Sitting of 27 June 1994

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

    Industrial Economy
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the state of the industrial economy in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): The Welsh industrial economy is doing extremely well. Between 1990 and the end of 1993, manufacturing output in Wales increased by 5.3 per cent. compared with a reduction of 4.3 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, and its consequences for his constituency.
    Mr. Jones: But there is no room for complacency, with tens of thousands of Welsh people unemployed—3,000 of them my constituents. Will the Minister therefore argue strongly in Cabinet, to help the aerospace workers, for the purchase of the future large aircraft? Will he also, in Cabinet, consider how British Airways may be persuaded to buy the Airbus? He might even consider talking to Mrs. Redwood, secretary to the board.
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I will do all in my legitimate power to further the interests of the workers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in the aircraft manufacturing industry; but he, with the rest of the House, might like to welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 6.9 per cent. in his constituency in the past year. Furthermore, unemployment in the travel-to-work area is now 7.9 per cent., which is well below the Welsh, United Kingdom and EC averages.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that growing numbers of engineering apprentices are a classic sign of an improving industrial economy? Can he tell us the good news on that aspect as well?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is announcing today that 550 young people will benefit from the new training package for engineering apprentices in the current year, entailing expenditure of £3.6 million on them and on the necessary related activities. We want a stronger engineering industry in Wales; this is a positive way of achieving it.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: If the Welsh economy is doing so well, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why average incomes per head in Wales are now the lowest not just in
    536
    Britain but in the United Kingdom? In other words, we are now poorer than Northern Ireland. If the economy is doing so well, why are the figures so bad?
    Mr. Redwood: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that manual manufacturing earnings in Wales are in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Why does not he welcome the 10,000-plus additional full-time manufacturing jobs? Why does not he welcome the other initiatives that we are taking to improve the situation in Wales?
    For us, it is "better made in Wales". For the Opposition, it is "better moan in Wales".
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Welsh Development Agency still plays a key role in the development of the Welsh industrial sector? If that is so, will he explain how jobs will be created in Gwynedd at a time when the WDA is taking dozens of jobs away from Gwynedd and when the commitment to decentralising from Cardiff to north Wales appears to be being reneged on? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment to the effect not only that the WDA will have a central role and the resources to do its job on an all-Wales level, but that that will apply particularly to Gwynedd?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Gwynedd will benefit from the WDA's programmes in the same way as other parts of Wales that are eligible for assistance do. He knows full well that I have set out to the House guidance to the WDA making it clear that, in areas such as land reclamation and winning new investment for Wales, it has a most important job to do.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Since the Secretary of State has mentioned the importance of training, will he acknowledge the work done by the WDA's Gateway Euro project, which is based at Treforest and acknowledged by the European Commission as a centre of training excellence which is vital to equipping Welsh industry with the skills needed to compete in the new European marketplace? If he does realise the value of that institution, why is he closing it? Is this another example of the Secretary of State, just like the Prime Minister at Corfu, putting Conservative party ideology and self-interest before the interests of the people whom he is supposed to represent?
    Mr. Redwood: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is trying to be even more aggressive than usual today—it could be his last occasion on the Front Bench at Welsh questions. Of course, I want high-quality training in Wales and I have already made an important announcement this afternoon about how we are progressing with that aim. There are a number of ways of achieving that, but the best is through Government programmes and the training and enterprise councils, which we are supporting and expanding.

    Local Government
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the extent of proposals by local authorities in Wales to provide two-tier services.
    Mr. Redwood: I was disturbed to read in the South Wales Echo that South Glamorgan is operating a policy of

    537
    providing highways services, especially repair and maintenance, based not just on highways criteria but on certain social criteria. I hope that, as a consequence, there will not be a two-tier service and that that council will recognise its safety obligations to all the electors in its area.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only disgraceful but unlawful for South Glamorgan county council to discriminate against Conservative-controlled areas in the provision of services, as Mr. Russell Goodway, the leader of the council, has said it is his authority's intention so to do?
    Mr. Redwood: It would indeed be illegal to discriminate in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. I note from the report in the South Wales Echo that the council is following a policy that uses criteria in addition to highways criteria. The council must be very careful to ensure that its safety and statutory obligations are fully met.
    Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the reorganisation of local government will create unitary authorities, but already those authorities have come together to create a second, two-tier system of local government in south Wales. An important element that has been incorporated into that is industrial development.
    In considering the powers that might go to those local authorities, will the right hon. Gentleman make a little more effort on behalf of his Government? They have been in power for 15 years and have effectively destroyed the economy of the south Wales valleys. That is manifest in a survey published today which shows that, unfortunately, my constituency has the lowest incomes of any part of the United Kingdom. The valley communities of south Wales earn only about 64 per cent. of the national average wage. Is not that an absolute disgrace and will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that his policies and those of his predecessors—the so-called valleys initiatives—have fallen into disrepute and must be replaced?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course not. The valleys initiatives have achieved a great deal. I fully accept that much more needs to be done and that is what I and my colleagues are working to achieve. I hope that Labour Members will offer some support. They would be shocked if I announced the withdrawal of the valleys programme, but I hasten to reassure them that I have no intention of doing so. It is a fine programme which can offer a great deal.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about local government, unitary authorities will offer good-quality services where the right councils are elected. It is the right framework for them. I just wish that Labour would stop messing about with its policy on regional assemblies, especially as the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is in considerable difficulty over whether he wants one immediately. But then we know that there is much less to the hon. Gentleman than meets the eye.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Have not the Government inflicted two-tier services on local authorities, especially in community care? I remind the Minister of Welsh Office circular 30/94, which specifically says that community care should not be given to individuals if it is too expensive.
    Mr. Redwood: A large amount of additional money has rightly been put into that policy. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want the most frail and disabled
    538
    members of our community to get decent care. We are backing local government and giving it the necessary money and I want to see high-quality services for all in need.

    Railways
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met Railtrack managers to discuss improvements to the main railway lines in north and south Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend and I have not yet had an opportunity to meet Railtrack, but we hope to meet the chairman shortly.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister is aware that we are awaiting a report later in the year on a major European study on the potential for freight traffic along a number of routes, including the north and south Wales main lines. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even before the completion of that report, Railtrack is actively considering investment in the track, especially in north Wales, so that it can improve the efficiency and maximum use of trains on both Regional Railways and InterCity? Will the Welsh Office now give a commitment to back that investment by Railtrack, to improve not only our economic performance in north-west Wales but our environment?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am glad that he acknowledges that investment is a matter for Railtrack, which has received the MDS Transmodal report on electrification of the north Wales line. I have received assurances from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that Railtrack will continue to maintain the north Wales line to a fully functional standard. Of course, we shall assist Railtrack when it puts investment proposals before us.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there have been improvements to main line services in the Principality in recent years, particularly in respect of journey times between London, Chester, Llandudno and Holyhead? Does he further agree that the greatest improvement that we could see this week would be the early resumption of talks in the present rail dispute?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is probably aware that the dispute is before ACAS. I am sure that he, like me, wishes those negotiations to proceed and that the strikes that have damaged travellers and rail staff should cease.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister ask Railtrack's chairman to restore main line status to the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line, and tell him that it is totally unsatisfactory to build a brand-new station such as Welshpool with no communications system, no telephone, no information provision, an out-of-date timetable and not even a lavatory for people who are waiting for late trains? Is the Minister aware that once a train has left Shrewsbury, Railtrack is unable to identify its location until it reaches Machyllneth?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I have learned to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statements in a somewhat quizzical spirit. The running of the railways is a matter for British Rail, Railtrack and the north-west train operating unit.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there would be much more investment in the railways if Railtrack had not spent £7 million on new offices in the City of London and millions of pounds trying to persuade a sceptical public of the so-called benefits of privatisation, and if it had settled the rail dispute earlier, instead of provoking and prolonging it because of constant interference?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman knows that the dispute's settlement and the current negotiations are very much a matter for Railtrack. Investment in Welsh railways is also a matter for Railtrack, but of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will discuss those matters when we meet Railtrack's chairman.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the bodies outlined in the Welsh Language Act 1993 have submitted schemes to promote the Welsh language to the Welsh Language Board.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: None. The Welsh Language Board will begin serving notices on those public bodies required to prepare Welsh language schemes after Parliament has approved the guidelines that the board is required to prepare under section 10 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. The guidelines are currently being drafted by the board.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the fact that, although the Act has been on the statute book for a year, there are no guidelines as yet and nobody has come up with schemes for advancing the Welsh language prove that all that was said from these Benches and others last year was true—that the 1993 Act was a lot of English words which did little for the Welsh language? When will the Government do something that delivers the goods?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is critical of our parliamentary procedures and legislation. The 1993 Act lays down precisely what must be done. We established the Welsh Language Board under that Act: it has been appointing staff, is consulting, is in charge of £581,000 worth of grants and is preparing guidelines. Frankly, it is not an easy task to bring to the House guidelines that will secure the full approval of Parliament.

