Sitting of 15 June 1994

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

    Bosnia
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in conjunction with the Bosnian authorities to ensure that all those involved in the murder of Paul Goodall are brought to justice.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The killing was a dreadful act and a tragedy for Mr. Goodall and his family and I would like to say again how very sorry I am for all those who have suffered from the loss. We continue to press the Bosnian Government to conclude without delay their investigation into the murder. Our chargé d'affaires in Sarajevo has raised the matter with the Justice Minister and the Deputy Interior Minister as well as with the judicial authorities in Zenica who will be responsible for any legal action.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he appreciate people's real concern that not enough is being done to pursue the matter with urgency? Will he confirm that, for two months following the murder of Mr. Goodall, there was little or no contact between the Overseas Development Administration and the Bosnian authorities? Will he ask the Minister to press the Bosnian authorities to release a report on the progress of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody of Mr. Abdul Algatani, who is one of the alleged assassins of Paul Goodall?
    Mr. Hogg: The Government have, indeed, been pressing the Bosnian authorities to conclude their investigations. It is highly desirable that we should know more about the circumstances in which Mr. Algatani escaped. It is important to keep in mind the fact that, in many respects, Bosnia is in a state of anarchy, and that stands in the way of the usual prosecution of such matters. We will, however, continue to press the Bosnian authorities.

    EU Budget
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made to prevent fraud within the European Union budget; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced a joint action proposal, under title VI of the treaty on European Union, to combat serious fraud against the Community budget. The European Commission has also recently tabled an anti-fraud strategy, which is under consideration by the Council.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the level of fraud and waste of taxpayers' money in the European Union is unacceptably high? Does the Maastricht treaty allow any additional powers to help combat such abuse and misuse of public funds?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. Fraud is still far too prevalent in the European Community and we are determined to do something further about it. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes: the Maastricht treaty gives additional and important powers to the European Court of Auditors and an assurance that its observations and recommendations will be acted on. In addition, the European Parliament can interest itself further in this issue, and I very much hope that it does.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can there be any justification at all for the Commission's failing to publish the report which it has on fraud in member states?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We believe that such documents should be published if their publication would enhance the action that we and the Commission together are taking against fraud.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I welcome the additional powers given to the European Parliament to question the Commissioners about fraud, but, in view of the extensive fraud that has proceeded for so many years, is not it necessary to make it a condition that grants from the European Commission are not given to member countries until all cases of fraud have been cleared up?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend makes an important suggestion and he will be pleased to know that, at our insistence, the new regulations governing the structural and cohesion funds now insist on proper prior appraisal of projects, a value-for-money test and subsequent scrutiny to ensure that the money has been properly applied.
    Ms Quin: Is not it the case that, in the Council of Ministers last year, the Government tried to argue against increased expenditure in respect of fraud, and that, in doing so, were at odds with their own MEPs, who voted in the European Parliament for the package of further measures against fraud? Does not that show once again that the Government are frequently at odds with their own MEPs in Strasbourg? The Government are presumably absolutely delighted at Labour's sweeping victory last week because they now have fewer of their own MEPs to disagree with.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: An increased number of Labour MEPs is extremely bad news for the cause of budgetary discipline in the European Union. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government give the very highest priority to cracking down on fraud in the Community. We are satisfied that the anti-fraud unit, both in the Commission and in this country, is properly and

    613
    adequately staffed. But such problems are not dealt with simply by throwing more money at them. Budgetary discipline must apply to the strategy against fraud as it does to every other area of expenditure.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a very good thing that, in future, recalcitrant Governments—and it is in such Governments and not within the Community itself that most of the fraud takes place—will be fined in addition to having to return the money? Does he agree that that will have a salutary effect, particularly on the Italians who have already had to cough up quite a lot of money? In response to my hon. Friend's European Parliament observation, as he well knows, the European Parliament keeps a very close watch on such matters through the Committee on Budgetary Control which saves the Community hundreds of millions of ecu.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the Maastricht treaty brings in fines against member states that fail to live up to legislative obligations.

    Rwanda
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the British Government intend to take in respect of the situation in Rwanda.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We are joining fully in international efforts to bring a halt to the bloodshed. On 8 June, the Security Council approved the deployment of an expanded United Nations force. We are keen and ready to provide logistic support and we are looking with the UN at ways in which we can contribute. Since the start of the crises in Rwanda, we have given over £11 million in humanitarian aid.
    Ms Jackson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does not he agree that, in the light of the news that reached us early today of another fearful massacre—this time of 60 young boys—and of a letter that was pushed into a journalist's hand by the citizens of Kigali who are begging for help because they believe that they will be slaughtered at any minute, the Government should be bringing pressure to bear to ensure that the 5,500 troops are deployed immediately and not phased in in that war-torn country?
    Mr. Hurd: The sooner the better, I agree. However, those troops must be equipped and transported. Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo and Mali are all African countries which have offered troops. The secretariat is seeking to match the equipment and transport with the troops. As I said in my original answer, we are in close touch with it about what help we can give, for example, by providing trucks.
    Mr. Lester: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to consider the Secretary-General's observations on the state of the United Nations in respect of Uganda, in which he admitted that the international community had failed in its responsibility and used words such as "deplorable", at least to describe its reaction? What thoughts do the Government have in respect of trying to adjust the United Nations so that it can deal with such situations, which are becoming all too prevalent?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend said "Uganda", but I think he meant Rwanda. The UN had a force there. The Security Council concluded at a certain point that the force was at severe risk and that it was no longer doing a useful job. It was therefore reduced in size. There were second thoughts and it was decided, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) pointed out, to redeploy an increased force. That is now happening. These are matters of extraordinarily difficult judgment in a civil war. It is not easy for the Security Council or the Secretary-General to decide how and when to intervene. We fully support resolution 925, which provides for the force of 5,500, and we will do our best to see that it happens.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is not the response of the United Nations in the face of this horrendous tragedy deplorably slow? Why was a resolution agreed to authorise a force but not one to deploy it? Why did it take several more weeks to agree to the deployment of the force? Why has that force still not been fully deployed? Tragically, the momentum of the slaughter continues while the laggardly pace of the international response is dismaying communities all over the world.
    Mr. Hurd: The Security Council decides that a force should be sent. The Secretary-General then has to find member countries that are willing to contribute troops; then he has to find the equipment and transport to get them there. Of course, that should happen more quickly; it depends on the response of nation states, and it always will.

    Italy
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Italy.
    Mr. Hurd: They are excellent.
    Mr. Streeter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his extensive reply. Does he agree that the newly elected right-wing Government in Italy show every sign of being a strong new ally to our country in our crusade to fashion a European Union in accordance with the wishes of its people—not a single superstate but a family of independent sovereign nations trading and working together?
    Mr. Hurd: It is early days, but my hon. Friend is right. The new Italian Government have made clear their strong commitment to open markets and their desire to avoid unnecessary regulation from Brussels. I warmly welcome that approach. I look forward to welcoming the Italian Foreign Minister here before the end of the month and to working closely with him.
    Mr. Winnick: Why does not the Foreign Secretary understand that what happened recently in Italy makes a mockery of all the efforts by the allied troops to liberate Rome 50 years ago this month? Instead of appeasing those fascists, why does not the Foreign Secretary say that many people in this country—the large majority—view with disgust the fact that such fascist swine are now included in the Italian Cabinet?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in patronising and offensive nonsense. The Ministers have been democratically elected and properly appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "So was Hitler."] The Labour party is making a

    615
    fool of itself. I shall be interested to know whether Labour Members' attitude is endorsed by those on their Front Bench. Having looked at the individuals, the programme on which they were elected and the posts that they occupy, we believe that it is right to co-operate in a friendly way with the new Italian Government—the new democratic Italian Government—as with the last. I am ashamed of the intervention from the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Batiste: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss with his opposite number in Italy their choice for the next President of the European Commission?
    Mr. Hurd: Only in very general terms.
    Dr. John Cunningham: As the right hon. Gentleman has asked for my response, he shall have it. We want nothing to do with neo-fascists, whether they are in Italy or whether they are the neo-fascists of France who were the only supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the social chapter. I hope that he feels comfortable in the company of neo-fascists; we certainly do not. Will he tell the House whether it is his intention to share membership of the European People's party with neo-fascists—yes or no?
    Mr. Hurd: That is certainly not a matter for me. On the first point, before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further down the foolish path adopted by his Back Benchers, will he please look at the members and the programme of the Allianza Nazionale, which is now part of the Italian Government? Will he look at what they stand for and how they were elected? If he does that, he will find that it is very foolish to go further down the path that I have already described as patronising nonsense.

    Treaty Ratification
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to change the procedures related to the ratification of treaties.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have no plans to change our procedures for ratifying treaties to which we are signatories.
    Mr. Trimble: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is no longer realistic to regard the other member states of the European Union as foreign countries and that, as a consequence, it is no longer realistic to regard agreements entered into—such as any that might arise out of the intergovernmental conference in 1996—as foreign treaties with which the House need take little concern. Would it not therefore be sensible, well in advance of 1996, to amend our procedures for the ratification of fundamental agreements with other member states so that they can be thoroughly discussed in the House before, during and after any such conference? That would ensure that the House is not asked again to deal with fundamental constitutional matters on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and forced to act as a rubber stamp.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think that I accept the hon. Gentleman's reasoning. Any future treaty of similar importance to the Maastricht treaty will be brought before the House before the country ratifies it.
    Mr. Marlow: Given that a single currency would mean taxation decided centrally and a unified single European state, can my hon. Friend ensure that if any such treaty were brought forward on the basis of a single currency, the ratification process would be such that that treaty could not be ratified in the United Kingdom? Even better, could he make sure that there is no ambiguity in the minds of the British people after the election results last week? They do not want a single currency and the Government should not want a single currency.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government's position is clearly set out in the Maastricht treaty and its protocols. My hon. Friend should have been pleased, and I believe is satisfied, with the opt-out from the requirements of stage 3 achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is not it true that the Maastricht treaty, which the Government forced through on a three-line whip, and the Single European Act, which they forced through on a three-line whip and a guillotine, are the two most centralising treaties since the treaty of Rome, and that for the Government to pretend that they are not in favour of centralisation within the European Union is hypocrisy which brings this parliamentary democracy into disrepute?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. The centralising tendency in the European Union, although supported by the Opposition parties, was checked in the Maastricht treaty which, for example, enshrined the subsidiarity principle in treaty law for the first time.

    South Africa
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with South Africa.
    Mr. Hurd: We will continue to give full support to President Mandela and his transitional Government of National Unity as they consolidate a stable democracy in South Africa. We should develop and expand our political, economic and commercial relations with South Africa to the benefit of both countries.
    Mr. Spring: Given the considerable opening up of opportunities following the cessation of sanctions against South Africa, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that all help and encouragement will be given to British exporters to access that growing and important market in order to capitalise on the excellent relations that exist between the United Kingdom and South Africa?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. Our exports to South Africa were £1 billion last year and £295 million in the first quarter of this year: it is still an expanding trend. We warmly encourage that. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will go to South Africa next month with a large party of senior business men to urge that expansion forward.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, following the formation of the new Government in South Africa, we should look forward not only to their full participation in the Commonwealth but to their playing a leading role in the South Africa Development Coordination Conference, where they will be joined by the new democratically elected Government of Malawi whose

    617
    President will be visiting London for the first time tomorrow? Is not southern Africa, in contrast to some other parts of the continent, becoming a new region of hope?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a long way to go in countries such as Angola and Mozambique, but we certainly warmly welcome the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth on the first day of this month.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that during his recent visit to this country, Vice-President de Klerk expressed concern that South Africa should not now be treated as a former trouble spot but should be left well alone to get on and solve its problems? The economic future of South Africa will be tied up with those of half a dozen nations to the north of it and South Africa requires the maximum amount of help from the United Kingdom and the European Union. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the European Union is made aware of the importance of helping South Africa to sort out its economy and the economies of the countries that lie to the north of it?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. We and the forthcoming German presidency have already laid plans for that. The Germans are to take various initiatives on behalf of the European Union during the second half of this year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—one of the most important ways is trade and I look forward to the initiatives very much. We have been urging a new agreement between the European Union and South Africa to facilitate trade.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has already said that one of the major problems about deploying troops in Rwanda is the lack of logistical support. Would not it be appropriate for South Africa to be approached, as a country which will be coming back into the Commonwealth in the very near future, and asked to provide that logistical support, which it could do far more easily than almost any other country in the world?
    Mr. Hurd: I am happy to say that South Africa is already back in the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend made an important suggestion and I will see that the Secretary-General of the United Nations considers whether there are requests that he could make to South Africa that he has not already made. We are helping the South Africans in one of their main tasks, which is bringing the different armed forces in the country together into a more united national army. A British military assistance and training team, made up of 31 people with a brigadier, is established there for that purpose.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rwanda.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State, for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Rwanda.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to end the killing in Rwanda.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said a few moments ago, we are playing a full part in efforts to bring about a settlement in Rwanda and are providing substantial amounts of relief for the large number of refugees displaced by the fighting.
    Mr. Hanson: In supporting the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), may I ask what actions the Government are taking with regard to food and emergency equipment for the 1 million-plus refugees resident on the Tanzania-Rwanda border? That situation cannot be tolerated and all help must be given by the Government.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend mentioned that bilateral aid of £11 million has been paid since the start of the crisis. It is helping mainly with refugees and with the collection and burial of bodies, including those in Lake Victoria. An Overseas Development Administration team recently visited the region to assess the situation at first hand and will return there in early July.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country is sickened by the grotesque slaughter of men, women and children in Rwanda and that it must end as soon as possible? Will he also confirm that Britain is the fourth largest contributor to United Nations peacekeeping forces throughout the world and that the Government will use their influence within the UN and the international community to do all that they can to bring an end to the ghastly slaughter as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Everyone must agree with my hon. Friend's words. I confirm that we are the fourth largest contributor to UN peacekeeping operations. We cannot be accused of default on that ground. All along, we have been very active in calling for effective and swift United Nations action in Rwanda.
    Mr. Cohen: Did not the Government make a mistake in April when they effectively voted in the UN Security Council for UN disengagement from Rwanda, reducing troops there to just 270? Should not they have been pressing then—as they should now—for the establishment of safe areas in that country and for the forces to secure them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Secretary-General submitted his report on 2 June following those Security Council decisions in April, and on 8 June there was a further vote to adopt resolution 925 and endorse the arrangements for the deployment of the expanded United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda—UNAMIR—which is the situation that we now face.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend willing to comment on the world's attitude to the colossal number of murders and missing persons in Rwanda? Let us suppose that 500,000 black people had been murdered by white people or vice versa—the world would rightly have been in uproar. But if 500,000 black people are killed by other black people the world seems to regard it as not quite so important.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has expressed his opinion, and we are doing everything that we can in our way to bring about a change in the dreadful events. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, seven African

    619
    countries are contributing troops and five countries—including ourselves—are prepared to help with logistical support for those troops.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, in opening the meeting of the Organisation of African Unity, President Mandela said that the Rwandan situation was a stern rebuke for us all and that it reflected on a crisis of leadership? Does he agree that that reproof goes far beyond the African continent to those countries in Europe which have encouraged the Rwandan regime to spend money on arms, rather than to develop services for its people so that there would be some harmonisation in the country? Will he urge the UN to ensure that there is a tighter formulation to govern the behaviour of those countries which export arms, so that we might be able to prevent future Rwandas?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that a crisis of leadership in Britain is responsible for the situation in Rwanda. He is suggesting somehow that the British Government are responsible. We are doing what we can, as my right hon. Friend and I have explained in the most careful terms, to bring about a change in the dreadful situation.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the fact that the appalling atrocities in Rwanda are exacerbated and made possible by the large amount of arms that are available —it is estimated that sub-Saharan Africa is importing in the region of $7 billion worth of arms every year—is not there a strong case for making any aid to those countries dependent upon their military spending and the proportion that it takes of their GNP?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) should be aware that the appalling slaughter about which we have read in Rwanda is not the result of arms sales by western or other countries. The crudest weapons, which would be available in any agricultural society, are being horrifically used in the terrible slaughter.

    European Union
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with other members of the European Union.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We enjoy excellent relations with other members of the European Union.
    Mr. Jones: Is not it clear that the Government's vacillation on policy on the European Union was decisively rejected by the British people in last week's elections? Has not the Foreign Secretary ducked out of the question because his party had one of the biggest political drubbings of modern times?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Labour party was desperate to try to keep the elections focused on every issue except Europe. The Government are certain that, when we engaged the electorate on the European issues, we had the right policies which struck the right notes.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the recent European elections, there was a significant move
    620
    against the kind of socialism and centralism supported by the Opposition in those countries where the electorate seemed to have focused on the European issues?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. It is noticeable that the other Opposition party with a centralising manifesto and a willingness to abandon the national veto—the Liberal Democratic party—failed conspicuously to live up to its expectations.
    Mr. Hoon: Does the Minister remember the Foreign Secretary describing the idea of a two-speed Europe as a disaster? If so, how does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's call for a multi-speed Europe? Surely a multi-speed Europe must involve at least two speeds?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are two speeds in Europe—we are in the fast lane and the Opposition parties are in the slow lane.
    Mr. Forman: What are the Government's relations with France and Germany? Are they good or improving? Do the Government intend to work closely with those two Governments in the next year or so, since they will be in the chair of the European Union?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have extremely good relations with both countries. We had a succesful summit with the French Government last year, and a recent one with German Ministers in London. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the French and German presidencies of European Union are coming up and we intend to work closely with both countries on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Benn: Will the many policy statements made by the Prime Minister during the European elections be formally tabled by the British Government at the Council of Ministers and at heads of state meetings that will occur during the next few months?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All the policy pronouncements by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister represent a known British position and will, of course, be discussed with other member states during the coming months.

    Japan
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to attract more inward investment from Japan.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Attraction of more inward investment is a high priority for our embassy in Tokyo and consulate-general in Osaka, which work closely with the Invest in Britain Bureau of the Department of Trade and Industry and with regional agencies. We shall soon open a new office in Nagoya for inward investment and trade promotion.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the new massive investment from Honda in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that it is yet another tribute to the success of our missions abroad?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I greatly welcome Honda's announcement of a further investment of £330 million in the United Kingdom, which confirms its continuing commitment to this country as a base for its car-making operations in Europe. The

    621
    Government will continue to work with the company to ensure the success of its United Kingdom operations and its many British suppliers.
    Mr. Enright: Can the Minister name a single Japanese firm that does not fulfil the social contract? In fact, is not the contrary true? All Japanese firms fulfil and more the social contract and, indeed, the majority look for monetary union.
    Mr. Goodlad: There are 200 Japanese manufacturing companies in this country covering a wide range of industries from electronics to consumables. Their working practices vary, as do British ones. We have made it clear that the social contract, which provides greatly increased legislative powers for the European Community in employment and social policies, would lead to damaging European Community laws being imposed in the United Kingdom. They would add to costs, cut competitiveness, destroy jobs and deprive United Kingdom employers and employees of their rights to decide the employment conditions that firms can afford. It is because this country is extremely competitive, whereas European competitiveness is declining in the world, that we have more than 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Community.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While very much appreciating the tremendous importance of Japanese investment in this country, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that the Government should spend as much time seeking investment from other countries, because to do so provides us with opportunities to do business with those countries? Inward investment from Japan is important, but other countries should not be ignored, as they provide us with equal if not better opportunities.
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct— that is precisely what the Government do. In 1992–93, at least 303 inward investment decisions were made by foreign companies, which created or safeguarded more than 56,000 jobs. Since 1979, more than half a million jobs have been created by overseas companies. In 1991, overseas companies provided 17 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rogers: Hon. Members on both sides of the House applaud and support the efforts of the Government to obtain inward investment, especially for the north-east and for south Wales, where the Labour-established Welsh Development Agency has been extremely successful. Does the Minister believe that the same number of inward investments, 303, would be made in a semi-detached Britain—a Britain condemned to Europe's slow lane?
    Mr. Goodlad: Britain is the preferred location for Japanese investment because we provide excellent access to the European Community market. Companies consistently refer to the welcome that they receive from the Government. The Japanese choice of the United Kingdom shows that the Government have created the right framework for companies to invest and prosper, in comparison with the position in other European countries and in comparison with the position that would prevail in the highly unlikely event of the Labour party ever gaining the reins of power.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policies towards the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our aim is to secure an early settlement of the conflict in former Yugoslavia. We welcome the one-month ceasefire now in force in Bosnia. That must be extended. We support the work of the contact group. We continue to contribute to the humanitarian aid effort and to the international military presence in Bosnia.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister today publicly condemn the Greek Government for their continuing blockade of Macedonia? What effort has he made to ensure that the Greeks back down on that matter, which is crucial for the Macedonians?
    Mr. Hogg: I am very concerned by the dispute between Macedonia and Greece. I agree that the embargo is wrong. I welcome the fact that the European Court is considering the embargo now. The Vance suggestions, which have been worked out in New York, deserve serious consideration by both parties.

    Cuba
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held discussions with representatives of the Cuban Government relating to common security issues in central and Latin America.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have had no such discussions.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that the basis of common security between nations is mutual respect for, and recognition of, each other's national sovereignty? If so, why did the Government disgracefully abstain on the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly, which would have ended America's illegal contravention of Cuba's national sovereignty—its economic blockade of Cuba? Why do the United Kingdom Government preach respect for international law, but, on the international stage, remain silent when international law is brazenly broken by their patrons in Washington?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The blockade is a bilateral matter between the Governments of Cuba and the United States. For our part, we operate no such embargo and have full diplomatic relations with Cuba.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend find it difficult to answer questions from the Opposition about Cuba when they follow questions which revealed the Opposition's attitude towards the democratically elected Government of Italy, a member of the European Union? Although I have views on that matter, I accept that that Government were democratically elected. Is not it difficult to answer people who ask questions in such conflicting ways?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is obvious that the Opposition are operating a double standard. They are happy to recognise and have relations with non-elected Ministers in Cuba, which is the point of my hon. Friend's question, yet we have just heard from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen that they would refuse to meet or

    623
    recognise five elected and duly appointed Ministers of the new Italian Government. They would therefore be willing to overlook, ignore and show contempt for the democratically elected Government of modern Italy.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Has the Minister had a chance to read the report, published in May this year, of the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group, which advises the Foreign Office? It calls for a joint effort by Britain and Germany to reach an agreement on co-operation between the European Union and Cuba, so that the transition taking place in Cuba can proceed in a way that will bring stability to that area and trade to this country.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman may know that the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group visited Cuba last year and again last month. The object of those visits was to improve bilateral trade between our two countries. That is of more immediate importance than the longer-term, structural relationship between the EU and Cuba, although that may be developing on a parallel track.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it the case that in central America and the Caribbean area security tensions have been considerably reduced since the central American republics, in contrast to Cuba, returned to democracy and since, following the defeat of the Sandinista regime, Nicaragua reduced its armed forces? Should not we be more concerned with introducing democracy and human rights into Cuba?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree. All Latin American countries now have civilian Governments, with the exception of Cuba. We look forward to an improvement in the human rights record of Cuba and we constantly urge her to allow free and fair elections.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the blockade of Cuba that has been carried on by the USA since 1959 is an appalling interference in one nation's affairs by another? Does he recognise that the lives of the people of Cuba have been severely damaged by it? Other Governments have managed to trade successfully and normally with Cuba. Why will not he put pressure on the United States to lift the blockade and recognise Cuban Governments once and for all?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already said in answer to another question that that is a matter between the Cuban and the American Government, but, to repeat the point, we have developing trade relations with Cuba as well as normal diplomatic relations.

    Italy
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has met members of the new Italian Government to discuss recent developments in the European Union.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the new Italian Foreign Minister at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 16 and 17 May 1994.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that there are good links between the European Union and the emerging eastern European countries? In his recent
    624
    discussions with the new Italian Government, has he had a chance to discuss joint projects to further the support and links between the European Union and eastern Europe?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend had a successful and constructive meeting with Signor Martino, the new Italian Foreign Minister, and it was agreed to carry forward a joint initiative to develop foreign policy and justice and home affairs relations between the European Union and the newly emergent democracies of central and eastern Europe.
    Mr. Galloway: Is not it true that although Signor Fini and the MSI fascists in Italy were democratically elected, so were Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler before them? Cannot the Government sense at least some unease in this country, as we celebrate the anniversaries currently, about the fact that British men left their bones in the soil of Europe to liberate this continent from fascism, yet fascism is back in the elected Government of Italy?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman's record of support for non-elected dictators is not altogether an honourable one, but I can repeat the important point that those newly elected Italian Ministers have made quite clear their support and respect for the 1948 Italian constitution, which is fully democratic in all respects.
    Mr. Dykes: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that Signor Martino is extremely enthusiastic about the Maastricht treaty and the European Union?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are all enthusiastic about the Maastricht treaty and the European Union.
    Mr. Janner: Did the Foreign Secretary raise with the Italian Foreign Secretary the concern, which I know is felt on both sides of the House, about the resurgence of neo-fascism in Italy? Did he discuss it at all with his opposite number and does he share the concern that so many of us feel about the growth of fascism and racism in so many parts of Europe?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Of course, we would be concerned if there was a resurgence of fascism in Italy. It was precisely because we are assured about the democratic credentials and aims of the new Italian Government that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the new Italian Government and agreed a programme of future developments with that Government.

    Argentina
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Argentina.
    Mr. Hurd: We have made some good progress in many areas. There are regular high-level contacts. British exports to Argentina grew by 50 per cent. last year and there are good investment opportunities. We continue to disagree about sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, but we have an agreement on fisheries conservation and we expect to meet the Argentines next month to discuss oil. We also co-operate internationally; for example, British and Argentine troops are working side by side in UN peacekeeping operations, both in the former Yugoslavia and in Cyprus.
    Mr. Coombs: May I tell my right hon. Friend of the great pleasure given to the Falkland islanders and to their many friends in this country and around the world by his visit to the islands earlier this year? Does he agree that as long as Argentina retains its claim of sovereignty over the islands, there will inevitably be a black cloud over our efforts to improve relations with it? What part of the Government's policy is it now to persuade the Argentine Government to drop that claim so as to guarantee the long-term safety and security of the Falklands?
    Mr. Hurd: I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the islands after Easter and I learned a lot from it and from the islanders. My hon. Friend is right: we have managed to make good progress on other matters with the Argentine Government, setting aside the disagreement over sovereignty, which remains.
    My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that, once it is possible for Argentina to drop her claim to sovereignty, the possibilities of co-operation in the south Atlantic, to the benefit of both countries and of the islanders, will be very great indeed.
    Mr. Tony Banks: In the event of President Menem requesting the extradition of Baroness Thatcher to face various charges in Argentina, will the British Government give him their full co-operation? I suspect that if they did, it might do something to restore their flagging popularity.
    Mr. Hurd: No such request has been made.

    Mauritius
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Mauritius.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We enjoy a close and constructive relationship with Mauritius.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that fine reply. Does he accept that Britain is popular in Mauritius and that Mr. Jugnauth and his Government are very friendly towards this country because of their close educational links with it? If he agrees, how is he seeking to extend that principle?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Mauritian Foreign Minister recently said that relations are entering a new period of understanding and co-operation, and he has seen my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary twice in the past year.
    As for education, under an agreement called the Laureate scheme, we are providing nearly £3 million over a five year period to fund scholarships which enable 13 Mauritians to come to Britain as students.

    China
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relationship with the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Goodlad: We attach considerable importance to maintaining and building on our wide-ranging relationship with China. We have already achieved a number of successes: for instance, our exports to China in 1993 were 72 per cent. higher than in 1992. We continue to make
    626
    representations to the People's Republic on human rights issues. A key aspect of the relationship is Hong Kong. Although we have not yet resolved our recent disagreement over the detailed constitutional arrangements for Hong Kong, our immediate priority is to develop a co-operative relationship in other areas, such as the work of the joint liaison group and the new airport in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Government continue to press the Government of the People's Republic of China on the issue of human rights, not only in China but in the future Hong Kong? As the Government are no doubt aware, many in this country are worried that human rights in Hong Kong will be severely eroded once the colony is taken over by China. What assurances can he give us that that will not happen?
    Mr. Goodlad: Human rights in China, including the situation in Tibet, are a matter of deep concern. They are on the agenda at every ministerial meeting and we and our European Union partners have repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to adhere to internationally recognised standards of behaviour and to improve their human rights record.
    The Hong Kong bill of rights gives local effect to the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the body of local human rights jurisprudence is steadily accumulating. The joint declaration of 1984 provides that the international covenant will continue to apply to Hong Kong after 1997. The joint declaration also guarantees the continuation of Hong Kong's existing legal system.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us as to what line the Chinese Government are taking over the nuclear activities of North Korea? Does he agree that if any encouragement is given to North Korea to export nuclear arms or equipment to, say, the middle east, it could be very serious for the security of the world?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. We are in close touch with the Chinese in the Security Council. The Chinese are in favour of a denuclearised Korean peninsula, but say that the North Korean issue should be dealt with through negotiations. We believe that China has privately urged North Korea to act responsibly. It was associated with two statements by the president of the Security Council urging North Korea to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Consultations are under way in New York on a possible sanctions resolution, after the flagrant breach by North Korea of the nuclear safeguards agreement and, of course, we hope for Chinese co-operation.
    On the middle east, China is co-operating with both Pakistan and Iran on civil nuclear projects. We encourage China to behave responsibly and will continue to encourage it to join and abide by guidelines through the nuclear supplies group.
    Mr. Gapes: In view of the position in Hong Kong, does the Minister support the proposals made by many people there, and by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, for a human rights commission to be established so that human rights can be protected after 1997?
    Mr. Goodlad: The Government are considering the report of the Select Committee very carefully and will respond in due course.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern in China about the new restrictions introduced by the EC on imports of items such as toys and shoes? Although I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having voted against the decision by the EC, does he agree that it is totally inconsistent with GAIT and that it destroys jobs in China and many jobs in the United Kingdom as well?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. The United Kingdom voted against the quotas package at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 February, because we did not believe that the quotas introduced, particularly on toys, were justified. During the negotiations, we succeeded in getting some proposals for quotas withdrawn and other proposed quotas, including toys, increased, although not enough. We are pressing the Commission to show extra flexibility in the management of quotas, particularly to enable goods already contracted for before the February decision to be exempted from quota limits. We shall also seek an early review of quotas in the hope of securing increases or, better still, their abolition.

    Middle East
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from consular officials in Jerusalem on the implementation of peace agreements in the west bank and Gaza.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The reports are frequent, relevant and highly informative.
    Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that unless the peace process in the middle east goes forward it could rapidly go into reverse? What plans do the Government have to increase the amount of practical assistance being given by Britain to the Palestine National Authority, other than in policing? Will he particularly consider assistance through secondments along the lines of the know-how fund?
    Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of the question, the British Government's support, bilateral and multilateral, is around £70 million over the next three years. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is important that there
    628
    should be early progress. I should like to see Mr. Arafat back in Jericho. It is very important that the Palestinians take control in the five sectoral areas covered by the September agreement. Perhaps most important, it is very urgent that the parties get down to the final stage of the negotiations as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent hijacking of a Lebanese citizen from Lebanese territory by the Israeli defence forces did nothing to help the peace process in that part of the world? Have suitable comments been passed to the Israeli Government? On reflection, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the timing of the announcement to lift the arms embargo on Israel was a little unfortunate?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not seek to justify the Israelis' hijacking of the gentleman from Lebanon. Let me also say that that does not promote the release of Ron Arad, if he is alive. Nevertheless, his continued detention is a disgrace and he should be released by whoever is holding him.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Minister will be aware that there seems to have been some hold-up in the provision of money for the Palestine National Authority. People are said to be concerned about accounting procedures. Does the Minister agree that this may prove to be a "Catch-22"? Without the money, the accounting procedures cannot be set up; without the accounting procedures, the authority cannot obtain the money. Is not it possible to engage in discussions with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—in fact, I believe that Ministers have already done so—to ensure that proper accounting procedures can be set up, through UNRWA, to enable administrative help to go into Gaza and Jericho as rapidly as possible?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right: there have been discussions, which took place on 8 June. As a result of those discussions, some $40 million of additional money has been pledged. However, the hon. Gentleman should not overlook the importance of proper accounting and disbursement procedures, without which the money might go astray.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm whether you have received an application today for a private notice question on the rail dispute?
Madam Speaker: I do not confirm one way or the other whether I have received an application for a private notice question. The hon. Gentleman might care to rephrase his point of order; I shall do my best to be helpful.
Mr. Dunn: Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that you are in a position to receive an application for a private notice question on the rail dispute? Today, the work and lives of many thousands of my constituents have been disrupted by the actions of a trade union, which all the contenders for the Labour party leadership have signally failed to condemn. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Private notice questions must come to my office before 12 o'clock, as I think the entire House is aware.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be helpful for me to instruct the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on procedure, as he clearly does not understand it? It is well in order for the Government to make a statement on any issue—
Madam Speaker: Order. I want no instruction on how I should behave in the Chair. I have just informed the House that private notice questions are looked at by me at 12 o'clock, and decisions are then made.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it related?
Mr. Coombs: No, Madam Speaker, it is an entirely different point of order. Given the craven attitude of Opposition Members to the rail unions that have caused such enormous—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Coombs rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat immediately, or I shall name him. I am tired of listening to points of order that are not points of order, and of the way in which points of order are abused in the House.
Mr. Coombs rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. If he has a point of order for me to deal with which does not refer to the behaviour of other hon. Members, I will listen to it, but I will listen to it only if it concerns me as Speaker. The hon. Gentleman must now determine how he will behave following that warning.
Mr. Coombs: My point of order does relate to your duties as Speaker, Madam Speaker. I was going to ask whether the attitude of Opposition Members to the rail unions—which is not unrelated to the fact that many of them are sponsored by trade unions, and in particular by the rail unions—ought not, in the circumstances, be referred—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a point of order for me. He has totally abused my faith in him. Now may we get on with the procedures of the House?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay

Mr. Peter Thurnham

Mr. Quentin Davies

BILL PRESENTED
  MARRIAGE
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth, supported by Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Rod Richards, Mr. Raymond S. Robertson and Mr. Keith Vaz, presented a Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1949 so as to enable civil marriages to be solemnised on premises approved for the purpose by local authorities and so as to provide for further cases in which marriages may be solemnised in registration districts in which neither party to the marriage resides; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 24 June, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.96(Scottish Estimates).
  That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:
  Class XIV Vote 17 Education, Arts and Libraries, Scotland.
  Class XIV Vote 18 Student Awards, Scotland.
  [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

Hereditary Peers (Democratic Rights)
3.35 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers and peeresses to sit in the House of Lords; to establish their right to vote in general elections and to stand for election to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
In spending so much time, as the House does, on detailed, complex and intricate legislation, we sometimes miss the glaringly obvious. My Bill deals with the glaringly obvious — that in a democracy it is absurd that people should inherit the right to legislate.
My Bill does not attempt to deal with the overall question of the reform of the House of Lords or whether we need a second Chamber. It deals simply with hereditary members of the peerage.
The House of Lords has the most bizarre and indefensible composition of any parliamentary chamber in the world. At the last count, there were 1,203 Members of the Lords, 759 of whom inherited their title. Those 759 born peers are there because they were born in the right bed at the right time.
I need hardly remind the House of the bizarre ways in which those 759 people carne to obtain their titles— they are varied and colourful. The dukes are a prime example. Four of the dukes— of Buccleuch and Queensberry, of Grafton, of Richmond Lennox and Gordon and of Saint Albans— are descendants of the various mistresses of Charles II. One is by Lucy Walter, one by Barbara Villiers, one by Louise de Kéerouaille and the other by Nell Gwynne.
I have nothing against Charles II's mistresses or their descendants, but I cannot for the life of me see why they should inherit the right to legislate.
If my Bill were passed, it would not make much difference to the lives of those people. When the figures were last checked, one of those dukes was on permanent leave of absence and the other three attended on just 32 occasions out of a possible 736 attendances. Of the 759 hereditary peers, no fewer than 70 per cent. attended fewer than 5 per cent. of sittings and 44 per cent.— 333 peers — did not attend the Lords at all.
We are frequently told by traditionalists that the hereditary peerage is just a quaint British custom and that it does no harm or damage, so why bother with it? Sadly, that is not true.
Neither can it be said that there is any received wisdom among those hereditary peers. One of the most important votes in the Lords in recent years was the poll tax vote on 23 May 1988. The Lords had a chance to stop a Bill that everyone, apart from the then Conservative party, knew was ludicrous and that now everyone, including the Conservative party, knows was ludicrous. Their lordships were solidly in favour of the poll tax— 317 were in favour and 183 were against. That made a total of 500, so 702 either abstained, could not make it to the Chamber or did not understand the question.
The attendance of 500 was one of the biggest this century. Hon. Members may have read that one of their lordships said in the debate that one of the nice things about the debate was that one met so many old friends that an one had not seen for many years.
It is not always realised that the hereditary peers passed the poll tax legislation. The life peers voted marginally
632
against— 125 to 97— but the hereditary peers tipped the balance, with 54 against and 220 in favour. So much for the common sense of the aristocracy.
That vote should come as no surprise to us, because their lordships vote, as we do most of the time, according to party affiliation. Of the 759 hereditary peers, only 364 are listed as supporting a political party. Of those, 12 are Labour, 24 are Liberal Democrats and 328 are Conservatives. If I were to include the other 395 who have not answered the question, I have no doubt that the Conservative majority would be even larger.
I read a recent debate held in another place on its own future. It was incredibly smug and self-satisfied and, in the light of the figures that I have just cited, I find it staggering that one peer could say, "Your Lordships' House stands as an independent bulwark"—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the current Session? If so, I remind him that that is not allowed and that he must paraphrase.
Mr. Grocott: I am paraphrasing, Madam Speaker. The noble Lord said in effect that the House of Lords was an independent bulwark against extremism at either end of the political spectrum.
I do not want to make this a party political issue so I shall now quote Winston Churchill who, when talking about the hereditary peerage in the early part of the century, described the House of Lords as
"one-sided, hereditary, unpurged, unrepresentative, irresponsible, absentee … filled with old doddering peers, cute financial magnates, clever wire pullers and big brewers with bulbous noses."
I do not agree about the bulbous noses, but I think that we can all understand his drift. He was speaking at the beginning of the century, but the social composition of the House of Lords has not changed that much.
According to the latest figures that I have seen, 60 per cent. of hereditary peers were described as fanners and landowners, 15 per cent. as industrialists and 12 per cent. as being involved in banking, finance and insurance. Even so—I again paraphrase a debate held the other day in the House of Lords—one peer in effect said without any hint of vanity or complacency that it was right to acknowledge that diversity was their greatest strength.
My simple proposition is that in a democracy it is ludicrous for people to inherit the right to legislate, and I am sure that the Bill will have all-party support. In fact, one of the inspirations for my presenting the Bill was the Prime Minister's rallying call for a classless society. I have not been able to check whether he will support the Bill, but, in the light of his known position on a classless society, I think that he should be behind me on this matter.
Should there still be any waverers among the Tories, let me put to them a simple proposition. If, in the Russia of today, for example, there were a Baron Trotsky, a Viscount Stalin or a Lord Lenin, the Tories would rightly be saying that in a democracy it was ludicrous that people should inherit titles, and we would say the same if there were descendants of Bismarck in the German Parliament or descendants of Napoleon in the French Parliament. However, there is a more urgent reason for dealing with the problem, and quickly.
There is a growing trend, which I welcome, for Members of Parliament to act as observers of elections abroad to ascertain whether voting systems are democratic. Of course, we can send people from the House of Lords.

633
Have people queuing outside polling stations in hot African countries ever been questioned by a duke, marquess, earl or viscount about how well their system was operating? If I were in such a queue, my response would be, "Physician, heal thyself."
The democratic rights of the House of Commons have been fought for and they are precious. Your symbolic struggle, Madam Speaker, to be the Speaker of the House is symptomatic of the struggle of democratic power against hereditary power and you, perhaps more than anyone else, are the symbol of that. There are more hereditary peers in Parliament than democratically elected Members of this House. Their right to vote and to legislate for the people whom we represent would be laughable were it not so serious. It is indefensible in a democracy. It requires a simple Act of Parliament to put it right, a step that no one who cares about democracy could oppose. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Mr. George Foulkes, Ms Kate Hoey, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Jeff Rooker and Mr. Ernie Ross.

Hereditary Peers (Democratic Rights)
  HEREDITARY PEERS (DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS)
  Mr. Bruce Grocott accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers and peeresses to sit in the House of Lords; to establish their right to vote in general elections and to stand for election to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
Orders of the Day

  Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clause 2, New Clause 11, New Clause 1, government New Clauses, remaining New Clauses, amendments to Clauses and amendments to Schedules.—[Mr. Redwood.]

New clause 2

  TRANSFER OF COMMUNITIES
  ?Where a community meeting under the 1972 Act resolves that that community should be transferred from the local government area in which it is situated by virtue of this Act to another such area, being an area contiguous with the community, then, provided that no fewer than one half of the local government electors in the community have voted for that resolution, the Secretary of State shall by order amend Schedule 1 to this Act to give effect to that resolution.'.—[Dr. Marek.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.45 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 11—Referendum on boundaries (No. 2)—
  ?(1) If, by resolution, the council of any district existing at the time this Act receives Royal Assent so requests, the Secretary of State shall, before appointing a day for the coming into force of Section 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Act, prepare a scheme for the conduct of a referendum to be held within the area of any such district council.
  (2) A referendum under subsection (1) above shall be for the purpose of determining whether the local government electors of the district are satisfied with the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act so far as they affect the boundaries of any local government area for which they are electors.
  (3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State from the result of any referendum held under subsection (1) above that a majority of the electors of any district do not approve of any change in boundaries affecting that district which would result from the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act, he may by order made by statutory instrument make any modification to that Schedule which he considers will reflect the result of the referendum; and any such order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.'.
  Amendment No. 14, in clause 65, page 51, line 2, leave out?1,?.
  Amendment No. 15, in page 51, line 3, leave out?1,'.
  Amendment No. 117, in schedule 1, page 52, line 17, column 2, leave out from 'Cardiff' to end of line 19.
  Amendment No. 28, in page 53, line 27, column 2? leave out from 'Ogwr? to end of line 29.
  Amendment No. 35, in page 53, line 34, column 1, leave out 'and Port Talbot'.
  Amendment No. 36, in page 53, line 34, column 2, leave out 'and Port Talbot'.
  Amendment No. 37, in page 53, line 35, leave out 'a Phort Talbot'.
  Amendment No. 116, in page 54, line 1, at end insert:—

  635

  'Port Talbot

  The district of Port Talbot

  Port Talbot.'.

  Amendment No. 100, in page 54, line 2, leave out 'Rhondda,' in both places where it occurs.
  Amendment No. 38, in page 54, line 2, leave out 'Taff?.
  Amendment No. 101, in page 54, line 3, leave out 'Rhondda,'.
  Amendment No. 39, in page 54, line 3, leave out from Cynon' to end of line 5.
  Amendment No. 40, in page 54, line 5, at end insert—

  'Taff Ely

  The district of Taff

  Taf Eli'.

  Ely.

  Amendment No. 102, in page 54, line 6, at end insert—

  'Rhondda

  The district of Rhondda

  Rhondda'.

  Amendment No. 29, in page 54, line 9, column 2? leave out lines 9 to 11.
  Dr. Marek: We spent many hours in Committee on the Bill where it was accepted that the issues that caused probably most division, not necessarily across parties, but from one hon. Member to another, were over what to do with communities on the boundaries of the new unitary authorities and whether any particular community or area should be in one of the new unitary authorities or in another. In particular, I remember many hours talking about Llanelly Hill. I am not exactly sure where it is, but it is somewhere on the border of the present borough of Torfaen, the district of Monmouth and the district of Brecon.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Blaenau Gwent.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend corrects me. There was a case for including Llanelly Hill in any of those three new districts. Unfortunately, the Government decided that Llanelly Hill was to be in one of the those districts and, in spite of pleas by Labour and Conservative Members, there did not appear to be any movement in the position of the Minister or the Government in considering that, perhaps, Llanelly Hill could be part of another district or another unitary authority than the one to which the Government had allocated it.
  Equally, one of the amendments that I tabled in Committee concerned the community of Llangollen. Certainly, a clear majority of people in Llangollen wished to be associated with, and be part of, Wrexham unitary authority. However, the Government decided that Llangollen was to be put in the Denbighshire authority and, in spite of cogent arguments, nothing seems to have changed the Government's mind.
  Mr. Llew Smith: May I clarify one point? The Minister said that the Government would go away and think about the Llanelly community and consider the possibility of its being put into Monmouth or, indeed, into Blaenau Gwent. We proved that it was nonsense to keep it in Powys because we worked out that to attend two council meetings, it would take councillors approximately six days because it would require an overnight stay. The Ministers said that they would report back on that issue.
  Dr. Marek: We shall have to wait and see exactly what the Ministers say, but I have not noticed that any appropriate amendment has been tabled to accede to the wishes of the Committee. It is true that the Minister said that representations could be made to a local government
  636
  boundary commission about Llangollen in due course, but I should have thought that it is incumbent on us to get it right now.
  Other communities are affected. Llansantffraid-ym-Mochnant, for example, which is currently part of Clwyd, could be regarded as part of a future Powys, but it is not entirely clear. My point is a precise one. The elected representatives of the community council or the district cannot necessarily speak unequivocally for their electors and for their citizens without taking the voices of those citizens and those electors into account.
  I will not dwell on new clause 11 which is grouped with new clause 2. However, new clause 11, which I will support in due course, allows for a referendum to be held in a council area. New clause 2 allows for a community council meeting to be held. If more than half the people covered by the community council agree that that community should not be part of the proposals as set out by the Government and that it should perhaps join a coterminous authority, the Secretary of State should take notice of that and introduce an appropriate statutory instrument. In that respect, new clause 2 would be very useful.
  Why have the Government been so intransigent about some of the authorities? There have been arguments about whether Meirionnydd should be separate from Caernarfon, but all the arguments met intransigence from the Government. Even though the Government were outvoted on the question of the break up of Powys, I have heard nothing from the Government Front Bench about letting the people decide on the issue.
  It is symptomatic of this Government that we have government by diktat. Huge majorities for 12 or 13 years lead to that. The situation has now changed and the Government have time to make amends. I have received much correspondence about Llangollen, which is not in my constituency, but in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), who hopes to catch your eye later today or tomorrow, Madam Speaker. However, as I stated in Committee, I have full permission and authorisation to make these comments on behalf of the people of Llangollen.
  The important point is that people should be allowed to choose. Llangollen is a long way away and removed from the rest of Denbighshire. It is over two mountain passes and the road is often closed in winter. It is very likely that the headquarters of the Denbighshire authority will be at Rhyl which may be 40 or 50 miles away, while Wrexham is only nine miles away.
  When I made those points in Committee, the Minister of State said:
  "It will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that occasionally we come across a town that has some real attachments but is anxious to extend its boundaries further. This is especially so in the case of Wrexham."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 April 1994; c. 155.]
  I do not think that it is. The case stands or falls because of the wishes of the people of Llangollen, not because of the wishes of the people of Wrexham. Equally, the case in Llanelly Hill stands or falls because of the wishes of the people in Llanelly Hill, not because of the wishes of anyone else anywhere, even of people here. We should listen to what the people have to say.

  637
  Clearly, if more than half a community's citizens attend a community council meeting and they express a wish, that should be listened to, even by this Government.
  Mr. Roger Evans: While I accept the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, does he accept that in the case of Llanelly Hill, there has indeed been a referendum which was in favour of Monmouthshire? It would appear from amendment No. 77 that the Government now recognise the full force of that referendum.
  Hon. Members: What about elsewhere?
  Dr. Marek: I welcome what the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has said. If the Government have recognised it, that is excellent and I congratulate the Government on that. However, as many of my hon. Friends have said from a sedentary position, what about elsewhere?
  Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that an opinion survey was carried out and the vast majority of people expressed a wish to be part of the Blaenau Gwent community as opposed to Monmouth? Does he also recognise that in the referendum referred to by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) it was no surprise that people voted to be part of Monmouth because there was no suggestion or policy at that particular time for a borough of Blaenau Gwent? We were still talking about the Heads of the Valleys authority.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend also makes the point that we now have firm proposals in front of us. The wisest course of events, when there was a dispute in those five or six areas in the Principality, would be for the issue to be decided after listening to the people. A referendum or a community meeting would be the most appropriate way of proceeding. On the Llangollen issue, there was also a referendum in which 58 per cent. voted in favour of joining Wrexham and only 42 per cent.—that is according to the Minister; the figures are rounded down—voted to stay with Denbighshire. That is not a good advertisement for good government. A clear majority favour joining Wrexham. However, I want to make progress as we are to have two very short debates.
  I have had many telephone calls and letters of support for my stance in Committee on Llangollen being part of the new Wrexham unitary authority. It clearly makes sense because of geography, ties, shopping, the location of the hospital and other services, as well as bus routes. Above all, it makes sense because the people want it. If the Government listened to that they would be able to accept new clause 2.
  I must say that I have had two letters of complaint, one from the chief executive of Glyndwr district council, Mr. Julian Parry. Quite honestly, he wrote a rather stupid letter pointing out so-called inaccuracies in what I said in Committee. I was told, for example, that I got the year wrong—it was 1992 instead of 1993—and that it is not yet absolutely clear that the new Denbighshire authority will have Rhyl as its centre. If it is not clear to him, I wonder why he is being paid so much per annum by the council tax payers of Glyndwr. He is the only one who has written to
  638
  me objecting to Llangollen joining Wrexham. The only other person who complained was the clerk of Llantysilio council.
  Such people are not elected. I suspect that most community councillors in Llantysilio have never faced an election in their lives. They are quite happy to make decisions and write letters to the Secretary of State for Wales saying, "We believe this and we believe that," but they do not have the backing of the people; they are unrepresentative. Why do they not join me and organise a referendum now that we know all the facts? They should allow the people to decide the issue.
  This matter is not confined to a party political argument. Perhaps the Conservative party is trying to gerrymander boundaries for electoral advantage, but I do not think that it is. In most cases, it has just got it wrong.
  I have a letter—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) will comment on this matter—from Mr. David Unwin, the Conservative leader of Ogwr borough council. The Conservatives are up in arms over the fact that the Ewenny and St. Brides Major area is to be taken from Bridgend and given to the Vale of Glamorgan. Councillor David Unwin says:
  "Before it is too late, I urge you all to redouble your efforts on our behalf in an attempt to get a last minute change of heart by the Welsh Office Ministers over this issue."
  He makes a
  "plea for some common sense and fair play for these communities who have no wish to be torn away from a council"—
  Bridgend or Ogwr—
  "based centrally in nearby Bridgend."
  It is not a party political issue; it cuts across parties. We would have worse government if we considered it to be a party political issue.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Marek: I shall certainly give way, but I am coming to the end of my remarks.
  Mr. Evans: I have been listening carefully to the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument and I wonder whether he can help me with one part of the new clause. He will have gathered from the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) that sometimes, even when referendums are held, a decision is not acceptable if it does not happen to be the one with which one agrees. As we found during the debate on the Welsh devolution referendum, some people will never accept the result of a referendum. In the new clause, the hon. Gentleman is permitting every community in Wales to continue to vote on where they should be for local government purposes ad infinitum. There is no cut-off point. It would seem that local communities could therefore face endless referendums on the question of which local government area they should be in. Why has the hon. Gentleman not included a time limit in new clause 2?
  4 pm
  Dr. Marek: First, the hon. Gentleman has introduced a red herring with regard to devolution. We shall discuss that matter in the debate on the next group of amendments.
  Secondly, let us talk about coterminous communities. Communities can only be coterminous communities. I freely admit that I did not have the assistance of

  639
  parliamentary data when I drafted the new clause. I could have included a limit of six months or something like that —it sounds like a sensible idea—but I did not think of it at the time. I believe in the good sense of community councils and the people of Wales and I do not foresee the type of scenario that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has drawn to the attention of the House.
  There are five or six areas where communities feel deeply disgruntled that the Government have got it wrong and they should be in a different authority from the one that they are in but coterminous to it. New clause 2 is an attempt to put the matter right; new clause 11 is a better attempt to put it right. Certainly, as far as communities are concerned, it is sensible. The argument is not that if it goes against the way that I want it to go, I will not agree with it. My argument is that it is up to the people who live in these areas—Llanelly Hill, Llangollen and Llansantffraid -ym-Mochnant—to make the decision; it is not for me to say. In new clause 2, I am seeking to give them the chance, and I hope that the House will be able to agree to it.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I shall seek to call a Division on new clause 11 at the appropriate time in our proceedings.
  I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the Secretary of State for Wales a happy birthday. In the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee this morning, we discovered that the Secretary of State is enjoying his birthday today. I assure him that he receives the warmest wishes from all of us on this side of the House. When I say, "All of us," I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) would wish to join in our felicitations, given the exchange that took place between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Secretary of State this morning.
  We offer the Secretary of State sincere many happy returns for today. I am sure that our wishes are more sincere than those of the Prime Minister, who probably looks at the record of the Secretary of State and hopes that he can get rid of him fairly quickly. It is fair to say that the Labour party's fondness for the Secretary of State is much greater than that of his colleagues in the Tory party because he has done much more for the Labour party in Wales than he has for the Tory party.
  The Tory party now enjoys a record low in the polls in Wales. In the local elections earlier this year, it managed what the Prime Minister would probably call a significant achievement in winning one out of the 54 district council seats that were up for election. Last week in the European elections, the Tory party's share of the popular vote fell to less than 15 per cent. It suffered the indignity of coming third behind the Welsh nationalist party and, of course, it did not win one European seat in Wales.
  The people of Wales can thank the Secretary of State for at least doing his part to ensure that Wales is represented by five excellent Members of the European Parliament, all of whom have substantial majorities. One of them enjoys the distinction of being the youngest MEP and another, Glenys Kinnock, enjoys the distinction—
  Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fail to see what the hon. Gentleman's contribution has to do with this debate. I appreciate the fact that this will be his last contribution in the House before the new leader of the Labour party
  640
  removes him and brings in the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), but I do not see what it has to do with new clause 11.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a point; I was wondering what it had to do with the new clause. Now that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has finished his preamble, perhaps he will move on to the new clause.
  Mr. Davies: As usual, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) pre-empted me. I was about to refer directly to the fact that the Government suffered such a defeat because of the contempt in which they held the democratic process in Wales.
  If new clause 11 is accepted, it will put at the heart of the Bill the opportunity for the people of Wales and the elected authorities to take control of their future. New clause 11 allows an existing district council to require a referendum by a simple resolution. A council could require the Secretary of State to convene a referendum on whether people were happy with the proposals in the Bill.
  It is worth considering the fact that this reorganisation of local government was supposedly introduced by consent. When the Secretary of State's predecessor introduced his consultative document he talked about the need for consent; when the White Paper was introduced he mentioned the need for consent; and whenever the Secretary of State and his predecessors introduce any measure or statement in the House they talk about the need for consent. We can now see that consent is the very last thing that the Government have for this reorganisation of local government.
  The Government also said that they wanted to use district councils as building blocks. Following our deliberations in Committee, it is now clear that that concept was put out of the window at a fairly early stage. New clause 11 would allow district councils to reassert themselves, to give a view and, we hope, require the Secretary of State to take a much more considered and meaningful view of the wishes of local government in Wales.
  Any objective reading of our proceedings in Committee would persuade one to recognise that Opposition Members exposed widespread opposition to the proposals by not only local authorities and Members of Parliament but the public and many of our Welsh institutions, both private and public. In addition, we exposed the very deep resentment in some Welsh communities at the Government's deliberate and flagrant attempt at gerrymandering political boundaries for the sole purpose of influencing the results at the next general election to the advantage of the Conservative party.
  We are also clear about the fact that communities such as Neath, Port Talbot, Rhondda, Cynon and Taff Ely were dissatisfied with the proposals. Many of my hon. Friends will want to refer to their local authorities. I shall not speak at length on that subject, but I must briefly mention the attempt at gerrymandering.
  In Committee, there was much debate about Llanelly Hill. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) speculated that the Bill was not a local government reorganisation, but a Llanelly Hill reorganisation because we debated it so much. The Government were clearly exposed as using the people of Llanelly Hill as political pawns. New clause 11 would give the district

  641
  council within which they reside—the borough represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who is especially anxious to represent the views of those residents—the opportunity to require a proper referendum.
  I accept the point raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) in an intervention. Of course, the referendum was unsatisfactory, because there was no prior consultation and the Secretary of State did not attempt to tell the people of Llanelly Hill that he had any intention of removing them from Blaenau Gwent and putting them in Powys or Monmouthshire. Now we have a compromise. In the face of the onslaught by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent when he made his case, the Government clearly could not sustain the argument for putting them in Powys, so the Government have conceded and put them in Monmouthshire. The important principle running through all the Opposition speeches is that there ought to be consistency in dealings with communities, which should have the opportunity to decide their future.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) moved the motion, he referred to Ogwr borough council, which was another subject that detained us in Committee. I, too, received a copy of the letter from Councillor David Unwin. I shall read one or two paragraphs from it, as it demonstrates the utter contempt with which the Government's attempt at gerrymandering has been viewed. He writes:
  "You will already be fully aware of the intense feelings of bitterness and anger that continue to exist within the three communities of St. Bride's Major, Ewenny and Wick in Mid Glamorgan against the current Government proposals to move them away from the new Bridgend Unitary Authority and into the Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Authority.
  The local people resent this very much indeed!…I am currently Chairman of one of those councils, apart from my other role as Conservative Opposition Leader on Ogwr Borough Council … I have lived in my community for the past 25 years and I know only too well what the local people are thinking on this issue … My colleagues, Councillor Audrey Preston (Conservative) who represents St. Bride's Major and Wick … and also Councillor John Lewis, (Conservative) who represents Ewenny … both join with me in this plea".
  We have the clearest possible demonstration of the welter of public opinion, expressed by elected representatives, the referendum held in Bridgend, Members of Parliament, letters and public consultation. All those organisations have roundly condemned the Government, yet the Government have a forlorn belief that somehow they will save the political skin of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) by shifting a couple of hundred votes across. It is a most contemptible attempt at a political fix and has been resented even by the people whose political interest is supposed to be represented by the attempt. It is disgraceful, and our attempt to introduce new clause 11 will give the people in that community an opportunity to ensure that they have fair play.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) has fought vigorously not only for the independence of Taff Ely but to ensure that there is no gerrymandering there. We can see what has happened at Pentyrch. I refer the Secretary of State and hon. Members to a report in the Pontypridd and Llantrisant Observer on 2 June. The report said:
  "A leading Taff Ely councillor has resigned from the Conservative party in protest at Government policy. Former mayor Jean Henderson, who has represented Pentyrch since 1979,
  642
  said her decision was prompted by plans to merge Taff Ely … 'I really think that the Government has behaved very insensitively,' she said … She also attacked plans to place Pentyrch under Cardiff s control. 'I really do think it's because the Government wants to add a few more Conservative voters to Cardiff,' she said."
  That is the motivation behind the construction of these boundaries. It was exposed in Committee, has been resented by the public and has been attacked by the Government's political allies. New clause 11 would expose that attempt at gerrymandering and give the people of those communities the opportunity to right that wrong.
  We had some debate in Committee on Powys and there was a lot of controversy about the wishes of the people of Powys and the three district councils of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire. The Government were defeated, of course. Much of the consideration in the early part of the debate was about Powys, but the Government were defeated on the proposal to have Powys as a unitary authority.
  It is now clear from the amendment paper that the Government are determined to ignore the wishes of the Committee and of the three district councils and to reinsert that proposal for Powys in the Bill. I want to make it clear that I support the proposals that came from the Committee, and if the measure comes to a vote I shall vote in favour of it. My colleagues and I have consistently said that we will support the case of Montgomery. We did that in Committee and we also said that we would consistently support the case for Brecon and Radnor as independent authorities. We also applied that principle to the borough councils of Rhondda, Taff Ely, Llanelli, Port Talbot and Neath.
  On every occasion, we challenged the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to show the same consistency we had shown. If there was a disgraceful event in that Committee, it was when the hon. Gentleman, having seduced—I use the word advisedly—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) into supporting him, and knowing that he had the support of Labour Members, quite deliberately, at the very next sitting of the Committee, betrayed the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and refused to vote for that authority. That reflects poorly on the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor.
  We stated clearly that the Labour party was in favour of the principle of consent. We wanted reorganisation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) did not take part in our proceedings in Committee. I shall not remind him of what happened to his predecessor, the Whip on that Committee, but I should be happy to discuss with him why that Whip left the Committee. I suggest that he have a word with his Minister, who I am sure will advise him to restrain himself. The Labour party wanted reorganisation to take place with the consent, and according to the wishes, of the people. That is what new clause 11 will achieve.
  4.15 pm
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor failed to persuade the Government of the merits of his own case for an independent Brecon and Radnor. He failed to convince the majority of his colleagues to join him in defeating the Government. He failed to follow the principles that he had argued that we should follow in carving up Powys, because he did not follow those same principles when we voted on Rhondda and Port Talbot. He also failed to reciprocate the

  643
  vote of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy —not that there was any binding agreement between them. He failed to vote with those of us in the Committee who wanted to defeat the proposals for area committees, although he knew that, if we had defeated that proposal, the Government would have had to accept our proposal to dismember Powys unitary authority.
  If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor finds that he is defeated tonight, as I am sure that he will be, he has no one to blame but himself. He is the architect of his own defeat. Had he shown any consistency or principle, he would have found that he and colleagues could force the Government to accept the logic of the case not only for Brecon and Radnor but for Montgomery and Meirionnydd. I hope that the electors of Brecon and Radnor will repay the hon. Member, come the next general election.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to devote so much of his speech to my personal position. He aspires to be Secretary of State for Wales. Earlier today, he had a meeting with the leaders of Montgomeryshire council, Breconshire council and Radnorshire council. He heard their pleas in relation to the position he has taken—a shabby position, if I may say so —in this debate. If he truly aspires to be a proper Secretary of State for Wales, will he say what his response was to those leaders?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman asked why I have spent so much time on him. The simple reason is that he has spent most of today briefing the press and has tried to pretend that his failure to defend his own interests in Brecon and Radnor has been caused by the Labour party. Somehow, 265 of us are supposed to gallop to the defence of the single vote from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. That is a most odd proposition.
  It is true that I met representatives of those three district councils. I explained clearly that if there were any prospect of their securing the objective of separate unitary authorities for their councils, it lay in new clause 11. The Labour party is united on that new clause. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor knows that we have asked all our colleagues to join us in the Lobby to vote in favour of it. The new clause represents a matter of principle for the Labour party, although the hon. Gentleman may not recognise that.
  I understand that representatives of the Liberal party and of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party, will also join us in the Lobby. The Opposition parties will be united tonight. That unity demonstrates the way in which we have all been, if I may speak for all the Opposition parties, absolutely consistent in our treatment of local authorities, be they Labour authorities in south Wales, Liberal or Tory authorities in mid-Wales or Plaid Cymru or independent party authorities in north Wales. We have applied the same principle to all of them.
  There is a realistic chance of new clause 11 being carried tonight. It will require the courage of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor in voting with us and his diligence in persuading some of his colleagues to join him. If he does that and new clause 11 is carried, it will be a decisive boost for better local government in Wales. It will give a democratic choice to people who live in Montgomery and Meirionnydd and to communities such as Port Talbot and Caerphilly. It will also be an object lesson
  644
  to the Government of the dangers that arise from their arrogant abuse of power. I hope that new clause 11 is carried.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I suspect that a more direct answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) would have been that it is not for Opposition parties to produce legislation that represents an acceptable consensus for the people of Wales. It is for the Government to produce legislation that is correct and represents a consensus acceptable to the population. The Government have failed to do that because the decision-making process that has led to the Bill in its present form, as it will probably be glossed by the amendments that are carried tonight, has been severely deficient.
  Had the referendum proposals been in place, the Government would have known exactly what the public felt in areas where Ministers know that there is passionate feeling about the future of local government and the community of which that local government has been a symbol for many centuries, as in areas such as Montgomeryshire.
  An advantage of a statutory referendum procedure as set out in new clause 11 is that it would be not the type of referendum that has been criticised in the "foreplay" to the Bill but a referendum conducted under objective rules made by the Government. The Government would have an opportunity to present their case to the people of the districts concerned and opposition to their proposals could also be voiced. A referendum would provide the Government with an informed decision by the population of districts such as Montgomeryshire and they could then decide, on the basis of that informed decision, whether it was right to proceed with their initial proposals.
  It would be a much better form of decision making than we have had. May I compare the influence on decisions which a referendum can have with the decision-making process in relation to the Bill?
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Bill as it emerged from Committee contains a proposal for a Montgomeryshire authority, which he and I supported. That much is certain. The measure that he now says he intends to support proposes merely a consultative referendum. Is that to be preferred to what is currently in the Bill?
  Mr. Carlile: Of course not. Had such a referendum been available, we would probably never have reached the proposals in the White Paper because the Government would have understood that they were wholly unacceptable. I do not want to repeat what has been said on many occasions, except for a few sentences. Within my constituency of Montgomeryshire, there is an overwhelming and passionate objection to the way in which the Government have ridden crudely roughshod over the views of my constituents.
  The anger felt in Montgomeryshire is reflected not just in the district council. Hundreds of people have written to me and a fair number have written to the Secretary of State. Representations made to Ministers have been courteously received, particularly by the Minister of State. Overwhelming expressions of opinion made through an opinion poll and a petition have shown beyond doubt that the decision-making process adopted by the Government simply did not produce a result that was representative of

  645
  the public's views. If we had at least consultative referendums under a statutory procedure, how much more reliable the Government's basis for legislation would be.
  Let us compare a referendum with what has happened. I should like to run through the chronology for a few moments.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I am aware of the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument and I appreciate that that might apply to Llanelli Hill, Ewenny or Wick. As I understand the force of his argument, he wants a separate Montgomeryshire authority. Does he agree that the wording of new clause 11 is such that there can be a referendum on the provisions only
  "so far as they affect the boundaries of any local government area",
  so there is no consolation or aim for his purpose in new clause 11, whatever other arguments he may have?
  Mr. Carlile: I did not draft new clause 11, but my understanding of it is that it does cover the point that I seek to make, and it seems to me to have been carefully drafted to answer the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  I shall turn to the chronology for a few moments. On 3 March 1992, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the then Secretary of State for Wales, made a statement in the House and issued a consultation paper. There had not been a referendum; had he held a referendum he would have found, unusually for his party, that he had virtually 100 per cent. support in my part of Wales at least. He said:
  "in the rural areas I want to see local government based on the traditional counties, such as Pembrokeshire, Montgomeryshire, Cardiganshire and Anglesey and, of course, we recognise the position of Meirionnyddshire and Carmarthenshire. I shall consult further on whether to extend that approach to separate authorities for Radnorshire and Brecknock."—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 171.]
  At that stage, therefore, the then Secretary of State was going to have, among others, a separate Montgomeryshire and a separate Meirionnyddshire. That was clearly stated.
  That was confirmed a short time later in a written answer to the then Member for Delyn, Mr. Raffan, who, I believe, has departed these shores to a more prosperous life across the Atlantic. The Secretary of State was asked to estimate how much money would be saved by moving to unitary local government in Wales. He replied:
  "My proposal for a structure of 23 unitary authorities is estimated to be cost neutral; I am placing in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office copies of the report submitted to me by financial consultants."—[Official Report, 16 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 904.]
  At that stage therefore, in spite of everything that has been said since about its being more expensive to have smaller unitary authorities, the then Secretary of State was saying that he was going to have 23 unitary authorities, which included Meirionnyddshire and Montgomeryshire. It was even accepted at that time that it was value for money. There was no need for a referendum at that stage because he would have had 100 per cent. support.
  Then we reached the 1992 general election. There was a frisson of anxiety among the Liberal Democrats in Montgomeryshire as David Hunt, at that time not a Member of Parliament but merely a candidate although still Secretary of State for Wales, came to Llanfechain and made a promise—a pledge—that Montgomeryshire would be a unitary authority. There was no need for a referendum
  646
  because we were having a general election. The Secretary of State at the time would not have said it if he did not think that it would win him votes. That was one of the purposes in saying it, although it is my view that the then Secretary of State meant every word he said, and has always meant every word he said on that subject, and I acquit him of any duplicity on the issue.
  Let us turn for a moment to the answer that was given in Committee in relation to the Llanfechain promise by the current Under-Secretary of State. He sought to present, on behalf of the—by then—former Secretary of State what appears to have been a plea in mitigation. I suspect that plea was not written by the former Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary said:
  "My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State has confirmed that his statements, which were made in a pre-election meeting, have been taken out of context. He did not pledge the Government to a Montgomeryshire unitary authority."
  4.30 pm
  At least if we had had a referendum, there would have been some record of the pledges and of their context. The context, of course, was a vote-winning meeting in a village called Llanfechain, and there was no possible contextual ambiguity about what the right hon. Member for Wirral, West said. The Under-Secretary continued:
  "Rather, he was looking forward to considering that on the basis of the proposals which he had already published from the Welsh Office or stated in the House. That was the position in 1992. There has been further consideration of the issues since then, especially those in the context of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. The Government have been convinced that Montgomeryshire was too small and that a Powys authority was in the best interests of local government and service delivery."
  I put it to the Minister that what he said in Standing Committee was simply inaccurate and that the Secretary of State in 1992 meant every word he said. It is time that we heard from a Minister the real reasons why the Government have ratted—why they have gone weasel on their words. It is time that we heard the truth.
  In revealing the real truth—I shall reveal it to the House in the next few moments—we shall see the difference between that truth and the way in which this matter would have been decided had there been a local referendum.
  On 14 April 1992, a significant event took place which I am sure that the Secretary of State will recall. That was the day the current Secretary of State for Wales was appointed Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities at the Department of the Environment. He became the Minister who most closely influenced discussions and decision making in relation to local government reform in England. Of course, we all know that our elective dictatorship, in the form of the Secretary of State for Wales, is somewhat diluted by the fact that many of the shots are called not in Cardiff or in Gwydyr house but in lead Departments in England. This is where we begin to see the insidious effect of the lead Department in England, which, to the relevant extent, was thenceforth led by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
  Then, in September 1992, the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance met. It was referred to by the Under-Secretary in Standing Committee on 19 April this year, when he said:
  "There has been further consideration of the issues since then, especially in the context of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 19 April 1994, c.105.]

  647
  In September 1992, the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance met and discussed the structures group work on service delivery. Following that meeting, Meirionnydd and Montgomery remained unitary authorities in the plans of Welsh Office Ministers.
  It is worth contrasting this shabby decision-making process with some questions that I tabled which were "answered" by the Secretary of State earlier this year. On 10 May, I asked him:
  "on what date his predecessor sent the draft White Paper, 'Local Government in Wales—a Charter for the Future', to other members of the Cabinet seeking their agreement to its publication".
  The right hon. Gentleman answered:
  "It is not the practice to give details of internal discussions on policy formulation."—[Official Report, 10 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 107.]
  On 16 May, I asked on what date the Government decided that the White Paper on local government in Wales should not contain proposals for unitary authorities for Meirionnydd and Montgomeryshire. The right hon. Gentleman answered—on behalf of this open Government:
  "It is not the practice to give details of internal discussions on policy matters.—[Official Report, 16 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 351.]
  One had to ask oneself, why, oh why, did this open Government, who believe in revealing the decision-making processes, decide not to tell when they changed their mind about whether there should be unitary Meirionnyddshire and Montgomeryshire?
  I turn now to some interesting information which, hitherto, was not in the public domain. It has been revealed to me by a source who plainly is very strongly against the outrageous decision-making process which we have suffered and which I continue to contrast with a process that would have included a referendum.
  My source has revealed matters which I challenge the Secretary of State to confirm or deny. It is true—but it would be nice to hear it confirmed honestly from the Government Front Bench—that, on 18 December 1992, the then Secretary of State sent a minute to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers about his proposals for the White Paper. In effect, it was the draft White Paper. What did it contain? Reference to a unitary Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire. December 1992 was close to the wire so far as the White Paper was concerned.
  On 13 January 1993, a private secretary in the Prime Minister's office, Mary Francis, wrote a letter to a private secretary at the Welsh Office, Judith Simpson. Hitherto, that letter has not been in the public domain. I shall quote from it, as a part of its contents has been revealed to me. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to check the authenticity of the letter. It reads:
  "Dear Judith"—
  that part being in manuscript—
  "Local Government Re-organisation in Wales"
  "The Prime Minister was grateful for your Secretary of State's minute of 18 December. He welcomes the broad outline of his proposals. He has, however, expressed concern about the following points and I would be grateful if you would clarify the position on them:
  (i) the new authorities will cover populations ranging from 34,000 to 295,000."
  Then the perfectly proper question is asked:
  "Is it feasible to expect such disparate areas to provide the same quality of service?"
  The point about that extract is that the reference to populations ranging from 34,000 to 295,000 makes it absolutely clear that, on that date–13 January 1993–the
  648
  Welsh Office was proposing, in its draft White Paper, a unitary Meirionnydd, a unitary Montgomery and, I believe, a unitary single Brecon and Radnor. If the Welsh Office had proposed a single Radnor, the range would have been smaller than 34,000 to 295,000. I am extremely grateful to whoever provided me with that information—I have no idea who it was—and for revealing to me what a dingy and vilely deceitful decision-making process, and I choose my words carefully, has been followed. I, and most of the people of Montgomeryshire, do not intend to pull any punches about what is happening to our county. We wish to contrast that process with what might have happened if we had had new clause 11 and a referendum procedure.
  The White Paper was issued on 1 March 1993. At some point between 13 January—when the letter from which I quoted was written—and 1 March, Montgomeryshire and Meironnyddshire were chopped. What happened and who made it happen? It is plain that Welsh Office Ministers were not responsible, because they were in favour of a unitary Montgomeryshire and a unitary Meirionnyddshire. It is also plain that the proposals went to the Department of the Environment—and equally plain that they would have been considered by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, then Minister for Local Government and Planning.
  What was the Minister worried about? It follows as night follows day: if the matter were being considered by a jury, that jury would scream "Guilty" at the right hon. Gentleman. I can see it all. The message sent back to the then Secretary of State for Wales was, 'We cannot have little authorities like this, or we shall end up with Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and such places as Clackmannanshire in Scotland." What have we now? We have Rutlandshire in England—the Government had to give way on that; we have Huntingdonshire in England, which was recommended because the Prime Minister represents the area; we have Clackmannanshire in Scotland. For some reason, however, the Welsh Office remains intransigent. One wonders why—for, by the time that the White Paper was produced, Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire had gone.
  Analysis of the statement made in the House by the then Secretary of State on 1 March 1993—the day of the White Paper's publication—makes it clear that the right hon. Gentleman was pretty embarrassed by what he had to present in the way of proposals for mid-Wales.
  What happened next? On 27 May 1993, the right hon. Member for Wokingham was promoted to the post of Secretary of State for Wales. I have chosen my words carefully, and I am sorry if the Secretary of State took offence when I spoilt a moment of his birthday, as he seemed to suggest this morning. It is clear that by the time that the Secretary of State arrived at the Welsh Office, Montgomeryshire's and Meirionnyddshire's prospects of becoming unitary authorities were nil, because the right hon. Gentleman was actuated by bias against small unitary authorities.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw all those scandalous allegations, for which he has not a shred of evidence. If he wants to know what my views were when I was Minister for Local Government and Planning, he need only turn up my speech to the Conservative party conference in the autumn of 1992,

  649
  which is a matter of public record. It made my position very clear—and it was very different from that which he described.
  Mr. Carlile: Then why did the Secretary of State not answer my questions on 10 May and 16 May, reported in Hansard at columns 107 and 351 respectively? What does he say about the letter from which I quoted, which has been leaked from some Department or other? What does he say about when the decision was changed? Will he tell us who changed it? If he is not the guilty party, he should let the people of mid-Wales—the people of Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire—know who the guilty party is. It is disgraceful that the Government should hide behind such shabby subterfuges, especially as we now have Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and, I believe, six other English authorities that are smaller than Montgomeryshire, as well as Clackmannanshire.
  It is noteworthy that, in his speech about the Bill in another place on 17 January—reported in column 364—Lord Rodger carefully avoided giving the Government's opinion. Every time he referred to Meirionnydd, in particular, he used the words "the Secretary of State" rather than "the Government"—"the Secretary of State" had justified the change in the decision. That was a very interesting and careful use of words by a distinguished and cautious lawyer, and I think that those words bear close examination.
  I shall withdraw my earlier words, with one proviso: the Secretary of State must recognise that the decision-making process has been severely defective and that he has gone against the will of the people of central Wales and Meirionnyddshire, and must agree to unitary authorities for Montgomeryshire and Meirionnyddshire. I shall withdraw my words then, and not until then.
  Until we have a better decision-making process, including statutory referendums, we shall be faced time and time again with similar disgraceful decisions by the elected dictatorship in the Welsh Office. Such decisions cause grave offence not only to Members of Parliament but to the very many members of the public whom we represent.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) again made the accusation that gerrymandering was behind the Government's policy in the Bill. The matter was addressed at length in Committee and I was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman raise it yet again—particularly as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) acknowledged that gerrymandering had probably not been the Government's objective.
  I am obliged to bring a number of factors to the hon. Gentleman's attention once more. First, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) acknowledged in Committee, there is no obvious likelihood that the three villages of Wick, Ewenny and St Bride's Major will be added to the Vale of Glamorgan parliamentary constituency. The Vale of Glamorgan already has some 67,000 electors and is the largest constituency in Wales. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the average electorate of the 40 proposed new constituencies in Wales is about 55,500; adding a further 3,000–plus electors to the Vale of
  650
  Glamorgan would make it wildly oversized. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West clearly understood that in Committee and it is a shame that such a simple message has not got through to the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West realised the logical effect of the requirements under which the boundary commission works. If those villages had come into the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority—in other words, if the Bill had been enacted by 1 June this year and the boundary commission had therefore based its recommendations on the revised county boundaries rather than the old ones—it is likely that, rather than those three communities being added to the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, the boundaries to both the west and the east of the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority would have been taken into account. That would have resulted in an electorate of 88,000. Surely the hon. Member for Caerphilly did not seriously think that there would be the remotest possibility of a constituency of that size being established.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West was probably right to observe, although I cannot see into the minds of the politically independent members of the boundary commission, that one way to deal with the matter would be to create two new parliamentary seats in the Vale of Glamorgan. Whether the Bill had been passed before 1 June or, as now seems likely, some time next month, the hon. Member for Caerphilly was wrong in his suggestion and I hope that he will have the generosity to withdraw his comments.
  Today, I received a letter from Mr. Jones, a constituent of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), containing a copy of a letter that he sent to Birds Garden Centre, a well-known firm in the Vale of Glamorgan. He stated that, because he was so annoyed about the prospect of becoming an elector in the new unitary authority of the Vale of Glamorgan, he would withdraw his custom from Birds. That is the level at which the debate has been conducted in those three communities, which fear that somehow they could be prevented from continuing their normal association with Bridgend. Those three villages will remain just as proximate to Bridgend and, with or without the Bill, their residents will be just as capable of going shopping in Bridgend. The very fact that Mr. Jones was able to threaten to withdraw his trade from Birds shows the connection between those three villages and the rural vale.
  People in those three villages live adjacent to villages in the existing Vale of Glamorgan and share common interests with them. The likelihood is that they will benefit from being in the Vale of Glamorgan because of the community of interest with the neighbouring rural communities.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: When the hon. Gentleman put those arguments to a public meeting at Brynteg comprehensive school in Bridgend, how many of the audience of between 175 and 200 voted with him?
  Mr. Sweeney: I can answer that only by placing my answer in the context of the meeting, which was chaired by Mr. David Unwin, a member of the public who has already been referred to in the debate and who is vehemently opposed to the Bill. He is a leading member of the Conservative organisation in the Bridgend constituency. I expected him to chair the meeting in an unbiased manner.

