Roads and Street Works Act. The register shows each road for which the authority is responsible and information relating to proposed or executed works on the roads. The amendment will allow the islands' councils to avoid having to subscribe to a proposed computerised register which could cost up to £1 per head of the population per year. Instead they propose to keep paper records. Roads advisers have welcomed the amendment.
This group of amendments comprises a long list of amendments. I repeat that the grouping contains Amendments Nos. 80 to 87, 87A, 88 to 93, 93A, 94 and 95. As I said, the purpose of the amendments is to clarify the position of local authorities who have responsibility for some roads but not trunk roads. In the transfer of local roads to the trunk roads authority, the identification of property and other non-fixed assets which transfer to the Secretary of State should be the subject of an agreement between the Secretary of State and the local roads authority. Should no agreement be possible between the parties, any dispute should be the subject of arbitration as specified in the Bill.
Property and equipment are generally used on an area basis and are not necessarily dedicated to a particular element of the road network. The transfer of property and non-fixed assets should certainly be the subject of an agreement between the relevant parties and should not be mandatory or done solely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State may own the bulk of some plant and equipment—for example, snow clearing equipment that may be used at certain times of the year. However, one would hope that there would be an agreement that that equipment would be made available to local authorities to enable them to keep their local roads open.
Amendment No. 94 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from removing traffic management control from a local authority without its agreement. We know that the Secretary of State must have subsidiary powers for the whole country which would apply to Scotland, but at the same time we hope that he would be tactful enough not to use those powers unless he had the agreement of the local authority concerned. In Amendment No. 95 we hope to remove certain restrictive powers of the Secretary of State in respect of local roads. We would hope that the Secretary of State would not use his restrictive powers undiplomatically.
Amendments Nos. 97, 95D, 96 and 96A all seek to provide that all fines imposed in the district courts are payable in full to the relevant local authority, and should not be paid —as is sometimes the case at present—in whole or in part to the Exchequer. The next amendment seeks to highlight the specific powers of local authorities in regard to the roads. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Amendments Nos. 93 and 93A stand in my name and I wish to speak briefly to them. I think it is quite possible that the amendment may receive a sympathetic response from the Government Front Bench because we are giving the Secretary of
1972
State more power. However, in this case, I hope we are giving him power to do good. I believe that the authorities on islands such as Orkney know everything about their roads in any case. A central register would be enormously expensive and quite useless on those islands. In small communities simple registers are much easier to keep and are all that one requires. I believe the figure involved—I suppose it may be plucked from the air—is an extra £17,000. That may be considered peanuts in some circles, but in Orkney £17,000 is a useful sum.
The purpose of the amendment is threefold. First, it seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to exclude from a central register the three island areas. Secondly, it seeks to require him—assuming that he nevertheless insists on including the island areas in the register—to set the contributions to the costs of it which are required to be paid by the islands at a level which reflects the fact that the use of the register there will be lighter than elsewhere, if it is used at all. Thirdly, the amendment seeks to make the Government recognise that the high capital and revenue costs involved in installing and maintaining a digital system compatible with a system for the exchange of electronic information, are not justified when a manual system, aided by computers, can be as effective.
I hope that we shall receive a decent reply to the amendment, of a practical nature, from the Government Front Bench.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I shall begin with Amendment No. 93A, with which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, began followed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. I am happy to be able to welcome the principle behind the amendment. The points in its favour have been explained by the noble Lords. It was not appreciated at the time when the New Roads and Street Works Bill passed through the House that there could be circumstances in which the provisions could be unreasonably burdensome for certain authorities. In those circumstances it seems appropriate to make some provision.
There are one or two issues, such as the matter of consultation, which we wish to consider adding to the kind of clause which is envisaged. Perhaps the noble Lords will be content to withdraw the amendment on the basis of an undertaking that I shall bring forward a similar clause at Report stage which includes consultation requirements.
Perhaps I may treat the other amendments in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. He dealt first with Amendment No. 93. That amendment relates to the control and use of equipment and other property which has been used on roads which are made trunk roads by the Secretary of State. I acknowledge that property associated with new trunk roads may also need to be used on local roads and that safeguards as to the continued use of that property should be available to protect the local roads authorities.
On the other hand, the amendment would restrict the matter to circumstances where there is agreement between the authority and the Secretary of State. That provision could lead to disproportionate difficulties and

1973
to impasse. Instead, we have in the Bill a provision that the Secretary of State must make arrangements with the local roads authorities as to the use of such property. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, pointed out, the Bill includes procedures as to arbitration to safeguard the position of authorities which consider particular arrangements unacceptable. I believe that that is a perfectly workable scheme. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw that amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also spoke to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. These relate to the results of the introduction of a number of smaller local authorities. In that connection it will be necessary to have a greater degree of co-operation and co-ordination, particularly in urban areas, between road and traffic authorities, which for that purpose would include the Secretary of State. That would be necessary if they are to achieve the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic on their own roads.
In relation to Amendment No. 95, in reaching that goal it is the intention that the Secretary of State should issue guidance on the exercise of powers which may affect roads and traffic in adjoining areas. The Secretary of State will naturally consult the local authorities and the emergency services before issuing that guidance. As a matter of common sense it is anticipated that authorities will recognise the practical need to comply with the guidelines. However, should they fail to do so then it is right that there should be reserve powers in place to ensure that the Secretary of State can intervene where one authority pursues its traffic and roads policy to the detriment of another authority and to the overall proper arrangement of traffic.
Amendment No. 94 would also require the Secretary of State to reach agreement with traffic authorities which had failed to make satisfactory joint arrange-ments to secure a system of traffic control extending across their roads. That agreement would need to be reached before he could use his reserve powers.
Were the amendments to be carried there would be no means available by which to ensure that two adjoining traffic authorities co-ordinated traffic control across their boundaries. That seems wholly undesirable. For that reason it seems inappropriate to amend Clause 42 in that way.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lords will accept that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to have reserve powers in order that any conflict between the authorities may be resolved fairly and therefore will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I listened with interest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It was noticeable that he did not apply himself to the implication in the amendments and the clauses to which the amendments are addressed should the Secretary of State decide through the executive roads agency to increase the trunk road network.
Throughout we have been told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that the purpose of the Bill is to give more power to the local authorities.
1974
However, the purpose of the clauses as they stand in relation to the road network is to take power away from the local authorities and give it to the Secretary of State. For example, every time a road is upgraded to a trunk road that comes within the powers of the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I may give a simple example. An old lady in West Calder in Lothian wanted a pelican crossing in order to be able to go to the post office to collect her pension. Because the pelican crossing was on a trunk road the application had to be made to the. Secretary of State rather than her dropping in to her local councillor's surgery.
If the Secretary of State were to increase the trunk road network it is clear that he would be taking powers away from local government.
There is also the question of capital and revenue costs. If the trunk road network is increased and the executive roads agency is given the powers proposed in these clauses in the Bill, then it follows as surely as night follows day that the capital resources made available to local authorities will be reduced. Those projects which have been proposed by the local authorities will be incapable of implementation because under the clauses we are discussing at present the powers are being taken from local authorities and transferred to the Secretary of State.
I was encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. It is only on that basis that we are prepared to withdraw the amendment, but again with an indication that after further consideration we may wish to return to the amendments at Report stage.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may raise two points. First, if a road is taken over by the Secretary of State, surely the expenditure on the upkeep of that road is borne mostly by the Secretary of State rather than out of council tax in the ordinary way.
Secondly, so far as I can see under Section 12F, the provisions appear to apply only for a three-year period, which allows for the transition between the old and the new authorities.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My noble friend is absolutely correct. If a road is made a trunk road the responsibility for its upkeep will indeed be transferred to the Secretary of State. It is not at all unknown for local authorities to be only too happy to have a road "trunked". Members of the Committee will notice that there are also powers in the clause, not referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, to "de-trunk" a road. Therefore the power can work both ways.
My noble friend is correct. The provision applies only for three years after 1st April. That, of course, ties in with the whole point of the powers. New Section 12A(1) states:
"where … it is necessary or expedient as a result of, or in connection with, the establishment of new local government areas on 1st April 1996".
That is within the context of reorganisation. In the Roads (Scotland) Act there are other powers relating to the trunking of roads.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before we conclude the debate, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicate to whom the fines for parking offences will go? Under these proposals will they go to the local authorities or to the Treasury?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: There is no intention to change the present arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is aware, the present arrangements are that in Scotland, district court fines are kept by the district courts except for certain fines including road traffic offence fines. By contrast, in England all magistrates' courts fines go to the Treasury. There is no proposal to change the position in Scotland.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 93 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to. Clause 39 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Defence
3.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"The end of the cold war saw major changes in the international situation. In response, along with all NATO countries, we have reduced the size and adjusted the balance of our Armed Forces. We believe that our plans for the Armed Forces reflect the challenges that we are likely to face. We are determined to maintain that position and not to drop our guard. Accordingly, I have no proposals to announce that would reduce the fighting strength of our Armed Forces.
"Defence is expensive. This year we are spending £23 billion, a higher proportion of our gross domestic product than most NATO countries. That amount is being reduced, as announced last autumn. There is a continuing need to ensure that the administration and support of our Armed Forces is subjected to the most rigorous analysis. Only by doing that can we make sure that the money available for defence is being spent properly and in a way which contributes to our fighting capability.
"That is why we set up Front Line First, not to look at fighting strength, but to look at headquarters, stores, infrastructure, manning and all other aspects of defence administration and support.
"It has also been determined that we should benefit from the experience and ideas that are to be found within all parts of the Armed Forces and in the
1976
Civil Service. Accordingly, we invited service and civilian personnel to contribute their ideas, and they did so to a splendid and unprecedented degree. Over 3,000 proposals were received. All those proposals were considered and many endorsed.
"We recognised from the start that strong and efficient support is of course a necessity not a luxury. Unless the Armed Forces are recruited, trained, clothed, fed and supplied in a professional and successful manner their operational capability will suffer. Accordingly, every recommendation for change was examined against one major criterion. Would it directly or indirectly affect the operational capability of the Armed Forces? We relied heavily on the professional advice of the Chiefs of Staff. If it was concluded that a proposal would damage the fighting capabilities of the Armed Forces it was rejected.
"The proposals which have now emerged are set out in detail in the report published today. I have placed copies in the Library of the House. I do not have time in this Statement to go through every proposal, but I would like to set out the most important of our decisions.
"A number of themes have emerged from the work that has been done. First the Ministry of Defence and other headquarters at all levels are too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic. Secondly, there is scope for far more delegation of responsibility down the management chain. We can simplify working practices and increase personal responsibility and accountability. We should try to bring to our peacetime working practices the reliance on personal responsibility which the Armed Forces show so effectively in operations. Thirdly, recent experience shows that military operations are increasingly conducted on a joint service basis. Our structure should reflect that.
"We intend to reduce the Ministry of Defence in central London still further from over 5,000 to a central core of 3,750, a reduction of over 25 per cent. on previous plans. They will be housed in the main building and in the old War Office instead of four separate buildings as presently planned.
"We have decided to form a permanent joint headquarters at Northwood to replace the current approach where headquarters staff are drawn together ad hoc in response to developing crises.
"The Procurement Executive headquarters will have 500 fewer staff. We will go ahead with the planned relocation of the executive at a single site at Abbey Wood near Bristol but it will now be collocated with another headquarters which will allow significant capital savings.
"We have looked in depth at our arrangements for holding and distributing stores for the Armed Forces, such as clothing, food and fuel. We have found that modern supply techniques mean that we can reduce inessential holdings enabling us to rationalise storage facilities while improving our ability to get stocks to the front line. This will allow the closure of 17 depots in the United Kingdom of varying sizes. They are identified in the report published today which I have

1977
placed in the Library and details have been sent to those Members of Parliament in whose constituencies they lie. All together the changes in our logistic arrangements set out in the report will save the defence budget over £200 million a year and will improve operational capability by providing a more efficient supply chain better able to deliver essential stores to the front line.
"A number of the studies took a fundamental look at the arrangements for recruiting servicemen and women and our procedures for managing and training personnel. The total cost of our recruiting activities amounts to £100 million each year and is unacceptably expensive, especially when recruiting needs are low. At present it is costing between £5,000 and £15,000 for every recruit.
"It has become clear that there is scope for closer co-operation with the Employment Services Agency. Subject to the successful completion of a pilot trial, we intend to use the facilities of the 1,300 jobcentres as the first point of contact for those wishing to join the Armed Forces. This means that we can replace the existing network of over 200 careers information offices with a much smaller specialist regional organisation. We expect the proposal to save us £25 million a year.
"Given the joint service nature of military operations, we believe that it is right to combine command and staff training at the senior level and create a joint services staff college. Further work is in hand to examine whether this should be located at Camberley or Greenwich and whether junior command and staff training should take place on the same site.
"Front Line First identified a number of ways in which we could reduce the cost of flying training. We intend to establish a single defence helicopter flying training school for all three services at Middle Wallop, near Andover, or at Shawbury, near Shrewsbury; increase the involvement of civilian instructors and contractors in much of our flying training activity; and rationalise training. This means that RAF Finningley and RAF Scampton will no longer be necessary and they will be closed.
"Skilled medical support is essential for the Armed Forces, but at present service hospitals have substantial over-capacity and there is considerable scope for closer links with the National Health Service. We intend therefore to reduce the number of service hospitals in the United Kingdom from three to one which will be situated at Haslar in Gosport, and at the same time to establish regional military district hospital units in National Health Service hospitals at Derriford and at two new sites and to retain a presence at Catterick.
"We have also looked at military music. This is part of the fabric of our Armed Forces and makes an irreplaceable contribution to morale and fighting spirit. We have therefore decided that the numbers of musicians and bands which I announced last year should remain. But there is a need to rationalise and reduce the costs of training. The Royal Marines believe that training their musicians at Deal has
1978
become prohibitively expensive. The maintenance demands of the buildings, and other running costs, have resulted in costs per musician trained of up to £300,000. We therefore intend to transfer Royal Marine music training to a new location by April 1996.
"I now turn to naval infrastructure. In 1993 it was decided that the Portland naval base would close by 1996, which would leave four bases at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Faslane, and Rosyth. Over the last three years the number of ships in the Royal Navy has reduced further and over-capacity has increased. We should not be spending large amounts of money on bases unless there is an operational requirement to do so. The money spent on excess base capacity could and should be spent on enhancing the Navy's fighting capability. The Royal Navy therefore has examined whether the number of bases could be safely reduced.
"The conclusions were that Faslane on the Clyde should remain in view of the operational need for a strategic submarine base. It is also necessary to retain at least two surface ship bases, given the substantial size of the Royal Navy. Of the three surface ship bases, Rosyth is the smallest and is designated as the base for two of the three squadrons of minehunters and the fishery protection squadron.
"The Royal Navy has concluded that there is no strategic need to keep these ships permanently at Rosyth. We have therefore decided to move one squadron of minehunters to Faslane on the Clyde, which is closest to its normal area of operations. The second squadron and the fishery protection vessels will move to Portsmouth. That is sensible as the fishery protection squadron operates almost entirely off the coast of England and Wales. The Scottish Office provides a fishery' protection service around the Scottish coastline.
"Rosyth will not, however, close. There is a continuing need for other Royal Navy related activities at the Rosyth naval base site. These include necessary support for Rosyth Dockyard, storage, accommodation, defence research agency activities, and the defence land agent. Rosyth base will therefore become a Royal Naval support establish-ment continuing alongside the Rosyth Royal Dockyard. We will also retain the option of using Rosyth as a forward operating base should it become necessary to establish such a base on the east coast of Scotland. All in all, these proposals will mean that over 900 civilian and service jobs will remain at the Rosyth base. Seventy new jobs will be created on the Clyde. Around 700 civilian jobs will go; around 600 civilian jobs will remain.
"We expect these proposals to save about £22 million a year with no operational disadvantage. A consultation document on our proposals for Rosyth is being issued today. The Royal Dockyard at Rosyth is not affected by these proposals and, as announced last year, can look forward to a substantial programme of surface ship refits.
"We have also looked at arrangements for the shore basing of naval aircraft. We have concluded that the naval air stations at Culdrose and Yeovilton

1979
should continue and that the Lynx squadrons now accommodated at Portland could be moved to Yeovilton without any detriment to operational effectiveness. This will save about £12 million a year. The air station at Portland will close by 1st April 1999. This will involve the loss of 400 jobs at Portland, though some of these and about two-thirds of the service personnel based there will transfer to Yeovilton.
"In the aftermath of the cold war there is no longer a requirement for the Maritime Headquarters at Pitreavie. We therefore intend to close it in 1996. We intend to transfer some staff, together with Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland, to Faslane. The rescue co-ordination centre for the whole of the United Kingdom which we had planned to move to Pitreavie will now be set up at RAF Leuchars in Fife.
"The Special Boat Service Headquarters will be transferred from Poole to Portsmouth where the facilities will meet our requirements. This will enable the closure of Royal Marines Poole. We are also rationalising Royal Marine Barracks at Plymouth, and subject to the outcome of current studies we hope to transfer certain units to Chivenor, which is no longer required by the RAF.
"We have also looked at our requirement for ranges. We have concluded that we can provide the Armed Forces with all the range capacity required and at the same time make savings of £7.5 million a year. This will involve the closure of the ranges at Kircudbright, Pendine and Hum. There will, however, still be a need for the ranges at Aberporth and at Benbecula in the Hebrides.
"Finally, so far as RAF Germany is concerned we have also decided that we only require one air station. The Harriers and helicopters currently based at RAF Laarbruch will accordingly be redeployed to existing operational air stations in the United Kingdom. This will have operational benefits because the aircraft now based at Laarbruch often have to train over the United Kingdom.
"Change on the scale envisaged in Front Line First is bound to have painful consequences. The overall impact of the package will mean net job reductions of about 18,700 over three years. Compared with previous plans the number of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence will fall by almost 7 per cent. or 7,100; and the total of uniformed personnel will fall by 5 per cent. of which the Royal Navy will reduce by 1,900, the Army by 2,200 and the RAF by 7,500. These cuts will fall on all levels of service and civilian personnel. We anticipate that more than 20 senior military and civilian posts—that is, major-general level and above —will disappear. This will bring the total reduction in senior posts since 1990 to about one-third.
"A proportion of these reductions will require redundancies in the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. We will wish to deal sensitively and fairly
1980
with those who have served the nation well. The terms on offer will be the same as have applied to other recent redundancies.
"It will be seen that manpower reductions are higher for the RAF. This reflects in particular the conclusions of work set in hand by the Air Force Board some two years ago. The work addressed the scope for reducing costs by civilianising or contractoring out uniformed jobs. It also looked at savings to be derived from introducing new engineering work practices and from reducing the number of expensive aircrew occupying ground posts. The Air Force Board endorsed the outcome of this work, which is reflected in the measures I have announced today. Like all the other proposals I am announcing, these manpower reductions will not adversely affect our front line fighting capability.
"I should now like to outline our plans for the future of the Territorial Army. The Government remain committed to making greater use of the reserves. There has been a detailed study of the structure and manning of the TA. One option was to make a major reduction in the size of the TA to reflect the reduced home defence role.
"We have decided, however, to reject that option. In future, the role of the Territorial Army should be to act as a general reserve to the Army. It will remain an integral component of our defence forces on mobilisation and we intend to make greater use of it in peacetime. Our previous plans were for a TA with formed units of 59,000, plus a recruits pool of 4,500. The latter is no longer necessary, but we intend to retain at its current level of 59,000 the formed units of the TA.
"We shall consult widely within the TA about whether there should be some re-roling of units or other changes within the 59,000 total and will announce the outcome later in the year.
"We do not under-estimate the challenge the proposals I have announced represent for all those involved. They will have a significant impact on the lives and prospects of many who serve in the Armed Forces as well as the civilians in the Ministry of Defence. The changes are, however, essential if we are to focus our resources on sustaining and enhancing our operational capability and fighting strength. Front Line First has enabled us to do this. In particular, Front Line First has allowed us to make a number of highly significant enhancements to our front line capability which I would now like to outline to the House.
"For the Royal Navy I am able today to announce key equipment improvements across a range of capabilities that will enhance the Royal Navy's ability to sustain operations as well as being of value to Britain's warship building industry.
"We will complete the modernisation of our amphibious capability. Last year we ordered a helicopter carrier and today we are announcing that we shall shortly issue an invitation to tender for two new assault ships to replace HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid".

1981
"We will also extend the Royal Navy's capability for anti-ship and anti- submarine warfare well into the next century with the invitation to tender for the design and build of a new class of nuclear powered submarine—the Batch 2 Trafalgar class—which will replace the Swiftsure class.
"We are able to carry forward our programme to build a force of 25 modern and highly capable mine counter measures vessels. Accordingly, we are today placing an order with Vosper Thornycroft for a further batch of seven Sandown single role minehunters.
"Four Type 23 frigates are currently on order. We plan to issue invitations to tender for a further batch during the coming year. The Government will assess the case thereafter on the basis of price and operational need.
"For the Army, we can now confirm the order of a further 259 Challenger 2 tanks from Vickers Defence Systems. This will enable us to field an all Challenger 2 fleet of tanks, improve the quality of the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO's rapid reaction corps and ensure that we have a continuing capability to make a significant contribution to the type of coalition operation we saw in the Gulf. This order will be very good news for Vickers and its workforce of nearly 2,000 at both Leeds and Newcastle and to the company's sub-contractors throughout the country. An order is also being placed with Royal Ordnance at Glascoed, Gwent, for 400,000 rounds of 51 m.m. mortar ammunition. Finally, we will use some of the additional 3,000 personnel made available last year for the field army to allow the Royal Armoured Corps Training Regiment, currently the 9/12 Lancers, to be roled as a third and additional armoured reconnaissance regiment and to take its place in the front line.
"For the RAF, we are placing a production order for the mid-life update of 142 Tornado GR1 aircraft. This will provide improvements to the aircraft's avionics, navigation and armaments systems. It will maintain the operational effectiveness of the RAF's long range attack capability well into the second decade of the next century and help to preserve British Aerospace's manufacturing base at Warton, Lancashire, in the run-up to production of Eurofighter 2000.
"Turning to weapons programmes, the Gulf conflict demonstrated the value of precision stand-off weapons to allow targets to be attacked accurately while reducing aircraft vulnerability. We are therefore placing an order for advanced laser-guided bombs with the associated thermal imaging and laser designation pods. The bulk of the work will be done in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland, in the West Country, and on the south coast. In addition, the Government believe there is a good case in principle for a new long-range air to ground missile— CASOM. They will continue to examine the case for CASOM carefully and, subject to the outcome of that examination, intend to open discussions with industry later in the year.
1982
"This is a substantial programme of investment in new equipment. The orders I have announced today and orders resulting from the invitations to tender should together be worth in the region of £5,000 million and are expected to sustain directly over 10,000 jobs. These decisions represent a major boost to British industry as well as providing vital enhancements for all three services.
"The success of Front Line First has also identified resources which can now be used to deal with other pressing priorities. I have decided that the most important priorities are to reverse the hollowing out measures of recent years and to increase levels of operational training.
"To this end I can announce that the success of Front Line First has enabled me to increase RAF operational force levels by moving 12 Harrier GR7 aircraft from the reserve fleet to the front line. In addition, I can also inform the House that the frigate and the submarine previously planned to go into mothballs within the next few years will remain in service as part of the operational fleet. These proposals will, I know, be particularly welcome within the Armed Forces.
"Equipment levels are themselves of little consequence unless they are backed up by intensive and highly developed training arrangements. Here, too, I am able to announce proposals for all three services. For the Army we shall be improving our training areas in the United Kingdom and in Germany. This will enable there to be an increase in such training of between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. particularly at the battle group level. And we shall be acquiring additional training aids to allow more complete simulation training.
"For the RAF it is important that pilots should have sufficient regular flying to preserve and enhance: their skills. As part of our shift of resources to the front line, I have decided that the current level of aircrew flying training hours will be increased progressively over the next three years. When completed, the increase will bring the level of flying training for each aircrew member up to 20 hours a month, a total increase of 8,000 hours a year for the fast jet force.
"For the Royal Navy we shall be purchasing additional anti-submarine and gunnery targets to allow more realistic training for ships and naval aircraft deployed away from usual target facilities.
"One of the most important achievements of Front Line First will be progress in tri-service operational capability. I have already referred to proposals for a joint headquarters, a joint staff college and a joint helicopter school.
"I am pleased to be able to indicate our intention to develop a joint rapid deployment force. We have already the fighting elements of rapidly deployable forces such as the Royal Marines, the Parachute Brigade, and 24 Air Mobile Brigade. We shall be looking at how best we can develop the capabilities of these forces to enable them to intervene even more effectively and speedily together. We shall be providing additional communications infrastructure

1983
to improve their effectiveness and many of the equipment enhancements outlined earlier will contribute directly to improving this important area of capability. The concept of the joint rapid deployment force is one that can be built on, and the overall ability of our forces to operate at speed and effectively in the kind of situation described above will be a high priority for the future.
"In the changed strategic environment, there is a wider range of operations in which our forces may be deployed. In this context, for the Navy, we are therefore also examining the case for acquiring and committing to NATO conventionally-armed Tomahawk land-attack missiles and will be seeking information from the US Government and from industry.
"I am conscious that the changes that the Armed Forces have undergone since the end of the cold war have been painful and demanding for them as well as for civilian staff. The nation already owes them a great debt and successful implementation of the proposals I have announced today can only increase that indebtedness. This process of change needs to be managed with sensitivity and care for our people, and that we will do.
"These changes are necessary and justified. They will enable us to preserve the front line and proceed with a programme of investment necessary to maintain its operational effectiveness. Today we have demonstrated the determination of the Government to preserve and enhance our fighting strength and to ensure that our Armed Forces, soldier for soldier, pilot for pilot, and ship for ship, remain the best in the world."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is long and complex. Indeed, it has taken 29 minutes for the noble Viscount to repeat it. I do not complain about that. If we ask for Statements, we must expect what we get.
My response to the Statement will, I hope, be brief. It will be brief, first, because in two weeks' time there will be a debate in this House on the Defence Estimates when a considered response will be made from these Benches, and, secondly, because, despite extensive leaks—either from Ministers or departmental officials, I know not who—giving some idea of what the Statement was to contain, there is still a lack of information, as the Statement admits.
As regards the consultation document on Rosyth—a report, or possibly two reports, published today, which may or may not be in your Lordships' Library—I was told that if I wanted a copy I had to apply to the office of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Therefore, I find myself at some disadvantage in responding fully to the Statement.
One has to recognise the genesis of the whole exercise. Front Line First is a nice jingle: no doubt someone in the PR department of the Ministry of
1984
Defence invented it. But the fact of the matter is that the Treasury said to the Ministry of Defence, indeed, said to the Secretary of State —it was announced by the Chancellor in a Budget Statement, not by the Secretary of State for Defence—that the defence budget needed to be cut. Various figures were bandied about but the central figure seems to have been around £1.3 billion. I am led to believe that at the same time studies were being undertaken in the Ministry of Defence on all sorts of matters concerned with the issues that the noble Viscount put to us today.
So the two things came together. It was not a case of the Secretary of State saying, as the Statement says:
"That is why we set up Front Line First".
That is all for the birds, if I may so put it. It was the Treasury who said, "This is what we want and this is what we are going to get". It coincided with a number of studies going on inside the MoD.
What is odd is that the studies in the MoD came up with savings of a figure much greater than the Treasury asked for. They discovered, in the words of the Statement:
'The Ministry of Defence and other headquarters at all levels are too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic"—
possibly with too many Ministers. I understand that they also discovered that 70 per cent. of all spare parts right across the range of the Armed Forces have never been used and are sitting in depots up and down the country.
Therefore, the first question I have to ask the noble Viscount is this: as the Government have been in power for 15 years, why has it taken them so long to find out that the Ministry of Defence and other headquarters are,
"too large, too top heavy and too bureaucratic"?
Why has it taken them so long to find out that 70 per cent. of spare parts are not even used and that depots are redundant? What have they been doing all this time? Should not we have an answer?
We find that there will be unemployment resulting from the changes proposed. I ask myself and the noble Viscount: is not this just a case of a direct transfer from employment in the Ministry of Defence and its related activities to unemployment payment from the Department of Social Security? Where in that does the Treasury save?
The noble Viscount made great play of the surpluses over the savings required by the Treasury which, we are now told, will be used for extra procurement which will enhance our activity. I must say to the noble Viscount that I am rather suspicious about some of the announcements that he made. For instance, there is the replacement for HMS "Fearless" and HMS "Intrepid". The project was announced in 1992. It was repeated in 1993 and confirmed in the Defence Estimates in 1994. There is the plan to issue invitations to tender during the coming year for a further batch of Type 23 frigates. That was announced for the second time in April 1994. With regard to the Army, the noble Viscount said:
"We can now confirm the order of a further 259 Challenger 2 tanks".
That has already been announced three times. The Statement says that:
"For the RAF, we are placing a production order for the mid-life update of 142 Tornado GR1 aircraft".
That was announced in May this year.