    Development Grants
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Welsh Office received legal advice concerning the payment of grants from the Welsh Development Agency to the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: The Department received appropriate legal advice in 1982 and decided that the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 provided an acceptable statutory base for the payment of grant.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State tell us why, over the past 12 years, the Welsh Office has found no opportunity to inform the WDA of the basis of its legal opinion, or to clarify the difference between the two legal
    540
    opinions taken by the agency? Will he now apologise to the BBC journalists who brought the matter to his attention? He should be very thankful that they did so.
    Mr. Redwood: That is a bit rich, coming from the hon. Gentleman. The BBC's allegation that a member of my staff had said that the issue was technically flawed was simply untrue: no member of my staff said any such thing, and it is not the Welsh Office view. A number of other serious allegations were made in the programme, which suggested that my predecessors had deliberately broken the law to further political ends. That, too, is quite untrue.
    The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the legal issues surrounding the 1982 policy are very similar to those surrounding the February 1979 policy allowing the issue of loans to companies. That question was settled by officials and Ministers in the Labour Administration. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those actions were illegal, as he has suggested that ours were?
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in mid-Wales there is a strong feeling that the amount of grant aid made available to that region in the past 12 years is inadequate, when contrasted with the billions of pounds that have been poured into Opposition Members' constituencies? Has my right hon. Friend ever received any complaints from Opposition Members about any specific grant? Does not their conduct, and that of the BBC, provide a clear example of the bitter pill that people in mid-Wales would have to swallow if there were ever another Labour Government?
    Mr. Redwood: I certainly do not recall being advised by the Labour party that we should not make the payments. I do not recall Labour Members querying any of them, or suggesting that they were not doing good. My hon. Friend has made his point extremely successfully; he is also right to infer that when Labour passed the legislation for both the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, it had in mind wide-ranging activities to assist industry and commerce in both parts of Wales.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State finally come clean and tell us the basis of that legal advice? Perhaps at the same time he will make clear when the formalities were explained to the House. He will know that in June 1982 the Minister of State said that the formalities would be announced later. Even by the Minister's "Lightning Gonzales" standards, to leave the matter until 1994 and give the House no further explanation is to take a somewhat lackadaisical attitude to the legalities of parliamentary accountability for public money.
    Mr. Redwood: We have made the basis clear. It is in section 3 of the 1975 Act, which deals with the general powers of the agency, and I made it clear in my statement that legal advice was taken at the time. We have never denied that some members of the WDA took a different view at the time; I understand that that was discussed with Welsh Office officials in 1982. I am also told by my officials, who have looked very carefully at the files, that the counsel's opinion that the agency then took had not been passed across to the Department. I have now asked for that opinion, and am studying it.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations in favour of his proposals to remove Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick from Bridgend into the Vale of Glamorgan he has received from people or organisations with these communities; and how many he has received against.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Since the publication of the White Paper, five in favour and 185 against.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister refer to my question again? I believe that the five representations in favour were all from organisations outside those three communities. May I inform him of the deep bitterness felt by all voters—especially Conservative supporters, members and elected councillors—about the way in which the Welsh Office has completely ignored the weight of opinion resulting from the consultative process, and the way in which it has slapped democracy in the face?
    Mr. Jones: No. I gave the answer strictly in terms of the hon. Gentleman's question. If I had wanted to expand it, I could have said that the number in favour had increased almost threefold, taking into account those outside the three communities, who recognise the affinities in the three communities and want them to be part of the wider Vale of Glamorgan. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is only going through the motions. If he had wanted to do more than that, he would have pressed his amendment on the subject to a vote on 15 June.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in 11 of the past 12 years, electors in the Vale of Glamorgan have enjoyed lower local government taxation than their counterparts in Ogwr and that there is widespread support in the Vale for the Government's proposals? Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the hon. Member for Bridgend to acknowledge that the Local Government (Wales) Bill has completed its passage through the House of Commons and that it is high time that he adopted a positive attitude by urging the merits of the Bill on those of his constituents who will benefit from moving into the Vale of Glamorgan?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes his points very well. Vale of Glamorgan borough council has a record of providing better services at lower cost. We have approached the question on the basis of where the areas would be more appropriate. They are more rural in character and they will have a far better future in the Vale of Glamorgan.

    Housing Conditions Survey
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the next housing conditions survey for Wales will be published.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: It will be published in the autumn.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister explain how local authorities can invest in housing if the data that they use are nine years old?
    Mr. Jones: That justifies our wisdom in deciding to carry out an interim housing survey. We wanted to update
    542
    the figures for all of Wales. That is being done, and when we have finished refining the process, consideration of housing investment will be far better informed.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that at every Saturday surgery hon. Members are hearing heartbreaking cases of people having to wait for up to two years or more for home improvement and renovation grants? At the same time, hundreds of building workers are out of work in our constituencies. Would not it be a good idea to match the two, to the benefit of both, by making new investment in housing improvement and renovation?
    Mr. Jones: That confirms, again, the desirability of our policy of seeking to make home renovation grants as widely available as possible and as closely targeted on need. Another £149 million is being provided this year, which should produce almost 10,000 improved homes.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister consider in particular the problems of Dinefwr borough council, whose recently commissioned survey showed that things are much worse now than they were in 1986? The number of unfit homes has risen from 1,938 to 2,463 and one house in six has been designated as unfit. Meanwhile, there is a five-year waiting list for mandatory grants.
    Mr. Jones: Yes, we will continue to consider the problems of Dinefwr and, of course, of all other councils in Wales. Since the present grant regime was introduced in 1990, we have made available £850 million, which is a major contribution towards achieving our policy objective of improving homes in Wales.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that housing policy must be made in Wales to meet Welsh needs? Does he accept that there would be no justification for shifting emphasis in the Tai Cymru budget from houses for rent to various forms of assisted ownership, which is happening under the Housing Corporation in England? If the Government propose to make such a shift, will he ensure that it is announced to the House in good time so that it can be strongly opposed?
    Mr. Jones: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's attitude, since all surveys of Welsh people have clearly shown that ownership of their own homes commands a high place in their ambitions. We should be seeking to respond to that, and we are doing so.
    Mr. Richards: Does my hon. Friend agree with Cynon Valley borough council, which is run by the Labour party, which has said that the problem of homelessness does not exist in its borough?
    Mr. Jones: I am truly amazed by this claim by a valley local authority, albeit a Labour one. I am glad to say that it is not the Labour party which is in control of housing policy in Wales. We are providing substantial sums. Despite such obtuse attitudes, we shall carry on doing that.