  651
  The hon. Gentleman and I were officially invited to the meeting to present our views. Mr. Unwin opened it by making a half-hour speech opposing the three villages coming into the Vale of Glamorgan. The hon. Member for Bridgend then spoke for a similar time before I could get a word in edgeways.
  That is the background to the vote, which was taken at the end of the meeting. The chairman first asked who was from the Vale of Glamorgan and they were not allowed to cast any vote. The fact that people voted against coming into the Vale of Glamorgan should be seen in that context.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: How many?
  Mr. Sweeney: I do not know how many people voted, but I accept that the people at the meeting were opposed to coming into the Vale. That is hardly surprising, given the context in which the discussion took place and the dismissiveness of one member of the audience when I said that people were likely to experience lower levels of council tax in the Vale of Glamorgan than if they remained in Bridgend and that they would have a shared community of interest with the neighbouring villages. Those arguments were ignored.
  I strongly object to the allegations made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and I hope that I have nailed his points once and for all.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I shall make some general remarks and then I shall be specific as I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
  We regretted the decision of the Secretary of State for Wales to break with tradition by insisting that the Committee did not consist solely of Welsh Members. For various reasons, many of us were unable to serve on the Committee that discussed the Bill and put our communities' case. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and others who could not sit on the Committee, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for the able way in which he put our case.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly that it was appalling that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) advanced principled arguments in support of the position in Powys but voted against that proposition and the logical argument on the south Wales valleys. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly was right to expose him today for his unprincipled stand.
  We may talk about principles, but there is one thing that I fail to understand about the Bill. It is patchwork quilt and it is inconsistent. During discussions, the previous Secretary of State asked us to present our opinions and then said that the Glamorgan valleys would be divided on a reasonable basis. Within a year, that was completely overturned. Even at this late stage, no good reasons have been presented for the structure that the Secretary of State proposes in the Bill. It is an inconsistent sham and a patchwork without any underlying principle.
  The one principle that the Minister put forward was that the Bill would set up unitary authorities. I have served on district and county councils. Having seen how they operate and the way in which they provide services, I believe that there should be two-tier local government.
  Since the publication of the Bill, my views have been justified. Its basic proposition relates to unitary authorities, but the Secretary of State says that unitary authorities are too small to carry out certain functions and that they have
  652
  to form joint boards. Perhaps the only consistent argument that the Secretary of State advanced was that the Glamorgan valleys have a mini county council with a population of about 250,000 people. It will probably be the only authority in south Wales that will be able to deliver all services itself. Every other unitary authority will have a second, unelected tier. It would have been far better if the Secretary of State had retuned local government in Wales instead of setting up a false structure that has no relationship to an overall authority in Wales.
  One problem for the Glamorgan valleys is that the Secretary of State has a "flat earth" mentality. He looks at the map and decides that Aberdare is only a couple of miles away from Maerdy, but fails to realise that there is a mountainous area between them. It is unbelievable that what we are debating will affect the delivery of intimate services. We shall be landed not with two-tier local government but with three-tier local government, and the area committees will mean even further divisions.
  When I made my case to the Secretary of State, he said that Rhondda could be an area committee within the Glamorgan valleys system. That is completely inconsistent, especially from a person renowned for his logic and clear thinking. If that is an example of clear thinking in relation to the business of Wales, we are being very badly served. Rhondda communities are aggrieved, and rightly so. For almost as long as local government has existed in its present form, Rhondda has been a single authority. Even under the previous reorganisation, it was not linked with another authority. Its boundaries remained inviolate because it is a particular and peculiar unit in itself.
  I am not arguing against my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—I congratulate them on having succeeded in making their case. However, if the arguments are good enough for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Blaenau Gwent, they are good enough for Taff-Ely, Rhondda and Cynon Valley. The illogicality of the proposals has been exposed for all to see.
  5 pm
  We are not engaged in a semantic or statistical game; we are setting a pattern for local government for the next century. Those of us who have served at all levels of local government know that we are discussing the delivery of vital services on which people depend in order to live a decent life. Local government looks after people and has always done so, almost from their birth until the day that they die. That is what we are discussing; the Bill is not a statistical exercise and it is certainly not a semantic one. The Secretary of State has let down the people of Wales and he has especially let down the people of Rhondda and of the valley communities.
  Mr. John Morris: The amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) aim to delete Port Talbot from the proposed Neath/Port Talbot part of Lliw unitary area. I also support new clause 11, which would provide self-determination for the many communities in Wales that are incensed by the present proposals. If that principle were accepted, it would go a long way to meet our needs.
  I am grateful that our amendments have been selected because, despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, he failed to persuade a majority of the Committee to support other amendments to the same effect

  653
  —we lost by 14 votes to 11. The reason was that the Government not only moved the goalposts but changed the venue. Although the Bill deals solely with Welsh matters, the Government packed the Committee with English Conservative Members who had no interest in the issues but merely carried out their obligation to support the Government, come what may. Like Pavlov's dogs, when the bell rang they voted no. Welsh Labour Members, who comprise the overwhelming majority of Welsh representatives, were denied places on that Committee, and that is the democratic deficit in decision-making on the structure of local government in Wales.
  The result is clearly linked to the absence of a Welsh assembly, which is to be the subject of our next debate. Local government would have been the responsibility of that assembly, and those who would have known about such things—because they would have been democratically elected—would have been able properly to determine the needs of local government in Wales. Alas, there is no Welsh assembly, and decisions are therefore taken by a succession of English Secretaries of State. I sometimes wonder how much better the decision-making process is since the coming of the Welsh Office.
  Given that we have had a series of English Secretaries of State, I should like to know who is really behind the proposals. It cannot be the Secretary of State because he would not know anything about the issues and had not heard of our problems before he got his little Cabinet place to represent Wales. Are junior Ministers responsible? I suspect that they would not have the interest, energy or zeal to cut across clearly defined local views, as has happened to my constituents. Is the political adviser to the Secretary of State responsible? He was my Conservative opponent at the previous election. He should certainly know better, although, when a delegation came to see him and the Secretary of State's predecessor, he excelled himself by sitting on the fence. If it is not the democratically elected people who are responsible, who is the grey figure in the Welsh Office who has made this determination?
  I compare what is happening in Wales with what is happening in England. It is fascinating to learn that each household is to be consulted. There is certainly a divergence in the recommendations of the commission under Sir John Banham. We never had a commission, but I was one of those who advocated it. I was especially interested to read Sir John Banham's letter to The Times on 22 March. He wrote:
  "It will be most unwise to press ahead with changes to create unitary authorities unless there is clear local support for change and there are local champions for particular local situations."
  The reasons adduced for the resurrection of Rutland are fascinating—it is argued that there is a strong sense of community felt by local residents. We want to know how Port Talbot and Neath differ; so far, the Secretary of State has failed the test.
  I have not time today to tell the House, as I did on Second Reading, about the results of polls, inquiries and tests that were conducted locally in Port Talbot and Neath in order to ascertain local opinion. Sir John Banham makes it clear that it would be "most unwise" to proceed unless there were clear local champions for change. If the Secretary of State could tell me who the local champions for change in Port Talbot and Neath are, I should be delighted to hear him—in the face of the unanimity of
  654
  views of members of the public, the leaders of local government and the councils, of whatever hue or political persuasion. Do not we, like Rutland, have the strong sense of community that lies behind the Banham commission's determination?
  The Secretary of State put the cat among the pigeons with his death-bed—or pre-shuffle—repentance to allow Merthyr to survive. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on their efforts, but I suppose that the Secretary of State wanted to show that he was a responsive and sensitive man and decided to give something away, just like old-fashioned colonial Governments did to pacify the natives.
  How do we differ? In his letter to me on 28 April, the Secretary of State, with reference to our population, economic regeneration and efforts to attract new industry, could say only:
  "I am not convinced by the claim, in the document you sent me, that there is any justification for a population growth prediction for Port Talbot. Although the population figures for Merthyr and Port Talbot tell a fairly similar story during the 1980s, Merthyr's population had by the beginning of the 1990s recovered to the level of the early 1980s. This cannot be said of Port Talbot."
  What is the position? The drop in population has been arrested and is now being reversed, but the House should know what caused the drop in population in the 1980s. It was a Tory Government, under such luminaries as Keith Joseph—now Lord Joseph—Lord Walker, and Lord Howe, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, who decimated our steel industry and we lost 7,500 jobs in a matter of years. In response, they provided only a totally inadequate amount of alternative jobs. That is where the responsibility lies. The young people walked with their feet or, as Lord Tebbit would have it, they got on their bikes to find work.
  Today, there is a change. With first-class communications and despite the fact that the Government have taken away our development status, there is an increase in population and 655 more dwellings have been constructed in Port Talbot in the past six years, compared with 22 in the previous six years. The Registrar-General has been proved wrong in his forecast, because he estimated that the population in 1990 would be 48,800 whereas, in fact, at the last census in 1991, it was 51,000. The Secretary of State has failed to take into account what is happening. With all due regard to Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent—I have done a little in my time to help and support regeneration in those areas—I do not think that it is understood that, given our situation and our communications, the potential is much greater in any area contiguous to the sea than in an area which does not have those communications and advantages.
  In the years ahead, when the economy recovers—it has not recovered yet for us—we shall see a dramatic upturn in the population. The period of severe difficulties in the early 1980s is history. The availability of good industrial sites, the improved attractiveness of the borough as a place in which to live and, especially, the provision of quality housing, is changing the whole situation. It is for the Secretary of State to justify the case for change. The onus is on him. Sir John Banham makes it clear in that letter from The Times, from which I quoted, that the responsibility is on those who propose a change. I fear that the blinkered response of the Government, their failure to take account of strongly held local views and the way in

  655
  which they have ignored completely the change that is taking place in our population and our hopes and prospects for the future will result in grave disappointment tonight in Neath and in Port Talbot over what the Government are doing to those two great boroughs.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I rise to support the two new clauses as one who served for a couple of years on what was one of the old county boroughs in Wales—Merthyr. I am delighted to see that back as a unit in its own right. The lessons that are relevant to Merthyr are relevant elsewhere as well. Community matters very much in Wales and we want to see units of government that respond as closely as possible to natural communities.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned, had we had an elected Welsh parliament or an assembly which drew up a scheme for local government, I have no doubt that there would have been a much greater sensitivity towards the need to identify with communities, because the people in such an assembly would have grown from those communities themselves.
  That brings us to the basic question—new clause 11, in referring to a referendum, touches on it—of the legitimacy of the proposals before us. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to the elected dictatorship in the Welsh Office. Of course, the Secretary of State is not even elected from within the community of Wales, the future of which we are discussing.
  If hon. Members agree that, as I would certainly claim, our authority to speak in this place or, indeed, to speak in any forum, be it a local authority or a Parliament, comes from the people, the legitimacy of these changes and the rights of the people who are so much affected by the changes to the local government structure of a community within which those services will be delivered must grow from the people whom the changes serve.
  The new structures of local government must identify with the communities that they serve and must have the support of the people who live in them. That is the basic difference between Conservative Members and some Opposition Members. Across the Opposition parties, we believe that our sovereignty and legitimacy grow from the people upwards and not from institutions down. Therefore, especially in drawing up structures of government, there must be an identification with the wishes of people.
  5.15 pm
  Clearly, on that basis, and especially if the attempt to do away with the change agreed in Committee, which rescued Montgomeryshire, is successful and the unit of Powys comes back into existence, the proposals before us are a model of local government which falls between two stools. We shall have unitary local government authorities that are too large to be truly local and too small, in some ways, to be strategic authorities.
  The whole point of the exercise was to try to get a more efficient system of government. I listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) saying that he believed in a two-tier system of local government. I understand his reasons and I understand the lack of the legitimacy of joint authorities taking decisions, which is one stage removed from democracy, but there is a strong argument for having unitary authorities, provided that they are the right size and are drawn up with the right borders. As I saw when I served in Merthyr, there was an ability to bring together housing
  656
  and social services, for example, where so many of the problems have a commonality. However, for that system to work, the units must be regarded as local by the population.
  Clearly, in the case of Montgomeryshire and Meirionnydd, there is a great groundswell of feeling that the proposed unit is not a unit of local government in the sense in which the people of those two areas regard local government. I suspect that the same thing may well be true in Brecon and Radnor and I recognise that it is true in historic communities such as the Rhondda and, indeed, in areas such as Taff Ely. If people in those areas of Montgomery, Meirionnydd and the Rhondda feel so strongly about their identity and if the proposed unit is the unit of government, the provisions of the new clause should be made available so that those people may have the final word on the structure of local government, or at least on the boundaries of the local government authorities within which they will operate.
  Indeed, if the people of Dwyfor or Arfon or any other part of Wales feel that way, such mechanisms should be made available. To achieve any authenticity to the changes that the Secretary of State is putting forward, given the widespread and deeply held feelings that have been expressed, he would be well advised to take up the new clause. If he is not happy with the wording, there is an opportunity to change it in another place, but if we do not put the new clause into the Bill at this stage, that opportunity will be lost.
  May I move from the generality of the size of units to the implications of new clause 2, which raises the question of the identification of communities in the new unitary authorities in which they have been placed? There is no doubt that, in many parts of Gwynedd, people in the communities there feel that they should be in an adjacent area.
  I have received representations from people in places such as Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr who identify with the old Caernarfonshire and the Arfon area. I know that parts of the Conwy valley have expressed similar sentiments. At different times, people in parts of Edeyrnion have expressed similar feelings. Those feelings may or may not be reflected by the relevant community councils. That point was made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). He said that the matter should be one for a community meeting rather than simply for a community council so that the grassroots feeling about the proposal could be ascertained.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that there are communities, particularly at the southern end of the Aberconwy and Colwyn area, which are very rural. They are Welsh-speaking communities and they identify more closely with the old Caernarfonshire and the type of authority that is likely to come about there than with the seaside towns of Colwyn Bay and Llandudno. I am not making a value judgment about the two areas, but the people I am talking about identify with a different community. They would like to find a mechanism whereby that identity could be recognised.
  The Government's response will be that those points may be considered afterwards by boundary commissioners. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the proposals will become tablets of stone. Only in very remote circumstances would drastic changes be made. Flexibility should be built into the Bill now.
  New clauses 2 and 11 provide the Government with the opportunity to be flexible. If the Government refuse to

  657
  accept the new clauses, it will be impossible to have a structure that is more finely tuned in terms of the new units of unitary government and the borders that allow communities to identify with a particular unitary authority.
  For those reasons, my colleagues and I will support the new clauses. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to find the sensitivity to the wishes of the people of Wales, locally in their communities, that the people certainly deserve.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Just a week ago, I undertook a successful foray into north Wales on a beautiful summer's day. I felt certain that we were going to win that particular seat. At the time, I was travelling through the Mid and West Wales constituency which, I knew from earlier election activity, we were going to win.
  As I travelled along, my mood changed from delight to elation as I heard the Secretary of State for Wales speaking on the radio. With regard to the European elections, he said:
  "I am happy to accept the verdict of the electorate. I take them seriously."
  I was so amazed by that that I stopped the car to take his words down before I forgot them. I wanted to ensure that I could quote them to him exactly this afternoon.
  On that basis, I speak with some confidence today that the Secretary of State, even at this 1 1 th hour and 59th minute, will be prepared to change his mind about the communities of Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick in respect of which I have tabled amendments.
  What is the will of those three communities? They have expressed their will in five ways. Ogwr borough council conducted a postal ballot in which 80 per cent. of the people said that they wanted to stay with Bridgend in a turnout of nearly 60 per cent. Some 84 per cent. of the businesses that responded stated that they wanted to stay with Bridgend.
  Ogwr and Vale of Glamorgan borough councils or-ganised meetings in each of the communities as a result of which, 93.3 per cent. of those who attended wanted to stay in Bridgend, with only 2.5 per cent. opting for the Vale. The Electoral Reform Society organised a ballot. In Ewenny, 89.7 per cent. voted to stay with Bridgend on a turnout of almost 80 per cent. In St. Bride's Major, 87.8 per cent. voted to stay with Bridgend on a 75 per cent. turnout and in Wick, 81.2 per cent. voted to stay with Bridgend on a 75 per cent. turnout.
  Between 175 and 200 people attended the famous—or infamous—public meeting at which the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) put the case for moving into the Vale of Glamorgan. Although the hon. Gentleman spoke at length in reply to my intervention, he failed to mention the fact that only one person from those three communities at that meeting supported the hon. Gentleman's view. The rest clearly wanted to stay with Bridgend.
  Mr. Sweeney: As I made clear in my speech to the House, some members of the public at the meeting were not allowed to vote because they came from the Vale of Glamorgan and not from the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
  Mr. Griffiths: The three communities should decide their own fate. Even if the people from the Vale of
  658
  Glamorgan had voted, I hazard a guess that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan would have had difficulty achieving double figures in support of his case.
  In the wake of public opinion, it is also interesting to contrast two elections that took place in those communities. The first took place in 1991 before the proposals came to light and the other took place in 1993 after they came to light.
  In the borough council elections in 1991, the Labour candidate managed to poll 187 votes while the top Tory received 502 votes. That was before the proposals saw the light of day. In the county council elections in the same area, the Labour candidate received 1,082 votes while the Conservative candidate received 935 votes. That Conservative candidate also supported the case that those three communities should be part of the Bridgend unitary authority.
  Mr. Sweeney: Is not it fair to say that there are many different reasons why people vote in elections? If the hon. Gentleman wants to be strictly logical, based on the information that he has provided, it would appear that the Conservative candidate was defeated in the county council elections because that person supported Labour policy on the matter rather than the Government's policy.
  Mr. Griffiths: The Labour candidate wanted the communities to remain part of Bridgend. For the first time ever, the seat was won by the Labour party despite the spirited efforts of the Conservative candidate to make it clear that she was totally opposed to her Government's policy and that she would like the areas to remain with Bridgend. In that context, one could argue that 100 per cent. of the voters were opposed to the Government's policy in that area.
  The two borough councillors representing the area and living in it are totally opposed to the Government's proposals. My hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) mentioned the letter from Councillor David Unwin, the leader of the Conservative group on Ogwr borough council and chairman of one of the community councils involved in the fight. He made clear his total opposition to what the Government are trying to do.
  Other people have been involved. Reference has been made to Mr. Trevor Jones, who, as part of his campaign, is not even prepared to spend money in the Vale of Glamorgan any more because he is so disgusted with what the Government are doing. In a letter to the Western Mail of 13 June, he says:
  "As a result, my wife and I, and our five children of voting age, will not consider voting Conservative again until the policy is reversed and the people of Wick, St Brides Major and Ewenny are told they are to remain with Bridgend.
  The persons who have influenced our decisions are … Secretary of State for Wales"
  together with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan
  "and other Conservative members of the Standing Committee of the Local Government (Wales) Bill now before Parliament."
  5.30 pm
  In addition, the three communities publicly made clear their opposition in the Western Mail. Very interestingly, a most distinguished former president and chairman of the Bridgend Conservative Association, Mr. Forbes Hayes, also wrote to the Western Mail, saying:
  "I write as a life-time resident of the Bridgend area, where I and my family have developed many interests, including substantial industries, and as a strong Conservative, having been

  659
  constituency chairman."
  He went on to say that he totally opposes the proposals. On top of that, he rang me in the House of Commons yesterday and said, "Make sure that you tell the House that I will not maintain my membership of the Conservative party, that I will give no more money to the Conservative party, and that I will encourage as many people as I can to do exactly the same unless the proposals are reversed."
  It is quite clear that the Government are virtually friendless in those three communities. Of course, the Government have tried to argue why that should be. In the House of Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, speaking for the Opposition, clearly showed how the Government were disingenuous and even deceitful in the notes on clauses. In respect of the communities of Cynwyd and Llandrillo, the Government said:
  "These amendments reflect the weight of representations from the areas concerned".
  On Delyn, the notes stated:
  "The decision to amend the White Paper proposals to include in Flintshire the whole of Delyn reflects the overwhelming weight of local opinion".
  On Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf, the notes stated:
  "The communities of Ystradgynlais and Tawe Uchaf have been added to Mid-Wales since the White Paper was published in accordance with the strongly expressed wishes of local residents".
  In some of those changes, the Government did not even have the evidence of a referendum; they had only letters from community councils. In the case of my three communities, they had other forms of evidence, yet in their notes on clauses they chose only to say:
  "largely rural and agricultural, have more in common with the Vale of Glamorgan authority than with the town of Bridgend and with the industrialised valleys to its north".
  The Government should have added, "Even though the overwhelming weight of opinion is to remain with Bridgend, we nevertheless ignore it." That is what the Government are doing.
  The Government have argued in letters to me and to my constituents and in the House of Lords that the Vale of Glamorgan is more used to dealing with small rural communities. The truth is that in Ogwr there are six community council areas with smaller populations than that of St. Bride's Major, the biggest of the three communities. In the Vale of Glamorgan, there is only one community with a smaller population than that of St. Bride's Major. The Government also told me in a written answer that they did not know the size of those communities, even though they were writing to tell people that it was because of the preponderance of small communities in the Vale of Glamorgan that they were making the change. The reverse was true.
  On the issue of rurality, according to designations for planning, more of the Vale of Glamorgan–20 per cent. —is regarded as a built-up area, whereas the built-up area in Ogwr is just 15.4 per cent. People working in agriculture account for 1 per cent. in Ogwr and just over 1 per cent. in the Vale of Glamorgan. About 20 councillors in Ogwr represent rural areas as opposed to industrial areas, and about 20 councillors represent rural areas in the Vale of Glamorgan. On rurality, there is very little to choose between the two areas.
  The Government were forced into arguing about the snow plough from the Vale of Glamorgan going half a mile along the road to clear snow in the community of Wick in Mid Glamorgan. The truth is that that has never happened. Mid Glamorgan always clears snow from roads in Mid
  660
  Glamorgan in the borough of Ogwr. The only reason that the snow plough from the Vale of Glamorgan goes into Ogwr is in order to find a place to turn around to go back into the Vale of Glamorgan.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry also said in the other place that some people in those three communities
  "sometimes advertise their houses as being in the Vale"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 1737.]
  —not all, not many but just some—and that that was another good reason to make the change. He also said, rather amazingly, that the communities of St. Bride's Major and Wick were nearer to the community of Colwinston than they were to the community of Bridgend. He could just as easily have said that the community of Colwinston was nearer to Wick and St. Bride's Major than it was to Barry. We are seeing a mirror image of that debate, with the Government totally ignoring the will of the people.
  Historically—since 1093—those three communities have been a part of the Bridgend area, and the Government are trying to wrest it from its historical place. As for the geography, those three communities are far closer to Bridgend than to Barry. For some people, it is only a 10–minute walk to the centre of Bridgend. If they tried to walk to Barry, it would take them a day and a half. There are many reasons why the change should be made.
  On top of that, there are fears about schools and about the health service. Although to some extent the market could mitigate against some effects, there are problems in both areas.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will be true to his words and will be happy to accept the verdict of the electorate and take it seriously by saying today that the three communities will remain with the Bridgend unitary authority.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Like my constituents and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I, too, can see no logic in the Secretary of State's unwillingness to grant unitary status to Taff Ely. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I would point out that when we see a snow plough it is usually because it is lost.
  The Secretary of State's decision smacks of inconsistency in terms of the comparison of the size of the districts that are proposed, their populations, the nature and quality of the services offered by district authorities and the history of existing local government structures. I have been among the least enthusiastic of right hon. and hon. Members to see the demise of our county authorities. I do not relish seeing the wider duties which their excellent staff and work forces now fulfil in many areas of public life, from the provision of special needs education to strategic communications, farmed out to much smaller, less powerful authorities and all kinds of dubious proposed joint committees and assorted quangos.
  Last Saturday, I attended a fete at the estimable Pentyrch primary and junior school. I spoke to parents of disabled children who have been integrated at no little cost into the mainstream of pupils at that school. Those parents are extremely worried about the implications for their children's education of the proposals for local government reorganisation. Indeed, many people in that village and its neighbour, Gwaelod y Garth, are worried about being delivered lock, stock and barrel from Taff Ely and from Mid Glamorgan into Cardiff. Taff Ely is worried about

  661
  losing Pentyrch and Gwaelod y Garth. We need high-quality, high-value housing located in those communities if we are to attract the managers and executives who are now required by an advanced economy. We need the beautiful rural countryside and the drama of the limestone gorge of the lower Taff valley. They are key assets to our borough. The people of those communities have always been part of the valleys, industrially and culturally; they have never been part of the flat lands of Greater Cardiff.
  At least the name Taff has been retained in the proposed title of the new authority, Rhondda, Cynon, Taff. RCT —it sounds like a breakaway from the railwaymen's union. But the Ely component of Taff Ely has disappeared completely—as though the communities of Tonyrefail, Coedely, Llantrisant and Pontyclun have been beamed up at the request of some Vulcan warlord. It has taken 20 years to integrate the old districts of the Taff valley, such as the town of Pontypridd, with those of the Ely valley. Now that Taff Ely thinks of itself as a viable administrative entity, it is about to be subsumed into this proposed triple alliance.
  The citizens in my constituency view the Secretary of State's proposals with mistrust. They want much greater assurances about the future integrity and security of their health, education and welfare services before they accept the proposals as a blueprint for the sort of future to which they aspire.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall be brief. I merely endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said when he argued the case for Port Talbot and what my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will say when he argues the case for Neath. I was able to put the case for Llanelli. As Lord Howe pointed out in another place, Llanelli, Port Talbot and Neath are the same kind of communities. All of them still have an industrial base. About 30 per cent. of the people of Llanelli work in what is described as productive industry; I imagine that the figures for Port Talbot and Neath are about the same.
  My right hon. and learned Friend argued the case for Port Talbot in the House; he was not able to argue the case in Committee because he was not a member. When I argued the case for Llanelli, I believe that, together with those on the Labour Front Bench, I won the argument, but we lost the vote by one. The arguments that have been made in the House today are the same as those that were made in Committee.
  Neath and Port Talbot are put together as two industrialised communities. The concern in Llanelli is that, because it is an industrialised community, it will be subsumed in a greater Carmarthenshire, which is a large agricultural and rural area. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with rural areas, but their problems are quite different, as we discussed in Committee.
  As the Minister knows well, there is real concern that projects such as the regeneration of south Llanelli and the redevelopment of the Llanelli town centre will be hindered and put back as a result of the reorganisation. I ask the Secretary of State again at this late stage to reconsider the case for Llanelli—just as my hon. Friend the Member for Neath will argue for Neath and just as my right hon. and
  662
  learned Friend the Member for Aberavon argued for his constituency—because of the industrial character of the Llanelli constituency.
  Mr. Peter Hain: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) put with great eloquence the case for keeping Port Talbot as a separate institution. The amendments that he has tabled, and which I support, would achieve that objective and leave Neath standing free, together with upper Lliw. That is a much more logical alternative to the spatchcock proposal put forward by the Secretary of State.
  I shall make several brief points. First, there is real anger in Neath at the Government's failure to listen to local wishes—they have been expressed unanimously, even by local Conservatives—as regards the retention of Neath as a separate borough. That unanimous opinion, which has been measured in opinion polls and surveys—and, indeed, in the submissions made to the Secretary of State on this matter—has been completely ignored and trampled on.
  There is real anger, too, about the hypocrisy of English Tories who will vote tonight completely to ignore the wishes of communities in Wales while they are objecting to the Government's proposals for similar local government reform in England. Four members of the Committee—the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley)—are on record as criticising or flatly opposing the Government's proposals for their own communities in England, but they are completely ignoring the wishes of local people in Wales.
  Another individual whose action has been greeted with anger in Neath is the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who asked for and received the support of the Labour Members on the Committee. He supports the retention of autonomy in the communities within Powys in a separately identifiable sense but refuses to support that, same principle with regard to Neath, Port Talbot, Rhondda, Taff and the other communities that have been identified. The logic of the principle applies equally to those communities.
  The Secretary of State completely failed to mention the fact that Neath is second only to Cardiff as the longest-standing and most historic borough in Wales. That has been ignored. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for the way in which he, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), achieved separate authorities for those areas. There is no logical reason why, if those areas have been granted separate status as unitary authorities, Neath could not have been as well.
  5.45 pm
  There is a serious point underlying all these boundary questions. Local authorities are vital mechanisms for acquiring and reproducing democratic legitimacy for local people in their structures of government. Last week, the miserable turnout in the European Union elections showed how little legitimacy those institutions have among the people of this country and, indeed, the whole of western Europe. If we have artificial communities which have no serious common interests—in the case of Neath and Port Talbot, there is a lot of traditional and historic rivalry—and which are forced together, we cease to have the legitimacy

  663
  on which democracy is built. These communities are proud; that is why their democracies thrive locally. The Secretary of State has completely failed to recognise that in his proposals.
  Mr. Llew Smith: I shall be brief because the question of Llanelli dominated the debate in Committee. Indeed, some hon. Members have suggested that the title of the Bill should be changed from the Local Government (Wales) Bill to the Local Government (Llanelli Community) Bill.
  The original proposal was that the Llanelli community should be part of Powys. That was crazy because, as I emphasised in Committee, that would mean that local councillors attending meetings during the week would be away from home for six days. Even the Government recognised that that was not on. As a result of the campaign conducted by the borough council, the community council and the local people, the Government backed down.
  The local people are now asking for a say in determining their destiny in response to the Government's decision that Llanelli community should be part of the borough of Monmouth. What I am doing is expressing the feelings of the local community. If I were speaking in terms of party political advantage, I would be supporting the Government's proposals, because, if the Llanelli community went into the borough of Monmouth, both the borough of Monmouth and the Monmouth constituency would be Labour controlled after the next local and general elections. While we obviously welcome that, we are still willing to put aside party advantage and express the wishes of the people.
  The people of Llanelli wish to be part of Blaenau Gwent because of the history and traditions of the community. They are mainly employed in the coal and steel industries, as are the people in the borough of Blaenau Gwent. The people of Llanelli wish to be part of the borough of Blaenau Gwent because housing, environmental health and financial services are only three miles away from their little community. They wish to be part of the borough of Blaenau Gwent because Blaenau Gwent has objective 2 status and previously had development area status. Obviously, they want to be part of that. Indeed, not long ago the Government recognised that they should have been part of it.
  We are saying that we have to create local government boundaries in such a way that local people can relate to the decision makers and feel they have some control over them. If the Llanelli community becomes part of Blaenau Gwent, people will feel that they have some say in their destiny. If the Government insist that it should go to Monmouth, they will no longer get that feeling: they will become divorced from local government decision making and will be dejected as a result.
  Mr. Roger Evans: I am driven to rise to my feel as a result of the speech made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). It may have escaped the notice of some hon. Members that I represent Llanelly Hill in Parliament. I presented a petition signed by 1,900 out of nearly 3,000 electors expressing a preference for being in Monmouthshire. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the fact that Blaenau Gwent lost the referendum in Llanelly Hill and that Monmouthshire won it. I know that there can be all sorts of explanations when opinion polls or referendums do not meet the purposes for which they were devised—
  Mr. Llew Smith rose—
  Mr. Evans: I shall not give way because I am going to sit down. The Government should be congratulated on recognising the majority sentiments in Llanelly Hill.
  Mr. Redwood: After three years of consulting, weeks in Committee and full debates in the House and the other place, Labour has come back with a half-baked proposal that would throw Welsh local government back into chaos and uncertainty. The House would not know how things might end up. Staff of local authorities would have to suffer further delays before knowing the final shape of Welsh local government. They would be far from happy should Labour succeed in winning the vote on the new clause and we oppose it strongly on that and other grounds.
  The hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Neath (Mr. Hain), the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and those representing Taff Ely and Port Talbot talked of their wishes for their communities to have separate councils. I understand their passion and their advocacy, but they must understand that a balance has to be struck between community identity, which is very strong in many of the communities of Wales—communities far smaller than those represented tonight in this debate—and cost and service delivery issues, which are also important.
  Had we come before the House with proposals for many more councils, Opposition Members would, I am sure, have made great play of the extra costs and staff involved and the problems of delivering certain services. As it was, they made enough play of some of those.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Before the Secretary of State goes further, can he explain the logic of dividing Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent and putting together Rhondda, Cynon and Taff Ely?
  Mr. Redwood: In each case, where one should draw the line is a difficult judgment. I decided that the separate history and former status of Merthyr, which is different from that of the other boroughs that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned, were sufficient reason, given its size and the other considerations brought to my attention. That was the judgment that I put before the House and that Ministers put in Committee.
  A judgment has to be made in each case. Wherever we draw the line, people will say that we have drawn it in the wrong place. They will say, "Why can't I have my local community, with a separate unitary council?" or "Why have you so many local councils? Won't it be too expensive? Wouldn't it be better to have bigger ones to deliver the services?" We have to find that balance, which is what we are recommending to the House.
  Clause 6 of the Bill and section 55 of the Local Government Act 1972 contain provisions for the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales to undertake an initial review of the electoral arrangements of all the new unitary authorities as soon as possible after the first elections and of those boundaries where anomalies are thought to remain.
  I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that the boundary commission is an objective body, which can take a dispassionate view of any outstanding issues. We believe that we have the structure right and we are recommending it to the House.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State saying that the boundary commission could consider the three communities that he seems determined to take out of Bridgend and decide to put them back?
  Mr. Redwood: The boundary commission can come to its own conclusions within its terms of reference. Those terms enable it to review boundaries where it thinks that it needs to suggest an alternative proposal.
  I want to clear up some of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He was right to say that there had been representations to the Welsh Office for an independent Montgomery. He omitted to mention the fact that similar representations had been made in favour of a maintained Powys. He made no mention of the shire committee proposals which I introduced to balance community identity with service delivery.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is wrong in his general allegations. He knows that they are wrong and he should withdraw them. If he is interested in my views at the time that I was Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, he should look at the public record. I have managed to procure a copy of my main speech on the subject in October 1992—just before the time when he purports to represent my views—at a party conference. It was a clear statement of my views. I said that the purpose of the review in England was not to carve the country up into a certain number of administrative units of a given size, whatever peoples' feelings and wishes. I went on to say:
  "In 1973 they decided the county of Rutland should be abolished because it was too small, but then they invented the county of the Isle of Wight, which was smaller than their model."
  I specifically said:
  "Somerset, Herefordshire, Rutland, Huntingdonshire, the Ridings of Yorkshire, if you want your past to become your future say so and your wish can be granted."
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) would confirm that I was always very sympathetic to the case that he was making.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: First, does the Secretary of State recognise that his shire committee proposals, as they appear in the amendments tonight, contain no financial guarantees for shire committees? Why is that so?
  On his second point, if the right hon. Gentleman claims that he was, and remains, in favour of small unitary authorities such as Rutland and Huntingdonshire, why is he not in favour of small unitary authorities such as Montgomeryshire or Meirionnyddshire? Where is the logic in what he is saying? Let him tell the House how the Government changed their mind between early January 1993 and 1 March 1993. What were the reasons for that change of mind and who influenced it?
  Mr. Redwood: The reasons for the new approach were set out by the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt). The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to know that no Government—Labour, Liberal or Conservative—ever make available internal minutes or correspondence between colleagues when they are reaching judgments that they then come to the House to defend.
  I am not going to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman who intervened on what occasion in the debate. I can give him a strong promise and guarantee that I had my views,
  666
  which I expressed at the time in public, on English local government reform. His allegations are untrue and he should withdraw them. I hope that, on reflection, he will do so. He did not produce a shred of evidence to support the contention that I intervened and caused a change of heart. Will he think again about the allegation? Does he seriously suggest that a Minister of State in an English Department can instruct a Secretary of State for Wales without recourse to the Cabinet and collective discussion? He is living in cloud cuckoo land in suggesting that.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I told the Secretary of State that I would be perfectly prepared to withdraw my allegation if we were told who was responsible for the change of mind. Does he deny that pressure was put on the Welsh Office by Ministers who were not Welsh Office Ministers to change its mind?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not intend to reproduce debates in the Government at that time. The decision was made by the Government. The then Secretary of State for Wales was happy with it. The proposals were his, he presented and defended them, and I have carried them on, with some modifications of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware. He knows that those modifications included certain boundary changes, to reflect the wishes of communities and the consultation evidence that we received and the introduction of more local identity through shire committees and—the biggest change of all —of an independent Merthyr.
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I do not have time to give way. We must wrap up this debate so that we can get on to the other important business, which I know that Opposition Members want to discuss.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in his place because he talked a great deal about the importance of democracy, and I entirely agree. I was interested, therefore, to receive a letter from Russell Goodway, the leader of South Glamorgan county council, urging me to support the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I find Mr. Goodway's view of democracy, as reported in the South Wales Echo, quite astonishing. The South Glamorgan leader is reported to have said:
  "The Tories promised cuts in public spending, so it seems to me that people who voted for those cuts should get them. That's democratic in my view."
  I phoned Mr. Goodway to tell him that I was going to mention this, and he claimed that he was misreported. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will make it clear in the next debate that when he stands for democracy, he stands strongly behind the idea that anyone who is elected has to be fair in the interests of all constituents, and that includes being fair to Conservative wards in Labour-controlled councils. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will dissociate himself from Mr. Goodway's view.
  6 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I assure the Secretary of State that I would deplore any proposition that any local authority, or Government for that matter, seeks to use the financial resources at its disposal to reward people of its own persuasion.
  I shall put the record straight, however. The precise words used by Russell Goodway were:

  667
  "It is very difficult to understand those people who vote for a Government that is committed to reducing the resources necessary to deliver services then expecting councils to have money, in other words when they vote they have been expecting cuts in services."
  The quotes attributed to him were quite inaccurate.
  Mr. Redwood: I am glad to hear that particular interpretation of Mr. Goodway's remarks. None the less, the remarks are a little less than edifying from one who tries to represent a large and important area of Wales. It is small step from what the hon. Gentleman reports to the remarks which the newspaper claims were made. [Interruption.] I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I told the House that Mr. Goodway claimed that he was misreported, and there I shall leave the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am sure that my hon. Friends will be interested in that statement, and in the reformulation of it which has clarified the record.
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to criticise a person in such an appalling way and, when corrected, not even to have the grace to withdraw?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The Secretary of State is responsible for his own speech.
  Mr. Redwood: I contacted Mr. Goodway, who knew I was making the remarks. I did say that he thought that he had been misreported.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) dealt effectively with the points of the hon. Member for Bridgend on the communities. He made out a very good case for the three communities being part of the Vale, and he clearly disproved the idea that he was motivated by parliamentary electoral considerations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) also made a good point about the community of Llanelly Hill. Some Opposition Members have not quite grasped the importance of the measure which we have tabled tonight.
  The proposal shows that we have listened in a large number of places to community representations. We have come to a good judgment on how Wales can go forward to a strong system of unitary authorities. I hope that, once the debates are over, Opposition Members will encourage their party colleagues to make a great success of this new system of local government for Wales. It is full of opportunity, and I want it to succeed.
  Dr. Marek: We have had a thorough, and thoroughly unsatisfactory, debate. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that, once all the arguments are behind us, we should try to make a success of it. He is right in that. We must try to make a success of whatever system of local government we have.
  It is right to remind the House that the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Montgomery and Meirionnydd have been disregarded and thrown away. The balance is right according to the Secretary of State, but it is completely wrong according to the people of Montgomery and Meirionnydd.
  Mr. Rogers: And of Rhondda.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. For the people of Llangollen, the result was clear in the referendum.
  The balance is wrong. It might be right for the Conservative party, but it is not right for the people of Wales. We must wait for the Local Government Boundary
  668
  Commission to deal with the communities. No doubt it will put the matters right, because it is not motivated by political survival.
  We must also wait for another Government, and a change of Government, before the serious matters are put right. It is my hope and conviction that we will not have to wait long. The Conservative party is now in third place in Wales and it is likely to stay there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fourth place."] My hon. Friends say that it is in fourth place and, after what we have had to put up with and listen to this afternoon, it will stay there.
  At the next election, we will have a Labour Government and all the Opposition parties will be united on the matter. We shall put the map of Wales right and listen to the people, whereas the Tory Government are concerned only with colonial administration from London.
  Question put and negatived.

New clause 11

  REFERENDUM ON BOUNDARIES (No. 2)
  '(1) If, by resolution, the council of any district existing at the time this Act receives Royal Assent so requests, the Secretary of State shall, before appointing a day for the coming into force of Section 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Act, prepare a scheme for the conduct of a referendum to be held within the area of any such district council.
  (2) A referendum under subsection (1) above shall be for the purpose of determining whether the local government electors of the district are satisfied with the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act so far as they affect the boundaries of any local government area for which they are electors.
  (3) Where it appears to the Secretary of State from the result of any referendum held under subsection (1) above that a majority of the electors of any district do not approve of any change in boundaries affecting that district which would result from the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act, he may by order made by statutory instrument make any modification to that Schedule which he considers will reflect the result of the referendum; and any such order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 277.

  Division No. 260]

  [6.05 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Keith

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ainger, Nick

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

  Allen, Graham

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Alton, David

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Byers, Stephen

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Caborn, Richard

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Barnes, Harry

  Cann, Jamie

  Barron, Kevin

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Battle, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bayley, Hugh

  Church, Judith

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coffey, Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Cohen, Harry

  Blair, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Blunkett, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Boyes, Roland

  Corbett, Robin

  669

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lewis, Terry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cousins, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dafis, Cynog

  Loyden, Eddie

  Darling, Alistair

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McCartney, Ian

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dewar, Donald

  McFall, John

  Dixon, Don

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dobson, Frank

  Maclennan, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dowd, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  MacShane, Denis

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Enright, Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Etherington, Bill

  Mallon, Seamus

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maxton, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Meacher, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gapes, Mike

  Milburn, Alan

  Garrett, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mudie, George

  Gunnell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hain, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harvey, Nick

  Olner, William

  Heppell, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pope, Greg

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Short, Clare

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  670

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walley, Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spearing, Nigel

  Watson, Mike

  Spellar, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Wallace, James

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evennett, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Faber, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowis, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forth, Eric

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butler, Peter

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, William

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorst, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Congdon, David

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Hague, William

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  Couchman, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Harris, David

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  671

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

  Shersby, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Sims, Roger

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spring, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Sproat, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maclean, David

  Sykes, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mans, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

  Mates, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Trend, Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Merchant, Piers

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mills, Iain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Walden, George

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waterson, Nigel

  Needham, Richard

  Watts, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Willetts, David

  Norris, Steve

  Wilshire, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wolfson, Mark

  672

  Wood, Timothy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Bowen Wells and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 1

  FUNCTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALITY AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
  '—(1) There shall be established on 1st April 1996 a council for the principality of Wales, to be known as the Welsh Assembly ("The Assembly").
  (2) The Assembly shall perform strategic functions for the principality in so far as they are relevant to the local government of Wales.
  (3) The Assembly may do anything it considers necessary to—

  (a) facilitate the co-ordination of administration of local government in Wales, and

  (b) promote greater co-operation between the Welsh local authorities and public agencies and voluntary organisations in Wales.

  (4) The Assembly shall represent the interests and views of Welsh local authorities collectively in the relevant institutions of the European Union.
  (5) The Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly on all matters affecting local government and local and regional interests in Wales.
  (6) The Assembly shall have power to appoint such officers as it thinks necessary for the proper discharge of its functions, on such reasonable terms and conditions, including terms as to remuneration, as it thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Morgan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
  '(aa) the principality of Wales; and'.
  Mr. Morgan: It is a pleasure to move the new clause, with its tiny consequential amendment. I hope that the debate will be fairly brief but extremely vigorous on this important topic of how a Welsh assembly fits into the Bill.
  The new clause seeks to develop British democracy. Britain is a unitary state but with interesting ragged edges such as Wales, Scotland and, since the 1920s, Northern Ireland. The new clause recognises the special needs of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Although only a few Members are in the Chamber, there is quite a buzz.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for your protection of my still, small voice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we shall have the necessary co-operation from all those who are genuinely interested in this interesting debate.
  The problem is that, since the 1880s in the case of the Scottish Office and the 1960s in the case of the Welsh Office, there has been administrative devolution. The 1980s saw further administrative devolution, with powers frequently taken away from local government and transferred to unelected quangos. People who have been defeated in a democratic contest by the electorate of Wales are often able to re-enter politics in an anti-democratic way by being made chairmen and chairwomen of quangos that take over the functions of local government.Thus the continuously moving target of devolution and democratic

  673
  change in the past 16 years has, unfortunately, been largely undemocratic. Many previously democratically controlled functions have been quango-ised. In urban regeneration, housing and education, quangos have been set up to carry out functions that were previously carried out by democratic local government.
  The people of Wales do not like that and regard it as creating a democratic deficit. They do not trust the Government or Secretaries of State who—with the exception of the then right hon. Member for Pembroke, now Lord Crickhowell—do not come from Wales. We have had four Secretaries of State since 1979, two of whom —including the present one—were closely connected with the Rothschild empire, and two of whom were closely connected with Lloyd's of London. Their experiences are millions of light years away from those of the average person who votes in Welsh elections. As a result, the Welsh electorate kicks back against the Government. It is fair to say that in last week's elections the Tories reaped the whirlwind for their contempt of the Welsh people. The Welsh people are looking for a bastion to protect them against the continual loss of democratic control over the functions of local government. The new clause attempts to solve that problem and to put right the democratic deficit that has built up in Wales since 1979.
  Last week, the Tories reaped the whirlwind in the same way as the Canadian rugby team did by making various solicitous remarks about the Welsh and saying that in-breeding catches up with people in the end. The Welsh coach had merely to pin that remark on the Welsh changing-room wall for the team emerge on to the field like whirling dervishes and take Canada apart up front. We all saw the result of that. The last 15 years of Tory Government have been like pinning a notice on the changing room wall saying what the Tories thought of Wales and showing the contempt with which Wales is treated in a democratic sense. The result of the European elections last week was similar to the drubbing given to the Canadian rugby team. If Wales is treated with contempt, it will kick back.
  The new clause attempts to interpret the views of the people of Wales, who want an assembly so that they cannot be mucked about by a Tory Government, as they have been over the past 15 years. An assembly would enable the functions of quangos, which have taken over so many local government functions, to be controlled democratically. A voice would be given to the people of Wales, enabling the functions of local government to be co-ordinated. In the context of the Bill, an assembly would alter how we decide all the issues that we discussed under new clauses 2 and 11.
  Strategic functions could be carried out by an all-Wales tier, which would determine how big a local authority must be to deliver viable local services and provide a local identification. In the last debate, the Secretary of State was keen to refer to the figure of 20 local authorities. An all-Wales tier would mean that a different number could be chosen. The system would not have to be undemocratic, as it is now. That could be done without worsening the problem of the democratic deficit.
  The entire proceedings through which the Bill has passed so far have been anti-democratic. The Standing Committee was packed with non-Welsh Members, the transfer of powers incorporated and hon. Members such as
  674
  the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), the great expert on gerrymandering from Westminster, put on the Committee to act as a silent voter without participating in the proceedings. The Government's attempt at gerrymandering failed because they could not get the Bill through in time.
  All those measures have worsened the democratic deficit from which Wales suffers. The people of Wales are looking to this House today to express, on behalf of all hon. Members—not just those on the Committee—what Wales needs most: local government reform, but with a strategic overview of matters in Wales. That should be provided not solely by the Welsh Office or all-Wales quangos funded by the Welsh Office. The Bill will make that problem worse as a result of the way in which the Secretary of State has handled it. In many ways, what has happened in Wales in the past 15 years has been much worse than what has happened in Westminster. Westminster tried to export Labour voters to adjoining boroughs, but in Wales when the Government lose local authority elections to Opposition parties—overwhelmingly Labour, but not always—they tend to say, "If people are going to keep voting Labour, we shall transfer functions out of local government, and thus out of the purview of the Bill, and put them under the control of appointed, patronage-based quangos directly funded by the Welsh Office." How do those quangos know what the people of Wales think?
  If the Government were to accept the new clause, they would show that, despite the contempt that they have shown for Welsh people's views over the past 15 years, and the widening of the chasm between the political views of the Welsh people, shown in the European elections last week when the Conservatives dropped to third place—there is evidence that it will widen further at the next general election—they were willing to make a gesture to the Welsh people. Wales needs a defence mechanism against the depredations of successive Tory Governments. Given Tory Governments' lack of sympathy for the people of Wales and the countervailing lack of sympathy among the Welsh people for the Tory Governments who have ruled over them, the Government could say, "Let's establish a Welsh Assembly and make this country's constitution more workable."
  A Welsh Assembly would act as a bit of oil in the wheels of the inevitable crunching that is now occurring between the Government and the people of Wales, who gave just 14.5 per cent. of their votes to the Tory party last week. One can see the dangers to this country's constitution when the Tories are faced with almost a wipe-out in Wales. That is why I am hoping against hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State tonight that he is willing to listen to the views of the people of Wales. I hope that he will not regard himself as the equivalent, as Secretary of State, of all those Tory party candidates who are often sent to the valleys after doing a couple of years in Oxford and a couple of years as Guards officers and want to come to this place with a safe Tory seat but are told, "You have to try for a seat in the valleys first." We do not want the Secretary of State to regard the apprenticeship in Wales as something that he has to do for a couple of years before he is given a Cabinet job back in mainstream English politics.
  Above all, the new clause would provide us with a guarantee. We do not want any more discrimination between, for example, the treatment of Rutland and Huntingdon in England and that of Montgomery, Port

  675
  Talbot, Llanelli, the Rhondda and all the other authorities in Wales. That is the problem—that contempt for the people of Wales—to which new clause 1 would provide the solution.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: I rise briefly because I was trying to intervene but missed my opportunity. From the passionate speech that we have just heard, one might have thought that the new clause was a proposal for a Welsh Parliament with real powers. It is typical—
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Hear, Hear.
  Mr. Evans: I hear a sedentary objection from the nationalist Bench, because what the new clause proposes is extraordinarily different from the type of proposition that I suspect that the occupants of the nationalist Bench would want. This body is a super Welsh local authority at its most. It has no legislative or law-making powers. It has no taxation-raising powers. It has the most limited powers of expenditure. It is an attempt to create a quango-control body, but, at most, it is a modest and irrelevant extra layer which would achieve nothing and would simply disappoint those people who want a Welsh Parliament, to which my electors in Monmouthshire are firmly opposed.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: One of the numerous joys of serving on a Standing Committee is that during the debates or discussions one's mind either becomes clarified or more muddled or one at least starts to gain an impression of the way in which a piece of legislation will ultimately work. I will tell the Secretary of State, who did not share the joy of serving on the Standing Committee, of the impression that was left on me about certain aspects of the Bill and the way in which it relates to the new clause that we propose.
  I gained the clear impression, as we went through the debate—there was not especially a party divide about it —that there genuinely were areas of local government administration and policy making which would not fit easily into a unitary authority structure. One thinks of strategic issues, especially in regard to mental health, child abuse, certain aspects of social services, strategic roads and planning aspects, which had been primarily a county function and which—I do not complain because I am pleased with some aspects of the pattern of unitary authorities that has emerged in relation to my area—unitary authorities of considerably varying sizes will have to try to deliver.
  As the debates progressed through the various clauses, I do not know whether other hon. Members—or the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who was the most assiduous attender of the Committee and listened patiently in many cases to hours and hours of debate—were left with the impression that the sectors of trading standards, fire, services, roads, strategic planning and some social services functions, especially in relation to mental health and child abuse and so on, which had been county responsibilities, would not necessarily fit properly and easily into the pattern of unitary authority structure that we had proposed. As a result, it emerged that we would have a patchwork of possible alternative solutions to what was a county function—lead authorities, joint boards of one type or another—to deliver some of those services which do not fit into the pattern of unitary authorities of varying size; a sort of limbo-land democracy.
  676
  I do not like—I know that the Opposition have tended to recommend it frequently—the form of delegated democracy that occurs when it is decided that county or district councils will serve on this organisation or that body, to try to give an impression of a democratic body. I find that that type of delegated democracy—limbo-land democracy—does not work because in a sense people do not recognise the delegated member to be directly responsible to the community, as he or she would be if serving on the local authority or, as I would suggest, sitting in a Welsh assembly.
  If one believes in democracy, democracy does not come cheap. No one is saying that it does. Democracy is more expensive. It is more expensive in administration. Consider the sheer amount of time that Whitehall spends trying to manage this place. I know that from my ministerial experience. This morning, I was watching the Foreign Secretary in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. He had a large pile of files with him. He had spent, rightly and understandably, an enormous amount of time trying to anticipate every conceivable question that we might ask. So democracy does not come cheap, even in the present system.
  We should not argue about the cost, therefore, but about whether an organisation is a valid instrument of democracy. I suggest that, as a result of all the changes that are occurring, some aspects of policy will not fit easily into the unitary authority pattern. Eventually, policy making and major decisions about resources will gradually drift back into the Welsh Office. The Welsh Office will need to shape those policies and will gradually take over and assume the strategic policy thinking in many of those sectors that lay with the county, but will now lie with either joint boards or lead authorities. I know that it will not necessarily be deliberately intended, but I think that the process will gradually return to the Welsh Office.
  As a result, I think that the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State will become more powerful as a result of the Bill even than hitherto. When one considers the way in which, I am sorry to say, this place handles vital, fantastic issues of Welsh concern to us, we ought honestly to be appalled with ourselves and with the system. There were many quality contributions to this morning's debate, but what a truncated debate it was on an issue of profound concern to so many members of our community.
  I was reading the preface to the Secretary of State's preface to the public expenditure White Paper produced by his Department—it was better presented than ever before and more interesting than ever before—stating powerfully just what a huge sum of money he has in his gift and responsibility. How much does this place analyse and scrutinise expenditure of that type? In spite of the invaluable work by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, how much time do we spend on what is now one of the biggest collective spending Departments, with a fantastic range of functions, right across the board—quite rightly so? We all support it. We set it up and it has been built on and developed since. How much time and energy do we put into it?
  I shall give an illustration to make the point. How much time and energy will the House spend on something that will shape the education of all our children in the years to come? How many debates will we have about the national curriculum proposals that are being published? Let us take as an example the document that I hold in my hand, the

  677
  proposals for the national syllabus for history. They will eventually be put before us in a series of orders. We may possibly have a prayer, at some unearthly hour in the day or night, to discuss one or more of those.
  The documents containing the national curriculum proposals will shape the education that is provided in our schools for a decade and more. In that document—the one that I was especially interested in—it is proposed, as I understand it, that no young person or child will learn about Welsh history after 1918. Are we to nod such proposals through? That is what is in the document. History stops in 1918. One thinks of the events of the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s, which shaped the critical social economic consciousness of our society, and shaped politics and social attitudes. Yet as I read that document, history after 1918 will not be taught in our schools. How much time and energy will be spent in the House debating matters of such profound concern as that? I have picked up only one of those syllabuses; there are others.
  I know that the proposals will be subject to consultation and that we can make written representations. I have already done so in this case to the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, those issues should be debated openly. That is the very meat and drink of democratic political decision making.
  I support unitary authorities, but I fear that some aspects of policy making which are dealt with at county level now will drift up to the Welsh Office, thereby enhancing its powers and those of the Secretary of State. I know that the Government will deny that, but, having heard the debate in Committee, I know that it is what will happen. And when it happens, hon. Members will find that we will not give it the necessary scrutiny. We will not find time in this place to discuss all the changes. This House is becoming more and more impatient, given all the European stuff that it has to consider.
  I have two final points for the Secretary of State. Whatever happened to the grand debate, promised at Cardiff in a speech on 8 March 1993, to be initiated by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor? What has become of the revamping of the Government's counter-proposals to a Welsh democratic assembly? What happened to their promise to revamp the handling of Welsh affairs in this place? There has not been a single proposal since March 1993—although I do not know whether the usual channels have been working behind the scenes. I note that some of those involved—in Plaid Cymru—shake their heads. What has happened to the famous Hunt revamping proposal, which the current incumbent may now wish to deny knowledge of?
  Anyone who knows his British history will recall that the Conservative party has been a great national party. It is, after all, the party of Peel and Disraeli, of Baldwin and Macmillan and occasionally—he was in and out—of Churchill. After the results of the past weekend, that great national party has become a regional and peculiarly English party. I never thought in my lifetime to see the Conservative party—even in my constituency it had hitherto always managed to get out its core vote of 25 or 30 per cent.—reduced to 14 per cent. of the vote.
  That being so, the Secretary of State should ask himself what moral legitimacy he exercises when he rejects our demands for democratic accountability for the decisions
  678
  that he, among others, will make, and for the powers he exercises that will be enhanced by this Bill. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to reply favourably this evening, but I hope that he will begin to think again about his legitimacy when saying no to the demands from Wales.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Apart from the sniping aimed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) at my colleagues just now, I agreed entirely with everything he said. I spent six weeks in the Standing Committee, where we discussed scrutiny, and I am adamant that the hon. Gentleman is correct. There is not enough time to deal with Welsh legislation in the set-up that we have here.
  We have notes on clauses comprising three sentences although they deal with highly complex strings of clauses. We should not be expected to nod such clauses through, but I am afraid that that is precisely what happened on some days in the Committee.
  The fact that we have to compress a debate about the democratic process in Wales and the need for an accountable all-Wales forum into the few minutes that we have today serves to underline the need for a strengthened and better democratic procedure for the government of Wales. Plaid Cymru does not shy away from the fact that we need a full Welsh Parliament with legislative and tax-raising powers. Some Conservatives believe that we try to conceal that, but it is the very reason for our being. We do not deny it, and it is why we are here.
  The new clause, however, represents a great step forward in the democratisation of the unfortunate process of government in Wales. A similar amendment was debated at length in another place and was defeated by only eight votes. Their lordships are not known for their radicalism, but even they realise the need for urgent and real change. Here we have the vehicle for such change.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: My hon. Friend referred to the debate in another place. Did he find it as remarkable as I did that many of the participants in that debate originally opposed any moves towards devolution and decentralisation in Wales, but that they have been convinced by 15 years of Conservative Government?
  Mr. Llwyd: Not surprisingly, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—I was coming to that very point. Earlier, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) said that there had been a referendum in 1979 so the matter had been decided once and for all. But many things have changed in the past 15 years. We have been subjected to a Government whom 85 per cent. of the electorate of Wales rejected at the last election and whom a far higher percentage rejected a few days ago.
  6.45 pm
  I think that it was Harold Wilson who said that a week is a long time in politics. Certainly, 16 years of Tory misrule is a hellish long time. Were there to be a referendum today on this subject, there would be no doubt at all of the answer, as I am sure all Opposition Members will agree.
  It is also preposterous to suggest that because there was a referendum in 1979 there should never be one again. That is an abomination. If it is true, why do we have votes on capital punishment so regularly? The issue has been

  679
  decided time and again, yet I have no doubt that there will be future votes on it. Why should not the same apply to the subject of the government of Wales?
  We in Wales need an all-Wales forum, for several reasons. We are a proud people. We want to play our true part in the development of the new European scene. Other historical regions, such as Catalonia, are enjoying a great measure of success. It is lucky that the Minister of State has just re-entered the Chamber; he has been to Catalonia on trade visits and knows that it is doing very well. The Catalans have a large measure of autonomy within the Spanish system. They can deal with their affairs on a European level: we cannot. We have to have our thoughts filtered through the enervating process which is Westminster. The corollary is that funding intended for Wales which comes through this enervating channel used to be stopped at source, until that was put right some time ago. The additionality argument has shown the great disincentives for Wales under the present system.
  I think that Opposition Members to a man will agree that the current set-up is over-centralised to a ridiculous degree. In this Parliament, we have witnessed a tendency that runs contrary to everything happening in mainland Europe. I have referred to it before and I shall do so briefly again. The Governor of Hong Kong recently said:
  "We have to re-examine our understanding of the division of political power in the UK. I think we have become absurdly over-centralised. It was a great mistake of the 1980s, and I speak as one of those who made the mistake."
  So even the Governor of Hong Kong, who is not averse to the political thinking of the Government, has come to the conclusion that some real democratic constitutional change is called for.
  The Secretary of State for Wales exercises his functions in Wales as a governor-general. I do not expect him to agree with that, but he is responsible for housing, education, health, transport, the economy, agriculture and so on—
  Mr. John Morris: And the honours system.
  Mr. Llwyd: Yes, not that that worries me unduly. I believe that it is because of the concentration of powers and functions without true accountability that the people of Wales view the Welsh Office with such odium. All political parties in Wales agree on the principle of unitary authorities, and there is no argument about that on the Opposition Benches. I believe that the Government also agree. But I have to say that the lack of accountability of the 90 or so quangos currently operating in Wales worries many people. That might have been a factor in the Government's poor showing in 1992 and last week. Above all, local government reform must carry with it the consent of the people of Wales. The so-called reforms in the Bill do not have that consent.
  Quite apart from the boundary arguments, which will probably be restated later this evening, and which are very important, there are many flaws in the legislation and we have not had adequate opportunity to scrutinise them properly. During the passage of the Bill, questions were asked and assurances were given, but the arguments have advanced very little. We are still, incredibly, very much in the dark as to the kind of animal that the Bill is and what will eventually come of it. Surely that is not the way to deal with legislation in a so-called democratic forum such as the House of Commons. We should know exactly where we
  680
  are going and that what we are doing carries with it the will and consent of the people. That clearly is not the case in this instance.
  If we do not have an all-Wales body accountable for strategic planning and also to scrutinise the quangos, I believe that we are making a grave mistake. We have a good opportunity now to deal with a major reform, which would democratise matters, and here is the vehicle to do it. But we hear consistently the tired argument that, "In 1979, the people of Wales said no, so you are not having it." Meanwhile, we see quangos spending billions of Welsh taxpayers' money without any true accountability. That really is a worrying feature of any democracy.
  In Wales at the moment there is the scandalous situation that a quango seems to be a safe haven for every failed Conservative, or any Conservative who thinks that he or she is on the way up. By all accounts, those safe havens are free from any real scrutiny and that makes them untenable and unacceptable. The democratic deficit in Wales is a wide abyss which is ever-widening, and that concerns all Opposition Members. We must bring some form of scrutiny into force quickly. I know that there has been some tinkering at the edges in mid-Wales. I am not sure whether the Government's view on that is correct, but there is—I hope—some scrutiny of the current quangos.
  It is a sad fact that £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money is distributed by 1,400 people who serve on those bodies—200 more people than there will be councillors under the proposed set-up in the Bill. The Government have an opportunity of addressing that democratic deficit. It is real, not perceived. I referred earlier to the way in which polls in Wales have gone against the Conservative party. I believe that it is because those quangos are looked upon with such disdain that the Conservative party is so unpopular. If it were not for the fact that every person in Wales has to spend money to keep them going it would be a laughable matter, but it is not.
  Some 85 per cent. of the people of Wales voted in favour of parties that have in their manifestos some form of devolution, be it a full Parliament, which Plaid Cymru wants, an assembly, which the Labour party wants, or the assembly that is proposed by the Liberal Democrats. Consensus is a vital component of the Bill. It will affect each and every person in Wales, and therefore we need that consensus.
  In another place, the opportunity was grasped by many in the debate and in the Lobbies. I believe that if the purpose of the Bill is to ensure good local government in Wales, the new clause and the consequential amendment should be carried. I therefore fully support the new clause and the amendment.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Part of the malaise affecting the governance of Wales is shown in tonight's rather rushed debate, as we are examining the new clause in just one hour. I adopt wholly what has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in respect of limbo-land, the movement of powers to the Welsh Office and the increasing alienation of the people of Wales. That is a real problem, which the Conservative party ignores at its peril, as we have seen in the results of not only the local elections but the recent European elections.
  The Government are indeed isolated. I believe that their views are wholly undemocratic. I concede that many of the arguments that are now raised were rehearsed extensively

  681
  in the 1970s and that I took a different view at the time. But on balance I have come to a different view for a number of reasons: partly because of the centralisation that has come over local government since that time; partly because of the nature of the local government changes; and partly because of the current modest proposal for a body to deal with the strategic issues in Wales, the co-ordination and so on. That body will develop, or not, according to the views of the people of Wales. It will go as far and as fast as the debate in Wales takes it. I believe that that is the proper democratic way in which it should be seen.
  A further major factor has been the European dimension. The Secretary of State has a view within the Cabinet against the developments in Europe which I believe does the Principality great harm, but that is another debate. But it is clear that the diversity in the European Community, which is reflected in all countries save our own—the most centralised of the European countries—must have implications for us. The quangocracy was mentioned earlier, and the increasing self-consciousness of the people of Wales, which is to be applauded.
  I have but one minute, so I shall finish on this point. The Secretary of State is noted for his intellectual rigour and the independence with which he approaches problems of this nature. I urge him to cast aside the old shibboleths of the past. One can make the political arguments about the Conservatives now being—perhaps they always have been —the English nationalists and that they are being forced into their own strongholds as a result of the past few elections, but I urge him to look at the issue afresh, because it is serious. In my judgment, the people of Wales are becoming increasingly alienated. The Conservative party is being increasingly isolated. It ignores the issue at its peril.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: In the debate on democracy in the European elections in my constituency nearly a week ago, the only candidate who did not turn up or send a representative was the Conservative candidate. We understand her impossible position in trying to justify the battered and abused democracy in Wales. A candidate who did turn up made a case saying that he did not believe in democracy, but in natural law. He thought that the world should be run by 7,000 yogic flyers. I reminded him that that is the sort of situation that we have in Wales. We have 7,000 people running the quangos, who are far more powerful than Welsh Members of Parliament, and far more powerful than all the members of local councils in Wales. What has happened in Wales is the mirror image of what has happened in eastern Europe. Even in countries such as Mongolia, Lithuania, Romania and Estonia, there was always a body of opinion—about 14 per cent. of people — who were genuine, ideological communists who believed in that system. There were shams of democratic institutions in all those countries in 1979 with no power. To achieve power, one had to be a card-carrying member of the communist party.
  We have seen a transformation there, but we have seen the exact opposite in Wales over the past few years. There has been a decline in the power of all the democratically elected bodies; resources have been taken away from all the local authorities, and they have been replaced by quangos. I understand the enthusiasm for quangos expressed by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr.
  682
  Evans): he probably has more members of quangos as constituents than any other hon. Member, because of the "magic circle" in his area.
  The point of tonight's debate is the way in which democracy has been destroyed in Wales. Hon. Members should look at the election figures. Last week, the Conservatives achieved a vote of 14 per cent.—a wipe-out, much closer to the vote secured by the Natural Law party than that secured by Labour. In last year's local government elections, Tories won 32 of 500 county council seats, and six Tory Members of Parliament were elected out of 38; in the district council elections Wales had 54 seats, of which the Conservatives won only one.
  This is an abuse of democracy. The Tories are as popular in Wales now as Ceaucescu was in Romania at Christmas 1989. To deny democracy is dangerous and an abuse.
  7 pm
  Mr. Redwood: Time and again, Labour makes a general statement against centralisation and then, by actions, words and deeds, shows that its centralising heart is beating ever more strongly. It is always urging me to solve every problem in Wales, where many problems can and should be solved by local government and—I trust —will be solved by local government, under the new structure that we recommend.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) for pointing out that the assembly proposed in the new clause is a toothless tiger, not the sort that the nationalists are recommending. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that I do not want more powers and functions to gravitate to me; I strongly recognise the importance of good local government in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Let me tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that I would not swap Wales for Catalonia, as he wishes to do: Catalonia's unemployment is much higher and our prosperity machine is in much better gear. I hope that he welcomes those facts.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) suggested that Wales's system of local and national government was based on 7,000 yogic flyers on quangos. That may be the position on Newport council—I believe that it has set up a good many quangos, and it may be placing some odd people on them—but it is certainly not the Wales that I know and love. It is not the Wales represented by the Welsh Office and the House of Commons.
  In Committee, Labour Members tabled amendment after amendment seeking more powers for the Secretary of State. They wanted me to call in planning applications more often to force local inquiries; they wanted me to designate strategic plan areas, to make more use of powers to monitor cross-border trading, to issue specific guidance to authorities on how to draw up service delivery plans, to issue more prescriptive guidance on decentralisation, to intervene to settle disputes between area committees and councils and to offer more guidance on transition committees. They even wanted me to draw up schedules of local authority members prescribing when they should retire. The Liberals joined in: they wanted me to establish a single trading standards authority for Wales, rather than such authorities being answerable to elected local government.

  683
  I would find Labour's attacks on quangos much more convincing if they ever countenanced the removal of any of the quangos that have been set up. When I suggest the abolition of some of them, howls of anguish go up from the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members cry, "No, Secretary of State, not this one—not now. Keep the quangos—keep them going." Labour councils themselves, of course, are mad keen on quangos. They have set up, or participate in, hundreds of them in Wales.
  The other day, I read a list of appointments and nominations to outside bodies of just one council. Well over 100 bodies have places to which the council appoints its friends or councillors. They include everything from community centres to the Museum Council for Wales, best-kept village competitions, alms houses, community industry advisory panels, consortia of local authorities in Wales, the Federation of Industrial Development Associations—I have a much better list, but the time constraint is pressing. Quango-crazy Labour, in local government, even appoints—at public expense—national quango monitoring units, as Cardiff city council has done.
  Labour should come down from its high horse and recognise that it is up to its eyes in quangos, that many of its people sit on them and that Labour councils have created far more quangos than the Welsh Office has ever dreamt of doing under a Conservative Government. It is local government's job to maintain proper control of the myriad local quangos that it helps to fund. Labour's proposals in the new clause would take powers away from elected local government in Wales and give them to a new regional assembly. I do not see why a new regional assembly would be better able to carry out the scrutiny required than local councils, which are closer to the local bodies concerned.
  I believe that the Opposition leader-in-waiting—the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—favours more government for Wales. We look forward to his reconciling that with his only famous phrase so far. How did it go? "Tough on socialism", was it? "Tough on the causes of socialism"? We know his views, and his fashions come and go, like those of so many socialists nowadays. In 1983, he was against Europe; in 1994, he was head over heels in love with it. In 1983, he was against nuclear weapons; in 1994, no comment.
  I suggest that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) checks carefully with the hon. Member for Sedgefield whether he has any chance of keeping his own job and whether the Welsh assembly is another policy that is here today and gone tomorrow. Certainly this policy is gone today—and here tonight I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 280.

  Division No. 261]

  [7.05 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barnes, Harry

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alton, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blunkett, David

  684

  Boateng, Paul

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bradley, Keith

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jamieson, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Janner, Greville

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cann, Jamie

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Church, Judith

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Keen, Alan

  Coffey, Ann

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Connarty, Michael

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lewis, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Darling, Alistair

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davidson, Ian

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dobson, Frank

  McFall, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McKelvey, William

  Dowd, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Maclennan, Robert

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Enright, Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Etherington, Bill

  Madden, Max

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mandelson, Peter

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marek, Dr John

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Martlew, Eric

  Foulkes, George

  Maxton, John

  Fraser, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meale, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Garrett, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morley, Elliot

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gunnell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hain, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heppell, John

  Olner, William

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hodge, Margaret

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoey, Kate

  Pendry, Tom

  685

  Pike, Peter L.

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Pope, Greg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Reid, Dr John

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooker, Jeff

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Rooney, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watson, Mike

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, Jimmy

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

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Soley, Clive

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Churchill, Mr

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clappison, James

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dicks, Terry

  Booth, Hartley

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowis, John

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Burns, Simon

  Evennett, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Faber, David

  Butler, Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Cash, William

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  686

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mates, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heald, Oliver

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Horam, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shersby, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  687

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Willetts, David

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

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trend, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Bowen Wells.

  Waterson, Nigel

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from a Transport Minister to make a statement to the House because I understand that No. 10 has now admitted that there has been direct ministerial involvement in today's strike? It would be helpful if the House were to be told that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The occupant of the Chair has received no request for a statement.

New clause 13

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS, JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ETC.
  '.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order make, with respect to any matters mentioned in subsection (2), such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of any of the provisions of this Act.

  (2) The matters are—

  (a) the functions or areas of jurisdiction of any justice of the peace, stipendiary magistrate, magistrates' court or keeper of the rolls for a commission area (within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979); and

  (b) commission areas, petty sessions areas and areas to which magistrates' courts committees relate.

  (3) The Lord Chancellor may by order alter, in such manner as appears to him expedient in connection with the alteration in any local government area made by this Act, any of—

  (a) the commission areas in Wales specified in section 1 of the Act of 1979,

  (b) the areas in Wales which constitute petty sessions areas under section 4 of that Act, or

  (c) the areas in Wales to which magistrates' courts committees relate under section 19 of that Act.

  (4) Any order under this section may, in particular—

  (a) make provision with respect to the costs and expenses of any persons with respect to whom provision is made by the order;

  (b) apply (with or without modifications) or amend or repeal or revoke (with or without savings) any provision of an Act passed before this Act or in the same Session, or an instrument made under such an Act before 1st April 1996.