1985
I shall not go on in this vein. It seems to me that the noble Viscount is trying to cover up a rather serious difficulty that he has in not being able to announce genuinely new projects and is simply repeating announcements that have been made not necessarily once, not necessarily twice, but three times.
I ask the noble Viscount: what, in this Statement, is truly new? How much money will be spent on the truly new projects that the noble Viscount has in mind? How much employment will thereby be generated on the new projects that have not been announced before?
I turn very briefly to Rosyth. As I said, I have not had the opportunity to read the consultation document because I have not yet applied to the noble Viscount's office for a copy. I challenge the idea that the fishery protection squadron should be removed from Rosyth. After all, Rosyth is close to the principal operational areas within the UK 200-mile fishing limits which will become our exclusive economic zone when the Law of the Sea Convention comes into force on 16th November 1994. That being the case, will the noble Viscount explain why those vessels—which are not just being moved to Faslane; I understand that they will be moved to the south coast of England—should be moved when the steaming distance to the North Sea grounds where their major operational activity occurs will cost enormous sums of money—much more than will be saved at Rosyth? However, I leave Rosyth because we shall no doubt have plenty of time to debate that in the future.
Two major questions arise. First, what is the "front line"? I am told that in the Army 94 per cent. of resources are devoted to logistical support of the front line. What do the Government mean by "front line"? Do they mean NATO out-of-area operations? What are we talking about? Until we understand what they mean by "front line", we cannot understand why the Government are producing a defence cost study in terms of defence cuts. Why are they producing it as a front line operation?
Secondly—and I ask the noble Viscount to think seriously about his answer—is this the last of the cuts? I have been privileged to be defence spokesman in this House for nearly five years. I have stood at this Dispatch Box and been assured by Ministers that Options for Change and subsequent proposals notwithstanding, this was it; this was the end of the story. Now we are faced with another one.
I want the noble Viscount to say that this really is the end of the cuts. If he says, "Oh well, the Treasury may walk in tomorrow or next year with the Budget and say it wants to knock another £1 billion or £2 billion off the defence budget", then he must say that outright. It is easy to blame the Treasury. But the Treasury is government and these cuts were accepted and endorsed by Cabinet. It is not just the Treasury as an extra-terrestrial body saying that this is what is required; it is the Government themselves saying, "This is what we propose to do".
I conclude simply by saying that the noble Viscount repeats the Statement on Bastille Day, the French national holiday. I remind your Lordships, although your Lordships' historical knowledge is outstanding, of
1986
what happened when the mob successfully stormed the Bastille on 14th July in those days of the French Revolution. They expected to find a well-armed fortress. They expected to find guns in proper operation, properly supported logistically. When they got through the gates they found nobody there. There were no guns; nothing worked. I only hope that what the Government are doing does not land our country in the same situation.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement I must say that his package of cuts has been most carefully gift-wrapped. Fortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Williams, nor I were born yesterday. We remember and assert that the primary purpose of Front Line First was not to improve the forces, but to save money. And those savings will not go to the forces; they will go to the Treasury.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Statement contained two or three new positive proposals; for example, the joint rapid deployment force, which is a good idea; the new Batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines—I believe that to be new also. But as the noble Lord showed so convincingly, almost all the rest of the positive proposals are simply confirmation of old pledges that have been repeated more than once in the past, whereas the cuts are new and very formidable. There are far too many of them for me to comment upon. I have not had time to read them all or to consult the documents now available. But perhaps we can return to some of them in the forthcoming debate.
In relation to Rosyth the blow is less heavy than had been feared at one time, but we register our admiration and sympathy for the workforce and the community Perhaps I can ask one question of the noble Viscount. How long will it take in an emergency to reconstitute Rosyth as a base? He envisaged the idea, but how long will it take? If it takes a long time that certainly weakens the front line capability of the Navy.
The heaviest proportional cuts seem to be for the top posts in the services and in the Ministry of Defence. Top brass has always been an easy political target. No doubt some reduction is called for. But I cannot help remembering the extraordinary speed and efficiency with which our expeditionary forces to the Falklands were assembled and provisioned. Much credit for that goes to the holders of the posts which the Government are now abolishing.
We still have the Falklands commitment and I ask myself whether we still have the supply back-up and the front line forces to honour that commitment. I shall return to that in our coming debate. I feel extremely worried that the answer is no and that there is a growing gap between some of our commitments—-notably the Falklands—and the capability of our forces to honour them.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he asked whether this was the end of the cuts. I have been a spokesman for a much longer time than the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I have had to answer more often in regard to piecemeal cuts by the Government in our defence forces. There are worries about that in all parts of the House and in the debate we shall look for a convincing defence from the noble Viscount.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to both Front Bench spokesmen for much of what they said, though I was highly diverted at the picture of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as the last defender of the ancien régime in your Lordships' House. If I may, I shall be reasonably brief in answering the many points raised by both noble Lords. As they observed, we shall have another opportunity to debate these matters in greater detail fairly shortly. However, I want to try to address some of the questions which both noble Lords raised.
In relation to the lack of information, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did not find the necessary papers in the Library and I will ensure immediately that he will be able to do so. Being able to apply to my office, particularly in view of how busy it has been during the past few days, is not perhaps the best way to enter into the noble Lord's esteem.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why it has taken so long to come to the conclusion that the Ministry of Defence and much of its administration was too bureaucratic and so forth. There are a number of reasons for that. First, as he rightly observed, those characteristics have been characteristics of which the management of the Ministry of Defence has been conscious for some years. The noble Lord observed that a number of studies had been in train for some time to try and address those deficiencies. I need only refer him, by way of example, to the prospect study of 1991. It made our job, particularly for me who is the ministerial sponsor for the studies addressing the question of management and financial control within the Ministry of Defence, very much easier in that there was so much fine work, solidly based, looking at reforms on what seem to me to be entirely the right lines on which we could base the analysis under Front Line First. We were able to accelerate and deepen those reforms and bring them to fruition in what is a highly complex organisation. At the same time as making those reforms we must be able to maintain the defence capability to which both noble Lords rightly paid tribute this afternoon.
I also draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, a point to which the Statement made reference. The end of the cold war has meant a reduction in the size of our Armed Forces and it has also meant that we have had to look fairly radically at what we want our Armed Forces to be capable of doing and to assess where the threat is. Therefore, to change in the light of the end of the cold war was an imperative: not an imperative going back to 1979 and the first time that we had to begin to forget the effects of a socialist government but something that came as a result of the end of the cold war. I would ask the noble Lord to bear that in mind, particularly when he comes to considering the remarks that he will make during our defence debate in a few days' time.
The noble Lord also asked where the Treasury is saving. I remind him that, quite properly, the duty of the Ministry of Defence is to provide this country with defence capability. I am sure he would be the last to advocate that the Ministry of Defence should spend defence pounds on support capability which is surplus
1988
to its requirements. He would not advocate such a thing and I certainly would not do so. Therefore, it is only right that the support element, to which the noble Lord rightly drew attention as being an essential part of our defence capability, should only be great enough and should be taut enough to be able to supply the front line cutting edge.
The noble Lord also asked—and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, made reference to this—what is new in the equipment announcements. The noble Lord is perfectly correct to say that we have planned to provide a number of the pieces of equipment to which the Statement refers. We have planned to provide them for some time. He was also right to say that not the Treasury but the Government as a whole made a judgment on public expenditure in the last PES round. It was a judgment to which the entire Government subscribed. If they had not subscribed to it there would no doubt have been resignations. So far as I know, there were none. One of the beneficial effects of the Front Line First exercise and the savings, as a result of the greater efficiency, that we think we will be able to make is that we are able to confirm those orders and not cancel them in spite of the reduced amount of government expenditure devoted to defence in the PES round. We ought to be proud of that rather than suggest, as the noble Lord does, that this is a source of criticism. It is also fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out quite correctly, that the Statement referred to a number of innovations and new equipment announcements.
On top of that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not underestimate the effect of the reversal of what is known in the trade as "hollowing out". It is something which I know has been worrying the Armed Forces for a number of years. We have taken a significant step towards making sure that the ships, regiments and aeroplanes available to the Armed Forces of the Crown are not merely there for show but can actually deliver what we say they can. That is where the reversal of hollowing out has been so important.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to what he called the top brass. Of course he is right. Without their extraordinary professionalism it would have been impossible to have mounted either the Falklands campaign or the Gulf campaign. The fact that we are reducing the number of senior officers in the Armed Forces in no way undermines the validity of what the noble Lord said, but it is only fair to say that with smaller Armed Forces it is right that we should not become too top heavy in the matter of the number of generals we employ. It has been pointed out by a number of Opposition politicians, and indeed by newspapers, that the number of very senior officers nominally in the British Armed Forces is higher in ratio than for a number of other armed forces. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would not wish us to be overburdened in that direction in spite of their own manifest competence.
Is this the last of the cuts? I must say to both noble Lords that this exercise will enable us to preserve the front line and to proceed with the programme of investment necessary to maintain its operational

1989
effectiveness. I cannot anticipate, as the noble Lord well knows, the outcome of any future PES round. But I can say to the noble Lord—and I hope that this will be of some comfort to him—that the programme of new equipment and operational improvements which we announced today is a clear indication of the direction in which the Government intend to head.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount very much for his frank if rather curate's egg-like Statement on the Front Line First exercise which now requires very careful study, a stripping away of the gift-wrapping and a full debate, which I am glad we are going to have.
At this stage I merely make two observations. First, whatever the merits and demerits of the proposals—and I am sure they involve both—they must be viewed and considered against the background of all the draconian cuts in front line manpower, support services and pressure on budget holders which have been imposed since the beginning of the decade. By 1997 those cuts will have reduced defence expenditure by 25 per cent. in real terms to bring it down to below 3 per cent. of the gross national product: all in a world where we have replaced the comparative stability of the East-West balance with the far greater uncertainty and instability of a volatile and kaleidoscopic world. It is therefore very important that we get an assurance from the Government that at least in their lifetime there will be no more cuts to sap further the confidence and professionalism of our uniquely expert and reliable Armed Forces and indeed distract them from the real problems of the future.
Secondly, I am sure the House will wish to analyse and to question the Minister most carefully not only on whether these cuts in manpower and civilianisation are sensible in the real world in which we live and can be made without detriment to our front line—whatever that may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said —and the capability and quality of our Armed Forces, but on whether the so-called good news which the noble Viscount mentioned really does represent enhancement in areas which are so in need of it rather than being largely cosmetic or, as has already been said, tardy announcements of equipment items already in the programme. I am sure that we will be looking for reassurance from the noble Viscount on that and he may like to quote an add-back figure to reassure us.
It is excellent that we are having a debate before the Recess but I wish to register my disappointment that yet again it is being held on the last day of the Session. I am sure that the noble Viscount of all people will agree that something as important as the whole future of our national security and the support to our foreign policy should never under any circumstances be marginalised.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble and gallant Lord welcomes at least some of what the Statement announced today. I must refer him to what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, when he asked for an assurance about whether there would be any more depredations to the defence budget. I hope that
1990
the spirit of what I said a little earlier is one which we will be able to maintain and one into which the noble and gallant Lord will be able to read something positive.
Are these enhancements cosmetic? Perhaps the best way I can attempt at least to reassure the noble and gallant Lord is by saying that, when it became apparent that there was additional money over and above the reduction in the defence budget that we had been asked to find in the current PES round, Ministers immediately consulted the Chiefs of Staff. We have taken the very clear advice of the Chiefs of Staff about how that money should be spent. I am content to rest on their judgment
As regards the date of the defence debate, like the noble and gallant Lord, I am grateful that we are at least holding it before the Recess, unlike another place. If he is still worried about the debate being held on the last day, that is a matter for him to take up with the usual channels rather than with me.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the Government have changed their plans about Rosyth as a result of the campaign?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the short answer to that is no. The proposals are exactly as they first emerged from the study groups about what the proper balance of capability should be at Rosyth. I am grateful to my noble friend for enabling me to make that clear
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as regards the decision to move the Royal Marine band training school from Deal in Kent to some other place, if there is not already in place a lasting memorial to the members of the band who lost their lives in the horrific bomb attack there about four years ago, before the band and the school of music is moved, will the Government ensure that there will be a lasting memorial put in place in Deal to the memory of those young men who lost their lives in that horrific event?
I turn now to Rosyth. I have not read the consultation document. Does the noble Viscount appreciate that the feeling in Rosyth, which the Government should take on board, is that Rosyth is being asked to accept a much heavier share of the cuts, as; a result of what is. loosely described as the "peace dividend", than any other part of the United Kingdom? Rosyth in particular, and Fife in general, see history repeating itself because in 1921, after the First World War, it was the Rosyth naval base which was closed down and moved to Portsmouth. Here we are, 73 years on, with the same kind of announcement. Whatever the noble Viscount says, at the end of the day there will be between 700 and 800 fewer jobs in the Royal Naval base at Rosyth and possibly 1,000 fewer jobs in the county of Fife because of the proposals for Pitreavie which is only up the road from Rosyth. Fife and its economy simply cannot stand that kind of measure of job loss, having made a major contribution to the two world wars in 1914–1918 and 1939–45. It is really time to put a stop to asking Rosyth in particular and Fife in general to bear more than their share of the cuts in this regard.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's suggestion for a memorial at Deal, I am

1991
very conscious of the tragedy which occurred there. I shall at once remit his suggestion to the proper authorities. I am most grateful to him for making it.
As regards Rosyth, I challenge the noble Lord's assertion that it has suffered more than any other part of the United Kingdom as a result of Front Line First. My own constituency of South Dorset included the naval base at Portland. As a result of Options for Change and now Front Line First, not only will they have lost the Flag Officer Sea Training and the main activity of the naval base, but also HMS "Osprey". That will have a terrible effect on employment in my old constituency.
I have to accept the overwhelming reasons why it was necessary to do so. But I certainly challenge—in the same way, as I believe the people who work at Eaglescliffe would—that particular assertion by the noble Lord, particularly when one considers that for the first time for many years now the average rate of unemployment in Scotland is lower than the average for the whole of the United Kingdom. I also point out to the noble Lord that there will remain 630 civilians and 335 servicemen and women working in Rosyth. A number of the 700 civilian posts lost will be redeployed. I am always sorry when people lose their jobs and I know that the noble Lord is, too. I hope that he will not yield to the temptation, despite his understandable links and loyalty to his own hearth, by exaggerating too much the effect of what he describes.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister the question of which my noble friend Lord Russell gave him notice. Have the Government made any attempt to estimate the cost to the social security budget of the cuts which they have just announced and is the estimate of savings from this review gross or net of such cost? Perhaps I may also repeat to the Minister the question which I asked the other day. Has any decision been made on replacement of the elderly Lockheed Hercules aircraft? If not, how are our troops to get to the front line?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving me advance notice of that question. I point out to the noble Lord that it is not possible to estimate the effect of staff redundancies on the social security budget. However, the effect is likely to be small in the light of compensation payments made on termination of employment. For those over the age of 55 any occupational pension payable is likely to affect entitlement to unemployment benefit.
As regards replacement of the C-130, we plan either to replace or to refurbish the first half of the RAF's Hercules fleet by the end of the century. We are assessing the price and performance data which we have received for the new buying and refurbishment options for both halves of the replacement need in order to determine the most cost-effective option. We hope to take a decision before the end of this calendar year.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to those who have been stressing the importance of stability following a period of four years of unparalleled turbulence, reduction, redundancy and
1992
so on. The more that can be said the better to stress that this process is now over, even allowing for the fact that for the next five or six years there will be reorganisation and redundancy to be faced in all three Services. I welcome the emphasis which has been placed on "jointery". I hope that we can be reassured that joint staff training will first ensure that single-service knowledge is well established in the mind of each and every officer. Such an officer cannot bring to a joint operation or staff project proper advice unless he is well informed himself.
The importance of rapid redeployment seems to underline the importance of the last point which the noble Viscount touched on regarding the refurbishment or replacement of the C-130 Hercules. I hope that we can have an early announcement about that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. As far as the joint staff college is concerned, he will not be surprised to hear that that point has been made repeatedly by members of all three Services. I am sure that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I can only refer once again to the answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on the subject of stability. It is a point which I know all members of the Armed Forces would echo. We must look at the circumstances at the time. I can only reiterate what I said a little earlier.
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for what he said about the C-130 replacement. I am sure that his remarks will receive keen attention from the people in my department.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we are grateful for the detail that the Minister gave, but I am sure that he will understand that it will take quite a bit of time for us to appreciate the criteria and rationale behind parts of the Statement. At the beginning of the Statement, the noble Viscount said something to the effect that this was not an exercise in looking at the size of our Front Line forces. Indeed, if we take the Front Line forces and the Reserves together, we can see that the Statement does not produce any additional Front Line servicemen.
As my noble friend Lord Williams and other noble Lords have said, many of us find great difficulty—I am certain that this is true of people throughout the country—in reconciling the various Statements that we have heard, starting with Options for Change, and many other Statements and defence White Papers since then, leading to this Front Line exercise and what the Government are doing in terms of the size of our Armed Forces, with the political commitments which the Government have undertaken and which those Armed Forces have to meet. That point is absolutely fundamental, so I plead with the Minister to ensure that when we debate these matters in two weeks' time the Government will try to reassure us on that point.
We have to remember the situation in Northern Ireland, the dangers of the situation in eastern Europe, the Gulf, the middle east, the far east and Africa as well as the demands made upon us by NATO and the United Nations. I hope that the Government will be able to reconcile what they are doing now in terms of the future

1993
size of our Armed Forces with all those commitments. So, the short question that I want to ask the Minister is whether he can assure the House that under all circumstances, in any theatre of the world, the size of our Armed Forces (which he has just announced) will be adequate to meet any demands that are made of us.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has been articulated by many Members of your Lordships' House—certainly since I became a Member. I am grateful to the noble Lord for acknowledging the complexity of the Statement. I certainly acknowledge how difficult it is to make a thorough analysis of the situation based purely on listening to my reading a Statement, and I also acknowledge how much we are asking in expecting your Lordships to do that.
I draw the noble Lord's attention to the new armoured reconnaissance regiment, to the plans to place frigates in extended readiness being revoked, and to the increasing strength of the RAF Harrier squadrons as examples of the increases which the noble Lord might not have felt were being made as a result of this exercise. On commitments, I advise the noble Lord that we have tried to be as open as possible about how we relate our defence capability to our commitments. I refer the noble Lord once again, as I know I have previously —I hope that he will forgive me for raising this point again—to the 1993 White Paper which revealed that a great deal of work had been done on that subject. We shall keep that analysis up to date in an attempt to be able to justify our provision of defence capability to the noble Lord and to other Members of your Lordships' House, and so that we shall be able to give an affirmative answer to questions such as the noble Lord has asked.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, first, can the noble Viscount say whether any study has been undertaken as regards how much of the saving that will be made by these cuts in personnel will be absorbed in unemployment benefit, income support and so forth? Secondly, have the Government any plans to bring any new industry to the Dunfermline area around Rosyth where I understand that unemployment is already about 20 per cent? Finally, turning to the Army, the noble Viscount announced considerable additional training programmes, but with overstretch at its present level, how is the time to be found for that extra training?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, taking the noble Lady's last point first, I advise her that the Government are still committed to their prediction of an average emergency tour interval of 24 months by 1995-96. I have made that commitment many times in your Lordships' House and we are still sticking to it. I hope that the noble Lady will find that at least some comfort in her allegation of overstretch.
On the question about bringing new industry to Dunfermline, I hope as much as the noble Lady that new industry will go to Dunfermline where, as she knows better than I do, there are considerable industrial skills. Although it is not the business of the Ministry of Defence to bring that investment to Dunfermline, I can
1994
advise the noble Lady that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has set up close lines of communication with other government departments. That is designed to ensure that the Ministry of Defence can be as helpful as possible to the efforts of those departments which are responsible for attracting investment to particular areas which have suffered as a result of defence closures.
The noble Lady's first question seemed similar to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I said then, it is not possible to estimate the effects of staff redundancies on the social security budget. I refer the noble Lady to the remainder of the answer that I gave to the noble Lord.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
5.6 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 93A not moved.]
Clause 40[Establishment etc. of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority]:
[Amendment No. 93B not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Power to secure management of traffic control system]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Guidance as to exercise of traffic powers]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment 95A:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
Rights of individuals
("Draft strategy for rights and obligations
.—(1) Every Council shall have a duty to prepare a draft strategy for their area regarding the provision of advice and information concerning an individual's rights and obligations.
(2) A draft strategy shall contain a council's proposals for the administration of the provision of advice and information concerning an individual's rights and obligations within the whole area of the council and shall specify the date or dates by which such a draft strategy shall be implemented.
(3) Every Council shall before 1st April 1997 give public notice of the fact that they have prepared such a draft strategy and of the places within their area where copies of the draft strategy may be inspected, and any such notice shall invite the public, within a period of not less than eight weeks from the date of the notice, to make to the council representations as regards the draft strategy.
(4) Every Council shall, during the period mentioned in subsection (3) above, consult the community councils within their area, and the providers of advice and information services both locally within their area and nationally and such providers shall include national and local voluntary organisations and statutory bodies.
(5) After considering any representations made under subsection (3) or (4) above, the council may amend the draft strategy (whether to take account of those representations or otherwise) and shall adopt the strategy.
(6) After the strategy has been adopted, the council shall give public notice of such strategy and inform the consultees under subsection (4) above.
(7) Where a strategy has been adopted, it shall be the duty of the council concerned to implement the scheme by the date or dates specified in the strategy.
(8) The council concerned shall have a duty to review the strategy within two years of the date of implementation to ensure that the existing strategy makes adequate provision of information and advice concerning an individual's rights and obligations.
(9) Following such a review, a council may amend a strategy adopted under this section or revoke and replace such a strategy but the amended strategy or, as the case may be, new strategy will be subject to the consultative process specified in subsection (3) and (4), and shall then be adopted in accordance with the provisions of this section, subject to such modifications as are necessary.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to improve the service of the citizens advice bureaux. It is backed by a number of bodies, including the Tenants Information Service, Enable, the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, the Scottish Council for Single Parents, SCVO, Scottish Women's Aid, TPAS, the Scottish Anti Poverty Network, the Scottish Asian Action Committee and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. As the Committee will know, all those bodies act throughout Scotland through a variety of voluntary centres and citizens' advice bureaux. As in all such matters, they encounter great difficulties in getting to the right people for the information that they seek. The well-known skiver, about whom people are so fond of talking, knows everything and he or she can find out the information required, but a great many people throughout Scotland do not know what help they can get or what advice is available.
Therefore, the amendment is an attempt to improve the availability of advice of various sorts throughout the country. It encourages local councils, wherever they may be, to consider the giving out of information and advice and, with the co-operation of voluntary bodies and by consultation, trying to plan ahead for that. The amendment endeavours to improve the location of citizens advice bureaux, co-operation between the various financial voluntary bodies and the advice that is available.
The amendment may not be perfect and it is somewhat elaborate, but the idea behind it is good. I hope that the Government will appreciate it. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: I rise to give general support to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I, too, am unable to judge whether the new clause in every aspect of its drafting will achieve the aim which he seeks and which those who support it seek. However, my comments are based, as it were, on 20 years hard labour in local government and I can say that, in the main, citizens advice bureaux tend to be located in side streets, behind principal buildings and are difficult to locate. The reasons are the usual commercial reasons; usually these bodies cannot afford rent in a principal street where people can find them readily. If a draft strategy were to be published and implemented it would be of considerable assistance to the citizens advice bureaux if only for that reason. We might then see them located in principal areas where the populace who need to use them might easily be able to do so.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My noble friend Lord Carmichael and I lend our support to the new clause, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. AH Members of the Committee, whether or not they have been Members of another place, will during their political life and public representation have had experience of dealing in particular with the citizens advice bureaux. As was said by my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, the CABs need easy accessibility. One of their features is the way in which they are located in back streets. My experience during the past 25 to 30 years has been that the local authority has acquired a property to demolish at some future date and in order to keep that property tenanted between the time of acquisition and demolition the tenants happen to become a branch of the citizens advice bureaux. That is not a satisfactory approach to this very valuable service.
Their value has not been-and I am sure that they would not claim to be-that they are the people who solve the problems. But, my goodness, theirs is certainly the organisation which points people in the right direction towards others who can solve their problems. There are many people in this country who, when faced with a problem that they see as insurmountable, first approach the citizens advice bureaux and other voluntary organisations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and I have encouraged the Minister to respond positively to this helpful and valuable new clause.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): The intentions which lie behind the proposed clause are very commendable. However, the Committee may be interested to know that in the wake of the White Paper on open government, a working group has been set up to review the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
The working group comprises officials from the Scottish Office Environment Department, DoE, local authority associations in England and Wales and CoSLA. Alongside this, I understand that CoSLA proposes to draw up a voluntary code of practice on making information available to the general public. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will approve of that.
I believe that this working group is ideally placed to take this initiative forward and to ensure that anything proposed does not cut across existing statutes since rights of access to information are enshrined in many separate pieces of legislation. Perhaps I may point Members of the Committee to Clause 139. An amendment was proposed on much the same topic by much the same bodies as those to which the noble Lord referred. That clause enables local authorities to assist voluntary organisations to provide information and advice relating to individuals' rights and obligations. It was added to the Bill during its passage through another place.
If the noble Lord looks to the language of Clause 139 and of the clause that he proposes, he will see that the objectives are much the same. However, the proposal in his clause that councils should have a "duty" to prepare

1997
a strategy is firmer than what is provided for in Clause 139. Nevertheless, I consider Clause 139 to be a useful addition in this field.
I have no problem with the motivation behind the new clause and I am not surprised that it is supported by the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. However, I suggest that a joint local and central government working group is the best means of furthering this matter. In view of this important and ongoing work, all of which is part of the Citizen's Charter activity, I hope that the noble Lord will consider that he can withdraw his proposed new clause.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply and for drawing my attention to Clause 139, which of course I had read. The main purpose of the amendment was not that the authorities should assist—we know that they want to do so—but that they should plan ahead in order to obtain the most efficient structure. However, in the light of the Minister's helpful reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 95B:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Management of Regional Park or Country Park
.Where more than one local authority is responsible for the management of a Regional Park or Country Park previously managed by a regional council, the Secretary of State may by order establish a joint board for the purpose of discharging that function.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause deals with the management, funding and development of country parks throughout Scotland. In moving it, perhaps I might leave with the Minister the suggestion that a joint board should be established. I know that it is strange for someone such as me, who has been so critical of the number of quangos created as a result of this legislation, to suggest that yet one more should be established in order to run the country parks. In this case, the joint board would be made up of representatives from local authorities in the area.
There are numerous examples throughout Scotland, but in order to be brief I shall not go into them. A joint board will be necessary where a country park falls into different authority areas. Those different authorities may well have different priorities as regards the development, funding and management of these country parks. As a result of the development and availability of leisure facilities throughout Scotland, not least the country parks—and I pay tribute to all concerned—it is essential not only that we should retain them but that they should be developed and properly funded. For that reason, I have pleasure in moving the new clause.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not know whether the noble Lord recollects—I certainly do—that in 1981 I took through a Private Member's Bill entitled the Countryside (Scotland) Bill which established in Scotland not just the country parks to which he referred but also the larger regional parks. I am pleased to say that there are now four well-established and very
1998
successful regional parks in Scotland. The noble Lord is probably familiar with the one in Fife—the Lomond Hills.
Lord Kirkhill: Will the Minister tell the Committee to which of those parks he refers? He said that there are four of them and I should be interested to know to which four he is referring.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: At present, there are four regional parks in Scotland: one at Loch Lomond; one at Clydemuirshiel which is up behind Greenock; the Pentland Hills; and finally the one which encompasses the Lomond Hills and the water, the name of which I forget.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Lochore Meadows.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Lochore Meadows. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the benefit of his local knowledge. Those parks are all extremely successful and it may be that more parks will be established in Scotland. For that reason, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety that where the management of such parks would require joint co-operation on the part of a number of local authorities, there is a danger that that co-operation may not be forthcoming.
As the noble Lord anticipated, I warm to his support for joint boards because I reflect upon the harsh words that he had to say about the proposals to allow such joint boards to be established in Clause 20.
I have no objection to such regional or country parks having joint boards. However, if local authorities wish to have such an arrangement, the power is in place for them to ask the Secretary of State for it.
The parks are a success story in Scotland. Local authorities have a wide range of options open to them to ensure that that success continues. If it is considered that a joint board is the best way forward, this Bill allows for that.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: In view of what the Minister said, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. However, I do so with the reservation that in the event that local authorities do not ask the Secretary of State to establish joint boards, he should use the powers that he is taking in the Bill to establish them. I merely leave that matter for the consideration of the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 95C:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Trading Standards functions
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the new authorities to draw up proposals to ensure that the duties, functions or powers of a local weights and measures authority under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 or under any other related legislative provision ("the Trading Standards functions") in Scotland are from 1st April 1996, carried out by not more than 12 bodies, being local authorities or Joint Committees of local authorities, and, in any case where a proposal involves the creation of a Joint Committee of local authorities, such related functions as the Authorities forming the Joint Committees may agree.
(2) The membership of any Joint Committee established under subsection (1) shall be composed of at least one member for each of the authorities belonging to it.
(3) The Secretary of State shall before 1 February 1996 consider whether the proposals drawn up under subsection (1) are satisfactory, having regard in particular to the desirability of

1999
ensuring as far as practicable that the Trading Standards functions will be discharged in Scotland in the most effective manner which, in particular—

(a) ensures economy and efficiency in its use of resources;

(b) promotes consistency and uniformity in the application of the Trading Standards functions;

(c) achieves an operational scale to ensure the availability of specialist skills; and

(d) protects the health, safety and economic interests of consumers of goods and services.