    National Health Service Trusts
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Welsh NHS trust chairmen's group to discuss relations between the Welsh Office and the NHS trusts.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend will be meeting NHS trust chairmen on 11 July when a number of topics will be discussed.
    Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister take the opportunity when he meets Mr. Derek Morgan, the chairman of the group of chairmen of NHS trusts in Wales, to apologise to him and to the other trust chairmen for the total inadequacy of this year's financial settlement and for the lateness of the announcement, which came only two weeks before the beginning of this financial year? Will he also take the opportunity to explain to Mr. Morgan and his colleagues why the percentage cash rise in England is twice that in Wales and why the announcement was made to the English trusts two months before it was made to the Welsh ones?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman made much the same point during the Welsh Grand Committee debate on 15 June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State increased the moneys available to the hospital and community health service in Wales by 4.3 per cent., and announced that in December. A similar announcement was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health with regard to the regions in England. There is no need whatever to apologise for that increase, which has resulted in more than one third more in-patients and out-patients being treated in Wales last year than were treated in 1979. That is our record and we are proud of it.
    Mr. Hain: When the Minister responds to the proposals put by the local health authorities in West Glamorgan on the future of the east unit of the West Glamorgan trust, will he listen to local opinion about the future of Neath and Port Talbot hospital? Will he ensure that it has proper accident and emergency facilities and that its maternity facilities are fully fledged, and not the midwife unit that the Secretary of State has proposed? People locally regard their hospital in Neath as a precious resource. They do not want to see it downgraded when the new hospital is eventually built on Baglan moor.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We will of course carefully consider all the representations made to us about that particular hospital, just as we always listen to representations made about new hospitals, of which we have set up quite a number in Wales. Again, that is a record of which we can be proud.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Can my right hon. Friend assist the House? To what extent are NHS trusts in Wales meeting the targets being set for them?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that, as well as increasing activity to record levels, the trusts in Wales have met all their targets for this year.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister just referred to the Neath and Port Talbot district general hospital. He will be aware that that hospital was closed on 90 separate occasions last year because of a shortage of beds. Yet the Government propose to reduce the number of beds available in that catchment area by 200. That is typical of what is happening in planning, so when the Minister meets the chairmen—the original question refers to that meeting—will he apologise for the chaos that has been caused for those who are trying to plan the national health service in Wales?
    The Minister's own research, the Welsh health planning forum's study, which was published last week, flatly
    544
    contradicts the pronouncements by the Secretary of State for Health. She maintains that hospital beds can be reduced by 40 to 60 per cent. The Minister's research suggests that the minimum figure of 40 per cent. would "permanently damage" health provision. Will he now give us a clear answer? Which figure should Welsh health planners use, his figure or her figure?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should know that there has been an increase in throughput at hospitals and in the use of beds simply because of the advances in medical science and treatment. There will be further advances, of that I have no doubt. I can give the hon. Gentleman this certain assurance—there will be sufficient beds in Wales to deal with accidents, emergencies and such requirements as patients have, and no patient will be forced into day treatment.

    Electronics Companies
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the management of electronics companies based in Wales to discuss inward investment.
    Mr. Redwood: I have met many electronics companies over the past year, including Sony, Assat, Aiwa, Pilkington Electronics and Panasonic. I shall see companies over the summer to discuss inward investment, including another visit to Sony.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is not it the case that, despite the Opposition's love affair with the social chapter and the on-costs that that would bring about, and despite the Opposition's love affair with the idea of stripping away our democratisation of the trade unions, we have seen a huge amount of inward investment in that region and that, as a result, we have a large pool of electronics expertise in south Wales, which is possibly unique in Europe? What is my right hon. Friend doing to promote that?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that Opposition Members support policies that would damage Wales and her competitiveness. We are proud of the fact that Wales is now largely strike free. [Interruption.] We are proud of the good value that it offers to investors. We are proud of the skills and the talents of the Welsh work force. All Opposition Members can do is jeer at my hon. Friend's great tie because they can think of nothing better on which to comment.

    Community And Town Councils
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received over the last six months on the future role of community and town councils in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Nine since the publication of the Bill.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Minister will know that, during the passage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, I tabled an amendment to the effect that town and community councils should be better consulted in the role of planning. I have now received almost 300 letters in support of that amendment from various councils in Wales. The Minister said at one stage that the purport of the amendment would be included in guidelines soon to be issued to the new

    545
    unitary authorities. When will those guidelines be in place and will they contain, as he has already said, the proposals in the amendment?
    Mr. Jones: We are working on those guidelines. They are important, and they need to be in response to the exact concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I cannot give him a precise date at this point. They will be brought forward as early as possible and, yes, I am looking forward to their fully covering the important subjects that we have discussed.

    Patients (Statistics)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figures were in 1979.
    Mr. Redwood: In the year to 30 June 1993, NHS Wales treated 480,000 in-patients and 580,000 new out-patients, compared to 350,000 and 429,000 respectively in 1979. That represents increases of 37 per cent. and 36 per cent.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show, above all else, the improvement in the health service during the past 15 years? What is the scale of the improvement since the health service reforms were introduced?
    Mr. Redwood: There has been an acceleration in the pace of improvement in treating patients in the past couple of years, which I welcome. It has been related to more day-care surgery, as well as to improved efficiency in all parts of hospital and health management. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that there has been a massive expansion of health facilities and health care over the past 15 years in Wales. It is high time that Opposition Members, as well as the public, welcomed that.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of Clwyd county council to discuss the effects of the current rate support grant settlement on educational services in the county.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any plans to do so. Clwyd received the highest increase in standard spending assessment of any Welsh county council in 1994–95. It is for individual local authorities to decide their spending priorities.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that some 200 teaching jobs are still being lost this year in Clwyd county council and that much of my postbag is related to the loss of teachers and the lowering of educational standards in the county? It is not good enough to say that we have received a higher level of grant when the Minister knows that the grant has been cut by £6 million this year overall, that much of that grant is ring fenced and that Clwyd has had to make deep cuts. Will he now review the capping criteria, meet the council to review how the grant is set and ensure that there is an improvement in the situation?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stops ranting at me and starts hectoring his own Labour council, because Clwyd has managed a real-terms cut this
    546
    year, when Welsh local education authorities as a whole have managed an increase. It grieves me, as it should grieve the hon. Gentleman, that his Labour friends on the council are acting out of political pique—it seems—against school children.