  (5) Subsections (7) and (9) of section 54 apply in relation to this section as they apply in relation to that section.'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 72, 105 to 109, 73, 75, 83 and 84.
  Mr. Jones: We have tabled the amendments at this late stage because we wish to take account of the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill currently being considered in Committee. The amendments make provision in respect of the Lord Chancellor and of functions in connection with magistrates courts, justices of the peace and so on. The Bill currently provides for these in clauses 54(4) and (5) together with schedule 2(10).
  In addition, the amendments remove subsections (4) and (5) from clause 54, provide a separate clause in respect of the Lord Chancellor and his functions, expand the provisions in schedule 2 and make consequential amendments to clauses 56, 57, 62 and 65.
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am amazed that the Minister can introduce a disgraceful new clause so glibly. The new clause exposes the muddle in which the Government find themselves over various pieces of legislation and the incompetence of Ministers who cannot think through the implications of their proposals. The Minister has given no reason for allowing the Lord Chancellor to take the very wide powers contained in the new clause.
  The Minister said that the new clause is meant to take into account the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, but the Committee considering that Bill, on which I am leading for the Opposition, has not yet reached the part of the Bill that deals with magistrates courts. As drafted, that Bill is a good deal more limited and does not need the wide and sweeping powers that the Minister wishes to introduce into this Bill.
  We need an explanation from the Minister because the new clause provides much greater powers than those provided in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. The widest of those powers enables the Government, or the Lord Chancellor, to revoke primary legislation by order. That cannot be right. It certainly cannot be right for the Minister to propose such a new clause without offering an explanation or seeking to justify the Government's approach.
  In the short time since the new clause was tabled, it has received considerable criticism and caused questions to be asked about the Government's motives and intentions. The Minister has not explained those motives and intentions and has provided no justification for suggesting such wide-ranging powers. The suspicion is that the Government are trying to take powers by the back door under this Bill which would not be provided under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. It will certainly be a matter for considerable comment when the Committee reassembles to consider that Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who speaks for the Opposition on matters concerning the Lord Chancellor's Department, will raise several issues at that point.
  The Government are seeking to reorganise magistrates courts' functions in Wales without consultation. Even clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which is the relevant piece of legislation, allows for consultation, so one has to ask what is happening. Is the Lord Chancellor going to climb down over clause 62 of that Bill, which would mean that powers have to be inserted into this Bill in order to enable the Government to make the desired changes?
  New Clause 13(4)(b) provides the power to revoke primary legislation by order. We can pray against an order

  689
  and force a debate in the House, but an order cannot be amended, so the power over primary legislation that is being given to Ministers in the new clause is most unusual and peculiar and certainly requires some explanation by the Minister.
  The Government are impaled on their own timetable for local government reform. An attempt has been made to railroad through the measures in Wales and, even on the basis of the slightly slower timetable to which the Government are now committed, there is still not adequate time to deal properly with all the issues.
  Let us consider the magistrates courts areas that the Government are proposing. The Government propose three magistrates courts committee areas to replace the four that we now have. The proposed areas form some pretty odd clusters. It is proposed to merge South Glamorgan with what are referred to as the Glamorgan valleys—basically, Rhondda, Pontypridd and Cynon valley. That area is not quite the old East Glamorgan as outlined in the legislation when local government was last reformed. Once again, the Government are in a muddle. I do not in any case believe that it is sensible to make such an amalgamation. The communities of South Glamorgan and those in a part of what is now Mid Glamorgan have their own characteristics and interests, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will wish to say something about the specific concerns of their areas.
  Bridgend is currently part of Mid Glamorgan, but the Government propose to bolt it on to West Glamorgan. There is no rhyme or reason in that proposal, but they intend to go ahead. Ministers will be given powers without being required to offer consultation. Why are the Government proceeding in this way?
  Merthyr and Caerphilly are being put with Gwent. In view of the borders now being discussed, it might be that the Caerphilly and Rhymney valley area should be put with Gwent for the sake of some functions, such as policing. If so, there should be an element of coterminosity with the magistrates courts areas. I can understand the arguments for that, but not in relation to Merthyr. However, the Minister has not even tried to outline the logic of the Government's thinking.
  The Government are impaled on their own timetable because they have to make changes to ensure that the magistrates courts' areas are designated. If they are not, there will be no county council to which they can be accountable or to provide the necessary funds. The problem needs to be sorted out within the designated time scale, but, in case the Minister is not aware of this, I must point to him that, as long ago as April 1993, senior officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department were told during visits to south Wales that there was an urgent need to get the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Local Government (Wales) Bill sorted out so that they can complement each other. But last-minute amendments and new clauses are now being introduced on the Floor of the House while the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill is still in Committee. Will amendments be tabled to that Bill in the next couple of weeks or, indeed, on Report, or are the inconsistencies between the two Bills to remain? It is proof of gross incompetence that the two Bills have not been considered together.
  690
  I also understand that the question of who is the keeper of the rolls and lord lieutenant are yet to be sorted out. In any event, they need to be sorted out in such a way as to represent the interests of the local communities involved. Local people and officials of the various courts are attempting to find a sensible solution to the problem. There is no need to place in the hands of Ministers the draconian and wide-ranging powers proposed in the new clause.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters in his capacity as a Front-Bench spokesman for Labour. Is he aware that magistrates and magistrates' clerks in rural mid Wales are frustrated because they do not believe that the Lord Chancellor's Department appreciates the size of rural mid Wales? They feel that they are being forced into amalgamation which may mean that the administration of magistrates courts is difficult to envisage in future. I have received from magistrates many objections to what is being proposed.
  Mr. Michael: I am aware of those concerns in rural areas. There is a sense of unity right across Wales on that subject. It is felt generally that the Lord Chancellor's Department does not understand or care and does not want to listen to the views of those involved in the very important task of delivering justice at local level. Criticisms have been made by magistrates through their associations and by many of them individually. Criticisms have been made by magistrates' clerks who have experience of dealing with that administration. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is absolutely right. He voices the concerns of his area, but, in fact, every hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency, whether rural or city or valley could stand up and make that point. I certainly accept it as being an accurate description of the problem in many parts of Wales.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I wish to restrain the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) from agreeing too much with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery because part of Powys is in the area that I represent. In the past three weeks, representatives of the Powys magistrates court committee have met the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department specifically to discuss the needs of rural Wales and they were very pleased by the reception that they received. They said to me that there was a clear understanding of the problems in mid-Wales and they were given various reassurances.
  Mr. Michael: I understand the hon. Gentleman's need to try to make the Government whom he supports look reasonable and to suggest that they are listening. If there were reasonableness and listening, there would be no need for the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must be listening to some strange sources, because that is certainly not what I hear from people around the country as they express their concerns. The hon. Gentleman, having made his point, has now lost interest.
  We need to know from the Minister why those powers are required. Is it right that, in a Bill dealing with Welsh local government, power should be given to the Lord Chancellor to change primary legislation by order, rather than through a proper process? Is it right, when a Bill

  691
  dealing with magistrates courts is on its way through the House and still has to be dealt with in Committee, that such powers should be sought during the Report stage of a Bill not dealing with magistrates courts issues? Is it right that Ministers should fail so clearly to get their act together and that they should seek powers to enable them to sort out the muddle without listening to the voices of those who deal with justice, those who live in the areas affected, those who are magistrates and those who deal with the administration of justice?
  There has also been considerable criticism of clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill because it is felt that there has not been adequate provision for consultation. Yet here we have something in an entirely different Bill which does not even allow for the extent of consultation allowed in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. There is considerable concern that the Government's wish to reduce from 105 to between 50 and 60 the number of magistrates courts committees is being driven forward without regard to the interests of those areas that will be affected. Justice in a magistrates courts context is a local issue and a local matter. The commitment of magistrates in giving their time voluntarily to exercise judicial responsibilities in their local communities is not being respected by the Government. That has led to enormous ill feeling. The feelings of those volunteers should not be disregarded in this way.
  I cannot see any justification for the Government's seeking the powers in the new clause and I certainly cannot see the justification for their disregarding the proper processes not only of consultation but of legislation in this way. The Minister should recognise the constitutional impropriety of the new clause, withdraw it and let any amendments be made in a considered way in the Committee considering the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. That would give Welsh Members an opportunity, during the Report stage of that Bill, to consider any provisions relating to Wales in the context of what is happening to magistrates courts generally and to deal with the matter in a more responsible and considered way. This is not the way in which to deal with such important issues. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the new clause and accept the points and criticism that I have made.
  Perhaps the new clause and amendments have not been drafted by the Welsh Office but have been thrust on an unwilling Minister. I should be happy to hear the Minister say that, and say that, on reflection, he is willing to take them back and see whether he can get more sense out of the Lord Chancellor's Department than his light-weight introduction to the new clause suggested he has been given so far. Certainly, Opposition Members need a lot more answers before we can feel anything but uneasy about the proposition before us.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to have to comment in this way about the Under-Secretary of State for Wales because, in Committee, we appreciated the patience with which he sought to explain the Government's position on various issues, even when the case was weak, but, in this case, the way in which he introduced the new clause was an insult to the House. We watched him. He had half a page of an explanation which he read out head down and which, clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, did not come from the
  692
  Welsh Office. He did not explain the origins of the new clause and he did not give us reasons for it or go through it and explain it to us.
  In introducing any new clause, it is a Minister's responsibility to explain why one subsection says this and why another subsection says that. I hope that in his winding-up speech he will produce a slightly longer explanation and interpretation of the new clause.
  We have just heard a tirade in the winding-up speech of the Secretary of State about centralising tendencies. I can think of no more centralising language than that written into the new clause. In the opening paragraph, it states that the Lord Chancellor may by order make various changes, as he thinks necessary, in certain "matters". Those "matters" include the functions of a justice of the peace —not only the areas of jurisdiction, but the functions. What are the functions? Why in the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] is there a provision for the Lord Chancellor to be able to alter and change the functions of a justice of the peace? I understand that the Lord Chancellor may need power to try to change the areas and to make them coterminous.
  The Justices of the Peace Act 1979—I went to the Library earlier when I saw the new clause—refers, of course, to the counties. The magistrates committees are county based and the Justices of the Peace Act incorporates the counties. I understand the necessity to change that legislation when one is doing away with counties or altering the boundaries. But will the Under-Secretary explain, before we approve the clause, why the Lord Chancellor will need the power to alter, as he may think necessary or expedient, the functions of a justice of the peace in a Bill on the reorganisation of Welsh local government?
  Secondly, I turn to what I thought was the purpose of the clause. Subsection (3) states:
  "The Lord Chancellor may by order alter, in such a manner as appears to him expedient in connection with the alteration in any local government area … any of the commission areas in Wales specified in section 1 of the Act of 1979."
  That provision gives the Lord Chancellor power to change the areas or to relate them to changes in local government reorganisation in Wales. The reason why we are so profoundly concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made the valid point—is that the clause includes no provision for consultation in any shape or form. Perhaps that consultation provision is in another Bill. My hon. Friend is an expert on the Bill and he may tell us why a consultation process has to occur.
  The reason why I shall not support the power suggested in the new clause is that I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor understands or knows about the geographical problems and the areas of the communities that he serves. If he were aware of those problems, he would not have produced the proposals with regard to the reorganisation of magistrates courts committees. The proposals conflict with the changes at local level proposed in the Bill. It is suggested that Merthyr should be included in Gwent.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: From my discussions with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, I understand that the map that was produced, which has led to the comments made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), contains indicative, not specific, proposals.

  693
  The indications given to the delegation that I took to the Lord Chancellor's Department were that the Department currently does not have a specific view on the new areas.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am willing to accept the word "indicative". The proposals are indeed indicative of the Lord Chancellor's knowledge and understanding of the communities that we represent. They show how little he knows. It is clear that he has no understanding of geography or community. If he had such an understanding, he would not have produced his indicative map which proposes that Merthyr be included in Gwent.
  As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) will be aware, I supported with elan some of the changes made by the Government in Committee. It is clear that changes in local government boundaries place Merthyr in the Mid Glamorgan preserved county area. They do not carry it across into Gwent.
  The proposals come from the Lord Chancellor. In new clause 13, the Lord Chancellor wants to take power by order to alter and amend areas and boundaries. If that is indicative of what the Lord Chancellor understands about the geography of our communities, the last thing that we should do is give him such sweeping powers in the knowledge that his Department is, by its nature, a very central Department which does not understand such matters.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend asked me about the difference between this Bill and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill with regard to consultation. In clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill there is a requirement that, before making an order in exercising his powers, the Lord Chancellor shall consult

  "(a) the magistrates for each of the existing magistrates' courts committee areas to which the order relates,

  (b) the magistrates' courts committees to which the proposal relates, and

  (c) every interested authority."

  What is being sought in this Bill seems to override that.
  If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) is correct and what we have are not even proposals for consultation, but just an indicative first stab based on nothing very substantial, goodness knows what we can depend on in terms of consultation.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend underlines the point forcefully. When the Minister replies to the debate, he should tell us why new clause 13 does not contain a form of words equivalent to that in clause 62 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill when the Lord Chancellor exercises the powers that we are being asked to give him.
  It is very difficult for us to relate the new clause to another Bill that is still in Committee and which has yet to return to the Floor of the House to be approved by the House. If a consultation process exists in one Bill, it should surely exist in the context of the powers that the Lord Chancellor is seeking in the new clause. That difficulty underlines the Minister's total failure to explain the new clause to us properly.
  7.45 pm
  The Minister must tell us why the new clause does not contain a provision for consultation such as that in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. He must also tell us
  694
  why the Lord Chancellor is taking power in a Welsh local government Bill to affect the functions of a justice of the peace.
  I am uneasy about the proposal because the other thing that is behind all this is the mooted huge rationalisation with regard to the local benches. From Tudor times, the development of the concept of the justices of the peace has been based on local justice. With the limited powers available to them, a group of local justices would be able to administer justice in communities of which they were members. Community is basic to the concept of a justice of the peace.
  I believe that in many cases, the local benches will be merged. They will be rolled up into one large bench. For example, the local commission of peace currently administered through Pontlottyn may eventually end up in Cardiff. That is the other agenda. The concept of a local bench will be removed. The bench at Pontlottyn is currently manned by people who perform amazingly valiant service to the local community. They have a real understanding and feeling of the nature of the problems of the community. In many cases, they handle the issues with great sensitivity. I do not want those benches to be rolled up and to serve from Cardiff.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: While I largely agree with my hon. Friend, does he accept that magistrates increasingly face threats of intimidation when they sit on local cases in their areas? Some provision must be made to ensure that that intimidation does not undermine justice in that community.
  Mr. Rowlands: I have not come across such sad symptoms too often, although I can think of a particular incident in my own community.
  I am not talking about a sympathetic bench. In many cases, we want a bench to be firm and strong in its attitudes in respect of some of the anti-social behaviour that sadly occurs in some of our communities by an increasing minority. However, when people come before local benches, in Pontlottyn or Merthyr, that bench should be manned by people who understand and know that community and—as is almost entirely the case in our area —who live within that community.
  Behind the proposals in the Bill, the other rationalisation that will be driven through is that with regard to the merger of the benches. We would lose the essential local community character of a magistrates court which I thought was the very reason why we have a system of local justices of the peace.
  Mr. Michael: I agree whole-heartedly with the basic principle that my hon. Friend is enunciating. I suggest to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) that the problem should be dealt with not by merging benches or creating great anonymous areas, but through the provision which already exists by which, where appropriate, a case can be heard by a bench outside the area concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower was right to highlight the problem, but that can be dealt with already under the existing arrangements.
  Mr. Rowlands: As always, my hon. Friend, who has immersed himself in these issues, enlightens us and I thank him for that.
  We should not approve the new clause until the Minister has explained the nature of subsection (2)(a) and why we

  695
  should give powers to the Lord Chancellor in a local government Bill to alter the functions of a justice of the peace. Because it is indicative of what we think the Lord Chancellor might be up to, and because the map to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor referred reveals geographic ignorance of our communities, we should not give such powers to the Lord Chancellor without the inclusion of proper statutory consultations in the new clause.
  I should like a reassurance from the Minister about the parallel agenda. I should like him to reassure me that my fear about the merger of the benches, which would destroy the very nature of community justice represented by the commission of the justices of the peace, is unfounded.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I seek just two assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister. As I read the new clause, it is clear that it is dependent upon being in consequence of any of the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I take it that it is intended that one deals with magistrates courts areas —jurisdictions, if one likes—precisely in accordance with the changes that we have brought about in terms of the boundaries of local government within Wales. I have no doubt, particularly because we see in subsection (3) that that phrase is again repeated in relation to changes necessary
  "in connection with the alteration in any local government area"
  that that is why the new clause has been brought forward.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer; therefore, we need to pick his brain. Why are the words "the functions or" included, if that is his interpretation of the purpose of the new clause?
  Mr. Evans: I do not want to make the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister; no doubt he will tell us. It seems that any changes in the functions would have to be changes that were
  "necessary or expedient in consequence of"
  the passing of the Bill. It is not therefore not quite the sort of broad power to which the hon. Gentleman was referring.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Evans: Again, I do not want to be lengthy about this matter.
  Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that allowance is made in the Bill for subsequent changes, which could be not just now but at times in the future, and that that in itself could lead to a consequential peg on which to hang changes which of course could be consequential, because it is not we who define "consequential"?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman made his own speech. It will be for my hon. Friend the Minister to answer for the Government. I am just seeking assurances from the Government; I am not here to give assurances to the Opposition. On my previous point, though, I seek the assurance that my interpretation of the new clause is correct. On the face of it, it seems to be directed in that way.
  I mentioned in an intervention that I had a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department precisely because of some concerns about the indicative map that has been produced in relation to Powys. It was clear that that document was produced merely for indicative purposes and that it is not a template
  696
  of change as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department is concerned. In view of some of the remarks that have been made, it is important to make that point.
  One point that I put to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on that occasion and which officials had not previously heard, but promised to give some attention to, is whether, in the passage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, there should not only be consultation on new magistrates courts boundaries, if there are to be amalgamations, but consideration of the possibility that any amalgamation might be subject to an affirmative resolution within the House. I know that that matter is currently being considered by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  I seek the assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that, by passing this new clause, which I am perfectly happy to do, we will in no sense restrict any change that the Lord Chancellor's Department may subsequently agree in terms of the Police and Magistrates Courts' Bill requiring there to be an affirmative resolution before there could be any amalgamation of magistrates courts areas generally.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have had a kind reference to patience. Perhaps that quality is still needed in the debate. I must tell Opposition Members that the powers to change areas and functions have been in clause 54(4) since it was first introduced. As I listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I tried to make up my mind whether it was a case of much ado about nothing or of the hon. Gentleman being excessively cautious. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I prefer to think that it is the latter.
  It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Opposition Front Bench on Welsh affairs. It is good to see him there. We had been wondering whether we would see much more of him in that position in future, but I had better not digress further.
  Mr. Michael: I thank the Minister for his welcome. It is because of the mixture of judicial and criminal justice issues and local government issues that, with well-known tolerance, my colleagues in the Welsh team have invited me to contribute to the debate. I am grateful to them for that.
  Can the Minister point to the place in the Bill where subsection (4)(b) of the new clause was previously put? That is the bit that gives the Government power to amend primary legislation by order.
  Mr. Jones: I will cover that point in a moment.
  New clause 13 provides my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor with the equivalent powers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in clause 54. Subsection (3) of the new clause will provide the Lord Chancellor with the ability to make further orders with respect to commission areas, petty sessions areas and magistrates courts committees in connection with alterations made in local government areas by the Bill. That is necessitated by the fact that, for the moment, as far as possible the status quo is to be preserved. The expanded sections inserted into schedule 2 by amendments Nos. 83 and 84 will ensure that those areas are based on preserved county areas. They are currently based on the county area. However, subsection (3) of the new clause will enable my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, should he consider it expedient in future, to alter those areas to match them with the new principal areas.

  697
  Perhaps I should explain further some of the other amendments. Amendment No. 73 will tie my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor into clause 62 and give him equivalent powers to those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 75 will bring the new clause into force on enactment. Amendments Nos. 105 to 109 are consequential, to take account of new clause 13.
  Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has not yet explained to us the consequential changes made by the Local Government (Wales) Bill to the functions of a justice of the peace.
  Mr. Jones: That is an important point. The points made by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth are essentially all for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. All that these amendments do is to allow him to alter those areas because of changes to local government boundaries made by the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about functions. There is nothing novel about the amendments. There is the precedent of section 19(2)(d)(i) of the Local Government Act 1992 which provides power to make regulations and to make consequential, supplementary, et cetera provisions as to the functions or areas of
  "any justice of the peace, stipendiary magistrate, coroner or keeper of the rolls".
  We have to be able to change those, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, so that magistrates' boundaries tie in with unitary authority boundaries. The problem arises purely and simply because the areas are defined by reference to counties. If my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor made changes to functions, it would have to be incidental, consequential, et cetera, to the local government changes made by this Bill. It is thus not a completely unfettered power to change functions.
  Mr. Rowlands: I understand that, but will the Minister give an example of the type of function—as opposed to area—that is changed by the local government reorganisation?
  Mr. Jones: They are functions entirely consequential to the changes made in the Local Government (Wales) Bill. I hesitate to give examples of functions, as I am not an expert in that matter, but I imagine that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will pursue certain expert questions when the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill is considered in Committee.
  Mr. Michael: The trouble is that we cannot pursue this legislation during the Committee stage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. That is why I said that these amendments should have been made to that Bill and not to this Bill. I invite the Minister to respond to my hon. Friend's request by giving us just one simple example of a function that might change. The Minister suggested that I might have some expertise. I cannot think of one function that could or should be changed. One is therefore bound to be suspicious and to ask what the Minister and the Lord Chancellor are up to.
  Mr. Jones: I shall not go any further on that point.
  698
  I trust that that will also be the assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has sought. I am grateful to him for his intervention.
  In answer to the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the equivalent of subsection (4)(b) of the new clause is clause 54(2)(e). Again, there is nothing novel about that.
  I was glad to hear the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, which he repeated in his remarks, about the way in which mid-Wales has been considered in arrangements for that part of Wales. That practical example is the best response to the legitimate concerns expressed by Opposition Members about consultations.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to keep interrupting, but this is the Report stage of the Bill. Has the Minister made it clear to the Lord Chancellor's Department, by the usual means, that the proposed map—and especially the notion of putting Merthyr into the Gwent committee area—is completely in conflict with the whole shape and character of local government changes as proposed in the Bill?
  Mr. Jones: I regard the map as essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. Within the usual consultations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken, and will take, the opportunity to offer his comments so that the eventual decision is best informed and the right decision is taken.
  8 pm
  Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. A moment ago, the Minister said that clause 54(2)(e) provided the powers which are contained in new clause 13 with regard to the Lord Chancellor. However, clause 54(1), which contains the appropriate designation, refers only to the Secretary of State and clearly refers to consequential requirements for applying, amending, repealing or revoking legislation as a result of the Bill going through' —that is, matters relating to local government, which is what the Bill is about. It does not in any sense make the type of provision that is in the new clause with regard to magistrates courts or the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  It is clear that the Minister has been placed in a difficult position, perhaps as a result of taking on board amendments to help the Lord Chancellor's Department. I suggest that he is wrong in what he is saying. He should withdraw the new clause and let the Lord Chancellor get the Under-Secretary of State to propose amendments to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill so that the matter can be debated properly in Committee and on the Floor of the House on Report, rather than rushing the amendments through in this way. The Minister is wrong in what he says.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am relatively confident that I am not wrong in what I am saying. Neither clause 54(2)(e) nor clause 51(4)(1) is changed by this group of amendments, although running through the amendments is a process of putting the Lord Chancellor in the same position as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not feel able to comment on what amendments may be tabled in Committee on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, but I am sure that the right amendments will be tabled where necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 14

  AREA COMMITTEES: SAFEGUARDS
  `.—(1) Where an area committee has been established by a council in accordance with an approved decentralisation scheme—

  (a) the council shall not, except with the agreement of the committee, abolish the committee or alter any arrangements in force with respect to the committee which were made in accordance with the scheme as originally approved or which have subsequently been agreed with the committee; and

  (b) nothing in section 101(4) of the 1972 Act (power of local authority to exercise functions otherwise discharged by committee) shall be taken to authorise the council to exercise any functions which are to be discharged by the committee, except as provided for by the scheme.

  (2) Every decentralisation scheme shall include provision, to be given effect to by the standing orders of the council concerned, for the majority required in order for any suspending resolution to be passed to be such majority greater than a simple majority as may be specified by the scheme.

  (3) In subsection (2) "suspending resolution", in relation to a decentralisation scheme, means a resolution to suspend any of the arrangements in force with respect to an area committee established in accordance with the scheme. '.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clauses 15 and 18.
  Amendment No. 2, in clause 27, page 20, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 22.
  Government amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
  Amendment No. 1, in clause 28, page 22, line 4, leave out from beginning to
  `end of line 12 on page 23.
  Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58.
  Amendment No. 25, in page 22, line 34, leave out
  'sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (Power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned)'
  and insert 'section'.
  Amendment No. 26, in page 22, leave out line 42.
  Amendment No. 27, in page 23, line 4, at end insert—
  `(f) an area committee may co-opt additional persons to serve as members of the committee, but such persons shall not have the right to vote on any resolution of the committee.'.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The amendments and new clauses represent our response to the views expressed by hon. Members in Committee about the organisation of area committees once they have been established. The deletion of provisions from clause 28 and their replacement by three new clauses, each dealing with a different aspect of the matter, is intended to facilitate reading and understanding.
  New clause 14 for the most part reproduces the safeguards for area committees that were built into the clause as it stands. However, it has a new provision which adds a further safeguard in that it disapplies section 101(4) of the Local Government Act 1972—relating to the power of a local authority to exercise functions otherwise discharged by a committee—except as provided for in the scheme. Altogether, we believe that the safeguards will enable committees with the necessary degree of independence to be created and ensure that they can be abolished, their functions changed or their decisions overturned only with their agreement.
  700
  New clause 15 fulfils our commitment to provide for the co-option of additional persons to serve as members of an area committee. We all agree that it will be useful for committees to be able to call on the expertise and experience of people who are not members of the committee by virtue of their having been elected from the area covered by the committee.
  The new clause also makes provision for an area committee to arrange for the discharge of any its functions by a local authority other than the authority which made the scheme—if authorised to do so in the decentralisation scheme. That will enable an area committee to discharge a service delegated to it in the same way as a full council might exercise that responsibility. In practice, we expect that power to be used mainly to enable area committees to arrange for community councils to discharge certain of their functions for them.
  Mr. Wigley: There are two matters on which I should be grateful for the Minister's response. First, will the co-opted members of an area committee count towards a quorum? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the area committee can be a unit in its own right for the purposes of language schemes under the Welsh Language Act 1993?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I can certainly confirm the second point. Of course, it will depend on the committee's decision. As for a quorum, I should have thought that it must comprise the voting members of the committee, and the co-opted members would not be taken into account for that purpose.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: With regard to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), will the Minister explain how a body that has no legal status whatever, as was confirmed in Committee, can be a unit for the purposes of Welsh language schemes? If a body can be a unit for the purposes of Welsh language schemes, why can it not be a unit for the purposes of making contracts and incurring legal liability?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: We went over this ground at considerable length in Committee. When it comes to the question of languages and the provision of a translation service, I should have thought that a committee of a council could take its own decisions in such a matter. That would certainly fall within its purview as a committee because, after all, it is to do with the committee's procedure.
  Mr. Rowlands: Pursuing the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), will the Minister tell the House whether any of the amendments and new clauses clarify the legal liability and the legal personalities of the area committees? The Minister is absolutely right in saying that we went over the matter in Committee. As a result, we found confusion and muddle in the Government's mind and in their attitude towards the whole subject of area committees. Will the area committees be liable for their own actions?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am continuing to describe the committees. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall explain further what the new clauses do. They supplement clause 28 considerably in that we are adding new clauses.
  New clause 18 clarifies the position relating to the setting up of sub-committees of area committees and the

  701
  exercise of the responsibilities delegated to them. The clause also provides for co-option of additional persons to sub-committees, to serve as members.
  Our proposals in new clauses 15 and 18 for co-option to area committees and their sub-committees fulfil—I believe —the undertakings given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in the Standing Committee. In the light of our new clauses, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendments.
  Mr. Ron Davies: With the greatest of respect, the Minister is describing the provisions in new clauses 15 and 18, which we can all read and understand. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked very pertinent and precise questions and the Minister said that he would deal with them in a moment. There is nothing in the new clauses—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: No.
  Mr. Davies: It is no good the Minister saying no, because he did. He said—I noted it—that he would have thought that a sub-committee could make a decision. It takes a great stretch of the imagination for the Minister to come to the startling conclusion that a sub-committee can take a decision.
  I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Can an area committee take a decision relating to a language scheme or anything else that is contrary the declared policy of the principal council? That matter is important in defining the relationship between such committees and the principal councils and is at the heart of the new clauses. The Minister should deal with that question rather than going into the realms of waffle.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I thought that I had dealt with all the interventions to the satisfaction of those hon. Members who intervened, but I shall say more about the quorum. It is common sense that the establishment of a quorum in a body that has voting and co-opted members is a matter for the voting members to sort out.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) amplified the question on the language issue raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) by asking about a situation in which there was conflict between a committee and the main authority. Again, those are matters that should properly be covered by the scheme for decentralisation that the authority will submit for our approval.
  Mr. Rowlands>rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I have not forgotten the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I have a number of points to pursue, too.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The matter is of central importance. We debated it at great length in Committee and the Minister undertook to clarify it. He said that such matters could be resolved under the scheme, but who will approve
  702
  the scheme? The Minister will do so. If he is asking us to accept the new clauses, we ought to have a statement on the central relationship between an area committee and the principal council. Is the Minister going to approve schemes that give area committees powers to take decisions on matters of policy or administration?
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Or money.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed, or money. The list is endless. Will the Minister approve schemes under which decisions can be taken that are contrary to the principles or the policies of the principal council? That question defines the relationship between committees and principal councils. Under powers given by the Bill, the Minister will approve such schemes, so what is in his mind? It is no good his saying that he thought that the scheme would cover it. What is he going to do about it?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall explain many of the points that are raised, if only the House will be patient.
  Let me deal with the issue of co-optees. We believe that members of an area committee should be fully accountable for their decisions and that generally only councillors elected for that area should have the right to vote. We have had to make an exception, however, in the case of representatives of churches that appoint foundation governors of voluntary schools. Under the Education Act 1993, the Secretary of State can direct that such representatives be appointed to committees dealing with education and that they should have voting rights. If an area committee has education functions—we made it clear in Committee that only minor education functions might be delegated—it is necessary for the voting rights of church representatives to be safeguarded as we have done in the new clauses.
  Hon. Members have mentioned funding and other issues. The Government propose that the decentralisation scheme should set out how an area committee's budget would be calculated and specify a minimum proportion of an authority's revenue budget to be delegated to the area committee. The proportion would vary from scheme to scheme, depending on the functions proposed for each area committee. Where the whole of an authority was covered by area committees, the minimum amount to be delegated might total one third of the authority's budget.
  8.15 pm
  The scheme would guarantee the minimum proportion, unless the area committee and the authority agreed that it should move upwards or downwards in the light of experience or changing circumstances. Within the block resources delegated to it, the area committee would set its spending priorities and be able to build up reserves and retain revenue from services for which it was responsible, such as car parking.
  On capital finance, applications for supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—would be co-ordinated by the authority, although area committees could play a role.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me, this is an important matter and I have not finished dealing with it, as it is not simple.
  As I said, applications for supplementary credit approvals would be co-ordinated by the authority, although area committees could play a significant role in preparing

  703
  bids for their areas. Schemes could provide for area committees to have responsibility for SCA-supported projects for functions delegated to them and could receive an agreed allocation of capital resources for those functions —from basic credit approvals and reserves.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary offered in Committee to consider whether area committees should have powers to influence the levels of council tax. We can see that such powers have their attractions and would reinforce the accountability of councillors to their electors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered the matter carefully, in consultation with colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. It has become clear that such powers would involve substantial legal difficulties, which we have been unable to resolve. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) that, regretfully, we have concluded that we should not amend the Bill on that issue.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Perhaps, before I return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and touched on by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, I had better give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Carlile: I do not want the Minister's reference to car parks to pass without asking him to inform the House what would happen, for example, to the reserve built up from the enormous revenue earned from the Welshpool Smithfield car park? Let us suppose that the area committee put the reserve into a bank deposit account and that there was a fund to spend. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, under the scheme that the Government are providing, the area committee—even if it wanted to enter into a contract to put up a hut for the car park attendant—could not do so because it would have no power to do so? The contract for the car park attendant's hut, using the area committee's money, would have to be entered into by the unitary authority which might not want the car park attendant to have a hut. Is not that factually and legally correct, and how does the Minister defend it?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: We have said time and again that it is a matter for the area committees, and the authorities must draft schemes for the delegation of functions to the area committees. The schemes and the functions delegated will vary considerably, and it is for the area committees and their respective authorities to decide what kind of scheme is acceptable to them within the parameters that I am laying down at the moment.
  I know what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is after—he wants us to declare that the area committees are corporate bodies. But we have made it clear that they are similar to other authority committees. Committees that exist under the present county council system, for example, do not have the corporate status that he is after.
  We are going over matters which were, I thought, dealt with adequately in Committee. I have already made the point that committees of local authorities take decisions now on matters for which responsibility has been delegated to them. No one worries now about accountability or responsibility on the part of those committees.
  Mr. Wigley: I did not serve on the Committee and, to that extent, I am perhaps a little bit at a loss compared with
  704
  my colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."] That may be the case. What happens if an area committee, by virtue of an act of commission or omission, finds itself in a surchargeable position? Are only the councillors on the area committee are liable in law, or is the full authority?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Councillors are responsible for their own actions. Members of the area committees are also members of the full authority and, therefore, as members of the full authority, they might be liable to surcharge. The co-opted members obviously would not carry the same responsibility.
  I also emphasise that, as with the present system where the main authority is responsible for its committee's activities, so it would be under our proposed system. The main authority would be responsible for the actions of the members of its area committees who, of course, are also members of the authority.
  Mr. Rowlands: That is an amazing statement. It was prefaced by a lengthy statement describing the enormous power of area committees. The committees could have a percentage of the revenues of the local authority and of the block grants of certain amounts of capital expenditure. Is the Minister saying that, if those funds are misappropriated, are not spent in a proper manner and become subject to a district audit, the principal council becomes collectively liable and responsible?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I want to make it clear that, as with the present system, individual councillors will be responsible under the new system for any erroneous decisions which result in their surcharge.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: It has been four years since we first started thinking about local government reorganisation in Wales. It is certainly three or four years since the Government issued consultative papers, Green Papers, White Papers, Bills of one sort and Bills of another. Here we are at the very last stage of our proceedings in the House of Commons, and we are still muddled, confused and besotted by the question of area committees. I suspect that if the Committee stage and the stages in the House went on any further, the situation would get worse day by day.
  Frankly, I think that this is the most disappointing part of the Bill. It has been conceived in haste and as a direct result of the Government's attempt—in the Minister of State's own words in the Standing Committee—to pacify people in the Conservative party, and mainly the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). Because the Minister could not deliver—or did not want to deliver, for whatever reason—separate unitary authorities in rural mid-Wales, the Government tried to cobble together this area committee nonsense to appease and to pacify.
  The problem is that the Government are then visiting on the whole of local government in Wales a confused, unaccountable and badly thought-out system of local government. I wish to speak briefly to the amendments standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends which would delete the whole area committee part of the Bill. Frankly, I am convinced that anybody involved in the working and running of local authorities in Wales—county councillors or district councillors—will live to see the folly of this part of the legislation.
  We have been landed with a two-tier system when the whole purpose of the Bill is to create a unitary system of

  705
  local government. We might disagree on some aspects of that, but the idea of having a single tier was the attraction which the Government have tried to sell to the people of wales. But as soon as they came to a political problem —a handful of the majority in one constituency in the middle of rural Wales—the whole reform of local government had to be put out of gear.
  There might be some sense in it if the Government said that area committees would be placed in all parts of Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who spoke well in the earlier debate, could have area committees in his constituency in Splott, Grangetown and other parts of Cardiff in the same way as there can now apparently be committees in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and mid-Wales.
  Mr. Michael: Or in Penarth.
  Mr. Murphy: Indeed. Because the system has been born out of trying to make concessions, only parts of Wales will actually have the benefit—if that is what it is—of area committees. One cannot run a system of local government in Wales unless that system is applicable to all parts. It does not make sense, and it will lead to disharmony and administrative chaos as the years roll by.
  The purpose of the Bill is to avoid having to come back here in 20 years' time, or whenever it might be, to change local government all over again. After all, it was just 21 years ago that the former Secretary of State of Wales, Lord Walker, was ultimately responsible for the system that is now disappearing. We may have to come back a damn sight earlier than that if the proposals are put into effect, because they simply will not work.
  Look at the confusion behind the Minister's comments about finance. No Department, with all its experts—whether the Treasury, the Department of the Environment or the Welsh Office—could come up a solution to enable the over-complex system of local government finance to apply to area committees. The capping procedures are so complicated and standard spending assessments so difficult to understand that they simply cannot apply to area committees.
  The Minister of State's answer on surcharge was totally inadequate. We cannot pass laws that mean that members of local authorities who become members of area committees and put up their hands to vote are not sure whether they will be liable to surcharge. Even worse, if those individuals are members of the parent authority, they may be made liable to surcharge when they have had nothing to do with the decisions of those area committees.
  8.30 pm
  When we debate Powys, the thrust of the discussion will be about accountability and bringing local government back to the people—certainly to those in mid-Wales, which seems to have been the birthplace of the stuff about area committees. The idea was to maintain community links and civic pride. One simply cannot get anyone in mid-Wales or anywhere else in the Principality enthused about civic pride via an area committee. One has to have a council, with a chairman or mayor, which is properly elected, because only those bodies can attract such civic pride, awareness and enthusiasm. An area committee, or whatever one may wish to call it, is not a council, which is what people require in mid-Wales.
  706
  For that reason, the first vote on new clause 11 was designed to give people in every part of Wales the opportunity to decide through a proper plebiscite whether they wanted the proposed new local authority for their area. That is the only way to do it. The only way in which permanence and stability can be given to local government is through the establishment of councils, proper statutory bodies, not the nonsense of area committees, which will satisfy no one. Such committees will not last two years should the Bill reach the statute book this year.
  No mention has been made of a possible deadlock. When we discussed Government new clause 13, the Minister referred specifically to safeguards. We want not safeguards but assurances that when there is an irreversible deadlock between an area committee and its parent authority it will be broken. We want to know who will do that. Will it be the Secretary of State, the council itself or some other body such as the proposed new association? Who knows? It seems to me that the possibility of deadlock and conflict between those authorities is by no means remote. We were told that the whole purpose of the Bill was to remove the conflict, deadlock and disharmony that could exist between county councils and district councils.
  There are ways to decentralise local government, but that is not what we have been offered. The Minister should consider what his Scottish colleagues have done. The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill offers workable, sensible decentralisation.
  A number of Welsh local authorities have already set up administrative decentralisation schemes for housing and other responsibilities. Let us encourage that. No mention has been made of our community councils, which are properly elected bodies. They could be given more powers and finance to do what is suggested should be the responsibility of area committees. Far more sensible measures than the Bill could have been adopted.
  Nothing has been done because the Government want to improve the system of local democracy, create a better one or improve administration. We were offered area committees simply because the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and others wanted to have a different system of local government in mid-Wales. The Government would not agree with their proposals. Doubtless, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will talk at length about Powys. The trouble with him is that he wanted it all his own way. He was willing to take all and give nothing. That is why the Minister cannot come up with a solution for mid-Wales. What we have been offered does not represent that solution, and it most certainly does not represent a proper system of local government throughout the Principality.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I shall have something further to say when we discuss the boundaries within Powys, but at this stage I shall confine my remarks to the proposals on area committees. If, as the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) suggested, those proposals were an attempt to pacify me, they have singularly failed, as he will well know.
  Throughout our discussions, I have recognised that the Government have made a genuine attempt to create a system in which powers can be exercised at a local level. I have been pleased to see the flexibility that has been shown by the Government and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the many announcements about the functions to be delivered at local level.

  707
  As I made clear in Committee, I considered that it was one thing to create to create a system of local government in which we allowed functions to be devolved to area committees or shire committees, or even council committees. It is also important that we should have an accountable system of local government. The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke about accountability. To my mind, the crucial element of accountability is financial. It is for that reason that I have strongly pressed the case for allowing unitary authorities either to be set up within Powys or to establish area committees with real financial accountability. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his efforts to carry that further, but it would appear that he is unable to say anything positive in that regard today. I am bound to say, therefore, that the prescription that we are offered for area committees is flawed to that extent.
  I am deeply concerned about the proposals that are contained in Government amendment No. 54, because the number of councillors who are required to trigger a request for a decentralisation scheme is to be raised from 10 to 15. In the House, we often discuss particular difficulties in our respective parts of Wales. Often, there is a degree of generosity between hon. Members, which is not always evident among those on the Front Benches. On many occasions, I have heard the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) talk about adult unemployment in his constituency. I appreciate that difficulty and I do not dismiss it. I have heard the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) also speak about similar difficulties. Whatever our political differences, those difficulties are faced by communities that we know.
  In rural Wales, one of our problems is sparsity of population. That is understood even by some Opposition Members. Nowhere is that problem more starkly demonstrated than in the proposal to raise the number of councillors required to trigger a decentralisation scheme from 10 to 15. In the Government proposals for Powys, the number of councillors that they suggest should be elected to represent the whole of Radnorshire is 17. If one is to trigger a decentralisation scheme in Radnorshire, one would have to get 15 of the 17 councillors to approve of it. That proportion is not far short of 90 per cent.
  In common with many others in the Chamber, I have been on the hustings in the past few weeks. I do not think any hon. Member present, even the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who may still be drunk with the excitement of his success last Thursday, if I can put it like that, would ever aspire to get a majority of 90 per cent. That is the target set to activate a decentralisation scheme in Radnorshire. I am bound to say that I doubt whether that would be achieved.
  Of the other two authorities in Powys, 38 councillors are allowed for in Montgomeryshire under the guidance issued. Of those 38, 15 represents but 39 per cent. of those who are able to form a judgment. I am absolutely sure that, despite all the criticisms that have been made about area committees, Montgomeryshire and Breconshire will request a decentralisation scheme. Although 52 per cent. of the councillors would need to approve such a scheme in Breconshire, 90 per cent. of the councillors would need to approve one in Radnorshire.
  How can such an operation work in practice? If a decentralisation scheme is approved in one part of Powys, and Radnorshire, for instance, cannot secure the 15 councillors required, who will make the local planning
  708
  decisions which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Committee should be decided at a local level? His statement was very much welcomed in Radnorshire, where we have had a number of wind farm applications and people feel that Radnorshire should decide whether those applications should proceed. We foresee Montgomeryshire and Breconshire having a decentralisation scheme so that they can reach such judgments, yet the whole of Powys will decide what should happen in Radnorshire.
  What is the answer to that problem? Unless we have the 15 councillors required, we shall not be entitled to apply for a decentralisation scheme under the Bill. That defeats the purpose of the exercise in which we have been engaged.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is taking a somewhat depressing view of the position in Radnorshire. Given that all 17 councillors would be members of an area committee, would have been elected to represent that area and could be rejected by their electorate, I should have thought that they would all favour an area committee. Incidentally, we increased the figure from 10 to 15 councillors because, with the smaller number, a small, disgruntled group of 10 councillors might put forward an application for area committee status when they had nothing more than a difference with the major authority.
  Mr. Evans: I do not make light of that difficulty. The concern has been expressed by some Opposition Members, many of whom believe in neither area committees nor decentralisation. The bottom line of concern here is the fact that mid-Wales does not have the population to reach the figures set in the Bill. We shall be disadvantaged by that. I suggest that, even at this late stage, a proportion of councillors would be a better option for areas with small populations than a requirement for a particular number of councillors.
  On the first part of my right hon. Friend's intervention,. I know the mood in Radnorshire well. In Llandrindod Wells there is far more positive support for a centralised Powys authority; within the more rural part of Radnorshire, however, people feel that there should be a separate Radnorshire authority, so one should not presume that it will be easy to get 15 out of 17 councillors to vote for a decentralisation scheme. If it were that easy, the Government would be saying that every councillor within an area must approve every decentralisation scheme proposed. In essence, that is what the amendment asks of Radnorshire.
  Mr. Wigley: The Dwyfor area could be in a similar position to Radnorshire. Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the possibility of a non-homogenous party political dimension? That may not be the case in Powys, which is largely independent, but those differences could exist in some areas. A small minority of councillors in one area might want to latch on to the larger proportion to which they belong in the overall authority and use that as a vested interest to block the creation of a district committee.
  Mr. Evans: When we discussed those matters in Committee, I had more faith in the part of the Bill that allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide whether a decentralisation scheme should be approved. Some people resist granting such powers to a Secretary of State. But in the scenario outlined by the hon. Gentleman,

  709
  the Secretary of State's power would reassure me far more than racking up the requirement of the number of councillors that will trigger a decentralisation scheme. As a result of the amendment, it will be impossible for many areas of Wales to apply for a decentralisation scheme. I should prefer the requirement to be either to achieve a proportion of councillors within an area or to stick with the current trigger and then rely on the Secretary of State to decide whether a scheme should be approved.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: To answer the Minister of State's direct question to me, I am content with the amendments on co-option. In so far as the decentralisation schemes will work, I hope that those co-options will contribute to that.
  The Government amendments and new clauses on decentralisation schemes are extremely disappointing, particularly when set against the speech made in Committee on that subject by the Under-Secretary of State. Although the debate was somewhat confused on some legal issues, which remain unanswered, we had the impression that there was a real possibility that shire committees—as we thought they were to be called—would have certain powers relating to taxation. The Government seemed to be considering the possibility that shire committees would have precepting powers or something similar.
  I appreciate that the Government are saying that, under the schemes, certain requirements set out are intended to ensure that the area committees have their own part of the unitary authority budget. It is regrettable, however, that there is no statutory guarantee that that will happen. I cannot accept that it was impossible for the Government to include in the Bill criteria applicable to all area committees which would ensure that they have some precepting powers and a legal status. I regret having to return to that point, but it is a key issue on the credibility of area committees.
  Community councils have powers to take legal action in certain circumstances and in respect of certain liabilities. Although those powers are exercised through district councils, at least they exist. A community council can write cheques, enter into commitments and has all the trappings of a council. Indeed, it is a council. It can also own land; many community councils own cemeteries, which are often on large amounts of land. In Welshpool, for example, the community council—the town council —not only owns Welshpool town hall but used to own part of Smithfield, which is some of the most valuable land in the town. Welshpool town council has significant property ownership and property rights, and so it will remain.
  The unitary authority will have the power to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued and to employ staff and contractors. It will have corporate status. We are told that area committees will have significant powers, but how can those powers have real meaning if the area committee must turn to the unitary authority whenever a decision is to be made involving spending or receiving money?
  The car park hut is a good example. If the area committee decides to give a car park attendant a hut, I understand that it will not even be able to sign the cheque, and that the contract with the hut provider will have to be entered into by the unitary authority. In my constituency,
  710
  there happens to be a company, Presco, that makes prefabricated buildings and might well provide that car park hut, by bringing it down the road and dropping it off the back of one of its lorries as it trundles through town. However, Presco will have to send its invoice to the unitary authority and the area committee will have to ask the unitary authority to agree to pay those few hundred pounds in respect of that invoice.
  What about more serious situations? Suppose that an employee—an officer of the council—whose functions are entirely in relation to the area committee, committed a serious act of negligence for which his employing authority was vicariously liable. It might be an act that was approved by the area committee but would not have been approved by the unitary authority had it been consulted, yet the unitary authority is to be held liable for it.
  One can also imagine tremendous disputes between area committees and unitary authorities about planning decisions. Suppose that the area committee reaches a planning decision against which there is an appeal. The appeal is heard and the Welsh Office inspector finds against the authority and makes an order for substantial costs, running into tens of thousands of pounds. Is it right that the unitary authority should pick up the bill?
  Mr. Rowlands: I have followed the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech closely. Given what the Minister said about the devolved responsibility in relation to share of revenue and block grants, does it not mean that the area committee will have to have an almost fully fledged finance department of its own to conduct those functions?
  Mr. Carlile: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He made a significant contribution when we discussed those issues in Committee. I have to say, and I am sure that he shares my view, that none of our doubts has been resolved by what has been said today. The Government have fought and fought to avoid making the right decision, which was to create the unitary authorities in mid-Wales. For reasons that can be only political, they have decided not to do so, but, at the same time, they have managed to displease their own side. We are left with an extraordinary mess.
  I suspect that I speak for councillors who are members of the existing Powys county council and for those who are members of the district councils when I tell the Minister of State that councillors in rural mid-Wales do not find it easy to understand the way in which those area committees will work.
  Perhaps the Government would really like those area committees to wither on the vine. Here we come to Government amendment No. 54, on which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we can be given the opportunity to vote separately at the appropriate time in our considerations tonight. Government amendment No. 54 was carefully avoided by the Minister of State when he introduced the group of amendments, but it is extremely important. In many ways, it is the most important part of the group. The fons et origo of an area committee is that resolution of councillors to have an area committee. For reasons that have not been explained by the Minister, he referred to some renegade councillors. I shall discuss that later.
  It has been decided to increase by 50 per cent. the number of councillors who can ask for an area committee. The effect that that will have on old counties such as

  711
  Radnorshire has been graphically, adequately and fully explained by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). As for the renegade councillors, I thought that it had been repeatedly emphasised, both in the Bill and in discussions about the Bill, that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to allow a decentralisation scheme to proceed. If it is a renegade scheme, he will not allow it to proceed, so that disposes of the renegade councillors. It is no argument whatsoever for increasing the number from 10 to 15.
  The Government have had years to think about that. Why were we not told in Committee that the Government thought that 10 was not the right number? Why should there be such a dramatic increase? If they want to increase it, why not to 12—a small increase which might cater more successfully for the type of situation that could confront us in Radnorshire?
  The Minister is all too sanguine about what is likely to happen in Radnorshire. There are county councillors who honestly believe, and can express those beliefs well, that decentralisation schemes are a non-starter. They do not want them. Some of them are independent councillors and they are very independent-minded. If two of those councillors are elected to the new unitary authority to represent parts of Radnorshire, that is the end of Radnorshire as a decentralised area—and then what happens?
  Is the Minister prepared to countenance planning decisions about wind farms for Radnorshire being taken by a planning committee that includes councillors from Montgomeryshire who may be feeling a little nervous about yet another wind farm being proposed for Montgomeryshire and who therefore decide, "Let's shove it over the border into the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor"? One can imagine Radnorshire being at the deepest possible disadvantage in that situation, in which, if the Minister's promises are delivered, Montgomeryshire councillors decide all types of things in their area committee and Breconshire county councillors decide matters in their area committee, but everything that happens in Radnorshire has to be decided by all the councillors from Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire and Breconshire.
  Earlier in these debates, the Minister of State made an appeal to common sense. In relation to those decentralisation schemes, especially the proposal in Government amendment No. 54, I am afraid that common sense has taken to yogic flying. I ask the Minister of State and the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, to reconsider those proposals, especially Government amendment No. 54, once again. If they do not, we shall have the most unholy mess in mid-Wales, and probably in parts of north Wales, too.
  Mr. David Hanson: Although the Minister of State has covered a number of the issues relating to decentralisation, many of us still support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). The decentralisation scheme in the Bill, and in the amendments which strengthen it, are not about decentralisation: they are a recipe for confusion and—despite what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said—for a continued opt-out by the sections of an authority that remain dissatisfied with an electoral result and with the services that the authority provides.
  712
  I am very worried about the negative way in which the Minister of State now intends to strengthen the area committees—a development which has occurred since the Committee stage. Throughout consideration of the Bill, the Government have maintained that they want to do away with a two-tier system of local government. Yet the establishment of area committees will continue to impose on ratepayers and service receivers of many Welsh authorities precisely that two-tier system. The proposals will continue the confusion of responsibilities as between the committees and the unitary authorities. There is still no clear separation of powers and responsibilities in the system.
  9 pm
  There will be unclear lines of accountability, too. There will be a patchwork of services in certain areas simply because people who are not satisfied with the composition of a unitary authority will opt out of it. I am not against decentralisation in principle; it is a sound idea. But the proposed system will ensure that dissatisfied councillors can appeal to the Secretary of State—originally 10 of them, now 15.
  In an authority such as mine, the proposed Flintshire, a small number of councillors will be able to opt out, perhaps as soon as two or three weeks after an election for a shadow authority in which members of the authority were soundly defeated. Areas such as mine need cross-subsidisation between the industrial belt and the rural belt. But 15 out of 70 or so councillors in Flintshire, perhaps in part of the rural area, could opt out by applying to the Secretary of State for Wales, possibly taking with them a large part of a budget which is likely to have been generated by the whole borough. People throughout the borough have needs that should be met, and a small number of people representing only a small part of the borough should not be able to impede that.
  Local accountability for the provision of services will not be clear. For instance, an area committee may be surcharged and all the members of the unitary authority may face a surcharge along with it. New clause 14 will make matters worse. The unitary authority will have little or no control over what the area committee does. The Government new clause states that a unitary authority
  "shall not, except with the agreement of the committee, abolish the committee or alter any arrangements in force with respect to the committee which were made in accordance with the scheme".
  To all intents and purposes, then, the area committee will be a separate legal entity—but its actions can have an impact on members of a unitary authority, who might have to pick up the financial tab for actions taken by the area committee, even though the authority has no responsibility for the committee's actions—it has no influence over the committee at all.
  In several areas, planning for one, a small number of councillors who have opted out of unitary authority control will be able to take decisions about important services. Do we want 15 out of 73 councillors to be able to blow holes in district plans long since agreed by the unitary authority, subject as those 15 will be to all sorts of local pressures? These planning matters will no doubt be important to the 15 local councillors, but they may have no relevance to the borough's strategic development plans in respect of education, rural areas and transport. That will clearly not be in the interests of the borough as a whole, yet the unitary authority will have no influence over what an area committee does.

  713
  There will also be a lack of co-ordination across a borough. In Flintshire, I want a coterminous unitary authority that acts in the interests of all its ratepayers, but that cannot happen as long as 15 Conservative, rural or Labour councillors can opt out and determine the priorities of their own area merely on the basis of what they think right for it. Why create a unitary authority system if one is to perpetuate, as the Minister is, that element of the two-tier system? There will be about 114,000 people living in my local authority. Why will 15 members be able to opt out and go their own way in a whole range of areas? That is not in the interests of the borough as a whole or of the people whom those 15 councillors represent. It is a recipe for confusion, lack of accountability, potential fraud, and for legal cases galore, which will keep many a lawyer in business for many years to come.
  Although the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—perhaps even the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—would welcome that, at the end of the day, I feel that the system will not work. It will not deliver the services that people want. It will not provide a coherent strategy for a geographical area. It will not lead to effective Government. Surely the Bill is about effective Government.
  I am concerned about co-option, which the Minister mentioned earlier and which features in the new clause. If we are to have co-option of individual members to a small local area committee, I should like to hear from the Minister a little more about the responsibilities of those individuals; for example, how they are accountable for the services, who they can be, and how they fit into local government. Under the provisions of the Bill as drafted, and with the proposed new clauses, individuals who, by providing themselves with a smaller area committee, effectively opt out of local authority control, can draw from that local area, not just other councillors, perhaps from outside the area, but individuals who are now co-opted, who are not in any way accountable to the services and to the ratepayers who are covered by that area committee, and yet are, perhaps, appointed by a small number of people as opposed to a large unitary authority as a whole.
  What we are seeing is not decentralisation, but an opting-out of a wider view of local authority services, and with an area committee comprising a small number of councillors determining what they see as best for that small geographical area without a view to the needs of the unitary authority or the community as a whole. For those reasons, the Minister should go back to the drawing board, accept the amendments that have been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, withdraw the new clauses and let us have a decentralisation system that will work and is not a recipe for disaster.
  Mr. Llwyd: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). By definition, there is a conflict between the members of an area committee and the full parent authority, because, clearly, they will wish to do the best for their district. In Committee, we heard the area committee being transformed into a shire committee, which was meant to lull us all into a false sense of security.
  Mr. Rowlands: Pacify us.
  Mr. Llwyd: I am reminded that the word "pacify" was used. It did not work. We were supposed to think that we were in line for something worth while, but when one looks
  714
  at what we are being offered, one sees that it is worthless. It is a half-baked, half-hearted idea, and is a good example of policy on the hoof.
  I refer briefly to one or two assurances that were given by the Under-Secretary of State during the debates. He said:
  "The case has been made for shire committees to be responsible for a wide range of functions, much wider than those carried out by present district councils. Finance follows functions, of course …
  For example, all the schemes for a particular authority might provide that a minimum of one third of the authority's budget should be delegated to the shire committee."
  Later, he said:
  "It should be possible for schemes to establish arrangements whereby shire committees would have responsibility for administering supplementary credit approval-supported projects for functions which have been delegated to them and receive an agreed allocation of capital resources for functions delegated to them."
  Finally, he said:
  "We are looking forward to the greatest practical level of decision-making by the shire committee. In line with the estimate that I have already given and leaving aside education, we foresee about 65 per cent. of the decisions on functions and finance being determined by the shire committee.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 May 1994; c. 384–86.]
  Much of that now seems to have evaporated. Having heard the Minister of State open the debate, I am now less happy about those assurances than I was when I first heard them.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman. I listened carefully to his quotation from the speech made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in Committee; I repeated the greater part of that in the assurances that I gave earlier this evening.
  Mr. Llwyd: If the Minister is in the mood to intervene, perhaps he will enlighten me on a certain point. Why has the number of councillors who would have to call for the area committee risen from 10 to 15? Will the Minister explain that again, briefly? Is there any other reason for it, apart from the "rogue councillor" idea, which I consider rather preposterous? If the Minister explained now, it might even shorten our proceedings.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I have already explained. We want the applications for area committee status to be soundly based and to relate to local identity and community loyalty. We do not want the kind of development to which the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred, in which a group of councillors who are out of sympathy with the unitary authority say, "Let us break away and form an area committee." I believe that that is less likely to happen if the number is fixed at about 15.
  Mr. Llwyd: With respect, I do not accept that argument for a moment. I think that there is a good deal of mischief behind the new clause. Meirionnydd's area committee is now likely to have 21 members, or possibly 22, 75 per cent. of whom will have to decide whether to move in. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) is faced with what is potentially an even more difficult problem: if one or two rogue councillors in Radnorshire decide that they do not want an area committee, they can dictate the position for the rest. That, surely, is not an exercise in good democratic practice.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman forgets that members of the area committee will also be members of

  715
  the unitary authority itself. They can have two for the price of one, as it were. I cannot imagine circumstances in which area members would refuse an area committee.
  Mr. Llwyd: In that case, why are we arguing about figures? If no one is going to argue against the establishment of an area committee, why are we wasting good parliamentary time arguing about whether the figure should be 10 or 15? We are getting nowhere. It is like swimming in treacle.
  I am dissatisfied with what the Minister has said. I think that the proposal is potentially mischievous; it will not help Brecon and Radnor, Dwyfor, Meirionnydd and various other parts of Wales. I have always thought that the legislative process is about making laws that will not be challenged day in, day out in constitutional courts and so forth. Here we have a potential problem that may blow up and— as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested— prove to be a recipe for the whole idea to wither on the vine.
  The hon. Member for Delyn made the general point that when we embarked on the Bill we were considering doing away with two-tier government, which allegedly caused confusion, complications, delay and unnecessary tension. In its stead, we are now creating a similar position involving much more confusion. We do not know what the precise legal position on contracts will be. I shall not go over the argument again, but we are even more confused now and I am sure that, regrettably, things will get worse.
  In Committee, we called for clarification. Before it sat, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the matter, which was of personal interest. I still say that unitary status for Meirionnydd, Montgomery and Brecon and Radnor is the answer. The Government's attempt to head off the rebellion and pacify the people of mid-Wales is an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction. The people of mid-Wales will not be pacified by the Government's half-baked plan, and in making that point I am sure that I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Clause 27 is a half-baked proposal. The Government have said that 95 per cent. of housing management must be put out to compulsory competitive tender. The guidance states that area committees will not be allowed to manage housing direct service organisations.
  9.15 pm
  Reference has been made to the Powys pudding. I presume that responsibility for social services will be divided between the two tiers— the unitary authority per se and the area committee. The committees, therefore, will be responsible for some services, but will have no control over financing, staff or property resources. If a committee is not a legal entity, it cannot be responsible directly for those matters. A service will not be delivered unless the committees are in control of such major responsibilities.
  If area committees are established— if they are baked a little more in the oven— they will have a thankless job. Councillors will stand for election and will merely say, "I am sorry, but I am unable to produce that for you because of what the parent council said. It holds the purse strings; therefore, I am not in a position to deliver anything." I urge the Minister to think again. I always think that it is a gross mistake to introduce legislation that has inherent problems.
  716
  I have talked about whether area committees should have 10 or 15 members. I am still not persuaded and I urge the Minister to consider the matter again because it will undoubtedly cause problems in rural Wales.
  The financial provisions should be strengthened. We have heard that various formulae will be used, but I am not sure what will ensue or whether the Secretary of State will approve any application. The conundrum that we are all in highlights the fact that, apart from Meirionnydd, the mid-Wales authorities, as approved in Committee, should be allowed to stand in their own right.
  The Government are the authors of their own misfortune. I do not like to suggest that the legislation bodes ill, but I am certain that many problems will result throughout Wales because of the ill-thought-out way in which the proposals have been presented. Once more, I urge the Minister to apply some common sense to the situation and to allow Brecon and Radnor, Montgomery and Meirionnydd to have their richly deserved unitary status. The alternative is half-baked, will not work and is a Pandora's box.
  Mr. Hain: I do not wish to offend the Minister because we are all quite fond of him really, but I must say that what we have witnessed is an extraordinary tour de force of fudging, fixing and fiddling: the more he spoke, the more contradictions emerged. He would have been better advised simply to read out the brief provided by his officials, keep his head down and not take any interventions because the more he elaborated, the more contradictions he uttered.
  Let us consider the question of surcharging. If I have interpreted the Minister's comments correctly, it now seems that if, as the result of a decision taken by an area committee, a surcharge falls on the whole council, individual councillors are liable to be surcharged.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: That is not the position that I outlined. The surcharge falls on the individual councillors involved in taking the decision, whatever it may have been.
  Mr. Hain: Is the Minister saying that although the corporate body—the whole council—may be surcharged, individual councillors cannot be surcharged as a result of an area committee's decision? Will he confirm that definitely?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Clearly, cases have to be dealt with individually, but the fundamental principle of surcharging, in so far as it affects individual councillors, is that it is related directly to decisions that they have taken as individual councillors.
  Hon. Members: Or failed to take.
  Mr. Hain: Indeed. That is a grey area, but many other matters raised by the Minister are not at all grey.
  What started off, in the Minister's notorious words, as an exercise in pacification has ended up as an exercise in obfuscation. We are recreating a two-tier system of government—precisely the system that the Bill was supposed to abolish. I am not a believer in reincarnation, but the Bill is simply an exercise in legislative reincarnation. Having been killed off, the two-tier system is now rising up in a different form.
  Assuming that amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are accepted, one of the most obnoxious features of the Bill is that, on the whim of 15—previously 10—councillors, a

  717
  section of the council can effectively opt out. That will have the extremely deleterious effect of preventing local authorities—the new unitary authorities—from carrying out their functions and exercising democracy. Opting out and fragmentation will result in decisions that will negate the possibility of a strategic approach to policy and the ordering of priorities in the best interest of the public at large rather than that of particular sections of the community.
  Subject to possible disciplinary action by my highers and betters on Labour's Front Bench, I must admit that I am inclined to accept amendments Nos. 54 and 55 on the basis that they appear to me to be wrecking amendments. It is unusual for the Government to table wrecking amendments to their own legislation, but to increase the number of councillors from 10 to 15 could severely injure the principle of the area committees, a point made by the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I am therefore attracted to the amendments, and I hope that they are accepted. [Interruption.] It appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will let me off if I vote for them.
  The Bill is illogical, especially in terms of the so-called decentralisation proposals. A better description would be "opting-out" proposals. Let us consider the contrast between education and social services policies and housing policies. In education, there will be one syllabus and one approach decided by the whole of a unitary authority, but it appears that the area committee can determine its own housing allocation priorities. That is illogical because, in principle, there is no difference between delivering housing and delivering education services.
  Let us take the issue of planning. It seems extraordinary that an area committee could override or at least contradict the decision of a unitary authority in respect of planning. Consider a thorny local issue in Neath, for example—the question of secure accommodation for young offenders. In this case, West Glamorgan county council took the decision to site some young offenders' secure accommodation in the Neath area—a decision which I happen to support as the local Member of Parliament but which was met with fierce resistance from local people who felt that it was the wrong spot and who had many legitimate arguments. Is the Minister saying—this is my reading of the new clause—that the area committee could override a strategic decision to supply secure accommodation by refusing planning permission in that particular spot in the unitary authority? That is a classic example of the point that I am trying to illustrate. An overall policy with strategic implications not only for that area but, in this case, for the whole of south Wales, could be overridden by part of the authority, objecting to it simply on a parochial basis.
  There are many other illogicalities and policy conflicts to which I could draw attention. However, in respect of Neath, Port Talbot and Lliw, without revisiting the arguments in principle about the boundaries of the new authority and whether they are appropriate—I believe that they are not—there will be severe tensions in the new unitary authority between upper Lliw, Neath and Port Talbot. A faction of dissident councillors—either in those areas on a united basis or in parts of those areas—who set
  718
  up an area authority and opted out, could severely disable the operation of the new authority. Given that the reorganisation is proceeding against local wishes—it is proceeding because the Government are forcing it through —the new unitary authority will have to establish a new basis on which to work together, new trust and a whole new approach towards getting together people who have previously been suspicious of and hostile to each other. Suddenly, the option of an area committee opting out will open up and that will be very dangerous.
  The real aim of the new clause is to continue the process that the Government have embarked on and on which they have set their heart—the process of smashing local democracy. That is their task and their aim. They have an obsession with opting out which makes me believe that the real objective and the hidden agenda is to paralyse local government and the new unitary authorities. The Government already have powers to cap them. In some cases—such as that of the metropolitan authorities in England—the Government have abolished local councils because they were doing things to which they objected. They have further disabled local authorities through the processes of opting out, contracting out and the sale of council housing and by preventing them from building new homes. On top of that, they are seeking to fragment and hive off sections of the local authorities. It all adds up to a quite clear prescription for paralysing and disabling the operations of local democracy, especially where it is Labour local democracy and where local people are attempting to implement policies in accord with their wishes rather than the wishes of an extremely elitist, centralising central Government.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The debate demonstrates the complete weakness of the Government's position on the Bill. It was absolutely clear in Committee—certainly all hon. Members who represent the Powys and mid-Wales area, including Meirionnydd, and all Opposition Members have made it clear—that the answer to the problem of mid-Wales is separate, unitary authorities for Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor and Meirionnydd. We have made that absolutely clear and we have voted for it consistently.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) did not vote with us and did not mobilise those Conservative Members, who we are told are malcontents and who are opposed to what the Government are doing and who, we are told—or at least as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor tells the press—are prepared to assist him in his project of destroying Powys. We had an opportunity to do that earlier. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor would have had that opportunity if he had mobilised his people and voted with us. We faced a majority of 31 against us. If the hon. Gentleman had managed to get 16 people to vote with him, he could have had what he wanted, and what we all wanted, which was the opportunity for democratic decisions to be taken by our local authorities. However, that did not happen.
  As a consequence, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has missed out. He has missed the opportunity to have unitary authorities in mid-Wales and he also has a very poor compromise. The Government are insisting on the Powys model. In an attempt to offset the deficiencies in that model which the Government know exist, they have

  719
  now introduced the system of area committees to pacify, among other people, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor is now the biggest critic of the area committees. He has pointed out the deficiencies in the financial arrangements and in accountability between the principal council and the area committees. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out, with regard to planning, finance and decision making, the whole area is fraught with difficulties.
  9.30 pm
  I do not say this unkindly because I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was caught out a few times in Committee, but he was absolutely clueless. We asked him about accountability, the district auditor, the ombudsman and surcharge, but he did not have a clue. He promised to consider those points and to come back to us. He has come back in the form of the Minister of State, but the Minister of State has shed no light on those deliberations.
  The Minister of State is at least as confused and unsure as the Under-Secretary was in Committee a couple of weeks ago. The Minister of State has been asked detailed, specific questions about what will happen and about the line of responsibility between the supposed area committees and the principal councils, but he has shed no light on that.
  Our view is absolutely clear. The answer to the problem is to restore separate unitary authorities and to strike out all the provisions relating to area committees. That is what we voted for in Committee and that remains our position tonight.
  The area committees do not resolve the Powys problem. Instead, they undermine what we are told is the central provision of the Bill—the creation of unitary authorities. The Government are undermining Powys. In their botched attempt to achieve a compromise, they are including a mischief in the Bill which could be used throughout the length and breadth of Wales to undermine and to destroy the principle of unitary authorities.
  Mr. Rowlands: Is my hon. Friend clear whether the area committees would have to produce service delivery plans? If not, how will unitary authorities provide a service delivery plan when they will not have responsibility for the money or for delivering services in the area?
  Mr. Davies: No doubt the Minister of State will shed his usual incisive light on that question. Although I may be paraphrasing in a pre-emptive way what the Minister of State is about to say, no doubt he will say that it is a matter for the principal councils. If an application is made and a scheme is put to him in which the question of service delivery plans is devolved to the area committees and he approves it, that must be a matter for the area committees. That would be the Minister of State's answer and that is the Government's position.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) would rightly point out, we are now being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know what conditions, principles, values or attitudes will determine the Government's approval of the schemes which have yet to be prepared. That is the reality of the situation that we are facing.
  720
  My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) suggested that we would take issue with him in respect of amendment No. 54. He said that he was tempted to support that amendment. Amendment No. 54 increases from 10 to 15 the number of councillors required to make an application for the establishment of an area committee. It is clear that the establishment of area committees is an arbitrary invention. The issue was completely mauled in Committee. However, I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Neath is tempted by amendment No. 54. It will make the establishment of area committees more difficult. However, if my hon. Friend votes for that amendment, he will endorse the principle of area committees. He will be saying that in some circumstances, albeit these circumstances as opposed to those circumstances, he is prepared to endorse the idea of area committees.
  Having examined the matter at length, having considered it in Committee and having heard the debate this evening—the Government have had the opportunity to come up with the answers, but they have not come up with one—I am even more convinced that the appropriate thing for us now to do is to strike out the provisions.
  I understand the difficulty that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is in. He regards area committees as perhaps an unacceptable palliative, but nevertheless, if that is all that is on offer, I presume that he wants it. Therefore, I can understand why he wants to oppose a measure which will make that more difficult. If he is minded to call a Division, I will not recommend that my hon. Friends support him.
  Much as I sympathise with the hon. and learned Gentleman's position, I hope that he will understand that our position is quite clear: if we were to vote on amendment No. 54, either supporting it or opposing it, that would imply a degree of acceptance of the principle of area committees. We do not endorse the principle; we think that the whole thing is wrong. The appropriate course of action was to have agreed our amendment in Committee and entirely deleted clauses 27 and 28.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Very briefly, I am genuinely surprised at Opposition Members' view of area committees. After all, area committees are not dissimilar to committees of main authorities. We are very familiar with them; they include the education committees, planning committees and so on of main councils. Opposition Members know the answers to many of the difficulties that they anticipate, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) showed.
  This is an attempt to try to meet the community loyalty and local identity that we know exist in many parts of Wales that cannot qualify for unitary authorities of their own. We would be very hesitant about that and about their strength to maintain those authorities. We have gone as far as we possibly can to ensure the delegation of powers. We have enabled such delegation to a far greater extent than is available under the present system, but, of course, much depends on the schemes that are worked out for the delegation of powers to area authorities.
  I believe that the schemes and the proposition of area committees will be attractive not only in mid-Wales but in Camarthenshire, Caernarfonshire and Meirionnyddshire because they have the unique feature that they cannot be changed without their consent.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's aim to ensure that there is as much local involvement as possible and that area committees should provide that, why is he not prepared to say, "Well, perhaps for certain areas, 15 members are too many," and that, therefore, on reflection, as long as 50 per cent. of the members representing that area request an area committee, a scheme will have to be prepared?
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—I think that he agrees on this point —and I are asking very much when we request such a concession. Surely it is worth a final re-think on that basis if the right hon. Gentleman really wants areas such as Radnorshire to have an area committee.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and others are anticipating a difficulty that will not occur. If there are 17 councillors in Radnorshire—Radnorshire is the smallest area that I can think of where there might be an area committee—I cannot see that the proposition will not be attractive to all 17 councillors, bearing in mind that they are members of the unitary authority as well.
  Mr. Rowlands: I do not want to make a speech; I simply want to elicit some information from the Minister. Earlier, I asked a simple question, to which I still have not received an answer. In clause 26 of the Bill, the unitary authorities are given a specific duty to prepare service delivery plans. How will they be able to prepare such plans when they will have neither the power nor the responsibility for delivering the services if area committees are established? Can the Minister explain how that will happen?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Obviously, in so far as the unitary authorities have delegated to an area committee, the area committee will take responsibility for meeting that part of the service delivery plan. There is nothing unusual in that. Currently, we have county committees which are part of the county authority, and there is collaboration between committees and the main authority. We anticipate that that will also occur where we have area committees of unitary authorities.
  Mr. Rowlands: In clause 26, the draft proposals for service delivery plans must be prepared by November 1995 —unitary authorities will be putting out service delivery plans before the area committees have been established. They will offer to deliver services and subsequently find that they will not have the power or responsibility for delivering the service plans. They will not even have control over the money. How will that conundrum be solved?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I think that the hon. Gentleman well understands how it will be solved. In so far as the unitary authority delegates responsibility for the service delivery plan, the committee will be responsible for meeting the requirements.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

  AREA COMMITTEES: MEMBERSHIP ETC.
  '.—(1) This section applies where an area committee has been established by a council in accordance with an approved decentralisation scheme.

  (2) The provisions of the 1972 Act with respect to arrangements for the discharge of functions by committees of local authorities and sub-committees, and the appointment of such committees and sub-committees, shall be subject to this section and section (Sub-committees of area committees).

  (3) Every person who is a member of the council for an electoral division which falls within the area for which the committee is established shall be entitled to be appointed to the committee at his request.

  (4) The committee may appoint additional persons, including members of the council who are not entitled to membership of the committee under subsection (3), as members of the committee.

  (5) No other persons shall be eligible for appointment to the committee.

  (6) In this section, in relation to an area committee, "co-opted member" means any member appointed by the committee under subsection (4).

  (7) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 297 of the Education Act 1993 (power to direct appointment of members of certain committees) which applies to the committee and can only be complied with by the appointment of one or more additional members to the committee, it shall be the duty of the committee to exercise its powers of appointment to secure compliance with the direction.

  (8) A co-opted member of an area committee shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.

  (9) Nothing in subsection (8) shall prevent the appointment of a person, in compliance with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, as a voting member of an area committee.

  (10) In the application of section 101 of the 1972 Act (arrangement for discharge of functions by local authorities) in relation to the committee—

  (a) subsection (1) shall have effect as if it gave power to the committee, if authorised to do so by the decentralisation scheme, to arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by a local authority other than the authority who made the scheme;

  (b) subsection (2) shall have effect with the omission of the words "unless the local authority otherwise direct" and (in the second place where they occur) the words "the local authority or".

  (11) Sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned) and 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on committees) shall not apply in relation to membership of the committee.

  (12) The term of office of each of the co-opted members of an area committee shall be fixed by the committee.

  (13) Section 102(2) of the 1972 Act (number of members of committee and terms of office) shall not apply in relation to the committee.

  (14) In the case of an appointment made in order to comply with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, the committee shall exercise its powers under subsection (12) subject to any provision of the direction relating to terms of office.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 18

  SUB-COMMITTEES OF AREA COMMITTEES
  '.—(1) In this section "sub-committee" means a sub-committee of an area committee.

  (2) The members of a sub-committee shall be appointed by the 'area committee from among persons who are—

  (a) members of the area committee appointed under subsection (3) of section (Area committees: membership etc.); or

  (b) entitled to be members of the area committee by virtue of that subsection.

  723

  (3) Subject to subsection (10), a sub-committee may appoint additional persons, including persons who are not members of the area committee concerned, as members of the sub-committee.

  (4) No other persons shall be eligible for appointment to a sub-committee.

  (5) In this section, in relation to a sub-committee, "co-opted member" means any member of the sub-committee appointed under subsection (3).

  (6) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 297 of the Education Act 1993 (power to direct appointment of members of certain committees) which applies to a sub-committee, it shall be the duty of the area committee concerned and the sub-committee to secure compliance with the direction.

  (7) A co-opted member of a sub-committee shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the sub-committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.

  (8) Nothing in subsection (7) shall prevent the appointment of a person in compliance with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993 as a voting member of a sub-committee.

  (9) Sections 102(3) of the 1972 Act (power to include persons who are not members of the local authority concerned) and 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on committees) shall not apply in relation to membership of a sub-committee.

  (10) The number of members of a sub-committee and their terms of office shall be fixed by the area committee concerned.

  (11) Section 102(2) of the 1972 Act (number of members of committee and terms of office) shall not apply in relation to the sub-committee.