(4) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that any proposals which have been drawn up under subsection (1) are not satisfactory, or will not be or are unlikely to be in force by 1 April 1996, he shall, before that date, by order establish not more than 12 bodies to discharge the Trading Standards functions in such areas as may be specified").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that following the restructuring of local authorities in Scotland, the essential elements to deliver an effective trading standards service which meets local needs of consumers and the strategic concerns of trade and industry are retained.
The trading standards function is currently based on nine regional councils and three island councils. The proposal for the creation of a new structure of 32 unitary authorities will not provide a satisfactory basis for the future delivery of an effective and efficient service.
The suggestion that adequate service provision can be achieved through voluntary arrangements has proved not to be a viable alternative. In England, following the abolition of the metropolitan councils, they have, with only one fragile exception been disbanded. I have been involved in the trading standards scene for many years as past president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. I can confirm that the role of trading standards is becoming increasingly complex. It is heavily influenced not only by large amounts of legislation emanating from this Parliament but also from Brussels. That has required the development of increasingly expert staff and the establishment of specialist premises fitted out with expensive, sophis-ticated equipment in order that the service can remain effective and keep up with the increasing flow of detailed legislation. The creation of almost three times the number of separate departments in Scotland would inevitably lead either to expensive duplication or a reduction in the level of service.
I remind the Committee that great importance is attached by businesses to consistency and uniformity with regard to trading standards. I quote from a letter which the Director General of the CBI wrote to the president of the Board of Trade on 25th January on this subject. He said:
"There is growing concern amongst CBI members about the fragmentation of regulatory services which may follow local government reorganisation.
"Our members do not have much confidence in the effectiveness of joint boards constituted voluntarily by local authorities. There is a risk that the participating authorities will take a purely local view and that the necessary co-ordination will not in practice be seen".
Almost without exception, that view is represented by all the leading trading organisations.
I should point out also that in our main competitor countries in western Europe, trading standards are co-ordinated on a smaller-number basis. For example, in Germany, the trading standards organisation is based on
2000
the 12 lander. In France, there is a 32-region structure for the whole country. Britain will stand out as a country which had a concentrated trading standards function which will be divided if the proposals go ahead.
There is no doubt that trading standards is a strategic service. That is why the amendment proposes that the new unitary authorities should be obliged to ensure that trading standards remain based on 12 units in Scotland. If that does not work, then the Secretary of State should review the situation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I sympathise greatly with the idea behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I am quite certain that he is correct to say that voluntary arrangements will not work.
However, the decision to bring local government back to a single tier may cut out some of the present duplication between the regions and districts. Consumer protection and trading standards are at present regional functions; but markets, food hygiene, standards and labelling are district functions. Therefore, under the new proposed single structure of local government, the whole operation can be managed by the environmental health department.
I find it interesting that although environmental health departments have among their staff some of the most dedicated and highly qualified personnel, I have not received a letter from them saying, "Please preserve the director", because they never had one.
I should also like to refer to Amendment No. 157A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It refers to a scientific services agency. Perhaps I may express an opinion. We have had public analysts on the staff of local government. Of all the officials we have, I believe that the term "public analyst" is very misleading. I wish that those concerned had chosen the term "professional analyst". That is what they are; indeed, they are very highly qualified people.
I may be out of turn in speaking to another amendment—although, I hope not—but I believe that many Members of the Committee have the matter very much in mind. I shall be most interested to know what the Government propose to do in respect of this general subject. I should also like to know how the smaller authorities will be able to get the technical services they need without necessarily employing their own and, equally, whether there will be cross-border support from some of the bigger authorities.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may intervene to assist the Committee on the matter of public analysts. The first qualification is a first-class honours degree in chemistry. They must then qualify in a master's degree from the Royal Society of Chemistry—as a Master of Chemical Analysis. The combination is about seven years, together with a period of training in the office of another public analyst. They are highly skilled people; indeed, they are the cream of the cream of applied chemistry.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am content to leave the question of public analysts until we come to that debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on the proposed new

2001
clause of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As we proceed through the Bill, there is a danger that if someone does not rise from the Opposition Front Bench to express support for a new clause, especially one as important as that now before the Committee, it will be thought that we do not support it. Therefore, I suppose, we are damned if we do and damned if we do not.
We are discussing a most important issue. If any local government service is consumer orientated, it is certainly the trading standards department. As I understand the proposed new clause, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, its aim is to concentrate trading standards operations on 12 authorities rather than each of the unitary authorities having its own trading standards officer.
We keep returning to Central Region, and I am pleased to see the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is with us today. However, it provides a very good example of the kind of chaos that could prevail if, say, Stirling had its own trading standards officer; if Clackmannan had its own trading standards officer; and if Falkirk, likewise, had its own trading standards officer. The truth of the matter in Central Region is that people in Clackmannan shop in Stirling, people from Stirling shop in Alloa and people in Falkirk shop in both Stirling and Alloa. If we had different trading standards approaches in those three small areas, that would obviously not be to the benefit of consumers.
My experience over the years has been that trading standards officers have certainly raised the awareness of those selling goods about the need to ensure that the standards set in legislation are met. We can all give examples from our case files of how consumers have been deceived by those selling goods. A new development that is taking up a great deal of the time of trading standards officers is the fictitious labelling of goods. We all know what goes on as regards perfume, aftershave lotions and garments such as polo-neck sweaters. The Open Golf Championship is taking place at Turnberry. I am absolutely certain that some fictitious goods will be on sale there during the next fortnight. Trading standards are absolutely essential. It is a very good new clause, and I am pleased to support it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I must apologise for not having heard the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, speak to the amendment. Therefore, I speak in ignorance, although I have had a discussion in the Border Region recently with those who operate in this area and also in environmental health. All I would say to my noble and learned friend is that those in my part of the world are concerned that the matter should be dealt with by 12 areas in Scotland. They feel quite comfortable about arrangements for the future in dealing with 100,000 souls in the area and see no reason why the Government's view, as portrayed after consultation, should not be upheld in the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Ezra. In the days when I was chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, I had a good deal to do with trading standards officers who were then at an early stage of their development. However, I formed a very good impression of their
2002
professional standards and of their general integrity and usefulness. It is one more case of the kind of service that is put seriously at risk through being dealt with by a large number of small authorities. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, pointed correctly to some of the complications in such matters; for example, the way in which various environmental health matters are dealt with at district council level. The noble Earl raised the question as to how the new smaller unitary authorities will be able to provide themselves with the necessary technical expertise to perform the trading standards function. That is essentially the point my noble friend Lord Ezra made.
There is a certain critical mass that is required in terms of the organisation here as regards the level of expertise. If trading standards are to operate properly, highly specialised people are required as well as some very expensive and highly specialised equipment for use in certain areas. Therefore, there is no alternative in the new structure of local government that the Government propose to trying to make joint arrangements of some kind. The essential issue is whether those arrangements are to be piecemeal and voluntary or whether they are to have some systematic and coherent framework. That is what my noble friend Lord Ezra proposes.
It is not only the interests of the consumer that are at stake; it is also the interests of commerce, business and industry. In the modern world where such matters are of great significance, it is most important to have some kind of consistency, uniformity and coherence. Indeed, it is most important in terms of our relations with the European Union and the directives that flow out of Brussels.
My noble friend Lord Ezra quoted from the CBI. In conclusion, perhaps I may quote from the CBI in Scotland. The confederation says that it,
"believes that Trading Standard:; organisations benefit from the economies of scale for the purpose of specialist equipment and the employment of suitably trained staff. We therefore consider that introducing smaller units than those currently in operation may lead to fragmentation and inefficiency (resulting in increased business costs) of the services available to business and should wherever possible be avoided".
I hope that the Government will give a positive and sympathetic response to the points made by my noble friend.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having made it clear that, despite the wording of the proposed new clause which refers to a,
"Joint Committee of local authorities",
what he has in mind is not a set of voluntary bodies coming together, which could be dismantled at any time, but rather statutory joint arrangements. However, in the context of the Bill, the latter would, I think, be best described as a joint board rather than as a committee which conveys, certainly in this context, the idea that it is a voluntary arrangement which could indeed be broken up at any time.
I wish to say immediately that I am well aware of the concerns of different trading standards professionals over the effect this reorganisation may have on their service. I should also say that my ministerial colleague at the Scottish Office, the Minister for Industry and Local Government, Mr. Allan Stewart, has met, and is

2003
indeed due to meet again, Sir Gordon Borrie and representatives from the Institute of Trading Standards Administration to discuss further these very matters. I am not entirely sure when that meeting is to be held but I understand that it will be held shortly.
As a number of those who have contributed to this debate have made clear, I am also aware that it is not only the trading standards professionals who have expressed anxiety about this matter. The anxiety that was revealed in the comments of the CBI in Scotland that were mentioned today is also shared by a number of companies and consumer organisations in Scotland. I am not surprised at that because this is an important service. The skills required are probably becoming ever greater and a number of the problems that have to be resolved require an ever greater expertise. However, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden made clear, there is no unanimity as regards the way this matter might be resolved. If the Border Region with its population believes that the areas we are discussing are of a sufficient size to provide the necessary expertise, we consider that that is essentially a matter for that region.
In contrast to the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made that there should be 12 such bodies in Scotland, there have been those who have lobbied with equal vigour that Scotland is of such a size that there should be only one body for the whole country. Against that background of a wide range of conflicting advice we have come to the conclusion, which is part of a theme throughout this part of the Bill, that local authorities should retain the right to decide how they will deliver their own trading standards services. Expertise can and is already being shared by councils who can and do buy in specialist advice as and when necessary. There is no reason why similar arrangements should not continue to apply. Alternatively, councils in this field might wish to share staff.
The Bill contains a number of provisions—we have discussed them on a number of occasions in the past few days —aimed at offering local authorities as much flexibility as possible. For example, Clause 57—which we shall discuss later—makes it clear that councils are entitled to buy in services from one another. Clause 20 allows councils to ask the Secretary of State to set up joint boards in their area.
Given the range of advice that we have received and the lobbying as to the appropriate number required in this case, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that I would be reluctant to determine now that 12 was necessarily the right figure. It would seem to me that the preferred course would be to allow the local authorities, as they are established, to determine what arrangements they think are most appropriate. If they were to choose to establish joint boards, and if the total number came to 10, 12 or thereabouts, that would clearly cause the Secretary of State no difficulties at all. However, at this time we certainly wish to maintain a flexible approach to accommodate the range of views we have heard from those in the Borders through to those people who want a single arrangement for all of Scotland.
I do not underestimate the importance of this matter. We are discussing an important area of services
2004
delivered by local government, but I hope that after this useful debate the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response and for the views expressed by other Members of the Committee. The issue is really quite an important one. There is a re-organisation of local government into smaller units but there are certain functions of local government which many feel need to continue to be provided on a larger regional basis. Trading standards, by general accord, are one of those services. I very much fear that the Government's approach, as explained to us, will introduce a good deal of uncertainty into the situation. At the moment the trading standards organisation in Scotland is working very effectively. It has the equipment and it has the personnel to do the job for which it was set up. This is all going to be put at risk while the larger number of unitary authorities make up their minds as to whether they want to do the whole job themselves, to buy in services or to join with others. I can see a period of major disturbance of this important service arising from that, as each of the 32 new authorities make up their minds as to what they want to do.
The Government should reflect seriously on this problem. There may well be strong arguments in favour of this larger number of unitary bodies but there are equally strong arguments for maintaining well-established regional services which are of the sophistication and the skill required in the case of trading standards. I would not like at this stage to press the amendment to a vote but I believe that this is a matter we shall come back to at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Proceedings in district courts: transitional provisions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 95D:
Page 44, line 15, after ("shall") insert ("no later than 31st March 1996").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 95D. This amendment is important from the Scottish point of view. I am not sure that I can speak for the rest of the United Kingdom but I believe that Scotland has always been fairly far advanced in its provision of social work, originally through the churches and the parishes. Then we had the Poor Law. It was in many areas an enlightened Poor Law, although not in every area-
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I hope I may correct my noble friend Lord Carmichael. He is so enthusiastic to meet the Government's wishes to make progress with this Bill that he has jumped one group of amendments ahead. He is to be highly commended for that. As he is being so co-operative, I hope he will receive a co-operative reply from the Minister when he replies to the debate. I shall now speak to Amendment No. 95D which deals not with social work, which we shall come

2005
to shortly, but with another aspect of social life in Scotland; namely, the district courts. Amendment No. 95D seeks to ensure that the records of the district courts are handed over to the new authorities no later than 31st March 1996. The choice of date is obvious because the new authorities come into being on 1st April 1996.
This could lead to some confusion if, for example, an accused person appeared in a district court and the case was not finalised before the new authority and the new district court took over. There could be some confusion in that case. I believe this amendment would impose a discipline on the district courts to ensure that their records are handed over timeously. Amendments Nos. 96, 96A and 97, in this grouping, are basically probing amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to establish the destination of fines levied in district courts.
Earlier today when we debated traffic matters I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who would retain fines for certain traffic offences such as parking fines and so on. He kindly indicated that the local authorities would retain those fines. The amendments are tabled as probing amendments and to encourage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to ensure that fines levied in district courts go to the local authorities.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The purpose of Amendment No. 95D has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. Nonetheless, the Government cannot accept the amendment. I should point out to the noble Lord that the provision in the legislation reflects the equivalent provision made at the time of the last reorganisation. We are not aware of any difficulty which occurred on that occasion.
The date with which we are concerned, 1st April 1996, will be a Monday. The courts will sit until the previous Friday. It will therefore be necessary for a large number of case papers to be retained in the courts until Friday, 29th March. As the noble Lord will appreciate, unless the case will be continued on the Monday there is no need to impose upon the people concerned with the administration of the district courts the necessity to come in over that weekend in order to transfer papers. Of course the papers must be transferred in time for the next relevant stage of the case. However, we are satisfied that those who are involved with the district courts—who have to deal with a great many papers— will see the need for all case papers to be transferred in time for the next relevant sitting of the court. That was how the matter worked out last time, and we are confident that it will be the case again.
For that reason we do not believe that the specific deadline which the noble Lord proposes in the amendment is necessary. It would impose an unnecessary rigidity. We are confident that those involved, who are very conscious of deadlines, will make the necessary arrangements.
On the matter of fines perhaps I may repeat what I said when the matter arose earlier—when I did not expect it to arise. The position is that in England and Wales magistrates' courts do not retain any fines. They all go to the Exchequer. In Scotland fines are retained. However, that is subject to an exception in certain cases,
2006
in particular in connection with road traffic offences. In that instance the fines are remitted to the exchequer, after deduction of a percentage which allows for recovery costs.
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, over the years there have been discussions about this matter. At this stage we have no intention of reviewing the overall district court system. We are satisfied that it is working well. There has been remarkable growth in the responsibility of the courts over the years since the system was introduced in 1975. We do not propose an overall review of the system. In the absence of such a review it does not seem appropriate to single out this one aspect.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the nobles Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I was fascinated by the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the difference between the Scottish and English legal systems. He said that in Scotland fines for road traffic offences, with some exceptions, were put back into the local court system. I was not aware of that. Can he say whether that is a clawback or something extra? I can hardly believe that the Treasury would let us get away with that.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I always feel that local government finance is one of those mysteries which one enters at one's peril. My overall impression is that in England and Wales the fines are not retained in order to pay for maintenance because support is provided from central government for the magistrates' courts system. At the end of the day the system works in a different way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble and learned Lord tell me where the parking fines go, and whether parking attendants work on a quota basis?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sure that they do not work on a quota system. I am not sure whether the fines are retained locally. I should not like to get that wrong so I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Far be it from me to enter an opinion when the noble and learned Lord is not quite sure of the matter. However, my understanding of the situation in relation to parking fines is that the local authority retains them. If someone wants to appeal against a parking ticket it is not the chief constable to whom that person should write but the chief executive of the local authority. I have always been told that that is how they are able to buy the traffic wardens' uniforms and that is why most of them are so well dressed these days.
I am reasonably satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's explanation in response to the amendment. However, it is important to note that when the 1973 local government Act went through Parliament the courts were not reformed. They were reformed as a result of Scottish civic government legislation in 1975. In those days some local authorities did not even have

2007
borough police courts. The stipendiary magistrates prevailed in both Glasgow and Edinburgh. The situation is different now.
Having said that, I am satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's reply. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment I do not want to stand in the way of the determination of my noble friend Lord Carmichael to move on to the next set of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord. When I referred to reorganisation I was thinking of the reorganisation of the district courts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 95E:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Social Work
. In section 161(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, for the words "a regional or islands council" substitute "as section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to my noble friend. I was so eager earlier because the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman tried to coax me to rise. We know each other well. He is too big for me; he can get away with anything.
Amendment No. 95E relates to a matter which has caused a great deal of worry in Scotland. Rightly or wrongly, Scotland believes that it has always had a fairly forward-looking attitude to social needs and the Poor Law generally. That started with the church parish system, which developed into a semi-professional system. That continued when the Poor Law itself was introduced. There were problems, but for its time it was a fairly enlightened Poor Law system.
Subsequently there were public assistance Acts. There were directors of public assistance, and they were followed by directors of welfare when local authorities took over more of the work. The directors of public assistance or of welfare were always people who could be held responsible for the general working of the officers, male and female, in their departments. The big breakthrough came following the Kilbrandon Report prior to 1967,I think, when the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 came into force. It is a long time ago now. It is incredible to think that it is more than 20 years ago.
That was a quite seminal Act for its period—a far-reaching and thorough piece of work. The buck stopped with the social work director. He or she was the final arbiter in the training of social workers, and in the organisation of social work generally. He or she was answerable to the community at the end of the day for anything that went wrong.
There is a certain worry that after all this time the director of social services and the social work committee, as we know them, will be dispensed with and replaced with a system which has much less chance of critical, impartial examination. The idea seems to fit well with having small local authorities. If local authorities are small, it makes it difficult to think in terms of a social work director.
The Minister will be aware that in the Local Government (Wales) Bill an effort was made to repeal the statutory provision for directors of social services and committees by an amendment which was rejected. There is now the assurance that in Wales there will be a continued provision of directors of social services and social work committees. I may be wrong; I may be chauvinistic. But why should Scotland—I believe that over a long period it has set a high standard in the responsibility and professionalism of its social work —lose the director of social services and the social work committees which have been such a help in so many ways?
I am not sure of the situation as regards Wales, but in England probation officers are in a different category from social workers; whereas in Scotland the director of social services is also the person responsible for the probation service. As a result, partly, of the Kilbrandon Report, we have a reasonably well integrated social work service. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration and will accept it. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Noble Lords may wonder why I, who live in England, should speak with passion and feeling for the social work service and directors of social services in Scotland. I presume to do so, because first, I am half Scottish, secondly, I spend my holidays in Scotland, and, thirdly, I have been a director of social services.
I have two questions for the noble and learned Lord. What is wrong with the present system? Why is it being changed? Do we change a system for change's sake or to improve it? What is wrong with the present arrangement of having a director of social services and social work committees? Secondly, if the Minister is able to prove that that system is wrong and poor work is being done, how will the proposed system be better? How will it improve the service?
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, the provision regarding Wales was passed in this House, but the position has been reversed. I understand that there is now provision in the Local Government (Wales) Bill for social work committees and directors of social services. Why has the position been changed regarding Wales but not Scotland?
The duties of a social services department, and therefore of the director of social services, are wide ranging. They involve family care, adoption, mental health, the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable—and community care is slowly but surely being introduced. That being the case, who will administer the social services? Where will the social services be placed in the local authority with such wide ranging services? What is the purpose of the move? What is the purpose of the alteration?
I submit that social services committees throughout Wales, Scotland and England have had a sense of great responsibility. Local people have always known the members of the social services committees, and to

2009
whom they could apply. My experience is that members of the social services committee were really committed to helping the vulnerable in the area in which they lived.
From the point of view of a director of social services, I have to say that with wide ranging duties one needs a qualified and trained leader of the work to whom the community and the committee know that they can turn. If we do not have social work committees or directors of social services, I suggest that the service will deteriorate. There will be vague accountability. Who will ensure that standards are maintained? Will there not be fragmentation of the services? Will there not be a lack of direction?
I have visited Scotland on many occasions. I have attended many of the panels in Scotland. I have visited colleagues in local authority social services. Furthermore, I am closely connected in Scotland with Barnardo's and the mediation services. It may be presumptuous of me to tell Members of the Committee from Scotland, but I understand from the voluntary organisations that those bodies give a very good service. Those organisations are worried. To whom will they go? With whom will they co-operate? Who will be responsible for co-operating with the health authorities, the hospitals, education and other services? Unless there is a structure, we shall have great difficulties. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord and beg the Committee to give a second thought to this provision.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said. In order to carry through the continued development of the services required in the social work area, it is absolutely vital that there is leadership and political commitment at local levels. The statutory requirement for a social work committee and a director of social services has ensured that those services have had a clear focus for many years. It would be a great pity if we were to throw that focus away.
The Earl of Minto: During the first day of the Committee stage and throughout most of today so far, I have found myself welcoming the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I have also been pleased to support him. However, on this issue I am afraid that we differ.
I believe that I can safely say that no one within local authorities has a greater respect for the directors of social work than I do, and I have tried to find a purpose to the Bill. I think that it is important for us to remember that we in local government have complained for many years about interference by central government in our internal affairs. The Government's proposals, which were initially contained in their consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities in Scotland, sought to give greater freedom to local authorities as regards managing their affairs. In my view, there is no reason why local authorities should be required by statute to have social work committees, any more than any other committees normally found in a local authority. I believe that we must have that flexibility.
Similarly, there is no reason why, in my view, local authorities should be required by statute to have a
2010
director of social work any more than other directorial posts normally found in a council's management structure or directorial posts which will be found in the structures of the future.
I bow to the great integrity of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in all the comments that she made. It has been suggested that if the statutory requirements are lifted, then local authorities will act irresponsibly in the management of the services at both member and officer level. I do not believe that that is true, nor that there is evidence for it. Given the Government's intention to free up the internal management of local authorities, I believe that it would be extraordinary for local authorities to contend for or support this issue.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to speak against Amendment No. 144. It will not surprise the noble Lords, Lord Ewing and Lord Carmichael, that I am reluctant to see future councils tied to such a detailed job description for the director of social work. In particular, I am unhappy about subsection (4) which aims strictly to limit the director's work. It is the plan in Clackmannan to administer social work and housing within a personal services department. As a social worker, I have spent most of my time on the telephone with housing departments as well as social security departments. It is an essential part of the reorganisation process that each new council makes its own unique decisions about how it will organise itself and deliver its services.
The Earl of Perth: From listening to the debate, it is all-important that the social services, in particular for handicapped children, should continue to work as well as they do at present. I well understand the anxiety that that causes in the sense of keeping exactly the same form of structure as we have today. I think it would be a mistake to insist on social directors as such, but it is vital to ensure that the various local authorities either get together or do a proper job on the two issues. I am particularly anxious about that because of the short timetable. There is a short time in which to get all the provisions functioning. I am fearful that in the hiatus between what exists and what is to come in the future there will be serious difficulty in relation to some of the work.
Thus in one way or another I very much hope that the hiatus —if I may put it that way—can be avoided and the work of the social services, particularly for children, will go on. Whether that requires officials, as under the drafting of Amendment No. 144, I am not so clear.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps I may breach precedent by making a contribution before the Minister replies. I have been worried about the contributions of the noble Earls, Lord Minto and Lord Mar and Kellie, both made from different standpoints. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, spoke from the point of view of a small local authority which will simply not be able—if I may say so with respect—to provide its own social work services. It will have to buy them in. Therefore,