    European Union
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to strengthen links between Wales and the European Union.
    Mr. Redwood: Links have recently been strengthened by Wales's achievement of one extra Member of the European Parliament—although we trust that that Member will give proper representation to the interests of Wales—and, of course, by the development of the Committee of the Regions. The main way in which Wales is looked after is through strong representation in the Council of Ministers similar to the strength of representation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed at the recent summit.
    Mr. Flynn: I thank the Secretary of State for Wales for campaigning in the European and local elections in my constituency and congratulate him on his campaign. It helped us to achieve the best results that the Labour party has had this century. Can he tell us why one vote in 12 is a veto in the European Council, but when 86 per cent. of the votes in Wales are against the Government, we still have no voice to stop Tory legislation in Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: In order to modify Conservative legislation, Opposition Members need to get a majority in this House of Commons. I look forward to the match in the next general election, when I am sure that we shall reaffirm our majority for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Racial Hatred Prosecutions
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions there have been for incitement to racial hatred in each year since 1979; and how many cases were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions each year.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since 1979, 79 defendants have been prosecuted for offences concerning incitement to racial hatred. I am placing a breakdown by year in the Library. Records of cases by reference to possible offences are not maintained.
    Mr. Gapes: In view of the serious increase in the anti-Semitic and racist material being circulated in Britain and the increase in material being put out by neo-Nazi groups and an extremist group called Hizb ut Tahrir, which has been operating in my constituency, is not it about time that serious consideration was given to taking up the views of the Home Affairs Select Committee about strengthening and enforcing the law against all those who incite racial hatred?
    The Attorney-General: I entirely understand and share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have had constructive meetings recently with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the all-party committee on race and community, both of which centred on the aspects to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have to make it clear, and it is worth

    547
    the whole country bearing it in mind, that the groups which disseminate this disgraceful material can be extremely cunning. Every effort that can be made by the public, the hon. Gentleman and anyone else to bring to the attention of the police the necessary material to find the perpetrators should be made.
    I should add one thing. In relation to some of the other material, I draw attention to the recent amendment in the Criminal Justice Bill to add a section beyond section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 to introduce a new offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm and distress.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware not only that the racial minority groups in Britain do not feel that the law adequately protects them against the evil of racism but that, five years ago, a report of the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that the Crown Prosecution Service should monitor the outcome of all racial incidents cases but it has so far failed to do so? The Home Affairs Select Committee has again recommended that that action be taken. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that recommendation more positively this time than his predecessor did last time?
    The Attorney-General: I will certainly take up the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes. He will be glad to know that it is already being taken up by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Two steps are in hand. The first is that in Greater London, where many of the problems occur, awareness training is beginning for 300 members of the Crown Prosecution Service. Secondly, a working group is examining precisely the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes about monitoring, with a view to constructive action in the near future.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that where successful prosecutions are brought, the sentence should be more reflective of the hurt caused than of the oddity and eccentricity of the causer?
    The Attorney-General: Without commenting on individual sentences, let me say that I well recognise the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I am sure that it will be widely recognised in the relevant quarters.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown Prosecution Service dealt with 1,454,239 cases in the magistrates court and 114,521 cases in the Crown court in the past year, and is responsible for conducting prosecutions fairly, effectively and efficiently.
    Mr. Barnes: The Crown Prosecution Service has issued a document in support of the victims of crime and is seeking to assist them according to its policy statement. How can the Crown Prosecution Service do that when, in many of the cases referred to it by the police—including cases of racial harassment, which we have heard about—it decides that there will be no prosecution? Is not there a requirement that there should be more effective
    548
    prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service so that victims can begin to be in a position where assistance can be given to them?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the criteria that the Crown Prosecution Service applies in deciding whether to bring cases are clearly set out in the revised code, and I hope that the effect of the clarified criteria will lead to more prosecutions. In fact, the discontinuance rate, to which he referred, has fallen in the past year from 13.5 to 12.9 per cent. in the magistrates court and from 8.1 to 7.6 per cent. in the Crown court, so things are not quite as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe.
    Mr. Brandreth: I welcome the publication of the revised code of practice for Crown prosecutors, written as it is in good plain English. Can my hon. and learned Friend use this opportunity to praise the work of the CPS in Chester, especially its current priority of improved working relations with the police?
    The Solicitor-General: I willingly do that. As well as being written in plain English, the code is written in plain Welsh.
    Mr. John Morris: I welcome, with pleasure, the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Does the Solicitor-General agree with her view that the new code
    "may have the effect of bringing more criminals to trial"?
    Will he keep well in mind the disquiet expressed last autumn that, while the Home Secretary was presiding over an ever-rising crime wave, there were dozens of empty courts, especially in the Crown courts, because of the failure to prosecute? Can we be assured that the CPS will no longer lay itself open to be accused of pursuing fewer serious charges than justified, despite the dismay recently expressed by a senior judge at Snaresbrook Crown court?
    The Solicitor-General: The facts do not justify that complaint. If one analyses the more serious cases that are dealt with in the Crown courts, one sees that the indictable-only cases component—that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I, in the trade, call heavy cases—has gone up from 18 per cent. of completed cases in 1991–92 to 21 per cent. in the past year.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Was the recent prosecution of PC Guscott launched by the Crown Prosecution Service or by the police? Whoever actually launched it, can my hon. and learned Friend tell the blithering idiots that they should have a little bit of common sense and that any such prosecutions in the future will be intolerable?
    The Solicitor-General: The police referred the file to the Crown Prosecution Service which, applying the criteria which applies to all cases, decided that it was a proper case to prosecute. Let me emphasise that, in this country, prosecutions are taken without reference to any political pressure or any hue and cry that might result after the case is brought. Police Constable Guscott struck the young man in hot blood. He recognised that. He pleaded guilty when the charge was put to him.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the work of the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office is currently working on the investigation and prosecution of 51 cases of serious and/or complex fraud.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Attorney-General support the proposal, which is being canvassed widely at the moment, that many serious frauds should in future be dealt with not by criminal proceedings but by City regulatory bodies? Has he looked at the most recent report from the SFO to this House, which shows that the average amount of money involved in the 48 cases under consideration when the report was presented to us is in excess of £100 million? If the courts are to be less used in future, at what level of money will a fraud be regarded as serious enough to press criminal proceedings in a court of law?
    The Attorney-General: The cases that come before the SFO are, by and large, very big, heavy and complex cases. I agree that the SFO should consider carefully with the regulators whether there is a case for certain of the cases that it is considering prosecuting being dealt with by regulators. Where there is substantial plundering of public or private moneys by the alleged offenders, that is a proper case for prosecution in a court of law.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Malawi
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the ODA is providing to the newly elected democratic Government in Malawi.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We are increasing our aid to Malawi to help the new Government to pursue their economic and political reform programmes and to mitigate the effects of poor rains.
    Mr. Spring: Given the attention that has recently been paid to the arrival of another democracy in Africa, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment of democratic government in Malawi? What discussions have taken place with President Muluzi about furthering relationships between the United Kingdom and Malawi?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's words. The new president was in Britain recently and met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers. We wish to encourage the new Government, and this year we are increasing substantially our bilateral aid—of which we are the largest donor—to some £30 million.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that awards given to Malawi in the past for medical help are being altered substantially. Will he undertake to look closely at the way in which overseas aid is granted? The fact that the people of Malawi were so determined to vote in their general election, and that it was such a fair and free election, is to their enormous credit and we must do everything that we can to help them.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know of the hon. Lady's great interest in health matters in Malawi and her specialist knowledge of them. As she knows, we are making changes,
    550
    with the aim of giving more emphasis to primary health care in rural areas, and we will be developing plans to do just that.
    Sir David Steel: May I press the Minister to do more than simply welcome the election of the democratic Government in Malawi under President Muluzi? When will the British Government restore fully the cuts made on human rights grounds during the time of Dr. Banda?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have substantially increased our aid this year and I understand that it is as high as it has ever been, if not higher. That is as a result of the recognition that we should help that country, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we encouraged to hold elections. I think that we have honoured what he pressing me on.