  (12) In the case of an appointment made in order to comply with a direction under section 297 of the Act of 1993, the area committee shall exercise its powers under subsection (10) subject to any provision of the direction relating to terms of office.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

  FINANCING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WALES
  `.—The Secretary of State, after consulting the Treasury, shall within six months of this Act coming into force present a report to Parliament on methods to restructure the financing of local government in Wales; such report shall include consideration of—

  (a) the feasibility of local government raising a local income tax, or receiving a proportion of the VAT and corporation tax arising from businesses within their area;

  (b) a tax placed upon second homes in Wales, the proceeds of which shall accrue to local government; and

  (c) the abolition of council tax and the uniform business rate. '.—[Mr. Wigley.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  New clause 6 deals with an essential aspect of local government: finance. I tabled the new clause very much as a probing new clause because in our discussions so far on the Bill we feel that the question of financing local government in Wales has not been adequately dealt with.
  As hon. Members will see, under new clause 6 the Secretary of State would, within six months of the Act coming into force, report to Parliament on methods of restructuring the financing of local government in Wales. The new clause looks specifically at three aspects: first, the possibility of raising a local income tax and taking a proportion of value added tax or corporation tax within Wales; secondly, a levy on second homes; thirdly, the abolition of council tax and the uniform business rate.
  I do not apologise for pressing this matter at this stage, because I had thought that we might be moving towards coherent consideration of local government financing as well as structures when on 5 December 1990 the then
  724
  Secretary of State for the Environment made a statement to the House and mentioned doing away with the hated poll tax. He made it clear when discussing that tax that he believed that there was an argument for considering the structures of local government along with its financing, which appealed to us very much.
  Back in the 1970s, we gave some substantive evidence to the Layfield committee when it considered the financing of local government. In paragraph 3 of our evidence, we stated that finance should not be
  "considered in isolation from local government boundary structures or functions … we believe all these aspects of local government to be interdependent."
  We warmly welcomed the Government's comment in 1990 that they were considering finance and intended to consider structures and functions at the same time.
  9.45 pm
  Thinking back to Layfield in the mid-1970s, it is worth noting that the committee came out in favour of a local income tax. On page 281 of its report, it stated that local income tax
  "is a feasible source of local revenue for non-metropolitan counties, metropolitan districts, Scottish regions and islands authorities, and possible London boroughs."
  If that was possible in the 1970s, how much more practical and possible is that source of finance for local government now, with the move to the computerisation of so much information? If the argument was valid then, it is even more valid now.
  Let us consider the pattern in other countries. Many of them source a good proportion of local government revenue from taxation on income and profits. In Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Belgium, more than 80 per cent. of local authority income comes from taxation on income and profits. My figures are from the late 1980s and may have changed a little during the past few years. That is a far more acceptable means of raising income for local government as it is more progressive.
  We all know about the anomalies of the council tax system. It may not be so bad as the poll tax system, but it contains serious anomalies and causes serious hardship. To make the system in any way acceptable, the Government have had to move more and more to financing local government in Wales from the central Exchequer so that only a small proportion of Welsh local government income comes from its variable, independent source of finance—the council tax. I shall give the figures in a moment.
  The freedom of local government is eroded if it does not have the financial freedoms and responsibilities which go hand in hand. One of the problems is that if one moves to a system where up to 90 per cent. of local authority income comes from a central Exchequer by way of rate support grant, revenue support grant, or whatever the terminology may be at the time, it enables central Government to put stringent conditions on the money which goes to local government and necessarily takes away its freedom.
  Our new clause, which ensures that the Secretary of State will report on other possibilities, suggests that a certain proportion of the value added tax raised in Wales should go, as of right, to Welsh local authorities. After all, the tax is highly geographically definable because it arises at a certain point which, in computer terms, can be cross-coded to postcodes and easily identified with local authority areas. Of the 17.5 per cent. raised in VAT, a certain proportion—perhaps 3 percentage points—should

  725
  go automatically to local authorities. Likewise, a proportion of corporation tax—10 per cent., or whatever —should go to local authorities.
  By ensuring that those proportions of central taxation go to authorities as of right, and by ensuring flexibility in local income tax, we could do away with the council tax and the uniform business rate. There is no doubt that the uniform business rate is a severe burden. It is an overhead which in times of recession can pull down businesses which would otherwise be viable. It is a fixed cost, whereas a proportion of corporation tax—or, if it is a non-incorporated business, a local income tax—is variable with income, so if income goes down it is not a fixed cost which pulls down the whole viability of the business. I believe that those questions deserve attention and that attention should be in the context of the structures, boundaries and functions of local government.
  I mentioned the dependence in Wales on grants from the central Exchequer. I shall look next at the council tax as a proportion of the total income of local authorities in 1993–94. We must bear in mind the fact that the council tax is the only independent income that we have of any significance. There may be sundry and miscellaneous incomes, but those are usually very small.
  In Mid Glamorgan, the council tax represents only 9.5 per cent. of the total income of the authority. In other words, 90.5 per cent. comes from sources outside that authority, and the freedom of that authority has been severely eroded. The figure in Powys is 12 per cent, in Gwynedd 14 per cent., in Dyfed 14.4 per cent. and in Clwyd 15.2 per cent. The average for all Welsh counties is 12.5 per cent.
  With districts, the position is even more grotesque. In the Rhondda, the value of the council tax as a proportion of total income is 5.3 per cent., which means that some 94.7 per cent. comes from other sources. We cannot have genuine local freedom in local government when the variable proportion of the income is greatly limited.
  As for the overall position in Wales, the total 1993–94 figures of all incomes for district and counties in Wales combined is £2,452 million, of which the council tax provides £297 million. That emphasises the point.
  If 3p of the 17.5p in the pound of VAT came as a right to local government, it would generate about £300 million in Wales. If 10 per cent. of corporation tax came through to local government, it would generate £100 million. A local income tax of something like 4p in the pound—that would be the variable element, because the other two are parts of central Government taxation, although we feel that they should accrue to local government—would generate £400 million. That would give something like £800 million as of right, compared with the figure of just under £300 million which we are talking about now.
  That £800 million would be unfettered income and would not be subject to the stringent controls which inevitably must come from a Government who have the opportunity to put conditions on the grants that they pass out. Such considerations should be taken on board at this stage. I believe that it is irresponsible for us to be setting up structures and functions of local government without looking at the finances.
  If local government is to provide genuine local democracy, it must have the responsibility and the freedom to undertake policies in line with the needs of any area. Clearly, there are poor areas in Wales and there must be an equalisation function coming through from the central
  726
  Exchequer, via the Welsh Office. I accept that any variable independent sources of that kind would probably never be more than 30 to 40 per cent. because of the importance of maintaining standards in areas of deprivation.
  In allocating grants to areas, there needs also to be a close scrutiny of what criteria are used and what considerations come into play for the allocation to meet the local circumstances. For example, there clearly has to be consideration of deprivation, sparsity and demographic factors in any area and these possibly need to be fine tuned. We are always playing with them, and they are complex in the model that we have at present, but something needs to be done to make sure that money is going by way of equalisation to the areas that really need it, and that areas generally have much greater freedom with regard to their finance.
  In moving the new clause and in calling for a report, we are in no way undermining the Bill. The suggested time scale to assemble thinking on the restructuring of local government finance is not unreasonable. If we do not provide for such a rethink in the Bill, the Government will have no other chance to reconsider in depth local government finance in Wales. Given the nature of the Bill, and at this stage in its proceedings, I realise that we cannot do any more than I have suggested, but my suggestion is well worth consideration. The relevance of such a report goes beyond Wales, but it should certainly be considered in the context of Wales.
  Given the spirit in which I have introduced the new clause, I hope that the Government will be prepared to take on board my suggestions and will find some positive way to respond.
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has rightly raised the issue of local government finance, which was dealt with rather perfunctorily on Second Reading, in Committee, and now on Report.
  The new clause presents the Government with an opportunity to reconsider some of the anomalies of the local government finance system. They should consider returning the business rate to local authorities, and in the short term they should certainly examine the number of bands in the council tax. They should, unquestionably, reform the system of standard spending assessments to make them more intelligible. They should also abolish the capping of local government.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to answer one specific question about local government finance. It arises from a written answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment published in Hansard today. It refers to the remuneration of members of local authorities. We should consider capping in conjunction with the remuneration of councillors. I understand that a letter has been sent to all the local authority associations asking for their views on the Government's proposal to change the way in which members of local authorities are remunerated—and about time, too.
  The Labour party entirely agrees with making a change for the better because many people are discouraged from 'being local authority members because of the appalling remuneration that they receive. If the proposed change means, however, that a local authority has to pay every single penny of the remuneration, that could mean that it is penalised under the capping regime.

  727
  Does the consultation process on remuneration apply to Wales, bearing in mind that we are in the middle of a reorganisation? What are the Minister's views about the possibility of capping as a result of the remuneration of councillors under the new proposed regime?
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Other than under a deeply philosophic guise, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that this is the right time to introduce a report on the restructuring of local government finance, even if it is designed only to initiate the first stage of such a review. As the hon. Member knows, we are not proposing any changes to local government finance in the Bill. The arrangements will continue unchanged from the current councils to the new ones. I therefore do not think that it is appropriate to pursue this probing new clause and I suggest that the House should not accept it.
  I should like to take the opportunity to say that I believe that the council tax has been well accepted by the council tax payers of Wales. It combines fairness with simplicity of administration and it overcomes those aspects of the rates and the community charge that were most criticised. It achieves accountability through a clear link between what councils spend and what local residents pay. In turn, under the uniform business rate, businesses benefit from certainty and stability. Increases in the poundage cannot exceed the increase in the retail prices index and businesses pay rates on a common basis. That has been a great step forward and underlines the desirability of making no change to local government finance.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) asked about consultation and capping. I believe that the consultation exercise would give him the opportunity to pursue his questions. We look forward to studying the hon. Gentleman's detailed views on all those points, which will be taken fully into account when we consider the matter.
  Mr. Murphy: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Local government in Wales needs an answer on what the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said today. Does that consultation process now apply in Wales? Given that local government is in the process of reform, will our Welsh associations be asked specifically for their comments, and will whatever occurs in England in terms of remuneration of councillors apply also to Wales?
  Mr. Jones: Yes, it certainly will. I look forward to hearing the views of the on those important matters
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the debate be resumed tomorrow—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

  Defective Medical Devices
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: This debate is about medical devices such as artificial heart valves and pacemakers, which are life saving and enhance and prolong the lives of thousands of our constituents. One would think, then, that the debate would be about how wonderful those devices are and how we should praise the manufacturers for producing such excellent instruments of health. But it is not, because, tragically, some of those devices go wrong and, as a result of their failure, people die.
  The debate is about what we do when those devices fail and how we react to the inevitability that mechanical devices are not, and cannot be, perfect. How we stop them failing is for the technicians and scientists in the laboratories of the manufacturers, universities and research establishments. We should consider what we do when they fail and how we ensure that as little damage as possible is done.
  On 24 April last year, my constituent, Mrs. Marian Sheedy, died. The death certificate recorded that she died of cardiac failure, renal failure and mitral valve disease. It did not record that she wore a pacemaker, nor that a year earlier, according to medical notes that I have seen, the pacing wire of that pacemaker appeared to malfunction. At the time of her death, no reference seemed to be made to the role of the pacemaker. It was as if it could have played no part in determining whether she would live or die.
  Although nothing can bring Mrs. Sheedy back, her husband, John, is determined that everyone who wears a pacemaker or other device to help him or her live a more active life should be absolutely confident that the devices are of the highest quality, and have been thoroughly checked and monitored, and that the Department of Health has a duty to ensure that that happens.
  When Mr. Sheedy came to my surgery to raise his concerns about what was happening, I knew nothing about pacemakers or about the Medical Devices Directorate, which is supposed to monitor the use of pacemakers, artificial heart valves and the like. I was no more a medical or technical expert than I was an expert in Mandarin Chinese. However, Mr. Sheedy had looked after his wife for many years and learned a great deal about pacemakers and their development. Before long, he had explained to me the basis on which they worked. I also knew that a number of manufacturers sold their products to the national health service. The pacemaker lead implanted in Mrs. Sheedy in 1987 was a Siemens type 93.
  Mr. Sheedy had written to Siemens after his wife's death, asking about the lead. He discovered that Siemens had issued a warning to the Department of Health in February 1993, some two months before his wife died. It had also warned all the pacing clinicians of which it was aware. I say, "of which it was aware", because, as a result of an answer that I received from the Minister, I believe that not all pacing clinics are listed with the Medical Devices Directorate, the organisation responsible for issuing warnings.
  As a result of Mr. Sheedy's investigations, I followed up with questions in the House, which have led me to believe that there is a yawning gap in the communications

  729
  system between the Department, hospitals and, most importantly, patients. I want that gap to be closed. I want to be assured that when things go wrong, patients are seen as quickly as possible and doctors know what they are looking for and how to fix it.
  There are a number of players in the debate. There are the patients and their families, who have been told little or nothing about the devices implanted in them. There are the manufacturers, whose aim must be profit and whose trials and warnings with regard to their products seem to be under little or no scrutiny. There are the national pacemaker database and the national pacemaker registry, which are supposed to be recording the patients, devices, deaths and other important data, but are of little or no use to us because their records are so inaccurate. There is the Department of Health, which, through the Medical Devices Directorate, is supposed to assess the effects of faults in medical devices, investigate incidents and issue warnings, but which, in reality, has little or no power to do anything about it. I want to discuss each in turn, but I shall leave the patients and their families to the end because, to me, they are the most important players of all.
  According to the national pacemaker database, there are 12 manufacturers of pacemakers currently selling in Britain, and 10 such manufacturers of artificial heart valves. The House might be surprised to know that there is no guarantee whatsoever that those are the only manufacturers of such devices operating here. Indeed, we have no way of knowing whether other manufacturers are also selling to hospitals and clinics throughout the country.
  That is frightening. That devices which have to be, by their very nature, extremely sensitive, costly and for life-saving purposes, can be sold to hospitals without any scrutiny by any organisation, especially the Department of Health, is, I believe, a scandal. Why is that the case? The Minister tells me that it is because the Department will not make any rules about purchasing of medical implants, but simply says that it will
  "strongly recommend purchasers to buy devices only from companies registered under the Department's Registration Scheme."
  Those of us who are worried about the national health service being finance-led can only speculate that purchasers might go for the cheapest option, rather than check that a manufacturer is registered with the Department, although being registered in itself is not a guarantee that the Department has checked the approved device. Surely it is not beyond the Department of Health's remit to say that such devices must be bought only from the manufacturers on the list. Of course, that would also mean that the onus would be on the Department to ensure that a manufacturer gets on the list only if he has a proven record of quality, expertise and response. I hope that when the Minister responds he can assure the House that the manufacturers about whom we know are all registered under his scheme.
  In Mrs. Sheedy's case, Siemens issued a warning in January 1993, which reached the directorate in early February. It, in turn, informed pacing clinics later that month. I make no great issue of the delay in informing clinics, but I should have thought that when a company issues a warning about its own products there can be no reasonable excuse for hanging on, thinking about it and
  730
  eventually deciding to do something. I hope that the Minister will ensure that in future there is no delay between the receipt of a warning and passing it on.
  As it happened, Siemens also warned the purchasers of the devices themselves. One would think that that would have covered everyone, but it does not, because a patient may be fitted with a device in one hospital but may return to a different hospital for follow-up work. At the moment, there is simply no way for Siemens or any other manufacturer to know where patients are being seen. That problem must be tackled, especially as the responsibility is now on manufacturers to inform the Department of any deaths or injuries resulting from faults in their products.
  Let me illustrate that with two examples. Mrs. Sheedy was fitted with her pacemaker at King's hospital. It was then suggested that she have her pacing follow-up at Lewisham hospital, our local hospital. When I asked the Minister for names of pacing and pacing follow-up centres, the reply did not include Lewisham hospital. Last week, I noticed that Victoria infirmary in Glasgow was not on the list, so I phoned it up. I asked whether it fitted pacemakers or did follow-up work. The coronary heart unit staff there informed me that they did do follow-up pacing work. They were not on the list. Did they know of Siemens' warning? I doubt it.
  The Minister will say that those hospitals are not on the list because informing the database is a voluntary exercise, but that is exactly my argument. That is the gap which I mentioned when I began this debate. Such information must be available to the database by compulsion if it is to be of any use at all. No one in the House or outside can say with absolute confidence that patients have not died as a result of follow-up clinics being unaware of warnings and thus not having acted on them.
  In another reply, the Minister said that it was the responsibility of the manufacturers to advise users and purchasers when faults became apparent. Siemens certainly informed the purchasers, but it was impossible for the company to inform users. One of the main thrusts of my argument is that the users, the patients, have the right to know. I believe that some manufacturers might be disinclined to tell them; even Siemens is unhappy that I should be raising the issue because it has said that a media scare campaign would cause stress and concern for others. But the matter is too important to the 80,000 people in Britain who are fitted with pacemakers, and to their families and friends, for them not be kept fully informed of developments.
  I want to refer briefly to another device—the artificial heart valve—and in particular to the Bjork-Shiley valve and the case of Mrs. Pauline Judge from West Bromwich. She would be the same age as me, 41, if she were alive. She died in September last year. In 1982, she was fitted with a valve and recovered quite well from the operation, resuming an active life even to the point of going swimming and taking aquarobic classes. She had even begun a business administration class through employment training.
  In April 1993, however, Mrs. Judge's health deteriorated—she became dizzy, and so on. On Wednesday 1 September, she was in terrible pain and was vomiting. Her husband Eddie listened for the valve, which gives off a particular sound, and realised it was not working. I shall not go into the details of the tragic minutes that followed,

  731
  except to say that Mrs. Judge was in the most awful pain and distress, while her husband did all he could to care for her.
  What followed was one of the most tragic episodes I have ever had the misfortune to read. Mr. Judge pleaded with nurses, ambulance staff and doctors, explaining what was wrong with his wife, but to no avail. He knew what was wrong, but no one at the hospital appeared to understand the need to get his wife to a hospital with the facilities to care for her. She died at 1.15 am. Mr. Judge and his family believe that his wife's death was avoidable.
  Between 1980 and 1983, the Bjork-Shiley valve was recalled three times in the United States because of fractures. In 1985, large valves were withdrawn, and in 1986 finally removed from the market. When the Food and Drug Administration in the United States became aware of the fractures, it first suspended and then revoked export approval for the 70 deg. valve. There is, however, every reason to believe that Bjork-Shiley aggressively marketed the valve abroad, in places such as Britain, during the suspension period. The FDA withdrew export approval in May 1983, yet the Minister tells me that the first departmental record indicating the suspension and subsequent withdrawal of the export permission is dated 15 January 1985, two years after the first suspension.
  The phraseology of the Minister's reply leads me to suspect a lack of effort by the Department to find out exactly what was going on with the device in question. That is why I think it is time the Department's relationship with the FDA was put on a more formal footing. There must be more direct and detailed discussions about medical devices and their impact. Then, people such as Pauline Judge might have the opportunity to be seen by a specialist and have a fatal valve replaced.
  The last thing I want to say on behalf of the Judge family is that they are still awaiting the coroner's verdict on Pauline's death. I understand the delay is due to waiting for reports of evidence. I feel that the Minister should use his offices, if appropriate, to ensure that the inquest goes ahead as speedily as possible for the sake of the Judge family.
  The national pacemaker database and registry are purely voluntary institutions. It is entirely up to hospitals and pacing follow-up clinics to let them know who has a pacemaker and how it is functioning. I believe that the figures that the Department has given me are woeful underestimates of the number of pacemakers in use. How, then, can the Department feel sure that it knows what is going on, or that it can seriously monitor the effectiveness of the devices?
  I draw a comparison here with the system set up to approve and monitor new drugs. A study by Social Audit in 1992 suggested that the level of serious injury for newly prescribed drugs was seriously underestimated. Among the reasons for that were the excessive secrecy of manufacturers and the voluntary nature of reporting of side-effects by doctors. The comparison is apt. It is absolutely essential that the use and effectiveness of those devices is carefully and properly monitored and that when anything goes wrong, as it inevitably will, there is no delay between warning and caring for the patient concerned.
  It has been suggested to me that the debate and the raising of these issues will scare patients and their families unnecessarily. I think that that is a cop-out put forward by those who do not want patients to know what is going on, or who are not prepared to take responsibility for what is
  732
  happening. In the course of my learning about medical devices, I have been contacted by a number of families of patients from around the country. Every one of them says, "We have the right to know."
  I do not for one moment think that this will scare patients. We are talking about people who have had serious heart conditions which have been controlled by such devices. They are all too well aware of their conditions, and their families monitor and care for them, sometimes for many years. They are not people who do not know and understand what is wrong with them. They are entitled to know how the device that is implanted in them is functioning. If it stops functioning, they are entitled to be assured that it will be dealt with as speedily as possible, so that they may go on enjoying their lives. That is not a lot to ask for.
  Let me touch briefly on the views of Mrs. Delonnette of Hastings, whose husband's had a Bjork-Shiley implant. She says:
  "I myself feel that if I had known about it, I may have been able to have something done about it sooner, and maybe he would have been saved from such a tragic death."
  Then there is Mrs. McGregor of Bradford, whose husband had a Siemens lead, which rusted inside him, and who now can no longer speak or care for himself and needs to be nursed by Mrs. McGregor 24 hours a day. She says:
  "On behalf of those involved in this issue may I offer my husband's and my support in bringing this matter to the full glare of the media."
  Then there is Mr. Edghill from Maidstone, who, by happy chance, discovered from my constituent, Mr. Sheerly, that he had problems on his electrocardiogram and that he should have his pacemaker checked. As a result of that check, it was replaced two weeks later. He said:
  "I consider that this situation should never have occurred, and it is plain to me that the explanations given to date need to be brought to the notice of the public."
  Or there is Mrs. Earle, another of my constituents, who had a pacemaker fitted six years ago, and who recently found that she was getting breathless. Her GP arranged for her to go into hospital and have it replaced, where she was asked by the cardiologist why she had not been in before. She had to inform him that she had never had her pacemaker monitored in the six years since it was implanted. Surely that is an indication of the terrible lapse in the proper recall of patients in such situations.
  Only today, I received a letter from Mr. Bates, also from Hastings, whose pacemaker was fitted in October 1992. It was also a Siemens. It punctured his lung, and he was hospitalised again. Until August last year, he continued to have problems with it. It was not until October 1993 that the matter was finally sorted out. He said:
  "At the time of my pacemaker implant, I was not warned … of any risk involved with either the implantation process itself … or the device itself."
  I am aged 44, quite a young age to have a pacemaker inserted, and may need to rely on it for another 40 years or more. If some of the problems mentioned on the programme begin to happen, will I necessarily know about them?"
  What technical information is available to patients like myself about the pacemaker and leads which I have inside me?"
  I fully support your call for adequate information, research and 'monitoring of pacemaker implants".
  The database is inaccurate. It needs to be made accurate. The registry is not up to date; it needs to be. The Department of Health, through the Medical Devices Directorate, is supposed to monitor the effects of devices.

  733
  It cannot do so properly in the present circumstances. It simply does not know what is going on and, even if it did, it has no power to do anything about it.
  I put it to the Minister that here is an opportunity to fulfil the principles of the patients charter. It is an opportunity to ensure that no one suffers the pain and loss suffered by my constituents and the others whom I have mentioned, without full knowledge of the effect that artificial devices have, their safety record, the manufacturers' commitment to the highest quality, and with the most detailed monitoring of the effectiveness of such devices.
  Tonight, the Minister can begin to give hope and reassurance to the 80,000 people with pacemakers in this country, and to the 5,000-plus with artificial heart valves and other devices. He can say that the Medical Devices Directorate will scrutinise every manufacturer of devices for safety, quality and history follow-up and response. He can say that it will work in a formal and productive programme with the FDA, exchanging information as soon as it is known and acting on it. He can say that the directorate will issue warnings to hospitals, follow-up clinics and GPs when that is necessary, and will check that every hospital has acted on those warnings. He can say that he will ensure that the database is up to date, because pacing centres will be obliged to forward information identifying each patient with his or her unique pacemaker number. He can warn patients, as well as hospitals and GPs, so that they know what is going on.
  By so doing, the Minister will ensure that he enhances the quality and length of thousands of people's lives. I plead with him to do so.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I can accede to nearly all the requests and recommendations of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). We do precisely what she suggested. Although she has criticised the way in which we do it, we are on the same side in trying to ensure that devices are monitored and any problems are brought to the attention of the right people.
  The hon. Lady has engaged in a good deal of correspondence with the Department of Health by means of parliamentary questions. I applaud the methodical way in which she has gone into the matter, on behalf of her constituent and the constituents of other hon. Members. I certainly would not characterise what she has done as alarmist; it is very proper to discuss how we can perfect a system of trying to monitor the complicated network of devices that the health service currently uses.
  Let me say how sorry I am about what has happened to the Sheedy and Judge families. These are great tragedies. I accept what the hon. Lady said about holding an inquest; I shall look into the matter, and get back to her.
  On the whole, people pay little attention to the safety of medical devices until something goes wrong. The hon. Lady was honest enough to say that she did not know much about the Medical Devices Directorate, which is probably one of the foremost such organisations in the world and which we are lucky enough to have in our health service. For example, a pacemaker registry has existed since 1972, funded by the Department since 1977; a heart valve
  734
  registry has existed since 1985, a breast implant registry since 1993 and a hydrocephalus shunt registry since earlier this year.
  The expectation of both health service staff and patients is that medical devices are safe, and the Department of Health puts a great deal of effort into ensuring that they are. Every year, new medical devices and equipment become available that offer improvements in the treatment and care of patients; but new technology brings with it potential hazards that need to be carefully assessed.
  The Medical Devices Directorate, within the Department, comprises a wide range of professional and technical experts with extensive experience in medical devices. It is responsible for ensuring that medical devices used by the health service are safe and effective. It discharges that responsibility in four main ways—by being closely involved in the drafting of legislation and safety standards that will form a framework for the control of devices into the 21st century, particularly in a European context; by operating a registration scheme; by managing a programme to evaluate the technical and clinical performance of medical devices; and by assessing adverse incidents associated with those devices, reported by manufacturers and health care users.
  The last of those is the most important in the context of the issue raised by the hon. Lady. The investigation of adverse incidents is critical in ensuring the safety of medical devices. We have issued a number of guidance notes to health service chief executives to encourage the reporting of such incidents, and we shall continue to press for it. The reporting of serious incidents by manufacturers is becoming mandatory under EC directives, as the hon. Lady probably knows.
  The MDD handles well over 3,000 reports each year, using its scientific, technical and clinical experts—who take advice, where necessary, from relevant specialists in academia, the health service and industry. Where a risk to the safety of patients or users has been identified, advice is issued, in the form of a safety warning, to health service staff. This advice will take into account the nature and use of the device, the likelihood and severity of patient injury and the consequences of any action taken. This may result in the modification of a device, or sometimes its withdrawal from use.
  Departmental safety warnings may take the form of hazards notices, safety action bulletins, pacemaker technical notes or direct correspondence from the Chief Medical Officer or other professionals in the Department. Since 1991, 85 hazard notices, 183 safety action bulletins and 18 pacemaker technical notes have been issued.
  I mention that because I should like to refute one of the hon. Lady's more exaggerated statements—that the Department does not know what is going on. We closely follow what is happening with medical devices. She has criticised our means of doing so, but we do much monitoring work and will continue to do so.
  Responsibility for ensuring that action is taken in response to safety advice issued by the MDD rests with health services— the specialists. It is the responsibility of chief executives to have a policy in place for the dissemination of information contained in advisory notices to the relevant health care professionals. The nature of the action taken in relation to patient management in the light of such information must, however, remain a matter for the judgment of doctors to whom that advice is issued. In all cases, clinical judgment must be exercised in weighing the

  735
  risk of potential failure of a device against a patient's condition and the additional risks that may result should further surgical intervention be necessary. Such judgment must be made with a full knowledge of the individual circumstances of each patient. It is the clinician who takes responsibility for ensuring that patients receive suitable advice without generating needless anxiety.
  Since the action to be taken as a result of safety warnings is a matter for the clinical judgment of a patient's doctor, advice from the Department of Health is issued only to clinicians. The advice is often rather complex and technical—I do not think that it is patronising to patients to say that—and the action taken invariably depends on the particular circumstances of the patient. It is therefore inappropriate for such advice to be given outside the context of a clinician-patient consultation.
  I know that the hon. Lady's particular interest is in the reliability of certain pacemaker leads manufactured by Siemens. In the particular case of the Siemens leads, a thorough consideration of clinical and technical issues was undertaken by the Department in conjunction with clinical specialists and manufacturers. Once sufficient information and clarification had been provided, the directorate was able to draft a pacemaker technical note for issue to all pacemaker implanting centres and follow-up clinics in the United Kingdom.
  I heard what the hon. Lady said about the adequacy of the registry and about whether the identity of all centres was known. We must keep that matter constantly under review and ensure that we are aware of all centres. The technical note brought to the attention of relevant clinicians important information previously issued by Siemens in an advisory note, which was appended to the pacemaker technical note.
  The hon. Lady mentioned delay. I am informed that 14 days, including weekends, elapsed from the moment the
  736
  documentary evidence was received by the Medical Devices Directorate, following an informal advice some days earlier, to the moment that our pacemaker technical note was issued. I do not think that is undue delay. We are talking about some technical instructions that have to be interpreted by people who make decisions about patients. They are not something that can be rushed out, for fear that decisions will be taken based on the wrong information. I do not think that there was undue delay in the case that the hon. Lady mentioned from January or February 1993.
  The document advised clinicians that patients implanted with particular leads should be evaluated as soon as possible. This evaluation would include a specific test to check the performance of the lead. Since the risk of lead failure was calculated by the manufacturer to be less than 1 per cent. after one year, patient evaluation would not necessarily result in lead replacement in all cases. As I have already said, it is for the individual patient's doctor to weigh the risk of lead failure against the risk resulting from further surgery. A clinical judgment must always be made in the best interests of the patient.
  I am sorry that I am unable to say more, but I end by saying that the replacement of a pacemaker lead—a possible course of action—is not a simple procedure. The electrode of the lead may be embedded in the heart tissue and, when a lead is replaced, the original lead is usually left in place. There is thus a limit to the extent to which the new lead can be fitted without causing damage to the heart. It is a complicated matter that we must—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Desertification Convention
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to announce a change in funds to combat desertification at the signing of the desertification convention in Paris in June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on 14 April at column 257.

  We have no plans to make an announcement in Paris, but we will consider our position in the light of the agreement reached.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality have been outstanding for(a) more than one year, (b) more than two years and (c) more than three years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 31 May 1994, there were 11,388 applications for British citizenship in the nationality division which had been outstanding for more than one year, of which 2,915 had been outstanding for more than two years, including 818 for more than three years.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken to process applications for British nationality; and what were the average times taken in 1979, 1984 and 1989.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Average waiting times for certificates of British citizenship issued in May 1994 were 15 months for naturalisations and 11 months for registrations; and in May 1989, 22 and 18 months respectively. Comparable figures for 1984 and 1979 are not available, but average waiting times for the first quarter of 1985—calculated on a different basis—were 13 and 11 months, and for 1979, 25 months for naturalisations.

  Migration Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants have entered the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and if he will provide a breakdown of the ages and nationalities contained within this figure;

  (2) how many people have emigrated from the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and if he will provide a breakdown of the ages and nationalities contained with this figure.
  558
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on immigration and emigration from the United Kingdom is provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from the international passenger survey, which defines a migrant as a person leaving one country where he or she has been a resident for a year or longer with the intention of residing in another country for a year or longer. In the 10 years 1983–92, the total numbers of intending immigrants and emigrants were 2.31 million and 2.09 million respectively. These figures include British citizens and other EC nationals, but exclude migration between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Analyses of the annual data by broad nationality and by broad age group are given in tables 2.1 and 2.9 respectively of the OPCS publication "International Migration, 1992", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Data for 1993 are not yet available.

  As the IPS data are based on intentions to migrate, it is highly likely that they exclude persons seeking asylum after entering the country and other persons admitted as short-term visitors who are subsequently granted an extension of stay for a year or longer. It is estimated that there were around 200,000 such persons in 1983–92, net of persons leaving the United Kingdom for a short-term period who stayed overseas for longer than originally intended.

  The OPCS data include temporary migration for a year or longer by, for example, students and workers. Home Office data on immigration relate to the number of persons accepted for settlement—that is, allowed to stay indefinitely. There were 514,000 such persons in the 10-year period 1984–93. Analyses by nationality of the annual data for 1984–92 and 1993 are given in table 6.5 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1992", Cm 2368, and table 1.1 of the statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Third and Fourth Quarters and Year 1993", issue 9/94, respectively. An analysis by age of person is readily available only for 1992 and is given in table 6.2 of Cm 2368. Copies of both Home Office publications are also in the Library.

  DTELS
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to pay the residual expenses arising from the privatisation of DTELS.

  Mr. Howard
  DTELS—formerly the Directorate of Telecommunications—was sold on 1 March 1994 to National Transcommunications Ltd. for £6.6 million. The balance of proceeds, after payment of expenses relating to 1993–94, was surrendered to the Consolidated Fund in March 1994.

  There are further expenses arising from the sale to be paid in 1994–95. Parliamentary approval for this new service will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the Home Office's administration, immigration, probation and police support services vote, class VIII, vote 3. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £800,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1994–95 cash limits within his responsibilities and to the Home Office running costs limit.
  559
  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII, vote 3—Home Office administration, immigration, probation and police support services, England and Wales—will be increased by £442,000 from £1,212,240,000 to £1,212,682,000. This will enable repayment of an advance from the contingencies fund of £800,000 for residual payments, which are not included in the public expenditure control total, in connection with the privatisation of the Directorate of Telecommunications: the amount required is reduced because of transfers totalling £358,000 out of the vote to other Government Departments. In consequence of these transfers, the Home Office gross running cost limit will be reduced by £358,000 from £1,706,534,000 to £1,706,176,000.

  The local authority capital non-voted HO/LACAP cash limit will be increased by £421,000 from £121,870,000 to £122,291,000. The additional provision results from the transfer of supplementary credit approvals from the Welsh Office's non-voted cash limit WO/LACAP for the purpose of the replacement of fire service mobilisation and communications systems, to allow the Home Office to hold and issue the entire provision of fire supplementary credit approvals for both England and Wales. The increase will be offset by a transfer and will not therefore add to the planned total of expenditure.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the fire service is required to attend train and plane crashes not involving fires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947, a fire authority has a duty to make provision for firefighting purposes, and in particular to secure the services of a fire brigade and equipment in order to meet efficiently all normal requirements. Section 3(1)(e) of the 1947 Act gives a fire authority supplementary powers to employ its brigade for purposes other than firefighting. This may include attendance at train and aircraft accidents not involving fires.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of fatalities resulting from fires in buildings built since 1979 for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available from the statistics collected from fire brigades.

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to take steps, ahead of Royal Assent, to implement any provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.

  Mr. Howard
  I intend that the new police authorities should be set up this autumn to prepare for the assumption of their full responsibilities from 1 April 1995. Under the terms of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill currently before Parliament, the new authorities will include independent members who are neither councillors nor magistrates. I intend to undertake an advertising exercise at a cost not exceeding £40,000, so that members of the public can apply for appointment as an independent 560
  member of their police authority. No appointments will be made until the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill has become law. The appointments will be made by the councillor and magistrate members of the new police authorities.

  Parliamentary approval for expenditure on this new service will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the Home Office administration, immigration, probation and police support services, England and Wales vote, class VIII, vote 3. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £40,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department is to make as to the effect of the recent tax increases on economic recovery within the Greater London area.

  Mr. Nelson
  The forecast for economic growth this year, including Greater London, takes full account of the effect of the tax increases announced in last year's Budgets. A number of recent indicators, including manufacturing output, retail sales, and new car registrations, suggest that the economy is continuing to recover.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury only holds records on the information requested from 1987. The answer to each question is as follows:

  (a) Six: one in 1990, three in 1991, one in 1992 and one in 1993. All were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  (b) No records are held centrally because they are notified to line managers.

  (c) Six in 1993, and one in 1994. None of these has been followed by applications to join any of the Companies concerned.

  (d) No central records are held for staff below grade 3 because they are notified to line managers. Details for staff at grade 3 and above are listed at (a).

  Gilts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of British gilts were bought by foreign purchasers in each of the last three years and for 1994 to date.

  Mr. Nelson
  A sectoral breakdown of purchases of Government securities is given at table 10.2F of the Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics".

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Simon Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the most recent Council meeting of the European Economic and Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union—ECOFIN—in Luxembourg on 6 June.

  The Council discussed follow-up work to the Brussels European Council conclusions on the Commission's White Paper on "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment." The Council endorsed a report from the Economic Policy Committee on labour markets which stressed the need for structural reforms and greater flexibility. The Council welcomed the indication from the President of the European Commission that he was ready to pursue the suggestion made by the German Minister for the establishment of an independent task force to consider deregulation. The Council considered reports from the European Commission and the European investment bank of trans-European networks.

  Most Ministers agreed that there was insufficient evidence to show that a "financing gap" existed regarding TENs. The presidency will present a report to the Corfu European Council summarising the views expressed at ECOFIN.

  The Council approved a recommendation on broad economic guidelines for consideration by the Corfu European Council in accordance with article 103(2) of the treaty.

  The Council adopted the decision allowing the Community to participate in the European investment fund. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of that decision and the associated EIF statute.

  The Council took note of the work of a high-level group on possible taxes on carbon and energy, which would report to the Environment Council on 8–9 June, and concluded that final responsibility for taxation matters rests with the ECOFIN Council.

  Finally, the Council also had a brief general discussion on fraud. However, a substantive discussion was deferred until July when detailed conclusions are expected to be adopted.

  There were no formal votes.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Inland Revenue's cash and running costs limits for 1994–95.
  562
  Mr. Dorrell
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class XVII vote 5 will be reduced by £51,462,000 from £1,704,123,000 to £1,652,661,000 and the running costs limits will be increased by £25,738,000 to £1,714,655,000. The cash limit reduction allows for £362,000 to be transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department—class IX, vote 1—in respect of the transfer of responsibility to that Department for the costs of the general commissioners of income tax. The balance of the cash limit reduction and the increase in the running costs limit arise from the outsourcing of some of the Department's information technology work to EDS Scicon Ltd. on 1 July 1994. This involves switching capital expenditure into running costs.

LORD CHANCELLORS'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department when the legal services ombudsman intends to publish his third annual report.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal services ombudsman has today published his third annual report.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report, "Domestic Violence and Occupation of the Family Home."

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have decided to implement almost all the recommendations contained in the report and consider them to provide a firm basis upon which to reform the law relating to the civil remedies for domestic violence and occupation of the family home. Legislation to implement the recommendations will be introduced when a suitable opportunity occurs.

  The Government have not accepted the recommendation to give the police the power to take civil action on behalf of victims of domestic violence or the recommendation for two of the proposed new categories of associated persons who would be able to apply for non-molestation and occupation orders.

  The categories which have not been accepted are people
  "who have at any time agreed to marry each other (whether or not that agreement has been terminated)"
  and people
  "who have or have had a sexual relationship with each other (whether or not including sexual intercourse)".

TRANSPORT

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate and supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) the cash limit for class VI, vote 1—Highways Agency—will be reduced by £3,500,000 from £2,102,028,000 to £2,098,528,000 to give effect to the transfer of expenditure on the Woolwich ferry to class VI, vote 5;

  (ii) the cash limit for class VI, vote 5—local roads and transport—will be increased by £2,855,000 from £530,049,000 to £532,904,000. The increase is made up of a transfer from class VI, vote 1 of £3,500,000 offset by a transfer to DoT/LACAP of £645,000 which will therefore increase DoT/LACAP cash limit by £645,000 from £290,713,000;

  (iii) the cash limit for class VI, vote 2—administration and transport services—will be increased by £1,015,000 from £234,410,000 to £235,425,000. Additional provision is required for residual expenses in connection with the sale of DVOIT at £15,000 and for the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory at £1,000,000.

  The overall increase will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Accidents (Agricultural Machinery)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number of accidents involving a tractor or other agricultural machinery on public roads and (b) the number of fatalities resulting from such accidents for each of the past eight years; and if he will make a statement.

  £ million

  Department of Transport expenditure

  Local authority expenditure

  Year

  Trunk roads—capital

  Trunk road bridges—capital

  Trunk roads—current (routine)

  Principal roads—capital

  Bridges—capital

  Local roads—current

  Total

  1989–90

  240

  66

  104

  —

  —

  1,410

  1,820

  1990–91

  289

  87

  121

  —

  —

  1,665

  2,162

  1991–92

  307

  120

  145

  —

  80

  1,690

  2,342

  1992–93

  365

  116

  160

  117

  108

  1,788

  2,654

  1993–94

  403

  129

  162

  176

  146

  1,744

  2,760

  Notes:

  1. Local authority expenditure for capital work on principal roads and bridges is funded via transport supplementary grant.

  2. Local authority current expenditure is funded through revenue support grant paid by DOE based on the highways maintenance standard spending assessment.

  3. Figures for local authority expenditure in 1993–94 are budget figures.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes will be made to the cash limits or running costs limits for 1994–95 for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Brooke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class XI, vote 7—Department of National Heritage administration—will be reduced by £3,080,000 from £24,680,000 to
  564
  Mr. Key
  It is not possible to identify tractors and agricultural machinery in the road injury accident data collection system. However, by linking road accident data with vehicle licencing information, it is possible to provide broad estimates of the information required since 1989, which are shown in the table.

  Injury road accidents involving agricultural machines1 Great Britain 1989–92

  Accidents

  1989

  684

  1990

  711

  1991

  850

  1992

  858

  1 Vehicles with a taxation class of "agricultural machine".

  Casualties: number of people killed in accidents involving agricultural machines1 in Great Britain 1989–92

  Killed

  1989

  32

  1990

  33

  1991

  25

  1992

  38

  1 Vehicles with a taxation class of "agricultural machine".

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total public expenditure on road maintenance in England for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The figures are:

  £21,600,000. This results from the transfer of responsibility for the international passenger survey to the Central Statistical Office from the 1 April 1994.

  In addition, the Department of National Heritage gross running costs limit will be reduced by £3,080,000 from £31,008,000 to £27,928,000.

DEFENCE

  Army Manpower
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the percentage reduction in British Army uniformed manpower strength since 1990.
  565
  Mr. Aitken
  Between 1 April 1990 and 1 May 1994, the uniformed strength—trained and untrained personnel—of the Regular Army has reduced by approximately 20 per cent.

  Navy Manpower
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the percentage reduction in Royal Navy uniformed manpower strength since 1990.

  Mr. Aitken
  Between 1 April 1990 and 1 May 1994, the total uniformed strength—trained and untrained personnel—of the Royal Navy, including Royal Marines, has reduced by approximately 12 per cent.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to change the 1994–95(a) cash limit and (b) running costs limits for the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate the cash limit for the Office of Public Service and Science, class XVIII, vote 1, will be decreased by £16,366,000 from £75,794,000 to £59,428,000 and the gross running cost limits will also be decreased by £15,745,000 from £95,751,000 to £80,006,000. The functions of the Offices of the Prime Minister, Government Chief Whip and Parliamentary Counsel have been transferred to the Cabinet Office, class XIX, vote 1. The net running cost limits for the Civil Service college has been decreased by £1,244,000 from £1,800,000 to £556,000.

  The changes will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes he proposes to the estimates class XVIII, vote 2—science.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cash limit for this vote is being reduced by £13,030,272 to £1,225,526,728. The reduction is the net effect of the following. A reduction to £13,685,272 in respect of that expenditure of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, which is being met from the receipts from the sale of
  the Plant Breeding Institute. An increase of £655,000 in respect of class 3 super-computing time, responsibilty for which is to transfer from the higher education funding councils for England, Wales and Scotland. The increase will be offset by transfers from class X, vote 2—education: higher and further education—of £542,000; class XIV, vote 17—Scotland and Forestry Commission: education, arts and libraries—of £79,000; and class XV, vote 4—Wales: training and education—of £34,000. The additional provision has been allocated to subhead A3—the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the 566
  acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by (a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14 June at column 371–72.

PRIME MINISTER

  Referendums
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the referendums on(a) membership of the European Community and (b) Scottish devolution.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost to public funds of the 1975 referendum on membership of the European Community was £6,100,000. The 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland cost £820,500.

  Finance
  Mr. Whitney
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made to finance No. 10 Downing street, the Whips Offices, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the ceremonial branch.

  The Prime Minister:
  Responsibility for No. 10, the Whips Offices, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the ceremonial branch has been transferred, within the Cabinet Office, from the Office of Public Service and Science vote to the other services vote, with effect from 1 April 1994.

  Parliamentary approval of this transfer of expenditure will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office other services vote, class XIX, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £7,365,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to change the 1994–95 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office other services vote.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Cabinet Office other services, class XIX, vote 1, will be increased by £16,366,000 from £27,015,000 to £43,381,000. At the same time the running costs limit will be increased by £15,467,000 from £26,295,000 to £41,762,000.

  The increase reflects the transfer of certain administrative functions and provision from the Cabinet Office Office of Public Service and Science vote, class XVIII, vote 1, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

ENVIRONMENT

  Research Budget
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current projects included in his Department's research budget; and what proportion of his Department's research budget is spent on research to improve standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is currently funding over 800 research projects. As the list of these projects runs to several pages, I will write to the hon. Member with a copy of the list.

  It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the proportion of my Department's current research budget which will be spent on research to improve standard spending assessments until the research is commissioned, but it is not expected to exceed 0.05 per cent. in 1994–95.

  Noise Legislation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review current noise disturbance legislation.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1990 an independent noise review was established by my Department to consider all forms of control over noise pollution. It made several useful recommendations relating to improvement of the legislation which were considered carefully. As a result provisions were introduced into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to strengthen the existing statutory nuisance duties and powers to control noise from domestic, industrial and commercial premises. These powers have been further extended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 to control noise from vehicles, machinery and equipment in the street. We continue to monitor the effectiveness of existing environmental noise legislation and are keen to ensure that it is used to its full effect.

  My Department continues to discuss all aspects of noise pollution and disturbance, including the scope for further improving the operation of the relevant legislation, with other Departments and a wide range of professional and voluntary organisations concerned with these issues.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the estimated average annual water bill per household(a) before water metering and (b) after water metering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The average household unmeasured water supply bill in England and Wales in 1994–95 is £94 and for a metered water supply it is £97. The average household charge for combined water and sewerage services is £199 for both measured and unmeasured services.

  Charges should not discriminate against metered customers. I am pleased that this year average measured household bills have fallen—by 1 per cent. for water and 3.8 per cent. for sewerage—ensuring a fairer balance in tariffs between measured and unmeasured customers.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the planned level of total standard spending for 1995–96 to meet the transitional costs arising from local government reform in England.

  Mr. Curry
  For 1994–95 local authorities subject to reorganisation will be able to borrow to meet transitional costs. I expect that similar arrangements will apply for 1995–96 and subsequent years, and we shall take account of those arrangements in the local government finance settlement each year. The amount in 1995–96 will depend on decisions about areas to be reorganised which have yet to be made.

  Rivers and Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on the cost benefit analysis for flow restoration to the River Darent approved by his Department in December 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to the Director General of Water Services in respect of the cost implications to water services plcs of action to be taken on those sites of special scientific interest and rivers identified as being adversely affected by water abstraction.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General of Water Services has been advised of the proposals by Thames Water Utilities Ltd. to spend £6 million on the river Darent low flow alleviation scheme, and of proposals by Suffolk—now Essex—Water to spend £0.65 million in helping to restore water levels in Redgrave and Lopham fen.

  Discussions are continuing on the cost implications of additional schemes for completion over the next few years.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what notification he has received from(a) the National Rivers Authority and (b) the statutory nature conservation agencies, regarding the investment necessary to remedy the adverse impacts of abstraction boreholes affecting rivers and sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority identified costs for remedial action for the River Darent of £7 million with an additional £5 million should subsequent testing under drought conditions indicate the need for further augmentation, and for Redgrave and Lopham fen, £2.8 million, approximately half of which is to be funded from the EC LIFE programme.

  The National Rivers Authority reported on 40 rivers requiring remedial action in its report "Low Flows and Water Resources", published in March 1993.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those rivers and sites of special scientific interest that have suffered adverse impacts of water abstraction boreholes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority listed 40 sites requiring remedial action in its report "Low Flows and Water Resources", published in March 1993.

  Biological Diversity
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards ratifying the United Nations convention on biological diversity.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom ratified the convention on biological diversity on 3 June 1994. Before ratifying we had already demonstrated our commitment to the aims of the convention, domestically and internationally, through the production of our biodiversity action plan and through the financial and other assistance we have made available to help developing countries preserve their biodiversity. We look forward to playing a constructive and positive role in the convention and its meetings.

  Waste Imports and Exports
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide policy guidance on waste imports and exports.

  Mr. Atkins
  Last month a new control regime on waste shipments was introduced. The EC Waste Shipments Regulation and the United Kingdom's associated Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994 came into effect on 6 May. This legislation enabled the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the Basle convention, to which the United Kingdom became a party on 8 May.

  These obligations are based on the principle of national self-sufficiency in waste disposal. This principle is the means by which countries can be encouraged to take responsibility for disposing of the waste they generate. Thereby they are encouraged to minimise wastes—especially hazardous wastes—and to reuse and recycle, and to pursue policies of sustainable development.

  We must also have regard for other environmental responsibilities arising from our membership of the European Union and the global community. In implementing the Basle convention, we should not lose sight of these wider considerations.

  As a developed country, with ample disposal facilities to meet our waste arisings, we ourselves will have no need to export wastes for final disposal in other countries. The EC regulation prohibits such exports to countries outside the EC and EFTA the European Free Trade Association. We shall go further by proposing a complete prohibition on such exports to all countries.

  There is no equivalent case for a general ban on exports of wastes for recovery. But special considerations apply to the export of hazardous wastes for recovery in developing countries and countries in transition. At the second conference of the Basle convention in March, it was recognised that there is a high risk that such exports will not be managed in environmentally sound ways in the country of receipt. It was decided that, except in exceptional circumstances, trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to non-OECD states for the purposes of recovery should be prohibited. In the Government's opinion, this decision has now taken effect.

  Our policy towards imports is based on similar principles. In future, the presumption will be that wastes should not be imported for final disposal in this country. This applies both to landfill, either directly or indirectly,
  570
  and to incineration, and also to disposal under the guise of recovery—so-called "sham recovery". However, imports for genuine recovery operations, including energy recovery, will continue to be allowed.

  For most wastes, all other countries should now develop adequate final disposal facilities and there seems to be no reason to delay a prohibition of imports. There may, however, be special circumstances where imports of certain wastes for specialist disposal processes—and in particular for high temperature incineration—might be justified on wider environmental grounds for very limited periods and quantities. This would apply on a transitional and reducing basis where a country had not yet completed specialist disposal capacity or was dealing with a backlog inherited from a former communist regime in eastern Europe. We propose to develop strict criteria which would regulate any such continued imports. Our criteria would take account of the technical and environmental characteristics of the waste stream, and the circumstances of the exporting country. Except for small quantities particularly from developing countries, we would propose that the transitional period should not exceed three years at most.

  We do not contemplate importing from countries in a position to develop their own disposal facilities, but taking no action to do so. That would be quite contrary to our policy towards self-sufficiency. Nor would we allow imports which could not be safely handled and managed within the existing disposal capacity in the United Kingdom.

  We shall be making more detailed proposals on exports and imports in the form of a draft waste management plan. Associated with the plan will be technical guidance designed to assist competent authorities in making decisions. There will be a full opportunity for consultation on the draft plan and technical guidance before it is issued.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Gummer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class VII, vote 8—revenue support grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office services, etc., England—will be reduced by £2,900,000 from £29,635,066,000 to £29,632,166,000. This comprises a reduction of £4,400,000 in provision for Valuation Office rating services and an offsetting increase of £1,500,000 for Valuation Office banding and valuation services. Some £1,550,000 of the savings will be used to support increased expenditure on class VII, vote 12—council tax transitional reduction grant, community charge grants, emergency financial assistance to local authorities, non-domestic rates outturn payments, etc., England. The remaining savings of £1,350,000 will be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class VII, vote II—PSA Services—will be reduced by £25,000,000 from £123,693,000 to £98,693,000, and the net running cost limit on this vote will reduce by £25,000,000 from £123,293,000 to £98,293,000. The reduction reflects savings achieved in the residuary functions, and reductions

  571
  in severance figures and secondee numbers arising out of most recent forecasts following the sales of the former PSA building management businesses.

  In addition, and subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VII, vote 13—sale of PSA businesses—will be increased by £9,449,000 from £401,000 to £9,850,000. The increase will not constitute a claim on the reserve as it will be netted off the proceeds from the Government's privatisation programme. The provision is sought, as provided for in the sales agreements, to fund adjustments to cash assets following reviews of the completion statement of the PSA building management businesses post-sale, and to contribute to the costs incurred by the purchasers of both PSA projects and the building management businesses in making transferred staff redundant.

  Increases on votes 8 and 12 will be offset by reductions in other cash-limited expenditure and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in preparing updated guidance for local authorities on energy efficiency in council housing in follow up to interim guidance published last year.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to inform the House that updated and consolidated guidance was published on 13 June. A copy of the guidance, entitled "Energy Efficiency in Council Housing", has been placed in the Library.

  Improving energy efficiency in council housing brings benefits to tenants, landlords and the environment. Tenants benefit from warmer, healthier homes which are cheaper to heat. Landlords gain from lower maintenance and management costs. The environment benefits from reductions on carbon dioxide emissions.

  Since last year, all local housing authorities have been expected to take account of energy efficiency in their housing strategies and investment programme submissions. Performance here is one of the factors taken into consideration in determining housing investment programme allocations.

  The guidance, which draws on lessons from my Department's successful green house demonstration programme and the Energy Efficiency Office's best practice programme, provides practical assistance on how to go about developing an effective energy efficiency policy. Accompanying the main guidance is a series of guides providing further advice on key themes such as funding sources for energy efficiency work, tenant consultation and the benefits that can flow from integrated packages of measures.

  Some authorities have been making great strides on energy efficiency. I welcome that. But much remains to be done not only to combat environmental problems but to maximise the scope for cost-effective energy efficiency action and getting added value from planned investment.

  I look to authorities to translate this important guidance into action.

  M25 (Service Area)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the development of a motorway service area on green-belt land owned by Cape plc of Uxbridge and adjoining the M25 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer Friday 20 May 1994]: The proposal referred to is that between junctions 15 and 16 of the M25 at Woodlands Park, near Iver. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has directed refusal of this application. There is also an article 14 direction in place restricting the grant of permission in respect of this development. I have received the representations of my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents and as far as policy is concerned, I refer him to my answer of 18 May at column 507.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Oslo and Paris Commissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations her Department has received from Parcom member states regarding the forthcoming 16th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions.

  Mr. Jack
  None.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on the application of environmental conditions to livestock headage payment schemes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We received 40 responses to the consultation paper on the application of environmental conditions to livestock headage payment schemes which we issued on 29 March 1994, from a range of bodies including the main farming and environmental interests. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, on 10 June, that measures to prevent over-grazing similar to those already operating in the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme would be introduced into the other livestock premium schemes when they are renewed. We have written to all those who responded to the paper to inform them of this decision.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation she has made of the National Farmers Union proposals for preventing over-grazing; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The NFU received a detailed response to its proposals for preventing over-grazing from the Minister of Agriculture earlier this year.

  On 10 June the Minister of Agriculture announced that measures to prevent over-grazing similar to those already operating in the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme would be introduced into the other livestock premium schemes when they are renewed.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances it is her Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation
  573
  document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if she will arrange for her Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Jack
  It is commonplace for the Department, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses may be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential. This practice is being codified in departmental guidance to ensure that it is followed in all cases.

  Nuclear Issues
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how the recently announced Department of Environment review of radioactive waste management policy will affect the position that the United Kingdom will take at the forthcoming 16th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions;

  (2) what position the United Kingdom will be taking at the forthcoming 16th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions on proposals concerning nuclear issues; and if she will set out her reasons in each case.

  Number of job offers reported by MAFF staff 1984 to date

  Grade 3 and above

  Below grade 3

  Concerned with procurement/contract work

  Concerned with other work

  1993

  —

  10

  1

  9

  1992

  —

  8

  1

  7

  1991

  1

  10

  —

  11

  1990

  2

  12

  —

  14

  1989

  2

  3

  —

  5

  1988

  3(1)1

  6

  —

  9(1)1

  1987

  0

  12

  1

  11

  1986

  6

  12

  —

  18

  1985

  —

  5

  —

  5

  1984

  —

  5

  —

  5

  Figures include job offers reported by staff application was not required under the rules.

  1 Non-executive director.

  Fishing Vessels
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she plans to continue the decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  On 14 December 1993, when I announced the suspension of the introduction of days-at-sea restrictions, I said that we would be reviewing the way forward for the other elements of the fisheries conservation package, in particular decommissioning. That review has now been completed and I am pleased to announce that the two further rounds of decommissioning, this year and in 1995–96, are to go ahead as planned. Of the total of£25 million for 1993–94 to 1995–96, £8.9 million will be made available this financial year. This includes an amount corresponding to the balance remaining from last year's scheme. I hope that a further significant reduction in fleet capacity will be achieved so contributing, with licence aggregation penalties, towards our Community effort reduction targets or multi-annual guidance programme. We shall be exploring further with the industry and with the Commission what other measures we might adopt to help us to achieve our MAGP targets. We are looking particularly at technical conservation measures and at
  574
  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside on 14 June, at column 337.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many job offers were reported by staff in her Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Jack
  The table shows the number of job offers reported by staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in each of the last 10 years. All but one of these reports resulted in an application to join the company concerned.

  possible changes to the licensing system, but these considerations need not delay progress on the decommissioning front.

  We have always made it clear that we want the decommissioning scheme to provide real long-term benefits to the fishing industry. By enabling the pressure on fish stocks to be reduced the scheme can help fisheries conservation and improve fishing prospects for the future. But the scheme will not achieve this result if the remaining vessels increase their fishing effort and so undermine the impact of decommissioning. This would be unwelcome for both the fishing industry and for taxpayers who will want to see that the expenditure is effective and provides good value for money. So as decommissioning progresses we intend to monitor the fishing effort of the remaining fleet. If it increases, we shall have to take suitable effort control measures to deal with the situation. I hope the industry will collectively exercise restraint, and so make the use of such controls in the context of this scheme unnecessary.

  The Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 was laid before Parliament today. The rules of the scheme are broadly the same as under the 1993 decommissioning scheme, as I believe that the 1993 scheme was welcomed by most in the industry and successfully removed the maximum active capacity for the available funds. Vessel owners are invited to submit tenders for the amount of

  575
  decommissioning grant for which they would be prepared to scrap their vessel and surrender its licence. Applications will be ranked in terms of pounds per vessel capacity unit. Eligibility criteria similar to those in the 1993 scheme will apply but the 1994 scheme will be focused on those vessels in respect of which full pressure stock licences have been issued. This means that decommissioning will remain widely accessible but will be targeted at those vessels fishing the stocks which are the most at risk.

  To be eligible for decommissioning grant, vessels must meet the following main criteria:

  (a) The vessel must be registered in the UK, be over 10 m in overall length and over 10 years old at the date of application;

  (b) The vessel must have spent at least 100 days at sea on fishing trips in Community waters as a UK registered vessel during each of 1992 and 1993;

  (c) A current full pressure stock licence must be held in respect of the vessel;

  (d) The vessel must be seaworthy: vessels over 12 m in overall length must have either a valid Department of Transport safety certificate or a letter confirming the completion of a satisfactory survey at the time of application;

  (e) It must not have been approved for decommissioning under the 1993 scheme and then withdrawn;

  (f) Grants will be paid only when vessels are scrapped. The applicant must provide proof that the vessel has been removed from the register and has been scrapped within the European Community using a method approved by Ministers before any grant is paid;

  (g) An application for a grant must be approved before the vessel is scrapped or the vessel will not be eligible for grant;

  (h) Successful applicants must submit proof of scrapping and deregistration and surrender all licences in respect of the vessel before 1 March 1995; otherwise they lose their right to a decommissioning grant.

  Application forms for decommissioning grants and the accompanying explanatory leaflets will be available in local fishery offices later this week. All fishermen who have expressed an interest or whose application was unsuccessful in the first round will be sent a leaflet and form. The deadline for receipt of applications is 15 August 1994.

  International Whaling Commission
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the International Whaling Commission's 46th annual meeting.

  Mr. Jack
  The International Whaling Commission's 46th annual meeting was held at Puerto Vallarta, Mexico from 23–27 May. The United Kingdom delegation was composed of officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, assisted by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment and representatives of environmental organisations.

  The principal achievement of the meeting was the creation of a circumpolar Southern Ocean sanctuary for whales, within which commercial whaling will be banned indefinitely. The northern boundary of the sanctuary is 40 deg south except in the eastern Pacific, between 130 deg west and 50 deg west, where it is 60 deg south; in addition, below the existing Indian Ocean sanctuary the boundary is 55 deg south, the southern boundary of that sanctuary, so that the two sanctuaries do not overlap.

  The new sanctuary will cover the main feeding grounds of all southern ocean baleen whales, including those populations of fin and sei whales that feed between 60 deg
  576
  south and 40 deg south of the south Atlantic and western Pacific. There are few records of whale activity in the same latitudes in the eastern Pacific, which for this reason fall outside the sanctuary.

  The creation of a Southern Ocean sanctuary represents a major step forward for the conservation of whales. It ensures that should the current moratorium on commercial whaling ever be lifted, the whale stocks in the Southern Ocean will remain protected. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom delegation played a prominent role in devising the proposal which was ultimately adopted.

  At the meeting, we restated the United Kingdom's continuing strong support for the moratorium. We accordingly voted against a request by Japan for an interim quota of 50 minke whales, to be taken by traditional whaling communities. This proposal was defeated and I am pleased to report that the moratorium remains intact.

  Some progress was made on the revised management procedure, a key element in the proposed revised management scheme. The IWC's scientific committee reported that it had completed its work on the RMP, which it recommended for adoption. This was consistent with the remit it was given, when the moratorium was agreed, to devise new management procedures. In response to this recommendation, a resolution was adopted accepting that the scientific committee's work on the RMP completes the main scientific component in the development of the RMS, but making it clear that the RMP cannot be formally adopted in advance of the RMS. The resolution also emphasises that nothing it contains justifies any activity that is contrary to the moratorium.

  The United Kingdom played an active role in the preparation of this resolution, which meets our own key requirements. In particular, it states clearly that the RMP will not be adopted in advance of the RMS and sets out the elements that will have to be satisfactorily included in the RMS before it can be considered for adoption. A good deal of work on these will be required. In this context, we attach particular importance to the securing of a fully effective, enforceable and internationally credible inspection and observation scheme that would ensure that any whaling operations in the future are properly controlled. Without such measures, it would not be possible for the United Kingdom to support any form of RMS.

  We once again reaffirmed the importance we attached to ensuring that any whales taken in whaling operations are killed humanely. Together with New Zealand, we secured the adoption of a resolution criticising the use of the electric lance as a method of secondary killing. This drew on new research which strongly suggests that the electric lance is both ineffective and cruel. The resolution calls on Governments using this technique to develop alternative methods of secondary killing and requests the IWC to look into the matter again next year, in the light of the advice of the forthcoming workshop on humane killing. The meeting also agreed the terms of reference we proposed for this workshop, which will meet immediately before next year's annual meeting.

  Last year, United Kingdom proposals on whale watching were accepted by the IWC. These led to the production of a useful report on the economic importance of whale watching. In the light of this report, the United Kingdom was able to secure support for a further proposal, which was adopted by consensus, requiring the IWC and its scientific committee to provide advice to national

  577
  Governments on whale watching and to keep developments under review. This will ensure that the IWC has a permanent role to play in this expanding new industry.

  It was agreed that two scientific workshops on environmental threats, dealing with the potential effects of pollution and of climate change, should be held over the next two year's. We took a prominent role in the discussion of these issues in the scientific committee, and helped promote a resolution underlining the importance that the IWC attaches to the impact on whale stocks.

  During the meeting, the United Kingdom delegation expressed concern about reports of illegal international trade in whale meat, and supported a successful resolution calling on all members to ensure that existing restrictions on trade in whale meat and whale products were strictly enforced and asking Governments to report all attempted evasions to the IWC.

  The United Kingdom delegation also took the opportunity to criticise strongly Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling and to urge the Norwegian Government to reconsider. We were supported by a number of other delegations.

  Overall, this was a very successful meeting for the United Kingdom. We achieved all our main objectives and made useful progress on a range of issues. I believe that we are now well placed to make further progress at the IWC's 47th annual meeting in Dublin next year.

  The IWC remains the only effective world forum for the discussion of whaling issues; it continues to operate as a result of those countries who wish to remain its members.

  Warning Letters Issued by Region and Nationally for each quarter from April 1990 to March 1992

  April to June 1990

  July to September 1990

  October to December 1990

  January to March 10

  April to June 1991

  July to September 1991

  October to December 1991

  January to March 1991

  Northern

  789

  731

  695

  394

  365

  697

  438

  403

  Yorks and Humberside

  714

  476

  637

  398

  403

  394

  359

  312

  East Midlands and Eastern

  463

  447

  453

  338

  337

  272

  225

  242

  London and South Eastern

  3,024

  2,941

  2,339

  1,895

  1,484

  1,830

  1,653

  1,839

  South Western

  530

  716

  533

  400

  371

  276

  273

  354

  Wales

  688

  464

  386

  311

  309

  185

  232

  206

  West Midlands

  1,354

  1,015

  853

  634

  561

  707

  606

  567

  North Western

  1,435

  1,521

  1,247

  1,032

  1,123

  1,061

  1,382

  1,671

  Scotland

  2,234

  2,149

  1,623

  1,001

  1,022

  1,134

  794

  1,010

  Great Britain

  11,231

  10,730

  8,766

  6,403

  5,975

  6,556

  5,962

  6,604

  Warning Letters Issued by Region and Nationally for each quarter from April 1992 to March 1994

  April to June 1992

  July to September 1992

  October to December 1992

  January to March 1993

  April to June 1993

  July to September 1993

  October to December 1993

  January to March 1994

  Northern

  300

  290

  163

  185

  124

  142

  164

  251

  Yorks and Humberside

  282

  292

  166

  163

  140

  107

  82

  83

  East Midlands and Eastern

  203

  202

  78

  98

  160

  139

  121

  35

  London and South Eastern

  2,126

  2,250

  1,758

  1,515

  1,007

  935

  682

  692

  Southwestern

  406

  388

  271

  349

  228

  369

  390

  555

  Wales

  233

  183

  71

  72

  41

  31

  38

  69

  West Midlands

  619

  486

  235

  190

  153

  144

  170

  261

  Northwestern

  1,678

  2,006

  1,510

  1,057

  601

  344

  206

  208

  Scotland

  887

  612

  337

  363

  217

  98

  44

  76

  Great Britain

  6,734

  6,709

  4,589

  3,992

  2,671

  2,309

  1,897

  2,230

EMPLOYMENT

  Actively-seeking-employment Rule
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) decisions, (b) disallowances and (c) warning letters were issued in each region and Great Britain as a whole in each quarter since April 1990 in respect of actively seeking employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question 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 M. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 15 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claimants who have been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking employment; the number of decisions on actively seeking employment; and the number of disallowances for actively seeking employment in each quarter since April 1990.
  The statistics you asked for on adjudication officers' decisions on actively seeking employment for each region and for Great Britain as a whole are contained in the quarterly summary entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". Copies are held in the Library of the House. The latest available information relates to the quarter ending December 1993.
  I enclose a table showing by Region, and for Great Britain, the number of warning letters issued to clients whose worksearch activity was not considered to be adequate. This information is available for the period up to March 1994.
  I hope this is helpful.

  HM Inspectorate of Mines
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action was taken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines in regard to the under-reporting of dust counts in British mines which was referred to the inspectorate earlier this year; and when the inspectorate was first aware of the under-reporting.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [pursuant to his reply of 4 November 1993]: I wish to announce that the report of the investigation by the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate of mines into respirable dust sampling at British Coal Corporation mines is released today.

  The investigation was undertaken following allegations of widespread tampering with dust sampling equipment and expressions of concern about discrepancies between the results of routine statutory sampling of respirable dust and check sampling undertaken by BCC.

  The mines inspectorate has thoroughly investigated these allegations but has found no evidence to substantiate them. It has also reviewed the procedures for monitoring dust levels.

  The report identifies weaknesses in the integrity of the sampling instruments and in the arrangements for their security while stored at individual mines. It therefore makes a number of sensible recommendations with the aim of ensuring long-term confidence in the dust sampling programme at mines. These include the proofing of sampling instruments against tampering and improved, more secure, arrangements for the storage of instruments at mine sites. The report also recommends that consideration should be given to the introduction of independent dust sampling and audit procedures.

  I have today sent a copy of the report to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who wrote to me on the matter. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the Child Support Agency's target time for dealing with complaints; and how many complaints have been dealt with in that time;

  (2) how many complaints have been logged by the Child Support Agency computerised complaints monitoring system;

  (3) how many complaints have been received by the Child Support Agency since its inception;

  (4) what form of redress is available to the complainant if a complaint to the Child Support Agency is not dealt with in the time stipulated for a reply;

  (5) whether he will publish the results of the review into the complaints procedures of the Child Support Agency.

  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 Dr. Tony Wright, dated 15 June 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about customer complaints received by the Child Support Agency.
  580
  Your have asked for details of the number of such complaints received, the Agency's target time for dealing with complaints and how many have been dealt with in that time. The Agency's Charter contains a stated aim to acknowledge written complaints within two days of receipt and respond to complaints within 10 working days. From 5 April to 31 March 1994, a total of 10,886 complaints were recorded and, of these, 4,910 were cleared within 10 working days.
  The first year of the Agency's operations has stimulated a great deal of activity and I am aware that our performance in this area falls below the standard we aim to provide for clients. As part of the normal management process we are continually examining ways in which our service to clients can be improved.
  The Agency's computerised complaints monitoring system is under development and it is planned to introduce it later this year.
  Your ask about the redress available where a client is dissatisfied with the way a complaint had been handled. The Agency's Charter explains that where something has gone wrong, the Agency will be happy to apologise, give an explanation and put the matter right. The client can speak or write to the Customer Services Manager in the centre dealing with the case. If they are not satisfied they can write directly to the manager of the centre or, ultimately, to the Chief Executive.
  The Agency has conducted an internal review of its complaints monitoring procedures as part of an ongoing arrangement to examine various management issues. There are no plans to publish a report.
  I hope this is helpful.

  War Pensions
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the war pensions trial complaints system; on what date the system went into operation; and how many complaints have been received and processed to date.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the War Pensions trial complaints system.
  The War Pensions Agency has a well established complaints system operating throughout the Agency. This system ensures that complaints are dealt with in accordance with our Charter Standards.
  The Agency was launched on 1 April 1994 and since that date there has existed a complaints monitoring system within the War Pensions Parliamentary Group. This system has now been extended to include the War Pensions Customer Services, War Pensions Helpline and War Pensioners' Welfare Service. It is being monitored by the War Pensions Customer Services Manager to assess the suitability for use by the whole of the Agency. It will be evaluated in the autumn of this year.
  A total of 186 complaints have been received by the Parliamentary Group in our first month of operation as an Agency.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Maintenance Assessments
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many absent parents have had their maintenance assessments reduced as a result of the regulatory changes introduced on 7 February; and what has been the average reduction per week to date;

  (2) how many absent parents have had their maintenance assessments reduced as a result of changes to the parent-with-care allowance introduced on 7 February; and what has been the average reduction per week to date.
  581
  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. Ingram, dated 15 June 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the effect of the changes to Child Support introduced on 7 February 1994.
  The total number of cases where a reduction in the maintenance assessment occurred due to the policy changes was 43,800 which includes 4,000 cases where liability was not reduced at the time as the change was below £1. In these cases the change would be taken into account at the next review of circumstances.
  Information on the average amount by which the assessment reduced is available for the 93 per cent. of cases that were reassessed automatically by the computer system. In these cases the average reduction was £9.00 a week. Information is not available for the remaining cases which were reassessed clerically.
  Specific information is not yet available on the effect of the changes to parent with care allowances. Arrangements are being made to obtain this information.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency (Complaints)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the OTIS—"Opportunity to Improve Service"—computerised system for complaints operated by the Benefits Agency was inaugurated; how many complaints have been logged from that date; what percentage of those complaints and suggestions have resulted in a change to the agency's policy or procedure; and what plans there are for such a system to be adopted by other agencies.

  Mr. Burt
  The operation of the OTIS computerised system in the Benefits Agency is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the OTIS computerised system for complaints in the Benefits Agency and what plans there are for the system to be adopted by other agencies.
  (OTIS) Opportunity to Improve Service was introduced in Newcastle Benefits Directorate on 1 July 1991, initially on a pilot basis. It proved successful and is now in operation in Newcastle Pensions Directorate, Overseas Benefits Directorate and Child Benefit Centre but is not used throughout the Agency.
  Some Districts are using IT systems to record and analyse customer feedback. However, many offices do not receive enough complaints to justify the need to adopt an IT system for analysing customer feedback. The Benefits Agency is in the process of producing a "good practice guide" to be issued to all business units to ensure that their local systems are operating to full potential.
  The Information available on complaints logged on OTIS is 1,404 for Overseas Benefits Directorate for the period 1 July 1991 to 31 March 1994, 1,906 for Newcastle Pensions Directorate for the same period, and 5,499 for Child Benefit Centre for the period 2 January 1992 to 25 May 1994.
  As OTIS is used to identify trends rather than monitor individual complaints or suggestions, statistics comparing the number of comments with any change in procedure are not kept.
  I understand from the other DSS Agencies that they have no plans to introduce OTIS but some are introducing IT systems to meet their own business needs.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalidity benefit awards have been(a) reviewed, (b) disallowed following review and (c) reinstated on appeal during each of the last 12 months in the Wrexham Maelor and Mid Wales district and North Wales Coast district of the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Hanson, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about invalidity Benefit (IVB) awards in the Mid Wales and Maelor, and North Wales Coast Districts.
  The information is available in the format requested, and has been provided in appendices 1 and 2.
  The Mid Wales and Maelor District of the Benefits Agency comprises Wrexham District Office (DO) and Newtown Branch Office (BO). The North Wales Coast District comprises Rhyl DO, and Colwyn Bay and Deeside BO's.
  The statistics provided are taken from clerical and computer records maintained in the Districts' offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix 1

  Mid Wales and Maelor district

  Month

  IVB awards reviewed

  IVB awards disallowed

  IVB awards reinstated on appeal

  May 1993

  45

  28

  2

  June 1993

  87

  36

  —

  July 1993

  42

  25

  —

  August 1993

  41

  15

  1

  September 1993

  54

  29

  —

  October 1993

  38

  20

  1

  November 1993

  43

  24

  1

  December 1993

  26

  22

  1

  January 1994

  68

  30

  —

  February 1994

  78

  33

  1

  March 1994

  176

  56

  5

  April 1994

  150

  61

  4

  Appendix 2

  North Wales coast

  Month

  IVB awards reviewed

  IVB awards disallowed

  IVB awards reinstated on appeal

  May 1993

  75

  34

  1

  June 1993

  96

  60

  1

  July 1993

  118

  62

  2

  August 1993

  93

  64

  1

  September 1993

  119

  57

  1

  October 1993

  220

  105

  4

  November 1993

  113

  69

  4

  December 1993

  95

  56

  2

  January 1994

  93

  48

  6

  February 1994

  145

  58

  1

  March 1994

  183

  79

  1

  April 1994

  182

  98

  2

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken to decide an application for assistance from the social fund
  583
  nationally; and what is the average length of time taken at (a) East Nottinghamshire, (b) North Nottinghamshire and (c) West Nottinghamshire Benefits Agency offices.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the average

  Annex A

  Social Fund clearance time performance nationally and for the Benefits Agency districts of East, North and West Nottinghamshire for the month of April 1994 (latest available figures)

  National

  East Notts

  North Notts

  West Notts

  CCG

  per cent. in 7 days

  82

  83

  88

  70

  per cent. in 20 days

  98

  97

  98

  98

  BL

  per cent. in 6 days

  78

  79

  85

  71

  per cent. in 20 days

  98

  98

  99

  98

  CL

  per cent in 1 day

  97

  94

  96

  94

  per cent. in 2 days

  98

  98

  98

  97

  FP

  per cent. in 12 days

  71

  74

  73

  74

  per cent. in 35 days

  96

  95

  91

  98

  MP

  per cent. in 5 days

  74

  83

  89

  77

  per cent. in 20 days

  97

  97

  99

  98

  Computerised Benefit Calculation Models
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the use of computerised benefit calculation models by his Department; and what policy applies to claimants wishing to obtain access to these systems;

  (2) how much his Department has spent on introducing computerised benefit calculation models throughout the Benefits Agency network; how many terminals are currently operational; and if he will list the Benefits Agency facilities where access to these terminals is available to claimants.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Brian Donohue, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking about (i) the use of computerised benefit calculation models by his Department; and what policy applies to claimants wishing to obtain access to these systems and (ii) how much his Department has spent on introducing computerised benefit calculation models throughout the Benefits Agency network; how many terminals are currently operational; and if he will list the facilities where access to these terminals is available to claimants.
  The Benefits Agency provides a benefit advice and information service from all its District Offices and also from a number of telephone enquiry lines. Staff are supported in this task by a number of tools, including the recently introduced Integrated
  584
  time taken to decide a Social Fund (SF) application nationally and in the Benefits Agency's (BA) East Nottinghamshire, North Nottinghamshire, and West Nottinghamshire Districts.
  The clearance of SF applications is measured in terms of "x" per cent. of applications cleared in "y" days, and not as an average of the time to decide each individual application. You will be aware that the SF comprises of Community Care Grants (CCG), Budgeting Loans (BL), Crisis Loans (CL), Cold Weather Payments (CWP), Funeral Payments (FP) and Maternity Payments (MP). Each element of the SF has separate and different "x in y" primary and secondary targets, with the exception of CWPs. For CWPs, eligible customers are identified and paid automatically and do not have to make a formal claim.
  I have provided at Annex A the national and the three Nottinghamshire districts' details for the month of April 1994 (latest available data).
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  Benefits Information System, a computerised system which includes the facility to produce an estimate of benefit entitlement during an interview with a customer.
  The Agency is currently conducting research to determine whether customers would welcome self service facilities to produce benefit calculations, given the large volume of data entry required to produce meaningful estimates of benefit entitlement. Meanwhile there are no such facilities available.
  There are, however, computer programmes developed by the Agency which provide general information about benefits such as condition of entitlement, how to claim, rates, leaflets etc. The most common of these is the "West Country Social Security Guide" which can be installed on machines suitable for customer use, where they are available. Such machines are installed in both BA locations and other outlets provided by Local Authorities, Social and Welfare organisations and Citizen's Advice Bureaux, amongst others.
  There are at least 1,100 terminals running the automated guide. The precise number of these suitable for direct public access is unknown.
  Finally, the eventual cost of developing, implementing and supporting the full IBIS toolset is estimated to be £3.8 million.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of carers currently entitled to(a) invalidity benefit and (b) unemployment benefit will be eligible for the new incapacity benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

EDUCATION

  Clinical Academic Staff
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of the delay in translating the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body award to clinical academic staff on the latter's morale;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the steps taken since October 1991 to find a long-term solution to the annual problem of implementing the translation of the NHS pay award to clinical academic staff;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that young doctors entering academic medicine will be assured of sufficient, well structured, and appropriately rewarded career posts;

  (4) if he will give an assurance to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that he will meet in full the difference between the cost of clinical and non-clinical pay awards for 1994;

  (5) if he will make a statement on the process of implementing the 1994 doctors' pay award for clinical academic staff.