2011
there will be no need to have a director of social work in Clackmannan—the authority will have to buy in its services. It is as simple as that.
I suspect that the objection of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is to the statutory nature of the appointment and the conflict that that causes between the chief officers and the directors of social work. It is something of which I am conscious and my experience, not of local government but of discussing such matters and examining the problems with which we are faced, is that there has been conflict with the statutory nature of the responsibilities of the directors of social work. They are able to say to the elected representatives on the one hand and the chief officers on the other: "These powers are laid down in legislation for us to discharge and there is nothing that you can do about that". I am not sure that that is the framework that we should follow in future.
However, I am absolutely certain that we need a professionally qualified person to head social work departments. Whatever designation that person has, we need a professionally qualified person. My mind is open as to whether he is called the director of social work or the chief social work officer or whether some other bright term can be thought up to designate such people. My mind is open on that, but it is closed on the whole question of the need for professional expertise in administering the discharge of social work services.
We know, and the Minister knows, that the sheriff principals and the sheriffs in Scotland have expressed anxiety about the possibility of there being no designated social work officer. I should have thought that that kind of concern should weigh heavily with the Minister. I hope that, if we cannot resolve the matter today, when we come back to the issue at Report stage the Minister will indicate in his response that he will return with a proposal which will reach a compromise. At the end of the day I suspect that that is what we shall do. I hope that we shall reach a compromise which is acceptable to all sides in this important debate.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We have already had a number of important debates during the Committee stage this afternoon and doubtless we will have further important ones this evening. However, I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I say that I regard this debate this afternoon with particular concern and anxiety. I am not the Minister for local government in Scotland, but within my portfolio is the responsibility for social work in Scotland. I hope that it will be appreciated that I am as keen as anyone to ensure that the high quality in the discharge of social work services in Scotland is maintained. I would not wish to be party to any change which brought about a diminution.
I am, of course, familiar with all the directors of social work in Scotland. Like the noble Earl, Lord Minto, I have the highest regard for their professional ability and commitment to their responsibilities. Perhaps I might be allowed to say—some Members of the Committee will have heard me say this already, but perhaps those who have contributed to our debates in Committee for the first time will bear with me—that the thrust of our policy in this Bill has been to give local
2012
authorities as much freedom and flexibility as possible in determining the structure and management of their affairs. The removal of the statutory requirements in question should not in any sense be seen as an implied criticism of social work committees in the past or of past or present directors of social work in Scotland.
I was interested to hear the historical analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, of how we arrived at the position of creating directors of social work. The noble Lord is absolutely right. In 1968 there was very good reason for making statutory provision because social work was still a new and developing service. It is now very well established among the range of services for which local authorities are responsible and, again, I recognise the contribution that social work committees have made. They have been central to the introduction of the major initiatives we have launched in the areas of Care in the Community, child care and criminal justice. Directors of social work have provided very sound professional oversight and should take credit for some very innovative thinking in the way, particularly in the last year, Care in the Community has developed. I compliment them for that activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, asked if we are making change simply for change's sake? I answer her question immediately. No, we certainly are not. It is because we want to give the new authorities greater flexibility that we have proposed the changes. We were not alone in considering that to be immediately desirable. The majority of responses to our consultation paper were in favour of removing the statutory requirements. For that reason our proposals reflect that view. I have no doubt that many, if not all, of the new proposed authorities will wish to establish a so-called social work committee and also appoint a director of social work along the lines of what is the present statutory requirement. That is one way of delivering the requisite services. As I indicated, in the past they have been well delivered following that model. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, indicated, why should it be that central government should force authorities in law to follow that particular route?
The point was raised that for Wales a change had been made as that Bill completed its passage through the other place so as to bring back in, or retain, social work committees. But my understanding—and I approach this matter cautiously, not being intimately acquainted with the detail —is that the key difference in Wales is that the director of social services is not required to be professionally qualified and can take on other responsibilities.
It has to be appreciated that if the statutory requirements with regard to a social work committee and a director of social work are to be removed, that does not in any sense remove from local authorities the statutory duties imposed upon them in respect of the wide range of important services they provide. One looks across the fields of criminal justice, care in the community and, some might think most importantly of all, in relation to children. None of the statutory duties presently imposed is affected by the changes. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that there are within the Bill important provisions requiring existing authorities to

2013
co-operate with shadow authorities to provide information to them to ensure the smooth transition in relation to handicapped children and others to which he rightly draws our attention.
I have met with the directors of social work and discussed this matter. I am very much aware of the wide range of views expressed on the subject in the correspondence received, I believe, by all of us in some volume. I am also aware that, as this very interesting and useful debate has revealed, there are sharply conflicting views at the moment as to what is the best way forward. I listened with particular care to what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said and the suggestion he made that there might be some path we could follow that lies between continuing with the status quo in all its detail and the removal of these provisions in their entirety, as is presently proposed. I should like to take the opportunity of the time that we shall have before we return to the Report stage of the Bill to reflect not only on what the noble Lord said, but on what other noble Lords said. It would seem to me appropriate that the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment at this stage because I wish to reflect carefully on what he and others said.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can I ask him a question? I hesitate very much as a mere Sassenach to enter the debate on this Scottish matter, but I well recall that after the reorganisation of the social services in England a number of people who were most emphatically not qualified social workers were put in charge of departments running social work, with pretty disastrous results. Can he assure us that the people in charge will be qualified social workers? Otherwise, I warn him: he will rue the day.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the Bill stands, the requirement to have a director of social work with qualifications would be removed from the existing arrangement. I am aware of a number of the instances to which the noble Baroness refers. I emphasise again that the statutory duties with regard to the various client groups that are imposed upon local authorities in Scotland are in no sense altered by the proposals we make. However, I accept that there is a very real concern, when considering some of the existing duties of directors of social work in Scotland, that there should be some statutory officer who is directly answerable for particular duties (let us say, in relation to the court) and that a particular individual should be identifiable. As I said, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and I understand those concerns. For that reason I shall be grateful if the amendments can be withdrawn to allow some further time for reflection.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister has certainly taken much care over his answer, and it would be surly of us if we did not respond. When he spoke about the Welsh situation he had at his side his noble and learned friend who put the Welsh Bill through. He could probably have found out from him what was the difference between the situation in Wales and that in Scotland, and why there was a difference. I do not think that he quite cleared up the matter.
2014
There is another point of difference. The noble and learned Lord talked about consultation. I do not doubt that there was consultation and that results showed that people were quite happy about not having a social work director. But one of the problems with the Bill is that there has been very little public awareness of consultation with local authorities about its contents. One noble Lord said that he wondered for a long time what was the purpose of the Bill. There could have been better consultation. I believe that we could have been better informed.
The Minister mentioned the volume of correspondence and mail that he had received. I have never known a Bill on which I have had so much correspondence as this one. It has been quite unbelievable. The volume of correspondence generated has been well above normal.
The Minister has been very helpful. He tried fully to explain why he came to this complicated decision and the purpose of it. The promise that he will look at it again before we come to Report stage gives me hope. Therefore, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Amendment of District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975]:
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 97 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 51 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Records held by local authorities]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 46, line 2, after ("the") insert ("professional custody,").
The noble Lord said: In this group, Amendments Nos. 97A and 97B have been tabled in my name and the names of my noble friends as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. Amendment No. 98 stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour and again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. All the amendments deal with archives and the Keeper of the Records. They are designed to ensure, if it is at all possible, that archives built up in Scotland since the reorganisation of local government in 1973 survive the reorganisation.
There has been a tremendous increase in the availability of information through the archives which have been built up. It will be a sad day if, because of the reorganisation and the emphasis that the new local authorities have to place on other aspects of policy, we were to lose the resources that have been built up over the years.
The amendments also give the Keeper of the Records a bigger say about the way in which the records are kept, access to the records and the professional advice that would be made available. In that respect the amendments are quite important.
I shall leave the Committee with just one anecdote about the archives and the archivist in the Royal Borough of Stirling at the time when I represented Stirling. The local paper asked me to write an obituary for a very dear friend—whom the noble Earl, Lord Minto, may well know, and I can name him because,

2015
sadly, he is no longer with us. I refer to Councillor Michael Kelly, who was one of only three members of Scottish local authorities to serve for 50 consecutive years. I asked if he was dying and was told that he was. I went to the archives and took out all the relevant material and typed up the obituary. However, before I handed in the copy to the local editor, I thought that I would go to see Michael on his deathbed. When I went to see him he was out feeding his pigs. Nevertheless, I kept the material.
The point I make is that the material was valuable. Happily, Michael lived for another 10 years after that time. But it would be a shame to lose all that material. The purpose of the amendments is to preserve it. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to add a few words on these amendments because my name is connected with one of them. At present Clause 52(2) reads:
"A local authority may dispose of any records which they do not consider to be worthy of preservation".
In that respect I should like to give the Committee one example of the value of such records. It happened when the reorganisation of local government was taking place under the 1973 Act. That Act did away with the keeping of fiars prices. Some counties kept those records and some did not. However, they were kept by the sheriff's office and they were a record of the average agricultural crops for each year. My own county, East Lothian, had a compilation of such records which went back well over 300 years. They would have been of no interest to the sheriff's office. They had nothing to do with local authority functions. I was glad to learn about the fiars prices and on one occasion I had to use them for agricultural purposes. I followed the 1973 Bill during its passage through this Chamber.
I am glad to say that the records are now in the Scottish Record Office. I have the highest admiration for the Scottish Record Office. It does an absolutely superb job. I tabled the amendment purely to give the Scottish Record Office an opportunity to say what it would like to keep and what it would not like to keep. The present subsection does not cover that point.
The Earl of Minto: I wish to support these amendments. Nothing is more important than the preservation of archives. One is apt to find that those who do not know about the matter can make mistakes and it is of great importance that one should have expert opinion, particularly before any question of disposal arises.
I can think of many cases in which people have said, "We will tear these records up. They are taking up space. Let us get rid of them" and it has been a tragedy for the local authorities. They may well think that those records are not of importance but in fact they may well be of great importance. The need to consult with experts —that is to say, the Keeper of the Records—is essential.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is not a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
2016
However, it might be as well to begin the debate on the amendments by reminding the Committee that Clause 52 requires exactly what my noble friend would like to see done; namely, that a local authority shall make proper arrangements, not just for the preservation but also —as an amendment was introduced during the passage of the Bill—for the management of any records. The clause then goes on to describe that and states that the local authority shall:
"before putting any such arrangements into effect, or making any material change to such arrangements, consult the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, and have regard to any comments which he may make on the proposed arrangements or changes".
There is little doubt about the desirability of local authorities keeping their records in a proper state—not only preserving them but also managing them. But our concern is that it should not be for local authorities to consult the keeper on each occasion on which they wish to dispose of a record. As drafted, the amendment would apply not simply to historical archives but to every piece of official paper produced by the new authorities. In our view it is administratively unworkable. It would also be at odds with the general policy that local authorities should be allowed to operate autonomously within an agreed framework such as that established by Clause 52.
I say to those Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate that I am sure that the keeper has been fully involved in the preparation of the clause and that he supports its provisions. Indeed, he is already in contact with local authorities with regard to Clauses 52 and 53. There will be further contact between the keeper, my officials and local authorities to ensure that transitional arrangements go smoothly and that the records provisions are properly observed by the new authorities.
The clause as drafted ensures that the general principles to which each local authority will work in disposing of records will be discussed with the keeper. There is no need for a discussion on the disposal of each individual document thereafter and the keeper does not have the resources to enable him to consider each and every item of which a local authority wishes to dispose.
The proposed Amendment No. 97A would impose a duty on local authorities to use the services of professional archivists for their records management. As I explained, under Clause 52(1) local authorities are obliged to make proper arrangements for the preservation and management of their records and must consult the Keeper of the Records of Scotland before putting any such arrangements into effect. The keeper will be seeking to encourage the best possible professional standards and practice. That will clearly include encouraging the use of professional archivists wherever possible whenever the keeper considers it necessary to enable the authority to fulfil its statutory duty. However, we do not wish to impose a duty on local authorities to do so but rather leave it for them to decide how best to make proper arrangements once they have consulted with the keeper and had regard to his comments.
Turning to Amendment No. 97B, the duty set out in the clauses is for local authorities to consult the Keeper of the Records about arrangements for the preservation and management of their records and to have regard to

2017
his comments. However, we do not consider that local authorities should be obliged to obtain the keeper's formal approval before putting their arrangements into effect. I should like to point out that working relations between local authority archive staff and the Scottish Record Office are good and the latter are very much aware of the practical and financial constraints under which authorities operate. Allowing local authorities to decide for themselves is the most effective and generally acceptable means of encouraging enhanced archive provision without requiring local authorities to go further than their resources allow.
In providing advice to local authorities, the keeper will stress not only the professional benefits of a properly managed archive for purposes which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and others may find valuable, but also the benefits in terms of an increase in administrative efficiency which a proper records management system can provide. In addition, storage costs can be reduced by the selection for destruction of records not worthy of preservation. In recent times local authorities which introduced such a system more than covered their costs by the savings made. Accordingly, with that explanation, I should be grateful if the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: One piece of documentation that I can think of for selection for destruction is this Bill. But with that comment and with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 97B and 98 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Restriction on disposal of assets and entering into contracts by existing authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 48, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 99 seeks clarification. Subsection (4) (a) defines the "relevant successor authority" as being,
"the new local authority within whose area the land will be situated".
The new authority within whose area the land or property is situated may not always be the appropriate authority to consult prior to disposal. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that point. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 54 as drafted requires that existing councils must have the consent of the appropriate successor council before they can dispose of land for more than £250,000. Under the provision, land also includes buildings while the successor council is defined as the one within whose area the land or buildings are situated.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a satisfactory definition of "successor authority" in the vast majority of cases. I acknowledge that there may be a few instances where the definition of successor authority is inappropriate, but I wonder whether that will prove to be a problem in practice. More to the point,
2018
I wonder whether it is a real enough problem to merit imposing the additional constraints on councils which a change to the drafting would involve.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps the Minister can clear up one point—it may be that I am not very good at reading Bills. Is the interim period the difficult period? Is it the case that the old authority may start disposing of land or property before the new authority takes over and therefore the successor authority must have some interim powers?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is for the interim period. As I say, there is a definition included within the section which settles when it is that one has to go to a single successor council to ensure that there is agreement or approval of what it is proposed to dispose of.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 56 [Power and duty of existing local authorities to assist new authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 50, line 23, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment again seeks clarification. It removes the Secretary of State's power to regulate the exercise by local authorities of the power to contract with other authorities. I want to avoid any possibility that the Secretary of State will be leaning over the shoulder of the local authority all the time in order to control those with whom it makes contracts. That part of the Bill may be a little obscure to the layman. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My name also is attached to the amendment. One of the things about which we require an explanation is that the language, which is beautifully direct, states that,
"The Secretary of State may direct an existing local authority to do anything which in his opinion is appropriate for the purpose of putting a new authority in a position to carry out their functions".
It seems a little tough to me.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It appears to be a widely drawn provision. However, perhaps I can emphasise and repeat what my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government said in another place. This is a reserve power which, provided councils co-operate sensibly with each other, will not be used. It will be used only if new or existing authorities require assistance which could reasonably be expected to be provided by another existing council but which is not forthcoming.
In order to underline the assurance given by my ministerial colleague, I should like to make it clear that the power will certainly be used with care, if at all. It will certainly not be used by the Secretary of State to

2019
block, for example, service developments by an existing council simply because they are at odds with what may be the political philosophy of the Government. I take the noble Lord's point, but I hope the explanation and assurance that the power will only be used in rare circumstances, if at all, will enable him to feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56. agreed to.
Clause 57 [Further provision as to discharge of Junctions by authorities]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 51, line 5, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State may direct that local authorities enter into agreements under this section in relation to social work services where such agreements appear to him to be necessary to protect the interests of users of out of area services.
(3B) In the event that a direction under subsection (3A) is made, and it appears to any authority affected thereby that an agreement will not be entered into within a reasonable period, that authority may refer the matter to the Secretary of State.
(3C) If a referral is made under subsection (3B) above, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the respective local authorities, specify terms to be included in the agreement and direct that it be proceeded with, and the prospective parties to the proposed agreement shall comply with any such directions.
(3D) In this section—

(a) "social work services" mean services which a local authority are under a duty or have a power to provide, or to secure the provision of under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, or any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of the said Act;

(b) "out of area service" mean a social work service which is transferred by the operation of this Act to a local authority outwith the local authority area to which the user of the service belongs.").

The noble Lady said: Amendments Nos. 101 and 103 have been grouped together but they are not about the same matter. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I should very much like to speak to them separately.
Amendment No. 101 is directed at the needs of some of the most vulnerable groups in society such as children with special needs, disabled adults and elderly people who rely on the services of social work departments. Many of these people will find that the service they use will not be run by the council covering their area. Sometimes this will be because of the way the boundaries are drawn—for example, people with learning difficulties in Helensburgh normally attend adult training centres in Dumbarton—and sometimes it will be because the resource is a specialised one which can be afforded only if it is used for people throughout the region with a particular disability, such as children who are both deaf and blind.
Clause 57 of the Bill partially covers it because it allows councils to buy such services from each other. The problem is that there is no guarantee that they will do so. Councils may be under different political control from others and so may not co-operate very effectively. The uncertainty about whether places will be taken up
2020
by other councils may make it too risky to continue investing in an expensive and specialised resource such as a day centre for people with multiple disabilities. Sadly, the political will may not be there to continue a service in such an uncertain climate, particularly with the less popular client groups. One example of a service at risk—the Blindcraft factory in Glasgow—was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, at Second Reading.
The Government appear to believe that this can safely be left to the new councils to sort out. At Report stage in the Commons Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said:
"There are various means whereby the needs of those currently receiving out-of-area services can be assessed fully and properly".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/94; col. 871.]
It would be helpful if the Government could state what those means are and how, without this amendment, they will ensure that needs are not only assessed but actually met.
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could step in as a last resort where services of strategic importance were at risk. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am happy to have these two amendments discussed separately since they raise important issues. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, expressed during an earlier debate her concerns about the implications of reorganisation for certain important aspects of community care. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the Government's position on these matters.
This amendment seeks to protect the position of users of so-called out-of-area social work services; that is, services which typically, because of their highly specialised nature, are not provided in every local authority but are purchased, and are already purchased, by one authority from a neighbour or a supplier authority further afield. The amendment seeks to ensure that after reorganisation authorities continue to make sensible contracting arrangements for the purchase and supply of a minority of specialist services and it envisages that the Secretary of State would intervene directly in this process by issuing directions about the exercise by authorities of their contracting powers by dealing with cases where agreements have not been entered into by himself specifying the content of such agreements and by insisting that the local authorities concerned uphold and implement such agreements as he may specify.
While I should like to make it clear that I have no difficulty with the prime intention behind the amendment—to ensure that the users of specialist services are not disadvantaged in any way by reorganisation—I only differ from the noble Lady in a view of what is the most appropriate means towards that very desirable end. For many years now social work authorities have co-operated with one another over the purchase and supply of these specialist services. Section 86 of the 1968 Act enables an authority providing a service to a person outwith its area to recover the cost of that provision from the authority in whose area the person lives. The proposed amendment suggests a certain lack of confidence in the good sense and

2021
judgment of the new authorities. This lack of confidence is reflected in the proposed role for the Secretary of State. While I understand the noble Lady's concern we do not believe that the degree of compulsion implied is either necessary or desirable. It is not necessary because it will clearly be in the financial interests of authorities which inherit or develop specialist facilities to keep them fully utilised. They will have a positive incentive to cultivate contracts with purchasers and authorities which have clients requiring specialist services and which are unable to provide those at their own hand and will have an equally pressing interest in purchasing these services rather than attempting to create their own. As I said in a previous debate, this will probably be in discharge of a statutory duty incumbent on them.
The Government wish to see local authorities develop their role as enablers contracting not just with each other but with a wide range of service providers in both the voluntary and private sectors. We would be reluctant to contemplate arrangements which fixed the focus of contracting on inter-authority trading.
I trust I have gone some way to reassuring the noble Lady that we share her concern and wish to ensure that reorganisation does not bring about any diminution in these specialist services. I hope that she will be reassured that, following on reorganisation, we are confident that this high quality standard of service can be maintained.
The Earl of Perth: I have listened to the reply and I think the noble and learned Lord goes a long way towards meeting our concerns. The Minister said that there is probably a statutory duty. Does that mean that the Scottish Office will keep an eye on what is happening; and that if it is not going right, it will intervene? That is what this is all about—the worry as to whether in fact these defenceless children can be safely left to the local authority. I am sure that in broad principle it will happen but it is important to know what will happen if it goes awry. Will the Scottish Office keep an eye on the performance of the various new authorities?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Where a statutory duty is imposed on a local authority and it fails to discharge it the noble Earl will be reassured to know that it will not be for the Scottish Office to keep an eye on the local authority; that matter might well be brought before the courts. Any failure on the council's part to provide services in discharge of a statutory duty would be enforced by the courts in Scotland. Certainly, as part of the central government responsibility through the Scottish Office to ensure that this wide range of specialist services is properly maintained and delivered throughout Scotland, I can give an assurance that we shall keep a very close eye on that.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support Amendment No. 101. Social work services in Scotland cover a very broad range of activities designed to meet the needs of a very disparate group of generally unfortunate people. It is sometimes a feature of their situation that they do
2022
not want to seek help in their own area but prefer to do so in a neighbouring area, usually for fear of being recognised.
I offer two examples. First, while helping to set up an alcohol counselling service in Strathspey. I found that potential users of the service would have preferred to come to Inverness for the sake of anonymity. Secondly, while working on an intensive probation project in Falkirk the fear was sometimes expressed during interview by future participants that they might be jumped by the Casuals—their rival gang—while on their way to the project. There is a need for considerable flexibility in the provision of social work to meet individual needs.
7 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord. I still have a little niggle of worry that there could be a situation where the providing authority suddenly decided that it needed all its facilities for its own children and therefore the smaller enabling authority would be in great difficulties.
As regards the amendment, the noble and learned Lord has guaranteed that children with special needs who attend a particular school before reorganisation will have a right to continue doing so. It is sad that a similar guarantee could not be given to those who rely on the social services. Will the noble and learned Lord think about that? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 51, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I have read Clause 57(4) with great care and have tried to apply what I care to call my legal mind. I find that it is one of the great exercises in administrative gobbledegook. I cannot understand what subsection (4) is meant to achieve. I have read it from beginning to end and backwards and it does not make any sense.
The amendment is tabled to enable the Government to explain what precisely the powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) mean. He appears to have ample powers without the convoluted subsection (4). I shall not go into the minutiae of the matter; I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The proposal to remove the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers under subsection (4) would change the nature of the provision. As it stands, the clause is in line with the commitment given in the White Paper that authorities would be provided with a flexible legal framework to enable them to choose from a wide range of providers including, in most instances, other local authorities.
The Government do not, however, consider that work subject to compulsory competitive tendering should fall within the powers granted to local authorities under the new provision, given that there is a clear private sector market for such work. As such, therefore, the Secretary of State would intend to make regulations excluding

2023
CCT contracts from the new arrangements, but the amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to make such regulations.
The clause provides a flexible framework for local authorities and ensures that the new powers will be used sensibly. The noble Lord will be interested to know that the Government intend to consult on regulations made under this power and would obviously consider carefully representations made about their scope.
On the proposal to allow authorities to set up a service delivery agency, the Government recognise that many authorities will wish to consider a wider range of service delivery options than has been the case in the past. However, there is already a wide range of options available to authorities. In addition to Clause 57 they can arrange for the provision of services through a joint committee, by a lead authority, by an in-house team or by purchase of services from the private or voluntary sectors. As such, the Government do not consider that this amendment would provide authorities with any additional powers. I hope that the noble Lord finds that explanation satisfactory and that he welcomes our intention to consult on regulations.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am always pleased to hear that the Secretary of State will behave sensibly. We shall await the outcome of this matter. As regards Clause 57(2) (b), will the Secretary of State have power to regulate the payment between joint authorities and joint agreements? What happens if the authorities fall out as regards the question of payment? Subsection (2) (b) states:
"An agreement under this section may include such terms as to payment as the authorities concerned consider appropriate".
What happens if the authorities fall out? Is the Secretary of State then entitled under subsection (4) to impose himself on the authorities? I merely ask because a great many people are concerned about this matter. Before I formally withdraw the amendment, I wish to know what the Minister has to say.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not believe that there will be any involvement of the Secretary of State here. If the authorities cannot come to an agreement, then presumably they would not agree to discharge the services jointly. Alternatively, if they have an agreement and they fall out about it afterwards, the noble Lord may find himself employed in the Court of Session.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That is always a daunting prospect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 102A:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Service agencies
.—(1) Where two or more local authorities consider it appropriate, they may set up a body or bodies to be known as a service agency, or service agencies, for the purpose of providing to the local authorities such services as they may require.
(2) A service agency may provide such services and carry out such tasks for the local authorities as the agency and the local authorities may agree and in such terms and conditions as they may agree.
(3) A service agency may do anything a local authority may do in terms of the Local Authority (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
(4) A service agency shall be a body corporate with a common seal.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment was taken with Amendment No. 102. I listened to the Minister's explanation. I was satisfied as far as one can be that we are not going to get any further on the matter.
[Amendment No. 102A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
Clause 58 [Local Acts and instruments]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 52, line 14, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State shall be regulation make such provision as he thinks fit regarding the exercise by local authorities of the power conferred by this section in relation to the inspection by a local authority of services provided or arranged under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or the registration of establishments under section 61 of the said Act").
The noble Lady said: This amendment concerns the inspection of residential care. Currently, local authorities have a duty to register private and charitable residential care homes in their area and to inspect both their own homes and those run independently. This is a vital protection for the residents of care homes, many of whom are extremely vulnerable due to age or disability.
The amendment is intended to highlight concerns about how this function will operate in future, particularly given the possibility that such responsibilities will be contracted out to other authorities. First, the Secretary of State should confirm whether Clause 57 means that one council could actually take over the job of registering homes in the area of another council. So far as inspection is concerned, there are a number of potential problems if the job is to be carried out by the new smaller councils. Not all homes are the same, and the smaller authorities may not have the range of specialist staff to properly inspect the homes for people with complex or unusual needs.
There is also a fear that in smaller councils it will be more difficult for the inspection unit to be truly independent. This applies particularly when they are inspecting the councils' own homes. But even homes in the private sector will normally be operating under a contract with the council. The council may be reluctant to endorse any criticism which might lead to charges going up.
With more councils, there is also a danger that standards will fall if homes move to the areas with the least rigorous inspection. In some areas, joint inspection teams set up under the clause may be a partial solution, but this raises the problem of accountability. Will the Government monitor the quality of inspection by the new councils? Is a move away from inspection by local authorities to a more independent arrangement under consideration? Most importantly, will the Government undertake to ensure that the social work inspectorate publishes authoritative guidance on standards of inspection?
Some years ago there was great public concern about what were called "granny farms". That was at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, spoke from the Dispatch Box. I remember having some discussion and correspondence with him, particularly about the desirability of independent inspection and inspection without notice. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The concern of the noble Lady that some of the new local authorities may not be large enough to sustain a credible and robust inspection unit with the necessary degree of independence from the social work department is one that has been expressed by others in Scotland. However, I would not wish to make too much of that, particularly the size factor.
Some of the current inspection units are quite small. A number serve populations considerably smaller than those of some of the proposed authorities yet they function perfectly well. It is a matter of the calibre of the staff and of their management rather than of the size of the authority itself.
Following reorganisation we will encourage new authorities to make good use of the expertise which the current inspection units have built up since their inception in 1991. We would be glad to see joint arrangements for inspection emerge as a result. There is already a precedent for contracting between authorities for the inspection of services.
I can assure the noble Lady that the advice and guidance already given by the social work services group will continue. We are confident that the new authorities will be able to make the necessary arrangements for inspection and registration without the need to give the Secretary of State power to make the regulations. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I rise only to point out to those of your Lordships who are interested in the Bill that there are three references in Clause 58 to Section 176 when it should be Section 179.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that observation.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I shall read and consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 52, line 47, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment on which I hope that the Minister will be able to comment. I refer particularly to lines 47 to 51 on page 52 of the Bill. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to delete subsection (6) altogether or, at the very least, to obtain an undertaking from the Minister that local provision will be continued indefinitely. I hope that the Minister can help. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope that I can deal with the amendment briefly. The move to single-tier authorities necessitates the review of local legislation promoted by existing authorities to ensure that such
2026
legislation operates satisfactorily under the new system. The new councils must consider whether the existing legislation is appropriate, given changes to the boundaries and the new regime which will exist. The subsection which it is sought to remove ensures that this is done but within a realistic timescale.
Rightly, the new councils will have various options available to them; namely, to promote new legislation, to seek postponement of existing legislation if this cannot be achieved by 31st December 1999, or to apply to the Secretary of State for exemption from repeal. All such requests will be considered sympathetically.
If the amendment were accepted, there would be no requirement on the new councils to review their legislation and this would result in it being incompatible with the new regime. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that that would be unsatisfactory. It is desirable to set a timescale within which proper consideration of the legislation is undertaken and a change made.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: But there is no time restriction placed on the Secretary of State.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is a matter for consideration by the local authorities. The role of the Secretary of State is to allow for an extension if the local authorities find that they cannot complete their review of the matter within the appropriate timescale. As I said, the Secretary of State may allow an extension and will, consider any request sympathetically.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: That is an interesting answer. Given all the thousands of possible disputes that could arise, I wonder whether there is not some catch-all clause somewhere to give the Secretary of State retrospective powers. I am surprised that there is not, but perhaps the legal brains at St. Andrew's House are so well organised that no loopholes are possible. I thank the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 61 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be resumed not before 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