    Gaza and Jericho
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he proposes to allocate for aid in Gaza and Jericho in the current year.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We expect to provide £70 million over the three financial years from 1994–95 in help to the Palestinians and support for the middle east peace process. That includes our share of the European programme of help to the west bank and Gaza, our contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and our own bilateral technical co-operation programme. My figure includes help to the rest of the west bank and to Palestinian refugees generally, as well as to Gaza and Jericho.
    Mr. Janner: The right hon. Gentleman understands the importance of the Palestine Liberation Organisation succeeding in managing the economies of both Gaza and Jericho. May I thank the Government for what they have done so far in increasing aid, but ask that much more be done to ensure that that management proves highly successful in the future, because if it does not, there will be trouble for all?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. The administration of the Gaza strip and Jericho is not easy by any standards. We had begun by thinking that we would not give help for recurrent costs, but we are now doing so, in response to arguments from persons such as the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Palestinian people's expectations that their living standards will rise are not fulfilled there is a danger that Muslim fundamentalists will increase their sway in that part of the world? Will he therefore press the European Union not only to give aid but to trade on an increasing scale with Gaza and Jericho?
    Mr. Hurd: Immediate aid has been given, about which I have just given some account. Training programmes are also offered. For example, we are helping to train senior Palestinian police officers at Bramshill. Trade is also taking place, as my hon. Friend mentioned. It is also important that the Palestinian leadership should be seen to assert its control in the area and I hope that it will not be too long before Mr. Arafat returns Jericho.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the clearance of mines in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: Since October 1991, we have contributed more than £1.7 million.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should undertake to make a long-term commitment to mine clearance in Cambodia? Does he also agree that, having once invested a considerable sum in undermining the Government of Cambodia, we should spend as least as much on aiding their survival in the wake of democratic elections?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. We join in offering substantial help to the new Cambodia. In June 1992, we pledged $30 million at the Tokyo conference. Of that, $24 million has been committed to specific activities and $14 million actually spent. We are clearly and rightly involved.
    Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that none of the mines laid in Cambodia were supplied from Britain but all came from other countries? Does he agree that the money and resources that we have devoted towards clearing them is greater than that given by the majority of other countries, because it is designed to try to give the Cambodian Government the facility to deal with the difficult problem?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. The second point is correct and I believe that the first one is also.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that land mines are a major obstacle to development in Cambodia and many other countries? Is he aware that one doctor working in Cambodia has said that land mines are being cleared an arm and a leg at a time? Does he accept that 10 times as many civilians as soldiers are killed by land mines and that the only solution is a complete ban on the export of anti-personnel mines?
    Mr. Hurd: We supported last year's motion at the United Nations for a moratorium on land mine exports. There is a lot of confusion about the matter. We believe that there is still a legitimate role for land mines—for example, in protecting an RAF airfield. We believe, however, that there should be clear rules on their use, on how they should be placed and on what safeguards should be applied. Those rules are contained in the UN weaponry convention. We have now decided to ratify the additional protocols attached to the Geneva conventions and we hope that the whole process for this country will be completed by the end of this year.

    Aid Programmes
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to target aid by ring fencing donations for specific aid programmes.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Our bilateral aid is carefully planned to meet recipients' priority development needs. We monitor all stages of implementation to ensure that our contributions are used as planned and not diverted to other purposes.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am relieved to hear that answer. My hon. Friend will know that I fully support the know-how and other funds given to the former Soviet Union, but does he accept that the Russian Federation is still involved in programmes such as the biopreparat—chemical warfare—programme? Therefore, is not it important that we ensure that the money is directed to where it is intended?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Aid diversion is a problem in all aid programmes and ODA officials are fully aware of that. We are not deeply concerned about diversion of our aid because we have procedures to prevent any damage of that kind.

    AIDS (Central Africa)
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being provided to central African countries to deal with the incidence of AIDS.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: So far this year, we have committed some £49 million to health projects, up to half of which is for projects that deal with sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
    Mr. O'Brien: With 9 million people in sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV, that works out at about £4 a patient. It is not very good, is it? Does the Minister realise that, in many sub-Saharan countries, up to half the population is under 15 years told and therefore not sexually active yet? Is there not, therefore, the potential for a major contribution by this country to an education programme on that matter, which might begin to slow the progress of the disease?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I touched on in my answer—I could explain it further in a discussion or letter to the hon. Gentleman—our contribution is not just for AIDS matters but for wider programmes of the kind that he describes. Those include educational and other programmes about sexually transmitted diseases and other such matters. If the hon. Gentleman studies deeper, he will find that ODA Ministers are directing their minds to that matter.

European Council (Corfu)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting of the European Council which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Corfu Council put another three building blocks in place in constructing post-Communist Europe. First, the treaties of accession signed with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden will help to create the wider Europe that we seek—a European Union that extends from the Atlantic to the Arctic. I warmly welcome the positive vote on accession in the recent Austrian referendum. I hope that referenda in the other three EFTAN countries this autumn will prove equally successful.
Secondly, we agreed in Corfu that the association agreements with our central and eastern European partners must be fully and urgently implemented; so should the United Kingdom-Italian initiative to link those countries more closely with the foreign affairs and home affairs pillars. That will help them to prepare for full membership of the European Union as soon as possible. Cyprus and Malta will also be involved in the next stage of enlargement.
Thirdly, the European Union signed a partnership and co-operation agreement with Russia, one of the most comprehensive agreements ever concluded between the Community and another country. President Yeltsin said that the agreement symbolised Russia's return to the economic life of Europe as an equal partner. He also pledged the support of his Government in bringing about stability in central and eastern Europe and his willingness to work closely over former Yugoslavia.
Russia has just signed the partnership for peace agreement with NATO and, on 9 July, President Yeltsin will play a full part in the political debate at the Naples summit. I warmly welcome Russia's increasing integration with western political institutions.
In the discussion of the problems facing people throughout Europe, I suggested a series of moves to combat drug trafficking and other international crime. The drugs problem throughout Europe is growing. Enough cocaine has been seized in the European Union this year alone to provide 24 million individual doses. I pressed for more effective cross-border intelligence gathering on drug trafficking. I urged the Community to strengthen the Europol drugs unit and to set up speedily the full European police office, which should have a wide remit to tackle organised cross-border crime. I underlined the importance of action within our own countries and suggested that the Union should hold a conference on drugs and organised crime, and should involve also countries in central and eastern Europe. I was glad to receive wide support for those proposals, which were endorsed in the conclusions of the Council.
We made progress on two economic issues high on the British agenda. First, we agreed that markets in telecommunications and energy should be further liberalised to give Europe's consumers access to wider, cheaper and more efficient services. Secondly, we strongly supported the German proposal to set up a European deregulation task force with business men as members,
554
precisely as we have done in this country. That was agreed. The task force will help to cut back burdensome Community regulations on business.
The Council endorsed the macro-economic guidelines drawn up by the Economic and Financial Council on the conditions for sustainable growth. We agreed that it was essential to continue cutting public sector deficits and reducing inflation. I reported that the British economy had grown by nearly 3 per cent. in the year to this spring, and that unemployment had fallen here by more than 300,000 since the end of 1992. Britain remains the fastest-growing of the big economies in the European Union.
The Council approved a first priority list of 11 trans-European network projects. That includes the second channel tunnel rail link and proposals to improve the rail links between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Any contribution to the financing of such projects must come from within existing Community resources. At our insistence, the Council agreed that there could be no financial guarantee from the Community for the trans-European network. We believe that Europe's taxpayers must be protected against such open-ended commitments.
We heard further evidence that the subsidiarity principle is being successfully implemented. We expect the number of main legislative proposals coming out of Brussels this year to be about half the number of those in 1993 and one quarter of the total four years ago. That is a very significant improvement.
In external policy, the Council discussed Ukraine, and agreed to step up support for economic reform and nuclear safety there, tied to the closure of Chernobyl. That discussion will be taken forward with the United States, Japan and Canada at the economic summit in Naples in early July.
The Council once again discussed Bosnia. The contact group has done valuable work based on the European Union's plan, but there is an urgent need for the parties to show the will for a negotiated settlement if that process is to succeed. We agreed that the European Union would make every effort with the United States and Russia to bring the negotiations to the point of decision.
Let me now turn to the presidency of the European Commission. The treaty lays down that the Commission President should be selected by "common accord" to serve a term of five years. Common accord is vital. For the President of the Commission to serve the whole Community effectively, he must enjoy the confidence and support of all of its members.
Before the Corfu Council, we told the Presidency and other partners that we supported Sir Leon Brittan's candidature and believed a genuine consensus of all 12 member states to be essential. No one disputed the necessity of a genuine consensus.
When we heard that Mr. Dehaene was thinking of putting himself forward at a late stage, we privately informed the Belgian Government and other partners that we could not support him. We warned that it would not be possible for him to attract a consensus of the whole Community. We hoped, therefore, that his candidature would not be pressed.
Neither then nor at any later stage did any partner say that either Sir Leon Brittan or Dr. Lubbers, the two long-standing candidates, was unacceptable. Both, of