  Mr. Boswell
  The negotiation of pay awards for clinical academic staff is a matter for the university employers, not for my right hon. Friend. Universities will be required to fund pay awards for clinical and non-clinical academic staff in 1994 from within their existing resources. It is also for the university employers to decide how best to recruit, retain and motivate their clinical academic staff.

  Rough Sleepers and Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what instructions are given to security staff in his departmental offices in London for dealing with(a) those sleeping rough in departmental doorways and (b) beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems have been experienced with each category in the last three months.

  Mr. Forth
  No special instructions are issued to the custody guards for dealing with incidents arising from either category. The guards' operational standing orders direct them to notify the local police where the actions of any individuals in bordering public streets are judged to pose a threat to the Department's perimeter security. No problems of this nature have arisen in the last three months.

  Suspensions and Expulsions
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he is taking to reduce the number of children suspended or expelled from schools in(a) Humberside and (b) England.

  Mr. Forth
  Head teachers are responsible for securing discipline in their schools and for exercising the power of exclusion. The Department has recently issued guidance to all schools aimed at promoting consistent practice in the use of exclusion and ensuring that permanent exclusion is used as a last resort. Changes in the law governing exclusions have been made in the Education Act 1993, which abolishes the category of indefinite exclusion; places a limit of 15 school days in any one term on fixed-term exclusions; and enables the Secretary of State to place time limits on the operation of exclusion procedures,586
  to reduce to a minimum the time spent by an excluded pupil out of school. These provisions are intended to come into effect on 1 September.

  Lancashire Colleges
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total funding given to each college and sixth form tertiary college in Lancashire for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94; and when the figure for the year 1994–95 will be available.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council's total recurrent funding allocations to colleges in Lancashire for 1993–94, covering the 16-month period 1 April 1993 to 31 July 1994, and those for the 12 months ending 31 July 1995, are given in the table.

  There are no comparable figures available for 1992–93, when the colleges were funded by their local authority using different bases.

  Recurrent funding allocations: FE institutions in Lancashire

  1994–95 12 months £

  1993–94 16 months £

  General FE

  Accrington and Rossendale

  7,761,029

  9,467,703

  Blackburn

  12,380,111

  15,215,054

  Blackpool and The Fylde

  11,949,009

  14,459,346

  Burnley

  5,057,134

  6,457,022

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  5,082,424

  5,987,001

  Nelson and Colne

  5,241,985

  6,484,765

  Preston

  11,835,929

  13,667,024

  Runshaw

  6,676,909

  7,500,239

  Skelmersdale

  4,381,961

  5,375,412

  70,366,491

  84,613,566

  Agricultural Colleges

  Myerscough

  2,767,223

  3,997,557

  73,133,714

  88,611,123

  Sixth Form Colleges

  Blackpool

  3,136,722

  4,110,269

  Cardinal Newman

  2,871,029

  3,661,167

  St. Mary's

  2,065,092

  2,877,776

  8,072,843

  10,649,212

  Total

  81,206,557

  99,260,335

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he plans to announce to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1994–95.

  Mr. Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimates, the cash limits for class X, vote 1—schools, research and miscellaneous services—and for vote 2—higher and further education—will be reduced as follows:

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised cash limit £

  X.1

  800,328,000

  -59,000

  800,269,000

  X.2

  5,787,121,000

  -114,328,000

  5,672,793,000

  587
  The reduction of £59,000 on class X, vote 1 represents a transfer to class X, vote 2 for increased provision for grants to further education establishments for the education of the children of travellers, refugees and displaced persons.

  The reduction of £114,328,000 on class X, vote 2 is the net effect of a transfer of £113,600,000 to class X, vote 3 to increase provision for grant in aid to the Further Education Funding Council for student number-related payments; transfers from provision for grant in aid to the Higher Education Funding Council of £245,000 to the Welsh Office for payment to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in respect of students on diploma in social work courses in Wales, and £542,000 to the Office of Science and Technology as the council's contribution towards class 3—super-computing time; and a transfer from class X, vote 1 of £59,000 for additional provision for grants to further education establishments for the education of children of travellers, refugees and displaced persons.

  Science and Mathematics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to answer the responses to his consultation paper on the supply and demand of newly qualified young people in science and mathematics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The consultation paper invited responses by 30 June. We shall consider what further action to take in the light of those responses.

  £000's

  Year1

  Project

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total

  Whiterock FE centre

  672

  1,263

  1,419

  1,175

  4,529

  Shankill FE centre

  468

  267

  333

  341

  1,409

  Dunlewey St FE centre

  —

  —

  146

  143

  289

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,227

  1 Relates to financial years.

HEALTH

  Staffing Levels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority changes in staff numbers in 1993; and, of these, how many were nurses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available.

  Hospital Consultant Posts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 2, on vacant hospital consultancies, how many consultant posts were vacant in each region on 30 September 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  This indicates consultant vacancies notified to the Department as at 30 September 1992. As a snapshot of vacancies on a single date they may not fairly reflect the trend for the number of vacancies over the year as a whole.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Specialists' Waiting Lists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people not on waiting lists for treatment were waiting to see a specialist in the national health service at the end of March.

  Mr. Ancram
  There were 62,862 people waiting for their first out-patient appointment in Northern Ireland at 31 March 1994.

  "Making Belfast Work"
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what evaluation has been carried out of projects for which "Making Belfast Work" money has been provided in further education projects in inner Belfast in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Ancram
  Since the "Making Belfast Work" initiative was introduced in 1988, all further education projects have been evaluated by the Department's inspectorate.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on further education in inner Belfast through the "Making Belfast Work" programme in each of the last four years; and on which projects the money has been spent.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Hospital medical consultant vacant posts by Regional Health Authority 30 September 1992—Whole-time equivalent

  Number1

  England

  550

  Northern

  30

  Yorkshire

  50

  Trent

  80

  East Anglian

  20

  North West Thames

  20

  North East Thames

  50

  South East Thames

  10

  South West Thames

  30

  Wessex

  10

  Oxford

  2—

  South Western

  40

  West Midlands

  110

  Mersey

  20

  North Western

  60

  Special health authorities

  10

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10; regional figures do not sum to the England figure because of rounding.

  2 Less than five.

  Drugs Advisory Committee
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of the current members of the national health service drugs advisory committee, together with a copy of its annual report and information on the place and frequency of its meetings, indicating whether such meetings are open to the public.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 28 February at cols 605–6. The advisory committee on national health service drugs holds meetings as necessary to fulfil its role of advising United Kingdom Health Ministers about the composition of schedules 10 and 11 of the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992: The committee does not publish an annual report. Meetings are not open to the public.

  Midwifery
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on an autonomous midwifery profession.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government recognise that midwives are educated and trained to take full care of women during the antenatal, intrapartum and post-natal period, referring to a doctor if there are any deviations from the normal. "Changing Childbirth", the report of the expert group, fully supports this ethos and the national health service is working towards the implementation of the report's recommendations within a five year time-scale.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ban electro-convulsive treatment on patients under the age of 18 years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 17 February at col.926.

  Sight Tests
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sight tests were carried out in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of national health service sight tests paid for in the last five financial years for which figures are available in England are shown An the table. Information for 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Number of NHS sight tests1 paid for by financial year

  England

  Year

  Number

  21989–90

  5,279,750

  21990–91

  4,153,660

  1991–92

  4,979,420

  1992–93

  5,527,590

  1 The number of private sight tests is not collected.

  2 From 1 April 1989, NHS sight tests were restricted to certain eligible groups in the population. The figures for 1989–90 included 1.82 million sight tests paid for in 1989–90 but conducted in 1988–89 under the previous scheme. The remaining 4.22 million were conducted and paid for in 1989–90 which do not constitute a full 12 months of the new

  590
  scheme. The figures for 1990–91 which do represent 12 months under the new scheme are not therefore directly comparable with those for 1989–90.

  Pay Settlements
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the percentage increases in the pay settlements or offers for this current year to doctors, dentists, pharmacists and optometrists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Hospital and community health service doctors and dentists have been awarded a 3 per cent. increase in salaries. General medical practitioners have been awarded a 3 per cent. increase in the average net intended income and a 1.4 per cent. increase in their expenses provisions. General dental practitioners have been awarded a 3 per cent. increase in the gross fee for each item of service and capitation payment. Hospital pharmacists have been offered 1.75 per cent. and negotiations are continuing. No offer has yet been made to optometrists whose claim was received on 25 May.

  Waiting Times
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to her answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 157, what is the total cost of reducing the waiting list so that (a) no one waits more than three months for hospital treatment and (b) the average waiting time is reduced to two months;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 21 April, Official Report, column 668, what is the total cost of providing an out-patient appointment to all patients within (a) six weeks and (b) three months on referral by a general practitioner.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Administrative Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the effect of the change in number of managers, administration and clerical staff in the NHS since 1989–90.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service needs good managers. As part of the reforms we have deliberately strengthened NHS management, particularly the finance and personnel functions, to provide the quality and number of managers needed to run a £32.2 billion organisation which employs over 900,000 people. The results speak for themselves. For every 100 patients treated in 1989–90 we expect to treat about 121 this year. Average in-patient waiting times have been reduced from nine months to five months. NHS managers deserve credit for their part in these achievements. We are determined to maximise the proportion of NHS expenditure devoted to direct patient care and have recently brought forward proposals to further streamline the central management of the NHS.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent NHS nursing and midwifery staff were employed on each grade and pay point of the clinical grades, educational grades, and senior nursing and midwifery pay spine in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, broken down by ethnic groups.
  591
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Respite and Continuing Care Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in each health authority are available for(a) respite care and (b) continuing care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected centrally on numbers of beds does not include the classifications "respite care" and "continuing care". Information on national health service beds in England, classified by ward type, is published in "Bed availability for England (Financial year 1992–93)", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to impose an obligation on each district health authority to provide(a) respite care beds for Alzheimer's disease sufferers and (b) continuing care beds.

  Mr. Bowis
  Authorities should have a comprehensive range of services available to meet the various needs of those suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

  Vacant hospital consultant posts by specialty group England—30 September 1988–1992

  Specialty group

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  General medicine group

  133.4

  119.7

  129.2

  92.7

  118.1

  Accident and emergency

  17.0

  15.0

  18.4

  14.4

  19.6

  Surgical group

  110.5

  88.2

  135.3

  87.1

  90.0

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  25.0

  17.9

  23.4

  18.0

  23.0

  Anaesthetics

  100.2

  70.3

  87.9

  50.3

  88.0

  Radiology group

  38.3

  34.6

  33.9

  18.8

  21.9

  Radiotherapy

  6.7

  4.2

  7.2

  6.0

  5.0

  Pathology group

  70.3

  39.0

  49.9

  36.6

  23.4

  Psychiatry group

  268.9

  193.4

  217.3

  150.1

  152.7

  Dental specialties

  20.1

  10.0

  10.5

  12.3

  9.0

  ALL SPECIALTIES

  790.4

  592.3

  713.0

  486.4

  550.7

  Note: The table shows whole-time equivalents.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ukraine
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Ukraine.

  Mr. Hurd
  We have close and friendly relations with Ukraine. I visited Kiev in May where I had useful talks with the Ukrainian leadership and reaffirmed our strong support for Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss its future development.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have regular discussions on a wide range of European Union issues with my European counterparts at meetings of the General Affairs Council. The next meeting of the Council is scheduled for 18–19 July.
  592
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each health authority which does not provide psychogeriatric continuing care beds; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is a matter for local purchasers to determine the level and type of services purchased for their local populations in the light of local circumstances, resources and clinical practice.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 307, how many hospital consultant posts have been vacant, by specialty, in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 May 1994, c. 76]: I regret that there were inaccuracies in the 1991 and 1992 data.

  The correct figures are given in the table.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the German Foreign Minister about priorities for the German presidency of the EU.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I discussed German presidency priorities with my German colleague at the Anglo-German summit on 27 April.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to help combat fraud in the EU in(a) spending on the common agricultural policy, (b) structural funds and (c) the cohesion budget.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a joint action proposal under title VI of the treaty on European Union aimed at combating serious fraud against the Community budget. The Commission has recently published its 1993 annual report on the fight against fraud and tabled an anti-fraud strategy which is under consideration by the Council. Both describe a number of existing and new measures to fight fraud against the Community budget, and in particular fraud against the CAP. The United Kingdom has pressed for demanding new provisions on value for money and reporting requirements to govern the structural and cohesion funds which are designed to reduce the scope for fraud and waste.

  China
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit China to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit China but expects to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister in September, possibly in New York, to discuss matters of mutual interest. I plan to visit China myself before too long.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  While welcoming the recent releases of certain individuals, we remain deeply concerned about continuing reports of human rights abuses in China, including the widespread arrest or detention of individuals for free expression of their political or religious beliefs, and the situation in Tibet.

  Visegrad Countries
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the prospects of EC membership for the Visegrad countries.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 agreed that the associated countries of central and eastern Europe that so wished, including the four Visegrad countries, should join the European Union as soon as they were able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions required. We are fully committed to this objective, and reacted positively to the applications of Hungary and Poland in March and April this year.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of United Kingdom relations with Japan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  United Kingdom relations with Japan are excellent. We are developing close co-operation on international issues, investment, trade, science and technology and many other areas.

  Rwanda
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support the UN action in Rwanda.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The UK voted in favour of UN Security Council resolutions 918 and 925 which authorise an expansion in the United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda force to a total of 5,500 and mandate it to provide protection and support to civilians at risk.

  The UK worked with other states in framing both resolutions to ensure that UNAMIR was given the most effective mandate possible. We will continue our efforts to ensure that the force operates with maximum effect.

  The UK will bear 6.37 per cent. of the cost of UNAMIR. We have also contributed over £11 million directly to the aid effort in Rwanda.
  594
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to commit British forces to United Nations operations in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UK has not been asked to contribute troops to the UN peacekeeping operation in Rwanda.

  Gulf States
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with the Gulf states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I visited the Gulf region from 30 May to 3 June 1994 and found that the United Kingdom's relations with the Gulf states were in excellent shape.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to announce his priorities for the next intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As my colleagues and I have made clear in a number of recent statements, our priority is to achieve a Europe that is prosperous, outward looking, free trading, decentralised, flexible and democratic.

  European Security
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet his French counterpart to discuss the future of European security; and what discussions Her Majesty's Government have already had with the French Government in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sees Mr. Juppé frequently, and European security issues remain one of the priorities on their agenda. We likewise hold frequent discussions with the French Government at all levels to discuss European security and other matters.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom and Indonesia enjoy excellent bilateral relations. The importance of the relationship is well illustrated by the large number of high-level visits in both directions. We contribute substantially to Indonesia's infrastructure development. British industry plays a significant role in this. British exports to Indonesia rose to their highest ever level—£331 million—in 1993. In 1992, the last year for which we have complete figures, and when British firms invested $996 million there, Britain was the largest European investor in Indonesia.

  Angola
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet his counterpart in Angola to discuss the situation in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to do so. However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and Minister for Overseas Development last met Mr. Venancio da Moura on 25 April.

  Middle East
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards peace in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the completion of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho on 18 May. We and our European partners are providing practical help to the new Palestinian Administration, including the police force. We hope recent US efforts on the Syrian track will facilitate progress towards a comprehensive peace.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Jericho to meet the new Palestinian Administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no such plans at present.

  Philippines
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations, including trade relations with the Philippines.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom and the Philippines enjoy excellent bilateral relations. The improving economic position and the political stability achieved under President Ramos's Administration has provided an excellent basis for the development of bilateral trade. United Kingdom exports to the Philippines increased by almost 50 per cent. in 1993 to £306 million.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he made to the written request of Edwin Bollier to be shown the timing equipment, retrieved from Pan Am 103 in the Tundergarth area near Lockerbie, for purposes of establishing whether the equipment was sold to the Stasi in East Germany or to the Libyan Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Questions concerning the evidence revealed by the Lockerbie investigation are for the Scottish prosecuting authorities and the police. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has repeatedly made it clear that he cannot comment on details of the evidence available while criminal proceedings are pending.

  Overseas Investments
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to protect the investments of British companies overseas.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, working in close consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry, actively negotiates bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements with many countries worldwide. Since 1975 we have concluded 66 IPPAs, including eight so far this year. More are under negotiation. We are also supporting work in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on obligations under exisiting OECD investment protection measures and on a possible wider investment instrument.

  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet begun his review of the Wilton Park executive agency.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A review of the agency status of Wilton Park will begin in September 1994. As a next steps agency, the performance of Wilton Park will be evaluated and its activities will be subjected to the normal prior options tests set out in the 1993 next steps review, Cm 2430.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in Wilton Park and its work would be welcome, and should be sent by 2 September 1994 to Christopher Battiscombe, CMG, Assistant Under-Secretary (Public Departments), Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Room G/107, Old Admiralty Building, London SW1A 2AF.

  Wartime Special Operations Executive
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to release more records of the wartime Special Operations Executive.

  Mr. Hurd
  I said in my answer on 20 October 1993 that the first batch of files covering SOE activities in the far east would be available to the public from 21 October 1993. The next batch, on Scandinavia, were opened to the public on 2 June. A third batch, on the middle east and north Africa, will be available in late July.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running costs for 1994–95.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class II, vote 2—other external relations—will be increased by £204,105,000.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 2—other external relations—will be increased by £204,105,000 from £211,404,000 to £415,509,000, mainly to take account of contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations. The increase is partly offset by appropriations in aid. The balance will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  EC Legislation
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish(a) the number of proposals for principal legislation put forward by the European Commission in the first five months of 1994 and (b) the total number of European Commission proposals for principal legislation for each of the previous four years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Up to the end of May 1994, the Commission had made 25 proposals for principal legislation. The total number of proposals for principal legislation during the last four years was as follows:

  1990: 185

  1991: 111

  1992: 89

  1993: 75

  European Council
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following meetings are planned:

  A:

  2 June

  Health

  B:

  6 June

  ECOFIN

  C:

  6 June

  Youth

  D:

  8–9 June

  Environment

  E:

  10 June

  Fisheries

  F:

  13–14 June

  FAC

  G:

  13–14 June

  Transport

  H:

  16 June

  Internal Market

  I:

  17 June

  Culture

  J:

  20–21 June

  Justice

  K:

  21 June

  Education

  L:

  22 June

  Social Affairs

  M:

  27 June

  Research

  N:

  27–28 June

  Agriculture

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed, although those marked with an asterisk are not yet firm.

  A—2 June: Health

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council decision concerning the extension of the "Europe against AIDS" programme.

  Draft resolution on the framework for action in the field of public health.

  Amended proposal for a directive on advertising for tobacco products.

  Communication and proposal for a decision on combating cancer within the framework for action in the field of public health.

  B—6 June: ECOFIN

  Preparation of Corfu European Council.

  European investment fund.

  CO2 Energy tax.

  Witholding tax.

  Taxation of diesel.

  Fight against fraud.

  Albania (Possible).

  C—6 June: Youth

  The European Parliament and Council decision to adopt the third phase of the programme "Youth for Europe III".

  Co-operation in the field of Youth.

  D—8–9 June: Environment

  Landfill—Common position.

  Packaging and Packaging Waste—follow-up to EP decision.

  Integration Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)—Debate.

  Commission on Sustainable Development—follow-up to meeting in New York on 16–27 May.

  Climate Change and Carbon/Energy Tax—Report from the High Level Group and Note from the Presidency.

  White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment—Conclusions.

  598

  Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation.

  Disposal of end-of-life vehicles (AOB item).

  Pesticides and drinking water (AOB item).

  E—10 June: Fisheries

  Technical measures in the Mediterranean.

  Compensation for peripheral regions.

  Drift nets.

  Definition of characteristics of fishing vessels.

  Report of the market situation.

  Report on the multi-annual guidance programme.

  Objectives and strategies for the CFP.

  UN conference on highly migratory species.

  Negotiating mandate code of conduct.

  Aquacultural research.

  Economic research.

  Community wide fishing permits.

  Report on third country agreements.

  F—13–14 June FAC

  Preparation of Corfu European Council.

  White Paper.

  Relations with Israel: preparation for Co-operation Council.

  Results of mission of Cyprus observer.

  Cyprus: new financial protocol.

  Malta: new financial protocol.

  Ukraine.

  Russia: PCA.

  Ex-Yugoslavia.

  Stability pact.

  CFSP Financing.

  Dual use goods.

  Textiles: amendment of regulation 636/82.

  Relations with ACP/Bananas.

  OECD ship building negotiations.

  Public access to Council documents.

  G—13–14 June: Transport

  Maritime

  Minimum training requirements for seafarers.

  Minimum standards for classification societies.

  Community Shipping Register (EUROS).

  Segregated Ballast Tanks.

  Land

  Railway Access and Charging.

  Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road.

  Road transport negotiations with third countries.

  General

  Trans-European Networks.

  Transport relations with Switzerland.

  H—16 June: Internal Market

  Resolution on administrative co-operation.

  Decision on mutual recognition.

  13th amendment to marketing and use of dangerous substances Directive.

  14th amendment to marketing and use of dangerous substances Directive.

  15th amendment to marketing and use of dangerous substances Directive.

  Data Protection.

  Lifts.

  Hallmarking.

  European pharmacopoeia.

  Novel Foods Regulation.

  European co-operation statute.

  Pension Funds Directive.

  Legal protection of databases.

  Customs mutual assistance regulation.

  1–17 June: Culture

  Agenda unavailable.

  J—20–21 June: Justice

  Agenda unavailable.

  K—21 June: Education

  Agenda unavailable.

  L—22 June: Social Affairs

  Regulation establishing a Health and Safety Agency.

  Decision on a Programme to combat Social Exclusion.

  Directive on the Protection of Health and Safety of Young People at Work.

  Decision on a Vocational Training Programme (Leonardo da Vinci).

  Directive on the setting up of a European Works Council Agreement of the 11.

  599

  Flynn Green Paper on the future of Social Policy.

  White Paper on Growth, etc.

  Commission Communication on Immigration and Asylum Policy.

  M—27 June: Research Council

  Article 130(J)—Rules for Participation of Undertakings.

  Article 130(J)—IPR rules.

  FP4 Specific Programmes.

  EC/Israel Scientific and Technical Co-operation Agreement.

  N—27–28 June: Agriculture

  Price fixing.

  Milk quotas.

  Wine regime.

  Genetic resources.

  Labelling of organic foods.

  BSE.

  Health rules for the marketing of eggs.

  Plant breeders' rights.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the Office of Telecommunications cash limits and running costs limit for 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 10 will be increased by £435,000 from £8,624,000 to £9,059,000 and the running cost limit has been increased by £435,000 from £8,192,000 to £8,627,000.

  The supplementary estimate is required to increase the provision for running costs to ensure that pro-competition policies are implemented.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to his Department's cash limits and running costs limit for 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1—support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and administration—will be reduced by £4,400,000 from £1,177,477,000 to £1,173,077,000.

  A reduction in the gross provision from £1,402,638,000 to £1,398,238,000 fully accounts for this amount. This reduction results from a transfer to the Scottish Office of £4,000,000 following arrangements agreed for the sale of the National Engineering Laboratory and the transfer to the Scottish and Welsh Offices of £400,000 following a restructuring of the Design Council.

  There are some other changes in the allocation of provision. These include £700,000 of expenditure to provide support for the activities on a regional supply network. This is financed by a corresponding reduction in the gross running costs limit from £328,700,000 to £328,000,000.

  Coal Review White Paper
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the first of the annual energy reports proposed in last year's coal review White Paper.

  Mr. Eggar
  Volume 1 of the report, "Markets in Transition", has been published today. Volume 2, "Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom", was published on 25 April. I have placed copies in the Libraries of the House.
  600
  The energy report is an important new document. It shows that we have made considerable progress towards true competition in energy supply. Most customers are now benefiting from lower prices, in real terms, than under the former state-owned monopolies. I expect emerging competition to maintain this strong downward pressure on prices. Clearly, there remains some way to go as the title of the report, "Markets in Transition", reflects. But the signs are very encouraging so far.

  The energy industries are central to the success of the United Kingdom economy. The provision of efficiently produced and secure energy is a key element in the United Kingdom's competitiveness. But a free market needs information to help consumers and investors plan with more confidence and the Government recognise that they are uniquely well placed to provide much of this information—hence the need for the report.

  The report provides valuable background and signposts to further information, for those involved, or thinking of involvement, in those markets. Its readable format also makes it a useful resource to those who are simply interested in the energy sector rather than actively involved in it.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the process employed by him in the recruitment of the Director General of Ofgas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 14 June 1994,Official Report, column 416.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff of Ofgas met officials of his Department to prepare the consultation document "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market".

  Mr. Eggar
  My officials met most of the senior staff of Ofgas on several occasions in the course of preparing the consultation document, "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market".

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much time staff of the Office of Gas Supply spent meeting officials of his Department to prepare the consultation document "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market".

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available. There were many different meetings between staff at different levels.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the average number of staff employed by the Office of Gas Supply for each six-month period since its establishment.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on staffing levels is given in the annual reports made by the Director General of Gas Supply to the Secretary of State. These reports are laid before Parliament as required by section 39(3) of the Gas Act 1986.

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to commission an inquiry to examine the implications of abolishing standing charges on domestic gas, electricity and telephone bills.
  601
  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no such plans.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the grades and qualifications of each member of each committee which contributed to the review of the fire safety legislation and its enforcement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The team undertaking the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement consisted of a grade 5 from the Department of the Environment, an area director from the Health and Safety Executive and a grade 7 from the Home Office.

  They were assisted by a steering group, chaired by a grade 3 from my Department, and made up of a number of civil servants of various grades from the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, the Health and Safety Executive, the Scottish Office, my Department and the No. 10 policy unit.

  The review team was also able to draw upon expert advice from an advisory group made up of the president of the Institute of Building Control, a serving chief fire officer, a partner in a firm of building designers and planners, the director of the Fire Protection Association and two fire safety managers from manufacturing and service sector companies.

  I have nothing further to add on the review to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 14 June, Official Report, columns 427–28.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the scrutiny team's report on fire safety legislation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 427–28.

  Capital Goods
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the value of Export Credits Guarantee Department support for long-term capital goods business for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The value of ECGD support for capital goods business since 1979–80 is as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  3,816

  1980–81

  3,668

  1981–82

  7,340

  1982–83

  8,440

  1983–84

  3,199

  SIC(80) Activity heading

  Brief description

  Index of production (1990 = 100)

  1978

  Peak

  (Year)

  1993

  2512

  Basic general organic chemicals

  84

  120

  (1992)

  116

  3302

  Electronic data processing equipment

  13

  142

  (1993)

  142

  3453

  Active components and electronic sub-assemblies

  43

  103

  (1992)

  99

  3510

  Motor vehicles and their engines

  132

  132

  (1978)

  91

  3530

  Motor vehicle parts

  92

  102

  (1993)

  102

  3640

  Aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing

  50

  100

  (1990)

  86

  Source: CSO—Index of production.
  602

  £ million

  1984–85

  2,458

  1985–86

  1,519

  1986–87

  2,601

  1987–88

  1,712

  1988–89

  2,067

  1989–90

  1,959

  1990–91

  2,300

  1991–92

  2,095

  1992–93

  3,802

  The totals for 1979–80 and 1980–81 are not strictly comparable with the others in the table as they are based on a now discarded definition of the value of ECGD's support.

  In his statement of the 11 May 1994, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade announced a provisional figure for the value of ECGD support for capital goods business in 1993–94 of nearly £4.1 billion. Fuller details will be provided in ECGD's forthcoming annual report for 1993–94.

  Industrial Investment (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the financial amount of inward industrial investment within the Greater London area in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is not available in the form required. There are no published or recorded data on inward investment for London alone.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the extent of the damage of the leak of nitric acid which occurred in THORP in March 1994.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a management matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the principal import and export competing industries; what was the output(a) in 1990, (b) at its peak together with the year, of that peak since 1964 and (c) at the latest available date.

  Mr. Needham
  Detailed information on industrial production prior to 1978 is not readily obtainable on current classifications. The available information, for those industries where total United Kingdom overseas trade—imports plus exports—exceeded £5 billion in 1992, is given in the table:

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his oral statement of 24 May,Official Report, column 183, what has been the change in employment in manufacturing since 1979; what is his estimate of how many jobs have been lost (a) because of lack of training, (b) lack of investment and (c) other non-price factors.

  (2) what consideration he has given, in drawing up his White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" to the reasons for the change in the number of jobs in manufacturing industry since 1973; and if he will publish his estimate of the number of such jobs which have been lost as a result of (a) the change in the real exchange rate, (b) a poorly trained work force, (c) insufficient investment and (d) inefficient management.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There has been a general decline in manufacturing employment in the developed world for many years. Since 1979, manufacturing employment in the United Kingdom has fallen by 3 million. Factors behind the decline include major improvements in productivity and the classification of jobs where activities such as transport are contracted out.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assumption he made about the desirable level of output per man on United Kingdom manufacturing industry relative to that in(a) the USA, (b) Germany and (c) Japan in drawing up the White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win".

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The White Paper on competitiveness makes clear that United Kingdom industry must continually improve its productivity if it is to prosper in the increasingly competitive world marketplace. During the 1980s, output per man in United Kingdom manufacturing grew more quickly than in the USA, Germany or Japan.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the total number of workers employed in(a) Japanese, (b) French, (c) German and (d) American-owned manufacturing plants in Britain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest information refers to 1991 and is listed in the "Report on the Census of Production", summary volume, table 18, Business Monitor PA 1002, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade further to his White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", what assessment he has made of the reason for the change since 1990 in the output of United Kingdom industries engaged in producing internationally traded goods; and what was the percentage of change from the recent peak to the present day.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Industrial production in April was slightly below its June 1990 peak, but was 1.7 per cent. above the average for 1990 as a whole and 8 per cent. higher than its trough in May 1992. In the latest three months, industrial production in the United Kingdom rose by 4.5 per cent. compared to a year earlier, while in Germany it rose by less than 2 per cent. and fell in France, Italy and Japan. The recovery in industrial production shows the benefit of low inflation, low interest rates and sound public finances.

  Pepper Gas
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research has been undertaken following the Hinsworth committee recommendations in preparation for future authorisation of the use, manufacture or export of oleorsin capsicum pepper gas within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Home Office police scientific development branch has collated scientific information available on oleorsin capsicum, commonly known as pepper spray. The study concluded that although pepper sprays are used extensively by law enforcement agencies in the United States of America there were a number of unanswered issues relating to the safety of these sprays. One particular concern is whether capsaicin, the active ingredient of OC, might cause cancer to those using or exposed to the spray.

  We have commissioned further scientific research into this aspect in consultation with the Department of Health. Following this research, which is expected to take six months to complete, we will be in a better position to judge whether pepper sprays are appropriate for police use in this country.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale, distribution or possession of pepper gas by members of the public.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended, devices capable of discharging a noxious substance are classed as prohibited weapons. We consider that devices such as pepper sprays are covered by the terms of section 5(1)(b). This means that their possession, acquistion, manufacture, sale or transfer is prohibited without the authority of the Secretary of State.

SCOTLAND

  Health Workers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the planned numbers of health visitors, district nurses, school nurses, community psychiatric nurses, health visitor students and district nurse students for each year from 1995 to 1999.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available from data held centrally.

  Child Sexual Abuse
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases relating to the sexual abuse of children were proceeded against in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is impossible to identify all of the cases of sexual abuse where children were involved because the Scottish Office Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences does not contain information on the victims of crime. The table lists those sexual offences within the classification which by definition involve persons aged under 16.
  605

  Persons proceeded against in Scottish courts where the main crime was sexual abuse of persons aged under 16

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Lewd and Libidinous Practices1

  222

  226

  218

  200

  186

  Intercourse with girl under 13

  7

  6

  9

  2

  7

  Intercourse with girl between 13 and 16

  100

  105

  110

  95

  65

  Causing or encouraging seduction, prostitution of a girl under 16

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  332

  337

  338

  297

  258

  1 Includes section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the outcome for each one of the patients for whom an intensive care unit bed at Glasgow royal infirmary was requested on 29 January at a time when all five intensive care beds were full.

  Mr. Stewart
  The outcome for each of the six patients for whom a request for an intensive care bed was made was as follows:

  First patient —transferred from the burns unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GRI), to the intensive care unit, Western Infirmary, Glasgow.

  Second patient—transferred from emergency theatre, GRI, to the intensive care unit, Southern General, Glasgow.

  Third patient —following discussion between the referring consultant and the consultant in charge of intensive care, patient remained in the geriatric assessment unit, GRI.

  Fourth patient —tranferred from Inverclyde hospital to the intensive care unit, Southern General, Glasgow.

  Fifth patient —underwent emergency surgery at GRI but died in theatre.

  Sixth patient —remained in the medical receiving unit, GRI.

  GPs (Night Visits)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what trends general practitioners have experienced in the number of night visits over the last 25 years; and what is his assessment of the reasons for those trends.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information available centrally is for 1976–77 onwards and is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of night visits

  1976–77

  81,614

  1977–78

  80,989

  1978–79

  83,909

  1979–80

  84,620

  1980–81

  83,347

  1981–82

  90,649

  1982–83

  96,231

  1983–84

  103,106

  1984–85

  107,598

  1985–86

  119,130

  1986–87

  138,104

  1987–88

  122,747

  1988–89

  132,640

  1989–90

  143,556

  1990–91

  206,946

  1991–92

  244,310

  1992–93

  232,201

  1993–94

  245,158

  Notes:

  1. The figures for financial years 1976–77 to 1989–90 are derived from total accrued payments to general medical practitioners in Scotland for night visits for each of those years.

  2. The figures for 1990–91 to 1992–93 are the total numbers of night visit claims for which GMPs received payment in each of those years.
  606
  3. The figure for 1993–94 is an estimate based on the total number of night visit claims for which GMPs received payment during the first six months of that year.

  NHS Complaints
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what examination is being made by the Scottish Office of the current procedures for dealing with complaints within the national health service following the report on this matter produced by the Department of Health.

  Mr. Stewart
  The report entitled "Being Heard", prepared by an independent committee under the chairmanship of Professor Alan Wilson, vice chancellor of Leeds university, makes recommendations for changes to the procedures for making and handling of complaints throughout the United Kingdom. The report was published on 11 May and my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State has invited comments on the proposals contained in the report. These should be submitted by Friday 12 August.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist in each health board in Scotland for dealing with patients' complaints.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards operate on the basis of two statutory complaints procedures, as set out in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 6 May 1994 at column 687 and of a non-statutory procedure for dealing with complaints which relate to the clinical judgment of medical and dental staff in hospitals.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been received by each of the health boards in Scotland during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available for the full period requested. Information about complaints is now published in a series of quarterly complaints bulletins copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The first of these bulletins covers the period from 1 January to 31 March 1993.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Lord Advocate's estimate of the likely length of criminal proceedings arising out of the Lockerbie disaster.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Once the two Libyan accused have been fully committed in custody for trial before a Scottish court the prosecution authorities must be prepared to commence the trial within 110 days from that
  607
  date—which means effectively, within 120 days of their being brought before the court following arrest. It is open to the defence to seek a postponement of trial and the court may, for that purpose, extend the 110-day period. A criminal trial arising from an investigation as extensive as the Lockerbie inquiry will inevitably run for a substantial period of time, but the length of the trial is not controlled by the Crown and so it is not possible for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to give an estimate of its length.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to make any changes to the cash limits for 1994–95 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval I intend to make changes to two voted cash limits and in addition one of the non-voted cash blocks.

  (a) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 3, training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland, will be increased by £74,300,000 from £798,104,000 to £872,404,000. The increase comprises transfers of £70,000,000 from Department of Transport and £4,300,000 from Department of Trade and Industry.

  (b) The cash limit for class XIV, vote 9, revenue support grants and payments of non-domestic rates etc, Scotland will be decreased by £62,000 from £4,882,353,000 to £4,882,291,000 after an error was identified in a non-domestic rate income return submitted by a levying authority. The erroneous figure had been used when the Estimates were compiled but it was later corrected in the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1994 laid before Parliament on 17 February 1994.

  (c) The non-voted cash limit SO/LA2, which covers housing capital expenditure by local authorities and capital expenditure by new towns will be decreased by £6,900,000 from £269,892,000 to £262,992,000. This decrease reflects a transfer of strategic investment sites from new towns to Scottish Enterprise. A compensatory increase was included in the main estimate for class XIV vote 3 for 1994–95.

  None of these changes add to the total of public expenditure.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be in a position to announce the membership of the Scottish advisory body on sustainable development; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated in January his intention to establish an advisory body of experts to examine the practical challenges of sustainable development in Scotland. Professor William Ritchie, vice-principal of Aberdeen university is to chair the body.

  The body, which is to be known as the Secretary of State for Scotland's advisory group on sustainable development, will have the following nine members embracing a range of relevant interests:

  Nan Burnett: Chairman, South East Regional Board and Board Member, Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Ann Foster: Director of the Scottish Consumer Council.

  Sir Charles Fraser: Former Chairman of Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise.

  Patricia Henton: Director, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Aspinwall and Co.

  Professor Bart McGettrick: Principal, St. Andrew's College of Education.

  608

  Councillor Rosemary McKenna: (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council), Senior Vice President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Cameron McLatchie: Chairman and Chief Executive, British Polythene Industries.

  Simon Pepper: Head of Operations, World Wide Fund for Nature Scotland.

  Professor Roger Wiley: Chief Executive of the Environmental Centre for Waste Management at Paisley University.

  The Group has been given the following remit:
  To advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on:
  policy issues and practical challenges for Scotland as a consequence of adopting the principles of sustainable development.
  implications for Scotland of advice from the Government's panel on sustainable development for the UK, with which it will maintain regular contact.
  measures to achieve the closer integration of environmental issues in the policies and practices of both the private and public sectors across Scotland.
  any members referred to the group by the Secretary of State.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make public the report of the chief executive of the NHS Executive's inquiry into the events surrounding the dismissal of the general manager of the Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Lang
  The chief executive's inquiry is now complete and I have arranged for copies of his report to be placed in the Library.

  Railway Restructuring
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if increased funding will be made available to Strathclyde regional council in 1994–95 for the additional costs incurred as a result of the restructuring of the railways and implementation of the new track and rolling stock charging system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Under the new railway charging systems introduced on 1 April 1994, we expect the cost to Strathclyde regional council of maintaining the existing level of Strathclyde passenger transport executive-supported rail services to increase. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given an undertaking that the additional costs will be met in full by a transfer of funds from the Department of Transport through the Scottish Office to Strathclyde regional council. Payment will be subject to Strathclyde passenger transport executive and British Rail having made the necessary contractual arrangements. The funds will be in addition to Strathclyde's local government finance settlement and will be disregarded for capping purposes.

  Parliamentary approval for this new service will be sought in a summer supplementary estimate for the training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland vote, class XIV, vote 3. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £30 million to cover payments in the early part of the current year, will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Prison Staff
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the ratio of staff to prisoners in each prison at the latest available date.
  609
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 15 June 1994:

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has asked me to reply to your question about the ratio of staff to prisoners in each prison.

  The information you require is given in the attached table.

  Ratio of Staff to Prisoners as at 20 May 1994

  Establishment

  Staff per Prisoner

  Aberdeen

  0.9

  Barlinnie

  0.5

  Barlinnie Special Unit

  2.6

  Castle Huntly

  1.4

  Cornton Vale

  1.2

  Dumfries

  1.5

  Dungavel

  0.7

  Edinburgh

  0.7

  Friarton

  0.7

  Greenock

  0.7

  Glenochil

  0.9

  Inverness

  1

  Longriggend

  1

  Low Moss

  0.4

  Noranside

  0.7

  Penninghame

  0.8

  Perth

  0.9

  Peterhead

  1.2

  Polmont

  0.9

  Shotts

  0.9

  Shotts Alternative Unit

  3.5

  ANNEX

  Establishment and alcohol programme run by

  1991 Number completed1

  1992 Number completed1

  1993 Number completed1

  1994 To date number completed

  Aberdeen

  Aberdeen alcohol advisory and counselling service, prison social work unit

  2—

  2—

  24

  46

  Barlinnie

  Glasgow council on alcohol, alcoholics anonymous, trained prison staff

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Barlinnie Unit

  Glasgow council on alcohol

  1

  2

  Nil

  Nil

  Castle Huntly

  Prison social worker, prison education officer

  27

  15

  30

  19

  Cornton Vale

  Scottish council on alcohol, alcoholics anonymous, trained prison staff, prison social workers

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9

  Dumfries

  Nil (contact is maintained with Alcoholics Anonymous)

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Dungavel

  Prison social work unit, alcoholics anonymous

  18

  40

  43

  15

  Edinburgh

  Prison education unit, alcoholics anonymous

  28

  32

  27

  18

  Friarton

  Alcoholics anonymous, prison education unit

  10

  10

  10

  4

  Glenochil

  Alcoholics anonymous, Scottish council on alcohol

  80

  80

  80

  80

  Greenock

  Inverclyde alcohol project, prison social work unit, alcoholics anonymous

  2—

  5

  15

  17

  Inverness

  Scottish council on alcohol

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Longriggend

  Alcoholics anonymous, prison social work unit, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, addiction and advisory centre

  259

  312

  476

  113

  Low Moss

  Prison addictions unit, alcoholics anonymous

  2—

  2—

  2—

  34

  Prisons (Alcohol Abuse Programmes)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which prisons alcohol abuse and misuse programmes are available to prisoners; how many prisoners(a) commenced and (b) completed the programme in each prison in 1991, 1992, 1993 and so far this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman dated 15 June 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about alcohol abuse and misuse programmes within Scottish penal establishments, including the number of prisoners commencing and completing available programmes during 1991, 1992, 1993 and so far in 1994.
  The table in the Annex shows the information available. Figures for Barlinnie are not presently collated and I will write again when the figures are available.
  In 1991, the Scottish Prison Service, in consultation with the Scottish Council on Alcohol, introduced the "Ending Offending" education package. This package was aimed primarily at helping prisoners in the 16 to 30 age group with alcohol related problems address their drinking and offending behaviour. In addition, Alcoholics Anonymous attend most establishments and hold weekly meetings.
  611

  Establishment and alcohol programme run by

  1991 Number completed1

  1992 Number completed1

  1993 Number completed1

  1994 To date number completed

  Noranside

  Alcoholics anonymous, Tayside council on alcohol, prison education unit

  4

  14

  19

  21

  Penninghame

  Prison education unit, prison social work, alcoholics anonymous, al-teen

  2—

  2—

  54

  12

  Perth

  Tayside council on alcohol, alcoholics anonymous, prison social work unit

  13

  21

  12

  32

  Peterhead

  Prison education unit, alcoholics anonymous

  26

  46

  80

  40

  Polmont

  Prison social work unit, Scottish council on alcohol

  65

  63

  42

  16

  Shotts

  Alcoholics anonymous

  4

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Shotts unit

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Total

  571

  680

  952

  516

  1 The numbers quoted show the total number of prisoners who completed alcohol programmes. The number of prisoners who commenced but did not complete the programmes is not available.

  2 No figures available.

  3 Figures to follow.

  4 30 Prisoners attend per week.

  The figures do not include the prisoners who receive individual counselling from prison based social workers or community based addiction counsellors.

  Ravenspark Hospital
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 498, when he expects to approve the contract agreed between Burley Health Care plc and Ayrshire and Arran health board for replacement care provision arising out of the planned closure of Ravenspark hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 June 1994]: The decision on whether or not to contract with Burley Health Care plc is a matter for Ayrshire and Arran health board but, in terms of its accountability to the Secretary of State, the board must be able to demonstrate that its purchasing decisions are firmly based on the assessed needs of its population both in the immediate and longer term; will bring greater benefits to patients; and represent value for money. These matters are under discussion with the health board.

WALES

  Local Government
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the number of employees of each district and county council in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest estimates of local authority staff numbers, excluding those employed under special employment and training measures, are given in the following table.

  Number of staff employed by local authorities at March 19941

  Full-time employees

  Part-time employees2

  County Councils3

  Clwyd

  6,960

  7,323

  Dyfed

  7,643

  7,227

  Gwent

  8,615

  9,707

  Gwynedd

  4,877

  4,730

  Mid Glamorgan

  12,173

  9,078

  Powys4

  2,990

  2,495

  612

  Full-time employees

  Part-time employees2

  South Glamorgan

  7,502

  7,128

  West Glamorgan

  8,205

  5,938

  District Councils:

  Aberconwy5

  447

  36

  Alyn and Deeside

  498

  98

  Arfon

  494

  75

  Blaenau Gwent

  912

  155

  Brecknock

  222

  28

  Cardiff

  2,454

  1,103

  Carmarthen

  372

  71

  Ceredigion

  528

  30

  Colwyn

  369

  86

  Cynon Valley

  591

  43

  Delyn

  473

  185

  Dinefwr

  235

  14

  Dwyfor

  235

  23

  Glyndwr

  256

  92

  Islwyn

  620

  77

  Llanelli

  608

  80

  Lliw Valley

  487

  80

  Meirionnydd

  280

  47

  Merthyr Tydfil

  685

  87

  Monmouth

  448

  124

  Montgomeryshire

  301

  150

  Neath

  534

  81

  Newport

  1,184

  243

  Ogwr

  924

  243

  Port Tabot

  436

  84

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  508

  64

  Radnorshire

  144

  51

  Rhondda

  736

  214

  Rhuddlan

  341

  47

  Rhymney Valley

  906

  265

  South Pembrokeshire

  287

  25

  Swansea

  2,271

  217

  Taff Ely

  654

  128

  Torfaen

  768

  158

  Vale of Glamorgan

  699

  140

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,071

  204

  Ynys Mon

  445

  77

  Source: Local Government Management Board (LGMB)

  1 Provisional.

  2 Working no more than 30 hours per week.

  3 Excludes Police, Magistrates Courts and Probation Service staff.

  4 As at September 1992.

  5 As at March 1993.
  613
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of senior grade employees of each district and county council in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hip operations carried out in Wales over the last five years have been carried out by (i) consultant orthopaedic surgeons or their registrars and (ii) general surgeons.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of hip replacements carried out as principal operations in the care of consultants for the period is given in the table.

  Consultant Specialty

  General surgery1

  Trauma and Orthopaedics1

  Total

  1988–89

  1

  903

  904

  1989–90

  3

  943

  946

  1990–91

  3

  816

  819

  21991–92

  1,103

  1,103

  21992–93

  1

  1,230

  1,231

  Source: Hospital Activity Analysis 1988 to 1990. Patient Episode Database for Wales 1991 onwards.

  1 In addition a small number of hip replacements were undertaken by consultants from other specialties. Figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical information.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those hospitals in Wales which carry out hip replacement operations; and in which of these the operations take place in theatres with laminar air flow facilities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each of the last five years the number of(a) hip replacement operations and (b) hip revision operations carried out in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of hip replacements and revisions carried out as principal operations during the period is given in the table:

  Hip replacement operations1

  Hip revision operations1

  Total

  1988–89

  909

  690

  1,599

  1989–90

  954

  687

  1,641

  1990–91

  822

  513

  1,335

  21991–92

  1,103

  414

  1,517

  21992–93

  1,231

  366

  1,597

  Source: Hospital Activity 1988 to 1990. Patient Episode Database for Wales 1991 onwards.

  1 Figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clincial information.

  2 Provisional.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales with accident and emergency units; and which of them have on-site, on-call consultant cover on a 24-hour a day basis.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All 13 general hospitals in Wales have major accident and emergency units with access to a full range of support services. Details of medical cover, which will vary according to local needs, are not held centrally. The general hospitals concerned are:

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd—Bodelwyddan

  Ysbyty Gwynedd—Bangor

  Wrexham Maelor—Wrexham

  Bronglais General Hospital—Aberystwyth

  West Wales General Hospital—Carmarthen

  Prince Philip Hospital—Llanelli

  Morriston Hospital—Swansea

  Princess of Wales Hospital—Bridgend

  East Glamorgan General Hospital—Church Village

  Prince Charles Hospital—Merthyr Tydfil

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary—Cardiff

  Royal Gwent Hospital—Newport

  Nevill Hall—Abergavenny

  Health Workers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the planned numbers of health visitors, district nurses, school nurses, community psychiatric nurses, health visitor students and district nurse students for each year from 1995 to 1999.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information on planned numbers of health visitors, district nurses, school nurses and community psychiatric nurses is not available in the format requested.

  The number of health visitor students and district nurse students are reviewed annually to take account of the latest work force planning information. Figures for 1995–1999 are therefore not available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of health visitors, district nurses, school nurses and community psychiatric nurses expressed as whole-time equivalents in September in each year from 1988 to 1992.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health visitors were employed in each health authority or NHS trust in Wales in each year since 1985 in terms of both full-time and part-time employees.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information for nursing staff is available centrally from the NHS payroll system and associated information systems. Detailed breakdowns, from this source, of the number of nursing staff employed by health authorities and NHS trusts into occupational groups such as those requested are not considered reliable.

  Nursery and Reception Classes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been made available in each year since 1980 for nursery and reception classes in Welsh local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Resources made available to local authorities through the annual settlement are not hypothecated to individual services. Actual expenditure on nursery and reception classes cannot be separately identified within the data collected centrally.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the location of residential and nursing homes; if he will make it his policy to increase the powers of planning authorities in this area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since 1 Janaury 1993, my right hon. Friend has received four representations, all of which were objections to proposals to change the use of existing properties to such homes. My right hon. Friend has no proposals to increase the powers available to local planning authorities to control this type of development.

  Coxsackie Virus
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the incidence of the coxsackie virus in Wales in the last two years; and in what geographical areas the problem has been identified.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of the incidence of coxsackie virus infection are based on voluntary reports made to the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre by microbiology laboratories throughout Wales. The number of cases of coxsackie virus reported by laboratories in Wales in 1992 and 1993 are shown in the table. There are no reported cases as yet in 1994. Information regarding the area of occurrence is not readily available.

  1992

  1993

  Coxsackie A

  5

  5

  Coxsackie B

  6

  10

  —

  —

  Total

  11

  15

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre of the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research is being undertaken into the coxsackie virus in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No separate research is being carried out in Wales. However, the Public Health Laboratory Service are undertaking a retrospective analysis of the epidemiology of coxsackie virus infection in England and Wales over the last 20 years.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the voluntary all-Wales organisations which are supported financially by his Department; and what amount of support is given to each organisation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows. It is based on funding for 1993–94.

  Voluntary Organisation

  Funding Received 1993–94 £

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  369,480

  Community Service Volunteers

  66,547

  Charities Evaluation Service

  21,580

  616

  Voluntary Organisation

  Funding Received 1993–94 £

  Business in the Community

  23,630

  Welsh Women's Aid

  497,987

  Shelter Cymru

  222,649

  Special Needs Housing Advisory Service

  73,400

  Care and Repair

  156,272

  Tenant Participation Advisory Service (Wales)

  159,000

  Welsh Tenants' Federation

  82,221

  Positive Action Training in Housing (Local Authorities)

  23,150

  Alcohol Concern Wales

  78,758

  Drugaid

  34,722

  Youthlink Wales

  68,094

  Standing Conference of Voluntary Organisations

  201,391

  MENCAP

  84,370

  People First Wales

  13,283

  The Civic Trust for Wales

  35,880

  Welsh Archaeological Trusts

  899,675

  The Order of St John

  124,221

  ASH

  56,130

  Royal Life Saving Society

  10,000

  Marie Curie Cancer Care

  500

  Family Planning Association

  1,600

  La Leche League

  850

  Theatr Fforwm Cymru

  3,470

  British Fluoridation Society

  3,200

  Extend

  2,800

  Association of Welsh Wildlife Trusts

  16,200

  British Trust for Conservation Volunteers

  49,546

  Centre for Alternative Technology

  15,400

  Friends of the Earth Cymru

  33,972

  Keep Wales Tidy Campaign

  195,661

  National Trust

  5,000

  Prince of Wales' Committee

  87,824

  Ramblers' Association

  8,653

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  23,696

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  3,142

  Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link

  12,979

  Age Concern Wales

  213,065

  Arts for Disabled People in Wales

  37,000

  British Association for Service to the Elderly

  20,200

  Carers National Association Wales

  66,301

  Crossroads Wales

  100,000

  Hijinx Theatre

  2,400

  PHAB

  30,520

  Sense

  25,000

  Wales Council for the Blind

  95,978

  Wales Council for the Deaf

  144,700

  Wales Council for the Disabled

  348,078

  Wales Disabled Drivers Assessment Centre

  34,028

  Wales MIND Cymm

  41,819

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  51,263

  Manic Depression Fellowship

  16,999

  Alzheimers Disease Society

  44,753

  CRUSE Bereavement Care

  28,017

  Welsh Books Council

  1,139,621

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin

  639,316

  National Eisteddfod

  388,000

  Urdd Gobaith Cymru

  278,670

  Nant Gwrtheym

  93,600

  Papurau Bro

  47,000

  Welsh Learners' Society (CYD)

  47,000

  Duke of Edinburgh's Award

  27,500

  Merched y Wawr

  22,330

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  18,325

  Sunday Schools Council

  14,200

  Wales Young Farmers

  14,250

  Cymru a'r Byd

  3,000

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  476

  Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales

  2,500

  Pont

  8,300

  Menter a Busnes

  22,000

  Academi Gymreig

  2,235

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  29,545

  Dolen Cymru

  13,240

  Baptist Youth Ministry

  10,000

  617

  Voluntary Organisation

  Funding Received 1993–94 £

  Boys Brigade in Wales

  14,850

  Church in Wales Board of Mission

  15,600

  Guides Cymru

  11,722

  Gwerin y Coed

  15,000

  UNAIYS

  14,000

  United Reformed Church Youth Project

  10,644

  Welsh Federation of Boys and Girls' Groups

  114,714

  YMCA Wales

  48,936

  Welsh Association of Youth Clubs

  45,899

  Welsh Scout Council

  21,000

  Youth Events Wales

  4,200

  Welsh Chess Union

  5,500

  British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering

  71,920

  Catholic Children and Family Care Society (Wales)

  49,460

  Childline

  61,409

  Children in Wales

  197,155

  Children's Society

  111,350

  Children's Cancer Support Unit

  5,280

  Gingerbread

  56,639

  Homestart Consultancy

  25,837

  Joint Breastfeeding Initiative

  16,810

  Kids Clubs Networks

  14,978

  National Children's Homes

  126,040

  National Association for Young People in Care

  62,730

  National Childminding Association

  147,750

  National Fostercare Association

  36,155

  Relate

  18,530

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society

  10,530

  Wales Assembly of Women

  9,410

  Wales Pre-School Playgroups Association

  165,820

  Chwarae Teg

  18,760

  Child Protection (Training)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all changes since 1992 in child protection training procedures for health visitors in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since 1992 child protection training has been a part of initial training for health visitors and a recommended part of their post-basic and continuing education.

  Full-time equivalent teachers in maintained primary schools1

  Increase

  1990

  1993

  Number

  Percent.

  Clwyd

  1,510

  1,610

  100

  6.6

  Dyfed

  1,597

  1,625

  28

  1.8

  Gwent

  1,798

  1,843

  45

  2.5

  Gwynedd

  945

  926

  -19

  -2.0

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,347

  2,386

  39

  1.7

  Powys

  519

  513

  -6

  -1.2

  South Glamorgan

  1,607

  1,737

  130

  8.1

  West Glamorgan

  1,609

  1,646

  37

  2.3

  Wales total

  11,932

  12,286

  354

  3.0

  1 Qualified teachers in primary schools at January each year excluding those employed by the LEA who are allocated to particular schools—for example, peripatetic teachers.

  Health Service Waiting Lists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people not on waiting lists for treatment were waiting to see a specialist in the national health service at the end of March.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on road maintenance in Wales for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Figures for current expenditure on roads maintenance are:

  Financial year

  Local authorities1 £ million

  Central government2 £ million

  1989–90

  3124.7

  15.3

  1990–91

  135.5

  18.6

  1991–92

  141.9

  20.9

  1992–93

  149.3

  23.2

  1993–94

  4150.4

  426.3

  Includes all highways and bridge maintenance, street cleaning for highways purposes, lighting, road safety and associated professional and technical services and net expenditure incurred on behalf of other local authorities under agency agreements.

  2 Expenditure on motorways and trunk roads.

  3 A new definition of current expenditure was introduced in 1990–91 and this figure is not strictly comparable with those of later years.

  4 Provisional figures.

  Teachers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary schools in each county in Wales have reduced the number of teachers following the introduction of formula funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  An analysis in terms of the number of schools could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the number of teachers in primary schools in each county are given in the table. Formula funding was introduced in April 1990 and so the table compares the numbers of teachers at January 1990 with the most recent data available, which are for Janaury 1993.

  There has been an overall increase of 354 teachers across Wales reflecting an increase in pupil numbers. In Powys and Gwynedd pupil numbers have fallen proportionately more than teacher numbers, so the pupil:teacher ratios have improved.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information relating to the number of people waiting for a first out-patient consultation at NHS hospitals in Wales on 31 March 1994 is due to be published in August 1994. Welsh health authorities and GP fundholders reported 130,440 people on their lists for a
  619
  first out-patient consultation at 31 March 1994. These may include people waiting for consultations at hospitals outside Wales.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits for his Department in the current financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit on class XV, vote 2 will be reduced by £9,994,000, from £185,192,000 to £175,198,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 4 will be increased by £967,000, from £564,452,000 to £565,419,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 5 will be increased by £4,820,000, from £487,955,000 to £492,775,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 8 will be increased by £3,000,000 from £1,498,032,000 to £1,502,032,000. The local authority capital limitWO/LACAP—will be increased by £1,079,000 from £464,390,000 to £465,811,000.

  The decrease in the cash limit for vote 2 is in respect of the planned recovery of an additional payment of grant in aid made to the Welsh Development Agency in 1993–94 to help cover a major receipt expected in that year but delayed until 1994–95.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 4 provides for the expected increase in the number of participants in training for work claiming allowances.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 5 comprises £4,000,000 extra for central Government expenditure on motorways and trunk roads, an additional £500,000 for transport grant for the third Dee crossing and an additional £320,000 for the Staff Commission for Wales.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 8 provides an additional £3,000,000 for central Government expenditure on health and personal social services.

  There is also one change to a non-voted cash limit. The increase in the cash limit for WO/LACAP is in respect of an additional £1,000,000 for a housing "under-occupation"
  620
  initiative; and extra £500,000 for a supplementary credit approval for the third Dee crossing and a reduction of £421,000 as a result of a transfer to the Home Office in respect of the fire service.

  None of the proposed changes will add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Cadw
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has set for Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments Executive Agency.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Cadw has been set the following key targets for 1994–95:

  (i) To complete 90 per cent. of the approved conservation maintenance programme.

  (ii) To complete 40 re-survey lists.

  (iii) To resolve 75 per cent. of ad hoc listing cases within 120 days.

  (iv) To complete 100 scheduling actions, of which at least 70 per cent. involve additional protection.

  (v) To resolve 75 per cent. of listed building consent cases within 28 days, and 90 per cent. of cases within 42 days.

  (vi) To resolve 75 per cent. of scheduled monument consent cases within 90 days, and 90 per cent. of cases within 120 days.

  (vii) To resolve 80 per cent. of historic buildings grant applications within 17 weeks.

  (viii) To resolve 80 per cent. of ancient monument grant applications within six weeks.

  (ix) To pay 90 per cent. of properly presented claims for historic buildings and ancient monument grants within four weeks of receipt.

  (x) To achieve a market share of 63 per cent. of the number of visitors to the top 20 heritage sites in Wales.

  (xi) To increase the average spend per visitor to 206 pence.

  (xii) To operate within allocated programme and running cost budgets.

  (xiii) To achieve an efficiency saving of 2.0 per cent. on gross running costs.

  Full details of Cadw's performance against its targets for 1993–94 will be published in the agency's annual report.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Grey Squirrels: Population Control
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to prevent grey squirrels spreading within Great Britain, with consequent threat to the survival of red squirrels in such areas as northern Scotland.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, so far it has not proved practicable to reduce the number of grey squirrels over the whole of their range in Great Britain. Control of this species is particularly important in areas where grey squirrels are causing significant damage to broadleaf trees, or where red squirrels are present.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that grey squirrels, imported from America many years ago, do not attack red squirrels, but that their presence and pressure on food resources make it very difficult for the reds to survive? Will the Government encourage the schemes, besides that at Thetford, to prevent the eventual extinction of red squirrels in most of Britain?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend is indeed right. Although they are larger, there is no evidence that grey squirrels physically attack reds. The primary cause for the decline in the number of red squirrels is not known for certain. It is thought that the grey squirrel can out-compete the smaller and more timid red squirrel where they co-exist. Studies so far suggest that the red squirrel will disappear from a woodland within six years of its colonisation by the grey. The Government, through the Forestry Commission and English Nature, will do all they can to promote schemes to preserve the red squirrel.
The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since the grey squirrel started to spread from the Lothians into the Borders of Scotland over the past seven years, vigorous action groups have been formed there and subsequently in Northumberland and south-west Scotland to try to combat this invasion? Will he be able to pledge government support and encouragement to these action groups to carry on their good work and perhaps investigate the possibility of using some form of birth control substance which can be offered to grey squirrels in selected hoppers which are inaccessible to red squirrels?
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, the Government have a considerable interest in these matters through English Nature and the Forestry Commission. They
1690
also, in part, fund the wildlife trust partnership of the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. I also draw your Lordships' attention to the valuable work which is also undertaken by the National Trust and wildlife trusts.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that £22 million was paid to the private sector last year, of which I approve, in order to encourage new planting, and that more than 50 per cent. of that planting was in broadleaf woods? Can the Minister confirm that it is particularly broadleaf woods which are affected by this pest? It seems that we are spending money to encourage the planting of broadleaf trees at the same time as there is an expansion of the grey squirrel population. Will the Minister encourage the Forestry Commission in the experiments which it is undertaking at the moment with feeding hoppers whereby the grey squirrel will be poisoned if it eats food from them and the red squirrel will survive? Will he encourage the Forestry Commission to progress the experiments in this field?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Forestiy Commission has set up a red squirrel prcrtection area in Thetford Forest where grey squirrels will be discouraged and red squirrels will be supported by supplementary feeding and the release of captive-bred animals. Similar measures are under consideration for Cannock Chase. However, control is likely to be more effective where landowners and occupiers join together to form squirrel control groups or squirrel management groups. Two such squirrel management groups have been formed in key areas of Scotland where both red and grey squirrels are present. The Forestry Commission is a member of both groups. The objectives of the groups include the conservation of red squirrels and the control and limitation of damage by grey squirrels.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, from the admirable brief which my noble friend has with him, can he inform the House in which parts of the country, other than the Isle of Wight and the northern part of Scotland and any areas which he has already mentioned, the red squirrel still survives?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the red squirrel will survive in all areas of coniferous trees because it is only in the deciduous woods that the grey squirrel lives.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the remaining population of red squirrels amounts to only 30,000 in England, 9,000 in Wales, but 121,000 in Scotland? Is he also aware that the tests which are being carried out on controlling grey squirrels are inevitably limited by the availability of money? Will he ask his department to encourage sponsors to take up the question of controlling grey squirrels? That would be a commercial proposition which might appeal to a number of sponsors. I believe that it would certainly be much more commercially attractive than the control of the wart biter cricket which the Government have also put on their list for sponsorship.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, of course I shall bring the most helpful suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that time was after the war when, in return for grey squirrel tails, cartridges and cash bounties were given? Would it not be a good idea to find a good incentive to encourage people to kill more grey squirrels?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I well remember the scheme which my noble friend has mentioned. I used to use it as a way of supplementing my pocket money. But with today's thoughts on guns and the distribution of firearms, I believe that it may be unwise to put a money bounty on the tail of the grey squirrel.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am sure that many of us in this House, and certainly many animal lovers throughout the country, will be horrified at some of the suggestions which they have heard this afternoon, particularly the collection of squirrel tails? Is he further aware that the grey squirrel is a very intelligent and entertaining animal? I was certainly horrified to hear on Meridian Television that people were being recommended by the Forestry Commission to shoot and poison them. I sincerely hope that that advice will be withdrawn and that the grey squirrels which play in my garden and give a lot of pleasure to my family and myself will not be shot or poisoned by my neighbour.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Forestry Commission's annual survey and the 1991 survey of the Timber Growers' Association both show that grey squirrels are causing serious damage to a wide range of tree species by stripping the bark from the trees, and that they are threatening the success of the Government's policy for maintaining the existing broadleaf woodlands and establishing new ones. Landowners report that they may have to stop planting trees in certain areas because grey squirrels make it impossible for the trees to become established.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Viscount expand on his remarks about squirrel control groups? How does one set up a squirrel control group? Is it related to the suggestion of the noble Duke that there could be birth control for grey squirrels, in which case, will there be a government subsidy for squirrel condoms?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, means of stopping the breeding of grey squirrels have been investigated but, unfortunately, have not met with much success.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at present in northern Scotland we have only red squirrels because the greys have not yet crossed the Grampians? Is he aware that unofficial voluntary schemes, appropriately named Red Alert, have been started in various parts of Scotland and England to try to stop the advance of the greys?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Department of the Environment has not had any direct discussions with Red Alert but English Nature has had regular contact and is fully conversant with that organisation's aims and objectives. The organisation is chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. Although he is not in his place today, I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to put on the record our appreciation of the major contribution that the noble Viscount has made to our understanding of the means of conserving the red squirrel.

Special Needs Providers: Scotland
2.45 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dunphail Lord Laing of Dunphail asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that special needs providers in Scotland have both the funds they require and the assurance of continuity essential to the effective performance of their functions.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the resources allocated to the local enterprise companies to deliver government training programmes for 1994–95 took account of the additional costs involved in providing training for people with special training needs and were based on costs submitted by local enterprise companies in their business plans. It is for each local enterprise company to negotiate contracts with training providers which suit local circumstances.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that the new method of funding seriously erodes the cash flow of providers and, more seriously, that it ensures that the most disadvantaged in our society fall through the net because they are not taken on due to the possibility that there might be a lack of full funding for the provider?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware that there is some criticism in Scotland that output-based funding should not be the basis that is followed when we are dealing with the training of those with special needs. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any particular case in mind, but perhaps I may advise him that local enterprise companies in Scotland may deem output-based funding arrangements inappro-priate for providers who are concentrating on special needs training. Alternatively, they can agree outcomes at a reduced level.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will recognise that this is a very important Question which will almost certainly be dealt with more fully when we get to the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. As well as the point raised about training by the noble Lord, Lord Laing, I suggest that our educational system ought to provide a good enough basis to enable those with special needs to go on to take up the positions that may be available to them. After what Scotland has done following the Warnock Commission—we still have a long way to go but we have made good progress—I hope that in

1693
Committee the Minister will provide reassurances that there will be enough money to provide a service for those children who will ultimately require the special needs training to which the Question refers.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, particular duties are imposed on local authorities with regard to this. As I am sure that he appreciates, the issue raised in the Question is the training of children with special needs once they have left school and of those adults who have special needs requirements. Business plans are required from the local enterprise companies, which are required to fix within those plans the arrangements that they propose to make for those with special needs. It is a priority that ought to be observed.

Freshly Dipped Sheep: Handling Precautions
2.48 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they are giving to people, other than farmers, who may be handling freshly dipped sheep in confined spaces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations lay on the employers and the self-employed the responsibility of assessing any risks from such substances and taking the necessary precautions. The Government do not aim to provide specific advice for every situation found in the workplace. Our guidance sets out the general approach people need to adopt in controlling risks, including from handling dipped sheep.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that at the moment there is a certain amount of confusion over the definition of a "freshly dipped" sheep? The Minister's noble friend Lord Howe said that it is a sheep that is still dripping when it comes out of the dip. Furthermore, neither the Health and Safety Executive nor the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will specify the period of time after which a sheep can be deemed safe. My concern is for people who may be working in covered markets or at shows. Many shows still require sheep to be dipped before they can be taken to a show. When working in enclosed spaces, people who are sensitive to chemicals might suffer adverse effects.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Countess is right to point out that my noble friend Lord Howe provided a definition of freshly dipped sheep when he stated in a Written Answer:
"A sheep is regarded as being freshly dipped for the short period which follows immediately after dipping, when the sheep is still wet from the dip bath".—[Official Report, 26/5/94; col. WA57.]
The noble Countess is right in saying that dangers are still attached to contact with sheep during the weeks immediately following dipping. That is why we provide
1694
a booklet to farmers, about which the noble Countess will know, to give them advice on the kind of precautions to take when handling such sheep. Similarly, people working in an auctioneer's show ring, and others whom the noble Baroness gave as examples, will know that, in the light of the COSHH regulations, they must make the appropriate assessment of the risks and then provide the appropriate protection to their employees if they are handling sheep in such circumstances.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister has spoken of a booklet which is sent specifically to farmers. Is he prepared to circulate that booklet also to the people to whom the Question refers? They are not farmers yet they must handle freshly dipped sheep, whatever the definition.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the people to whom we are referring are part of the agricultural community, they will be well aware of the booklet and will be able to obtain it. It is not easy immediately to direct the booklet to them, whereas it is easy to direct it to all registered sheep farmers. I believe that they will be aware of the booklet. In addition, the COSHH regulations provide directions as to how to make the appropriate risk assessment. The first step is to gather information about the substances, the work and the working practices. From that, they can make the appropriate decisions about the precautions that they should take.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that we shall not receive from the Commission a directive on this subject with about four preambles and 20 recitals? I know from my own personal experience of handling sheep in Lincolnshire in my youth that it is best not to take them into a confined space.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord has shown remarkable restraint in waiting until the third Question to raise the subject of Europe. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks; it is a matter for the Commission as to what directives it proposes. No doubt we shall resist any unsuitable directives, should they come forward, and we shall discuss any suitable directives with the appropriate authorities to make sure that they are exactly the right kind of directives.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the Minister's comments on the possibility of sheep being dipped prior to going to agricultural shows, and bearing in mind the presence of the public at such shows where sheep may have been previously dipped, what steps will the Government take to alert the general public to the risk that they might run in association with this problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not refer to sheep being dipped before going to agricultural shows and the like; that was the noble Countess. If the authorities are asking for sheep to be dipped before they attend agricultural shows, using OPs, the substances about which we are particularly worried—or about which the noble Countess is particularly worried—it is fairly obvious that they will not be dipped that morning. The

1695
sheep will not be wet and only those in immediate contact with them will have to take the kind of precautions about which I am talking. I do not believe that that will affect the general public.