County Archive Offices
7.16 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for the future of county archive offices, in the reorganisation of local government in England.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in tabling this Unstarred Question, I am genuinely seeking information about the Government's attitude rather than arguing what should be done in the various changes that may be made.
The Local Government Commission has proposed that there should be unitary authorities in almost every county but, in doing so, for example in the case of the big new county of Cambridgeshire, it states:
"the Commission expects the new authorities to work together closely to ensure that specialist expertise is not unnecessarily broken up and that the existing levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of relatively small-scale but important functions such as … archive provision … are maintained".
Let us consider how county archive and record offices operate at present. In most of the larger historic counties —most of them, but I name particularly Kent and Hampshire —the present arrangements are admirable. They not only have splendid arrangements for keeping voluminous collections of ancient documents, but the archives are well housed in ample buildings, conserved in accordance with modern scientific skills, and are made accessible to the public. The situation is different in some other large counties where the custody is decentralised, as in Cumbria where records are kept in four different places but where the records management and conservation skills are concentrated in Carlisle.
A different situation arises in modern Cambridgeshire, which I happen to know so well, where in the past 30 years four small historic counties which, frankly, did not have much in common historically although adjoining, were formed into one big county. Theoretically, the archives are under one administration, but they are kept in more than two separate places in Cambridge and Huntingdon, where they are stored in buildings which are too small. Indeed, because of the overcrowding in the local office, many of the Huntingdon archives have to be stored in another building eight miles away to which the public do not have access so the records have to be brought to the office if somebody should want to see them. I understand that the joint arrangements (which were made under the aegis of the former metropolitan counties where there was an amalgamation of several boroughs each with its own archive) did not work well. I mention that in passing.
Having regard to the diversity that now prevails, it is obvious that, when unitary authorities are established —and let us assume that, broadly, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission will be accepted by Parliament, no one solution will be suitable for everywhere in England. Decisions will have to vary with local circumstances. I wish to stress that they must vary with local circumstances.
Five noble Lords who cannot be here tonight have asked me to mention their interest in the future of our record offices and have asked me to make representations on their behalf. However, the time limit on the debate prevents that. I am delighted that no less than eight noble Lords, with their particular knowledge and expertise, have decided to speak in this debate and I look forward to hearing their speeches.
One of those who cannot be present tonight, is the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, who of course is Custos Rotulorum there. Many Members of your Lordships' House are Lords Lieutenant, and each is Custos Rotulorum. Some are more active in that capacity than others. In my opinion, each should be consulted before any new arrangements are made.
The second noble Lord who cannot be here tonight is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He is now aged 95 and in possession of his faculties to a most remarkable extent. He was chairman of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and he welcomes this debate. It is also welcomed by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham and my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, who is Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge. Naturally, he is anxious about archaeological records, which are indeed important. My noble friend Lord Inglewood cannot be here but he told me what I have already revealed about the archives in Cumbria.
In conclusion, I wish to stress that all parts of England are amazingly rich in ancient documents, which are a fundamental part of our heritage. We have a duty, and the Government have a duty, to ensure that they are carefully conserved, fully recorded and made accessible. That cannot be done without adequate financial resources, suitable buildings, sound administration and expert staff. I trust that my noble friend Lord St. Davids, who I am pleased to say will be replying to this debate, will assure us of the Government's determination to enable success to be achieved in this vital matter.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, when I spoke in an earlier debate on the Local Government Commission, I expressed my anxiety as a former chairman of English Heritage and former president of the Museums Association about the effect which the breaking up of traditional rural counties will have on the heritage, conservation and related areas such as libraries, museums, support for the arts and archives. I am delighted, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has given us the opportunity tonight to debate in more detail the perceived threat—I use the word "percieved"—that these projected changes pose to our national archive services.
It is a service that has grown from small beginnings over the past 50 years. It provides high quality storage and display which will ensure that this vital raw material of our history will survive for the future. One must not forget that it also provides facilities and help for the growing number of people who want to use the material for research.

2029
It is a local service which meets local needs. It is necessarily a small service and to make it smaller—to split up collections which have been carefully and zealously brought together over the centuries and to share them out, as sharing out remains, among the new unitary authorities—ought to be, and I am sure is, unthinkable. I do not believe that it is part of the Government's policy.
The reasons are obvious. It is a service in which there is great local pride. That is why it has flourished and been cherished and supported especially by gifts of archive material. Like so many other valued local government services, it needs to be delivered at the strategic level that our counties can provide. In Hampshire, for instance, we are very proud to have a fine, purpose-built new record office which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen last November. Of course, we in Hampshire believe that it is the best in the country. But Hampshire is by no means alone in making such provision. In recent years, two of our neighbouring counties, West Sussex and Dorset, have also opened new record offices. There are many others elsewhere in the country. Such development would not happen if these services were held together only by voluntary joint arrangements, which the Government apparently favour under the projected new regimes.
Sadly, new archive centres would be way down at the bottom of any priority list for new capital expenditure or, indeed, annual revenue expenditure. Archive services are naturally a service for counties but also for the nation and indeed the world. For instance, in Hampshire, men and women have played a significant part in the world's affairs and our records are in Hampshire where they should be. We also have the papers of two high-ranking 18th century diplomats and an Irish Archbishop, manuscripts of early Handel operas and also, I am sure your Lordships will be delighted to hear, the papers of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Those records are used by historians the world over and the new building also houses a film and sound archive.
County archive services have another important function. Whereas at Beaulieu we look after our own archives, the Hampshire Archives Trust gives us help and advice and makes services available to education.
One of the options put forward by the Local Government Commission for Hampshire is that it should be divided into seven unitary authorities. There is anxiety about what will happen to this service if its future depends on the voluntary co-operation of seven independent bodies. What will happen in Lancashire, where the commission's preferred option is eight unitary authorities? Can anyone imagine eight unitary authorities volunteering, let alone agreeing, to share costs equally? The administration would be a nightmare.
The problem at the moment is that we lack any clear government lead, with the result that the archive services are badly demoralised about their future. If they an; over-reacting, perhaps one cannot entirely blame them. I hope that tonight the Government will give some
2030
assurance that they will consider building in proper, watertight safeguards for the continuation of these and other vital services at the time of reorganisation.
Surely a nation must be judged on how it conserves its archives. Our future depends on our past and we must make sure that it is always available.
7.28 p.m.
The Marquess of Hertford: My Lords, I share my noble friend's anxiety about the future of county archive offices and the services that they render not only to their counties or local districts but to historians from all over the world. I do not claim to know about the national scene but from recent personal experience I know about the County Record Office in Warwick. My family archives happen to be there. They have been carefully and efficiently sorted out, put in order and listed and preserved for posterity and for anyone who wishes to study them for use in historical research. I hate to think what might have happened to them had they been left in boxes in a cupboard in my estate office.
When I started using the record office, I was surprised by the large number of other people making use of the services of the admirable staff who are there. I suppose that I used to think that all those archives just sat there doing nothing, gathering dust; but not at all. The record office is a busy place with a busy and highly efficient staff providing an admirable service to all sorts of members of the public. Their work is of local, national and international importance and I hope sincerely that it will continue.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu referred to the 50 years of development of county record offices. My memory of using a county record office goes back a little more than 50 years. I remember in—it must have been—1936 examining some of the records in Chester Castle which was then the record office for the county of Cheshire. My chief memory is the amount of dust that got into my lungs and the time it took me to recover from that piece of research.
Since then, a great deal has happened. There is now more professional expertise on the conservation, preservation and presentation of archives and above all, as has been mentioned by the noble Marquess, the deposit in county record offices of an increasing number of records which are, by their nature, not part of the county's own administrative history but which belong to families and other organisations within the geographical boundaries of the county. Therefore, one must think of county archive offices today as scenes of a great deal of activity. Students come to them from all over the world and they require professional guidance.
There is one particular activity which I have been asked to mention to your Lordships because it is of very great importance; that is, the development and further compilation of The Victoria History of the Counties of England. That has necessarily and naturally been done largely in the counties themselves and the obvious place for that work to be done has been in the county record offices.

2031
There is certainly anxiety on the part of the editor of The Victoria History of the Counties of England that because of the uncertainties that have been referred to about the way in which county records are in future to be looked after and financed, the counties may find affording houseroom and assistance to that particular project something which is more difficult to contemplate. I understand from the editor that a number of counties have already indicated that their plans for the future are not clear because of the uncertainties to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, refers in the Question.
Of course, it is not the case that anyone suggests seriously breaking up the archives, even if the counties are divided into separate administrative units. But the matter still seems to require a degree of certainty before those changes come into operation. One could not wait for six months, a year or two years while districts, which will have many other functions devolved to them, make up their minds as to how they finance and organise the archives. We cannot possibly allow that to happen.
The question for Her Majesty's Government—and it is phrasing the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, differently—is whether there is a government policy in that regard and whether there will be government suggestions to the new authorities as to how they discharge that particular responsibility. That seems to me to be a matter on which your Lordships' House has already expressed its concern and I do not doubt that the remaining speakers in the debate will echo that very real concern for one of the major aspects of our cultural heritage.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, concern about archives has been expressed very ably by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Montagu. I share that concern because like my noble friend Lord Hertford, I too come from Warwickshire. The proposals from the local commission have been published and I note that there is an expectation that the archive services will be maintained intact.
We have heard this evening how popular archive services are becoming and how much greater is their use. In view of the service provided, I believe that there should be more than mere expectation. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there will be something more than expectation or the hope that unitary authorities will maintain a county-wide archive service; that provisions will be made which have real teeth in the shape of a statutory requirement that unitary authorities will maintain a county-wide service or that there should be an enforceable joint arrangement so that revenue and capital funding are both ensured for the future.
After all, archives are probably rather vulnerable. They do not immediately spring to the top of the list of priorities in the minds of electors or councillors. Other matters may seem to be more important or more immediate and they are likely to grab their attention. People may ask, "What is an archivist or a librarian less here and there? A day when the archives are closed does not really matter". But I remind your Lordships that death by a thousand cuts is still death. The Government
2032
should be aware of that anxiety. I hope that they will be able to allay our fears about the future of what everyone agrees is a national treasure.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am deeply grateful, as are all those who have spoken, to my noble friend Lord Renton for raising this important issue.
I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England which, since 1989, has been charged by the Government, under our Royal Warrant, with exercising the lead role for sites and monuments records in England on behalf of our sponsoring department, the Department of National Heritage. That enables the work of the SMRs and the Royal Commission's own national monument record to be more effectively co-ordinated. On the eve of the local government reorganisation, the Royal Commission accordingly carried out a detailed review of the ways in which the SMRs were currently organised and reviewed the way in which they and we could best develop to meet the needs of the future.
Therefore, I strongly urge that all new unitary authorities, however they may be devised, should be required to discuss their plans for the support and delivery of heritage services with both the Royal Commission, as the national lead body for SMRs, and with English Heritage, whose interest my noble friend Lord Montagu has already identified, as the Government's adviser on the management of the historic environment.
As has already been said, sites and monuments records are a special kind of archive. They were set up with the support of English Heritage and the Government primarily to allow information and advice about archaeological sites to be available to the local authority planning system; but also —and it is most important also—as an educational and cultural resource. Those SMRs are small, specialised units maintained by county councils. If the county system is abolished or radically restructured, the sites and monuments records will be especially vulnerable to disruption and above all, to underfunding.
Like other noble Lords I am concerned about the risks of fragmentation and also about the whole issue of funding. At present, local authorities maintain the SMRs voluntarily under government advice. Their loss would have serious consequences for the historic environment and for the nation's heritage policy. The maintenance of sites and monuments records should constitute a formally recognised responsibility of every county or unitary planning authority in England. The cost of maintaining that responsibility should be included in, and specific provision made within, the standard spending assessment of any such local authority.
The records of sites and monuments and their future are of importance. Information about archaeological sites and historic buildings must continue to be freely accessible at both local and national level. We all have an interest in our past and it is very much part of our future. I should like to take this opportunity to support

2033
what my noble friend Lord Beloff said about The Victoria County histories. We feel most strongly that that is something which needs special support, and that it is a matter of concern. I was glad, but not surprised, to hear of the interest and support for my noble friend's Question on the part of my most distinguished predecessor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give him and us constructive support.
7.40 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter this evening. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by declaring an interest as a co-opted member of the Kent Archives Advisory Committee and as a private depositor with the Centre for Kentish Studies, which is in fact the Kent Archives Office.
I believe that there is broad support for the view that an archive service should not be fragmented in any reorganisation resulting from the recommendations of the Local Government Commission and the Government's subsequent implementation of them. However, as many noble Lords have said, there is at present no guarantee that that protection will be secured as the Government intend to rely on voluntary arrangements between authorities.
Experience gained from the outcome of the metropolitan counties reorganisation shows that reliance on such voluntary arrangements is dangerous. Joint management committees quickly break down and funding is reallocated elsewhere, resulting in the loss of an important service and of irreplaceable archive material. To repeat that folly would be negligent in the extreme.
I turn now specifically to the Commissioners' draft recommendations for Kent, which, I suspect, were run off on the same word processor as those for Cambridge. They refer to the expectation that the two proposed unitary authorities of North West Kent and Medway would,
"work together with neighbouring districts and the County Council, to ensure that specialist expertise is not broken up and that existing levels of efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of relatively small scale but important functions such as ✶ archives provision are maintained".
How will that be achieved?
Whatever the aspirations and hopes of the authorities for co-operation, can they really guarantee that the same level of service will be available across their whole joint area? Regrettably, the answer to that question must be no. There can be no such assurance with the three of the four options on offer, which will, in varying degrees, leave some areas of the county without easy access to an established archive office. That must be of concern to the many thousands who use the archive service for academic research and the growing band of amateur genealogists who, to coin a phrase, are and will be "digging up their roots" in churchyards, parish registers and archive offices across the county, both now and in the future.
The only option which does offer assurance that services will be maintained is the current two-tier
2034
system county wide, which will leave in place the pattern of service and both formal and informal partnerships and agreements which have stood the test of time.
The expertise available to public bodies, private owners and users all over Kent is considerable. Further, the current archive office has invested heavily in environmentally-controlled accommodation, the expansion of facilities for public access and the development of plans for computerisation. Here perhaps I should pay tribute to the forward thinking of the last three county archivists—a tribute which I am sure could be repeated many times in other counties across the country—who have, with the support of their elected members, developed a first-class service over a period of 25 years.
I urge the Commission and the Government to think very carefully before recommending changes which do not fully recognise the strengths of the current county-based system. They have been responsive to the need of both depositors and researchers, while concurrently earning the trust and support of private owners. There is too much at stake to leave the future safety of such valuable services to the capricious whims of voluntary arrangements.
For Kent, speaking as a private depositor of an archive collection which is consulted regularly by academics from all over the world, I urge the commission to keep in mind its own concerns for archives and to realise that the only sure option for Kent archives is the status quo.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for introducing the Question, I am speaking for every historian I know at every level on either side of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. A country's sense of its own identity depends extremely heavily on its own historical memory. I did not realise quite how much that was so, until I went to live for a while in the United States which was once described as the only country in the world in which the majority of the population is homesick.
County record offices were first proposed in Parliament in 1614. It takes quite a long time to get an idea through to fruition, but in recent years this one has come to fruition. It is of very great value. Moving is not good for records. The Custos Rotulorum in times gone by used to be what his name actually says: he used to have physical custody of the records. On occasion, when the Custos Rotulorum was dismissed, his successor used to send along a cart to collect the records. Naturally, that sort of thing was not particularly good for preservation.
There is also a very strong case for preserving the integrity of collections. I listened with interest to the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley on the integrity of the Kent record office where I have worked many times. I agree with everything that he said. Further, I thought that dividing his own family collection—which I have been extremely grateful to read—would be a gross act of vandalism and, indeed, almost impossible. There would also be a great problem as regards separating the documents from the catalogues. For example, could we imagine running this

2035
House with the Public Bill Office in Glasgow and the Printed Paper Office in Edinburgh? I believe that that would cause quite considerable confusion, and the parallel is not overstated.
The provenance of records also tells us something quite important about them on occasion. It is also worth remembering that the historic unit for most of English government, society and administration has for a very long time been the county. I am reminded of the story of Arthur Balfour at a dinner party. The lady next to him observed in a stage whisper, "The gentleman next door has put his hand on my knee and I can't make him let go". Arthur Balfour asked, "How long has it been there?" She replied, "Since the fish". "Well then", he said, "I'd let it stay there".
The English counties have been gathering records for a thousand years. That is a good deal longer than, "since the fish". Our counties are like Burke's trees: they have grown. One cannot imagine splitting up estate collections and having the estate documents in one place with the Quarter Sessions records in another. The task of dividing Quarter Sessions records between different districts really makes one's mind boggle.
The Minister may say that the matter should be left to the authorities concerned. In my experience—some of it bitter—whenever one leaves to local authorities the job of funding anything that happens outside their boundaries, one runs into difficulties. The standard of many local authorities in the care of their archives could not be improved upon. For example, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said about Hampshire, where I have spent many happy days.
However, it is difficult to persuade one's local electors to fund things outside the boundary of the local authority area. It goes against the very nature of the local authority. If there is to be a proper funding of records in their historic units—which I believe is the only way they can appropriately be kept—we must have a clear government directive because otherwise they will not be funded. If they are not funded, our Ph.Ds will not be completed—a matter which causes the Government enough distress. Foreign postgraduates will not come here in the numbers in which at present they do, and that will be a loss to our balance of payments, to our revenues, and to our international reputation. In fact, it will be a vast collection of losses simply for not bothering to think about it. That would be a very great pity.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was, I am sure, absolutely right to raise the issue of archives tonight. I think we all accept that reorganisation of local government is a worrying time for all the staff, though some of their worries could perhaps have been alleviated if the Staff Commission had been more constructive. However, I must say, as an archive-trained historian myself and also as someone from local government, that I believe some of the fears we have heard expressed tonight, are overstated and exaggerated. There is no question of historic archive material being splintered and dispersed, nor the staff
2036
who will conserve it. I do not know any body, either the Government or the Local Government Commission, the Audit Commission, the Association of District Councils or any district authority, which is calling for that. The depositors would not permit it, nor do the users and citizens want it. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right, that would be vandalism were it to happen. However, no one is proposing that, which is why I believe some of the debate tonight has perhaps missed the issues.
What is more, no new unitary authority could afford a new archive office with its storage and conservation facilities, at a cost of about £2 million a building, for its specialist facilities. Collections will be kept up and collections will be kept together, save perhaps only for those new records of management that are essential tools for the legal and planning departments of local authorities to which new authorities will require access, perhaps by new technology.
Our historic archives will remain in one site— generally the county town, its present home—as now. As for the service, I should describe what currently happens in Norfolk. Norwich and Norfolk ran a joint archive service until 1974. When the county borough lost its status and became a district council, there was thereafter a joint archives committee between the county council and the seven districts. After reorganisation—the preferred option, we trust, will be the five unitary districts referred to today —nothing, but nothing, will change. It will be a case of the same place, the same documents, the same staff, the same joint arrangements, the same level of service, the same councillors and almost certainly the same budget, because so much of the work of archives—I think perhaps this has not been explored—is statutory because it is based on the statutory conservation of local authority, NHS and court records. Therefore, across the shire counties of England there will, I suspect, be either joint arrangements or lead authorities which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, will be adopted according to which best suits local circumstances.
There is nothing new about that. There are already numerous joint arrangements in existence now which work and work well. They work well between district and district on, for example, specialised housing needs, or between districts and counties on museums, airports, economic development or the arts, or between county and county, for example on secure units for children. As regards a local authority buying a service from a lead authority, as the Audit Commission has said, that is no different from that same local authority buying it from a private body, which is what local authorities are now required to do under compulsory competitive tendering and under voluntary arrangements. Local authorities do that now. Where they are based on a willing partnership between equal authorities, joint arrangements and lead authority arrangements work well and work now.
Therefore, what is the problem? If it is not that of a dispersal of material, because that will not happen, and if, because they already work well and are satisfactory, it is not a problem of devising new arrangements that will be unsatisfactory, what is the issue? I believe that the worries focus on finance. But again, are those worries realistic? Most county archive services have a

2037
small budget. My own service has £300,000. I have been looking at the CIPFA statistics and that figure is not out of line with the usual county archival budget. Because it is a small budget and because most of the work—perhaps 90 per cent. of the existing collection —is statutory and therefore predictable as regards workload, there is little difference between a high budget and a low budget in archive work. I believe that that is a crucial point, because if there is little difference between a high budget and a low budget there will not be much room for argument, for disagreement, for political divide, because there will not be much to disagree about. Relative harmony prevails, except of course when we talk about the acquisition of a family's papers. However, there, of course, the debate will be antiquarian rather than financial.
I believe this is a worrying time for staff and I understand those fears, exaggerated though I believe them to be. That is why, like other noble Lords, I would warmly commend proposals which have been aired by the Association of District Councils; namely, that the final year of the county council's budget—plus inflation —should be projected into the first two years of reorganisation and then be apportioned on a population basis, and that thereafter we should move into five or 10-year management agreements such as we have seen in many parts of the country with regard to the museums service. I personally would welcome—I am sure local authorities would—government guidance to that effect.
In conclusion, we should remind ourselves that all new authorities are voluntarily entering a network of joint arrangements and lead authority arrangements. Different authorities will be lead authorities for different services. All will have an interest in locking each other into agreed and stable policies and budgets—joint arrangements for the future. Of all those joint services, archives, I would suggest, are the least tendentious, the least problematical, the least political and the least divisive. There really should not be a threat, because individual local authorities cannot opt out even if they should wish to, and they do not wish to do so.
I suggest to noble Lords that the real threat to quality local government services is not reorganisation but the cutting and capping of local government itself by central government. I hope that, following today's debate, not only may we receive guidance from central government to local authorities on budgetary processes, but that the archive world itself may devote some of its attention to encouraging central government to recognise that local government needs the finance it should have to protect and preserve the services we are all entitled to ask for.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for your interesting contributions to this debate, and especially my noble friend Lord Renton, who has given us the opportunity tonight to discuss this important subject. I also thank my noble friend for giving me prior notice of a number of issues which he wished to raise. I hope that in my reply I will be able to answer them fully.
The value and quality of local archive collections are widely recognised. The Government are firmly of the
2038
view that these collections have, and will continue to have, a significant role to play in the lives of our local communities. We can look with gratitude to the late Lord Ridley of Liddlesdale for the current vibrant health of the local archive services. It was he who, in 1962, introduced a Private Member's Bill which became the Local Government (Records) Act. That Act places beyond doubt the power of local authorities to rescue, preserve and make available the local archives of England and Wales.
Under the 1962 Act, county councils, London boroughs and metropolitan districts, together with certain district councils designated by order, have a power to buy, or accept as gifts or on deposit, other records of local interests, including, for example, family records. It was that Act which gave statutory foundation to the county and city record offices which were already established, and it has been the cornerstone of their development over the past 30 years. More than £20 million is now spent each year on providing county record offices, at an average cost per head of the population of just 50 pence.
County record offices do, of course, contain not only archives of local interest, but also authorities' own records. All authorities have a duty under the Local Government Act 1972 to make proper arrangements for the custody of their own records and documents. I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Renton that in no way is that duty changed.
How authorities choose to exercise their powers is, of course, a matter for them. The Government have never sought to prescribe the level of funding, the organisation of archive services in relation to other local authority services, or any other aspect of the service, such as access arrangements and conversion to other formats. These are matters for which an individual authority is answerable to its electorate and its local auditor.
There is no question that the general standards of storage, conservation, cataloguing and accessibility to the public have improved steadily over the years. We must all be grateful to local authorities for the crucial role they have played in the preservation of the country's archival heritage. Many of the items held are unique, irreplaceable and widely consulted. The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts advises that the present county record offices care for about one-third of all manuscript collections in publicly funded reposito-ries, amounting to about 300,000 metres of shelving in all. Of those holdings, about 30 per cent. are authorities' own administrative records, and 60 per cent. have been given or lent by private owners. My noble friend Lord Hertford referred to the valuable work which local archive services have undertaken in preserving his family records. The work which archive services have done to preserve such records is widely recognised and will continue.
We are fully aware of the importance of archives, and the valuable, and much valued, services provided by the county record offices and other local government managed archive collections. The establishment of the Department of National Heritage in 1992 demonstrates our commitment to the preservation, promotion and

2039
profitable use of our heritage. Archives, which contain the primary records of our past, are the very essence of that heritage.
At present, central government policy responsibility for matters covered by local government Acts rests in England with the Department of the Environment. But public libraries and museums come within the ambit of the Department of National Heritage, while the provision of local information (including local historical information) is an essential and integral part of the core library service, and museums also often have archive collections. The two departments work closely together, but we are presently considering the case for transferring responsibility for policy on local records to the Department of National Heritage.
Many noble Lords have expressed their anxiety about the future arrangements for administering county record offices and archive collections. Those concerns embrace the implications of the reorganisation of local government for standards of storage, conditions of public access, the risk of duplication of specialist services and even the possible splitting of collections of archives, many of which relate to the whole of a county. We are well aware, too, of similar concerns among archivists and their professional associations, local history and family history groups and individual members of the public.
We have listened very carefully to those wholly understandable concerns, and we are adopting a course of action which I believe will meet them. We have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and, as I shall explain, our proposals are intended to ensure that the quality of archive services will be maintained, and indeed improved, as a result of the forthcoming changes to local government structure in England. I said "improved". There will undoubtedly be opportunities in the future to consider the more widespread use of new technologies—for example, microforms, photocopies and optical discs—to make unique material more immediately accessible to people at a local level.
My noble friend Lord Hertford referred to the valuable work which local archive services have undertaken in preserving his family records. The work which archive services have done to preserve such records is widely recognised and will continue.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke raised the question of the resources which local authorities decide to devote to archives. There is no reason to believe that new authorities will take less seriously their obligations for archives than do existing authorities.
My noble friend's Question relates to the local government review. The purpose of the review is to secure convenient and effective local government which takes account of community identities. There is no national blueprint. Decisions will be based on what is most appropriate for each area. To respond to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton, the Government have said that Lords Lieutenant will be consulted before any decisions are made about their counties. We have not ruled out two-tier structures, though we believe that unitary authorities can improve accountability, cut out duplication of services and improve cost effectiveness.
2040
My noble friend Lord De L'Isle referred to the draft recommendations for Kent. It would not be right for the Government to comment at this stage on the commission's independent review. However, I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity of the current consultation to make his views known to the commission.
We recognised at an early stage of the local government review process that special attention needed to be given to the archives function of local authorities. Particular points for attention are the need to maintain the assets themselves; the need to preserve existing specialist advisory services, and the need to devise effective arrangements to take the service forward.
Noble Lords will be aware that the general principle is that, where unitary authorities are established, they will be responsible for all relevant local functions, with the exception of law and order and fire services. However, the guidance to the Local Government Commission recognises that this would not always be practical, and asks the commission to look at the need for other arrangements for services which may be better carried out over wider areas. The arrangements the commission may recommend depend on the nature of the service, the structure proposed and local circumstan-ces. In some cases authorities may need to collaborate in order to retain centres of expertise and specialist facilities, to achieve economies of scale or to gain a strategic perspective.
We do not see ourselves as having a prescriptive role in the development of structures for local solutions. I mentioned that our policy up to now has been that authorities should decide for themselves how to exercise their powers and duties. A variety of approaches has evolved, and authorities will be able to learn from each others' experience in this field. Local solutions are usually more satisfactory than centrally imposed ones. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is over-pessimistic about local authorities' ability to establish for their archives sensible arrangements reflecting local circumstances and local needs.
Where collaborative arrangements are appropriate, our preference is always that such arrangements should be made on a voluntary basis, because in that way they will benefit from more local accountability. Collaborative arrangements, whether they are of the partnership or lead authority models, work well in many areas. However, in order to protect the users of services, the Secretary of State has powers under the Local Government Act 1992 to impose joint authorities if he considers that satisfactory voluntary arrangements have not been made or, if they have been made, are not working properly.
In response to my noble friend Lord Beloff, perhaps I may say that the Government have a very clear policy on local archive services. They wish to see the progress which has been achieved since the enactment of the 1962 Act continue. We see our role as a facilitator—to see connections between activities and promote policies, structures and networks to assist independent free enterprise. That is why we are actively collaborating with the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, the Public Record Office, the Department

2041
of National Heritage, the Society of Archivists and the Association of County Archivists on the production of central guidance to the new local authorities about archive services. That will help to establish best practice and advise new authorities on co-operation arrangements. The aims of the guidance will be to help avoid the unnecessary dispersal of collections and to maintain a high quality of storage and access to the service.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu spoke of the perceived threat to the archive service. I believe that that is indeed an over-reaction; and I was pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, agreed on that point.
A draft guidance note has already been circulated for consultation and contains material on such matters as the definition of records, relevant standards to be adopted, the resources necessary to achieve them and how to deal with transitional periods. It is intended to have the guidance in place before the first new authorities come into being.
In response to a point raised by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, we are much aware of the importance of sites and monuments records. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is working closely with the heritage agencies to ensure that satisfactory provision is made for archaeological advice and the maintenance of records.
Many valuable lessons have been learned and much experience gained by archive services in the former metropolitan counties in the years since their dissolution. That experience can, and will, be drawn on to help us avoid the potential pitfalls. With the production of guidelines and wide-ranging discussions in which we are engaged, I am confident that the future of archive services in the present English counties will be secured. I hope that I have indeed reassured your Lordships that we fully recognise the importance of local authority archive records, and will do everything possible to ensure that after the reorganisation of local government, they continue to be something of which we can all be justifiably proud.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, about the Victoria County Histories? Those points are causing intense anxiety to those working on the enterprise.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, we are now extremely short of time. It is a complex issue. I shall, of course, write to all noble Lords and to the noble Baroness on those matters.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.15.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.15 p.m.]