555
course, had outstanding credentials and long experience of the Community—Sir Leon as a Commissioner for six years and Dr. Lubbers from 12 years on the European Council.
At the Corfu Council, four states—representing nearly half the European Union's population—did not support Mr. Dehaene in the long discussion on the first evening. In several interventions, I made our strong views very clear to the Council, as I had in a number of bilateral discussions.
On the following morning, Sir Leon and Dr. Lubbers decided to withdraw their candidatures. Other European countries indicated that they could accept Mr. Dehaene. I maintained my position that we could not. I said that I had given the matter careful thought, and that our decision would not change at any stage. I reiterate that position in the House today. I suggested that consultations should be put in hand to find a candidate who had the support of all member states. The German Chancellor, who takes over the Presidency later this week, said that he hoped to resolve the matter speedily, if necessary by convening a special summit on 15 July.
Our position was not a personal criticism of Mr. Dehaene, although in our view Sir Leon and Dr. Lubbers had much stronger qualifications. For the next five years the Commission needs a President who is in tune with the times and the mood across Europe—a President whose instincts are with enterprise and competitiveness. Above all, Europe needs a President of the Commission who is selected with the full approval of all member states.
The Corfu Council has highlighted an issue of increasing concern to many European Union members—the way in which decisions are reached. It is an important point of principle that the key decisions require unanimity and that all member states should have an equal opportunity to participate in collective decision making. The procedures used for this decision, before and during the Council, were not satisfactory. There was no need for this matter to have come to an open division at a European Council; it should have been avoided. Had more comprehensive consultation taken place, as in the past, and had the views expressed by different states been heeded, it could have been avoided.
I believe that there are a number of well qualified people who could take on the post, on the basis of a genuinely common accord. We stand ready to play our part in consultations on it. There is no reason why that should not lead to an early and satisfactory outcome.
I wish to see Europe succeed. I want it to regain the affections of the people of Europe. I want a Europe with which all member states—now 12, soon to be 16, then 20—can all feel comfortable. Achieving that may mean disputes along the way. But being a good European does not mean signing up to everything that our partners do. At Corfu we fought for what we believe is in the best interests of this country and Europe. That is what we will continue to do.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
We warmly welcome the treaty of accession signed by Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway, and agree that the result of the referendum in Austria was encouraging. We hope very much that it will be followed by positive results elsewhere in Scandinavia in the autumn.
As the Presidency conclusions confirm, all those countries will bring a great deal to the European Union—not just a net contribution to the Community's budget,
556
but strong support for open government and for efforts to protect the environment. In addition, they are, of course, as the summit statement says, "in the vanguard" of support for the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. That means that 15 out of 16 member states will support that chapter.
We also welcome the partnership and trade agreement with Russia, the financial support offered to the Ukraine to close the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, and the progress made on further enlargement, specifically the applications of Cyprus and Malta, which will be widely welcomed in the House, and of Poland and Hungary.
The Opposition are also delighted that the Corfu summit strongly reaffirmed the social dimension of Europe and, in particular, invited the Commission to make
"full use of the new possibilities available"
from the social protocol.
Another initiative that we welcome is the Council's agreement to involve the Social Affairs Council with ECOFIN and the Commission in further follow up to Mr. Delors' White Paper on growth and employment. We endorse the follow up to the White Paper, particularly the emphasis on education and training and the crucial need to maximise the potential of human resources—to invest in people.
The Opposition are pleased that at least all the other member states and all the new applicants rule out the economics of the sweat shop and agree with the Council that the agreement—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should hear this; they should hear what the Prime Minister has signed up to. We agree with the Council that the agreements on works councils, on the protection of young workers, and on the creation of an agency for health and safety at work all represent significant progress in the European Union's social dimensions.
We are also pleased—despite what the Prime Minister said—that the prospect of further finance to support the trans-European networks has not been ruled out, especially as one of the 11 agreed projects includes the channel tunnel rail link. Does the Prime Minister now accept—I seem to remember him boasting in the past of having vetoed it—that the worth of this project lies in the fact that it might help to redress the growing tendency for Britain to experience all the costs of membership of the EU while our Government resist the benefits?
Will the Prime Minister ensure that one of the first acts of the new Minister working on information technology will be to lift the unfair restriction on British Telecom which prevents it from entering the emerging market for television services? Does he not realise that the quickest way to build an information super-highway in Britain is to allow BT to compete with cable, which the Government refuse to do?
Can the Prime Minister confirm that, during the summit discussions on many of the issues that I have mentioned, and in particular during the positive discussion on the follow up to the White Paper on growth, employment and social policy, he was not present? Is today's report correct, that the right hon. Gentleman attended a three-hour discussion for only a few minutes and did not take the opportunity to speak? Does he recognise that what was agreed, apparently in his absence, enhances the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty—in stark contrast to the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric?
How much of the right hon. Gentleman's sound and fury about the Commission Presidency is a smokescreen to