Further Education: Objectives
2.53 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their objectives in the provision of further education and how far those objectives are intended to extend both the age and social range of those participating and the range of educational opportunities available.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, further education provides a diverse range of opportunities to young people and adults to improve their knowledge and skills, whether they are progressing to further study, entering the workforce for the first time or learning new skills later in life. The Government's objective for further education is to increase participation and attainment still further in order to help to achieve the demanding national targets for education and training. Age and social background are no bar to participation.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Will the Government refine their expansion targets by setting specific targets for young people, working adults, unemployed people, ethnic minorities and, most importantly, older people and others not currently in the workforce? At the same time, will the Government reaffirm that, whatever the unquestionable merits of vocational courses, education in its fullest sense is an essential ingredient of civilised life for everyone and must never be seen as an adjunct of the economic production line alone?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is not generous in recognising what is being done for young people from socially or economically deprived backgrounds or for young people with special needs. The Further Education Funding Council and its approach to its duties has been widely welcomed. It has established a specialist committee to review the range and type of further education available to students with learning difficulties and disabilities and those from economically disadvantaged groups and to recommend how it may best fulfil its statutory duties towards them.
The funding council system has been designed to take into account the particular needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities and, of course, the growth of access courses to make sure that young people are prepared to take advantage of further education. In particular, the aim is to fund the students rather than the type of programme that they are studying. Therefore, a great deal is being done on all these fronts, and I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to encourage that.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government support the desire that the national vocational qualifications should include an
1696
adequate basis of knowledge and understanding and not merely the competence in performing an immediate task? Will she confirm that that is the Government's policy in supporting national vocational qualifications which, so understood, we all support?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. National vocational qualifications are indeed a route for making sure that young people not only understand what they are doing but have a competence in doing it. We want to go as far as we can down the road of making that a real success. I believe that we still have some way to go but a great deal of work is being done to progress that.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the Minister look again at the question of the extramural activities of universities? I am beginning to receive correspondence from people who are most anxious that a side effect of the present policy will be that organisations such as the WEA, which have survived for a century, are now in danger by virtue of the system of fees that is being introduced.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, some of the work to which the noble Viscount referred will be the responsibility of the higher education institutions themselves. Of course, the WEA is continuing its important work. I hope that everyone will agree that where people are unable to meet the fees some consideration is taken to help them to have access to the courses, but that where people are in a position to make a contribution, that should also be considered.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the light of the success of a variety of initiatives, including the Pick-Up Programme with which I was personally involved during my time at the Department for Education—it involved the participation of a wide variety of age groups and social backgrounds—and the development of the NVQ programme, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred and which is now a recognised and acceptable qualification for employment, does my noble friend agree that the structures are in place to allow for development in this area and that it is important to encourage greater participation in these programmes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The national targets are academic and vocational and all employers are asked to become involved. One of the targets is to make sure that 50 per cent. of all young people in work are working towards NVQs, and we hope that that will have been achieved by 1996. We also hope that by the year 2000, 50 per cent. of the workforce will have qualified at the NVQ level 3 or equivalent and that, by 1996, 50 per cent. of medium to large organisations will be involved in Investors in People. That is another way of auditing the skills of young people and the workforce and ensuring that they are making progress. Obviously, the training and enterprise councils are also key in the process, working together with the schools, unemployed young people and industry and commerce.
Baroness David: My Lords, could the Minister ask the Further Education Funding Council for England to

1697
organise its funding by rewarding recruitment from certain areas so that underprivileged communities are targeted? I understand that the Further Education Funding Council for Wales uses postcodes to identify those areas and the Scottish FE colleges have areas of priority treatment for that purpose. Will the Minister look into that please?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it really depends to which group of people the noble Baroness refers. Of course, all young people under the age of 19 have free access to further education. If they are still in school, it is for the school to make sure that there is a continuum between leaving school, especially for those leaving school with very low qualifications, and the training and enterprise councils or whichever organisation the young people make contact with after leaving school. With regard to people aged over 19, the training and enterprise councils will be responsible for directing young people to further education and training. That includes basic skills' training in which many further education colleges are now engaged. It is important to reach out to young people and persuade them of the value of improving their basic skills. The Further Education Funding Council is making sure that it rewards recruitment in that area so that there is a reward for the institutions which manage to recruit to their numbers young people who are starting on the ladder of further education.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may explain that I am talking about underprivileged communities, and not just young people. It is the whole community which may be underprivileged that should be helped.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may switch to my other hat. I am a sponsor Minister for an inner city area which is involved in City Challenge. There are three city challenges for which I am responsible for overseeing that the policies are working in those areas. I cannot think of another government this century who have done more to target their efforts on areas of greatest need.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of groups of people have never been touched in any way by further education and that the largest group consists mainly of working class people who left school without any, or very few, qualifications, who never return to the education system? In those circumstances, will she urge the Further Education Funding Council to look at the problems facing people in that situation? Perhaps she will instigate some research into the matter because I believe that detailed examination of that problem is required.
Related to that, has the Minister seen the statement made yesterday by the chief executive of the Association of Colleges who stated:
"The association's mail box is weighed down by tales of students who have had their benefit removed, despite the fact that they were studying less than 21 hours"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, assistance into further education was never a substitute for benefit for people to both work and study. If they are working for fewer than
1698
21 hours, they are helped. If they are working for more than 21 hours, it is not a pot into which one can tap because at the end of the day—and even noble Lords opposite will realise it one day —resources are absolutely finite. We need to target resources on those in greatest need.
I need to return to what the Government have done for the areas of greatest need in this country; for example, the urban programmes and the City Challenge programmes. So much is going on and education is a part of that. The institutions, the funding systems and the Government are doing everything possible to make sure that young people are being prepared for what will be an increasingly complex and technical world in the 21st century. We are trying to do what we can to convince young people of the value of staying on the educational ladder. We have done more than any prior government.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness satisfied with the way in which some FE colleges in rural areas are changing their character? They are becoming affiliated to a local university in some cases and are changing over from agricultural studies to business studies. That is a real loss to the local agricultural community. Will the noble Baroness keep a very close eye on those developments?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is extremely important that we keep a close eye on developments. However, what is happening in further education is very exciting. In rural areas in particular, where young people cannot get to higher education institutions, colleges are becoming agents for doing the preparation work for sub-degree courses. Having done that work, the students then need to go away for only a limited amount of time to top up the work and perhaps receive a degree or go on to higher education. We need to make sure —and I believe this underpins the noble Lord's anxiety—that that is not done to the exclusion of the lower level work, which is the basic skills work. As far as we can see, there is no evidence to suggest that the lower level work is being neglected while work is being done with the higher education institutions to help young people who have distance problems.
Lord Judd: My Lords, having listened to those exchanges, will the Minister agree that liberal adult education going back over a century is one of Britain's finest traditions, serving all ages in all parts of the community? At the same time, in meeting new vocational priorities, will the Government take great care not to damage the wider educational approach which is central to that tradition? Will they recognise that everybody participating is not necessarily seeking a qualification?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is absolutely essential. We must not do one at the exclusion of the other. But I make no secret that I support the Government's attempt to target resources on making sure that young people have the skills that are necessary to move into the workforce and to face the challenges of the 21st century. That must be. a priority for government. That is why we have taken the view that we should

1699
engage nationally and that the local authorities should be charged with the business of making sure that the other needs of local people—if I am referring to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, that is the non-Schedule 2 work—are matters for local discretion. I believe that that is the education to which the noble Lord refers.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.6 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That so much of the order of Monday last as limited the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Judd set down for today to 3 hours be discharged, and that the debate be limited to 3½ hours.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend remove the grammatical misprint in the third line of the Motion as it appears on the Order Paper before it goes into the journals of the House?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will need to point out what the grammatical mistake is.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it is the word "to".
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with that proviso, I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Overseas Aid
3.8 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to call attention to the overseas aid and development policies of Her Majesty's Government in the light of the growing needs of the third world; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate takes place against the background of disturbing contrasts. On the one hand, there is the excitement and hope of the new democracies in South Africa and Malawi; on the other, there is the sickening nightmare of Rwanda, with genocide on a scale that we have not seen since the killing fields of Cambodia.
In South Africa, after decades of racial oppression, there is now the challenge to work effectively with the courageous leadership of that country in achieving the responsible objectives set for housing, education, health, land and employment and for which the £100 million so far promised from our own aid programme —considerably less than half of what has been found for just one highly questionable dam in Malaysia, Pergau —is for many of us a disappointingly minimal start. In the Middle East, Gaza and Jericho have already indicated how a bright new dawn can be jeopardised by lack of sufficient practical international backing.
In the third world as a whole during the past 40 years, the number of children dying before the age of five has fallen from 28 per 100 to 10. In the past 30 years, the percentage of children enrolled in primary schools has risen from 48 per cent. to 78 per cent. In the past 20 years, life expectancy has increased from 53 to 62. In the past 10 years, the percentage of families with access to safe drinking water has risen from 38 per cent. to 68 per cent. is South East Asia, from 66 per cent. to 78 per cent. in Latin America and from 32 per cent. to 43 per cent in Africa. All that demonstrates what can be done. Yet every year an additional 26 million people—equivalent to almost half the population of the United Kingdom —are still falling into the cesspit of absolute poverty.
Add to that the escalating environmental crisis worldwide, with 70 major international disasters in the 1980s as compared with only 16 in the 1960s, or the prediction that there may well be 100 million refugees and displaced people in the world by the end of the decade, and where in such statistics is there any hope of a stable, decent and secure future for our grandchildren? Of course, there is a major population crisis. No sane Member of this House could possibly deny that. But there is also a consumption crisis, with 80 per cent. of the world's resources being consumed by 25 per cent. of the world's population. We need more effective population policies, but such policies depend upon adequately resourced health, education, gender and other social policies. We need sound sustainable environmental policies, but those policies depend upon greater equity and justice in the distribution of resources and upon the transfer of technology from the industrialised world to the developing world.
What of our United Kingdom response? In replies to Parliamentary Questions, the Government still sub-scribe to the modest UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product for overseas aid expenditure. But, it must be said, they also staunchly refuse to set a timetable for achieving it. Worse, they move disastrously in the opposite direction. From more than 0.5 per cent. of gross national product in 1979, the UK has come down to little more than 0.3 per cent., and it is predicted on the Government's own figures to fall still further to 0.26 per cent. by 1995–96. If the Government are genuinely committed to reaching the UN target, they should obviously timetable a planned expansion of the aid budget to achieve it.
Then what of the division of the aid budget that there is? Some is spent multilaterally and some bilaterally. But by what rational criteria are the funds apportioned? On the one hand, we have the expertise, the experience, the dedication and the professionalism of our own ODA personnel —no mean accumulation. But, on the other hand, we have the powerful case for a co-ordinated, multilateral approach, avoiding confusion imposed upon struggling administrations in the third world as they endeavour to cope with uncoordinated and, frankly on occasion, competing inputs. Surely the objective should be to use our perhaps unrivalled expertise to ensure that bilateral and multilateral aid is never in competition but always well co-ordinated, complemen-tary and, above all, effective and accountable.
Despite all the past assurances that there would be no robbing Peter to pay Paul and that aid to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union would be additional and not at the expense of the third world, we now—all too predictably—have one budget, one pot, for the two purposes. Frankly, the additionality is conspicuous by its absence. The amount of aid going to the former Communist world is planned to rise from £188 million in 1992–93 to £331 million by 1995–96. How far will that trend be allowed to go? What will be the eventual cost to the third world?
At present, 66.7 per cent. of British aid is tied to the purchase of British goods and services. We on these Benches would never suggest that all tied aid is bad per se; indeed, that would be absurd. If Britain can combine genuinely assisting the third world with promoting British industry and jobs, so much the better. The difficulty lies in the inherent conflict of interests which can too easily arise between commercial and economically and developmentally sound priorities.
The tying of aid can result in developing countries paying prices above the market rate because of lack of competition. Recent estimates suggest an average of 15 per cent. It also leads to the purchase of inappropriate goods dependent upon availability in the donor country, rather than what may really be needed for sustainable development. Aid tying can also hold back the development of a range of industries in the developing countries themselves. Improving the quality of commercial aid—so that, unlike Pergau, it is always primarily justified on convincing developmental grounds—will bring enhanced value for money to the British taxpayer as well as having a greater impact in reducing poverty.
Sometimes, even on the same day, I receive a number of press releases from the ODA about the aid that it is distributing. The Minister works herself commendably hard in her national and international travel programme, speaking about her latest concerns. But a speech here and a press release there is not enough. The ODA is central to the future of humanity. Many of our domestic preoccupations fade into relative insignificance against the crucial issues; in fact, the very survival of humanity with which the Minister has regularly to deal. Yet we still have too little sense of collective government strategy—of how they see the coming together of Treasury policy, environment policy, defence, trade, agriculture and the rest with aid; of what should be the strategic interrelationship between, on the one hand, the private and particularly effective voluntary sectors and, on the other, the government programmes; and of what should be the right balance between bilateral and multilateral commitments.
Why all the plethora of White Papers on tactical domestic issues but none on the absolutely fundamental issue of the UK's strategy for global survival, let alone development? It is 19 years since we last saw a comprehensive White Paper on ODA matters. That, it must be said, was produced under a Labour Government.
In its recent outstanding human development report, to which my noble friend Lord Desai has made an important contribution—and I look forward to hearing
1702
from him in the debate—the UNDP has suggested that industrialised countries should enter a 20–20 compact with developing countries whereby 20 per cent. of their aid budgets will be committed to human development priorities such as health and education on condition that recipient countries put 20 per cent. of their budgets to the same priorities. The UNDP estimates that currently most donor countries spend only 7 per cent. of their aid budgets on such human development priorities. It calculates that the figure for the UK is 6.6 per cent. Does the Minister endorse the UNDP proposal? How would she reorientate the existing aid budget to accommodate it?
Trade flows, which dwarf aid in developmental significance, fall under the DTI. Political comment on the conclusions of the latest GATT round has tended to concentrate on the benefits to Britain resulting from the expansion of world trade. But what of the significance of GATT in terms of global, sustainable development? Sub-Saharan Africa alone, home to 300 million people barely existing in absolute poverty, is likely to lose £1.7 billion a year, while countries of the European Union, whose citizens on average enjoy incomes 37 times as large, are expected to gain £40.8 billion per year. That is mainly due to a loss of preferential export agreements with the European Union. How do the Government reconcile that injustice with their development priorities?
Meanwhile, debt remains a Treasury responsibility. The Prime Minister likes to recall the lead which he indeed gave to the Group of 7 with the Trinidad terms initiative on bilateral debt. But that initiative will do little to help countries like Uganda which owe over 60 per cent. of their debt to multilateral institutions—debt which the standard Treasury line insists cannot be considered for rescheduling or cancellation. Instead, Uganda is compelled to ask donors for still more bilateral aid to make repayments on debts to multilateral institutions. As a member of those institutions, we are in effect giving with one hand and taking away with the other. How does the Minister intend to break that vicious circle?
In 1992, the developing countries repaid £100 billion in interest on their debts; that is well over twice the amount that they received in aid. Between 1988 and 1992, it is true that OECD countries—of which we are one—cancelled £6.6 billion worth of debt, but they received £318 billion in debt repayments; in other words, 48 times as much. Where does the development priority begin to be in that situation?
Nowhere is the need for policy co-ordination greater than in our response to conflict resolution. The resources devoted to such work and to pre-emptive diplomacy are pitifully small. We agonise over the additional resources needed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but we spend less than peanuts on preventing the crises that lead to the pressures on UNHCR.
ODA expenditure on emergencies has increased five-fold since 1987, inevitably diverting funds from long-term development. In Angola, Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda the world has been confronted with the dual requirements of humanitarian relief and military intervention. In each case the United Nations has been

1703
criticised, but surely it is the member states, especially the permanent five members of the Security Council, who should accept the responsibility. The UN has no separate existence from its member states. In the case of Rwanda it was after all—and we must never forget it —the Security Council which took the shameful decision, now belatedly reversed after God knows how many have been slain, to reduce the UN presence at the outset of the current crisis. No UN force could possibly have stopped all the killing, but a strengthened force could have offered protection to groups of civilians seeking refuge in safe areas.
When tragedy occurs on such a horrific scale it may be that it takes a little while for the sheer awfulness of the situation to sink in. But that such disregard for humanity can happen diminishes the humanity in us all. It demands that we face up to unpalatable truths, for example that 86 per cent. of the world's arms are supplied by the permanent five members of the Security Council; the fact that two-thirds of these are sold to the poorest countries of the world; and the fact that the United Kingdom continues to sell arms to countries whose citizens live in abject poverty and gives aid to countries with high military expenditure. Similarly, we must face the issues of international crime, corruption, Swiss bank accounts and the indispensability of integrity in government and public service of both donors and recipients alike.
This year sees the 50th anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions—the World Bank and the IMF. Next year sees the 50th anniversary of the United Nations itself. All of these institutions were born of a vision of a new world order in the aftermath of World War II. But the security issues which confront us today are not the same as those of 1945. A relevant Security Council will be more representative and one dedicated to arbitration, conflict resolution and pre-emptive diplomacy; but it will also be one with a key strategic role to play in policy formulation on the economic and environmental challenges to world security.
Far from a new world order, we are experiencing a new world disorder. The time for a comprehensive review of our national policies and our international institutions is long overdue. Such a review would enable us to develop a global strategy for meeting the destabilising humanitarian challenges of hunger, disease, poverty and conflict. It would help us to take seriously the very survival of humanity on our crowded, overstressed and tiny globe as it vulnerably hurtles through the intimidating vastness of space. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating this debate this afternoon. I hope he will forgive me if I do not make such a full speech as he made and limit myself to sub-Saharan Africa. I would particularly like to talk about sub-Saharan Africa as I recently had the privilege of visiting that area to monitor the elections in South Africa and Malawi.
1704
I have to admit that I went to South Africa with a degree of trepidation knowing that the group that I was with—the Awepa delegation—which also included my noble friend Lord Tordoff, had been assigned to Natal and KwaZulu. It was suggested to me on a number of occasions in this House that I should take a bullet-proof jacket with me when I visited that area. However, it turned out that my fears were unnecessary as the Inkatha Freedom Party joined the election just in time. The elections themselves were peaceful. In fact one of my abiding memories of the election was of arriving in the Ndeleni township, which is known for its violence, at six o'clock in the morning for the opening of the polling station at seven o'clock and finding 1,000 people queuing quietly and waiting to vote. Many of them had walked 10 miles to get there and many of them had walked through the night.
I also wish to mention the election that I then attended in Malawi as an observer. The way in which that election was carried out was immensely impressive. It was carried out efficiently. However, I have a story that I wish to share with the House which may illustrate some of the lessons that we could learn from Malawi. I turned up at one polling station to find that the voters had divided themselves into two queues, one for women and one for men. We intended to discuss this matter with the presiding officer and as we walked to the polling station an old man said to me, "I am glad that you are here to help us". I thought that he was referring to our helping them with the election, but when we reached the front of the queue it turned out that he meant that he was glad that we were there to help the men vote as the women had quite happily blocked the doorway and were all voting first.
I now wish to discuss one of the major problems that is facing sub-Saharan Africa. Although there has been a peaceful transition to democracy in southern Africa and the peaceful manner in which this was done shows that there is a great desire for democracy, the new democracies that are coming into existence in much of southern Africa face a crippling legacy from the past; that is, debt. As the UN Secretary-General has pointed out,
"External debt is a millstone around the neck of Africa. Easing the continent's debt burden must be a priority for the international community".
If this problem is not addressed in such a way that African countries are able to pay, development in Africa will fail to materialise. While there has been an improvement in the economic situation in the developing countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America, the position in sub-Saharan Africa has deteriorated. One of the major reasons for this is the inability of sub-Saharan Africa to service its debt repayments. The scale of the problem can be shown by the amount disbursed by Africa between 1985 and 1992–81.6 billion US dollars to repay debt. To show the effect that this has had on social expenditure, one can cite the case of Tanzania. Since the mid-1980s interest payments on debt have absorbed a greater share of that government's budget than either health or education. Indeed, according to the World Bank debt tables, during

1705
the 1980s the region's debt increased from the equivalent of 28 per cent. of its GNP to 109 per cent. in the early 1990s.
Extensive default on Africa's debt has been prevented only by repeated rescheduling operations, in which official creditors, meeting in the Paris Club, have allowed interest and future debt charges to accumulate by deferring payments. More than 30 African governments have been forced to reschedule, many of them repeatedly. Paradoxically, however, these rescheduling exercises have fuelled rather than alleviated the debt crisis, by contributing to the unsustainable build-up of arrears. Over 40 per cent. of the non-concessional debt owed by sub-Saharan Africa to the industrialised countries in 1993 represented deferred interest payments capitalised by the Paris Club and added to the total debt stock.
One area of concern that is being increasingly expressed is the high multilateral debt to the World Bank and IMF, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out earlier. The argument for the principle of full repayment will have an increasingly negative effect on the African debt burden. If the debt trap in Africa is not addressed in a comprehensive manner, it threatens to destroy any hope of development in the emerging democracies. Democratic governments in Africa which fail to reverse the decline in living standards and to deliver basic health and education services are unlikely to enjoy more than a temporary stay in office. That may mean that the democratic experience is a failure.
It would be churlish of me if I did not congratulate the Minister on the role that she has played in debt relief. I realise that £1.1 billion worth of debt has been forgiven by Britain, and I commend the lead role played by the British Government in the G7 summit in Tokyo last July. I hope that the Minister can give the House some assurance that the British Government will continue to play a lead role in lessening the debt burden, especially in the area of multilateral debt.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Deedes: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for enabling us to take a look at our policies on aid and development.
I am not sure whether we shall improve those policies unless we recognise one or two mistakes that we have made in the past. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I relate my remarks mainly to Africa, where my principal interests lie.
I believe that there have been two main failures so far in our aid policy. First, we in the West have somehow contrived to leave the poorest people in the third world worse off than they were before. Secondly, we seem to be without means for anticipating disaster, whether famine or conflict. We lack an early warning system for situations such as that in Somalia, which has cost the international community something like 2 billion dollars and a sorry lack of face.
Taking the first point, I doubt whether we have yet fully grasped the damage inflicted on Africa and parts of Asia by what we call the Cold War. For much of Africa and Asia the legacy of 45 years of East-West tension was hot Cold War but hot and bloody wars, some of
1706
which continue, as in Angola. In my view both East and West treated much of the third world, particularly Africa, as front line agents in an ideological struggle. We judged the ruler, however despotic, by whether he was on our side. If he was on our side we were sometimes all too happy to prop him up with aid with no strings attached and without much regard for the consequences for his own people. That is when the rot set in. That is when some of the aid began to go down rat holes —into follies for the ruler and Mercedes cars for his entourage. That is when, throughout that Cold War, the poorest on earth began to become poorer.
We have survived the Cold War, but it has wrought havoc in Africa and in parts of Asia. Now what do we find? I travel a number of these countries, usually under the auspices of the international aid organisation CARE. In those countries I see a more realistic economic policy taking shape. I see more concern for human rights and democracy. The Cold War over, we find that we can afford concern for the moral dimensions. But nowhere do I see much material improvement in the condition of the poor. In my experience, in many instances it has become worse. As the World Bank applies its economic restructuring, as the economic screws tighten, as food subsidies come off, as welfare services are cut, the poorest suffer most.
On top of that we have revised our policies, as I am sure my noble friend Lady Chalker will tell us later. We have been moving our long-term development assistance from the poorest nations towards those with a better return on investment. That is where dams come in so useful. So be it. I believe that we should invest some of our aid more profitably. But we should not delude ourselves that we are relieving poverty in the third world. If we are going to take the poor more seriously then in my view there will have to be a modest shift in humanitarian aid from the ODA towards some of the voluntary agencies, which work at micro level among the poor on health, education, water, sanitation and above all on helping people to set up on their own.
I find the work of those people in the field impressive —a good deal more impressive and cost effective, bluntly, than some of the UN agencies. I am persuaded that for humanitarian aid we should depend more than we do on some of the non-governmental organisations.
However, aid and development policies are barren in countries where conflict persists. As I have seen in the Sudan, Mozambique and Cambodia, and as we witnessed last year in Somalia and we witness now in Rwanda, conflict reduces aid and development to dust. An urgent task in the world today is to find ways of anticipating and, if possible, averting some of those bloody struggles.
We must learn to read the signs better. Where there is food and economic insecurity, where human rights are being violated, where ethnic or religious minorities are being persecuted, where there are unequal rights to basic services, where there is high military spending, there you will find the likelihood of national breakdown. In my view our aid and development policies should be more closely related to reducing the risk of those symptoms developing. They should be conditional on more equitable economic policies. They should

1707
positively encourage local communities to take more responsibility for their own lives. And they should encourage cohesive rather than divisive policies. They should weigh on the minds of governments which flout human rights and which persist in the persecution of ethnic minorities.
What we have just witnessed in Rwanda is beyond any doubt genocide. Are those responsible being brought to book? Are we interested in them being brought to book? If we are not we are sending out a terrible message to some of the world's tinpot dictators.
In short, I think that we need a shift in our criteria for aid. We no longer have to buy friends in the Cold War. We are, or we should be, in the business of bringing some order into the wilder reaches of the third world, because that is, above all, what the poor, the oppressed and the persecuted are crying out for.
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, it is difficult to avoid a doom-laden atmosphere when thinking about Africa. I should like to pinpoint my remarks on two African countries where I have lived and worked and with which I am still in close contact —Rwanda and Uganda.
As other speakers have said, it is difficult to find words adequate to describe the tragedy of Rwanda at this time. One estimate suggests that 500,000 people have been ruthlessly slaughtered in the past few months, while many thousands have fled to refugee camps in neighbouring countries. I am sure that all of us have been horrified by the TV pictures of men, women and children macheted to death as they sought refuge in churches and other supposedly safe sites in that country.
I should like to make two points about that country. First, I remind your Lordships of the long-standing and very deep-seated ethnic hatred between Tutsi and Hutu which, I submit, may be of far greater and more durable power than anything that United Nations pre-emptive strikes can accomplish. However much this hatred has been exacerbated, as it has in part in the past by colonial policies, and however much it is exacerbated still by grinding poverty—when there is very little cake, conflict about that little which is available is always exacerbated—that hatred must be recognised.
My wife and I had the privilege of being guardians for some years of a teenage Mututsi boy whose parents had been killed in massacres in Rwanda as long as 30 years ago. Let us just remember that for 30 and more years there has been a refugee problem, with refugees streaming into Uganda and neighbouring territories. Each year my son goes on a work party rebuilding and building new primary schools for Rwandan refugees. No United Nations peace-keeping force can itself heal the problem of the deep-seated ethnic root of that tragic conflict.
I should like to dream a dream. It is the second point on Rwanda. In a recent debate in your Lordships' House on the great future potential of the Commonwealth, reference was made to the vital role of African leaders from within Africa making substantial contributions to the healing of those essentially African conflicts. There
1708
has been reference to the trusted personal contacts among government leaders within the Commonwealth. Much was said in your Lordships' debate about the informal usefulness of the Commonwealth, in which people can meet behind scenes and establish trust and new visions. Much was said about the way in which the Commonwealth could become a catalyst for peace-making, in which a Museveni, a Chikane or, dare I add, a Mandela or a Buthelezi, who have deep and long experience of dealing with conflict, could themselves become peace-makers in their own Continent.
In particular, I wish to thank the Minister for the trouble which she personally takes behind the scenes in this field. She recently made time to see the Archbishop of Rwanda at very short notice and the Provincial Secretary of our Anglican Province there. I wish to ask her this. Is it possible that she could gather a team of African leaders who would give a lead with her, and with our long experience, in mediating in essentially African conflicts?
That brings me to some final words about Uganda. We think of the darkness in Africa, but let us just remember for a moment the light. I lived through Amin's Uganda when it was full of killing fields. People were executed below my house each morning. However, under the leadership of President Museveni, Uganda is making splendid progress. Inflation has been reduced from over 200 per cent. to 5 per cent. Economic growth is running at about 5 per cent. per annum. Widespread demobilisation of the armed forces is taking place—that is a key point. The Asians expelled by Amin have now been encouraged to return. In that situation perhaps I may encourage the Minister to continue to give a lead in keeping the Government to the Trinidad terms, and beyond them, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. Far be it from us to give with one hand and to take away with the other.
However, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that Uganda's success, brave and strong as it is, is now deeply threatened by a debt of 2.6 billion dollars which drains Uganda of 100 million dollars annually which could be spent on those primary schools and easing tension with the refugee problem from the neighbouring Rwanda. As Museveni said to a recent delegation, money spent on servicing such debts is money which cannot be spent on the needs of health and education in his country. Uganda is struggling on, using one third of its annual budget to service an unpayable debt burden.
I have seen the effectiveness, as many noble Lords have, of our Government's aid to Uganda. I have seen our ODA technical co-operation officers—paediatricians and consultant surgeons—teaching young African doctors in the African medical schools. Never let us back-track on that. I applaud the fact that the ODA is contributing £1.13 million to the AIDS prevention programmes in Africa and even more money to the MRC's work on AIDS research. But at Harare in 1991, as we have been reminded, the right honourable Gentleman the Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed wiping off two-thirds of the debts owed to our Government—not to the multilateral agencies —while pressing on with our aid programmes.

1709
A final word would be this. Prevention of that kind is always better than cure. Money spent in support of such recovery today is a much better investment than any money spent on conflict resolution tomorrow.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has been energetic in seeking recruits to participate in his important debate. He spoke with his usual eloquence and intensity; and most of us would like to help him. I certainly would. But we must not diminish our sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Chalkei, who daily deals with extremely difficult problems both domestic and international. Your Lordships will recall how she steadfastly protected her budget when it was brought under threat in the past year.
I shall be brief because I think that many noble Lords will not agree with what I have to say. I cannot pretend to be an expert in these matters, but I was struck by a document recently produced for the ODI by Dr. Howell and Adrian Hewitt, for whom all those of us who know them have great respect. The document states:
"There is little evidence of diminishing support for overseas aid in the UK".
That is not quite the positive assertion that many of us would like to see. I imagine that support varies in different age groups. But personally I doubt whether their opinion still holds true. Much depends on the way in which the question is presented to the general public and the identity of the recipients of our aid. Possibly the terrible events in the third world have renewed public sympathy. However, they have also created antipathy, disgust and a feeling that it is too much to expect that we can help.
However, as one who attends this House regularly, I cannot dismiss from my mind the theme that has been incessantly reiterated by noble Lords for many months —not only Members of the Opposition, colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but throughout the House and across parties. That theme is that the Government are not giving sufficient funds to health, welfare, housing, training, research, education, homelessness, defence and many other vital domestic areas which greatly affect large numbers of our population. The complaints are for the most part justified —unhappily justified. If they are to be met even partially, where will the funds come from?
On reflection, I find myself regretfully taking the old-fashioned view that some of our domestic needs which I have mentioned should take priority over attempts substantially to increase overseas aid. I would ask the Government to face this possibility when they are considering the great pressure that may increasingly be put upon them.
I recognise that much overseas aid brings economic and political benefits to the country, not always immediately but in the long run: for example, assistance in third world countries as regards population control and so on. There are, of course, many other types of aid.
However, what worries me is the lack of support for many of our own domestic activities which are so often
1710
referred to in this House and which lack funds Rather than widely expanded overseas aid, many here would prefer more of our charity to increase at home.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Lock wood: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to look, I hope in a positive way, at some of the problems which affect the world as a whole. It seems to me that there are two levels to the problem. There is the crisis level, the crisis issues with which we are all familiar and which gain much publicity in our media and call for an immediate response. Then there are the long-term fundamental issues which are often exacerbated by the crisis problems. Those long-term fundamental issues themselves require a long-term strategic approach. I wish to deal with the latter.
Aid programmes are rightly concerned with trade and with economic affairs, attempting to build up the economies of third world countries. But they are also concerned with social problems and the two need to be in balance. It seems at present that the two are not in balance. Factors such as adequate health services, including reproductive health care, education and access to safe water and sanitation all support successful economic development. A lack of those services detracts from successful economic development.
My noble friend referred to the report which has been prepared for the UN 1994 Human Development Programme. This, too, suggests a shift in emphasis. It recommends that 20 per cent. of aid would be an appropriate figure to devote to human development projects. It advocates compacts whereby developing countries, wherever possible—accepting that some of them are too poor even to do this—should match that by allocating 20 per cent. of their public spending to human development resources.
A 10-point target programme has been developed for the next 10 years. This covers 10 very important issues, including: everyone to have access to basic education; everyone to have access to primary health care, clean drinking water and sanitation; all willing couples to have access to family planning services; adult illiteracy to be reduced to half the current figure; and female illiteracy, which is much higher than male illiteracy, is to be put on a level with that of men; and world population moves should be towards stabilisation at 7.3 billion by 2015. That is the lower projection target for world growth.
It is an important programme requiring additional spending in terms of aid, to the point of some 30 billion to 40 billion dollars a year. But the report suggests that it could be done by making better use of existing resources. It would certainly be more easily achieved if all countries were to devote the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP to aid.
I should like to ask the Minister what percentage of UK aid is devoted to these areas of human development. Are there plans to increase it? In particular, I would like to ask the Minister how much of the aid is allocated to population matters. Population growth is one of the most fundamental problems that must be tackled if we are to establish a world at peace with itself.

1711
The preparatory meetings for the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, to be held in Cairo in September this year, have increased the target percentage of development aid to population activities from 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. Has the United Kingdom achieved the current 2 per cent. target and does it accept the new 4 per cent. target?
The issue is crucial. We cannot go on for ever adding 90 million people a year to the world's population. There are finite resources and there is finite space in the world. Once the present hump of such a large proportion of the world's population being of reproductive age is overcome—in some countries over 50 per cent. of the population is between the ages of 15 and 35—we must secure a more sustainable age profile. It is an enormous task, but it is not an insoluble one.
Progress can and is being made. For example, in Kerala in South India, the fertility rate has now come down to 2.3 children per woman. In Thailand, average family size has fallen from 6.14 in 1965–70 to 2.2 in 1987. In Bangladesh, it fell from 7 in 1979 to 4 in 1990. This fall in family size has been achieved through an interacting process, a chain reaction, if you like, of increased use of contraception; better education for women; improved status for women, both in the home and in society as a whole; later marriages for girls and better spacing of children. This continuing process is something which we must aim to achieve in all developing countries.
Over the past few decades, contraceptive use in developing countries has increased fivefold and contraception is now used by 55 per cent. of married couples. But access to family planning has developed unevenly and in most of sub-Saharan Africa it is still below 15 per cent. In many areas, there is still a large unmet demand for contraceptive supplies and access to reproductive health care.
The International Conference on Population and Development to be held in September this year gives another opportunity to tackle these problems on a global scale. I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance that the British Government will support the draft action programme that has been prepared and that they will do all in their power to ensure that there is no compromise on that.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Indeed, if it had not been for a very persuasive letter which he wrote to me, I am not at all sure that I should have been here this afternoon. He persuaded me, and I should also like to say how lucky we are in this House that the Minister responsible for the subject is sitting with us and in a position to answer the questions that have been and no doubt will be raised.
Many noble Lords who have spoken and who will speak this afternoon are far more expert in these matters than I can ever hope to be. My direct experience is limited to sub-Saharan Africa, and to a limited part of that. I have, however, been for many years a trustee of a charitable trust which now disperses something like £2
1712
million a year in the countries of the old central African federation: Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi. The trust gives its main priority to health and education. It has always made a point—I believe that this is important (it is one of just two points that I want to make this afternoon)—of giving money directly to the relevant institutions which we can contact, and of never doing so through governments. To say this may be unpopular in some quarters, but the fact is that until very recently a great many of the governments in sub-Saharan Africa have been inefficient, corrupt and greedy, and have been by no means competent at using the aid that they have received. So far as is possible—I appreciate that it may not always be possible—aid should be given directly to institutions—to hospitals, schools or whatever it may be —and not be funnelled through governments, which may for all sorts of reasons misuse it, sometimes for ideological reasons, sometimes through sheer greed, and sometimes because they want to line their own pockets.
I should emphasise on behalf of the trust with which I am concerned that this policy goes back a long while. It has nothing to do with the fact that most of the territories about which I am talking are now black-ruled. They were white-ruled, but we did just the same then. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, will not mind my saying this, but I am afraid that that has to do with a general mistrust that we happen to have of governments in general. Of course I am sure that the noble Baroness would not be the sort of person whom we would have in mind at all. Nevertheless, in Southern Africa there has in the past been very good reason to be doubtful about funnelling any money through govern-ments. The misuse of some of the funds is notorious.
Without the use of some of that aid, it would not have been possible, for example, for some of the countries to build brand new capitals, at enormous expense and quite unnecessarily. Why waste an enormous amount of money on building Lilongwe in Malawi, when there was a perfectly good capital in Blantyre? A lot of money has been wasted in the past. I commend to the House a book on this subject which some noble Lords may already have read. It is Reality and Rhetoric, by my noble friend Lord Bauer, in which he analyses some of the things that have gone wrong with aid in the past. They are well worth bearing in mind. It may well be that we are moving into a new and better world of government in Southern Africa. But I remind noble Lords that democracies, as well as dictatorships, are capable of inefficiency and corruption. The whole situation needs watching.
My second point, which arises from my experience as a trustee, is that one wants to supervise what is done with aid and to do it on the spot. One wants to have people who can go out there and see that the money that is allocated is being rationally and sensibly spent. That is by no means always necessarily the case.3
As a trust, we have made a point of having two people in each of the territories with which I am concerned whom we call correspondents; they look at what is happening on the ground and report to us. Furthermore, we make a point of having each trustee in turn take a few weeks to visit the countries concerned to see what has been done with our money. That may

1713
sound somewhat Gradgrind-ish in spirit. But we must remember that there will never be enough money for these purposes. Therefore the money that is allocated —and perhaps it should be more than we do allocate —must be efficiently spent and targeted at people who deserve it and need it. That is very important.
So far as the Government are concerned, if they can make sure that the moneys which they generously give are being properly spent, so much the better. That is the only moral that I can draw from my own, admittedly limited, experience.
4.5 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletsob: My Lords, a few noble Lords may be aware that the main cricket ground in the township of Alexandra, just outside Johannesburg, is known locally as the John Major Oval. That lush, green oasis in a bleak landscape is named after the Prime Minister because it was made possible by a £25,000 grant from the British Government in 1990. Since then it has become a centre of hope, activity and advancement for hundreds of youngsters in Alexandra.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for giving us the opportunity today to debate this extremely important and topical issue. In my seven-minute time allocation, I wish to concentrate my remarks on how Her Majesty's Government might best support the ongoing progress in South Africa and shed some more general light on the issue of overseas aid and development.
The new South African Government are starting to address the immense expectations that were aroused by the euphoric election and inauguration of President Mandela. Their needs are vast, with so many imbalances born of apartheid still to be addressed. Hopes are high; but time is short.
What sort of aid do the South Africans themselves think that they require? I would contend that it is not just a matter of monetary assistance, but also one of more practical assistance: in education and training; in developing skills and technology; in health care; and also in administration. One specific area where concessionary finance and grant aid is sought in South Africa is in the area of electrification. Almost two-thirds of the population are without electricity, particularly in the rural areas.
Many would argue that generous cheques from overseas are not the only answer. That is not just because cash can easily disappear into mischievous hands—a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake. It is also because South Africans are determined not to fall into the same debt trap from which so many African nations have struggled to escape. Obviously that latter point applies more to IMF loans than to overseas aid, which is in the main grant aid. The noble lord, Lord Redesdale, has already raised the need to alleviate the debt burdens of many African countries whose economic growth has, to say the least, been crippled by those debt burdens.
British aid to South Africa, I understand, currently runs at around £45 million a year, with over three-quarters of that in the form of bilateral aid, much of which is directed at improving the quality of
1714
education. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, rightly deserves praise for much of what has been achieved in South Africa.
There is a perception that multilateral aid is less effective. Often, the aims of multilateral aid projects have become muddled, or even lost, within the machinery of vast organisations. Clearly the less space between the giver and the receiver the better.
I would have liked today to have touched on the definition of aid, more specifically whether it is a charitable donation from our taxpayers to the world's poor or whether it is intended often as a subsidy to our export initiatives, but I am sure that this will be raised by other noble Lords who will be speaking today. It has already been raised in part by my noble friend Lord Greenhill.
The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, spoke about the rot that set in in many African countries, particularly Angola and Mozambique, during the Cold War years. However, since the end of the Cold War there has certainly been an explosion of conflicts and violence right across the globe—from the tragic events recalled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield in Rwanda, through what has been happening in Somalia, to Bosnia-Herzegovina—which have all resulted in the ODA's expenditure on emergencies increasing fivefold since 1987. This has obviously led to concerns by Oxfam, Christian Aid and other aid agencies that the quantum of monetary aid by Britain to developing countries has fallen.
I would like to touch on just one final issue in the Government's stated seven key objectives of overseas aid, namely helping developing countries tackle environmental issues. Taking care of the environment does not always rank high on the priority list of poorer countries confronted with problems such as famine and civil war. But it should, and initiatives such as the funding of forestry management experts in Nigeria and the £25 million project for the conservation of the Western Ghats forest in India are essential in the effort to preserve natural resources.
The new South Africa could benefit from environmental guidance and similar aid, but let that aid be clear and focused. A report published last week by the British charity, Action Aid, outlined a global crisis of such proportions that the efficacy of aid strategies becomes ever more important.
So in conclusion I would urge your Lordships to assess British aid not only on the quantity as a percentage of GDP but also on the specific quality. It may be true that the £25,000 spent specifically and practically on the John Major Oval in Alexandra had a more positive impact on the daily lives of under-privileged Africans than many of the large American cheques, many of which remained in the pockets of such individuals as President Mobutu of Zaire. "Bilateral aid for a clear purpose"—that should be the motto which rules Britain's overseas aid strategy.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I hope that in time this House, the whole country and successive governments will increasingly look upon our aid expenditure as part

1715
of our overall economic relationship with the poorer part of the world. That global focus seems a bit lacking at the moment. It is particularly important to do this as a greater and greater proportion of our aid becomes tied aid; we have heard today that that figure is now two-thirds. So two-thirds of British aid overseas can now be described as a special kind of export trade, a subsidised export trade.
Today I want to concentrate on that part of the special kind of trade (which is also known as aid) constituted by the arms trade. I believe I am right in saying that, after drugs, by value that may now be the second largest trade in the world. My noble friend Lord Judd has just told us that 86 per cent. of the world's arms' exports come from the five permanent members of the Security Council, and that two-thirds of those exports go to the third world.
Of course arms' exports and military aid, under a separate heading, are sold within the global envelope that I outlined. There are publicly visible and publicly justified sales of arms to the third world, and there are also clandestine sales. It is enough to mention the names Matrix Churchill and Pergau to establish that point.
I shall give a sketch of reasons for thinking that the export of arms—whether or not in the form of aid—is bad national economics and harms this country's economy. I can think of three reasons why it is good for the British national economy. First, it increases foreign exchange earnings; that is, if it is a sale. Secondly, it increases employment and, thirdly, it enables our arms industry to achieve longer product runs.
However, I believe that there are seven reasons why it is bad for our national economy. First, it impoverishes the poor countries, thereby making them less able to trade with us in the normal way. Secondly, it destabilises their governments and makes them less suitable trading partners. Thirdly, it leads to conflicts between third world countries, which obviously has the same effect. Fourthly, it increases the call on us for aid because of the devastation that those third world countries inflict upon one another. Fifthly, the military capacities of the recipient countries to which we have contributed may be used against us directly on the battlefield, and there are plenty of examples of that. Sixthly, when that happens, or when we fear it may happen, it tends to increase our own defence expenditure—to the distress of the Treasury. An example of that is the current planning phase to establish ballistic missile defences in this country to protect ourselves against, particularly, Libya and Iran. Seventhly—this one is so obvious that I put it last—it directly impoverishes this country by the export credit guarantee payments which have to be made when the purchasers of our arms, especially in the third world, default.
I am not talking about the difficulty of stopping the arms trade in the world; that is obviously enormous, and we have to face the fact that we have not yet really begun to try. The Prime Minister made a welcome and unusual statement in that direction about three years ago, and there has been an attempt to produce some sort of register; but the surface has not yet even been
1716
scratched. It is simply that the fingers that would scratch the surface are perhaps getting nearer to the surface each year. I have suggested that we might try to analyse the economic effect on us of these arms shipments, and to encourage the other great arms' exporters —France, Russia, the United States and China—to do the same.
4.19 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too had an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to participate in this debate, and I never knowingly refuse a good invitation. I have not spoken on these subjects for some time, although just over 10 years ago I made my maiden speech in a debate on roughly the same Motion. In those days there were some great figures in this House—there are still great figures in this House, and I see some of them here today who speak on these matters—and I think in particular, when I spoke all those years ago, of Lord Brockway, Lord Hatch and my noble friend at that time Lord Walston. We did not all agree with everything that Lord Hatch said on these subjects, nor indeed with what Lord Brockway said, but they were always passionate and sincere advocates for the oppressed people of Africa—a continent in which I have had a particular interest during my working life and which I have continued to follow closely in these latter years.
During the past 10 years a number of enormously important events have taken place which have affected Africa and the attitude to it of the rest of the world. In turn, that has affected the attitudes to aid. Some of those events were described very effectively in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deedes. I do not disagree with a single word in his speech. That is a rare position to take in this House. Indeed, some of the points that he made I also have attempted to make in the past.
I was rapped over the knuckles one day by the late Lord Hatch because I related much of the corruption in the African countries in which I had worked to the situation engendered by the Cold War and what he called the lack of the moral dimension in those times. He said that he agreed with me but that I should not say that because all that it would do would be to play into the hands of the Government, who would have a further excuse to reduce the amount of aid. I did not entirely agree with him, but that was his view. After that, I desisted, but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, put his finger on the point.
In my view, some good has come from the most important political event that has taken place; namely, the collapse of the Soviet empire and the removal of Africa as the battlefield between the two great powers. We have seen that happen. It was reflected in the excellent speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield who spoke to us of Uganda. It is a country which I too know well. He said that enormous progress had been made in that country. It is a country which is one of the most fertile in Africa, although it has the disadvantage of being landlocked. It was the show place in colonial times of British educational expertise, as a result of which Makerere University produced some of the best educated Africans on that continent—a legacy which continues to this day. During the horrifying years of Amin and Obote we saw in London

1717
the number of highly educated Africans from Uganda who came here as refugees and, not surprisingly, did not want to go back in a hurry, thus impoverishing further that poor country.
It is an absolute miracle that that country has recovered. It had collapsed to the point of anarchy and where the kind of massacres that we witness today in Rwanda might well have taken place. The massacres of those appalling years from the early 1970s to the early 1980s were bad enough, although they were less publicised. Since then, it has gained a president who has the interests of the whole country at heart. It is a country which, like a lot of African countries, has arbitrary borders which were drawn in early colonial times and as a result has all the attendant problems of different races and different tribes. In that country he has managed to create a stability which none of us thought possible. I must give credit to the Government and the ODA because they have contributed most valuable training in that country, most particularly for the police and the armed services.
Africa is a very unpredictable country. Had anybody told me 10 years ago that the events that have taken place in South Africa could have occurred, I should not have believed them. I always thought that they would happen eventually; but at that time in my view the Cold War, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, in a way put a brake on the kind of progress that could be made toward seeing that problem clearly. I believe that there is a connection between the quite rapid changes that have taken place with the resulting position in South Africa and the breakdown of the Soviet empire.
As a result of what has happened in South Africa, provided that everything goes well—I do not see why it should not since it has the good will of most of the world —the other countries in Africa to the north of South Africa should benefit in fairly quick time. After all, it is in the interests of South Africa. It has natural customers on its borders to the north. It is has no interest in seeing tribal warfare and upheaval. So I take an optimistic view about that and with all my heart I hope that progress in South Africa will continue. That matter has been referred to by other noble Lords this evening.
In the meantime, countries other than Uganda have the same problems. The problems of debt have been mentioned by other noble Lords. The debt in Uganda is largely multilateral debt, which is very difficult to deal with. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to the debate she will mention that issue. There is very little bilateral aid in Uganda because of the terrible history of that country. It has not benefited from all the good work done by the Government and by the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend the Prime Minister in helping to arrange for writing off debt in bilateral areas. It is a country which, like many African countries, wants to progress. Again, I shall take Uganda as my example—and time is running short. To enable it to progress, it is absolutely vital and important that we as a nation (and I hope other nations too) encourage it to develop its agriculture and produce crops with added value. It is no good producing raw materials, as such countries have been encouraged to do. That simply moves the economy out of the control of the area. We
1718
must encourage them and can only do so with the removal of the debt burden. I hope that that, too, the Minister will address when she winds up the debate.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak this afternoon shows how very important the third world is to us in this House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating the debate. When my late husband was Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1959 to 1961, he and I had a great deal to do with the third world and Africa in particular, although my husband also had a lot to do with the West Indies. I discovered a great deal of love for Africa and the Africans. I suppose that in those two years I cooked more meals for 16, 18 or 20 people every day of the week than perhaps anybody else in this Chamber has done.
Certainly more needs to tie done to help developing countries. Those of us who know some of the countries involved can always find reasons and more ways of contributing to those who are less well off. But the United Kingdom is the sixth largest aid donor, with an overseas aid programme of £2.2 billion from 1994 to 1995. Personally, I believe that we can be very proud of that fact.
Over the past four years the aid budget has averaged 0.3 per cent. of the GNP. As we all know, the Government are working towards a 0.7 per cent. target. I understand that the increase will be targeted primarily towards the poorer countries, of whom, as we heard this afternoon, there are a great number.
Financial aid is bound to play a big part in our Government's programme. We must not forget the two other important parts of UK aid. First, there are the people who go to various countries to give material assistance, of which VSO is a prime example. But many people go to give their time and knowledge to peoples who need and will benefit from their expertise. I have in mind school teachers, medical staff, agricultural experts, foresters, and scientists—the list is very long. All are welcome. The other day I was told—with a little hilarity—that a woman scientist was sent from this country to start water bore holes. I understand that she got rather wet and dirty and the Africans could not understand why a woman scientist should be sent from here to do that job. Of course, she was an expert and did it brilliantly.
The voluntary organisations and charities are well aware of the deprivation suffered in some parts of the world. I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Blake said about the part of the world that he has been helping in a financial capacity. I am sure that everybody there is grateful for the work that he and his trustees perform. The charities and organisations raise money locally and nationally for much needed equipment, food, clothing and so forth. But it is the people on the ground—as my noble friend Lord Blake said—who see the suffering and the need; they are the carers.
I want to say a few words about a country which I know and love well. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had a happy sojourn there during the last

1719
general election. I refer to Malawi. For 30 years the former Nyasaland struggled to overcome poverty, drought, lack of money and the many necessities of life which the western world takes for granted. For 30 years Dr. Hastings Banda led his tiny country towards education. It now has a university, a beautiful sixth form college, which I have visited, and both secondary and primary schools. There is a better standard of living with improved medical care. Its economy was, and I am hoping will be in the future, sound.
Malawi has 8 million inhabitants but three years ago —and this caused the economic problems—2 million people fleeing from Mozambique came over the borders and had to be fed, watered and housed from its scarce resources. This they did with a charm that is characteristic of the people. Dr. Banda has led his people all these years and is known as the "grand old man of Africa". Having known him and his people all these years—since my husband made him President literally at half-past five one morning—I should like to pay my tribute to him.
Finally, we, and indeed all the third world countries, owe a deep debt to my noble friend Lady Chalker. Her work on behalf of the UK is recognised everywhere and I thank her for her enthusiasm and her expertise. We are indeed fortunate to have her as our Minister representing the United Kingdom.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, we have heard some distinguished speeches this afternoon but I feel that I must express my disagreement with some of them. A large number of controversies exist about many aspects of overseas aid, but in my view the main requirement is that we should keep our sights on the actual amount we give, its quality and allocation.
The last ministerial Statement I read about the amount of aid being given was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. She is rightly admired for her work and received many compliments today from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill —who spoke of his sympathy for her—and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. The Minister deserves those compliments. However, I hope that when criticisms are levelled at her she will feel that they give her some kind of support in her efforts with the Chancellor and others with whom she may find difficulty.
Her Statement about the amount of aid was a deep disappointment. When the noble Baroness was challenged in this Chamber on 2nd March she said that people who are critical of the real term decline in our aid programme should examine the detail. Fine, we will all do that. But what will we find? Will a rabbit be pulled from the hat? Was the decline really an increase in aid? What happens when we examine the details? I am afraid that there was no increase at all. Although tribute was paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, to the amount of aid that we are giving, I find that, on the contrary, the trend is extremely disturbing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, went on to claim credit because our aid was targeted better than others. That was her response to the criticism about the amount
1720
of aid. We are all in favour of targeting. But that is no answer to the charge that this Government failed to keep the commitment to the target of 0.7 per cent. of the GNP. Those are the facts. I know that there are extenuating circumstances, grave national problems, economic difficulties and so forth. But this Government made that commitment and have not achieved it.
The reality is even worse than that. The Government have actually moved in the opposite direction. The way that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, put the figures makes it seem that we are doing well. It is an unwitting way of misleading the House. The fact is that the amount of aid that we give is decreasing. Aid, as a proportion of GNP, was 0.51 per cent. when this Government took office in 1979 —the year of Saint Francis—but last year it fell to an all-time low of 0.28 per cent. Given the freeze on the next two years it is expected to fall to 0.26 per cent. in 1995–96. That is almost precisely half of the level that this Government inherited. By any standards—certainly by the standards of abysmal world poverty—that is a tragic dereliction, no matter how it is presented.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has been forced to leave his place. He put forward the view that domestic need should take priority over the needs of developing countries. I cannot share that view. I cannot see how that claim can be put forward at a time when one fifth of the world's population goes hungry every night, one quarter lacks access to safe drinking water and one third lives in abject poverty. I cannot see how anyone can say that domestic need should take priority.
Apart from the question of amount, the question of allocation is of paramount importance. The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, was exactly right when he said that money has been wasted; that governments have wasted it and that the money should go to the NGOs. That is precisely the point on which I hope the Minister will focus when she winds up the debate. We should give the money to the NGOs. They know the problems; they have practical experience and the various crooks around the world who are in power would be robbed of the ability to misuse the funds. I warmly endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes.
As regards commerce or arms sales, when we become involved in those matters we tread on egg shells. The main question arising from the Pergau Dam —I am not going to detail that in my remaining one-and-a-half minutes—is whether it was an isolated incident or part of a pattern. We do not know, but I hope that it was only an isolated incident.
I conclude by saying that no one can avoid the realities of exports, strategic and trade interests and political considerations. But none of these should influence or affect our aid to the developing world. We need to ensure that our aid is not unduly affected by commercial and military considerations and that it should be increased to these desperately poor countries. We should ensure that it goes to the poor people of those countries. I hope that the noble Baroness will continue her marvellous work in her department—it is marvellous work despite my criticisms. I hope that she will help to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP rather than allow the Government to move away from it.
4.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing this debate and to share the disappointment which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, about the performance of this country as regards aid. I listened carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and I am sorry not to see him in his place. I thought he was claiming that as there was less money around it should be targeted to this country rather than overseas. I find that a very difficult argument in days when our gross national product is steadily increasing. I should have thought that we were growing into a wealthier nation as indeed many other nations are in the developed world. It seems to me that at a time when our wealth is greater we are prepared to share a smaller proportion of it with those who are in great need. I therefore find it very difficult to accept the argument that there is less money available than there was in previous decades. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has made clear, the proportion and absolute amount which we give to overseas aid has diminished.
I wish to take up a point made so well and eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes. I share with other noble Lords the sense that he was making points of enormous importance in talking about the poorest of the poor and the way in which they were not being helped by present aid programmes. I share the points that he made about the importance of non-governmental organisations in distributing aid to the poorest of the poor. They are individuals.
There has been much talk in your Lordships' House this afternoon about Africa and perhaps a little less about Asia, which I know to some extent. Those of your Lordships who have trod the streets of Calcutta will know the incredible poverty to be found in that city. However far down you press in Calcutta there always seems to be a level of people living below any level which is imaginable to us as westerners. People make a living out of what seems to be an intolerably small amount of material—a small stretch of pavement and a tap at the end of the road. I find it almost impossible to imagine what life is like for many people in Calcutta and elsewhere in Asia.
NGOs are well used to targeting aid to the very poorest. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will give us some assurance that an increasing proportion of it will be given to those who are most in need; not just to the poorest countries, but to the poorest people. It is not only a question of aid programmes. NGOs are well aware that within each country there are complexities which give rise to poverty within that country. As one example, I mention the carpet industry in India about which Christian Aid has been concerned recently. In the carpet industry in India there are large numbers of boys —some as young as six years of age—working in appalling conditions for what is almost entirely an export industry. That is bound to perpetuate poverty not only because the employees receive very little for the work that they do, but also because in later years they will suffer ill health as adults having been overworked
1722
and underfed. That is perhaps a good example of how something which is occurring in a particular country can perpetuate poverty in that country.
Both the Indians and Christian Aid are arguing that the most effective way to solve this abuse would be to ensure that carpets are stamped with some kind of guarantee proving that they were not made with child labour. I give that illustration just to indicate something of the difficulties which surround helping the very poorest of the poor.
I am aware, as other noble Lords have said, of the part which is played by civil disorder. I know Sri Lanka at first hand as I have lived there myself for some years. I wish to reinforce the points made in your Lordships' House during the debates on asylum—that is to say, that the effects of civil disorder are so frequently felt most profoundly by those countries that immediately border the disorder. In the case of Sri Lanka the country is, of course, India. We in this country have done our best to ensure that it is not our problem; to ensure that Tamil refugees should not be allowed access to this country. Millions of them find their way to India which then has to provide for their needs and make provision for them as refugees. So often it is the poorer countries in our world that are coping with the problems created by civil disorder which, as has already been said, are in part due to poverty and the lack of proper aid in those countries.
I believe that the primary argument for aid has to be the moral one; that there are individuals whose lives are stunted and thwarted. We must do what we can to ensure that there is some kind of fulfilment for them. I am well aware of compassion fatigue. I argue that it is not so much compassion as obligation. My family has served in India for nearly 200 years. I am aware of what we have received from the Indian sub-continent. I believe that as a country we have an obligation to make some kind of return to that country and to others in Asia.
But if that argument is not sufficient then I put forward an argument from self-interest; namely, that at the end of the day if we do not help countries in Asia and Africa to have a proper, developing economy to enable their people to lead fulfilling lives, then the bitterness, the sense of stunted growth and being thwarted, which many people feel, will eventually overflow in the shape of anger and conflict. We might like to think in this country that we can stand apart from that and protect ourselves from it, but at the end of the day we shall not be able to do so; there is an argument as regards self-interest also.
I believe that we should take account of the public mood in this country. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for the splendid way in which she has attempted to defend the aid programme. But there is perhaps collusion between the Government and the public mood to say that this is not our problem; it is all happening far away. That mood should be resisted. I encourage the noble Baroness in her efforts to do so.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, in the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and in my noble friend Lady Chalker, we have two people of complete integrity and sincerity. The

1723
differences between them can be measured only in minor percentage points. The debate today is on a subject about which I am perhaps a gifted amateur. I love the whole scene of development. It is not on aid that I shall concentrate today, but on the development aspects of the Motion before us.
I think that we are missing a trick or two, perhaps living in the past, and failing to recognise the break up of empires which have caused many of these problems. We can really divide the issue into two aspects. There are the disasters brought upon us by God or by acts of God, on which the world must be ready to react instantly and with all the necessary financial support which is required. We cannot budget for disasters. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, says, they are on the increase, resources must be made infinitely available from any country that has them.
My second question relates to the whole purpose of aid. I do not like the word "aid". I think that "development" is a much more acceptable word to use, as is the phrase "assistance in development". Development is a good thing and it is possible. By very definition, today we have developed countries and developing countries. I think that we should get rid of the term "third world"; I have never liked it. As I have said before, it sounds rather like the old third class on British Rail. We must concentrate on where development is possible and on how it can be achieved, because development creates added value and wealth. I am afraid that the problem is man's inhumanity to man. The problem is political.
As the break-ups of empires have continued, so we have seen the spread of that terrible disease—I use that phrase again and again—called "tribalism". It is the tribalism that has emerged in many countries that causes conflict, breakdown in progressive economic development, persecution and poverty.
The Government's policy is, to use one of their little phrases, that they "seek to promote good government". "Good government" is a very simple phrase, but it is perhaps impossible to achieve good government when one seeks only to throw money at things. It is a matter of persuasion, not coercion. It is not a matter of bribery or corruption. It is only when there is stable government within the countries concerned that any form of progress can take place. We should be devoting as many human and other political resources to the creation of good government as we can. It is not so much a question of money; it is often a question of providing the people who, on the ground, can point out the error of ways. Administration is no problem. We should be proud to recognise that in the ODA we have what is probably one of the best administered development organisations. It has a history and knowledge that is unparalleled. Those are not the problems; the problems are political.
If we say that a problem is political, we may be accused of beginning to seek to interfere in other people's sovereignty. That is dangerous. So the problem is how we can persuade people to have good government. That is no easy task. It is not a matter on which I can offer conclusions or make recommendations today.
1724
However, there are areas of hope, many of which I find interesting. Like the right reverend Prelate, I have spent a considerable part of my life involved in India. Indeed, I was an adviser to the Indian Government on the increased production of carpets. There was a very simple problem. Because they could not produce enough carpets during daylight hours, people ruined their eyesight by working at night and they were going blind. One simple Coventry climax generator im-mediately increased production. We then wanted to improve the quality of the wool. With the help of the ODA, we found a couple of merino rams from Australia. They were shipped over to India. That was a great event and all the people from Delhi came up to Srinagar to visit and to see the new farm. We even thought that we might introduce artificial insemination. We had a great party. Your Lordships can imagine what we had for dinner on the barbecue that night—one of the merino rams. It was a considerable embarrassment to me to try to justify that in the budget.
However, we are talking about economics. Several things have caused the problems. The first was inflation in the West. That led to high interest rates, compounding the problems of debt service. Interest rates and inflation are now down in developed countries and the impact of that is just working through the system. The low rate of interest is equivalent to, and in many cases below, the potential growth rate of the countries concerned.
The second cause was the high cost of energy. Many developing countries had no natural energy resources and had to import energy at inflated prices due to the 1974 oil price rises and to the rise in the dollar. In real terms, oil prices are now lower than they were in 1974. Imagine the scenario, my Lords, when suddenly we saw the solution to the political problems in countries such as Iraq, Iran and Libya. Imagine oil prices coming down to seven dollars a barrel. That could be the price if production in those countries came on stream. That would have a further impact on the world.
Then we come to food. The world can produce enough food. It is a very simple matter. One does not even have to talk to some of the Israeli experts with their new technology to realise that, with even one quarter of the land mass of the earth, we could, with the right organisation, produce enough food at lower prices to be able to feed everyone.
We are not facing major development problems. We are facing political problems. I believe that it is in terms of contributing political stability and helping to establish good government that this country can play the greatest role.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we have listened to a most interesting speech. The only point on which I should like to touch is my agreement that the term "third world" should be dropped. I shall not say anything further about that, but I sense that the Minister agrees.
I welcome the very broad scope of the Motion which was moved by my noble friend Lord Judd. He did so in

1725
what I thought was one of his best speeches. We have had several very good speeches from my noble friend in the past two or three years, but this was one of his best.
In recent weeks, as a member of Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali's advisory committee on the 50th anniversary of the United Nations and as an officer of the United Nations Association, the staff of which I joined 48 years ago, I have been involved in many meetings about UN50—not so much relating to the celebration of 50 years of achievement, although there is much achievement, but in considering how the UN's tasks can be better fulfilled in the next 50 years. I greatly admired the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deedes. The only sentence with which I disagreed was that concerning his dismissal of the work of the UN. I have worked with UNICEF and UNHCR. Those agencies have done some outstanding work, usually in close association with the voluntary organisations to which I shall refer.
I think that this is a time when there should be the most fundamental review of the shape of our aid programme to prepare us for the next decade or 20 years and a review of the priorities that we should assume in our national and international policies. Like my noble friend Lord Ashley, I profoundly disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who I am glad to see has returned to his place. The noble Lord missed two or three other criticisms from noble Lords who were not prepared to go along with what we felt was a rather nationalistic point of view about our priorities in terms of resources.
Therefore, I want to advocate that Her Majesty's Government should carry out a very careful review of the aid programme. Obviously it will take some time. I hope that it will be completed by the time that we reach the 50th anniversary of the UN and that it will make the fullest possible use of the experience of the network of non-governmental organisations to which other noble Lords have referred. The Minister has always paid tribute to the work of the NGOs in fulfilling the aid programme. A good deal of her department's resources have been channelled through some of those aid organisations. We should feel very proud of the contribution that they have made in terms of innovation. We should also encourage them in some of the assignments that they have to take on in some of the world's most dangerous situations. Rwanda is one example and Bosnia is another. The House should feel a great, sense of pride in the work of the non-governmental organisations. If I mention par-ticularly Oxfam, Save the Children, Christian Aid, CAFOD, the Red Cross, Action Aid, the World Development Movement and the UNA, it is not because I do not think that the others are greatly deserving of congratulation. I believe that that view is held across the House.
So I want the Government to decide on an aid review. There should also be a defence review and a foreign policy review, but this is not the time to go into those. It is interesting to note that in all those three areas, in particular in aid, although there are political differences, the issues are not primarily party-oriented disagree-ments. It is clear that the respect in which the Minister is held comes from all parties in your Lordships' House.
1726
Except for the injection of contentious issues—for example, the link between aid and the arms trade which is currently under examination by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place—most of the issues are not ones of party political disagreement. Such an aid review would have as its basis much evidence of programmes carried out during the past few decades by the ODA, for which I also have a great deal of respect, and the voluntary agencies.
It is not the case that everything has gone wrong. We must recognise that there have been many great achievements in the field of aid. Oxfam has reminded us in its briefing that the share of the world's population enjoying satisfactory levels of development measured against the UNDP's human development index rose from 25 per cent. in 1960 to 60 per cent. in 1992. That is the result of a great deal of co-operation During the past 50 years, global income has increased sevenfold, from 3 trillion dollars to 22 trillion dollars. Since the world's population has more than doubled, from 2.5 billion to 5.5 billion, per capita income has increased threefold. We can record many achievements of the UN agencies, governmental action and non-governmental action. Between half and three-quarters of the world's population now live under pluralistic and democratic regimes. Oxfam has reminded us that last year elections were held in 45 countries; in some for the first time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am thinking of South Africa, whose election was perhaps the most notable of those held in the past year.
But there is also a negative side. I wish to conclude by touching on the points that were made by my noble friend Lord Ashley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who I thought made an outstanding speech. I am deeply concerned by the level of aid that is being made available to the department run by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. When the Government took office in 1979, aid as a percentage of GNP was 0.51 per cent. Now, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, it is about half that figure and is decreasing. If one imposes a freeze, inevitably the figure decreases. This House cannot be satisfied with that. I hope that we shall have some assurances from the Minister about the future as she sees it. Without enough money, however well directed, the job cannot be done.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it goes without saying that we thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating today's debate. Indeed, it always goes without saying because, whenever anyone rises to speak, it is because the person initiating the debate has given them the opportunity to do so. It is not only we who are speaking who should be grateful to the noble Lord but the country as a whole. It is important that we continue to hammer away at this problem.
A theme that has run through the debate is the affection and respect which Members on all sides have for the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. From time to time it must be a considerable embarrassment to her to be so liked and admired by all parties in this House. If ever she wants some diversionary tactics I hope that she will let us know so that we can change the situation—
Lord Ennals: Or even if she wants another job.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyb: God forbid that she should be taken to another job.
Lord Ennals: Or promotion.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyb: My Lords, there is no promotion from this job; it is the most important job. It is as high as one can get in the political spectrum. That may not be conventional wisdom but I am sure that it is true.
We learn from history that people who can control resources try to make profits out of them. That is not at all surprising. Usually they use protectionism in order to keep their profits up. In order to counter that the doctrine of free trade was invoked. It was designed to help the poor, and to a certain extent it worked. That is to say, it helped the rich, overcrowded manufacturing countries such as our own to keep their industrial masses happy by importing cheap food and paying for it by manufactures, thus keeping employment up, wages down and food cheap. That was so obviously to our benefit that, with the aid of fairly selective quotations from Adam Smith and Ricardo, we managed to persuade ourselves that it was to the advantage of everyone else.
But it has not been to the advantage of everyone else. The fact is that free trade has helped to destroy native agriculture and rural life in many countries, including in Europe. Economic liberalism has done a very great deal of harm. It has spread from early days on these Benches to take over the Tory Party. Now it has taken over the world, with the almost universal approval of everyone for GATT. The trouble with GATT is that in the agricultural area it has the effect of turning large parts of the third world into the producers of cash crops at ever lower prices, with low manpower requirements, resulting in migration to ever burgeoning crime-ridden conurbations. We heard from the right reverend Prelate about Calcutta and other major cities of that kind.
GATT has played an unhelpful part in this, but these days the real villains are not the nation states but the transnational corporations (the TNCs). Their weapons are not tariffs, or the lack of them, but the modern equivalent in an information economy of intellectual property. The US-based Intellectual Property Coalition —which consists of, among others, IBM, Du Pont and Unilever—wishes to establish monopoly intellectual rights. It wishes to patent gene engineering and agricultural seeds and to lengthen the lifespan of all patents. Under the new regime, which is advocated by the US and the EC, entire species of crops and animals, and their seeds and offspring, will be up for grabs as private property. Patenting will mean that farmers lose the right to save and re-use seeds from their harvest, since those too will be corporate property. The World Bank has referred to the genetic world of the South as "fields of gold", and guess who is going to want to get their sticky fingers on all that gold!
No one—and I genuinely mean no one—wants to stop inventors obtaining fair rewards for their inventions. But "fair rewards" are not the same as "the price the market will bear", and certainly not the same as "the price the market will bear artificially reinforced
1728
by various protective devices". The new imperialism of the TNCs must be stopped if we want a world that will have a sustainable economy and, above all, a world which will be at peace because it is felt, if not to be fairly organised, at least to be moving in that direction.
Although what I have been saying is not entirely along the lines that other noble Lords have been talking about, it is not merely an eccentric view from a Back-Bencher. It is what Oxfam and the World-Wide Fund for Nature are saying. They have enormous experience and expertise and it is important that the Government join the battle on the right side. They should not join it, as all their current philosophies might prompt them to do, on the wrong side.
I believe that I have been opposed to almost anything that the Government have privatised or are going to privatise but in the field of intellectual property we are talking about the property of the human race and to privatise it becomes obscene.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on introducing the debate. Many noble Lords have said that it is both timely and important; and I certainly agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, pressed his case with his usual eloquence and forcefulness on those issues.
As someone who has worked at what one might call the coalface of aid delivery in a number of under-developed countries, with UNDP, FAO, USAID and, of course, the ODA, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of such aid with regard to the needs of the developing world, the third world or, as perhaps one should call it, the under-developed world. From my experience, I am happy to comment that the efficacy and efficiency of British aid, through the ODA, is second to none in the developing world. I believe that the most effective form of that is the bilateral system whereby the recipient country and the donor country—namely, the United Kingdom—work together at the local level with acknowledged experts helping local individuals to undertake developments which will lead them to a much fuller comprehension and an ability to stand on their own feet.
It is extremely important that it is seen that the available funds are disbursed in a satisfactory manner so that the British taxpayer can see that his money is wisely, efficiently and effectively disbursed. While all noble Lords in the debate this afternoon believe that the amount of aid is important, I believe also that we must remember that it is not the only measure of the efficacy of overseas aid. The efficiency of how that aid is administered at the local coalface is also particularly important.
Not all aid programmes reach their full potential. In fact, some do not work at all. That is a major problem in some areas. I do not believe that it is a major problem in relation to ODA projects—at least none has come to my mind—but when programmes do not work, it is important that some degree of analysis is undertaken so

1729
that the mistakes that have been made both by the donor and the recipient agency are understood and can be avoided in the future.
To my mind and from my experience the regionalisation of administration, and aid programmes in particular, is important because it provides a local level of understanding. I hold up the relatively new ODA regional office in Pretoria, South Africa, as an example of what is good administration. It is staffed by experienced individuals and has, through modern communication systems, a ready access to central offices in this country and in London.
The Minister will be well aware of the major input that ODA has made to the new South African Government through various advisers on the needs of the new government of that country. It is a country with enormous potential but it also has enormous problems to solve.
Therefore, British aid, through ODA, is well applied and very much appreciated. But there are certain areas in which I believe greater emphasis is needed. The first question is: is there enough of it? I fear that there is not. I do not believe that there will be enough at our present rate with the growth in human population that we shall see over the next few decades. The world population is projected to grow at a massive rate to produce a doubling of the population to 12 billion people by year 2020 and, as has been quoted in this House in a previous debate, in the next 30 years we shall have to produce as much food as has been produced in the past 10,000 years. While it may be theoretically possible to do that, in present circumstances there are many constraints on that food production.
Therefore, apart from major projects such as irrigation and desalination plants, there is a need to provide at local level a means of bringing know-how to the peasants about agriculture, livestock management, health delivery, education and so on. There is a need also to apply what has been termed "sustainable development" and a proper appreciation of plants, soils, man and his livestock because some aid programmes have gone sadly astray and they have led to greater problems than they have solved. A good example of that is the Aswan Dam in Egypt. Again in South Africa, it has been estimated that every tonne of human food that has been produced has resulted in 12 tonnes of topsoil being eroded through poor management and poor appreciation of the synergy required between animals and their herbage.
The second need is the increased need for training of individuals. We need to train individuals from overseas in this country, but we need to train them also at regional centres in their own countries. It may then be possible to train other people, via those regional centres, in the basic aspects of delivering aid to their countries.
Finally, there is a need for increased research along those lines in order that we may deliver our aid more effectively and efficiently with the long-term aim that those countries may eventually reach the point at which they can stand on their own feet. Surely, that must be the long-term effort and aim of overseas aid.
5.18 p.m.
LordMonkswell: My Lords, I must join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing this debate. As we all recognise, he is an unrivalled expert on the subject.
While I join with others in making a plea to the Government to increase the aid, development and support which we give to the third world, I wish to take this opportunity to argue for something rather more fundamental.
First, I should like to tell a couple of little stories which may help to illustrate my theme. Shortly after I started work, I was approached by a shop steward about joining the union. He explained to me that as he was reaching the end of his apprenticeship, he was approached by his boss who said, "I will pay you a little bit extra because I know that you are a hard worker but do not tell anyone else or they will all want extra". That went on for a few years until my colleague suddenly discovered that he was in fact being paid less than everybody else. He forthwith joined the union and thereby ensured that he was paid the proper rate for the job. I have been a union man ever since I heard that story.
The second little tale is of Henry Ford. He was showing the leader of the American auto workers' union round a new car plant. He said, "In a few years, cars will be produced entirely by machines and I shall not need your members". The response was, "If my members are out of work, then who will buy your motor cars?"
We live in an interdependent world. If we beggar our neighbours, we all suffer. In the past 20 years of monetarism and beggar-my-neighbour policies, we have all been impoverished. As the terms of trade of the producers of raw materials mainly in the third world have seen their incomes fall, they have been unable to buy the products of the industrialised first world. We have over the past 20 years seen a rise in poverty and famine and the breakdown in social order in the third world. The most recent devastating example is Rwanda. We have also seen the inexorable rise in unemployment that has so disfigured our society and caused devastating, soul-destroying anguish for millions of our fellow citizens. We must recognise that no one benefits by driving down the incomes of already poor people; on the contrary, we all lose.
So how can we do something about our joint problems? Yes, we can give more aid; indeed, any funds transferred from rich to poor will help, but it is no substitute for paying the rate for the job. In Britain we have some of the most significant commodity exchanges related to world trade. The suggestion that I am making is that we use those exchanges to say to producers, "Instead of driving your prices down, we want to work with you to help you work with your fellow producers to agree a reasonable price for your produce"; in effect, to recognise the trade unions of producers: to abolish the secrecy that enables consumers or purchasers to gain a short-term advantage by playing off one producer against another and to develop a fair system that balances the advantage of producers with the advantage of consumers and, on the basis of free exchange of

1731
information, of prices and costs, to arrive at a system of exchange that is fair. That will involve a radical change in the way business is done. It should involve a radical shift in resources. But what we must accept is that in the process of dealing fairly with our neighbours on the world stage they will deal fairly with us. In my experience, if you treat people reasonably, they will treat you reasonably in return. Let us treat our neighbours on the world stage in the way in which we would like to be treated and, in the process, create a better world for us all.
5.22 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, in the second half of my speech I was going to deal with the subject of population. However, I should like, first, to refer to a few words that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, used in his speech to highlight his concern with the population problem. I believe that he said that there is a major population crisis. For those who have not been in the field, it is interesting to hear such words from the noble Lord; it is an alarm to which we should pay attention. I believe that he then asked for more effective population policies, a request with which I obviously agree. But, to be fair to the noble Lord, he went on to put in context what he was saying by talking about relative resources as among this country, the West and the third world and the situation as regards social justice. That is a balance which we should all try to achieve when discussing the issue of population.
The noble Lord, quite rightly, managed to involve many NGOs in the debate. Indeed, we all received very interesting briefing which has allowed us to understand wider and more detailed concerns than can be expressed in today's short debate. I should especially like to pay tribute to the quality and standard of the briefing material from Action Aid. As I said, I shall talk later about population. But, first, I should like to say that I agree with the thrust of many of today's contributions; namely, that development aid should be targeted more towards reducing real poverty.
I know that that is one of the main considerations of the aid organisation CARE of which I happen to have particular knowledge. I know that the organisation currently believes that one of the best ways to encourage social and economic development is the promotion of female education. That is obviously not a new idea, but it is part of a sustainable human development which provides a number of important socio-economic benefits in the most cost-effective way. Incidentally, and as is well known, it also has a marked effect on the number of children that women choose to have. I also share the view of CARE that further moves of the balance of funding away from bilateral funding would lead to less control and accountability for the ODA.
I hope that some of the NGOs which read the report of today's debate will accept that many of us at Westminster think that the health and population division of the ODA is perhaps the most important. If I may say so, both the Minister and her department have a good record on population matters. I hope that they
1732
will feel able to take the lead and seize the opportunity now before us which has been presented by two particular events.
The first, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is the 10-yearly conference organised by the UN; namely, the UN International Conference on Population and Development at Cairo in September, for which there have already been three preparatory meetings. Secondly, we have the effects of the enormous change of attitude brought about by the new American Administration.
I was slightly surprised to see the other day in a main news programme broadcast on television covering the meeting of President Clinton with the Pope that the only subject which was reported on in their discussion was their total disagreement on population. That reflects the importance of the subject. However, that agreement to disagree in such a public encounter clearly shows the evident gap which exists.
As is well known, the Vatican is lobbying for its position in the dialogue which is taking place in the run up to the UN Conference in Cairo. As I understand it, the conference will be setting a framework within which reproductive health assistance may be given to those countries and people who want it. No government or people are to be forced to accept assistance or practices against their will.
As is widely known, population services are now much more integrated with other medical services, and the direction in which we are now going, encouraged by the ODA, is to emphasise the policy of "Children by Choice". If I may say so, it was encouraging to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, which put the problem in a wider context. In terms of the Motion of the debate, the words "growing needs" are reflected in the extent of the unmet need for family planning services—the extent of which has been confirmed in preparatory documents for the UN Conference.
We have heard much moving talk today of emergency aid and desperate levels of poverty; that is a vital and immediate concern. We have also heard about the longer-term concept of sustainable development. It is vital that, where appropriate, that includes contraceptive services offered in as wide a range as possible.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a similar question to that posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, regarding her position at the Cairo Conference. Can the Minister indicate whether she is optimistic at present about the outcome? Can she say whether, if, as seems likely, there is an impasse in prior discussions with the Vatican about wording, she will be prepared to stand up for her present position, together perhaps with the Americans? Further, can the Minster indicate what discussions she has had with the Americans on the subject?
Finally, given the context of the debate, I do not want to ask now for greater funding for this one area; but does the Minister accept in principle that to achieve what is possible and desirable in stabilising world population a considerably higher level of funding will be required over the coming years?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I think that the invitations from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, were rather widely spread. If he gives a strawberry party, the guests will only get seven strawberries each. In my case I did warn the noble Lord in replying that I might not say things which he would altogether welcome. In fact the debate has gone along slightly different lines from those that I expected. In particular I am glad that there was indeed universal tribute paid to my noble friend the Minister and her department, and a fairly general conviction that the more that was done through her and her department bringing into partnership the voluntary organisations, and the less that was done through multilateral agencies, the more efficient the use of aid would be.
The debate was given an unexpected twist perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, but I do not altogether subscribe to the criticisms that had to be made in his absence because I have a feeling that we ought to take seriously the question of how aid fits into public policy generally. There may well be, as he indicated, some lack of enthusiasm for foreign aid among sections of the public in which case any government of any party which is bound to want popularity is bound to take notice of that.
One can say that those who take that view are mistaken, but it is undeniable that such feelings are held, and the reasons, I think, are fairly obvious. One of them is simply that the whole problem is so vast that it is difficult to take in. I think that the primary answer was that given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon; namely, that one cannot dissociate the fate of this country or of other western countries from what happens in the rest of the world. I would rather, in my crude way, say that one reason for the problems in those parts of the world that we are dealing with is simply premature decolonisation. That is something for which public opinion in the West was largely responsible and which put into power for a generation, as has been agreed, a number of people who not only did not do their best for the people whom they were ruling but who also built up in respect of totally unnecessary projects—civil and military—the debt which now hangs around the necks of their better and more competent successors.
Therefore we have been in this from the beginning and, after all, the historical view is not a terribly optimistic one because the times of troubles that have followed the break-up of empires have in the past lasted for centuries. Indeed we can see most recently in the break-up of another great empire—the Soviet empire —that very much the same kind of thing is happening in the outlying countries which are, if you like, joining the third world. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave the current expectation of life in the third world as it is now defined. It is the same as the current expectation of life in what was the Soviet Union, even in Russia itself.
One consequence of such things has been the movement of population. If there is poverty, people will, if they cannot cope with it on the spot, seek to cope with it by flight. As all of us, even with the seas to protect us, are vulnerable to uncontrolled movements of population on a vast scale, the idea that putting a little more money
1734
in the pockets of one or other disadvantaged group in our own countries is anything like the equivalent of saving the world from mass anarchy and the mass movement of populations is, I think, a view difficult to defend.
It is not, I think,—listening to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and others—difficult to see that we have within our grasp the techniques to make something of aid programmes and to help in averting these disasters. The difficulty is often—here again I shall offend—that we have to cope with long-standing prejudices that are difficult to eradicate. The most important one is, I think, the one mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and that mentioned in the important speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood; namely, that of the Vatican which has considerable clout, particularly in the Democratic Party in America. The Vatican has shown irreducible opposition to any serious measures to curtail population growth which, if unchecked, would probably undo all the rest of the good that we could do.
There are, of course, other prejudices. There is the tribalism to which the right reverend Prelate referred in relation to the conflict in Rwanda. There is also—this is a matter of great concern—the fact that countries which have stable and to some extent efficient governments ought to be able to deal with these problems very largely without aid. In India, for example, there is an indifference on the part of the superior castes to the sufferings of those on the pavements of Calcutta. There needs to be a major change in the outlook of India and other countries before those problems can be dealt with internally, as indeed they should. Good government has been listed on the ODA's list of priorities. Everything that we know suggests that this is a correct priority. The important thing is to give people the chance to reap what they sow and that may mean an investment of human resources beyond anything which we in the west have so far been willing to contemplate.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing this topic. I apologise to him for not being in my place when he began the debate. It is tempting to respond to many of the remarks which have been made during the course of the debate I shall begin by saying something about the relative importance of spending resources at home and abroad. That topic was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill of Harrow and Lord Beloff.
I quite see that it would be politically suicidal for any political party to argue for parity in treatment between its local citizens and people abroad. But the contrast is rather stunning. OECD countries spend on average about 15 per cent. of their GNP on the poor. The figure may be higher or lower for the UK but I do not wish to go into that. Therefore the total of that expenditure would be £90 billion to £100 billion. If that expenditure was spread over all the people, it would be worth £2,000 per head. We give one-third of 1 per cent. of our GNP —about £2 billion—for the three billion or so people of the third world. That works out at about 65p per head. I realise that one cannot do too much but one has to remember that we are not a poor country. Indeed, if we

1735
are to believe the Government, we are getting richer and we are experiencing growth. Therefore there is no excuse for saying, "We are all short of money and therefore we should not be profligate". We have not been profligate at all.
Many attributes have been paid to the noble Baroness this evening. She will no doubt tell us that, although we spend only 0.3 per cent. of GNP, we spend it very well. I would say to that, "Good. Let us spend more money equally well". That would make me very happy. Across all the political parties there seems to be a reluctance openly and boldly to query the problems of international fairness. To that extent, the idealism that was prevalent in politics after the Second World War has disappeared. That is paradoxical, since we are several times richer than we were at that time.
One major change in the world, in addition to the fact that the Cold War has ended—and I must say how much I appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, on that subject—is that our own view of development has changed greatly. In the 1950s and 1960s, when I was studying and teaching development, it was thought that it was all about having money to invest in capital, growth rates of income, and so on. There were target growth rates, for example. We now realise that development has to be in the form of education, clean water, sanitation and so on. The basic needs which had to be fought for in the 1970s have now arrived centre stage, and quite rightly so. We no longer believe that having per capita income growing at X per cent. is enough. We want to make quite sure that people's lives improve in a substantial sense, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, clean water, sanitation and so on.
It is pleasing that there have been improvements in the world in that respect. Many noble Lords have cited the UNDP human development report. One important aspect of that report is that, again in contrast with the 1950s and 1960s, we no longer think that the poverty of the so-called third world is all the fault of the first world and the third world is a helpless victim. The human development report criticises equally the poor countries which find money to spend on armaments when that money should be spent on education and health. It makes its point on a case-by-case basis. In the case of India and Pakistan the money spent on Mirage jets or MiGs is enough to pay for education or clean water.
One has to recognise that often poverty is not so much a case of lack of resources or the level of resources but of the distribution of resources among different priorities. We should be able increasingly to argue boldly that priorities are wrong and have been wrong, both in our policies in the past and in the practices and policies of the poor countries. It is changing those priorities and shifting attention from the more glamorous spending to the more humble and development-inducing spending that is important.
Since time is short perhaps I may comment briefly on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do not believe that TNCs are the great villains of the world. Nor do I agree that GATT is about to do all the horrible things that he suggested. I do not have
1736
time to go into detail, but I should like to say this on the topic. It is surprising that people who press the idea of free trade strongly on the third world do not at home reform their own agricultural subsidies. The common agricultural policy remains; the vast subsidy to American farmers remains; the subsidy to Japanese farmers remains, to the detriment of third world agriculture. Nothing is said about that. When it comes to the multi-fibre agreement there is great reluctance on the part of developed countries to follow their beliefs and opt for free trade.
I believe that we have to overcome the asymmetry. To the extent that it is possible, we should correct the aspects of our policy—not necessarily concerned with aid as such—which are obstacles to development abroad.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, both of whom in their speeches identified areas of policy in the deployment of aid which are essential to its effective use. My noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley said that it went without saying that we all thanked the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating the debate, and then proceeded to say it. I say so too, and so say all of us. We are grateful to the noble Lord and it has been an interesting debate.
Perhaps it would be useful if I said what I am not going to say. I do not propose to talk about the percentage of GNP which we devote to aid, nor to rehearse the arguments about multilateral and bilateral aid. Nor do I propose to engage in controversy about GATT. Nor do I propose to talk about debt, crucially important though that is in the whole spectrum of the third world.
The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, talked about certain failures in our policies towards aid in the past which flow into the present. I should like to concentrate on where there has been success. I believe that in identifying the causes of those successes we may learn lessons which are of application above all in Africa, which has been the continent about which most noble Lords have spoken.
When in December of last year we discussed European Union policy towards aid I asked two questions: first, what was the most effective use of aid; and, secondly, why had certain East Asian countries taken off whereas that had not happened in general in Africa. On the basis of no very sophisticated evidence, I concluded that one factor stood out. That factor was literacy, which in the East Asian countries way back in 1960 was of the order of 80 per cent. and in Africa was, and is, of the order of 40 per cent. I therefore concluded that aid should concentrate heavily on education and, in particular, on the education of women, as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, mentioned.
I shall return to the first of those two topics today. I do not think that I shall have time to deal with the topic of the education of women, but the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, does not need any encouragement to take that aspect of aid seriously.