Local Government: etc. (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Joint Boards for local government areas
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April 1996, establish Joint Boards for the local government areas comprised in each of the combined areas set out as follows for the provision in the combined area of the services required by the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968— Grampian Tayside Central Lothian Strathclyde Aberdeenshire, Moray, City of AberdeenAngus, City of Dundee and Perthshire and Kinross (except for water purposes the former County of Kinross) Clackmannan, Falkirk, Stirling (including for water purposes, the former county of Kinross) City of Edinburgh, West Lothian, East Lothian, Midlothian Argyll and Bute, Dumbarton and Clydebank, City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire.
(2) The provisions of sections 62A and 62C of the 1973 Act shall apply to a Joint Board established by an Order made under this Schedule as they apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under the said section 62A.
(3) The water and sewerage areas mentioned in subsection (1) above and in column 1 of Schedule (Water and Sewerage Areas) to this Act comprise the areas for the time being respectively described in column 2 of that Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, for the convenience of the Committee I speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 106A and 107 to 114. The Minister will not be surprised that we consider this probably the most emotive part of the Bill. Therefore, without wasting time, I intend to go through the; argument fairly closely and exhaustively.
The Minister will be aware that in November 1992 the Secretary of State invited views on his consultation paper Water and Sewerage Services in Scotland— Investing for our Future. It concerned the future-arrangements for water and sewerage services in Scotland. The consultation document was rather disappointing. It was felt that it was superficial and much less than even-handed in its treatment of the background to those services, the perceived need for change and possible options identified by the Secretary of State.
Many respondents to the consultation paper looked in vain for logical and cogent argument as to why change was being contemplated, and the possible merits or demerits of the various options canvassed. The whole exercise had a look and feel of simply being cosmetic.
Members of the Committee will be aware that regional and islands councils in Scotland, and their predecessor water and sewerage authorities, during the past 150 years have reason to be proud of their achievements and the levels of service which have traditionally been provided to domestic, industrial and commercial customers. It is noteworthy that there was no suggestion from any quarter that the services are other than efficiently and effectively managed and delivered, or that customer satisfaction is other man extremely high. Indeed, surveys have indicated that levels of consumer satisfaction with water and sewerage services in Scotland are higher than for other public or private sector services in any part of the United Kingdom.
Recognition of that success has even been given in a letter from the Prime Minister to the President of CoSLA indicating that,
"local authorities in Scotland for many years provided highly effective water and sewerage services which the public rightly appreciate".
Given the undoubted success of water and sewerage services under the control of local authorities, I urge the Committee to support the amendments, retaining responsibility for water and sewerage by local authorities under the existing boundaries.
Amendment No. 105 outlines the water authorities as they currently exist and the water authorities that we would like. It is a new clause. The regional and islands councils in Scotland and their predecessors have been extremely efficient in providing water services. Recognition of this success has come from all quarters. Some years ago I was given the rather nice duty of being honorary president of an organisation that was set up to rehabilitate a fountain in Kelvingrove Park in my old constituency. The event was to celebrate the 150th anniversary of bringing water from Loch Katrine to Glasgow. The water was and is such that there is not a high sale of mineral water in the Glasgow area—a fact that may be taken two ways. The water from Loch Katrine comes straight through the taps and can be drunk without any filtering other than a gauze filter to take out solids. One of the problems is that it is so pure that you can put it straight into your car battery without the slightest worry. We believe that we have a system there about which the whole population of the west of Scotland is pleased.
When water and sewerage were privatised in England, immediately prior to the privatisation there were 10 regional water authorities responsible for sewerage and water in England and Wales. Those public sector quangos were similar to the ones being proposed by the Secretary of State. They were seen by many as a stepping-stone to full privatisation, as happened in England and Wales.
Through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the people of Scotland commissioned consultants to report on the economic, social and public health implications of the privatisation of water and sewerage in England and Wales. The report was submitted to the Secretary of State and I am sure that the Minister either has a copy or has seen one.
The picture emerging should be a warning to all, but a few key points can still be highlighted. An important argument put forward for privatisation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales was that the new water companies would be freed from public expenditure constraints. However, the consultants' report does not suggest that that freedom was warmly welcomed or even used. Almost no new equity capital has been raised from the shareholders of privatised companies; rather, the majority of new investment has been financed from current revenue. That is, it was paid for by the consumer through increased charges. Inevitably, that has reflected itself in excessive increases in water and sewerage charges very much above the annual rate of inflation. There is no doubt that with the
2044
poverty levels increasing in Great Britain, the privatisation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales has led to a sharp rise in the number of disconnections of supply from domestic properties. That is something which we hope never happens in Scotland. It cannot happen now; it is illegal to cut off water and sewerage supplies to any dwelling in Scotland.
The Minister will know that the Strathclyde regional authority carried out a survey of public opinion, of which I have a copy. A number of comments were made as to the questions asked, but I am sure that the Minister has had a good look at them. They are professionally laid out, the collection was carried out by the Electoral Reform Ballot Services Limited and there was no question about the result. The simple question was asked: "Do you agree with the Government's proposal for the future of water and sewerage services? Please mark a cross in one box only". The referendum was conducted by the electoral reform body and the result was absolutely astounding. Of those voting, 97.2 per cent. or 1,194,000 voted no; 33,000 voted yes, with a turnout of 71.5 per cent. With his knowledge of local government, the Minister will surely agree that for any local government effort that is a very high turnout indeed.
Therefore, to say the least, I think that it would be highly unwise if the Government ever reached the point of going towards privatisation. But then, there are so many things with this Government, even with the good will of the Scottish Ministers. I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord who will answer tonight and also for Sir Hector Monro who dealt with the Bill during the Committee stage in the other place. He said that the new water authorities would have access to the National Loan Fund probably by broadly similar amounts as in England, although exact figures would depend on each year's public expenditure service settlement. That too would be public expenditure and would add to the PSBR. What Sir Hector was really saying was that it will not be allowed to be added to the PSBR so that the money will be spent. It will give the dividends that they are speaking about, and after the purchase of the water undertakings charges will be raised. Of course, the Government have said that they will not do it —there is no chance of them doing it. I wish I were as happy about that idea as the Government appear to be.
Before I move on to the other amendments, I should like to confirm that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 105, 106, and 107. Amendment No. 105 outlines the water authorities as they exist now. The purpose is to retain responsibility for water and sewerage within local government and also to retain the existing boundaries of the water and sewerage authorities. Would it be convenient if I went through each amendment singly or should I deal with them en bloc?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I understood that Amendments Nos. 105, 106, 106A and 107 to 114 were grouped together. I intended to respond to the noble Lord in a single reply.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes, that is fine; it is probably the most economic way from the time point of view. Amendment No. 106 proposes the insertion after "be" of the words:
"persons who are elected councillors nominated by each of the local authorities which lie within the geographical area of the water and sewerage authority".
The amendment will preserve the representation of elected councillors.
Amendment No. 107 proposes to increase the number of those on the board from 11 to 13, with additional responsibilities. Amendment No. 110 is to insert the words:
"Members of the authority shall appoint one of their members as chairman and one as deputy chairman".
Those are technical amendments, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate. Amendment No. 110 is to provide that control of the new authorities, if established, will remain in the hands of elected and democratically accountable councillors appointed by the local authorities in the area of the water authorities.
Amendment No. 108 suggests that each member of a water and sewerage authority should be personally responsible for advising the Secretary of State of any potential or actual conflict of interest. A register of such interests should be available for public inspection.
Amendment No. 113 suggests that there is no requirement for the new water and sewerage authorities to meet in public or to allow access to committee reports etc. The amendment would apply the same legislation to meetings of the new authorities as at present apply to local authorities, thereby ensuring public access to meetings. I do not think that that happens in England because they are private boards. Reports and documents, etc. should be published subject to the usual commercial specified confidential provisions.
The purpose of Amendment No. 114 is that members of a water and sewerage authority should be subject to the same penalties for non-compliance with the rules of the organisation as are members of other local authorities. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I should apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Minister because, inevitably, in a group of amendments—and we are speaking to a group—there will be an element of Second Reading speeches. But the principle is so important that I make no real apology.
All of us, including Scots Ministers, are very proud of the heritage that we have in water supplies. We have heard about Loch Katrine in the west and Lintrathen in the east, which has supplied Dundee and other parts with excellent water for a long time, in addition to supplying fishing facilities for those who wish to fish. There we have an example of excellent work in the past. The only criticism one could make, if one were a spoilsport, in relation to the old water authorities of the county councils was that the annual inspections of the water facilities were perhaps a trifle liquid in another direction. But that happened only once a year. No harm was done, and the public purse did not suffer nearly as much as it has in England from the depredations of the privatised water authorities, which are skinning people
2046
for all they are worth. It is interesting that the average bill in England and Wales is £199 per household and the average bill in Scotland is about £100. That factor must be taken into account. We have good water and we have people who manage the waiter schemes extremely well. There is no reason for us to change.
Here I must congratulate the Scottish Office team. It is a good team. They are nice men and they are traditional men. They have no connection with some of the appalling yuppies who people the English Conservative Party. They have done their best for Scotland in resisting all sorts of appalling legislation which they know is bad. In regard to the privatisation of the Forestry Commission, we owe a great debt to Sir Hector Monro for his sensible application of the rules that were pushed upon him. The Ministers for Scotland have to be congratulated on managing to produce a scheme which is still a fair way from privatisation. They were, I suppose, forced to produce a scheme that was managed by quangos. It appears to be a sine qua non of any policy of the Conservative Party nowadays that the further you remove democratically elected people from the management of any resource, the better it pleases those who are appointed. But it does not please anyone else.
Our aim in this series of amendments is perfectly simple. We are trying to offer a scheme to the Government which will employ the people who traditionally have managed Scottish industry well—the elected members—and arrange the industry into rather better groups. The following amendments ensure that a majority at least of the managing group would be elected members. There could be provision for private finance without handing the assets over to private industry, and the development could follow. In other words, this group of amendments is a sensible outlet for the Government. If they will look sympathetically at a number of the amendments it will improve the scheme no end. It will give it a democratic base and please the people of Scotland. The figures for the dislike of privatisation have already been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, so I shall not reiterate them. These amendments may not be perfect but they do point a very sensible way forward.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I want to say a word about this group of amendments because I think that it goes to the heart of this part of the Bill. When I hear some of the stories north of the Border I am reminded of the old one about the message that is sent from the front: "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance", but it comes out at the other end as, "Send three-and-fourpence, we are going to a dance". In a week when the Government have been subjected to the most extraordinary rumour-mongering as to the future of Rosyth, I must say that the "read across" from the Scottish Office Minister's plans (the Government's plans) to deal with the water and sewerage industry in the way that they are doing, in equating that with privatisation or the route through which privatisation will come, does a great disservice to the honour and integrity of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues.

2047
There are fundamental problems to be addressed in Scotland so far as water and sewage are concerned—or perhaps I should have put it the other way round and said sewage and water. I well remember, when in my previous post in government, having to deal with the very large problems that arose in Scotland. In particular, I had to deal with Inverness. I can assure those who do not know what I am referring to, that it was a messy business. The whole problem was trying to get enough finance to do something about the matter.
Yes, indeed there will be increased charges. I think that Members on all sides of the Chamber will realise that if we have to get our sewerage situation in Scotland put right a lot of money has to be spent. The pledge of the Government not to have disconnections north of the Border is an extremely important one, and I welcome it.
As to the set-up on how we should proceed, yes, I have heard all the stories about quangos and so on. I look to the Government in setting up the three boards that will represent the whole of Scotland to ensure that the balance in those boards will be clearly drawn. I believe that councillors have a part to play because of the knowledge that they have of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland. I would not decry that particular part. But there are also many people in the industry itself, and close to the industry, with a knowledge of the engineering and the water and sewage problems that exist who could be very useful members of the board. I do not look for the good and the great to be members of that board. I look for those who are good and great in the whole matter of water and sewerage to be members of it. While I well understand the nervousness of parties opposite as to the route down which the Government intend to go, I caution them that what is really important is that a very big problem has to be resolved in the water and sewerage industry in Scotland. No one should imagine that this Government, or this Secretary of State for Scotland, could possibly wish, having gone down the route that they have taken, then to move on to privatisation, which has its problems, as all of us know who live south of the Border.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel confident that the Government are taking the right steps in having the three authorities to cover the whole of Scotland. Strangely enough, before the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, in Scotland we had water boards. That Act made water and sewerage a regional function. Equally strangely enough, England established water boards at the same time as we got rid of them in Scotland. I feel that the members of the new water and sewerage authorities must have the knowledge and experience connected with water and sewerage in particular.
From a slightly political point of view, it is worth remembering—I am sure the Government remember—that it was the old progressive boroughs and cities that built water and sewerage systems and reservoirs. Perhaps some people in Scotland feel that, because of the old connection, there should continue to be some local authority representation within membership of the new constitution.
2048
It is pleasing to think back to our city fathers, or perhaps I should say grandfathers, who paid for the water and sewerage systems to be developed. It is good that their children should continue to take an interest. I shall be pleased to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong, but I do not see anything within Schedule 7 to prevent the Secretary of State choosing a local authority representative, provided that person had the necessary knowledge and experience.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This is a very sad debate about water in Scotland. We have plenty of it throughout the year. We know where to find it when we want it. It is uncomfortable to be discussing the possibility of three water authorities for Scotland. I ask: why? Scotland has a population of 5 million people and is a small part of the United Kingdom. Why do we need three water authorities to look after water for Scotland?
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, I am quite amazed by what has been "leaked", so to speak, about Rosyth. There was a debate this afternoon in the Chamber, which some Members of the Committee no doubt attended. If Mr. Rifkind, the Secretary of State for Defence, had been a battleship, he would have been sunk long ago. There have been so many leaks. At 8 o'clock this morning I learnt from LBC Radio what was intended to be announced in this Chamber and another place this afternoon. It may have been an incorrect leak. But there were leaks all over the place. For the Government to suggest that leaks were coming from this side of the Chamber is quite inappropriate.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I should like to say that the leaks in letters that seemed to be permeating the Palace of Westminster last week were very far from the truth. I referred to that.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have always found the truth to be very elusive. No doubt one day we shall arrive at the truth about what is happening at Rosyth.
I am told on reasonable authority that in Scotland the private water people were unable to guarantee the health of the community and that is why water was taken into public control by the local authorities. In Glasgow in particular, in the Strathclyde area—we know what the Prime Minister said about Strathclyde and that he wants to get rid of the monstrosity called Strathclyde; perhaps that is what the Bill is all about—the far-seeing councillors in the early part of the century not only guaranteed the people of Glasgow and surrounding areas healthy water, as was said by my noble friend Lord Carmichael. They also guaranteed the health of the people of Strathclyde.
Now the Government move in to say, "You cannot do that any more." I ask why the local authority cannot do it any more. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, made a perfectly valid point. There has to be investment in public water and sewerage and we have to pay for our health. Let us not beat about the bush. If it is part of the local authority's responsibility to ensure the health of its population, it has to be paid for. The populace has to pay for it through various forms of rates.

2049
What struck me coming down on the train yesterday was what has happened to charges in England and Wales since the privatisation of water. I do not have the figures in front of me. But they are quite horrendous. The cost to the individual consumer is horrendous; the percentage increase in water rate is horrendous. The payment made to the people in charge of the water boards is yet more horrendous. And the profits of the companies involved are horrendous. Why should this place say that people should make a profit out of health? That is what water is all about; it is about people's good living.
When the Minster replies, perhaps he will give a guarantee to the Committee. I give an illustration of what 1 mean. About a month ago, I took the trouble to take a sail on Loch Katrine. I do not know when the Minister was last down at Loch Katrine. I sailed in a little ship called "The Sir Walter Scott"—the last of the "Para Handys", so to speak. That loch is as clean as a whistle. No one is allowed to take on it any outboard motor. One can fish on it provided one just has a boat. Will the Government and the new authorities give a guarantee that no other vessels will be allowed to sail on Loch Katrine? There is the terrible problem on Loch Lomond of people being killed by motorboats mowing them down at midnight. Are we to have a repeat of that situation on Loch Katrine? Will the Government underwrite the assurance that within the appropriate context that will not happen? I should like to know.
The councillors in that area not only took over the loch; they took over the land surrounding the loch. I should like to have a guarantee from the Government, on behalf of the people of Strathclyde, that the land will not be sold off for private purposes and private profit as part of the privatisation of the water industry in Scotland. I shall say no more at this stage. I give a guarantee to the Government that we shall come back to the matter. It may be rather wide of the amendment at the moment, but we shall come back at Report stage. I shall listen with interest to what the Government have to say.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is absolutely right to say that despite the somewhat placid state of the Chamber at the moment, this issue is one of the most fundamental issues in the Bill. It divides the Government's view from the Opposition's view most deeply in many ways.
So far as we can—avoiding Second Reading speeches, as my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie remarked—we try to offer the Government a way out of what is a very basic issue for the Scottish people.
It has been customary in long debates for those who speak to establish some kind of credibility. I can only say, in an effort to be as persuasive as possible, that I grew up catching minnows in Monikie and Crombie and was then lucky enough to catch an occasional trout and trade it in the former constituency of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, which is also my old home. I believe that the Government should bear in mind what has happened on a number of issues. Yesterday's discussion on the director of education concerned a
2050
similar matter. Feeling about local authority ownership of Scottish water for the people of Scotland runs very deep in the Scottish psyche and in Scottish traditions. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who is deeply steeped in the lore of Glasgow, mentioned Loch Katrine, the history of which goes back to disputes between the Glasgow public authority and the Duke of Montrose. It is one of the great chapters of the history of public improvement in Scotland.
I say seriously to the Government that it is dangerous to trample too much on tradition. When I was a young politician the general concept was that we in the Opposition parties were supposed to be the apostles of change and the Conservatives were the protectors of continuity. That has somewhat turned round in these latter days. I am doing my best to set the scene for our way out.
The difficulty, it seems to me—coming to the matter from the outside and belatedly—is that the water issue in the Bill brought together originally the central economic and political dogmas of the Government. They were very keen both on privatisation, for economic reasons, and on "quangoisation"—if that is not a terrible word—for political reasons. They came together on the issue. Then, because of the reaction from the people of Scotland and because of the frail political base of the present Government in Scotland, there was a certain retreat and we have the propositions that are now in the Bill.
That brings about a real dilemma which should dismay any of us who are Scots on either side of the Chamber and in Scotland generally; that is, on the one side there seems to be a deep distrust on the part of the Government of elected local authorities and, on the other, an even deeper distrust on the part of the Scottish people of the present Government's intentions in this field, particularly in relation to the organisation of water. Figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, were particularly striking.
Without hope of any success I ask the Government, between now and Report stage—which gives a healthy period of meditation over the long parliamentary vacation—to consider seriously the merits of the main thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, regarding the changed structure of organising Scottish water, the retaining of responsibility for water and sewerage within local government, and the retaining of the existing boundaries of the water and sewerage authorities.
The arguments are sometimes put in financial terms and it is said that it is difficult to do that because of financial realities. That is a thin argument. I felt that there was force in the brief from CoSLA—no doubt received on all sides of the Chamber—which states:
"The Government's solution to this problem appears to be the Private Finance Initiative. This would involve the private sector building, owning and operating capital assets with the water authorities paying ongoing charges on the basis of the services provided. The great benefit from the Government's point of view is that, since the assets are owned by the private sector, the capital expenditure does not count as public expenditure and has no impact on the public sector borrowing requirement. The use of the Private Finance Initiative does not, however, depend on the creation of independent water authorities. The facility is equally

2051
available to local authorities and indeed the Scottish Office have already issued a circular to local authorities encouraging them to consider its use".
I look at the issue inevitably from the point of view of the European Union dimension. From my experience of the European Community I was not struck that they did things differently on the mainland of Europe. It may be that we can learn a lesson from that. CoSLA gave an interesting example from our European partners. Regrettably it does not give the origin of the quotation but I should like to place it on the record just the same. It said:
"The main exclusion from public expenditure is the expenditure of those government owned enterprises or public corporations which primarily sell the goods and services they produce in the market. In UK terms, that means distinguishing between, on the one hand, the activities of public corporations plus government trading bodies and, on the other hand, the principal activities of government, which involve taxing to finance public services".
If the Government were more willing and imaginative in these matters we could deal with the financing problems of the investment that is badly needed in the Scottish water and sewerage development without the problems relating to the PSBR. Without any hope of success, because of the importance of the Committee stage on this issue, I again ask the Government to consider seriously what was put to them by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and to give a proper democratic local authority base for the future control and regulation of Scottish water.
The Earl of Minto: I do not find it easy to talk to a large group of amendments. I ask the Committee therefore to allow me to speak specifically to Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 110 to begin with. As a representative of local government I believe that I should be allowed, within your Lordships' Committee, to express the view of those of us who live not necessarily in the massive conurbations but within the rural areas of Scotland as well.
We share with many other Members of the Committee who have spoken this evening a common feeling of unhappiness in relation to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in the overall sense. I always felt that it was extremely unfortunate—I cannot help but think of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was saying a little earlier this evening when he spoke of the awful local government finance system—that there is not some way that we can sometimes, with good sense, bring the private sector into the public sector and still retain control of it in that public sector.
Speaking for my own authority, our water happens to be extremely expensive. We have to pay for it and we accept that. However, it is massively expensive if we look at it in relation to the remainder of Scottish water. There is, therefore, something rather attractive in becoming part of one of the three boards. That would help us and slightly reduce our costs—and we know that —even if it were to be within the public sector. From that point of view there is a certain sympathy towards the creation of our own specific authority. I cannot speak for the other two—that would be wrong of me —but once there it is a question of control.
2052
There is a massive feeling within Scotland that people do not want to be taken out of democratic control. Irrespective of where we live, we do not like that. The amendments to which I am speaking intend to provide that the control of the new authorities, if they are established, remains in the hands of elected and democratically accountable councillors appointed by the local authorities in the area of the water authorities. At no time when we are discussing the local government Bill should we allow ourselves to be divorced from the word "democracy". The democratic process is something of which we are immensely proud in Scotland, and within the United Kingdom. Therefore, when that principle is breached, it must be something which we treat with deep concern.
I believe it is important that the control of our water and indeed our sewerage authorities remains in the hands of those local people who are democratically accountable. To ensure that this occurs, I believe that the only feasible means of achieving such an end is to require that the membership of the authority is drawn from the councils within the area. It is not sufficient that the members of the authority should, as suggested in the schedule, have,
"knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of the functions".
The vital point is that decisions should be taken by people who are democratically accountable to the users of the service. That is especially important, given that the Government claim that water and sewerage services are remaining in the public sector. If they are remaining in the public sector, then that in the minds of Scotland means that they are controlled with a totally democratic hand. It should also be remembered that the supporters of the Government have expressed that as a majority opinion. During the debate on similar amendments in the House of Commons, the Minister, Sir Hector Monro, argued that the new water and sewerage authorities would be democratically accountable. He stated (at col. 1538 of the Hansard report of the First Scottish Standing Committee on 29th March 1994):
"The authorities will be democratically accountable to Parliament. Men and women of a blend of expertise, with knowledge of the water industry and of business, will be members of the boards".
But they will not be elected. That is what frightens me. Sir Hector Monro, for whom I have friendship and admiration, clarified his position and said (at col. 1541 of Hansard) that,
"the water authorities will be responsible to the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament, and all hon. Members have access to the Secretary of State".
While that is undoubtedly true, I would contend, and many of the local authorities, if not all of them, in Scotland would contend, that the line of accountability to the public presently employed in the control of Scotland's water and sewerage services should continue, as it is closer to the public and more accessible than the more distant form of accountability envisaged by the Minister. I believe that accountability for water services has historically been at a democratically local level in Scotland. I believe that it should remain so.
9 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Rather as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, anticipated, given the significant block of amendments in this group and given the fact that this is the first block of amendments dealing with that part of the Bill which will bring about a change in the way water is provided in Scotland, a number of the contributions have undoubtedly been in the nature of Second Reading speeches. In the circumstances, there is no complaint to be made about that approach.
Perhaps I may try to draw together from these amendments the difference between what the Government propose and what would be the effect of the new clause contained in Amendment No. 105. The amendment would require the setting up of five joint boards of the new local councils to deliver the water and sewerage services in those areas where the existing regional councils are to be replaced by more than one new council. The new clause marches with other suggestions for retaining control of water and sewerage services with local authorities.
There has been extensive debate in another place on this matter but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is, broadly speaking, correct. We are not impressed with the merits of the argument that we should be establishing a joint board basis for the delivery of water and sewerage services. The structure of 12 water and sewerage authorities fits very well with the current local government structure of regional and islands councils. The Government, including the Prime Minister, have always made it clear that we acknowledge the good record of those councils in maintaining and improving these important services. But, as we have discussed now at some considerable length during the proceedings on the Bill, the structure of local government is to change. I shall not repeat the arguments but against that background we determined that a change has to be effected in relation to water and sewerage.
Some mention has been made of the referendum conducted in the Strathclyde region. I do not propose to analyse it in any detail but I shall repeat what I have said previously. First, I have no complaint to make about the fashion in which the referendum was conducted. I have no doubt that it was accurately recorded and that the figures properly reflect what were the views of those who responded. However, I am far from confident that those who responded appreciated the context of that we were suggesting—that there ought to be a change if local government was to change.
Secondly, I know, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, knows, that there was in parallel to that properly conducted referendum a campaign conducted throughout Strathclyde with pamphleting which indicated that those who responded should say no to the privatisation of water. We have not suggested the privatisation of water and that is not our intention. We believe that what is proposed here represents a stable and satisfactory arrangement for providing water and sewerage services in Scotland.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: When I was referring to public opinion I was not referring to the Strathclyde
2054
poll but to the figures which CoSLA gave in its public opinion survey. It said that 95 per cent. of Scots wanted to see the provision of water and sewerage left in the control of local authorities and 85 per cent. thought that the Government's plan to establish three public water authorities would eventually lead to the services being privatised. That seems to be a reflection of a degree of distrust which should worry the Government.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If leaflets are put out saying that what is proposed is an inevitable route towards privatisation, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that we regard such an approach with some suspicion. Water and sewerage are now very substantial businesses, employing advanced technology and representing major capital investment. Over 6,000 people are employed and capital expenditure runs close to a quarter of a billion pounds each year and it is set to increase sharply in order to meet the requirements of the various European directives. Current expenditure and income—turnover in business language—is about £450 million a year. Perhaps I may pick up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I entirely agree with him that investment in our water and sewerage services is badly needed. The history of water and sewerage provision in Scotland is one of increasingly large units of supply. That trend will continue in view of the investment needs and the desirability—about which there seems to be general agreement—of harnessing (the resources of the private sector to help finance them.
I accept that joint boards are a well-precedented arrangement for the delivery of services which, by their nature, cannot best be delivered by each individual local authority on its own. The traditional examples are of course the police and fire services. There is also a precedent with water itself, as the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, reminded us, in as much as joint boards were responsible for the service before the last local government reform in 1975. A return to a system of joint boards was obviously a possibility for water and sewerage in the circumstances of the current reorganisation. It was one of the options that was set out in the consultation paper Investing for our Future, which was published in November 1992. That paper itself, however, pointed out that joint boards did not appear to be the best way to organise the services to operate on commercial lines.
That is the nub of the argument. The new water and sewerage authorities will inevitably have to conduct their operations in line with the best business practice. It is our view that a structure of joint boards would not be conducive to that end. In the circumstances—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the noble and learned Lord give way?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I would like to make progress. This first group of amendments is taking a long—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is a little ludicrous to say that great things lie ahead when in fact greater things lie in the past and were done by the local authorities.