557
hide from his Euro-sceptics the fact that he has accepted a further strengthening of the social dimension in Europe and European intervention to promote jobs?
Has not this weekend been, not a triumph, but a humiliation for the tactics of a Prime Minister who claims to be an ace negotiator but who found himself, and Britain, relegated to the sidelines? May I anticipate the Prime Minister's standard response—that the Opposition simply do not understand how successful he has been—by pointing out that he went to Corfu to promote a British candidate for a senior post in Europe, won no support from any of his colleagues and ended up vetoing a Conservative? May I further remind him that my colleagues and I went to Corfu—[Interruption.] I am sure that Conservative Members want to hear this. We went to promote a British candidate for a senior post in Europe, and we obtained the unanimous support for that candidate of delegations from every one of 15 member states. We need no lessons from the Prime Minister on how to negotiate successfully.
Does not this point up the fact that the Prime Minister has once again put his own standing in Europe before Britain's standing and influence? Does he not realise that what happened this weekend weakens his chances of fighting successfully for reform of the common agricultural policy, and his chances of working to resist the further encroachment of VAT—issues that really matter to the people of this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the weekend's events show not that he is a Prime Minister who is strong but that he is weak, a prisoner of his Euro-sceptics, and that yet again it is the people of this country who will pay the price for his failure?
The Prime Minister: I never cease to marvel at the transformation in the right hon. Lady's attitude to Europe. She has slipped effortlessly from slavish and unthinking opposition to the European Community to slavish and unthinking support for everything that emerges from it. Can this be the same right hon. Lady who once said:
"If one believed, as many of us do, that the EEC is a prime obstacle to the policies we need, how can we be expected to put our consciences and principles aside and cease to fight to win?"
I shall spare the right hon. Lady the other eight quotations that I have.
I welcome what the right hon. Lady said about the accession treaty and the result of the referendum in Austria. I also welcome her support for the partnership and co-operation agreement—the further relationship with Russia and the actions on Chernobyl—and her support for the future enlargement of the Community to include Cyprus, Malta and four other countries, not just the two that she mentioned.
We do accept the social dimension, but her reference to the social chapter relates to those member states that have signed the social protocol, not to ourselves—something which the right hon. Lady may not have understood.
The right hon. Lady said that further finance for trans-European networks had not been ruled out, but I can tell her most emphatically that neither has it been ruled in.
On information technology, I welcome her support for competition—a little late perhaps, but none the less welcome.
The right hon. Lady referred to a discussion. There was a whole series of discussions over lunch and in plenary.
558
The one in which I did not take part related to economic matters and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite naturally, spoke on behalf of this country. In every other discussion I not only spoke but set out this country's position very clearly.
The right hon. Lady spoke of her successful negotiations. She, like me, met members of the socialist group in Corfu. Did she urge them to support Sir Leon Brittan? [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), saying that she did not support the British candidate. Nor did we hear from the right hon. Lady whether, on an issue of principle and importance to this country, she would have maintained the British veto. She said not a word on that. We cannot get a clear answer from her on that any more than we can from the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has wriggled on every programme on which he has appeared.
The right hon. Lady also referred, without a great deal of knowledge, to the reform of the common agricultural policy—clearly not understanding that the enlargement of the Community to include the central and eastern Europeans would make it absolutely imperative that there was a root-and-branch reform of the CAP.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision he took in Corfu at the weekend on the Presidency was not only right but courageous and popular—popular not just in the Conservative party but throughout this country and in many electorates across Europe? It is the Opposition parties who are isolated from public opinion in this country. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in putting forward his new vision of Europe, that does not result in a Franco-German stitch-up?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I made the judgment on the Presidency of the Commission—which is the most important executive post to be determined—on the basis of what I believed to be right for the European Union as a whole and right for this country. For the reasons I gave, and although I have nothing personal against Mr. Dehaene, I did not believe that he was the right person for that job. I believe that the decision taken will have a great deal more support across Europe than is being speculated upon by many Members on the Opposition Benches, and I have no doubt that it was the right decision, in the short term and the long term, for this country and for Europe.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the present fast-deteriorating situation in Bosnia gives grave cause for concern? If the present fragile and much-breached ceasefire does not give way to a negotiated settlement, is it not the case that we may well be witnessing a terrifying escalation in the war in Bosnia, with the probability that it will spread to the rest of the Balkan peninsula?
As to the Presidency, the Prime Minister's attempt to portray the Punch and Judy farce at Corfu as Henry V at the battle of Agincourt—with the right hon. Gentleman in the title role—is deeply unconvincing, to say the least. Is it not the case that everybody in Europe and most people in Britain realise that the Prime Minister sacrificed Britain's long-term influence and interests to obtain short-term

559
headlines in the Murdoch press and to deliver a large dollop of appeasement to the right wingers on his own Back Benches?
The Prime Minister: All the right hon. Gentleman achieves with interventions of that sort is to show how little he understands about negotiation in Europe and the issues at stake. I accept that there is a fundamental difference of approach to European issues between my party and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has been very frank. He does not consider the sovereignty of this Parliament important—he has made that perfectly clear. I disagree. He does not believe that we should maintain and exercise the right to veto. I strongly disagree. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that on any occasion when this country may disagree with our colleagues in Europe we should automatically accept what they believe to be right and not what we believe to be right—which is the necessary consequence of not using a veto—he speaks for no one but himself and a tiny minority.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the situation in Bosnia is grave. The ceasefire is holding, but we must bear in mind that a ceasefire is all that it is. Even that is not satisfactory. Tragically, another young soldier of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment was killed yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must work extremely hard in weeks to come to turn the ceasefire into a settlement that will last.
Sir Edward Heath: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the fact that he considered himself to be forced to use the veto is a matter for regret, not for rejoicing? I believe that he recognises that the inquest will continue a long time and will overhang the whole of the 1996 discussions about the treaty's future nature.
Does my right hon. Friend recognise, as I do, that Sir Leon Brittan would have made an excellent President of the Union? Does he realise that Sir Leon received no support from any other member state because of the widespread belief that the British Government would use all their powers to bring pressure to bear on Sir Leon to reorder the Community and not to develop the European Union? That fact must be faced.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's major task now is to concentrate on how to resolve the crisis—for crisis it certainly is? It is said to be a matter of principle. What is the principle? We all know that the veto is there and that it can be used—that is not an issue. The treaty clearly describes when the veto may be used. There is no matter of principle involved.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he had nothing against the Belgian candidate. How does he propose to resolve the crisis and to find a suitable candidate? He said that there must be unanimity. Does that mean that only candidates acceptable to the British Government will be agreed to? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is not an issue on which there can be general agreement, which is what unanimity is about in a democracy—not domination by one particular country, but the work of all the countries put together.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has raised a number of points, and I should like to respond directly to all of them.
I share my right hon. Friend's regret that it was necessary to use the veto on this occasion. As I said in my
560
statement, it should not have been necessary, and it could have been avoided had the degree of consultation that took place, for example, in 1984 been replicated. I very much hope that the matter can now be speedily resolved. There have been occasions in the past when the Presidency of the Commission was not approved at a European Council; subsequently, rapid consultations produced an outcome satisfactory to all members of the Community. I hope that that will be the case now.
I also share my right hon. Friend's view of the qualities of Sir Leon Brittan: he would indeed have been an excellent President of the Commission. I do not think that anyone who knows Sir Leon well would imagine that he would have done anything other than that which he believed to be right for the European Union. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that the excellence of his performance as a competition Minister during the past few years weighed against him in the minds of some of our colleagues when they considered who should be President of the Commission.
I believe that we need to resolve the matter with urgent bilateral contacts, and we are ready to take part in those contacts. The point of principle was not whether the veto should be used; as my right hon. Friend said, the veto is there, and it is there precisely to be used. The point of principle was the manner in which the consultations took place, and the manner in which the late candidature itself emerged.
As for the acceptability of the candidate, what I hope to achieve is a candidate who is acceptable to all members of the Community, not just to the United Kingdom. We are in this as one of 12, soon to be 16. The candidate must be acceptable to all member states. Although that cannot possibly mean that he or she would be the first choice of all member states, I think it perfectly possible to obtain a candidate who will be acceptable to all and who—in the next five years during which he or she has responsibilities to discharge—will carry the confidence of all member states. That is what I wish to achieve with all possible speed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed any further, let me point out that—as the House can see—a large number of hon. Members wish to question the Prime Minister. I now want only very brisk questions; otherwise I shall use my discretion, and ask the Prime Minister to answer only one of the questions. I want to call as many hon. Members as possible on this important statement.
Mr. Giles Radice: The Prime Minister has just underlined the importance of consensus. Does he think that there really is a candidate who has the support of all the Governments of the 12 member states—especially when they include a British Government who have just shown themselves to be under the thumb of the Euro-sceptics?
The Prime Minister: As to whether there is a candidate acceptable to all, the answer is yes. The next few weeks will prove that to be the case.
Mr. Tom King: In his efforts to promote someone who was manifestly a very suitable candidate—Sir Leon Brittan—how was my right hon. Friend helped by the statement of the Labour MEP who is now the leader