1737
I have been looking at certain studies of the East Asian miracle, and in particular at the World Bank's report The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy and a critique of that report entitled Miracle or Design? published by the Overseas Development Council of Washington DC. Those two documents seem to me to be of outstanding importance in developing policy in this particular area because they provide an analysis, often highly controversial, of the factors lying behind the East Asian miracle. In the time at my disposal I can only summarise the conclusions I draw from those two documents.
The documents confirm the importance of primary education and literacy. Before take-off, all the countries in question—the East Asian countries; the "four tigers" and those which have joined them—had high primary enrolment and high literacy rates. That confirms my original intuitive conclusion that we should concentrate heavily in our aid programme on education, and above all on primary education rather than secondary education, higher technical education or university education.
That is not the case. This year's ODA report, as I interpret it, reveals that £106 million, or 17 per cent., of the bilateral budget was spent on education, but the majority went to universities, technology centres, secondary education and teaching English. Therefore, a relatively small proportion went to primary education, which I consider the most important. The World Bank survey for 1989–91 shows that in 15 of the 25 countries covered there had been a decline in expenditure on education and that that expenditure was still focused on secondary and higher education. In Bangladesh the 10 per cent. of students who reach university receive 72 per cent. of the educational budget. It is very important to learn and act upon that information.
Secondly, a crucial prerequisite is related to institutional arrangements—what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the ODA call good government. If I have time I may return to that subject.
Thirdly, a degree of economic equality which existed in East Asian countries was an important factor. In both Taiwan and South Korea radical land reform has made a substantial difference to income distribution. The existence of large landowners, your Lordships will be alarmed to hear, would appear to be an obstacle to economic progress.
Fourthly, what is known as shared growth is an important factor—that is to say, a wide distribution of the benefits that growth brings. In most of those countries that takes the form of universal education, a massive programme of public housing in Hong Kong, land reform and the encouragement of small and medium-sized businesses. Underpinning all those factors were economic stability and governmental institutions capable of carrying out consistent policies over a period of time. Hence the most controversial conclusion into which these reports seem to lead one ineluctably was that in almost every case the governments who had presided over the economic takeoff had been, first, according to our standards,
1738
authoritarian, and, secondly, had pursued an industrial policy involving systematic government intervention in the market over an extended period of time.
That is contrary to popular doctrine in this country but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion. The studies by the World Bank were initiated under the initiative of Japan because the Japanese said that their take-off had not been according to the rules followed by the World Bank: there had been consistent government interven-tion, government subsidisation and government industrial policy throughout the crucial years.
The Anglo-American theory, if I may so call it, is based on the proposition that economic and political reform march hand in hand. I have long argued in connection with Central Europe that there seemed to be no empirical or historical evidence to show that that was true. Historically it was almost always the case that economic reform had been introduced by authoritarian regimes, whether they were colonial, as in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong, oligarchic, as in the case of Taiwan, or by an occupying power, as in the, case of the United States in Japan.
Furthermore, it has always seemed to me unlikely that people would vote twice in a democratic constitution for the immediate consequence of economic reform which simply leads as an immediate consequence to high unemployment, high inflation and a sharp drop in industrial growth. Recent elections in Central Europe seem to confirm that that is the case. In every case they swung away from the rather doctrinaire. laissez-faire governments to more conservative/ socialist governments, if I may so describe them.
Let me make clear that those conclusions are my own and have had to be expressed extremely crudely in the time available. However, I emphasise that the conclusions of the two documents—they are often in disagreement with each other—seem to me to represent the result of an exercise which is extremely important and worth while. We need to identify the factors which lie behind take-off. We need to know what has happened where that has been achieved successfully and whether those lessons can be applied elsewhere, such as in Africa.
Two things need to be said: first, important though primary education is, it does not produce quick results. One has to wait 10 or 15 years before it feeds through the system. Secondly, if one looks at the establishment, the market or capitalist economy, in these countries, it is also an extremely slow process. In one of the books that I have read, it has been argued that the foundations of a quasi-capitalist market economy in India were laid in the 19th century. In Africa, where primary education is very poor and where the traditions of a market economy are almost non-existent, we cannot expect rapid change even if we pursue the most imaginative and well-found policies.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the impression that has emerged from today's interesting debate, for me at least, is that nearly all noble Lords who have spoken are fully aware of the complexity, size and importance of world development. However, most speakers were concerned

1739
that the Government were not giving the issue a high enough priority. I think that the only major dissenter from that view was the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I hope that the weight of the arguments of the other speakers, in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and perhaps my remarks, will persuade the noble Lord otherwise.
The criticism that the Government do not allow enough finance for aid is not a criticism of the noble Baroness's department as such, which has deservedly come in for a good deal of praise this afternoon. Rather, the criticism is of the diminishing share of the cake which her department receives. I might add that that is indicated by her exclusion from the Cabinet—a wrong which a Labour Government would put right when her successor takes office.
We are also very concerned about how the noble Baroness's control over her share of the cake is diminishing, as multilateral and European Union agencies take an increasing share, and Eastern Europe appears also to be receiving increasing aid from the budget of her department although originally, as my noble friend said, it was understood that it would be additional money.
Like my noble friend, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could make quite clear what impact aid to Eastern Europe will have on the funds that she has available for other overseas development. I can perhaps accept that as an investment there may be a more rapid return on money spent in Eastern Europe because, to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the educational level of those countries is extremely high. Literacy is almost 100 per cent. When they get their house in order, I think that we shall see some good markets for our industries and those of other countries opening up there.
On the topic of aid money passing from her control, I fully realise that much of the money going to multilateral agencies is well spent and essential. I should just like to know that Britain plays its full part in the administration of those multilateral agencies and in the decision-making process, and, as my noble friend said, this is co-ordinated with the bilateral programmes of this country and others. It is a little disturbing that one multilateral organisation which does exceptionally good work in meeting basic human needs, UNICEF, has had its core funding from the United Kingdom reduced by £1 million this year when in fact the demands on the services that it gives, in particular in emergencies, has greatly increased.
Several noble Lords, particularly my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Desai, have quoted from the United Nations development programme report which has just come out. One of the rather disturbing figures it gives (which was quoted by my noble friend) is that the UK gives a lower proportion of its aid budget to human priorities such as basic education, primary health care, safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, family planning and nutrition than many other countries. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us why the figure is so low when other countries spend twice as much; a higher proportion of their aid is in this category. That
1740
figure differs rather from the ODA's own figures which were given last autumn, simultaneously with the lecture by the noble Baroness at Chatham House, when the ODA introduced a new system of monitoring the allocation of aid according to priority objectives, known, I gather, as PIMs, policy information markers. Last year, according to the ODA, the sector promoting human development, including education, health and children, by choice received 26 per cent. of the ODA budget, not 6.6 per cent., as reported by UNDP.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, put his finger on it, when he said that the ODA's figure is somewhat misleading. As he said, from a total education budget of £115 million, only £5.4 million was spent on primary education. Perhaps the noble Baroness could look at the discrepancy between the figures.
The UNDP report calls for a new and better reporting system of aid, giving more details of the distribution by target groups in human priorities as well as the military spending of both the donor country and the recipient country, linked to aid flows. That would be helpful for those planning aid programmes. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees.
I am sure that in her reply she will refer to emergency aid which other speakers have mentioned and to which this country has made a sizeable contribution, quadrupling or quintupling its contribution in the past four or five years. How is the noble Baroness protecting development aid money from the inroads which the increasing number of emergency claims must make on it? Like her noble friend Lord Deedes, I know that the noble Baroness would like to be able to anticipate emergencies and intervene, if possible before a serious crisis occurs. But that is not easy, as Rwanda and Somalia have shown.
Can she report any progress in the creation of the much discussed early warning system for the United Nations? It should allow early intervention if it is to function properly. I know that we are discussing aid and not peacekeeping, but conflict is more often than not the cause of humanitarian crises. Can the noble Baroness say whether there is any prospect of the standing United Nations contingent suggested by Boutros Boutros Ghali in his Agenda for Peace ever being formed? It might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Rwanda if it had been in existence and ready for immediate dispatch there.
Moving from the humanitarian aspects of aid, I should like to consider aid from the point of view of Britain's self-interest. It is essential for our continued survival as a developed industrial nation that we export, and that markets are found for our products. At present many countries—especially in Africa—are unable to buy their proper share of goods on the world market. As has been pointed out by noble Lords, there are two main reasons for that. First, their chief export commodities are now falling to rock bottom prices. Secondly, their international debt has reached levels which, in effect, have made many countries bankrupt. I think that all noble Lords would agree that aid cannot take the place of trade, and even in very poor countries the value of trade greatly exceeds aid flows. But properly directed aid should surely be able to help less developed

1741
countries to diversify their economies so that they are not dependent on single commodities, usually unrefined products, for foreign exchange. Our aid should be directed to allowing them to export an increasing proportion of value added products—chocolate instead of cocoa, furniture instead of timber—and to manufacture more of their own basic tools which they need for agriculture, transport, water supplies or housing, instead of importing them.
I am not sure that GATT will be helpful to developing countries. Nor are many non-governmental organisations and my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Desai, that GATT will be helpful to developing countries. Tariff barriers to semi-manufactured goods entering Western industrialised countries will remain high for a number of years. The Multi-Fibre Agreement will only be phased out slowly and the main benefits will not occur until nearly a decade after GATT comes in. All less developed countries will be expected to lower their tariffs so that locally made products will have to compete with cheap imports. Nevertheless, I am sure that our aid—especially our technical assistance which is so valuable—must be aimed at allowing less developed countries to take off in the way discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, as the Far Eastern tigers have done. I follow the noble Lord in saying how important it is for basic education and basic human priorities—i.e., investment in human resources—to be part of that process, before they reach the stage of taking off.
Sadly, World Bank loans have so far too often been directed to increased production of basic commodities to service debt, which has accentuated the first problem of low commodity prices. I am glad to read that the World Bank now says that it recognises that the alleviation of poverty and the investment in human capital—for example, health and education—give extremely good returns. We shall be watching the results of the new attitude.
I should have liked to examine much more fully the impact of debt not only on the developing countries but its boomerang effect on our economy, which was discussed by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. It is slowing our recovery from the recession and keeping unemployment at a higher level. To cancel or forgive debts is not a new concept; it played a major part in the recovery from the recession in the 1930s.
I wonder whether the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union and G7 can bring stronger pressure to bear on Japan, who appears to be the main objector to a liberal debt reduction policy— Trinidad and beyond, as other speakers have called it. It has been suggested that the sale of surplus gold stocks of the International Monetary Fund could be a possible source of finance for this. But even if debt were reduced to manageable levels, large amounts of capital will still be required by the poorer nations.
Finally, I wish to make a suggestion as to how this problem might be faced. A number of authoritative figures, starting with Willy Brandt in the early 1980s, now a former president of the World Bank, as well as the late right honourable John Smith, have suggested that the time is now ripe for a carefully targeted new
1742
tranche of special drawing rights to be allowed, of some 10 billion to 12 billion dollars, to finance the recovery of the poorest nations of the world. The last time I suggested that the noble Baroness turned it down, but there is now surely enough accumulated capital in the financial centres of the world to allow for that transfer., which would act not only as a means of hoisting several nations out of poverty and bankruptcy, but also would act at the same time as a boost to the whole world economy, as it is fed back in terms of trade and export orders.
6.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I welcome this important, fascinating and highly committed debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for initiating it, and all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I thank all those who have given generous praise to the ODA, and I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Soulsby; given his experience, to make the remarks that he did make was a double plus for the ODA. I also thank so many of your Lordships for your very kind personal remarks. I shall only say that I do my best with what I can get.
The problems of developing countries and how we respond to them are issues which rightly demand a concern that goes far wider even than this debate. Nevertheless, I hope that the debate will be widely read. I shall respond in a moment to the issues that were raised. But, first, I should like to make two underlying points.
The first is that the circumstances and needs of developing countries vary very greatly. Secondly, our assistance must therefore be tailored to the conditions and priorities of each individual country. The whole of our overall aid strategy, the way in which we pursue the seven priority objectives that I set out in our debate on 2nd March, seeks to reflect this point.
The noble Lord's Motion that is before us talks about,
"the growing needs of the Third World".
I do not suggest that the needs of developing countries are anything other than essential. But I firmly believe that it would be better to describe them, as many noble Lords have done in this debate, as changing needs.
There is increasing differentiation in the experience of developing countries. There is no longer a single third world. As my noble friend Lord Selsdon and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, it is high time that we stopped using that phrase. The developing countries have a great range of experience, from the enormous success which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield described in Uganda to continuing and tragic failure —repeated failure—in too many countries.
It is also wrong to think of the developing world solely in terms of needs, or of decline and difficulty. That does not reflect the reality. Overall conditions in developing countries have improved. Their people are better educated and they live longer, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. But, my goodness, there are so many

1743
big, big problems. After all, AIDS was not the problem 10 years ago that it now is. It is ravaging countries in many parts of the world.
We know that the picture is not uniform. There were countries in East and South-East Asia that were poor 30 years ago by any measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said; some now have incomes as great as those in OECD countries. In South Asia there has been considerable progress, with a growing commitment to economic reform. Even in Africa the picture is not uniformly bad. Over the past 25 years Botswana has had the highest per capita growth in the world. At independence it was the second poorest country in sub-Saharan Africa. Now it is the third richest.
Aid has played a vital part in these successes, supporting key areas of development. But some of those countries have now graduated out of needing our aid. That is a good thing. For instance, aid is less than 1 per cent. of the income of the Asian developing countries. The growing flow of private finance to developing countries is a significant and welcome change that has taken place in recent years. At a time when most donors face constraints on their aid budgets, these private flows play an increasing and important role in financing development. In India, for example, foreign investment has increased eightfold in the past financial year.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred of course to many of the very dark sides of this particular picture. I agree with him that there are countries where poor people are in a really desperate situation. Over 1 billion people in the world are in absolute poverty. They are poor in the sense that they cannot attain even the most basic standards of life which we had 40 years ago and earlier. Many suffer not only from desperately low incomes but also from natural and man-made disasters, on which many noble Lords have spoken tonight. Many rely heavily on aid, but want to rely on trade. So we have a moral duty, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said.
For that reason I regret that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, in what he said. We have a development budget that is less than 1 per cent. of all government expenditure in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, put it, our £2.1 billion budget is very tiny compared with the £90 billion that we devote to needy people in Britain. I am not saying that they should not get it. Of course they should, and we should be helping them. But let us see the figures in true comparison.
Our strategy to help the developing world must reflect the changes and the different experience of developing countries. A central factor in our strategy is to focus on where and how to achieve the maximum impact. Here I want to turn to a remark that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He commented that there had been no White Paper for 19 years, and asked why we were not going to publish one. I ask the noble Lord whether he will please read the ODA departmental report and all our other publications. I think that he will find that the Government's strategy is very succinctly laid out and that it explains in detail just why our policies to support and encourage good government and
1744
economic management in developing countries are so important. As he said, I set out that strategy in my speech at Chatham House last October. I give anything up to 50 speeches a year, and I know that the noble Lord does not like ploughing through them. But we are trying to make sure that people know where we are going and why we are going in that direction. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord has a little more reading to do. It is not necessary, I believe, to go to the expense of a White Paper. However, enough has been said. I shall go on publishing information, because I happen to believe that it is right for the aid programme and its recipients that others who are far better off should know just what the problems are.
When I set out the priority objectives last October, I said that they were all aimed at focusing our aid on the key factors for sustainable development. It is one thing to devise a list of objectives; what is important is to turn them into action. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, we have a computer-based system to help us measure our performance against our seven key objectives. The outcome of that exercise will be made public.
Another element in our strategy is focusing our resources where they are most needed. Many noble Lords referred to the poorest countries and the poorest people. Over 80 per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries, which have little or no access to private finance. That is a higher proportion than for any other G7 donor. But I am working on the others to improve the proportion of their aid that goes to the poorest. Britain's 10 largest aid recipients are low-income countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. All our aid to them is on grant terms. So Britain avoids adding to their debt burden.
Our primary concern is the reduction of poverty. I shall comment in a moment on the wider picture of trade and debt relief to which my noble friend Lord Selsdon and so many other noble Lords referred and which is of great importance. We need direct action in favour of the poorest, but that is not enough on its own. Britain's strategy consists of action at many levels: targeted projects and safety nets which raise the living standards of poor people; making sure that there is support for health, education and other services which benefit the poor—and I shall return to education and literacy in a few moments; and help with reforms that help the poor to earn more in agriculture, manufacturing and trade. The sort of reforms that show them how to make a success of business are all part of the programme, as are the reforms which make the whole economy healthier and faster growing.
We try to provide well-targeted emergency aid to relieve the immediate plight of those suffering from natural or man-made disasters. I could not agree more with what my noble friend Lord Deedes said when he talked about prevention, and we have been very active in encouraging others that more should be devoted to disaster prevention.
An example of where our aid—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned—has been very effective indeed is in Uganda. There has been substantial balance

1745
of payments support since 1986, amounting to £18 million for the last financial year for which we have full figures, 1992–93. We have helped support their economic reform and we have helped finance the purchase of essential imports. We are providing capital aid and advice to help rehabilitate the system of power generation and distribution. We are providing technical co-operation to help improve the quality and accessibility of health care, including the all-important reproductive health care and contraceptive services, as well as a major programme to help them with their enormous AIDS problem. We help with civil service reform, training and technical assistance for the judiciary and with the demobilisation of the armed forces. So we have made a pretty major contribution to help the remarkable recovery that Uganda has made under President Museveni after a decade or more of dictatorship and mismanagement that had brought the country to its knees.
The better off developing countries have greater access to private and semi-concessional finance to help with their development. Here our strategy is carefully to target our interventions, to provide advice and know-how and to fill skill gaps in areas central to further development. We try to be flexible and effective in the help that we give to support the transition to market economies and plural democracies, whether it be in Africa, Eastern Europe or anywhere else. These interventions are low-cost, but they are very effective.
We seek to tailor how we deliver our aid, in some cases using bilateral channels—for example, working with British consultants and companies—in others, working with multilateral agencies, recognising their ability to mobilise the critical mass of finance. As so many of your Lordships have done—particularly my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve—I want to pay a particular tribute to the work of the non-governmental organisation community. My confidence in the work of NGOs is reflected in the growing amount of aid that we channel through them, which has more than doubled in just three years—from £65 million in 1989–90 to £147 million-plus in 1992–93—and it will be even greater when the 1993–94 figures come out. They have done some of the best work under the most difficult circumstances, and they are involved in a growing number of fields, including family planning, education and all the very basic things that these poorest countries need. It would be easy to make a speech for 20 minutes just about the excellent work of the British NGOs, but I think they know that they have my confidence, and it is clear from the debate tonight that they have your Lordships' confidence.
Our support for development is much wider than just the aid of which so many have spoken. This country has been the most active of all in pushing for further action to relieve developing countries of their burden of debt —a matter mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Redesdale, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and many others. The Trinidad terms, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister developed in 1990, have so far benefited 22 of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. I can assure noble Lords that
1746
we are taking every opportunity to press other creditors to improve these terms and to provide more substantial debt reduction for the deserving countries so that they have the opportunity to graduate from the rescheduling process.
The United Kingdom, of course, was also in the forefront of working for a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay Round. This is critically important. I believe that, while the Uruguay Round represents opportunities to all countries, we have to make sure—as the OECD/World Bank report concluded —that the developing countries should benefit from this round. That in turn means making sure that those developing countries do not have their situations worsened by continued protectionism, or an intensification of protectionism, among developed countries. There is a lot of work to be done. The OECD/World Bank study concludes that the proposed liberalisation of trade in manufactured and agricultural products will raise incomes in non-OECD countries by over 78 billion dollars per year. I believe that figure to be an underestimate.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon spoke about the wider picture, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked for help to enable business to start up, which we provide in a whole variety of ways. One of the things that the United Kingdom does better than many other countries is the provision of private investment. In 1992 British private investment was about £1.7 billion, more than half the overall European Union total. Only the United States and Japan do more than we do. This is essential if there is to be increased trade and trading opportunities for the developing countries.
This has been a very interesting debate Many, many issues have been raised, and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I cannot touch upon all of them. I seek to touch upon those which have been mentioned most frequently and which seem to me to be the most important.
When noble Lords were speaking with pride of the improvement in Uganda, several noble Lords raised the big problem that Uganda has with its multilateral debt. We have of course sought to take as much action on bilateral debt as we can, and full Trinidad terms would be of great help to Uganda because Uganda would be one of the first beneficiaries if full Trinidad terms were agreed, and that would then release more money for it to service its multilateral debts and its other needs. There is a lot to be said on this issue, and we are working with the Ugandans. I hope that the second ESAF, under the enlarged facility to which we have contributed quite generously, will be a possibility because Uganda is following its adjustment programme. We hope that it will continue to do so, and I shall be visiting there next month to discuss all these items.
Another issue that has been raised in this debate— most notably by my noble friend Lord Blake—is whether we get value. Do we evaluate? Do we learn? This is a most important point because every NGO and trust working in the developing world knows how critical it is to get full value from what it spends. We have an evaluation department—quite independent from spending departments—which makes use of

1747
external consultants to produce studies and to learn lessons. Our success ratings are quite good. We still make mistakes, but, my goodness, the feed-back of evaluation results are most important and very valuable. Certainly we will go on doing this, and I can assure my noble friends Lord Deedes and Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior that we have no intention of letting up on the quality of the projects we undertake, or indeed of the needs of these people.
We have had an interesting bash again about the UN 0.7 per cent. Just let me say this. We do not have a timetable, but we retain it as a target. We have been averaging 0.3 per cent. over recent years; in 1992 it was 0.31 per cent. I must say that I noted very carefully that in the recent Socialist European manifesto there was no commitment by a future Labour administration to move towards 0.7 per cent. Perhaps they think it will be less difficult for them, given the rate at which GNP might fall under their ideas for economic management. I tease slightly, but the underlying point is there, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said, because the smaller the total, the greater the percentage may be.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked me about the impact of Eastern European spending. Most of that is in forms of education, as I am sure he knows. Indeed, it is a plus for Britain and a plus of which we should not be ashamed. We are doing our very best to make sure that, when we allocate funds, Africa and Asia continue to be our major priorities. There is no lessening of our commitment to the traditional developing countries; nor is there any conflict between our aid objectives in the emerging countries as opposed to the developing countries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, there is need for increased attention to the primary sector of education. We are already actively pursuing this in Zambia and some other countries. We are switching attention from the secondary to the primary sector. It means in-service training for up to 15,000 teachers in Zambia in the primary sector. We are working on a major new primary education package, which I know that my noble friend Lady Macleod will be glad to see, in Malawi. In Andhra Pradesh we have another major programme. We are working with the countries concerned to get the inputs into primary education as effectively as possible.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, my noble friends Lord Soulsby and Lord Beloff, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and, if I may say so, in her first-class speech the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, made reference to population, family planning and its essential nature. In 1992–93 we spent over £100 million on health and Children By Choice programmes. We have increased that substantially already and we hope to go on doing so. I shall be making a series of announcements on further help for population and our help for the Cairo conference at a specially convened meeting at the Royal Society on 11th July. I can confirm to all those who asked that we are actively working with others to ensure wide support for the Cairo action plan. While I am not always an optimist, I can assure noble Lords that we are working with, and on, the Vatican, if
1748
I may so put it. We understand the problems and hope to achieve a good, united outcome. But that underlines the essential nature of education for women. Where women are better educated, it is easier to enable them to control their family size and spacing.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield asked me about the role of Africans in solving conflicts. We are already doing all that we can to support such initiatives. Some of them are being led by the Africans themselves. Presidents Mandela, Museveni, Moi and Mubarak are all involved in such initiatives. These initiatives are going quite well. I shall see what more can be done.
My noble friend Lord Deedes and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, talked about disaster preparedness. It is not quite so bad as my noble friend thought. Long-term development aid is helping to put countries into a better position to deal with the effects of natural disasters, such as the southern African drought. As many have said, the disaster in Somalia was, for example, the result of civil war and conflict and certainly not the result of the lack of an early warning system. Disaster preparedness is a situation which has improved greatly. As a department we are also deeply involved in the Decade of Disaster Reduction and attended the recent conference on that project.
In the end the policies of developing countries themselves are what make the real difference in determining whether those countries develop success-fully. They have to create a framework in which their families and communities can work to improve their lives. We have to help them to do it. We are making a substantial contribution to the process in helping those countries and their peoples to help themselves. We shall continue to do so.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should most genuinely like to thank all those noble Lords who participated in the debate. It has been a good debate and I warmly agree with the Minister that we should all hope that it will be widely read.
There have been some differences of opinion. But how on earth can we deal with the universal affairs of humanity and not have differences? But obviously in all parts of the House there is a genuine conviction that the issues that have brought us together should be on the central political agenda. There are no differences about that. I hope that this debate will have assisted in ensuring that they are given higher consideration in the future. Let me just assure the Minister that I always put her reports at the top of my priority reading list. I find them irresistible. It is because of the exceptionally good showing that she makes of a difficult situation that I should like to be behind her in projecting into the future what we ought to be doing together. That is the relevance of a White Paper.
In thanking everybody concerned, it would be very remiss of me—I am sure that all noble Lords who participated in the debate will endorse my remarks—not to thank the non-governmental organisations who have done so much to brief us for the debate. They carry the banner most valiantly and work in the front line all the

1749
time, bringing back the insights and experience in a way that perhaps nobody else can do and sharing them with us.
I have detected only one dissenting voice in the debate tonight. Again, there seems to be a coalition between the Minister and myself. That voice was that of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I hope that, having heard this debate, he will cheer up and, having taken on board so much positive thinking about the importance of the issues and what can be done, that he will reconsider his rather gloomy conclusions. Poverty is not a British issue or an overseas issue. Poverty is an evil whether it is in Britain or overseas. We want to fight poverty and injustice wherever they are. The challenge is to get the act together overseas and at home.
Again, I am grateful. I hope that we shall be able to return to the subject before long. I always have immense difficulty in this particular role because I genuinely have the deepest admiration for the Minister and what she does. I hope that we in this House can get together and help her do still more, winning her colleagues to a real strategy for the future in the interests of humanity.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Pensions
6.37 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay rose to call attention to the losses which may be incurred by pensioners who have transferred from the state earnings-related pensions scheme to occupational pension schemes or to personal pensions; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the past few years the Government's pension policies and their failure properly to regulate private occupational or personal pension schemes have caused a great deal of anxiety and done some real damage to a very large number of pensioners, present and future. Ministers owe it to the House to explain how they propose to avoid more future damage and to compensate those who have suffered from government policies.
First, in the 1980s, the Government set out—or so it appeared—deliberately to undermine the state earnings-related pensions scheme, or SERPS as it has come to be called. That scheme was the second step in the development of universal contributory pensions after the state contributory pension was introduced by the National Insurance Act 1946 which, incidentally, then raised the retirement pension by 160 per cent. in one stroke.
However, by the 1960s and 1970s, a dilemma had become apparent. With a single contribution and single pension either the contribution was too large for the poorest contributors or the pension was negligible for the better off. Therefore the earnings-related contribution and pension were introduced in the 1976 legislation which, let us remember, at that time was broadly endorsed by all parties. In that form SERPS had many benefits: the pension was contributory and therefore partly earned and not charity; it allowed for different levels of income; it enabled people to change jobs as often as they wished without risking their pension; and
1750
it was both guaranteed by the state and index-linked. That is not just my view. The Financial Times, in an article by Michael Prowse—one of its expert writers —said,
"The original SERPS had all the virtues of a good pension scheme. It offered exceptionally low administrative costs, job mobility and maximum security in old age. Nothing: in the private sector can match this combination of virtues".
How right he was, as it turned out. But what have the present Government done since the mid-1980s? They have set out to undermine SERPS, apparently for only two reasons: first, the Government's obsession (now amounting almost to a feud) against any kind of collective provision for anything; secondly, a largely illusory scare about the prospective army of idle old people who are supposed to threaten us in the coming century. On the latter I would only say this: as better health and fitness raise by 10 per cent. the length of life, so they lengthen by the same proportion the years of fitness to work. Here is an opportunity for more productive work and it is surely the business not of pension policy, but of general economic and employment policy, to see that there are jobs for all those able and anxious to do them.
One settled long-term strategy should be to raise gradually the age of retirement proportionately to the average length of life; the age of 65 is already largely out of date. The Government however, whether or not misled by those perverse motives and, incidentally, with the help of an advertising campaign, proceeded to bribe as many contributors as possible to leave SERPS and take their chance with private personal or occupational pensions. Incidentally, there was nothing to prevent members of SERPS supplementing their state pensions, if they so wished, with private pensions.
The "bribe"—as it generally came to be called—took the form of a tax concession known as a national insurance rebate which made the simple pensioner believe that he or she would gain somehow by contracting out of SERPS into either personal or occupational pension schemes. But the Government offered that bribe at the taxpayers' expense, without either ensuring that the private, personal or occupational pension schemes acquired were at least as favourable as SERPS or that expert independent advice was somehow available to ordinary contributors on this extremely complex subject.
The result was dramatic and one might say illustrates all the joys of deregulation. Up to the present date, according to the financial press, around 5 million people took the bribe and opted out of SERPS. It now turns out that many of those 5 million—some say half—will be worse off than if they had remained in SERPS. One independent actuary states that 1.8 million of the 5 million people will be worse off. No wonder large numbers of those who have been misled are opting back into SERPS. The Securities and Investments Board advises that large numbers of people have been misled. Indeed, only this past weekend the Financial Times said,
"In tens of thousands of cases, policies are thought to have been against the best interests of customers".
Can the Government say whether those figures are correct as regards the number of people who have opted

1751
out and the number of those who are worse off as a result? If my figures are wrong, can the Minister give us the correct ones? If the Government cannot give us more accurate figures, most people will assume that the independent expert estimates are not far from the truth.
The reason why so many pensioners, on balance, have lost out is partly due to Government pressure to opt out; partly due to the absence of expert independent advice and partly also, I am afraid, due to the behaviour of some of the private insurance companies themselves in selling personal pensions. First, a sum amounting to up to 13 per cent. of the bribe handed on by the opter-out to the insurance company was swallowed up in commissions and administrative charges; and, even worse, in some cases, by what the industry calls mis-selling—that is, false promises by the companies' employees, sometimes acting on commission, in order to sell such policies. The taxpayer lost; the prospective pensioner lost and only the insurance companies gained. Some of the more famous insurance companies no doubt acted wholly scrupulously throughout. But some remarkable names have been quoted in the catalogue of mis-selling.
Equally remarkable as the number of people affected in the exercise are the amounts of taxpayers' money poured out by the Government in the whole proceedings. According to the Financial Times analysis, the Government paid out gross £10.5 billion in the past five years by way of rebates to encourage people to opt out of SERPS. The National Audit Office, in an earlier report, gave an estimate of the gross cost to the National Insurance Fund as being £9.3 billion—pretty close to the other estimate. After allowing for the presumed saving on the fund's future obligations as a result of people opting out of SERPS, we have a net cost of £5.9 billion. That was the estimate given by the Audit Office. Can the Government say whether those figures are correct and, if not, will they tell us what the correct figures are?
Whatever the precise total, those are enormous sums of money, particularly when we compare them with the results in terms of pensioners who have suffered. The whole escapade is the most wasteful and reckless disbursement of public money that I can remember. At the same time, the mis-selling of policies by the insurance companies extended not merely to those who opted out of SERPS into personal pension schemes, but also to those who opted into occupational schemes both of which hamper changes in jobs and about which, though many are responsibly managed, much anxiety has been felt by many people since the Maxwell fiasco.
Some months ago the independent Pension Law Review Committee, headed by Professor Goode, made a series of recommendations to restore confidence in the occupational schemes which at present cover 11 million people—it is not a trifle we are discussing this evening —in the public and private sectors together. These detailed recommendations cover the rights and duties of trustees and the companies. They cover compensation for the members of the scheme where there has been
1752
mis-selling and so on and recommendations for fund management and the safeguarding of assets. They are all designed to protect employee members of the scheme.
The all-party Select Committee of the other place which considers social affairs has also broadly endorsed the Goode Committee proposals including stronger representation of members on trustee boards, compensation in the case of fraud, and the appointment of a regulator by the Secretary of State. Surely it is now clear that this branch of pension and trust law ought to be strengthened and clarified. And as this needs legislation, it surely cannot be left to the SIB or the PIA (Personal Investment Authority) whose own responsibilities could respectively do with a bit of clarification.
We have two thorough reports from the Goode Committee and the Select Committee. I understand that we have been promised a White Paper. However, it has been postponed again. Perhaps the Government can tell us the position as regards this presumed White Paper. I hope that the Government will tell us tonight what they propose to do about the committee's recommendations; that they will give the House the figures that I have asked for, particularly as regards the number of people who have opted out of SERPS and the number who are worse off as a result. I hope that the Government will also tell us the gross and net loss to the National Insurance Fund.
In addition, how will the Government compensate those who lost through being persuaded to opt out of SERPS, of which there are certainly many? I would also like to know what plans Ministers have for providing ordinary citizens in future with expert and impartial advice on their future pensions? As we are here discussing the future fortunes of a huge proportion of our working and retired fellow citizens, I also devoutly hope that the Minister can now assure us that the Government firmly support the principle and preservation of SERPS for the future as an essential core of provision for old age in this country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I rise in lonely glory on this side of the House. When I saw the weight of expert names on the list of speakers I wondered whether I had the courage to put myself forward to speak on behalf of the Government. But I have taken up the challenge.
I support the Government. They have reacted to the demographic effect, which is a fact of life. We all know that it is going to happen; namely, that there is going to be an insupportable number of old age pensioners in future. Something should be done seriously to relieve the problem. The Government and the party opposite —if they believe that they are going to be in power for the next 30 years—should be extremely glad that arrangements are being made so that people can make their own provision and relieve the Government of the guarantee which the noble Lord has pointed out is the responsibility of the Government. It is going to be too great a charge on the Government. Alternative arrangements have to be made. The problem is not so

1753
much arguing about how many millions of pounds have been lost here and there, but how to reorganise the whole system in future so that it can work.
There has been some debate on the effect of transfers from SERPS to occupational schemes. As I understand it, an occupational pension scheme is either contracted in or out of SERPS. If you are in an occupational scheme you are extremely unlikely to contract out of SERPS if the scheme that you are in is contracted in. A person would be very ill-advised to do so. I cannot believe that many people have actually done so. People in SERPS have contracted out altogether into personal pensions. A personal pension is the means whereby this country is going to be able to provide pensions in future.
The occupational pension scheme is excellent. Many people are in it and, as the noble Lord said, 11 million people are involved. When people leave an occupational pension scheme they probably have to go into a personal one, otherwise they get left every time they move with some tiny guaranteed minimum pension plan which is left on the books of the company. The company may have responsibility for looking after it for the next 30 years. Then that person leaves the next company five years later and there is another guaranteed minimum pension to be looked after for perhaps 25 years by another company. Additional costs are piling up in the occupational pension scheme which would be relieved if everyone had their own personal pension.
I know that the KPMG survey commissioned by the industry in 1993 produced some fairly horrific figures. But I believe that the jury is still out on the matter. I have no doubt that my noble friend on the Front Bench has many more figures to give us which we shall no doubt all want to hear. Yesterday on the Terrace I was at an industry meeting with insurance brokers and the noble Baroness. They were recommending that the only way to improve SERPS was to ensure that, with increasing age, the Government offered an increasing incentive to contract out of it. They would say that, wouldn't they? It indicates the complication of deciding whether to be in SERPS or out of it. For women it is for a period of 33, 35 or 38 years and for men 40 to 45 years. Different sections of the industry give different figures. It depends on the estimate made by the experts as to which is the right figure.
It is extraordinarily complicated and difficult and of course people have made mistakes. Companies with tied agents have sent them into the field to sell the exchange, which is their job. Some of them have made a good job of it and others a bad job. The problem is that a great many of the companies were ill-advised and certainly did not advise their agents properly. They, together with the insurance brokers, are the people responsible for making good any damage that has been done. It is not the responsibility of the Government to look after that matter.
As the noble Lord said, there are 11 million people in occupational pension schemes. There are 5 million people in private schemes, and 23.5 million people who are employable in this country. We have an enormous record of success in the provision of pension arrangements for private individuals. The state pension is not enough for anybody and no one has suggested that
1754
it is. Private provision has to be made in addition. Therefore I believe that there should be more transfers from SERPS into private pensions where one can make better contributions, with better benefits.
There is the argument as regards a defined benefit as against a defined contribution. The defined benefit cannot be defined; it is a purely notional figure based on what someone is going to get in future. That therefore puts an enormous charge and cost on the provider, who has to make the provision for the future, whereas in the defined contribution system the private individual knows what he is putting away and can readily and immediately find out how much he has in the kitty. He can decide whether he wants to put in more or whether he does not need to put in so much. He has the control. To that extent, I think that personal pension schemes are very much to be recommended.
I should like to hear the actual figures from my noble friend the Minister. I do not believe that they are quite as bad as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, suggested, but no doubt we shall hear. In the meantime, I feel strongly that there should be as much opting out of the various schemes as possible into personal pensions. That is the way of the future.
7 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, this evening we are discussing what is, by any stretch of the imagination, a disaster. Of that there can be no doubt whatsoever. As far as the best actuarial skills can judge, certainly hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens—perhaps millions, as my noble friend Lord Jay has argued—have been persuaded to take financial decisions which will mean that their pensions will be significantly less than they might reasonably have expected. If nothing is done, many will suffer significant hardship in old age.
Those hardships will be a direct result of the Government's pensions policy. It is a fact that if, in the Social Security Act 1986, the Government had not created the option of opting out of SERPS into personal pensions, the disaster which now faces so many of Britain's future pensioners would not happen.
Yet in your Lordships' House on 13th January this year, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, declared:
'The Government's personal pensions policy has been a striking success".—[Official Report, 13/1/94; col. 231]
That remark was an insult to all of those who have seen their pension entitlements decimated. I hope that the noble Lord will take the opportunity today to withdraw that statement and to apologise.
What we are debating is not just a disaster; it is a scandal. It is a scandal not merely because insurance companies and pension funds have wilfully mis-sold personal pensions, often to the most vulnerable people in our society; it is a scandal because the most active, enthusiastic and irresponsible salesman of all was the Conservative Government.
Unfettered by any apparent sense of responsibility, it was the Government who made the hard sell for personal pensions. It was the Government who used £4 billion of taxpayer's money to fund the 2 per cent. bribe for people to opt out of SERPS, plus another £ 10 billion or so in national insurance rebates. It was the

1755
Government who squandered £1.2 million on a prime-time television campaign which portrayed SERPS as a straitjacket from which the British people were to be liberated. And it is the Government who are now spending a miserable £100,000 on a low-key advertising campaign to warn of the pitfalls of the personal pensions policy that they created. Will the noble Lord tell us just how many of the 5 million people who have opted out of SERPS have telephoned the number contained in the Government's new warning advertisement to ask for advice?
When this issue was debated in another place on 30th March this year, the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley, argued that the problems which have arisen with the opt-out from SERPS have become evident only with hindsight. The excuse is simply not credible.
In September 1985, the National Association of Pension Funds stated that:
"It is our firmly held view that a collection of money purchase personal pensions can be no substitute for the security of a defined benefit final salary scheme".
In 1986, commenting on the Government's backing of their hard-sell with the 2 per cent. bribe, the Consumers' Association argued:
"We are concerned that the use of such incentives may encourage people to switch from…SERPS to a personal plan without giving adequate consideration to the benefits forgone. The individual carries far greater risk of ending up with inadequate income by contributing to a money purchase plan than by contributing to a defined benefit scheme".
On the same theme at the same time, the CBI declared:
"This incentive is likely to make employees shortsighted about their pensions. They may be tempted to take the subsidy without understanding the long term implications…relying solely on personal pensions could leave people and their families less well off, if not inadequately provided for".
The CBI was exactly right. "Inadequately provided for" is exactly the position in which millions of people find themselves today.
And yet the Government went ahead despite all the advice. Why did they do it? Was it really just, as Joel Joffé, the former deputy chairman of Allied Dunbar, has argued that this was:
"a government which was ideologically blind to any objections…that the only people it was prepared to listen to were its own supporters"?
That is, of course, self-evidently true. But the Government's policy is based on something more than ideology. It is based on false analysis as well.
The central fallacy in the Government's pensions policy was demonstrated by Mr. Peter Lilley in another place on 30th March. Mr. Lilley said:
"Private provision is good for the individual and for the economy. When the state finances pensions, nothing is saved or set aside for the future. This year's contributions are used to pay this year's pensions. It is pay-as-you-go. By contrast, in private schemes this year's contribution is saved and invested. It goes into British industry to build up the assets that will pay for the pensions in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, when people retire".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/94; cols. 968–69]
That is absolute nonsense. Mr. Lilley is displaying with remarkable frankness that he does not have the faintest idea of how the economy actually works. It is simply not true that the savings of "private schemes" are invested in British industry. For example, since the boom in private pensions began in 1988, investment in
1756
British industry has fallen every year, year after year, and is now at an all-time low. The savings in private pensions go into the purchase of financial assets. Whether there is investment in the real economy, building up real goods and real services to sustain the real incomes of the pensioners and of everyone else in the future, is determined by completely different economic forces, upon which the savings of future pensioners have only very indirect, and very uncertain effects.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, where is the pension money invested on a daily and monthly basis other than in the stock market?
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, investments in the stock market are not translated into real investment in real capacity in British industry. They simply raise the prices of stocks and shares. The noble Earl will know that less than 8 per cent. of investment in British industry is funded through the stock market. More than 80 per cent. of investment in British industry is funded by retained profits. I am afraid that the noble Earl has been misled by Mr. Lilley's total misunderstanding of how the economy actually works.
The correct way of understanding the economics of pensions is to characterise the economy as a cake, a share of which, say 15 per cent., will be consumed at any one time by pensioners. The question is: how do they get their entitlement to that 15 per cent. of the cake? They may receive it as a political entitlement, a commitment made by government to provide a pension —whether a standard state retirement pension, or SERPS. In this case, the 15 per cent. will be extracted from the rest of us by taxation and transferred to the pensioners. Exactly the same process, taking the 15 per cent. from the rest of us and passing it over to the pensioners, takes place with privately funded schemes, but by another far less visible and circuitous route. In the case of a funded scheme, the entitlement to the 15 per cent. is not a political entitlement, but a financial entitlement, the result of the accumulation of financial assets over preceding years. But the rest of us still have to be persuaded not to consume that 15 per cent., and that is done either by persuading us to save—not to consume—or, if we refuse to save, by raising taxes.
In both cases the issue is: who gets what share of the cake at any one time? How much do pensioners as a whole get, and which pensioners get a better deal? Who gives up part of the cake today, so that the pensioners can have it today? And most important of all, can pensioners be confident that they will have sufficient entitlements to a reasonable share of the cake, and can they be sure that their entitlements will be honoured?
The great virtue of SERPS is that those on lower earnings can have some confidence that when they become pensioners they will have a real entitlement, guaranteed by the Government, to their share in the output of the economy at that time.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, surely the problem is that as the population is getting so much older, in 2010 any government will have a big crisis in funding SERPS. That is one of the reasons why the opportunity

1757
to opt out and to buy a personal pension was introduced. Whichever government is in power will have that funding problem.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the noble Lord has been misled by talk of the demographic time bomb. Recent assessments of demographic profiles have considerably reduced the problem that he described. Indeed, the Government's figures which portrayed this problem were incredibly pessimistic about the overall growth of the economy. I can assure the noble Lord that the higher growth of the economy which will be achieved under a Labour Government will make the funding of these pensions much easier.
The great virtue of SERPS is that there is a guarantee. The great weaknesses of personal pensions are that not only are the smaller contributions of low earners swallowed up by the fees and commission charges of the private pension companies, but also that savers have no guarantee whatever that they will actually accumulate any significant entitlements at all.
The Conservatives claim that the SERPS had to be reformed because it costs too much. Did they mean that it costs too much to run? Did they mean that the administrative costs were too high? Of course not. They meant that the transfer to pensioners would be too high. So the pensions of poorer pensioners who relied on SERPS should be cut—cut so that everyone else could have a bigger share of the cake. That is what their so-called pensions reform was all about.
The Government's pensions policy unites choice with insecurity. What is needed is choice with security. Some potential ways forward were outlined by my honourable friend Mr. Donald Dewar in a speech delivered in March of this year. He has examined a variety of routes by which, using perhaps a modernised form of SERPS, a minimum pension income could be combined with a flourishing well-regulated private pensions sector so that those who choose to do so can make extra provision. If there is to be choice with security there must also be an effective mechanism for providing people with accurate and disinterested pensions advice.
It is simply not good enough for Mr. Lilley to argue that:
"no one is better placed and or has greater interest in monitoring the progress of pension arrangements than the individual to whom they belong".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/94; col. 971.]
How is the ordinary person, who is busy earning a living and bringing up a family, expected to understand all the complexities? Mr. Lilley is paid £40,895 a year to spend all his time understanding pensions and his speech demonstrates that he does not understand them at all. Ordinary people need clear, honest advice and the Government should ensure that they get it.
My honourable friend's proposals are for two or three years' time. Our immediate problem is what is to be done about the millions of people who face hardship in old age because of the Government's behaviour toward SERPS. In the past few months, the Government's strategy has become clear; do not apologise, blame everyone else.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, told your Lordships' House that, with respect to SERPS, there is:
1758
"no evidence of systematic compliance problems",—[Official Report, 13/1/94; col. 231]
but,
"where non-compliance with regulations has damaged individual investors, those responsible will take remedial action".—[Official Report, 13/1/94; col. 233.]
What he failed to admit, what is staring everyone else in the face, is that the source of the systematic compliance failure is the Conservative Government who created the structure in the first place. The Government cannot now wash their hands of the SERPS pensioners.
Will the Minister give a firm undertaking today that the procedure for contracting back into SERPS, using DSS form APP2, will be widely publicised, and that those who have contracted out of SERPS will be able to contract back in without loss of benefits as if they had never contracted out?
Will he also categorically reject the arguments of the curious organisation, Conservative Way Forward, an organisation of which Mr. Lilley is, I believe, a member, which proposed in April that:
"ministers should announce the abolition of SERPS … those who remain in SERPS threaten to place an intolerable burden on the state"?
It is exactly that kind of thinking which created the disaster in the first place.
And will he now declare that the Government accept unequivocally the Goode Committee proposal that there should be a pensions regulator with overall responsibil-ity for the prudent operation of the pensions industry?
Finally, will the Minister accept that it is vital to rebuild the broad all-party consensus which used to exist on pensions before the sorry episode of the 1986 Social Security Act? Pensions are too important. They must not be political footballs.
Unless he gives those four assurances, it will be clear that the Conservative Government have every intention of continuing their practice of reneging on their promises to pensioners. They have remorselessly cut the state pension as a proportion of earnings. They have cut the value of SERPS in half. And they have ruthlessly sold potential SERPS pensioners the idea of inappropriate personal pensions, which will leave so many of them impoverished in old age. If there is one lesson to be learnt from this sorry episode it is that the Conservative party can never be trusted on pensions, ever again.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Monks well: My Lords, one of the advantages of a two-hour debate with a relatively limited list of speakers is that we can get some fantastic contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Eatwell, gave masterly expositions of the problem. The speech of my noble friend Lord Eatwell was the finest that I have heard him make in this House. It demonstrates the value of real experts in their field being able to contribute at reasonable length to advise your Lordships.
The debate highlights the horrendous mistakes made by the Government in creating a climate of fiscal, legal and other circumstances which have caused large numbers of people to lose thousands of pounds in pension rights. The problem goes to the heart of this

1759
Government's philosophy: that individuals must stand alone without any reference to the collective benefits that accrue to people working together.
When in the early part of this century the Government of Lloyd George introduced old-age pensions, it was in response to a wide-ranging public campaign by individuals, church groups, community groups and trade unions to meet the needs of people who could no longer support themselves. In effect, it was the recognition by society that it had a duty towards those who could not support themselves.
It is sad that many people do not realise that our original national old-age pension provision was based on popular pressure as a result of the circumstances of the day and was forced on that Liberal Government. The Liberals could not let things develop in that way. Under the Beveridge proposals, their philosophy that things had to be bought and paid for in monetary terms was included in the National Insurance provisions of those proposals of the 1940s. At the same time, large companies developed occupational pension schemes in which the deferred pay of workers was held under the control of company management to deliver pensions for the workers.
As a result of that and in recognition that some workers, while earning higher wages, were not covered by occupational pension schemes, the Government of the 1970s, with all-party support and under the leadership of Barbara Castle, introduced SERPS; the state earnings related pension scheme. But in the climate of the Thatcher Government and in an era of "There is no such thing as society", that concept of good collective provision was too much and it had to be done away with.
I suspect that there was another reason why it had to be done away with. That accords with the experience that I have had in the private sector. Throughout the 1980s one of the spin-offs of companies making workers redundant because of economic circumstances was that the commitments of occupational company pension schemes diminished, as did the need to fund them. A number of companies effectively either took pension holidays or took money out of pension funds because it was surplus to requirements. That practice had been going on for years before the Maxwell situation. I wonder whether part of the Tory Government's reason for their introduction of the old personal pension plan philosophy was to get people out of SERPS and to leave the money in the pot for them to spend in other ways.
The excuse which they used was that people lost their pension rights on transferring from one job to another. The other excuse was the wholly fictitious scare which they raised about the cost of SERPS in the future. Therefore, instead of requiring the harmonisation of occupational pension schemes, the Government devised the concept of personal pension schemes. That effectively broke the links between pensions and collective provision and instituted a regime of personal savings instead of collective pension provision.
When people retire and are unable to work, they are dependent upon their fellow citizens who can work for
1760
the provision of the goods and services which they need to sustain life. To try to translate the provision of those goods and services into a monetary amount at the start of retirement, beset by evils such as inflation and low income during one's working life, is more than society can really bear because of the complete instability of future pension provision.
The problems have manifested themselves in the tragedies which have unfolded before our eyes. Decent people have been persuaded by untrained and unscrupulous salesmen, with government assistance, to surrender a good guaranteed pension under SERPS, underwritten by the state, or a good occupational pension scheme, underwritten by fellow employees, in favour of a personal savings plan. That cannot be called pension provision. It is subject to the vagaries of the stock market, the insurance company or the personal pension fund which is organising it. We have now learnt that the stock market can go down as well as up, which obviously creates a source of instability and lack of assuredness with regard to one's pension provision.
I hope that the loud and clear message to go out from this debate will be that when we retire, we cannot depend on our savings for our future pension provision; we must depend on our fellow workers.
As has been said before in the debate, we are discussing a scandal. The result of the evil excesses— and I choose my words carefully—of this corrupt Government has been that those in our society who are least able to make provision for themselves have opted to go on their own. Low paid teachers, nurses and coalminers have been persuaded to leave good occupational pension schemes. It is sad that those are the very groups of people in our society whom the Government have seen fit to pillory, to attack, to reduce their living standards, and to throw them out of their jobs. Now a number of them will suffer poor pension provision when they retire because the Government have attacked them again in another way.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that I was not in my place when he opened the debate. Not to put too fine a point on it, I was busily lobbying the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, in a good cause. I know that she goes overseas so often and if I had not collared her then, I might not have seen her in time. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I was as speedy as I could be, but I felt that that was something that I had to do.
Old age has many advantages. One of them is that one cares so much less about what other people think. That will enable me to make the speech which I wished to make this evening. However, one of the difficulties of old age in comparison with other stages in one's life, and one which makes the issue of pensions particularly important, is that when you are younger, if you fall on hard times and lose your job or your circumstances change, there is, in normal times, although not so much recently, a reasonable hope that you can start again and make up for some of the losses. There is still an opportunity to improve your purchasing power.

1761
The dread which haunts many old people is that if the security for which they have looked in old age is undermined and they do not receive the income which they expected to receive, there is no way in which they will be able to make good that loss. Most old people do not require high incomes but they want security. They want the certainty that they will have a reasonable income to maintain a reasonable standard of life and, perhaps even more important, they wish to maintain their independence. The fear of poverty, the fear of the loss of independence and being dependent on somebody else for the basic necessities of life, or the inability to maintain something like the standard of life to which they have been accustomed, haunts many old people. That puts the problem of pensions in a rather different class from the problems of other kinds of benefits which we discuss so often in your Lordships' House.
Therefore, I agree absolutely that this is one of the most important subjects for discussion. I regret that there is such a poor attendance at a debate of such importance, although I know that there are many other events taking place which will attract the attention of noble Lords.
I echo one sentence—and almost only one sentence —in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell; namely, that we should try to reach a consensus on the subject of pensions. We did achieve that once and it is a great pity that we have lost it. I am bound to say that some of the speeches that I have heard this evening were a rather odd prelude to the development of consensus. But no doubt that is something with which we can deal later.
I make it absolutely clear that on these Benches we do not applaud or support the continuation of SERPS. I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that we can brush aside the difficulties of a pay-as-you-go scheme in view of the population changes which will take place, and in view of the expectations with regard to standards of living which exist and which will continue to exist both among the employed population and the retired population. My party's policy has always been to advocate a higher basic pension for everyone of which they can be certain. As the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said, anyone who attempts to live exclusively on the basic pension today is in a very difficult position. It is desirable that that basic pension, secured in whatever way you will, should be available for everyone.
With the rising standards of living which we have experienced throughout the century—and most of us, certainly those of us of my age, have observed a change in standards and expectations in all sections of society —people in old age expect and will want something very much more than any basic scheme will be able to give them. In my view, and in the view of my party, it is not reasonable, or a practical possibility, to expect that future generations (and one expects there will be some increase in the younger generation) will be maintained at a standard of living which they expect constantly to be improved. Indeed, there will be many people around because we are all living much longer. I am a real offender in that respect. I know that a great many of us are living long beyond what is reasonably expected. But
1762
here we are, and most of us intend to stay. I see that the Minister seems to be looking for my birth date. If that is the case, I can tell him what it is.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I was not looking for her birth date; indeed, I was referring to other matters relating to demographic changes which might be likely according to the number of children that different Members of the House might have.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, be that as it may, we see no prospect that the reasonable expectations of people in retirement, given the number of people in retirement and the rising expectations through all sections of society, will be maintained simply by transfer payments. Therefore, we say that the basic pension should be raised. It is reasonable and proper that that should be done. But then we should encourage additions to it through a variety of different ways. I agree that appalling things have happened in connection with personal pensions. However, the fact that a particular personal pension scheme has gone wrong does not mean that all such pension schemes should be rejected; on the contrary.
There are many people for whom personal pensions are the best option. We are faced with a labour market in which there is wide acceptance of the fact that a large number of people will change their jobs a considerable number of times in the future. The maintenance of continuing employment throughout one's lifetime will not be the pattern for many people. That has always been the position with women. Indeed, one of the reasons why so many women in old age are living in considerable poverty is that they have never been in continuous employment long enough to acquire through any scheme the kind of pension which they need and ought to have.
There is a great deal to be said for the personal pension if it is handled properly, especially at a time when people will be changing their jobs and when there will be an increasing number of people working part-time or dropping one job and moving on to another. It is something which we should try to develop properly. That is not to say that I support the scheme put forward by the Government. However, I believe that the personal pension programme should not be abandoned: it should be reformed.
There are many criticisms that could be made; for example, the whole system of selling pensions on commission needs to be looked at most carefully. If a recent article in the Economist is to be believed, some horrendous returns have been made by salesmen selling pension schemes. If people are paid on commission— and it applies to anyone selling on commission—they will obviously be biased in the direction of getting a quick sale and increasing their number of sales. I must question whether the commission system is at all appropriate for the way in which personal pensions are being disposed of. I would argue that what we need to do is not to abandon the scheme but to look at it extremely critically to see what changes ought to be made, what selling practices should be prohibited and the ways in which selling practices could be improved.

1763
At present, for the great majority of people the alternative to the personal pension is the occupational pension. The latter has developed very considerably over recent decades. In my view, it is the greatest pity that we did not start on occupational pensions earlier. I remember visiting the TUC some 40 years ago—I am playing on the old-age card—and hearing speakers say, "Oh no, we don't negotiate occupational pensions; that is the responsibility of the state". That has been a great weakness. If the trade unions had negotiated then for occupational pensions, a considerable amount of today's poverty among old people could have been avoided.
However, that is in the past. We need good occupational pension schemes. We should ensure that they are better run and more reliable. After all, we have had the hideous example of Maxwell. But, against that, it is only fair to say that there are many schemes to which one could refer which are paying very satisfactorily as regards occupational pensions. We need to bring the level of occupational pensions up to the standard of the best.
In view of the recommendations that it put forward, the Goode Report should be taken seriously by the Government. Indeed, it is long overdue. We must have new pension legislation on a consensus basis which is based on—though, not necessarily, word for word—the recommendations of the Goode Report, so that we can ensure that we are achieving the right mix of state-based pension, plus personal pensions, plus occupational pensions which gives the flexibility that a rapidly changing labour market requires if people are to have confidence. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, that confidence is so essential to peace of mind in old age. People must know that they will have an adequate income and that their independence can be maintained.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I should just like to say that I thoroughly agree with everything the noble Baroness said. However, I have one point to make with regard to the promotion of occupational pension schemes. I believe it is true to say that the cost of those schemes is such that no new occupational pension scheme has been started by any company in the past three years.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that the House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for raising such an important issue for today's debate. Back in the 1970s, I and many others believed that we had found a solution to the problem of retirement provision. As several speakers have already said, there was all-party agreement to the pensions framework then introduced, including the noble Baroness's party. At that time, the Liberal Party supported that framework which covered the notion that there should be a two-tier pension—the basic flat-rate state pension linked to the earnings index, which I stress —plus a second-tier pension provided either by the state through SERPS (the state earnings related pension scheme) or by a good occupational pension scheme
1764
which could then contract out of participation in SERPS, provided that it met certain standards, including the provision of a guaranteed minimum pension.
SERPS in particular was seen as an enormous advance for people in low paid employment—for people with a chequered work pattern—and especially for women, the majority of whom still earn less than £10,000 a year. Entitlement in SERPS was to be based on the best 20 years' earnings revalued—in recognition of the fact that, for many people, their best earning years are not immediately before retirement but some years earlier.
It was the first opportunity that many working had had to qualify for a pension related in some way to their earnings while at work—an entitlement which many middle-class and professional people in good occupa-tional schemes had long taken for granted. The legislation in the mid-1970s also led to an increase in and an improvement of occupational pension schemes. There was a significant increase in the number of occupational pensions, based on the final salary formula, and funded by employers on a "balance of cost" basis.
Clearly, that was enormously beneficial to the employers who belonged to such schemes. The employees' contribution was often, and still is, set at around 5 per cent. of salary. But in order to meet pensions promises, especially in times of inflation, employers would frequently have to pay double or even three times the amount of the employee contribution.
It is quite true that the set-up was not perfect. In particular it tended to favour in occupational terms those who stayed a lifetime with the same employer, or else those in public service. Those who moved around the labour market were clearly grossly disadvantaged compared with those who stayed put and the Government, looking from the 1980s onwards towards labour mobility, tended not to look on this with favour. But remedies were available, and one of them was actually suggested by the Occupational Pensions Board when I was a member. We suggested that deferred pensions should be uprated in line with inflation to a maximum of 5 per cent. per annum, and while this did not entirely solve the problem it went some way towards doing so.
Those who remained in SERPS, of course, did not have a transferability problem. It would also have been possible to do something about transfer values, generally seen as too low, but the Government preferred —instead of simply legislating in line with the OPB recommendations (although they eventually did so in regard to the uprating of deferred pensions)—to tear down the structure which had only so recently been agreed. So we had in 1985 the so-called Fowler Review.
I well remember the debates on the legislation that followed the Fowler Review because that was the first debate of consequence with which I was involved in your Lordships' House. The clear intention of the Government was to move away from collective pension provision in favour of individual, personal pension provision. In the beginning there seemed even a desire to scrap SERPS altogether. There was much talk of the demographic time-bomb—we have heard some more of

1765
that this evening—awaiting us in the next century when the working population would not be able to support the large number of pensioners. SERPS, we were told, could not be afforded, and that argument has again surfaced.
Moreover, the Government had almost as little liking for collective occupational schemes as they had for SERPS. Clearly they wanted to encourage money-purchase schemes, which had largely begun to disappear following the introduction of the mid-seventies pensions legislation. But the benefits of the Government's stance were always illusory. A good final salary occupational pension scheme is just about the best "fringe benefit" an employee can get and good employers have always recognised this and have understandably seen the provision of good pensions as a way of retaining valuable employees.
Despite the occasional concerns about occupational schemes, such as the doubts about contribution holidays by employers and scandals like that of Maxwell, in general employees lucky enough to be in them are very well served by final salary occupational schemes. They have the great merit that the employee knows precisely what his entitlement will be as it is based on the number of years service, and in a good scheme is capable of producing a pension equal to two-thirds of the employee's final salary at retirement, in the case of an employee who has spent a working lifetime with that employer. That of course goes for people working in public service as well as in a number of previously nationalised industries.
It is not so with money-purchase, where you simply get what the money has been able to obtain over the years by way of investment. If the performance has not been good, the benefit will be that much less. So it is a gamble, which final salary schemes are not, and nor, of course, is SERPS, provided that the Government do not actively seek to wreck it of course. But that is precisely what they have done. They wanted to get rid of SERPS, but there was such an outcry that they could not do so —at least not immediately. So they embarked upon another, less frontal attack. The best 20 years' provision in SERPS was abolished and the accrual rate was worsened. Then people were actively encouraged to leave SERPS and, incidentally, occupational schemes. People who took out personal private pensions were given a national insurance rebate—in other words, a bribe—to persuade them to take out private personal pensions. The Government's attitude gave the green light to the insurance industry to go out and sell private personal pensions. And sell it did: after all, its staff are in business to sell insurance. There was an enormous campaign. There were posters on the Underground which stated, "When did the Government ever give you money?" (referring of course to the national insurance bribe and urging people to take it up) and "Don't be a SERPS" and similar slogans. The implication was that people should rush to pick up this wonderful bargain being offered by the Government.
But we know now—as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and my noble friend Lord Eatwell have said—that it was not wonderful after all. People in good occupational pension schemes were persuaded to leave those schemes
1766
in some instances and to take out private personal pensions when that was clearly not to their advantage. The same is true of SERPS. People who would have been better off to have stayed in SERPS have been encouraged onto the private personal market. Now the Securities and Investments Board is holding an inquiry. The whole thing has become quite scandalous. People have discovered that in order to get the kind of pension they feel they will require, they will have to pay quite large sums of money—the amounts they have been paying are not likely to buy them very much. There clearly has been mis-selling and it is easy of course to blame the sales persons working in the industry. Some companies are already taking steps to do what they should have done anyway and are retraining their sales staff.
But the whole environment in which all this became possible was created by the Government and was ideology-driven by a government who are anti-collective. I know that sales staff were put under terrific pressure to sell. Some of them are members of my union. In some companies commission is a very large element—sometimes the only element—in the salary package. In some companies it is customary to set targets, and sales staff who do not reach those targets are liable to lose jobs. And it is cold out there. There is now a lot of unemployment in the financial services sector and salesmen and women have mortgages and families like everyone else. No, whatever SIB's inquiry reveals, and whatever is done about compensation, the greatest share of blame for this disaster—it is a disaster and I agree with my noble friend Lord Eatwell on that—for many people largely lies with the Government.
The Government have forgone money in the shape of national insurance contributions in order to get private personal pensions off the ground. According to the Financial Times, which my noble friend Lord Jay has already quoted, the Government have forgone £10.5 billion in order to persuade people into private personal pensions. A large number of these would have been better off staying where they were. About 60 per cent. of the nearly 5 million people who took out personal pensions since 1988 were making no provision other than the refund paid out by the Government after they opted out of state pensions. Clearly, this was never going to be enough to buy them pensions of a satisfactory level on the private market. The whole thing has been a quite scandalous folly. The Government should never have sought to undermine the consensus on pensions agreed in the mid-seventies. They should have sought to build on it and improve it.
The argument that private provision had to be encouraged because future generations would not be able to afford SERPS was, in my view, always a false one. Whether the money comes from a state scheme, or via private insurance, the community as a whole still has to pay. If the private market does not produce a reasonable level of pension, then it will have to be supplemented by social security benefits. And it was always unlikely that the poorest section of the population could ever be properly catered for on the private market in any event. Poorer people are simply not a commercial proposition for the industry.