2055
The massive expenditure on Lintrathen and the bringing of water to Dundee was a major factor and as big as anything contemplated today.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The level of expenditure, as I indicated, is what is currently required and what we require over the next 10 to 15 years is massive. It seems to be agreed that we want to harness the use of private sector finance in this matter. We believe that the arrangement of the three authorities within the public sector—I stress that they remain within the public sector —offers the right solution. The authorities will be of the right size to achieve economies of scale. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, in his contribution at least in part appeared to acknowledge that economies of scale might he achieved in some parts of Scotland if that were to be done. The largest (the west) will serve about 2.3 million people; the east about 1.5 million people and the north about 1.1 million people. They will all be substantial enterprises in their own right. At the same time they will all have sufficient similarities to allow a measure of comparison.
I have no doubt that what we are proposing is the right way ahead for these services in Scotland. I acknowledge the record of local authorities and understand the sentiments of those who would wish to retain something of the former structure. However, I do not believe that that would be for the best. Over time, I believe that this will become increasingly apparent as the new authorities establish themselves and the benefits of restructuring come through.
I am one who belongs to the Brian Meek school of water and sewerage. As he recorded in the Glasgow Herald recently, while there were frequently intense battles in local government for the convenership for the various distinguished responsibilities within local government, he could not remember when there was a ferocious political battle for the convenership of the water and sewerage services committee. That is the reality, so to some extent I believe that the furore that has been created has a degree of artificiality about it.
There may be some sentimental attachment to the continuation of those committees and responsibilities, particularly at the time of the annual visit, be it to Loch Katrine or to Lintrathan—an annual visit of golden legend. That may be a time when those involved feel some affection for those committees.
I share the difficulty of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in trying to draw this considerable group of amendments together. Indeed, I do not propose to do so. Important as they are, many of them seem essentially consequential on the idea of establishing joint boards and what should be the attendant responsibilities and liabilities if that is to be done.
However, I should like to say something about Amendments Nos. 106 and 106A. Amendment No. 106 would require the membership of the new authorities to comprise solely elected councillors representing districts within the geographical area of the authority in
2056
question. I want to make it clear that elected councillors certainly have a part to play and this will be recognised in the composition of the new authorities' membership.
Sir Hector Monro stated in another place that the ranks of people qualified to serve on the authorities would include a significant number of councillors. He confirmed the intention that councillors will be among the appointees. Allan Stewart confirmed on Report that the Government believe that there should be a significant number of councillors on the new authorities, but that it would be unreasonable to bind the Secretary of State on specific numbers. But the authorities must also have within their membership the professional, business and financial expertise that will be indispen-sable to the running of these substantial businesses.
I should like to adopt the approach of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden to the membership of such boards. It is not our intention that they should comprise those who are traditionally slighted as being "the great and the good"; we want those who have real expertise and understanding of how the services should best be delivered. I am happy to confirm that we believe that a significant number of councillors will be among them.
It is right therefore that the membership should be drawn from the widest possible field of those who have most to contribute and that they should be appointed by and be responsible to the Secretary of State. I appreciate what the noble Earl said about accountability. The fact is that even if those bodies are not directly accountable in local government terms, because of their accountability to the Secretary of State and his accountability to Parliament they will find themselves answerable to Parliament albeit indirectly—that is, to your Lordships' House and, what is possibly more important, to Members of another House.
Unless any noble Lord wants me to take up any points relating to the other amendments, perhaps I may skip over them. Therefore, with that explanation of how we feel that the new boards should be established, I hope that we can now consider, in the detail that your Lordships choose, the other amendments in this part of the Bill relating to the new water authorities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may take up the point raised by the Minister about big business and the necessity to spend money. As I understand it, the necessity is to spend money on sewerage. The water provisions are not nearly so expensive. As far as I know, there is no way of collecting the money for sewerage except through the local authorities. If money is borrowed, it will eventually have to be paid for by the consumer and the only way is through the local authorities. If payments are made through them, that seems to me to be a strong reason for the local authorities controlling the new boards—or whatever they may be. The one thing that cannot be done is to cut off the sewerage. That would not work. That is the point that should be considered.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sanderson that possibly we would have focused proper attention on what are the problems of investment in these services in Scotland had we inverted the debate and conducted it not on the emotive

2057
basis of Scotland's water but on Scotland's sewerage. I wonder whether there would have been quite so many people immediately and spontaneously indicating their worry. It is a massive requirement for capital expenditure. Other provisions in the Bill spell out exactly how the charge is to be levied on people. I anticipate that when we come to later clauses we may discuss that aspect.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: One of the difficulties in a Bill such as this is that the Minister putting it forward is so believable. I do not doubt that at this moment he believes everything he is saying. However, as a result of the record of the Government he represents, I have a sneaking feeling that most people in the country will believe that five or 10 years from now —if the Conservatives come back into power after a couple of elections—they will be looking at the total privatisation of the water companies in Scotland, as they did in England. I believe that to be the reason why people voting in the referenda took the view that they did not want them.
As regards the referenda, it is not good enough that the Government dismiss almost 1.2 million Scots as though they did not know what they were voting for. Basically, that is an insult to their intelligence. When the announcement was originally made I said, perhaps slightly emotionally, that the people of Scotland felt strongly about the whole question of water. It has been suggested by others that if the Government had gone about it another way and given the figures for sewerage as well as for water there might have been a different answer. They did not do so, and I do not believe that that would have worked.
The investment in water in Scotland by our forefathers was immense, and people know that. They have visited the reservoirs and, like my noble friend Lord Macaulay and myself, have seen the colossal investment at Loch Katrine. Thirty-six inch pipes were laid for 30 miles in the days when they used horses and carts. Reinforced by certain events that have taken place during the past 15 years, people have a sneaking feeling that that enormous investment will be snatched up on the cheap by people looking for a quick turnover. Once they have it, they will start to explain how expensive it is to complete the sewerage works. We all agree that sewerage is expensive. I would not hide that for one moment. To some extent, the campaign was emotional. But that emotion was fed by 100 years of folk history and the belief that Scottish water is not something from which people should make large fortunes.
We discussed the question of those who will sit on the boards. Mr. Stewart and Sir Hector Monro, who are Members in another place, gave assurances that there would be representation of councillors. We have been told that there will be a significant number of representatives. Does that mean 33 per cent., 51 per cent. or 75 per cent.? Obviously, I am not asking the Minister to give the answer now, although it would be helpful if he did. However, it should be simple for him to do so because he must have been in discussions, official or semi-official, and he must know whether it is to be tokenism or genuine representation.
2058
After 15 years, the Government have put forward this proposition. They have all the powers of propaganda by the use of pamphlets and leaflets but they cannot even get their own newspapers in Scotland to support it, I agree that in the past few months, the newspapers have been trying to increase their circulation. The Minister mentioned Brian Meek. I read that article. I believe that Brian Meek is one of the cleverest and lightest—I do not mean frivolous —reporters. He has a light touch which I think is extremely good. However, I do not know where his knowledge of water and sludge comes from, although I know that he was with the Edinburgh corporation for a long time.
I do not know whether the Committee knows that Glasgow has two extremely good boats which sail down the Clyde every day. Therefore, there are two sides to this matter. I have been on sludge boats in other parts of the world—the Mersey and Manchester. The conditions are so good on those boats that you would not know what they were carrying.
All joking aside, this is an incredibly important matter for the Scottish people. A very senior member of the party opposite—it would be wrong to give his name —asked me at a recent gathering why the Government keep doing these things. Why does the Conservative Party wish to meddle with water? This is the bridge too far.
Of course there are difficulties with regard to raising money but the Americans and French have managed to solve that problem. The Government may manage to make arrangements with regard to the Channel Tunnel which will not affect the PSBR. For many years members of Select Committees have argued that we need to get rid of Treasury rales and, if necessary, raise debentures as the Americans do for their big inner city or regional transport projects. That can be done. But the Government prefer to sell off their assets in order that they can justify obtaining a good market price.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am reluctant to draw out our discussions further but the noble Lord has committed the very error about which I complained. I had hoped that he would accept—as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, did—that we propose to leave the water boards within the public sector. Nothing will be sold off and this will remain in the public sector. There will be no sale and nothing accruing to the Treasury as a consequence of the change.
However, our proposals will secure the opportunity for the investment which we believe is required to bring Scotland's water and sewerage up to the high standards required of us, both domestically and in the European context.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Earlier I tried to suggest that the Victorian investment in water and sewerage was so immense that it would be easy to attract private capital because that private investment will be riding on the huge investment that is already there. I said at the beginning that I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has horns. He genuinely believes that that is what will happen. However, very few people in Scotland believe that 10 years from now —unless conditions politically change—there will not

2059
ultimately be a sell-off. If the Minister does not believe that, then some of the recent examples that we have heard about, when things seems to have been Treasury motivated, will prove that he is wrong—although I hope not. I really believe that. Indeed, it is even more tragic for the party opposite, but rather better for my party: the people of Scotland believe us and not the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of a new water and sewerage authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 114 not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 64 [General duties of Secretary of State and of new authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 56, line 44, leave out ("to have regard to the desirability of preserving") and insert ("to preserve").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 116,117 and 118. Again, it is perhaps the kind of clumsy arrangement about which the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, spoke where we have to deal with too many amendments at once. However, they are grouped together and there is no question about it. I would have liked to have dealt with them in the other way but, as I say, they have been grouped together.
The amendments are designed to help in our ultimate objective; namely, to ensure that the new authorities will be subject to a duty to preserve public access and protect and conserve buildings, sites and objects of archaeological or historic interest.
When one looks at some of our water works, we can see examples of quite staggering Victorian engineering, ingenuity and science. The water supply that I know best is Loch Katrine. It comes down from the granite rock and runs the 30-odd miles to Glasgow. As I said on another occasion, you can use the water in your car battery without the slightest worry because it is absolutely pure. The work was carried out by local firms. Some Members of the Committee will know the famous water manufacturing appliance companies in Kilmarnock, Renfrew and Kennedy which, way back long before the turn of the century, provided wonderful machines for controlling the water. They also supplied the pipes that were sent over the hills in a huge siphon down to the water works at Milngavie. All such works should be preserved.
The Milngavie water works have been open to the public for a hundred years now. One can stroll around the works on a Sunday or on any day of the week and it is a wonderful experience. We are most keen that it should be preserved. Anything that says, "Keep off the Grass" or "Keep Out" is there for a very good purpose. In general, I believe that people are aware of that fact.
2060
If the water companies ever come to the area, we want them to provide such safeguards. But such safeguards must allow people to exercise their rights of access.
Amendment No. 117 provides that in the exercise of their functions relating to water and sewerage the Secretary of State and the new water authorities are required to consult local authorities on matters which impinge upon the exercise of the functions of local authorities.
Amendment No. 119 states:
"Not less than one-third of the members of the Customers Council"—
in this case I am not speaking about the boards themselves—
"shall be members of local authorities appointed by such national associations of local authorities as exist and the remaining members shall be appointed by such other bodies which are representative of the interests of domestic and non-domestic consumers of water and sewerage services".
That may be, to some extent, a help to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who unfortunately has now left the Chamber, because he expressed concern about maintaining contact with the local authority. If the customers council comprises a reasonable number of members from the local authority, the chances are that people will approach that body. The Minister, having been a Member of Parliament, will know that constituents attend their MPs' surgeries and they will speak to one when perhaps they would not normally do so because they feel they have a right—and they are correct in that —to lay their problems before their MP. We finish with—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Are we not confining ourselves at the moment to Amendments Nos. 115 to 118?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Yes, I have gone rather too far ahead. As I have said, the documents before us are rather confusing. I have a little help available to me, but I do not have the facilities that are available to the Minister. I would repeat myself if I discussed the matter further. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I do not wish to add much more to those comments except to say that this is an important amendment and I think that the Government could go a lot further than they have done as regards providing access and facilities for the public. The authorities that we are discussing will control vast areas of Scotland and those areas are of great interest in many respects, including archaeological interest. Great interest is now shown in such subjects as can be seen from the television programmes that are now transmitted on archaeology, antiques and other such matters. We do not know how much study will be conducted in these subjects in the future. I believe it is reasonable to instruct the authorities to conserve and to preserve these valuable features of our heritage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall attempt to confine myself to Amendments Nos. 115, 116, 117 and 118. Of course the matter of access is important but this amendment would place an unqualified duty on the new authorities and the Secretary of State to ensure that the public have the right of access to certain areas used by

2061
the new water authorities in the exercise of their function. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has just indicated, the Bill already lays a duty on the new authorities and the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of preserving access. I can readily understand the desire of Members of the Committee to make this duty stronger, but I have to say that I do not think it would be right to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in the contribution he made on the previous set of amendments, referred to Loch Katrine and the purity of the water there, and the desirability of keeping that water pure. I entirely share that desire. If there is a right of unrestricted access, there must be some risk that that purity will be put in peril. It is for that reason that there certainly should be a requirement—as provided in the Bill—to have regard to the desirability of preserving access. However, it would be wrong to impose a right of access that was without any qualification at all.
The new water authorities will, I am sure, take a responsible attitude to the question of access and will be guided by the code of practice issued by the Scottish Office, entitled Conservation, Access and Recreation. The noble Lord accused me on an earlier amendment of a degree of naivety. I may continue to exhibit it because I do not genuinely believe that there will be problems in this area. We have to recognise that the first duty of the water authorities is to secure the provision of water and sewerage services. It is conceivable that access, or access for certain types of activities, might well be inimical to those purposes. In that case it would be right for the water authorities to put the interests of their primary functions first.
Similarly, I can understand noble Lords' desire in respect of Amendment No. 116 to ensure that the new water authorities properly respect the built heritage. I have no doubt that they will. The purpose of the clause is to encourage their efforts in that direction.
However, again we have to recognise that the prime functions of the new authorities are the delivery of water and sewerage services. It would not be right to have an unqualified duty in respect of the built heritage which could conflict with that function.
Amendment No. 117 would require the Secretary of State and the new water authorities to consult with local authorities when anything that they did might affect the exercise of any local authority function. I am sure that the new local authorities and the new water authorities will need to be in touch with one another almost continuously on a whole variety of issues. There are obvious areas of contact—planning, industrial development and environmental health. There will also be less obvious areas or areas of particular local importance which will emerge from time to time.
In all those instances we can expect the two bodies, as part of normal good management, to consult one another as appropriate. I am sure that that is the right approach. We do not want to be excessively heavy-handed in this legislation and require of them an excess of consultation and paper chasing on what might be relatively minor matters.
Finally, Amendment No. 118 would place on the new water authorities a duty to ensure that they cause no loss
2062
or damage to any other person or the environment when exercising their power. Again, it is clearly desirable that the new authorities should not cause loss or damage or that if they do so they should pay prompt and proper compensation. However, that is largely the position mat already exists. The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 contain a number of provisions which require water and sewerage authorities to compensate any person who has suffered loss as a consequence of the exercise by the authority of its powers.
We believe that what is already provided for in statute is more than sufficient and that the additional safeguard which the amendment proposes is excessive in the context of what is already required of the authorities and will continue to be required of them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken. I do not suggest that he is naive, but I think that sometimes he has a healthy suspicion of what he is asked to do.
The noble and learned Lord said that I had suggested unrestricted access. No one has ever thought that you could walk unrestricted round a waterworks. There are always parts where you cannot go. If you go to Milngavie on any Sunday there will be scores of people, and even children on bicycles. Of course motor cars are not allowed or any activities that might foul the water.
At Loch Katrine "Walter Scott" sails to Stronachlachar twice a day. There is unrestricted access.
People are worried about access. On many occasions in Scotland, not only in the northern Highlands but also in the central area, someone buys a property and suddenly, in an area which has been open for years, gates are put up. I can think of two or three places where that has happened. The old Glasgow merchants, many of whom were councillors in the days of the early Liberals, were responsible for Loch Katrine, but Glasgow people have had easy access to it. They would be most annoyed if someone became an important shareholder and started claiming rights. That is the exact point.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has referred to this matter. A member of the Scottish aristocracy suddenly threw a gate across a duke's path just above Aberfoyle. It was not there long because there had been hiking in the hill for generations. Hordes of hikers just went through the gateway and it had to be taken away. People are genuinely worried that someone may become important enough in the set-up of the water authority to demand or deny privileges which have existed for generations.
I have said enough. Although we may return to some points later, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 116 to 118 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 57, line 5, at end insert:

2063
("( ) Each of the new water and sewerage authorities shall consult the Customers Council established under section 66 below on such matters as appear to affect the interests of the customers or potential customers of that authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak briefly to the other amendments in the group.
Amendment No. 118A is a narrow but not unimportant amendment. It seeks to ensure that the new authorities will consult the customers council which is to be set up to look after the interests of consumers on any aspect which could have an effect on customers. The provision may seem plain common sense, but it is not automatic under the Bill. Customers councils are required to consult the new authorities; but the new authorities are not required to consult the customers councils. For example, a water authority may be considering how to encourage customers to accept meters. The customers council may be unaware of the issue until the matter reaches a developed stage. In England and Wales the water companies have a condition in their licence requiring them to consult with the local customers service committees at least once a year on general matters. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Scotland has similar provisions.
The next two amendments relate to the composition of the customers council; the proportion of members from local authorities and whether among the consumer representation, domestic, as distinct from non-domestic, consumers should be in the majority. Non-domestic consumers are often large commercial bodies. They have their own means of making their interests known to the water authorities. The amendment ensures that the domestic customer is in the majority in that element of the composition of the customers council.
Amendment No. 121A inserts a new clause. The provision ensures that there are arrangements for the resolution of any complaints on which the customers council has been unable to reach agreement with the water authority concerned. In England and Wales there is provision for a reference to the Director General of Water Services. The amendment specifies that the Secretary of State shall be responsible for reaching an enforceable decision. We recognise and accept that in practice the Secretary of State would not take that matter on himself. He would delegate the decision-making to an independent party or refer the matter to arbitration. But the thrust of the proposal is to ensure that there is some means of enforcing complaints and bringing them to a point of attempted settlement and reconciliation. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is an important group of amendments. I hope that I shall be able to respond succinctly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
Amendment No. 118A would place the new authorities under a duty to consult the customers council on all matters relevant to the interests of customers or potential customers. We want the new authorities and the customers council established under the Bill to have a good and productive relationship. I have no doubt that that will entail a continuing and searching dialogue on
2064
a wide range of issues. Equally, however, the dialogue will need to be selective if time and money are not to be used to little effect.
Practically the whole of the authorities' operations could be said to affect the consumer but only a limited number of key issues should be the focus of discussions between the authorities and the customers council. As the noble Lord identified for himself, the Bill provides for the customers council to select and concentrate on the issues of greatest importance to consumers. That is the approach that we have seen as being the most appropriate.
Beyond that, the council is already required under Clause 67 to undertake certain functions which include consultation with the authorities about matters which affect the interests of customers. Clause 68 gives the customers council a right to all the information it reasonably needs. This will ensure that it can raise all appropriate matters with the new authorities and implicit in those statutory provisions is the reciprocal duty on the authorities to engage in meaningful consultation with the council. I believe that that is sufficient. I hope that it meets an anxiety which the noble Lord advanced and which I concede to be perfectly legitimate.
Amendment No. 119 would alter the arrangements for appointing members of the customers council. It would require not less than one-third of members to be elected councillors appointed by associations of local authorities. The remaining members would be appointed by other bodies representative of the interests of domestic and non-domestic customers.
Members of the customers council should certainly be representative of customers, but appointments will be made because of the personal contribution the appointees can bring to the job. We believe that that is the best way to construct such a watchdog body.
The alternative proposed in the amendment is to make the appointees effectively delegates of the particular organisations which have nominated them. We believe that that reduces their flexibility of operation in a personal capacity in a way which would not be in the best interests of the council or consumers at large. I would stress, however, that in making appointments on a personal basis, the qualifications of those appointed and their ability to be representative of the different groups of customers will be paramount.
There are already some pointers in the Bill. The particular needs of rural customers, both in the domestic and non-domestic sectors, must have appropriate representation, as must other customers and potential customers. Sir Hector Monro said in another place that he wanted local councillors to be on water authorities, the customers council and area committees, and that nominations could come from community councils and local authorities. That is absolutely right. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that before making any appointments the Secretary of State will have regard to any suggestions from those sources and will particularly consider the matter of local authority appointees.
Amendment No. 119A would require the majority of members on the customers council to represent domestic customers. I am bound to say that I do not

2065
consider that that is an appropriate development. We are setting up a customers council to look after the interests of all customers, domestic and non-domestic alike.
Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 relate to the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman and remove the need for the Secretary of State to approve the appointment of the chairmen of the three area committees. Again, unless I am asked to elaborate upon them, they appear to me to be essentially consequential on the changes introduced by the earlier amendments.
Amendment No. 121 A, however, deals with a rather different point, and it is quite an important one. It would establish an elaborate mechanism for resolution by the Secretary of State of a complaint which the customers council had been unable to resolve with a water authority. The parentage of this clause appears to lie in the Water Industry Act 1991, which gave these powers to the director-general of Ofwat in respect of England and Wales.
We do not think that parallel powers are required in Scotland. In England and Wales, in contrast to what we propose, there is a privatised industry, to which a system of regulation including this procedure for complaints is particularly appropriate.
We have already inserted in the Bill in the other place provisions for water authorities to draw up codes of practice in consultation with the customers council. It is also the duty of the customers council to investigate any complaints from consumers. The hope and expectation is that these procedures will allow complaints to be resolved fairly and amicably. Should that fail to be the case, it would be open to the customers council to lay the facts of the case before the Secretary of State. It would then be open to the Secretary of State—and this bears back on the issue of accountability to which reference was made earlier—if circumstances warrant-ed, to give a direction to the water authority.
I have taken a little time to explain these amendments. I consider them to be important, but I hope that, with the explanations that I have given, the noble Lord will withdraw them.
I regret to say that because this group is so lengthy I almost omitted reference to the amendment that requires the new water and sewerage authorities to prepare their draft charges schemes in a format specified by the Secretary of State. While we acknowledge that we would like to see a measure of comparative performance, we would not like to impose this degree of inflexibility on the three new water authorities.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the care that he has taken to deal with these particular amendments. For my part, I was satisfied with his reply on the first amendment. I think that common sense should prevail there. We need to read and think about what he said on the other matters. Clearly, in regard to the question of dealing with complaints, the enforceability of complaints, and so on, if there is a final direction by the Secretary of State, basically that is reassuring. But I say to the noble and learned Lord that much will depend, in the light of what he has said and what it appears to me that he said, on the care and wisdom with which the Secretary of
2066
State carries out his responsibility in terms of the balance of interests within the customers council. It is very important that it should carry credibility. We are all very suspicious these days about quangos and excessive governmental influence on their overall composition. Here it would be very important to ensure that the local authority representation is one that carries real credibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 121 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121A not moved.]
Clauses 68 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Charges schemes]:
[Amendment No. 121B not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 78 [Collection of charges by local authority]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 64, line 17, at beginning insert ("Failing agreement between a new water and sewerage authority and a local authority that the local authority shall demand and recover such charges payable for services provided by a water and sewerage authority under a charges scheme as are specified in the agreement;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient for the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 123 and 124.
Amendment No. 122 seeks to insert:
"Failing agreement between a new water and sewerage authority and a local authority that the local authority shall demand and recover such charges payable for services provided by a water and sewerage authority under a charges scheme as are specified in the agreement".
In the first instance, it should be open to local authorities and water and sewerage authorities to reach agreement regarding the collection of charges on such terms and conditions as are mutually acceptable rather than those imposed by the Secretary of State. It is suggested that the Minister wants the Secretary of State kept out of the matter as much as possible. I should have thought that he would therefore be willing to accept this amendment. We do not expect such a situation to arise often. If the conditions are right and everything is as well ordered as the Government have suggested throughout the Bill, it will be only a long-stop defence. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on the matter.
Amendment No. 123 seeks to ensure that:
"payments shall not be greater than the sums actually recovered by the collecting authority, less the cost of such collection".
This appears to be a fairly technical amendment but there may be very large sums involved. I do not think we should treat the matter lightly. Local authorities should not have to bear the bad debts of a new water and sewerage authority. They might be considerable if in the future there is a substantial increase in water and

2067
sewerage charges. Local authorities should be reimbursed for the collection of any charges that are incurred.
Amendment No. 124 seeks to leave out the words:
"may be prescribed by reference to such",
and insert the words:
"shall be prescribed by reference to the needs and resources of a person liable to pay an amount under a charges scheme and such other".
The purpose of the amendment is to prescribe more closely the factors which the Secretary of State is required to take into account when making regulations that provide for a person to pay a reduced charge. I cannot give any kind of list—certainly not a complete list—of the people for whom the Secretary of State may wish to offer the special provisions. There are already one or two similar cases. For instance, if water is for a hotel, one meter will usually be sufficient for the whole hotel. A comparison may be the charge relating to television—I must be careful at this point because the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is listening carefully. If it is, say, for television in an old folk's home, a single licence is sufficient for the whole establishment—or at least, there is a special block licence which allows for that.
There are some cases on which the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to make decisions for the benefit of deserving people. It would be his job to decide which people are "deserving", advised no doubt by the correct authorities, whether charitable, medical or whatever. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I take this opportunity to ask one or two questions in relation to Clause 80. Clause 80 appears to allow the Secretary of State to make reduced charges in certain circumstances. The kinds of case that come to mind are the sort that may arise under Clause 11, which deals with metered water. Such a case may involve a large family with young children. What can also be a frightful problem for a family, and even worse than having young children, is having incontinent grandparents. One can go through gallons of water in that situation. Will the arrangement which allows the Secretary of State to reduce charges provide a quantity discount for those families who really need to be helped?
I may be raising this matter at the wrong point in the proceedings. However, I hope that some satisfaction can be given bearing in mind the plight of those families.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Amendment No. 122 would make collection of water and sewerage charges under a Clause 78 order a procedure of last resort, to be used only where the council and the water authorities could not reach agreement. There is always thought to be virtue in proceeding by agreement. But in this situation the Government believe that the virtues of agreement must yield to certainty and, in particular, certainty at an early stage.
The Minister for the Environment, Sir Hector Monro, said in another place that it could make practical and administrative sense to have the new councils collect charges for the new water and sewerage authorities in
2068
the early years. The Committee may well understand that. These are new authorities and may not have in place an easy and efficient form of collection in the early years, whereas they may be able to use to good effect the collection systems already existing for councils.
I can tell the Committee that the Government intend that for 1996–97 at any rate—it will be seen that the orders refer to a specific year—the new councils should collect charges for the new water and sewerage authorities. The necessary order under Clause 78 will be brought forward after Royal Assent. The charges to be covered will be those for domestic sewerage and domestic unmetered water; that is, those charges which are currently collected along with or as part of the council tax. On the other hand, it will be the responsibility of the new water authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the collection of other charges; that is, charges for non-domestic water and sewerage and for all metered water.
Sir Hector Monro also indicated in another place that the local councils would not be out of pocket and their full costs would be reimbursed if collection under a Clause 78 order was introduced. As the Committee will appreciate, that does not necessarily imply a situation where local councils are reimbursed whatever they assess to be the costs of collection. They are required only to remit to the water authorities whatever amounts they happen to have been able to collect. Costs will be repayable but it will, on the other hand, be only reasonable for the water authorities to have, in turn, some assurances about the sums to be remitted to them. These are all matters which, among others, can feature in the detail of an order under Clause 78. The Government look forward to constructive discussions with all the parties concerned before the terms of those details are finalised.
I turn to Amendment No. 124. Your Lordships will see—and I draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Balfour to this matter—that the terms of Clause 80(1) are very general. It states:
'The Secretary of State may make regulations as regards any case where—

(a) a person is…liable to pay an amount to a new water and sewerage authority or to a local authority; and

(b) conditions prescribed in the regulations are fulfilled".