1767
The Government have got a large number of people into an awful mess. A Labour government—which I hope we will have in the not too distant future—will have the task of trying to unscramble what has been done and to return to the fair and reasonable framework devised earlier, but with some updating to take account of some developments since then. Meantime, if a vote of censure were possible in your Lordships' House, this is eminently the kind of issue on which it would be fully warranted.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, spoke about an alleged betrayal by the Conservative Government of pensioners since 1979. I would like just to start with a few facts to put the matter in perspective. Since 1979 we have seen pensioners' average total net incomes grow by something of the order of 42 per cent.
Basic pensions have more than kept in line with inflation. Most pensioners now have income on top of social security benefits—some 88 per cent. of recently retired pensioners and 85 per cent. of all pensioners. Some 61 per cent. of all pensioners and 69 per cent. —in other words the figure is growing, and will continue to grow—of recently retired pensioners receive income from an occupational pension, and that has grown from a mere 43 and 55 per cent in 1979.
The average amount received by occupational pensioners increased by nearly half between 1979 and 1990–91—to over £60 a week. Further, the number of pensioners with saving income has increased dramatic-ally since 1979. The amount of money that pensioners have received from savings now averages some £40.10 a week, again up by 120 per cent since 1979. It fell between 1974 and 1979.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the noble Lord really must not claim credit for the legislation of the Labour Government on occupational pensions. The figures which he gave relating to the growth in occupational pensions are the result of Labour legislation. Does the noble Lord agree that as a share of male average earnings the pension has fallen from 20 per cent. in 1978 to 15 per cent. now, and, if the Government's policy of uprating only with prices is continued, it will fall to about 6 per cent. by the year 2030?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should be very interested to know whether the noble Lord is making a commitment from his own Front Bench to restore the link with prices or earnings, whichever is the higher. If the noble Lord is so doing, I wonder whether he has the permission of the leader of the party opposite and whether that is a commitment for the next election.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware that one cannot make financial commitments these days when the Conservative Party has wrecked the economy to such a degree. If only we have a Labour Government which restores the productivity of the British economy, then decent pensions can be paid again.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's commitment.
If I may, I shall now return to the subject matter of the debate. It may help if I provide some background on the state scheme, SERPS, and on the objective of recent government reforms, and correct some of the misconceptions of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his colleagues.
As the House is perfectly well aware, SERPS operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. Contributions made today go towards paying the pensions of today. During the 1980s, whatever noble Lords say, it became clear that without reform the costs of SERPS would become unsustainable. In the mid-1980s the costs of SERPS were something less than £200 million a year. It was recognised that those costs would escalate rapidly to something around £4 billion a year by the end of the century, rising to some £30 billion by the year 2050. I do not believe that that is a wholly fictitious scare, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said. At the same time, whatever the noble Lord may say—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I know that the noble Lord wants to move on. However, the figures that he quoted of absolute amounts of money do not give a clear indication of the effect on the economy of the proportion of economic output spent on pensions and the proportion of economic output going to the rest of the community. Therefore the figures are rather misleading.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that they are misleading. Perhaps I can put them in simpler, demographic terms. Obviously the proportion of people in work financing the scheme compared with those out of work who are beneficiaries of the scheme—the pensioners—will change. Roughly speaking, at the moment we have something of the order of three workers per pensioner. Roughly, by the time I retire —and I imagine that the noble Lord will retire at about the same time as myself (I have not managed to look up his date of birth)—there will be approximately two workers for each pensioner. It is quite obvious to the meanest intelligence that that will require a 50 per cent. greater contribution from those in work, whether by means of a funded contribution or on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but surely the Government are proceeding on the basis of projections of their own handling of the economy. It is quite possible that if a Conservative government stayed in office for the next 30 or 40 years we would continue to have the economic problems that we have at present in which approximately 25 per cent. of the productive capability of the economy is effectively idle. If we have a Labour government, as we hope to have fairly shortly, a large proportion of that quarter of the productive capacity of the economy will be put back to work. Therefore the figures are again misleading.
Lord Henley: My Lords, they are not misleading. Obviously it is very difficult to make any long-term prediction of the economy to the year 2030, and no one

1769
would do so. What we can say is what SERPS would cost on the old basis. We can also say what we think the demographic changes will be.
It may be that, like the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who I understand has four children, or the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who has three, and myself who have three, everyone might do the same. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, also has three children. As the noble Baroness puts it, we have been highly productive. It might be that the average number of children per family rises from the present 1.9. However, it seems that throughout the Western world there is a general fall-off in birth rates. Therefore, we can predict that there will be those demographic changes. That means that, whatever the state of the economy, those in work will be paying roughly 50 per cent. more to pay for the contributions of tomorrow than they are paying now.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that, whether or not the resources come from the private sector of the economy or the public part of the economy, it still has to be paid for from the same pot? Therefore, whether the funding is private or public does not matter. One has to pay it or people will be starving in the streets.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Baroness makes. One cannot make a total distinction between something that is funded and something that is unfunded. Obviously it all has to be paid for by the economy tomorrow. However, there is still an important distinction between unfunded pensions and funded pensions. I think that the noble Baroness will accept—as I shall go on to show—that the fact that in this country roughly speaking some 50 per cent. of our pension arrangements are funded and 50 per cent. are pay-as-you-go is a considerable strength compared with most of our European colleagues, where pensions are completely unfunded and are all on a pay-as-you-go basis. If the noble Baroness will bear with me I shall go on to set these things out in somewhat greater detail.
As I was trying to make clear, we believe that, unreformed, SERPS looked set to make promises which those future generations—our own children and grandchildren—simply could not afford. That is why we introduced the Fowler reforms in the Social Security Act 1986. We modified SERPS and made it sustainable into the next century. We introduced measures to encourage the growth of funded pension provision, which I have been talking about, where contributions made today are invested to provide pensions in the future.
The Government's objectives on pensions are rooted in that 1986 Act. We wish people to have a choice of pension arrangements which are flexible, portable and appropriate to their needs. We want people to be able to plan for their retirement securely, with confidence in those providing pensions. And we want to see a thriving pensions industry which continues to be the strongest in Europe.
We have made much progress towards those objectives. Before our reforms individuals had
1770
relatively few options. They were compelled to rely either on SERPS or they could be required to join an employer's pension scheme as a condition of employment, even when that particular pension scheme was clearly unsuitable. We gave the choice back to the individual.
Today the individual can choose the pension which best suits him or herself. It could be a state or non-state pension, a personal pension or, if available, according to the firm he or she works for, an occupational scheme. There was relatively little mention of occupational pension schemes, but I have to stress to the House that something of the order of 11 million people are in such schemes, opted out of SERPS. That figure has stayed broadly the same since the 1986 reforms.
Before those reforms no one had a right to move his pension if he changed jobs. Now everyone can transfer the value of accrued pension rights if they choose. If they choose not to transfer, we gave people the right to have the pension they leave behind protected against inflation.
Before, if an individual wanted to save more for retirement, choices were limited. Now everyone has the right to make top-up payments to boost their pension, either to their employer's scheme or by making free-standing contributions.
The success of our reforms in encouraging people to plan for their retirement has been dramatic. I repeat what I said before, which the noble Lord quoted when he demanded my apology. We now have something of the order of eight million personal pension investors—five million of them contracted out of SERPS—in addition to the around 11 million people in various employers' schemes. I simply do not accept the numbers that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, claimed had lost out. Much of the recent coverage in that report has been due to a misunderstanding of the figures and remarks produced by the firm of accountants. I understand that it issued a press notice following the recent articles which, in its own words, aimed to
"set out the background to the reports which have appeared in the press in recent days which have misrepresented our views. There must be a real danger that unnecessary distress could be caused to those people affected".
The newspaper articles demonstrated a misun-derstanding of what DSS statistics on appropriate personal pension investors showed. For example, figures referred only to a single year. They represent only a snapshot of the profile of appropriate personal pension holders. It is earnings over a lifetime which determine an individual's pension. Just because an individual does not receive a DSS contribution in any given year, does not mean that that policy has necessarily been mis-sold. An individual may have become unemployed suddenly, having started the policy while in work. As soon as the individual began working and paying national insurance again, DSS contributions to his personal pension obviously would resume. If he is not earning, or if he is earning below the lower earnings limit, he would not anyway be building up any pension entitlement, had he remained in SERPS.
I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the advantages of personal pensions in particular for those who are likely to move jobs

1771
frequently during their career. With the changing nature of the job market, that is a matter for which we have to plan, in particular for women. Although the noble Baroness did not refer to them, one should mention the strengths of such pensions for those who are self employed and who do not have the advantage of benefiting from SERPS.
Furthermore, since those reforms we have seen some 16,000 more occupational schemes. More people than ever before are committing more of their income to save for a pension.
Last year individuals and their employers contributed £2.5 billion towards personal pensions—almost a tenfold increase over 1988 when contributions totalled just £260 million. And members of occupational schemes have been saving more for retirement too.
Contributions to top-up pensions—known as free-standing AVCs—have grown more than twenty-fold, from just £20 million in 1988 to £420 million last year in 1993. In total, employees and their employers contributed nearly £30 billion in 1992. We believe that, together with the pay-as-you-go scheme, that strong foundation of privately funded pensions built up in this country leaves us well placed to face the challenges of the next century. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, seemed to suggest that it would be far better for the Government to retain all the money. Perhaps I misrepresent him. However, I believe that a balance between both a pay-as-you-go scheme and a funded operation, with the City being able to invest that money, is a far more satisfactory solution than all the money being retained by the Government.
Few European countries have developed any significant level of funded pension provision—and none can rival the strength of the United Kingdom pensions industry. Over £500 billion are invested in pensions and life insurance schemes in the United Kingdom; and that figure, as I said earlier, is more than the rest of the European Union put together. I believe that only now are other countries facing up to the problems we addressed a decade ago and are seeking to emulate British success in building up funded private pension provision for the future.
There was some reference to the problems of Maxwell, which I do not think it would necessarily be appropriate to say anything about this evening, other than that by taking the appropriate action that the Government have taken we have ensured that no Maxwell pensioners have suffered loss of SERPS entitlement; and in fact all pensions have been kept in payment thanks to government action. However, as it obviously raised very serious issues concerning the regulation of occupational pension schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, mentioned, we set up the committee under Professor Goode to give detailed scrutiny to these matters. The noble Lord, referred to it. That committee presented its report last September. I am afraid that at the moment I can only say that we are considering its recommendations most carefully and are undertaking further consultation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security intends
1772
to publish a White Paper soon setting out his proposals for the future regulation and governance of occupational pension schemes.
The Government are equally determined that there should be effective regulation of personal pensions. The House will be aware that the Securities and Investments Board has recently uncovered evidence—the matter was referred to—of what, regrettably, can only be described as poor compliance with rules on selling practice involving the sale of personal pensions to people transferring from employers' schemes. That was in fact the subject of the original Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, although not, strictly speaking, the subject of today's Motion, although it is a matter that we ought to address this evening.
The chairman of the SIB has made it quite clear that there is no evidence of fraud or theft. Nor is it clear to what extent investors' interests may have been damaged. Nonetheless, we believe that it is a highly serious matter and the Government have made their position clear. Concerns about compliance must be thoroughly investigated by the regulatory authorities to determine the extent of any problems. Where investors have lost out as a result of mis-selling, it must be put right. And anyone whose pension arrangements have been jeopardised must have a remedy.
The Securities and Investments Board is undertaking a major investigation into pension transfer sales. It has already taken action to prevent and to deter future mis-selling. Last month the SIB published new guidance for raising future standards of business, with new requirements for companies undertaking pension transfers.
The SIB has already ordered pension providers and independent intermediaries to begin to identify pension transfer business for clients who may have suffered disadvantage. Those measures will start to take effect from the beginning of July. Within the next few weeks, we expect the SIB to complete its investigations, and to make a full report.
The SIB will tell providers and intermediaries how they should review their pension transfer business for clients who may have suffered disadvantage. It will provide guidance on how firms should contact their clients. And it will lay down a framework by which firms should calculate redress in cases where investors have suffered harm and not been adequately protected by the regulations. So no personal pension investor need be alarmed. Nor should they take precipitate action. If investors have any questions about their policy, they should contact their personal pension provider.
The SIB's current investigation does not extend to the sale of personal pensions used in place of SERPS —known as "appropriate" personal pensions, more properly the subject of today's debate. The chairman of the SIB has indicated that he has no evidence of systematic non-compliance with rules covering the sales of schemes used in place of SERPS, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said. Nevertheless, the SIB will be conducting a review of these sales in due course. As in the case of pension transfers, if the SIB finds evidence of bad advice and mis-selling of appropriate personal

1773
pensions, the Government will expect those firms responsible for the bad advice to provide suitable remedy.
The Government will continue to take action where necessary to provide security for pension entitlements. We recognise that people must be able to rely on the highest standards of advice when choosing a pension. Again, it seems a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, seemed to be of the opinion that most people are not able to understand such advice. We want those pension consumers to be able to make informed choices based on sound information. That is why my right honourable friend has published a number of booklets offering advice to those desiring to contract out or make the most of their personal pension. I can give assurance to the noble Lord that the booklet published in January 1994 makes quite clear at page 4 that, if in the future you no longer want the DSS to contribute to your personal pension, ask your personal pension provider for Form A PP2, which I believe was the form to which the noble Lord referred. That form is to be completed and sent to the address on the form.
That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor directed the Securities and Investments Board to prepare rules to give greater transparency to personal pension charges and commissions. In future, illustrations of personal pension benefits must reflect the actual charges levied by a provider so that investors can compare the cost of different products. And anyone selling personal pensions must reveal to potential investors how much they stand to gain in commission by making a sale. We believe that effective disclosure of charges and commissions is the best way to protect consumers from overpriced products and the dangers of biased advice. I hope that that will go some way towards meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
In addition, as I made quite clear, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has also published three new guides, one of which I referred to, providing information to people who are thinking about, or have just started, a personal pension. These guides advise people to assess all their options before finally choosing a pension and to take expert advice. I can also advise that we have a special telephone ordering service which has been set up so that people can order their own copy. We have also published guidance for employers who want to give advice to employees about pensions. That new guidance for employees sets out some straightforward do's and dont's to help employers assist their staff to make more informed decisions about pensions.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we on this side of the House regard all this remedial action as very worth while; but will he explain why it is being taken now, six years after the introduction of the scheme, when so many respectable bodies—for instance, the Consumers' Association and the CBI— argue that that information should have been available in 1988? If it had been available then, the serious losses which we discussed this evening would not have been suffered by so many pensioners.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we regret those losses and they are unfortunate. That is why we set out what the noble Lord referred to as the remedial action. I do not believe that such mis-selling as has happened was to the extent that the noble Lord claimed. I do not believe that it was as extensive as the noble Lord will claim. I do not believe that it was possible to predict that there might be that degree of mis-selling.
In the main, I believe, and I repeat what I said earlier, that those 5 million personal pension investors, plus the 3 million over and above, who are not necessarily contracted out of SERPS, have gained from taking out their personal pensions. I think that we have seen dramatic growth in the entire pensions world. We have also seen the number of those in company schemes, in occupational schemes, remain static at round about 11 million. In other words, the 5 million plus the 3 million on top are a growth in the number who have taken out pensions. I think that they have all positively benefited from it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the KPMG analysis, which is very detailed, says that overall some 83 per cent. of files of the cases reviewed were classified as unsatisfactory and lacking in evidence of compliance or unsatisfactory and suspect? I think that that is a quite desperate piece of evidence against the selling of personal private pensions to people already in pension schemes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I go back to what I quoted, what the chairman of the SIB said. First, he indicated that there was no evidence of systematic non-compliance with rules covering the sale of schemes used in place of SERPS; no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Nevertheless, he said that it would be conducting a review of those sales in due course. As in the case of pension transfers, if the SIB finds evidence of bad advice—and I think that it should be a matter for the SIB—and mis-selling of appropriate personal pensions, obviously the Government would expect those firms responsible for that bad advice to provide a suitable remedy.
I am not taking any more interventions. I intend to end now. I have been speaking for some 24 minutes and I feel that I have taken quite enough in the way of interventions.
We believe that the benefits of our strategy are clear. Through greater flexibility we have encouraged a healthy and, more important, diverse pensions industry. Through wider choice we have encouraged more people to plan for their own retirement income. The end result has been an increased reserve of funded pensions providing a flow of investment for industry today and affordable security for individuals in the future.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I cordially thank all those who have spoken in the debate this evening. The quality of the speeches has fully made up for any paucity in the audience. I wish to say, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I think that she not only did not hear my speech but she also misunderstood it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that would be a remarkable feat: to misunderstand something that I had not heard. My capacity for misunderstanding things is considerable, but it does not go to that length.
Lord Jay: My Lords, the noble Baroness misun-derstood in this respect. She appeared to think that I and others on this side of the House wished to abolish occupational personal pensions altogether. Not at all. I have always believed and still believe that one may have a basic state pension on which people can rely and in addition to that allow individuals to join personal pension schemes and become members of occupational schemes. So there is a considerable consensus between the noble Baroness and myself.
I would only comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Eatwell that I fully endorse the strong language which he used in the course of it. The only reason I did not use it is not that I did not think it justified but because of natural bias towards moderation.
In commenting on the Minister's speech I would only say that in the first case the fallacy of his figures relating to the terrible burden ahead is that they are all based on the assumption that the retiring age remains at 65. That is a fallacy. The retiring age must rise as length of life and fitness to work also rise.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will accept an intervention at this stage, it is important to get this on the record. I accept that there is probably a need for the retirement age in due course to creep up. What has been happening over the past few years, as people have become richer and richer, is that they tend to retire much earlier than they used to. Whether one can reverse that trend is a difficult question. If the noble Lord is offering the support of his party for increasing the retirement age, I shall be interested to know. But I heard no commitments of that kind from his noble friends on the Front Bench.
Lord Jay: My Lords, the reason why the retirement age has been falling is that the Government's economic policies have caused such heavy unemployment. That we intend to alter. The noble Lord filled his speech with a great deal of information. If I heard him aright, he did not answer some of the most crucial questions. He told us that 5 million opted out of SERPS, but he did not answer my question as to what proportion of those were worse off as a result. If he is not prepared to give a figure, I think we must naturally accept the almost universal figure given in the financial press that about half of them were worse off as a result.
I understood from the Minister that the Government are considering the Goode Report. If I heard him aright, they propose to adopt many of the proposals made. What I think the past five years have shown is that, although we ought to have personal pensions, it is clear that if we do they ought to be regulated far more efficiently than they have been in the past. I understand that in spirit that is what the Minister meant.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again the noble Lord will not mind me intervening. He would not expect any major announcements on Goode to be made by a junior Minister from a different department in a debate of this
1776
nature. What I simply said—and this did not imply any total acceptance of Goode, or total rejection of Goode, or anything; I made no commitment whatsoever other than that my right honourable friend will be publishing a White Paper shortly. The noble Lord will have to wait for that. I would rather he did not put any interpretation into what I said and my words.
Lord Jay: My Lords, at least we have discovered that there will be a White Paper shortly. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how shortly. I presume that the White Paper will require legislation, because if there is to be really effective regulation, there must be legislation to back it. Therefore, my parting comment to the Minister is that we shall watch things extremely carefully and come back again if he does not give a more convincing answer than he has given tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly. [The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duties with respect to the environment]:
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("(aa) to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas;").
The noble Viscount said: I have been involved in matters on water all afternoon. Members of the Committee may be pleased to hear that we again beat the Commons in the annual yacht race!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Addison: This amendment would require an internal drainage board, each of the Ministers and the NRA,
"to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas",
in formulating or considering any proposals relating to any functions of an internal drainage board.
The duties placed on internal drainage boards, each of the Ministers and the NRA in relation to the land drainage activities of internal drainage boards can be summarised as: to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty; to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings; and to take into account any effects on the beauty or amenity of any area. These environmental duties are explicit. In contrast, the extent to which all those involved should take account of the needs of agriculture and forestry, and of the economic and social interests of rural areas, is far less clear.

1777
On page 1 of the Bill lines 14 to 25 state that the duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty is to be exercised
"so far as may be consistent … with the purposes of any enactment relating to the functions of … [an internal drainage] board".
It is not clear what that requirement means in relation to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. Moreover, that requirement appears to apply only to the duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, not to the additional duties to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings and to take into account any affects on the beauty or amenity of any area. It may be helpful to note that this amendment parallels a provision that already exists in other legislation.
Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 places a duty on every Minister, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and local authorities, in exercising their functions under that Act, to
"have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas".
A parallel provision is needed in the current Bill in relation to the duties that it would confer on the Minister, the National Rivers Authority and internal drainage boards. Otherwise, there may be a risk that, in seeking to honour their environmental duties, internal drainage boards may neglect the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. Providing such a duty towards agriculture, forestry and economic and social interests would be entirely consistent with the tenets of sustainable development. It would emphasise the need for an integrated approach to be taken in this area, as elsewhere.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, may in part have dealt with that concern in his response to the debate at Second Reading, when he said that, the legislation under which … [internal drainage boards] act,
"rightly gives precedence to flood defence considerations, and that will not change".—[Official Report, 26/5/94; col. 891]
It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that all the environmental duties established by Clause 61A of this Bill will indeed be exercised only in so far as they are consistent with, and have due regard to, the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: These amendments are rather similar to amendments that were moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the National Parks Bill. But there is a difference in this case: the internal drainage boards already act in the interests of agriculture and forestry, and indeed the economy. The reason for the provision in this Bill to further conservation is to provide a check on just those activities. Therefore I feel that this particular amendment and the following one are probably unnecessary. I hope that whoever is to wind up can confirm that. The constitution of the internal drainage boards ensures that local agricultural interests are well represented.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say to the Minister and to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, that I am very anxious that the arrival of
1778
these amendments should not delay the progress of the Bill. I should like to ask the Minister this question: if the Bill should collapse as a result of delays in this Chamber now, will he assure us that its provisions will be included in the next possible vehicle which is available to the Government; and that if that happens the wording of this Bill as it stands will be unchanged?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Perhaps I may say a general word on the amendments as a whole. This Party is very much in favour of the Bill going through, and we very much hope that it will. We hope therefore that, as a result of the replies that will be given by the noble Earl and by the spokesman for the Government, the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be satisfied and will not cany these amendments on. It would be a very great pity if a Bill which is already in danger of running out of time were to run into the ground. I have to say yet again that it is a great pity that so many good Bills which should be government Bills have to come to us under private patronage —although we admire the masochism of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and others who undertake them. It is important that good Bills which basically have no opposition should go through. It is my advice, as it is the advice of the noble Baroness, that these amendments as a whole are unnecessary. I have a whole sheaf of arguments which I could produce to try to reinforce that point. But I have placed my trust in the noble Earl and in the Government Front Bench, and in the good sense of the proposers of these amendments that they will in due course withdraw them.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of -Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): I believe that I can help my noble friend Lord Addison by confirming that the conservation duties in Sections 61A and 61B apply only so far as they are consistent with the flood defence functions of internal drainage boards and local authorities. That simply carries forward the present position under Section 12 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 so far as IDBs are concerned; and new Section 61B, although we have not yet come to that, would apply that also to local authorities.
We should not lose sight of the fact that, under the 1991 Act, the prime function of boards and local authorities is to provide for land drainage and flood defence. There should be no doubt about that. Conservation duties are subject to that, and my noble friend's Bill would not alter that emphasis. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary, particularly when one considers—to take up a point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol,—that internal drainage boards are governed by a combination of agricultural drainage ratepayers and local authority nominees who will be well versed in agriculture, forestry and rural matters generally. I hope that what I have said provides the reassurance that my noble friend needs.
The noble Baroness asked whether, if this Bill were to fail in this Chamber, the Government would reintroduce these measures as now drafted. I naturally very much hope that this Bill will not fail. It carries the full support of the Government. For that reason it would

1779
not perhaps be helpful to speculate about unfortunate eventualities of that kind. I would reiterate that the Bill carries the full support of the Government.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: The effect of my noble friend's amendment, as he has explained, would require internal drainage boards specifically to take account of the needs of agriculture and forestry and economic and social interests of rural areas in carrying out their functions. I should make clear, however, that the new Section 61A does not tilt the duties of internal drainage boards towards conservation; in fact it does not do anything new at all. It simply carries forward the existing provisions of Section 12 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 to the new Part IVA of the Act, which my noble friend the Minister has explained. This brings together all the environmental provisions that affect boards and local authorities.
The main function of an IDB under Section 1 of the 1991 Act is to carry out land drainage and flood defences within its district. My Bill does not change that. Internal drainage boards already have to balance the needs of flood defence and conservation—and that is quite clear despite my noble friend feeling that it was not. The present legislation carried forward in this Bill makes clear that action for further conservation must always be consistent with action that is necessary on flood defence grounds. The economic considerations and the needs of agriculture and forestry are taken into account, one would almost say, automatically, in the way that the boards are constituted and in the way that they actually function. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, described, boards are governed by a combination of agricultural drainage ratepayers' representatives and local authority nominees. Socio-economic factors are an integral part of the boards' flood defence considerations, and I do not think that it is necessary or appropriate to use this Bill to seek to change the existing general provisions on flood defence.
I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the assurances that he has given on the points raised so far, but in the light of what has been said, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: I too thank the Minister for his assurances, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert:
("(aa) to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas;").
The noble Viscount said: Again this amendment would require a local authority, each of the Ministers and the NRA to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas in formulating or considering any proposals relating to any functions of a local authority under this Bill. Clause 61B places new duties on local authorities, each of the Ministers and the NRA in relation to the land drainage functions of local
1780
authorities. These can be summarised as to understand further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings and to take into account any effect on the beauty or amenity of any area.
In contrast to the duties that are imposed on internal drainage boards, each of the Ministers and the NRA under new Section 61A in the Bill, these are entirely new duties; they do not already exist in the Land Drainage Act 1991. It is therefore particularly important to ensure that these new duties are properly balanced as regards all the interests that are affected by them. The amendment would have the same effect as that proposed in relation to new Section 61A but in relation to local authorities rather than to internal drainage boards. The same arguments apply and there is no need to repeat them in this context.
This particular concern in relation to local authorities was not addressed by either the Minister or the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in replying to the debate. I note, however, that in lines 25 to 35 on page 3 of the Bill it is stated that the duty to further the conservation enhancement of natural beauty applies only so far as may be consistent with the purposes of this Bill. It would appear to mean the land drainage purposes of the Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure me that, in exercising all their new environmental duties under this Bill, local authorities will have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: The arguments that we made on the earlier amendment also apply to this one. The local authorities are there to represent the views of their electorates, and the electorate in this case have strong representations from forestry, agriculture and other interests. The sole purpose of placing this duty on the boards is so that the economic, forestry and agricultural interests will not be solely considered; they will also have to consider the needs of conservation. I am sure that the arguments still apply, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not press his amendment.
Earl Howe: I hope my noble friend Lord Addison will not wish to press Amendment No. 2 having now withdrawn Amendment No. 1. The duties applying to IDBs and local authorities do, as I am sure he will acknowledge, need to be kept in line. In any event, local authorities will have—and indeed do have—a wide range of duties and functions, and they will be well aware of the social and economic interests of rural areas. For these reasons I do see this amendment as unhelpful. I hope that the reassurances I gave on the last amendment as to the prime functions of IDBs under the Land Drainage Act 1991, which carry forward into this Bill and apply also to local authorities, will assist my noble friend once again as he considers what to do with this amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: The new Section 61B applies the same conservation duties to local authorities when carrying out their flood defence functions under the Land Drainage Act 1991 as already applied to IDBs. Like IDBs, the conservation duties apply only in so far

1781
as they are consistent with local authorities' flood defence functions. As my noble friend the Minister has outlined, local authorities are very experienced in balancing various needs, including those of a socio-economic nature. I also think that it is sensible for corresponding provisions relating to different drainage bodies to keep in step. I hope therefore that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: I thank the Minister for his assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 17, after ("features") insert: ("and that Council has notified that fact, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 —

(i) to the local planning authority in whose area the
land is situated;

(ii) to every owner and occupier of any of that land;
and

(iii) to the Secretary of State for the Environment or for Wales, as the case may be").

The noble Viscount said: The amendment would make it clear that the reference in new Section 61C(1) to,
"any area of land … [which] is of special interest",
excludes any such areas which have not already been notified as sites of special scientific interest under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. If the nature or conservation agencies wished to notify any internal drainage board or local authority whose work might affect any other area of land, the agencies would first have to notify that land as a site of special scientific interest under Section 28 of the 1981 Act.
Subsection (l).of new Section 61C requires the conservation agencies to notify internal drainage boards and local authorities where the agencies consider that any area of land is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features and that it may be affected by works, operations or activities of an internal drainage board or local authority. The reference to,
"any area of land … of special interest",
is not qualified in any way, although the note against new Section 61C in the margin of the Bill refers to the duties with respect to sites of special scientific interest. The explanatory memorandum makes a similar reference. It can be presumed that the sites of special scientific interest involved are those identified by the agencies under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that this presumption is correct.
The situation needs to be clarified because of the potential for confusion between sites of special scientific interest identified under the 1981 Act and other sites given credibility by county wildlife trusts and local authorities but not formally recognised as sites of special scientific interest under the 1981 Act.
Many county wildlife trusts are currently drawing up scheduled sites of local nature conservation importance. They may also be known under a range of other names. Often the owners of such sites are not told that they have been identified in that way. Those schedules have been presented to local authorities and local authorities are
1782
being requested to protect the sites listed on them; for example, through the town and country planning system.
The lists may also be made available to statutory conservation agencies and also be sent to internal drainage boards. Unless the Bill specifically refers to formal sites of special scientific interest, the statutory conservation agencies may notify internal drainage boards of other sites of less value. Works affecting those sites will then be subject to consultation procedures which would not necessarily have applied otherwise. That would be of particular concern where, as is often the case, the owners of such sites were not aware that their land had been identified in that way. The problem does not arise in relation to SSSIs because land owners and occupiers are notified directly that the site has been formally notified by the statutory conservation agency.
In the debate on Second Reading, the Minister, responding to the anxieties raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, maintained that the relevant provision of the Bill had been on the statute book in that form since 1989 and that it had not created problems. He added that there was no reason to believe that it would do so in the future. At that stage therefore, the Government had no plans to amend the clause in the way suggested by the noble Earl—I refer to the Official Report, 26th May 1994; cols. 888–889.
The fact that the provision is merely being re-enacted and problems have not so far arisen in respect of it is no defence for imprecise drafting. Perhaps in 1989 little concern was expressed about sites of local conservation importance. The situation today is quite different. County wildlife trusts take every opportunity to seek protection for such sites, notably through local authority development plans. Sites of local nature conservation importance are therefore gaining a credibility which they did not have five years ago. The potential for confusion between such sites and sites of special scientific interest is that much greater and, accordingly, so is the need for clarification.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the provision has not created problems and why it is not expected to do so in the future. For example, it would be helpful to know what consultation arrangements generally exist between IDBs and local authorities, and the statutory agencies and local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In the absence of my noble friends Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher—who have been down more drains than I have had hot dinners and therefore understand these issues far better than I do —I have been asked to say that this is a Private Bill and they take no powerful or direct interest in it. It is up to the supporters of the Bill to persuade the Committee and obtain the support of the Government. We know from the history of this Bill that the Government were not only in at its conception and birth, but are very well versed in every stage of the passage of the Bill. The two Members on the other side of the Committee are acting as eloquent midwives, trying to get the Bill from this Chamber to the other place.

1783
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 lay duties upon other bodies. Of itself that carries implications not only so far as acceptance in this Chamber. Between this Chamber and the other place other bodies may be persuaded to take a greater interest in the matter than they might otherwise have done. My kindest advice to the two Members of the Committee who very eloquently—I am in no way being patronising—explained their purpose to me (which makes good sense) is that the progress of the Bill will not be aided by making it better at this stage. It will be aided by enabling it to reach the other place with the support of the Government.
Even then, with a private measure, with the best will and the best ministerial support in the world, it is still possible for someone—perhaps someone unknown to me or perhaps someone who, it is suspected, might have an interest —simply to shout the one word "object" and the Bill is finished. Unless the Minister can say that not only does he support the amendments but that he will use his best endeavours to ensure the Bill's passage through the other place, the Members opposite would be well advised to listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. If it means that the Bill, with the full support of the Government but devoid of the amendments that they are moving, is the best that can be done, I feel that it is the best offer that they will get tonight.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: This amendment and the subse-quent amendment would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. What we are trying to do is to put a general duty to further conservation. The effect of these amendments would exclude areas of importance, as the noble Viscount said, outside those already notified. That could lead to the destruction of animals and plants ahead of designation, which would be unfortunate.
The noble Viscount suggested that there might be a rush by the statutory bodies to notify sites under the provisions of the Bill. I cannot see them doing that because they are too short of resources and money to want to act unnecessarily. What we are seeking to do is to establish a general duty.
I suggest that if land owners and farmers are anxious about the possible operations of new Sections 61C and 61D, there might perhaps be drawn up a code of practice which would relieve their anxieties. I am sure that it is not the intention of the Bill that extra anxieties should be caused.
Earl Howe: I can understand the concern expressed by my noble friend that there should not be a proliferation of sites notified to IDBs and local authorities, perhaps without landowners being aware of this. However, I would remind him that under the present legislation, which my noble friend's Bill carries forward unchanged, it is only the statutory conservation bodies who may notify sites to IDBs and not voluntary bodies. There is a corresponding provision in the Water Resources Act 1991 relating to notification to the NRA. My officials have been advised by English Nature that under the current legislation IDBs and the NRA are in
1784
fact only notified of SSSIs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and that English Nature intend this practice to continue in the future.
In addition, I should point out that the consequence of a statutory conservation agency notifying a site to an IDB or local authority is simply that the board or authority then has to consult with the statutory agency before undertaking work in that area, except in an emergency, when prior consultation is not required. I suggest that such consultation is no more than good practice, and that nowadays no IDB would consider carrying out works in an area of environmental interest without consulting the main conservation bodies. My noble friend Lord Addison asked what consultations there were between IDBs and local authorities. Local authorities are represented on IDBs, and in the normal course of events there is a great deal of regular consultation between the statutory and voluntary conservation groups as well as IDBs and local authorities. In fact, before flood defence capital works are approved for grant aid by the Ministry or Welsh Office, the drainage body concerned—be it internal drainage board, local authority or the National Rivers Authority—already notifies the relevant statutory conservation body, normally English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales. Moreover, neither the notification of the site to IDBs nor the consultation by IDBs with statutory conservation bodies affect the legal rights of landowners. The existing legislation, which the Bill will not change, reflects all that and poses no problems for internal drainage boards in practice. It does not affect the activities of landowners directly at all. In view of that, I hope that my noble friend will not wish to press his amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: In case there should be any confusion, I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I am the promoter of the Bill rather than the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who tabled some of the amendments. The noble Earl may be disappointed to think that we have been confused, though I certainly would not be.
The new Section 61C, to which the amendment relates, carries forward the present duties of IDBs with respect to sites of special scientific interest as contained in Section 13 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 and extends those duties to local authorities. It would require IDBs and local authorities to consult the statutory conservation bodies on proposed works in areas that had been notified to them as being of special interest. The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to limit the sites which statutory conservation bodies could notify to IDBs and local authorities as being of special interest to those formally notified to landowners or others as SSSIs under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
I do not believe that that is either necessary or desirable. I say that as a farmer who farms around an area of wetlands which includes almost every variation. We have designated ground; we have ground which is not nationally designated but is in the care of the local wildlife trust and there is a further area which has no

1785
designation and is of no interest to anyone locally. I stress therefore that I do not believe the amendment to be desirable or necessary in that context.
First, I understand that MAFF has been advised by English Nature that in practice only formally designated sites of special scientific interest have been or will be notified to IDBs. Secondly, the effect of the present legislation—which my Bill would not change—is simply to require IDBs and in future local authorities to consult with the statutory conservation bodies about proposed works in areas of special interest. Nowadays all IDBs do that anyway as a matter of good practice. It is not an onerous imposition. Thirdly, nothing in this section of Clause 1 directly touches on the activities of landowners, only of IDBs. There is nothing to suggest that the provisions in Section 13 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, which have existed in the current form since 1989 and are simply carried forward unchanged in my Bill, have adversely affected landowners' interests. I hope that in the light of the helpful explanation from my noble friend the Minister, my noble friend Lord Addison will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: I thank the Minister for assuring us of the good practices that take place between the various bodies in question. I am glad of the clarification. I can assure the noble Baroness opposite that I am not here to try and do damage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 27, after ("interest") insert: ("existing on land which-—

(i) has been notified as a site of special scientific interest' under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and

(ii) has been declared under section 19 of the National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or
under section 35 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 to be a national nature reserve; or

(iii) is subject to an order made under section 29 of
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; or

(iv) has been designated as a Special Protection Area for birds under European Community Directive 79/409; or

(v) has been designated as a Special Area of Conservation under European Community Directive 92/43; or

(vi) has been designated as a wetland of international
importance under the Ramsar Convention").

The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 4 clarifies a situation in which the relevant Minister may give directions to drainage boards in relation to flora or fauna or geological or physiological features of special interest which are likely to be destroyed or seriously damaged by any works, operations or activities which are being or about to be carried out by an internal drainage board. The amendment would allow such directions to be given only where such flora or fauna or features exist on land which has been notified as being a site of special scientific interest under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and which is, in addition, a national nature reserve or subject to a nature conservation order, or a special protection area, or a special area of conservation, or a wetland of international importance under the RAMSAR Convention.
As currently drafted, subsection (1) of Clause 61D places reliance simply on the opinion of the Minister in assessing whether any flora or fauna is of national or international importance. There is no reference to sites of special scientific interest which are selected on the basis of strict criteria as sites having acknowledged importance for flora and fauna. Nor is there any reference to the procedures which already exist for determining whether flora or fauna exists on land of national importance. Those include the provision of making a nature conservation order under Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the positions for declaring national natures under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1981.
Equally there is no reference to the procedures which already exist for determining whether flora or fauna exists on land of international importance. Those include the provisions for designating special protection areas under EU Birds Directive 79/409; special areas of conservation under EU Habitats Directive 92/43 and RAMSAR Sites under the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. It seems strange to rely solely upon the opinion of the relevant Minister when procedures exist or, in the case of the Habitats Directive are shortly to be introduced, for the careful assessment of whether specific sites of special scientific interest are also of national or international importance and for officially recognising that importance through a formal order-making or designation procedure. To do so could suggest that sites of special scientific interest and the additional national and international designations are meaningless.
In responding to concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, during the debate on Second Reading, the Minister stressed that the power of direction is to be used as a last resort. Three conditions would have to be met before Ministers could intervene. First, the environmental asset at risk must be of national or international importance, and there should be no intervention in matters of purely local importance. Ministers would give weight to the views of their statutory conservation advisers in determining what is of national and international importance. Secondly, the environmental asset in question would need to be at risk of destruction or serious damage. Weight would again be given to the advice of the statutory bodies and judgments would be made on the basis of expert advice and sound science. Thirdly, the Minister should consult the IDB in question before issuing a direction. Full and frank discussion should be sought, were such circumstances to arise. It is hoped that such discussions would result in changes being made voluntarily without the need for recourse to a formal direction. Again I refer to what was said in Hansard on 26th May at cols. 887 to 889.
Those assurances are helpful but still leave considerable uncertainty for all interests about the circumstances in which flora or fauna will be deemed to have national or international importance. The proposed amendment would reduce the uncertainty considerably. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the power of direction in relation to flora and fauna is to be exercised only in relation to SSSIs which have also been

1787
formally acknowledged through one of the procedures outlined in the amendment as having national or international importance. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As I explained to the House during the Second Reading debate, the Government's intention with regard to the proposed ministerial power of direction is that it would be used only very sparingly, in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort; that its use would be considered only on the basis of sound scientific advice, from both within and outside the department—both as to the importance of the environmental feature and the nature of the threat to it; and—as stated in the Bill—that there will be prior consultation with the internal drainage board in question with a view to resolving the matter through discussion.
That consultation process should help to bring out the range of factors to be considered. In the end it is the Minister's responsibility to make a decision based on the best available information.
In response to my noble friend Lord Addison, let me say that the environmental features of national or international importance referred to in new Section 61D of the Bill are indeed very likely to be found in formally designated sites such as those listed in the amendment he proposed. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to attempt to list those designations on the face of the Bill as he suggests and thus circumscribe the way in which the powers of direction may be applied. I should like to explain to the Committee why I take this view.
First, from a purely practical viewpoint I think it is unwieldy and undesirable to try to list the designations in primary legislation. An exhaustive list would be extremely long, and a partial list could throw up anomalies. Subsequent changes to the list resulting from new international agreements, EC directives or UK legislation, for example, could then require amended primary legislation on land drainage.
Secondly, while I am happy to assure the Committee that in normal circumstances directions are only likely to be issued in respect of IDB works, operations or activities within sites formerly designated as SSSIs or the equivalent, it remains the case that flora, fauna and archaeological features are no respecters of administrative boundaries.
Let us suppose, for example, that an historical or biological find of major international importance was made, located in an IDB area, but just outside an SSSI boundary. If the Bill were to define the scope of the ministerial direction too narrowly by reference to geography rather than to the intrinsic importance of the environmental asset in question, we would risk being unable to avert damage to that environmental feature. But I stress that this situation will be extremely rare, and in the unlikely event that a ministerial direction is considered, that will almost certainly involve an SSSI or an equivalent designation.
To sum up, the Government consider that the power of direction proposed would be a useful longstop to be used only with care and very sparingly. The words "national or international importance" appear in the Bill
1788
to avoid the possibility of ministerial intervention in matters which are rightly for local decision. My noble friend asked why there was no reference to the criteria for importance in existing directives, and so forth. It would not be appropriate to duplicate the provisions in other legislation. The intention in this Bill—if I read my noble friend's intention correctly—is to complement other provisions by providing a mechanism of last resort over IDBs, as already exists for the NRA.
The procedure will provide a quick and precise remedy to what we expect will be very isolated but potentially serious environmental problems. I hope that this explanation will assist my noble friend.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: While I can understand the thinking behind this amendment, I do not believe that it is practical or desirable to list all the types of sites that might be the subject of a ministerial direction in the new section, Section 61D. For one thing these designations can change from time to time, as my noble friend the Minister has suggested.
The list in my noble friend's amendment, long though it is, is by no means exhaustive. Moreover, some are of greater importance in relation to flood defence activities than others. The Bill therefore states in simple but express terms, that the ministerial direction can only be used in cases of national or international importance. That wording is intended to ensure that directions are used sparingly and cannot be used in matters of purely local importance. In arriving at a judgment Ministers will need to weigh up scientific and other evidence as to the relative importance of the feature at risk as well as consult with the internal drainage board in question beforehand except in an emergency.
In view of the assurance given by my noble friend the Minister on a number of points and in view of the impracticality of listing all the possibly relevant environmental designations, I hope that my noble friend will not press this amendment to the Bill.
Viscount Addison: I thank the Minister for his most helpful and welcome assurances and clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Homeless: Assistance
9.5 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to introduce a regulated payment for the purchase of essential items of furniture and household equipment, payable to those homeless people who are setting up house and who do not possess such items.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, this Question was originally tabled by my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton. Unfortunately, he is unwell and unable to be with us tonight. I am sure that all noble

1789
Lords will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery and that I will not be wrong in saying that we shall all miss his contribution.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, it is the Government's intention that beggars should be removed from the streets into their own homes; that families in bed and breakfast accommodation should be permanent-ly housed, and that those who are recovering from drug or alcohol dependency be encouraged to be independent and living in suitable accommodation.
We know that the Department of the Environment, together with local authorities, housing associations and voluntary organisations, have worked together at the cost of many millions of pounds to provide suitable housing for the homeless. Why then is it that the Department of Social Security does not support the initiative with sufficient funds to provide essential furniture and household equipment for prospective tenants?
My Question is specifically about grants to homeless people who are being resettled or settled in accommodation of their own. Most will have no household possessions. They will have an inability to save from their social security benefits and they will have no means of obtaining credit with which to purchase essential goods. The failure of the Social Fund to meet Ministers' often-stated objectives of concentrat-ing help more effectively on people facing the greatest need with specific, exceptional and large expenses has been debated and questioned in your Lordships' House on many occasions since the Social Fund replaced the supplementary benefits single payment scheme in 1988. I assure the noble Lord the Minister that I am not asking for a return to that system. I ask him not to resort to comparisons between the old scheme and the Social Fund as he and his predecessors have been prone to do when challenged about the effectiveness of the Social Fund and its ability to meet its objectives. What I am asking for is a grant which is deliberately designed to fit into the Social Fund. I remind the noble Viscount that one element of the fund allows for non-discretionary maternity payments which at present are £100; funeral payments to cover the basic cost of a funeral; and cold weather payments which are currently £6 a week.
CHAR, Homeless Network and the London Homeless Forum in their report The Bare Necessities, published last month, list the four areas giving rise to the greatest concern about the operation of the discretionary element of the Social Fund as the inconsistency of the decision-making, the preponderance of awards of loans over community care grants, the lack of an independent right of appeal, and cash-limiting.
In March 1992, the Social Security Advisory Committee, in its report The Social Fund—A New Structure, concluded that:
"The present structure was aimed at producing flexibility and a response to local needs, but in practice, has produced inequality of provision and availability."
In July 1992 the Government, in their own research into the Social Fund, stated:
"We cannot show that those who got [Social Fund] awards were in greater need than those who did not; nor can we conclude
1790
that the Social Fund is meeting its objective to 'concentrate help on those applicants facing greatest difficulties in managing their income"'.
The Social Security Advisory Committee also found that although the scheme,
"provides flexibility, it also creates a situation that has been described by some critics as a 'lottery', in which applications may be accepted or refused according to the state of the local budget. An application may be refused in one area which could succeed elsewhere or be refused in a given month but may be accepted by the same office at some other time of the year".
In response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's criticism of the inconsistency of the Social Fund, Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, said:
'This is the price to be paid for flexibility".
That remark is a damning indictment when one considers that in 1992–93, 85 per cent. of applications for community care grants were refused together with 46 per cent. of applications for budgeting loans and 16 per cent. of those for crisis loans. Three-quarters of the applications for grants were for basic furniture and household items.
Criticism comes not only from the Social Security Advisory Committee and the voluntary organisations; 77 per cent. of Benefits Agency staff (from about 100 offices) who are responsible for administering the fund stated that the fund had got worse recently, according to The Bare Necessities report. The new "Directions and Guidance" are causing particular difficulties for Benefits Agency officers when they are assessing applications from single people. Direction 4 states that applicants must show that they have received,
"a significant amount of care or supervision"
for the first part of the direction to be satisfied. That is particularly difficult when they move from high to low dependency hostels as part of a rehabilitation programme. As single people, they also tend to be low on the list of priorities.
Staff are frustrated by the inconsistencies, mainly those inherent in the cash-limited and discretionary scheme. The problems are widespread. Recently commissioned research by the Department of Social Security found that, although Social Fund officers tried to be fair and to apply the relevant directions and guidance,
"their discretionary decisions are shaped not only by the needs and circumstances of the applicants but also by their own personal perspectives and by certain aspects of local office administrative practice and constraints".
Administration of the Social Fund is both cumbersome and complex. A high proportion of applications go to review after being turned down initially. Very few applicants are awarded the full amount for which they apply. The process is stressful for both the applicants and the officers who must decide who gets what. It is the most expensive benefit to administer. Administration costs in 1992–93 were 45.2 per cent. of benefit expenditure. The evidence shows that instead of reaching their target, Social Fund community care grants, crisis loans and budgeting loans are failing to help those at the bottom of the ladder. In simple language, the scheme is not working.
There is a viable alternative. Both the Social Security Advisory Committee and the voluntary organisations which work with the homeless agree that there is a

1791
crying need for what they term a "start-up grant". That would be a non-discretionary payment based on the needs of the applicant. It is recognised that a single person moving into an unfurnished bedsitter would not need the same furniture and household equipment as a couple with children moving into a house.
In 1992 the Social Security Advisory Committee suggested that there should be a single grant of about £900 payable to all homeless applicants in receipt of income support who are offered permanent accom-modation of their own. Although I recognise that that would greatly simplify the administration of the Social Fund, I believe that a system of item-based payments would be seen to be fair and would provide the necessary flexibility. I have not costed those proposals. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will speak about the costs, particularly the hidden costs.
If we are to get people out of their cardboard boxes, bed-and-breakfast accommodation and hostels, we must ensure that the alternatives, their own homes, are provided with the bare necessities. Too many homeless people offered accommodation either move into a house with bare boards and very little furniture or get themselves into the downward spiral of debt and despondence in their efforts to make a home. If they are to regain their confidence and self-respect, we must accept that they need some help to start them off, and that the help should be adequate.
The visible costs may be a little greater but the savings from the current hidden costs may very well balance them. I ask the noble Viscount the Minister to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider seriously all the reports which I have mentioned and which other speakers will mention. Will he conduct a proper cost-benefit exercise accurately to determine the most effective and efficient way to provide the bare necessities for those homeless people who are offered permanent accommodation? This could well be their first step towards reducing benefits dependency.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I join the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in wishing a speedy recovery to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I am grateful to her for speaking to this Question most ably.
Since the Social Fund was set up, clergy and congregations, in particular in large city areas, have had opportunities to have direct experience of its effects. Indeed, as long ago as February 1989, the General Synod passed a resolution stating:
"That this Synod, conscious of the concern of many clergy and lay people at the likely effects of the Social Security Act 1986, and in particular … the burden of extra debt which will be borne by those in receipt of loans from the Social Fund … the strain that will be put upon national and local charities; and … the increasing work-load upon debt counsellors and other voluntary agencies, asks the Government to review the workings of the Act after twelve months".
A number of reviews have been made and the noble Countess has referred to them. Reading those reviews, it seems to me that, broadly, there are two difficulties with the Social Fund. The first is that it is cash limited and the
1792
second is that loans and not grants are made available. The difficulties have already been outlined by the noble Countess, but perhaps I may repeat them.
One difficulty is that there is no evidence that those who receive awards from the Social Fund are necessarily in greater general need than those who are refused. The noble Countess used the word "lottery" in relation to this. The whole intention of the fund was to focus help on those applicants facing the greatest difficulties in meeting exceptional expenses. It is clear that the operations of the fund have not enabled this to happen.
A second difficulty is that the Social Fund applicants are not treated equally, irrespective of where they live or the time of year at which they seek help. There are differences. I do not lay any blame at the door of Social Fund officers, who work extremely carefully to ensure that the fund is fairly administered. However, it is very difficult to apply criteria across the country when individual discretion is being exercised. An experiment in which 15 Social Fund officers assessed six identical applications under identical conditions was carried out. There was no application on which all 15 officers came to the same decision. That underlines the point that has already been made about the fund being something of a lottery.
The other basic criticism is that the money comes in the form of loans and not grants. That is bound to produce a great difficulty for those who are already on a basic income. Those who are given loans accept that the rate of repayment is not unreasonable, but the difficulty is that it does not leave them enough to live on. According to the report, more than one-third of loan recipients, including pensioners and families with children, had to cut back on their spending in order to repay the loan by going without other things—most often food and clothing—or by failing to pay other bills.
The General Synod Board for Social Responsibility supports the recommendations made by the SSAC, in particular that there should be an extension of mandatory grants to cover needs relating to setting up home, taking up work, domestic emergencies and the provision of a bed for a young child. The Board for Social Responsibility believes that provision should go beyond this towards a progressive move to give grants for all high priority items.
As the resolution to which I referred hinted, it is clear that the charities cannot now cope. There are in Leeds, which falls in my diocese, two Church-sponsored furniture stores which have been operating with an enormous amount of local voluntary support. They provide some needs, but a recent survey showed that they provided nothing by way of electrical goods—what are now being termed white goods —and there is a great difficulty in that respect. Clearly, those are essential items, but if they are not provided through the Social Fund, and if it is not possible for charities to provide them, there is clearly a risk that faulty or possibly dangerous equipment will be used.
Often those who are in this situation looking for help are people who for one reason or another have left home. Many of them end up in our big cities. The charity Night Stop in Leeds has a particular

1793
responsibility to try to provide help for those who are homeless, giving them overnight accommodation and helping them to set up home. Such people have no natural social network from which they can receive help. Indeed, we have a further project in order to provide some kind of friendship support for them. But it is clear from the support that they have around them that essential equipment is simply not available. In those circumstances, it seems right that we should look to the Government to provide that which simply cannot be provided from other sources.
I should like to raise one other matter; that is, the problem of tenancies. As your Lordships know, in order to take up a tenancy you are required not only to pay rent in advance but frequently you are required also to put down a deposit. It is clear that homeless people in the sort of situations that we are talking about are not able to find that kind of money. In the light of that, much work has been done on rent guarantee schemes to enable money to be found immediately, which will in due course be repaid by those involved. I understand that the Government have funded a number of those rent guarantee schemes. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether on the basis of that experience the Government are willing to consider funding such schemes on a national basis or perhaps introducing a national scheme.
It is clear that poverty is on our doorstep. In your Lordships' House this afternoon we are discussing the problems of poverty worldwide and we were not unaware of those more immediate problems. The arguments used earlier this afternoon apply also in this case: this is a moral situation which requires a humanitarian response; but it is also a situation which, if it is allowed to continue and fester, will produce much bitterness, anger and quite possibly conflict.
Much local work is being done. I am full of admiration for those charities which are working in that field. But it is clear that they need help from the Government to enable such support to be effective. I hope that the Minister will consider providing that help.
9.22 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I would like to join my noble friend Lady Mar in sending best wishes for a speedy recovery and a return to this House of my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton.
Now that we have, hopefully perhaps, a few weeks of warmer weather, it might be a good time to study the needs of homeless people—a single person or a family —in helping them to move into a house or a flat. Having, with luck, arrived at a position of having been awarded a house or a flat, there is the question of furniture, just even the basic needs: such items as a bed or beds and a cooker. I am often told that an important item such as a cooker is a basic necessity. I agree entirely with that, but no one has ever said at the same time to me that they need saucepans and hopefully a kettle at the very minimum, and of course plates, cups and cutlery as well. Can the Minister imagine trying to boil water in, for example, an old Coca-Cola tin for a family?
The Social Security Advisory Committee, in its 1992 report, recommended start-up grants for those setting up
1794
a new home, or moving from institutional care, or in domestic emergencies. It recommended the payment of non-repayable grants. Perhaps if those asking for a start-up grant were asked to itemise their needs, it would help them to get a grant for those necessities which they really need.
Setting up home is an expensive task, and even more so for homeless people. Many of those homeless people, some of whom have come out of care, have no furniture or other household essentials. A young person who has been in care is unlikely to have either furniture or other basic necessities. Many of those people are reluctant to accept a loan in the realisation of the hardship that they are likely to face due to the high repayment rate of Social Fund loans. Therefore, those who have no basic household goods should receive a non-repayable grant as soon as possible.
Although it is often difficult, and not really possible, to pinpoint the precise cause of family breakdown or placing someone at risk, the inability to set up a home with basic necessities has been found to exacerbate existing difficulties and can lead eventually to a total breakdown of family life.
This is the International Year of the Family. All recent social policy has been underpinned by an emphasis on the importance of family life. The aim of the Children Act 1989 is to ensure that children and young people in need are provided with the necessary support, preferably within the family, or, otherwise, in an alternative appropriate environment. Too often, the stress that can be caused by making do, or doing without, triggers family tension and strife. Does the Minister agree that an adequate grant to purchase basic necessities is essential to help prevent family breakup, and so ensure that children have a healthy environment in which to live?
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux reports cases of great distress. I should like to mention just one case of an elderly woman who was offered a loan to replace a heater and a cooker condemned by British Gas. She did not take up the offer as she knew that she would not be able to live on her remaining income after repaying £6.67 per week for the loan. Let us think of the disaster that could have been caused by the condemned cooker. Surely that sort of offer is a case that needs looking into if a future disaster is to be avoided. I cannot think that the Department of Social Security would want such a disaster on its hands.
There are some private individuals in this country who are buying up surplus Army supplies, such as an armchair for £2, a sideboard or desk for 50 pence and other things needed in a home. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he will inquire into the matter, and see whether the Ministry of Defence and his department can come to an agreement whereby surplus furniture, cutlery, china, glass and other household items can be obtained at a special low rate? Those items could then be allocated to the correct authorities for distribution at a low cost to those people who are in receipt of grants for setting up home for the first time, especially where there are small children. If the noble Viscount is unable to answer tonight, perhaps he will write to me on the matter.

1795
I should just like to mention that citizens advice bureaux in Scotland report much the same problems as are found in England. In one case, a report by a CAB in Scotland tells of a single parent on income support. Following the birth of her baby, she has been rehoused by the local authority. She applied for a community care grant to furnish her home and was refused on eligibility rules. She was eventually awarded a crisis loan. Somehow she will have to repay that loan. That seems to me to be a complete waste of money. The local authority rehouses the single parent with her baby, but the Benefits Agency refused her a community care grant. What, I wonder, does the agency expect this young mother to do with her baby? This would seem to me to be a situation which is very tragic and high in human suffering; it is also high in financial terms. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
9.27 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in thanking the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for introducing the Unstarred Question, I am sure that I speak for every person in the House save one. However, in agreeing with the noble Countess in offering our sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton—and I regret that he is not present on this occasion—I am sure that I speak for every Member of the House, not excepting one. In his speech to the Carlton Club, the Prime Minister said that the purpose of the social security system was a hand up not a hand-out. We on these Benches might want to qualify and elaborate that statement here and there; but we have no quarrel whatever with its basic message. We accept the objective, but we think that the benefit system is at present a long way short of meeting the Prime Minister's objective. Accepting that proposal might make the benefit system a little closer to the Prime Minister's aim.
I am concerned—though not, at present, quite as concerned as the Government—about the size of the social security budget, but I will plead that I have been concerned about it for a great deal longer than them. I have been concerned about it ever since I took over this brief in 1989. The right way to reduce the social security budget is, as the Prime Minister suggested, by giving people a hand up, and by helping them over the effects of misfortune so that they can be restored safely to the world of work and get over whatever misfortune or trauma has put them in the position they are in, and get back to business as usual. The wrong way of reducing the social security budget is to kick people off the ladder back into the water.
It is, I think, true for most of us who are trying to recover from misfortune that there is a tide in the affairs of men, but to catch that tide we need a fair wind. If we do not get the fair wind and we drift in shallows all our life, then we tend to do it, in one way or another, at great expense to the state—not only to the Department of Social Security but to a good many other departments as well. In particular, if we get pushed back into the cycle of recurring homelessness, we create costs all the way along the line. Therefore one reason why the Government might consider this proposal very seriously
1796
is that if they look at the costs in the round, I think they will find it a great deal cheaper than any likely alternative.
I will be referring in due course to a number of individual cases. I will not do so merely as an appeal to the emotions. I will ask the Minister to consider in each of those cases: what is the alternative, and is the alternative cheaper or more expensive than the proposal that we have before us? Setting up house is widely recognised as a moment of great and exceptional expense—a moment when, as the right reverend Prelate said, there is a need for a support system. That is why those of us in more fortunate positions expect, when we first set up house, to receive wedding presents. That is a practical support system which is not normally open to the people with whom we are now dealing.
The concern, on moving into new premises, that there should be furniture, extends much further up the social scale. In 1572 the then Bishop of Norwich arrived very late for the beginning of Parliament and explained to one of his brother Bishops that the reason for his delayed arrival was that he could not find anywhere to live. He had been offered one place, but he said, "She was a great enemy to religion, and besides there was no furniture".
Like the noble Countess, I shall not go through all the defects in the Social Fund. We have done that before and we will doubtless do it again. However, I shall touch on one or two cases in which the rules of the Social Fund operate to the detriment of applicants and, I believe, to the detriment of public funds. One is the eligibility rule —one has to have been 26 weeks on income support before one can apply. Let us take the example of a case reported by Barnardo's of a man aged 23—a care leaver —who had spent a period in a psychiatric hospital. He was refused the loan because of a period of interruption in his benefit while he was on remand, even though the case was dropped and he was released from remand. That person, not getting help when he needed it, could perfectly possibly have ended up either back in the psychiatric hospital or on remand, this time for something that he did do. Neither of those things would be to the advantage of the Exchequer, any more than they would to the person concerned.
We have problems as regards those who are found by the Social Fund to be too poor to be eligible for a loan. I will ask the noble Viscount the question that I have asked before—I am still waiting for an answer—what is the justification for a rule that rules that people are too poor to receive help from the social security system? How can that be found to be consistent with the basic purpose of the system?
There was the case of a 22 year-old man who had spent extensive periods in social services care and served a custodial sentence of 27 months. When failing to receive any help at that stage he suffered outbreaks of aggressive behaviour at probation and benefits offices and was in danger of breaching the terms of his probation order. One can see the danger of increased spending there. Finally, he was successful, with help. His advisers reported that his mood and motivation improved enormously—with the prospect, of course, of considerable savings.

1797
We then have the problem of eligibility under Direction 4. A remarkable proportion of applications for community care grants from the Social Fund are found ineligible because they are not within the scope of Direction 4. Direction 4 provides that the money can be used to assist people leaving residential or institutional care to live independently in the community, to help people stay in the community rather than to enter care, and to ease exceptional pressure on families—not on the single homeless. Homelessness is not regarded as ipso facto exceptional pressure in relation to the Social Fund. That is a pity. In June 1992 the guidance for the first rule was tightened. People must now have received a significant amount of care or supervision before they qualify.
Those have been described as slippery definitions. I could not help noticing, looking at returns from the Social Fund as regards a number of areas of the country over a considerable period of time, that the percentage found contrary to Direction 4 was remarkably constant. I cannot resist the suspicion that the interpretation of Direction 4 is being used as a form of impromptu quota system. I hope that the noble Viscount can deny that. I shall listen to the denial, if I receive one, with great care.
The homelessness circuit is not a good thing to be left in. It is important for us, as well as for the homeless, to lift people out of it as soon as possible. That moment of suspense, the moment when one first tries to get into one's own place, is a moment of maximum hope and therefore, as a consequence, a moment when one is most liable to disappointment.
What we propose is a regulated payment. By ruling out the element of discretion, the administrative costs would be much reduced. As the noble Countess pointed out, those amount to 45 per cent. of the cost of the system. It does not seem very constructive to spend large sums of public money on administrators to tell people that they cannot have what they want. It is a little like the proverbial plumber's bill—"To making good leaks in pipes: 7/6d".
What happens if people come up against this problem? First, they may possibly refuse the tenancy. It happens in a number of cases. That leads to the problem with which we are all familiar of the silting up of accommodation which provides temporary housing.
Let us take the example of the case of a 22 year-old man estranged from his parents since he was 16 and who lived in a hostel for five years. He was found not to meet Direction 4 and did not apply for a loan because he was on the younger rate of income support and could not afford the repayment. He could not accept the flat that he was offered because he said that he could not afford to move in. That not only incurs the hostel costs, which are not inconsiderable, but also increases the demand for more hostel places because those waiting behind in the queue cannot get in. The prospect of extra costs is obvious and considerable. Meanwhile the people who do not obtain secure accommodation are not earning, they are not paying taxes and are not reducing the public sector borrowing requirement.
If those people move into bare-board accommodation, there are a number of possible results. They may suffer from illness. Let us take a case that was
1798
discovered by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. A family with two children suffering from asthma was moved into a building with no heating. If I were in the Department of Health, I would suspect that the Department of Social Security was wantonly sweeping costs into my department. The Department of Social Security is often sinned against in that regard. However, I believe that it was sinning, and if it wishes not to be sinned against, it should desist.
In some cases there may be psychological damage. One may say that people should be tougher. But, of course, they would not have got into such a situation if they had not suffered considerable misfortune already. Perhaps I may refer to the case of a woman with three children who had been a victim both of burglary and of domestic violence. She was left sleeping on a sofa, having to borrow a refrigerator and a cooker and to make do with curtains that did not fit. If one thinks about it, any woman who has been the victim of domestic violence is in a position to understand the story of Susannah and the Elders. It is a quite unnecessary stress.
Alternatively, such people may turn to crime. The number of ex-offenders on the list of people who have difficulty with regard to accommodation is quite considerable. Many of those people know perfectly well what they have to do if they need to obtain the money they lack. But I do not believe that it is our duty to lead them into temptation. Alternatively, the children may be taken into care. The cost of that is very great indeed —far more than a grant for a little furniture. It occurs particularly when mothers are unable to cook for their children and cannot feed them properly. They may be told, as one mother was, "That doesn't matter. You can go to the takeaway"—a cost to which income support does not run.
There are considerable problems of debt. It is a very great pity that the Department of Social Security keeps no record of the indebtedness of those on benefits. Such scraps of information as we can discover suggest that, if it collected such information, it might find the result rather startling.
If we can lift those people out of homelessness, they can earn and pay taxes. If not, they are back on the streets, where Crisis tells us that TB is now beginning to spread at an alarming rate. That again is an expensive illness. Therefore if the Government will spend that little bit of money they can save themselves a fortune.
I hope that the Government will not tell me, as one of my colleagues said of the government of Charles I, that they are not rich enough to afford economies.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for initiating the debate, on behalf of her noble friend Lord Henderson, on the report entitled The Bare Necessities. It is especially appropriate that it follows the debate last week on housing and homelessness in which we explored some of the problems facing many homeless people, especially the single and the vulnerable, in obtaining a home of their own.
Last week we argued that a crucial need was for a home, but that home also has to be made habitable. We

1799
also discussed last week that many, perhaps most, of the homeless have, by being in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, lost not only their home but their furniture. Women with children may have fled a violent relationship, leaving everything behind them. Young single people coming out of care, older single men and women coming out of institutions have clearly little or nothing in the way of possessions. They are homeless, jobless, rootless and very poor.
Often against the odds, the local authority has offered them a flat. The would-be tenant then needs help in furnishing it. Yet we find that three-quarters of all requests for community care grants are refused; half of all pensioners and three-quarters of the sick and disabled are refused grants; 80 per cent. of the unemployed are refused loans.
As the Social Security Advisory Committee said, it is not just a question of total moneys, but also the lottery —as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said—by which that money is distributed. The total budget of the social fund is low; its administrative cost is very high. I think I am right in saying that in 1992–93 —the last year for which we have complete figures—£163 million was spent in dispensing some £317 million. I doubt whether there is a higher ratio of costs to money disbursed in the entire field of government expenditure. Of that £317 million discretionary money, £188 million was recovered money; only £126 million was new.
However, although the "new" money was low and the administrative costs high, what is almost as bad is the lottery. The first hurdle which someone needing help with furnishings has to overcome is whether they are on income support for more than 26 weeks. If they are on support for less than that time, whatever their need, or if their benefit comes from some other source such as invalidity benefit, even though it pays them no more, they are ruled ineligible.
We have, for example, the case of a 19 year-old girl raped by her step-father, who therefore left her mother's home and was offered a council flat, but because she had not been on income support for 26 weeks she was not eligible for the community care grant. What was she supposed to do—return to the home and risk further abuse or go onto the streets?
Another claimant was discharged after two years in hospital with multiple sclerosis. He had no furniture but was refused a community care grant because he was receiving invalidity benefit at almost precisely the same level as income support. What was he supposed to do —return to hospital?
That is the first hurdle. If claimants pass that and have been on income support for more than 26 weeks, the second hurdle claimants have to pass is whether they fall into high, medium or low priority categories. I have been looking at the local guidance issued in about a dozen local DSS offices. I have it here. Almost always, the high priority includes the elderly, the mentally and physically sick, families at risk of violence or those who need help to prevent a return to institutional care. No one would challenge that high priority. However, what about other vulnerable single people, former offenders,
1800
drug or alcohol abusers? For example, if they live in East Nottinghamshire or North Yorkshire, they are counted as medium priority. But if they are in Essex they are a low priority. Alternatively, take a family under exceptional stress where there is no risk of violence. They are regarded in Norwich and Tameside as being of medium priority but in North Yorkshire and East Nottinghamshire as being of low priority —the same families.
Therefore, we find examples such as a single, homeless man allocated a council flat but refused a grant and a loan for furniture because he could have lived in a hostel and refused money for a cooker because he could eat sandwiches; or a family with six children and two beds refused a grant for beds because, though under exceptional stress, they were not at risk of violence and therefore they remained of low priority. Is that tolerable? If a family was in similar financial circumstances we would not tax that family more heavily in Norwich than in Nottingham. Why should we tolerate similar heavy discrepancies when it comes to the shadow fiscal system, namely social security?
Let us assume that our family, or our homeless, vulnerable ex-offender, have passed the 26-weeks hurdle (the first hurdle), and the second hurdle, namely that they are a high priority. They then have to pass the third hurdle, if they can, which is that of the budget. The budget is cash controlled. According to how many people present themselves and in what month of the year, all or only some of those who come within the category of high priority will be helped. Some, or none, of those who come within the category of medium priority will be helped.
For example, one week a CAB in the North East was told that only cookers could be regarded as being of high eligibility; it was told the next week that it could add to that list cookers and bedding; it was told the week after to keep phoning and it would be told what other items would be added. Too often, because of the budget, less is given than is needed. An incontinent woman who was 80 years old needed a washing-machine. She was given £75. She bought a second-hand machine, which speedily broke down within six months. The Family Services Unit interviewed people after a one-year interval and found that half of all the cookers and washing-machines which had been bought second-hand had broken down.
As I said, we would not tolerate this degree of arbitrariness in our tax system. We would not say that someone is taxed if he starts work before February but is not taxed if he starts work after February. Yet we tolerate that degree of irrationality and arbitrariness in our social security system.
The Family Welfare Association has sent me details of the 4,000 small grants that it gives out each year for items such as cookers, bedding, washing-machines and children's clothes. I quote:
"We find that people of apparently similar circumstances can be turned down, or accepted by the fund at any time—there is no obvious reason behind a refusal or acceptance other than that the Social Fund has run out of its monthly allocation of funds".
That is the third hurdle: the budget.
The fourth hurdle, of course, is the judgment of the Social Fund officer himself or herself as to whether to

1801
offer a grant, a loan or nothing at all. The right reverend Prelate has already referred to this matter. The York research showed an identical case presented to 15 DSS local officers: for example, a lone parent needing a washing-machine. Two of those officers would have offered grants; 11 would have offered loans; two would have refused. Another example is that of a pensioner with special clothing needs. Six of those officers would have offered grants; four would have offered loans; five would have offered refusals.
We were told this morning at the presentation of the report The Bare Necessities that in the same DSS office, of two people with identical circumstances, income and needs, one was offered £621, the other £375; and they were told that that was how it was. It is quite arbitrary. We would not in our tax affairs tolerate decisions on whether you did or did not pay capital gains tax, for example, on the personal preferences, idiosyncrasies or responses of the taxman. Why should we tolerate it in the DSS?
The final hurdle is, if you are refused, the question of whether the matter goes to review. That usually depends on the availability of a local advice or aid centre. Over one-third of those whose claims are refused have their claims granted if they go to appeal. For example, in East Anglia, a client of the CAB with three children, who had been rehoused by the local authority, asked for a community care grant for furniture and was refused as being of only medium priority. On review, the client was awarded £1,500 by the inspector.
In other words, what we have is welfare by where you live; by what month you apply; by whom you happen to have as a Social Fund officer; and by how willing you are to go to appeal". What you do not have is welfare by need, or welfare by targeting need, as the Government insist that we have. After all, the York report showed that those who got help were neither more nor less needy than those who were refused it. It showed also that those who got grants tended to be less needy than those who got loans, who were in turn less needy than those who were denied any help whatsoever. Would we tolerate a tax system in which the better-off paid 40p in the pound and the poorest paid 70p in the pound? No, my Lords—except when it is called social security. It is a lottery, as all the research from the CAB and from the charities has shown and as this report The Bare Necessities has shown.
The Government refused to act because they said that the evidence was anecdotal, that they would await a report from their own advisory committee, the Social Security Advisory Committee. When the Social Security Advisory Committee damned the Social Fund as a lottery, the Government said that they would have to await their own independent research. When they got that from York, and when that research also damned it as a lottery, what then did the Government say? Quite remarkably, in its annual report for 1992–93 it said:
"Ministers have seen no evidence to alter their belief that the basic principles of the discretionary system are right and working effectively."
Could I ask the Minister, in the light of the CAB information, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee, in the light of the SPRU report from York,
1802
in the light of The Bare Necessities, what then would count as evidence to make the Government change their mind?
As one Salvation Army officer said this morning, she never thought that when she went into the field of the Social Fund she would be taking part in gambling, but she said that that was precisely, what she was doing. And the lottery continues.
What happens to those who are not helped? Some of these have been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Needs do not disappear. Six months later, 40 per cent. of them are still struggling to move beyond the lilo/sleeping bag/camping stove syndrome, which is all that such people can afford when they are refused a community care grant. Some turn to social services, transferring DSS costs on to local authorities; others turn to charities, who find themselves funding what we believe to be the DSS role. As the Family Welfare Association says:
"We are overwhelmed by the number of applicants from all sources."
Charities are having to close their lists.
Other claimants disappear into debt. The National Audit Office has estimated that two-thirds of all people applying to, and refused by, the Social Fund, are in multiple debt—rent debt, fuel debt, poll and council tax debt, finance company debt. The CAB found that in 1992 10 per cent. of all those on income support were paying off a loan to the Social Fund because they had been refused a grant, and that this was pressing down their level of income to below that of poverty. From then on they were forced to beg, borrow or steal; to move into the black economy or into the economy of semi-criminality.
Still others go without, mainly women, 60 per cent. of whom cut back on food, nearly half on essential clothes, such as a winter coat, and a quarter default on other bills, as they try, just as their Victorian great grandmothers did, to scrape and save.
An increasingly significant group, because they are refused financial help, are forced to refuse a cherished place of their own offered by the local authority. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted one such instance; I would like to quote another. A young family, Mr. and Mrs. Leavis—that is not their real name—were accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need by the local authority. They received a permanent offer of accommodation in May 1994, just a month ago. They applied for £900 to start up their home. A swift decision from the DSS turned them down because their pressures were not exceptional. They are now, therefore, not able to leave their temporary accommodation until or if this matter is resolved by Social Fund inspectors. But, unless they accept and move into their permanent offer of housing, they may be deemed by the local authority to have turned this offer down and to have made themselves 'intentionally homeless', and therefore they may never again be eligible for a council authority tenancy.
Do Government departments not even talk to each other? Does the DSS not know what will happen to such

1803
families given the DoE guidance? Why do we persist in refusing to see the problems of people across departments?
Let me give another example from the West Midlands. A woman with two young children following a violent marriage was living in temporary housing. She was lodging with a man who had behavioural problems which frightened the children. She was anxious to accept the offer of permanent housing. But she too was told that she was not suffering exceptional enough stress. She was not eligible for a community grant and was unable to move into her new home. So she lives with a man whose behaviour is problematic, and with her children frightened and reverting to bedwetting.
We must ask the Government to consider following the advice of their own Social Security Advisory Committee; to take heed of the information offered by the case studies in The Bare Necessities; to follow the recommendations of their own research; and to consider start-up grants as of right. A few hundred pounds of start-up grant would perhaps stop the work of the DoE in responding to homelessness and of the DoH in responding to community care from being vitiated.
If government will not do that, homeless families will remain without a home; community care will remain a fiction; temporary accommodation will be blocked; hostels will silt up; children will remain in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; ex-offenders will re-offend; and families in stress will become families in exceptional stress and therefore increasingly prone to violence—all because the DSS refuses to give as of right to the poorest and most vulnerable families the means to furnish a home.
10 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, firstly, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and especially the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who has given us the opportunity to discuss this most important subject. She began by saying that she was not suggesting a return to the system of single payments. But I believe that she was in part suggesting a form of mandatory start-up payment.
The Government do not believe that a regulated payment is appropriate for this kind of need. As the noble Countess remarked, some regulated payments are made through the Social Fund—for example, funeral, maternity and cold weather payments. However, those payments relate to events which we believe are so widespread and universal in their impact that minimal consideration of individual need is required. Regulations therefore detail the very specific situation in which such payments can be made.
But if we were to introduce regulated payments for household items limited to certain groups of people, in effect we should return to some of the problems of the old single payment scheme. It may be helpful to look at why the single payment scheme was abolished and why the Social Fund was introduced. Expenditure on single payments had spiralled totally out of control,
1804
approximately doubling every two years between 1980 and 1986 from some £48 million to £335 million. It was rigid and complex.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is that the fault of the single payment system or of government economic policy?
Viscount Goschen: It illustrates the point that, having a rigid system resulted in a rising budget. The money was reaching an extraordinary level and heading even higher. That was happening as a result of the totally rigid system. That is why we introduced the superior Social Fund system, which I shall now detail.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. However, the system that I suggested is not rigid. It has flexibility in that people with small households would not need so much money. People who already have some possessions would not need so much money. But the people who need things most would be given the money.
Viscount Goschen: I take the noble Countess's point about her suggestion having some flexibility built into it, which she detailed. But it is still a form of mandatory payment. We are trying to get away from that and move towards the provisions of the Social Fund which are much more flexible. They are discretionary and much more efficient.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. Am I right in believing that when he uses the word "rigid", those of us on this side of the Chamber would use the word "rights"?
Viscount Goschen: I am afraid that I do not accept that point. Let me say by way of a question that I do not understand what the noble Baroness is driving at. A rigid system is a rigid system and that is what I have detailed. I shall now explain why the Social Fund is superior, more efficient and helps many more people.
No responsible government could have allowed such a scheme to continue and the Government believe that it would be a mistake to return to anything similar. The discretionary Social Fund takes a different and we believe better approach by allowing a wider range of needs to be considered. Social Fund officers, who know their customer best, decide priorities taking into account the individual circumstances of the applicant. They are in the right position; they possess the knowledge and will therefore be able to decide the priorities accurately.
The Government believe that the Social Fund is fairer than the old single payments scheme, which was rightly criticised because supplementary benefit claimants could get very substantial amounts to meet expenses such as essential household items, while others on low incomes had to manage without that help. Most people, at some time in their lives, have to meet the costs of setting up home, or of other relatively large and intermittent expenses. Anyone living on a limited income cannot realistically expect to get everything they need immediately, but like most other people may have to settle for accumulating items over a period of time, or making use of credit arrangements to spread the cost; including help from Social Fund loans.

1805
One of the main aims of the social security reforms was to encourage people on income support to budget appropriately. Payments from the Social Fund are intended to complement, not duplicate, the income support arrangements. The role of the Social Fund must be seen in relation to the overall provision of social security benefits.
Having said that, we recognise that some of the more vulnerable people in our society encounter difficulties coping with certain expenses and sometimes find themselves in special circumstances where additional help is appropriate. Most community care grants are paid for the sort of items we are discussing. Over 76 per cent. of grants for 1993–94 were awarded for household items. Many of those will have gone to homeless people. The Social Fund was designed to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society will generally be given high priority. Social Fund officers are given consider-able guidance and training on how the fund can best be used to help those who need it most. This is provided by guidance not only from the Secretary of State, but also locally from the area Social Fund officers. The area Social Fund officers are well placed to recognise local factors in their district, and to target resources effectively. The Social Fund contributes to the wider policy of care in the community, but is targeted at those people in receipt of income support.
When the Social Fund was introduced the idea of interest-free loans was a new concept. They are now recognised as providing proper and valuable help to people who need household items. All loans are interest-free and repayment rates are flexible and take account of income and commitments. Only 1 per cent. of crisis loan applications and less than 2.5 per cent. of budgeting loan applications are refused because the person cannot repay the loan.
I believe that that addresses the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier in the debate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my question was how the Government justify doing that, even if they do it to only a few people.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the important point is that, where budgetary loans are not considered appropriate, there are other methods that can be employed; for instance, the community care grants and the crisis provisions. That is the key point. We are talking not only about loans but also about community care grants.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene again. I am not sure that I understand. Is he saying that people who are refused a loan because they are too poor to repay it will then receive a grant? All the evidence from the York research shows that grants go to the better-off, the owner-occupiers, the more spacious accommodation, the higher incomes; loans go to those in rented accommodation and on lower incomes; refusal of grants and loans applies to the poorest of all. If the Minister is now saying that people too poor to be able to repay a
1806
loan will in future, or have been in the past, offered grants in lieu, that will be welcome and rather surprising news.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point I was seeking to make was that the budgetary loams are not the whole picture and that the grants are another part of the Social Fund. Both of these types of arrangement must be seen within the broader picture of the income support provisions which they complement.
It is important to remember that just because a loan is outstanding does not mean that it is necessarily causing problems. It simply means that the Social Fund is helping people in a practical way to manage their financial commitments.
I turn now to the criticism of inconsistency in Social Fund decisions which the right reverend Prelate, among other noble Lords, raised this evening. The Government know that there will inevitably be some variation between decisions in a flexible, discretionary system. But we should remember the considerable problems of the previous rigid system. Decisions were never really consistent under the old single payment scheme; for example, there were marked and unfair contrasts in expenditure between different areas of the country. The Benefits Agency's reorganisation of nearly 500 local offices into 159 districts, together with revised guidance and training, has improved considerably the consistency of Social Fund decisions.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon raised the issue of people attempting to repay their loans on reduced income support. We believe that these Social Fund loans are fair. Many people looked to previous schemes as a source of regular top-ups to their weekly benefit. That was unfair to those on or just above benefit level who managed their income without extra help. We estimate that a considerable majority of people who received income support managed to cope with intermittent expenses without the help of a Social Fund loan. By setting aside money from their weekly income to meet these expenses, they are really in no different position from those who use Social Fund loans to help with their budgeting.
As far as the budget for the discretionary Social Fund is concerned, the Government believe that it is sufficient to meet the highest priority needs whenever they occur. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, criticised the principle of having a top budget. But cash limits are an important and vital part of sound financial management in contrast to the expenditure on the previous single payment system which rose uncontrollably. I should add that the great majority of unsuccessful applications are not refused on budgetary grounds but because the basic eligibility criteria are not satisfied.
Directing help where it is most needed implies some judgment about the purpose of the provision as well as the financial position of the recipient. Experience with the Social Fund shows that such an approach is not only practicable but can deliver, inevitably, limited public help more effectively.
The CHAR report, which has been raised by a number of noble Lords who have spoken this evening, is an interesting contribution to the discussion about the

1807
Social Fund. However, we do not believe that it really introduces any new points that have not already been considered fully. It has suggested a scheme of grants which is really broadly similar to single payments; a scheme which had proved to be unworkable, as I have demonstrated. In this day and age of a rapidly changing society, the Government need to be able to respond as flexibly as possible to help individuals as well as responsibly controlling public resources.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon raised the issue of rent deposits and guarantees. I can advise him that as part of the Government's rough sleepers' initiative, in Central London the Department of the Environment has funded a pilot project for a rent deposit fund. The project is currently being evaluated by independent research which will be published later this year. Deposits are excluded from the Social Fund because of evidence of abuse under the old scheme and rapidly expanding expenditure. However, 19,000 rent-in-advance payments, worth some £3 million, were made in 1992–93 and over 21,600 payments, worth nearly £3 million, were made in the year April 1993 to March 1994.
A number of noble Lords have cited the quotation that the Social Fund is a "lottery". I strongly reject that. The Social Fund is not a lottery. The framework of the law, the directions, guidance and budgetary discipline, together with the careful consideration that is given to individual circumstances by Social Fund officers, ensure that available resources go to those with the highest priority needs.
Another recurring theme raised by a number of noble Lords was the issue of administration costs. The important point is that the recycling of loans and the budgetary framework ensure a very effective use of resources. Inevitably, detailed personal assessments of applications and recovery procedures mean that administration costs will be more than for other mainstream benefits, but the important point is that the new Social Fund computer system will result in significant improvements to efficiency.
Finally, the Government believe that the Social Fund is working well in focusing resources on those people most likely to be in need and in supporting the Government's wider initiatives to promote care in the community.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell me of anyone who shares the Government's view that the Social Fund is working well?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we believe firmly that the Social Fund is working well. The point is that
1808
we are recycling money. Although the budget is a large one, it is necessarily limited. Indeed, the noble Earl himself referred to the necessity of containing public expenditure. So, within a necessarily limited budget, we have found a scheme that is helping a great many people. It is flexible and makes very efficient use of resources. We believe that any return to a system that went the other way—that is, towards regulated payments—would not be so efficient and would not help nearly as many people.
Since the start of the scheme nearly 1 million non-repayable grants have been awarded, and over 7.4 million interest-free loans. Our commitment to this important area of provision is clear. We have given more money to the fund every year since it began, and that is being repeated in 1994–95, even though there is fierce competition for public funds. In fact, the Social Fund gross budget now stands more than £50 million higher than it did two years ago.
I was agreeably surprised to note that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about the size of the social security budget, unlike the noble Baroness who criticised the principle of having a limited budget. The important point is that the Social Fund is part of the wider social security budget. We are spending record amounts on helping those in need. Over £80 billion will be spent on social security this year. That is a cost to every working person of nearly £15 every working day. The Government are not complacent—indeed, quite the contrary. We shall continue to keep the operation of the fund under close scrutiny and we shall continue to introduce improvements, as we have done recently, to ensure that the considerable help that is provided by the fund goes to our most vulnerable citizens.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he answer the question that I asked him about the Ministry of Defence and his own department?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my apologies to the noble Lady. With reference to her proposed scheme, we welcome any such suggestion that might be of value and I shall, of course, take note of her suggestion. I should add that there are a number of existing furniture schemes within the voluntary sector. However, I shall refer the noble Lady's remarks to my right honourable friend.

Drug Trafficking Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.

  DRIVING LICENCES: PLASTIC CARD PROPOSAL
  DRIVING LICENCES: PLASTIC CARD PROPOSAL
  TRIDENT II D5 MISSILE TEST FIRING
  TRIDENT II D5 MISSILE TEST FIRING
  SOUTHERN SUDAN: HUMANITARIAN SUPPLIES
  SOUTHERN SUDAN: HUMANITARIAN SUPPLIES
  SOUTH AFRICA: COMMONWEALTH MEMBERSHIP
  SOUTH AFRICA: COMMONWEALTH MEMBERSHIP
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION
  WILTON PARK: REVIEW
  WILTON PARK: REVIEW
  LEGAL SERVICES: OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
  LEGAL SERVICES: OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OCCUPATION OF THE FAMILY HOME: REPORT
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND OCCUPATION OF THE FAMILY HOME: REPORT
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 10th JUNE
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, LUXEMBOURG, 10th JUNE
  CHINESE FORCED LABOUR: PRISON MADE GOODS ALLEGATIONS
  CHINESE FORCED LABOUR: PRISON MADE GOODS ALLEGATIONS
  WASTE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS: POLICY
  WASTE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS: POLICY
  DoE CASH LIMITS: CHANGES
  DoE CASH LIMITS: CHANGES
  BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION: UK RATIFICATION
  BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CONVENTION: UK RATIFICATION