Without prejudice as to whether or not my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would make an order in the kind of situation which my noble friend has indicated, I would say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend has a very wide power under that provision. I would equally say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, again without prejudice as to whether or not he would make any such order, that the terms of the power under Clause 80 are sufficiently wide to permit an order to be made in the kind of circumstances which he envisages. Nonetheless, we do not think that the most effective way—I can only presume that this is what lies behind the terms of Amendment No. 124—of providing help to customers is to require some kind of a means-tested scheme. After all, income support levels will already take account of water and sewerage charges. Requiring a further examination of means would be costly and inappropriate. Decisions on the form of any scheme to reduce charges are for my right

2069
honourable friend the Secretary of State and he will take those decisions in the light of all the circumstances prevailing.
I stress the generality of the terms of Clause 80 but I could perhaps indicate that one possible use of the clause is, for example, to enable forms of transitional reduction schemes to be introduced should that prove to be appropriate. It is right that the full cost of water and sewerage services should be recovered through charges. That is already the case with water and non-domestic sewerage.
However, domestic sewerage expenditure is current-ly met from the council tax. With the restructuring, that will change. Domestic sewerage will be included on the charges levied by the new authorities and paid by those connected to the sewerage service. The change will therefore produce an increase in direct water and sewerage service bills but there will be a parallel reduction in local authority expenditure and in the amount of income they require. Therefore, it may be appropriate to use the power in connection with this change.
Other factors will affect bills in 1996–97 and in subsequent years. The continuing investment programme will have to be paid for, a point which everyone can recognise. But increased economies of scale and the greater efficiency of the new water authorities will ensure the delivery of service at a lower cost than would otherwise have been the case. With the explanation of what lies behind the provisions in those clauses I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord takes his seat again, I must say that I was intrigued to hear him talking about constructive discussions taking place. He said that he was hoping for such discussions in relation to Amendment No. 123. We are talking about pure water and here we have a pure Bill. We are now on the third day of the Committee stage and not one Government amendment has been tabled. What are we facing for the Report stage? We had another Bill as regards England and Wales for which 220 amendments were tabled by the Government. Are we to have a mass of Government amendments at Report stage? If the Government are a caring and listening government, as they say they are, why are there no Government amendments to this Bill? It is very strange. On this side of the House we look forward to seeing what the Government consider to be wrong with this Bill and what they are going to put right at Report stage. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us so that when we come back in October we shall be refreshed for the battle at Report stage, with Government amendments duly lodged in good time so that we can consider them all.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is passing strange to have stood here so often and been criticised for introducing Government amendments, having been told so often that the Bill had not been thought through
2070
properly and that it had been done on the hoof. Now, when we do not have amendments, we are being criticised for that. I say that in passing.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, does not seem to have listened to the point I was making. It referred to the terms of the order that will be made under Clause 78. It was in respect of the terms of that order that I indicated the matters to be taken into account in the discussions before finalisation of the order.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said. We are not trying to be difficult, but everyone is surprised. We have a Bill here of 270 pages and there has not been a single amendment by the Government. I doubt whether anyone in this building in the past 50 years has got a Bill back from another place without making amendments. The noble and learned Lord will recall the famous Consolidation Bill and the Roads (Scotland) Bill. I believe that one of the schedules came to us with 25 pages. When it returned to the other place it had 83 pages. That was excessive and that was only a schedule. There were also other amendments.
We are surprised that the Government have managed to produce a Bill of this size without a single amendment. We are most grateful to both noble and learned Lords for being willing to look at things before Report. They should not chastise this side of the Committee for believing that we are being difficult. We are looking at almost a miracle in terms of legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Reduced charges]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 80 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Clause 81 makes it an offence for a member of a local authority or of one of its committees or a joint committee to vote on any question arising in a meeting concerning the exercise of such functions as the local authority may have by virtue of Clause 78, acting as the collecting agency for charges levelled by the new water and sewerage authorities, where that member is at least two months in arrears with a charge payable by virtue of Clause 78.
Although we accept that it is proper to disqualify members where they have a statutory function and an interest, it is unconstitutional to disqualify members where they are acting only as a contractor for another body. The collection of a charge is simply a contracted job. No restrictions should be placed on a democratic-ally elected member in terms of collecting charges for a quango. There is no similarity here with the situation in which a councillor is placed if he chooses not to pay his council tax and is debarred from voting on budgetary matters. The situation is different for the non-payment

2071
of water charges under the proposed system. In the former case, the councillor can influence policy decisions while in the latter case, he has no such power.
I am opposing the question that Clause 81 stand part of the Bill in a genuine attempt to discover what the clause really means. I do not understand the whole tenor of the clause and I should be grateful if the Minister could explain it to me.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, arises from his description of what is being done in the clause as a function which is "contracted". As we have just seen, that is not the case because although in his Amendment No. 122 the noble Lord wanted there to be agreement between the new authority and the local authority—and that would give rise to the situation of contract to which the noble Lord refers—he will appreciate that, in the absence of his amendment, Clause 78 provides for an order by the Secretary of State.
I do not put it any higher than saying that there might conceivably be some members of some local authorities (upon whom the collection duty had been laid on behalf of the new authorities) who might not be entirely in favour of the policy of the new authority. That is not wholly inconceivable. Those members might therefore have political or other opposition to that policy which might lead them not to pay the water charges in question. That would put them in a position similar to those who in the past did not pay their poll tax, but nonetheless went on to vote on matters relating to that and thus committed offences. There have been such cases. The clause exists to prevent parallel cases occurring. Although the point raised by the noble Lord might or might not have some weight if this were a matter of contract, I point out that it is not such a matter.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister. I think that I understand him. As a layman, I am slightly confused about whether a councillor would need to have been convicted or simply to be known, within the organisation, to be in difficulty. As I said, I tabled the Motion in a genuine attempt to gain information and I think that I have got it —I may have got too much—but I thank the Minister for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Financing and borrowing]:
[Amendment No. 124A not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 68, line 4, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument extinguish all or any of the liabilities of the existing water and sewerage authorities in respect of the principal of any loan made to the existing water and sewerage authorities.
(4B) The assets of the National Loans Fund shall accordingly be reduced by amounts corresponding to any liabilities so extinguished").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to allow the extinguishing of existing water and sewerage authority loans by the Secretary of State. Prior
2072
to the water authorities in England and Wales being privatised in 1990, Section 86(1) of the Water Act 1989 gave the Secretary of State power by statutory instrument to,
"extinguish all or any of the liabilities of the nominated holding company … in respect of the principal of any loan".
The effect of that was to reduce the loan debt due by water authorities by £5,800 million. Apart from making the water undertakings a more attractive financial proposition to potential investors, the effect of that write-off was to eliminate from the customer charges all outstanding investment and loan payments. From a consumer's perspective, there is no equity in a situation in which customers in England and Wales have received that subsidy but consumers in Scotland have not. A similar arrangement should therefore be put in place for Scotland.
In response to a similar amendment tabled in the other place, the Minister, Sir Hector Monro, stated:
"Hon. Members have raised the issue of the green dowry, as it is called, that went to England and Wales. They miss the important point that in England and Wales water was privatised, whereas in Scotland it is to remain in public control. It is therefore right that the debt should move from the local authority to the water authority. The case of England and Wales is not a good parallel, because the need there was to create new companies with a capital structure that made sense to the market. Debt finance to 100 per cent. does not make sense for a private sector company". —[Official Report, Commons, First Scottish Standing Committee, 14/4/94; col. 1820.]
However, that view does not give water consumers in Scotland equity with their counterparts in England and it will inevitably mean higher charges north of the Border in the long run.
That is a slightly confusing statement and perhaps it needs someone such as our deputy chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who is an accountant, to be able to explain it. Perhaps the Minister can help me out and give me a little more insight into the Commons amendment. I believe that I understand it and I agree that the argument raises suspicions, but I should be happy if the Minister could help by giving me a clear understanding of the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not sure that I can assist the noble Lord because he has conveniently read for me the detailed answer that I wanted to give; that is, what was contained within the speech made by my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro. I am not sure that the argument is capable of any greater elaboration.
The exercise that is being carried out in Scotland will be different and this gives me a further opportunity to point up the difference between what has been carried out in England and Wales and what is proposed for Scotland. We are setting up public authorities and not private-sector companies. We do not therefore need to put in place the capital and financing structure that might be needed in market terms.
The noble Lord is right in saying that there will be no equity in the structure of the new authorities. They will have loan finance drawn primarily from the National Loans Fund. The capital structure and the debt which the new water authorities will acquire when they open for business will be settled and announced in due course.

2073
I do not believe that I can say any more. I merely point out the distinction between the particular solutions which have been followed in England and Wales in respect of privatisation and the proposal that we are putting forward.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he elaborate on the distinction? I hesitate to go down this line because of the position in which it may put me. But does it mean that, if the Government privatise, they are ready to subsidise those who are engaged in the privatisation and through them, the consumer; whereas if they engage in the transfer from one form of public authority to another, the Government's view is that the consumer in Scotland must pay a great deal more than the consumer in England because in Scotland we forced them to continue with some form of public authority ownership?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am intrigued to know why the noble Lord suddenly wishes to go down this road. We are saying that while the Bill proposes a change, arrangements for water remain in the public sector. The particular arrangements that were put in place in England and Wales, which were very different indeed, do not apply here.
The noble Lord's ultimate anxiety may be in regard to what will be the cost to him as a consumer in Scotland. I do not accept that it is inevitable that the charges with which he will be confronted will be greater than those which apply in England. We believe that the arrangements which we propose should be capable of providing water and sewerage services efficiently and effectively and, indeed, the charges which he and other Scots will have to pay will in no sense be exorbitant or exaggerated.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, because he has made me feel that perhaps I am not alone in my lack of accountancy skills. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I am sorry that I stole his thunder by quoting Sir Hector Monro. I quoted that passage because I did not understand what he was saying. I think I now have a clearer understanding of the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the new authorities]:
[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Transfer schemes: general]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 74, line 35, leave out from first ("the") to ("in") in line 37 and insert ("transferee").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to require that compensation for the loss of pre-emption rights is payable only by the new water and sewerage authorities.
Where property is transferred to a new water and sewerage authority, the Bill provides that in relation to that initial transfer, rights of pre-emption—previous owner's right to buy back—and similar rights shall not operate. Where such a right has been removed, compensation is to be payable by the local authorities or the new water and sewerage authorities. As the benefits of such a transfer will be enjoyed solely by the new water and sewerage authorities, it is considered that they alone should be responsible for those compensation payments.
Therefore the amendment provides that, where compensation fails to be paid, responsibility for making the payment rests with the new water and sewerage authorities. Again, we are in the realms of accountancy. I take it in faith that the amendment serves the purpose that I think it should serve. Perhaps the Minister will make the matter even clearer for me. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the matter. It is somewhat complicated and, indeed, the explanation also seems to me to be quite complicated. However, I can first assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that subsection (4) of the clause is modelled on a similar provision which is to be found in the Railways Act 1993 and which is designed to try to cover various contingencies, not all of which may be immediately obvious.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the most obvious situation; namely, where the right of pre-emption is lost and where one would think that the most obvious person to pay is the transferee new authority. However, the ingenuity of lawyers is such that they can actually figure other situations which could be covered. Perhaps I may just indicate the other situations referred to in the clause.
It is thought that it would be inappropriate for the liability to rest solely on the new water authority if there are, for example, circumstances where the right of pre-emption might be lost by virtue of a transfer of the land from a new water authority back, in effect, to a new council. The fact that that is not entirely fanciful can be seen if one looks to the depths of paragraph 3 of Schedule 11 to the Bill where that particular contingency is envisaged. It deals with the question of the successor of the council.
On the other hand, there could also be cases where the land over which such rights exist may not be transferred in its entirety to the new water authority but may remain in part with a present authority or a new council. In that situation, again, it would not be necessarily appropriate for the whole of any payment to come from the transferee as envisaged. Therefore, although they are rather obscure contingencies, nonetheless they appear to be at least theoretical contingencies for which provision must be made. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. That will enable me to study the Minister's response with great care. The noble and learned Lord said that lawyers were able to think of things that might not occur to the rest of us. However, I think that they can sometimes give us answers that take a great deal of thought to understand. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for trying to educate me in the matter. I shall do my homework and see whether I understand it by the time we reach the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clauses 92 to 94 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Disposal of land]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 128:
Leave out Clause 99 and insert the following new clause:
("Disposal of land
. Where a new water and sewerage authority wishes to dispose of land it shall first offer that land to the unitary authorities within the former regional boundaries, free of charge, and in the event that the land is subsequently sold shall distribute the proceeds of sale to those authorities on a population basis.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment which has been tabled as a result of the suspicion with which we and the inhabitants of Scotland regard the intention not of the present holders of such offices but that of possible future holders if they happen to come, for example, from the vicinity of Stirling. It would appear to us very necessary to protect the assets built up by a community over a long period of time. This amendment simply states that if a new water authority and sewerage authority wants to sell land and sees an opportunity to do so, it must first offer it back to the unitary authority. Those authorities are the heirs, as it were, of the work done to such good effect by people in the past. Substantial amounts of cash have been paid for assets owned by former public companies and the suspicion, of course, is that if the bodies we are discussing were to be privatised in the future, assets would simply pass to a private company and people would be deprived of the fruits of their ancestors' hard work and foresight. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said about the suspicion which lay behind this amendment. That suspicion is entirely unjustified. The theory behind the provisions in the Bill is that we are concerned with matters relating to water and of course we are concerned with the infrastructure, the land and the various other assets connected with water. We have heard on a number of occasions in eloquent terms from the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, of the events of last century in and around Loch Katrine, and how that all came about. That is certainly very interesting, but it highlights the extent to which it is difficult to tie any particular assets—historic, or other assets—to any particular council or to any current authority which may happen to be vested with the responsibility for water. Nonetheless these assets
2076
will transfer to the new water authorities and therefore they will be primarily assets which are to be used for the benefit of people who will consume the water.
It seems to the Government that, if, and in so far as, there may be assets which are surplus to requirements for the provision of water, the correct course, if the land or some other assets are sold off, is that the return from that should benefit the people for whom the authority is working; namely, the people who will be supplied with water. We think that is the coherent way of looking at the matter because these are all assets which are concerned with water. It is for that reason that we think the policy as enshrined in the Bill is correct and that the policy suggested by the noble Lords' amendment would be contrary to the spirit which I think should underlie this whole matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is it not clear from the wording of the Bill as it presently stands that Clause 99 gives the new water authorities a completely free hand to dispose of national assets? In my earlier contribution I referred to the land surrounding Loch Katrine, which local authorities acquired many many years ago on behalf of the county of Dumbarton, as it probably then was. Clause 99 now reads:
"Subject to subsection (2) below, a new water and sewerage authority may dispose of land held by them in any manner, to whomsoever and for whatever purpose they wish".
That is a case of their "gladhanding" to all their mates. Who will get the land? Who will control the disposal of assets belonging to the people of Scotland?
The purpose of the amendment is to keep the land which belongs to the people of Scotland within the domain of the unitary authority, whichever authority that might be. If the Government now say that Clause 99 means a free-for-all in the disposal of land which has been acquired on behalf of the community and which is part of our national and natural heritage in Scotland, it is a sad day for Scotland.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may ask the Minister another question. He said that lawyers think in special ways. Clause 99(1) reads:
"Subject to subsection (2) below, a new water and sewerage authority may dispose of land held by them in any manner, to whomsoever and for whatever purpose they wish".
I should like the strict legal interpretation.
According to that subsection there is not even any necessity to make it a requirement, even at a reservoir, that land use should not create a nuisance. I may be going over the top, but I should have thought that in strict legal terms it would be difficult to stop someone unless there were other rules. Someone could start a business which was a potential nuisance to the water supply, yet the land could be sold for whatever purpose the authority wishes. I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up that little point.
The Earl of Minto: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I must say that I find the clause a little worrying. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will give us some assurance in relation

2077
to the Scottish heritage. It is an important factor. It appears that a great deal of freedom is being given to people who have no right to have it in the first place.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The right of these people to the land will derive from an Act of Parliament. That is the ultimate authority for everything in our country. One cannot have a higher authority.
Members of the Committee forget that the new authorities cannot do whatever they like. They have duties, and those duties derive from an Act of Parliament and are set out in Clause 64 and elsewhere. Whatever they do, those duties are binding upon them. Those duties are, for example, to secure and promote the provision of adequate water supplies. Therefore, whatever the authorities do in relation to the disposal of land and so on must be seen within the overall context of their duties.
Having said that, the terms of the power to sell are wide. They state that the authorities may dispose of land:
"in any manner, to whomsoever and for whatever purpose they wish".
Nonetheless, the Committee will notice that there is a proviso that the consent of the Secretary of State is required if the authorities are to dispose of land for a consideration less than the open market value of the land. In that way the return is secured, except that there may be circumstances—and noble Lords opposite may consider it entirely appropriate—where the land might be given, for example, for charitable purposes which were thought to be appropriate and where the Secretary of State gave his consent. Unless that is the case, the disposal must be at market value. It must always be seen within the context of the overall duties laid upon the authorities by Parliament.
Therefore, I do not believe that there is any real problem in relation to that power. It seems to me that the authorities must have a power to dispose of land, otherwise they will be entirely static and might find themselves with land locked up for which they had no economic use. I cannot imagine that Members of the Committee would think that sterilisation of land in that way would necessarily always be best. There might be other ways of dealing with that land which noble Lords consider more desirable. The position is quite without prejudice to the duties which lie upon those authorities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble and learned Lord has done his best; but it appears that the only time the Secretary of State can interfere is if those bodies wish to sell the land at below value for some purpose. That is not the danger. The danger is that they will sell the land for great value and will not use the money either immediately or in the future for capital expenditure which would promote benefit to the consumers of the water.
Nevertheless, we shall have a good look at the issue between now and Report stage. It is important. There are plenty of precedents. Over everything hangs the very real spectre, to us, of privatisation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Records held by new authorities]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 89, line 1, after ("authority") insert ("and the Keeper").
The noble Earl said: The clause is almost a mirror to Clause 52 in which we also discussed the keeper of the records. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment so briefly. He is absolutely right. A similar amendment was tabled in respect of Clause 52(2). The requirement under paragraph (b) for the new authorities to consult the keeper on the management of their records will include the establishment of general principles for disposal including destruction where appropriate.
I hope that the authorities will operate their records management system autonomously within these general guidelines. I would not wish the authorities subsequently to be obliged to consult the keeper whenever they wished to dispose of purely routine material which would be of no interest to anyone in the future. In any event, as I explained on the earlier occasion, the keeper does not have the resources to undertake such a task. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured that the keeper himself supports the provision as it stands.
The Earl of Balfour: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clauses 119 to 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Power to require local authorities and assessors to supply information to the new authorities]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 90, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) above may only require the furnishing of reasonable information and shall also give the local authority or Assessor the right to levy charges, as determined by the local authority or Assessor").
The noble Lord said: We have had a long day, but this is not an unimportant amendment. The purpose is to add a duty of reasonableness to the requirement that authorities and assessors provide information to water and sewerage authorities and to allow the right to charge for any work done in supplying the information.
It is extremely unusual that a democratically elected local authority is required by statute to provide information to non-elected quangos. If such a requirement is to be made, however, it would seem only fair that an element of reasonableness is included in order that authorities are not engaged in time-consuming tasks to provide the water and sewerage authority with information which, while interesting, may be of little real purpose.
In addition, given the financial constraints under which all local authorities operate, the authority which is providing the information should be allowed to charge for the efforts undertaken to supply the information. It would seem strange that, at a time when the Government are requiring local authorities to be ever

2079
more efficient and put out their services to compulsory competitive tendering, they should also require authorities to provide information to another corporate body free of charge.
At this time of night I shall spare the Minister a quotation from his honourable friend in another place, Sir Hector Monro, because possibly he has the answer which Sir Hector gave in the other place. I have read it and I do not find it all that convincing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to take the opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 131 which is grouped with Amendment No. 130. Purely on a point of information, I wish to ask whether council tax payers who are on public water will be charged a water charge and council tax payers who are on public sewerage will be charged a separate charge.
My problem is that we have almost finished dealing with Part II of the Bill and I cannot find the confirmation that water and sewerage services for council tax payers will be charged for separately. I ask this because my own home is on a private water supply. Some people may have private sewerage and under the provisions of Schedule 8 the areas of the two southern parts of Scotland are not quite the same for water and sewerage. There is also the provision under Clause 62 that the water and sewerage areas can be altered.
I take into consideration Clause 101 which brings in a new Section 10 on the emptying of septic tanks. It would be fine if we were separately charged, but sometimes a vehicle cannot get near the septic tanks. They have to be privately entered. Those are my questions.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has read what my ministerial colleague, Mr Allan Stewart, said, I think I can deal with the amendment fairly shortly.
The new water authorities will be in the position that they will want to have access to the information used by their predecessors in the provision of water and sewerage. That is what Clause 122 provides. That information is needed to provide the services which are being transferred to the new water authorities. It should not be seen as the preserve of the local authorities and the assessors, to be made available at their discretion or for payment. We believe that it is something to which the new water authorities should have automatic access, as they require. That is what the Bill provides and I am sure that it is right. Otherwise, we shall be talking about transferring a charge around from the same group of people, whether they pay it indirectly through the council tax or through the water charges. It seems to me that automatic access would be the correct approach.
Perhaps I may turn very quickly to Amendment No. 131. Sewerage is indeed as much in point as water in the operations of the new authorities. However, the reference would not be appropriately inserted at this point in the Bill. The reason is that there is no domestic sewerage charge at present. The costs of domestic sewerage are included within the basket of services covered by the council tax. We already have a reference
2080
to council tax in the clause. Councils will, of course, have information about the costs of domestic sewerage. That, indeed, is the information contained in a pamphlet recently prepared and distributed by the Scottish Office. It is information held in connection with the setting of the council tax and so under the clause as drafted will be available. Non-domestic sewerage, as will be appreciated, is a different matter and is separately mentioned in the clause.
My noble friend also raised a number of other matters to do with the emptying of septic tanks and made reference to another clause. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not attempt to answer him at this stage. I will undertake to read what he has to say and will write to him about the details of the points that he has raised.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to explain just one point to me. I think I understand what he was saying to the Committee—that the new water authority should get information from the local authority free of charge. It would not be sensible to have the to-ing and fro-ing of charges. Because of the financial acumen of local authorities now, we have interdepartmental charges for any information that is taken from one to another and goes back and forth. The services—even if they are IT services—are taken from, let us say, the roads and transportation department into the education department as a cross-entry. Is this a level playing field? I ask the noble and learned Lord to think about that from the point of view of internal accounting.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that very brief but lucid account of the arrangements which, I am aware, are frequently followed not only in local authorities in Scotland but in a large number of organisations within the public sector.
In this particular context the reason—and perhaps I tried to curtail my reply too much—is that we are of the view that automatic access without payment is desirable. But I accept from the noble Earl that that is not always the case, and indeed within a particular organisation there may be such invoicing and billing for services rendered. I will certainly reflect on what he has to say, but at the present time our view is that the principle of automatic access should be maintained.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clauses 123 to 125 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  HM LAND REGISTRY
  HM LAND REGISTRY
  WILLS: LAW COMMISSION REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF DIVORCE
  WILLS: LAW COMMISSION REPORT ON THE EFFECT OF DIVORCE
  ABNORMAL LOADS ON MOTORWAYS
  ABNORMAL LOADS ON MOTORWAYS
  RACISM: COUNCIL OF EUROPE INITIATIVE
  RACISM: COUNCIL OF EUROPE INITIATIVE
  EVELYN EVANS: SECRETARY OF STATE'S CERTIFICATE
  EVELYN EVANS: SECRETARY OF STATE'S CERTIFICATE
  TERRITORIAL ARMY: FUTURE
  TERRITORIAL ARMY: FUTURE
  THE ROYAL DOCKYARDS
  THE ROYAL DOCKYARDS
  NHS DENTAL SERVICE: FUTURE
  NHS DENTAL SERVICE: FUTURE
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
  THE NEW FOREST
  THE NEW FOREST