561
of the European socialists, who said that even if the Council approved such a choice they would seek to defeat it in the Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that statement, and, to my surprise, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has chosen not to bring it to the attention of the House.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1940, when I was 20, it was not considered any great crime to put Britain's interests before the then European consensus? Does he derive some satisfaction from the recent European elections, in which some Opposition parties showed a marked reluctance to put before the electorate proposals for further surrender of Britain's interests?
The Prime Minister: Although not every aspect of the results of the European elections was entirely to my satisfaction, my party certainly contested the campaign on European issues, while others signally failed to do so.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the Prime Minister on standing firm against the blitzkrieg tactics of the French and Germans in promoting their candidate. Will he take the opportunity to remind the Europeans that Britain's especially good economic situation, compared with theirs, has arisen not just because of the brilliance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy but because of our escape from the ERM? Will he give that message on their future economic climate as well as his splendid guidance on the Presidency?
The Prime Minister: In the past, I have expressed the view that the deregulatory policies—the supply side policies—that we are following are the right way to create jobs. On this occasion, it fell to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make those points, and he did so.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Why should Britain's interests suffer because we have a puny Prime Minister who is more concerned to reassert his authority—his enfeebled authority—over his rebellious and, indeed, ridiculous right wing than to work and co-operate for the future of that great role of a united Europe?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks for the things that he believes to be important, and he must expect me to do the same; I did so on this occasion.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Prime Minister anything to tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland about the talks that he had with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic during the Council? The agreement was that strand 1 of the talks would include only the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland and Her Majesty's Government, yet, following talks, the Prime Minister announced on television that he and the Taoiseach were discussing strand 1 of the talks, from which the Irish Republic Government were excluded as the talks were internal to Northern Ireland. Having used his veto on one occasion—I agree with what he did—he should use his veto against the Prime Minister of the Irish Government, who keeps insisting that Northern Ireland should be part of his country.
The Prime Minister: No, my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister were not about strand 1, which has been the subject of discussions between the British Government and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. My discussions with the Irish Prime Minister related to political strands 2 and 3. We still have not achieved agreement, but we are making progress. We have commissioned further work.
Mr. Peter Shore: So far, so good: the Prime Minister has won the first battle over the Presidency, but there will be further rounds to be fought and it is the last battle that really matters. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in strengthening his position against an unwelcome candidate for the Presidency, he would do better to say that our basic objection is to the appointment of an open Euro-federalist as the President of the European Commission, and that our objection will continue if the Commission proposes any other Euro-federalist candidate?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman carried all his colleagues with him, but his intervention was entertaining from where I sat. He would expect me to consider all future candidates on their merits, and I will do so.
Mr. David Howell: I warmly support my right hon. Friend's stand, which in due season will be supported not only by Britain but by many millions of people in the European Union. In setting up the preparatory committee for 1996 at Corfu—the so-called reflection committee, which will have two Members of the European Parliament as members—will he ensure that the House has an adequate and full opportunity to contribute to that committee and a full say in ensuring that we get the right kind of Europe after 1996?
The Prime Minister: I regard that as an extremely important point. The Heads of Government have agreed that a study group should convene in around a year's time to prepare for the 1996 intergovernmental conference. It is highly likely, although it is not a decision for me, that the Select Committee here may wish to take its own considerations and make its own representations directly to the study group. I believe that it would be right for it to do so. It may well be that other groups will also wish to put forward their representations, both to the British Government and to the study group. Clearly, this will be an important intergovernmental conference and it is vital, in my mind, that everybody who has a valid point to put forward should have the opportunity of doing so and the opportunity of discussing it.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: If the Prime Minister's objection to the appointment of the Belgian Prime Minister is essentially procedural in that the nomination was sorted out in secret, behind closed doors, will he, therefore, support proposals to make the European Union's system of appointments more open, more democratic and more accountable?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman bases his question on a misassumption. I have not said that my objection was procedural. I have said that the procedure was part of the reason why we complained. As a point of principle, the procedure was wrong. I also made it perfectly clear that, in my judgment, Mr. Dehaene was not the best

563
qualified candidate for the job. I do not believe that one should accept anyone other than someone whom one believes is fully qualified for this job. I also made the point that, on key policy issues, I did not believe that the approach that Mr. Dehaene favoured was right. None of those points is novel; I made them perfectly clear the other day and they should be clear to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only important to ensure that we do not have a federalist as President of the Commission, but that it is essential that we do not have the Germans and the French running the European Community? We should use the reflection group which has been set up in Corfu to ensure that we reduce the role and the powers of the European Commission and the European Union so that we can be sure that we concentrate on the office and the institutions rather than on the man.
The Prime Minister: Whoever becomes President of the Commission in due course, I very much doubt that that person will exercise the influence and authority that Mr. Delors has exercised over recent years. The changing nature and enlargement of the Community make it extremely unlikely that anyone will exercise that authority again. That view is held not only by the British Government, but by the Heads of a number of other Governments.
On my hon. Friend's other points, I mentioned the increasing success of subsidiarity. On new legislation—I take the figures from memory—in 1990, there were about 180 new pieces of European legislation. In the first half of this year, there have been 25.
Mr. Tony Benn: If European co-operation extends, as it must and should, to cover the whole continent, is it not absolutely clear that we shall have to move to a different system under which the nations involved harmonise, by consent, through their own peoples and Parliaments? The real enemies of a new Europe are those who wish to seize all power and to put it in the hands of bankers and Commissioners who are not accountable and cannot be removed.
Is the Prime Minister also aware that the siren voices in this House, in the press and in the City of London are wholly unrepresentative, not only of opinion in this country, but of opinion in other countries in that huge continent? Those countries want to govern themselves and not to be governed by a political class who have contempt for the opinions of ordinary people.
The Prime Minister: I agree with co-operation by consent. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in the Maastricht treaty we established pillars in three vital areas for co-operation by consent and agreement. There is no doubt that by consent the countries of the European Union can often exercise more influence collectively than individually. I strongly agree that that consent principle should be extended. There are areas for common decision where common consent would not properly work.
My concern is that the influence of some Europeans would move us too fast towards common decision, and not by co-operation or by common consent. That is where I fear that Europe would lose the affection of its people. I do not wish that affection to be lost. That is why I have argued
564
for the nature of Europe that I set out in the election campaign just a few weeks ago. We must extend co-operation by consent; we shall seek to do so in future.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend was quite right to say that use of the veto should be exercised with great reluctance, but, in the circumstances that he has described over last weekend, he was absolutely justified in exercising that veto. Will he now ensure that he works closely with the Germans, during their Presidency of the Community, to find a successor acceptable to all and to help the Germans who themselves have a difficult few months ahead with their elections? When the Council of Ministers makes a proposal, can it also give a job description so that it is quite clear to everybody what is expected of the new Commissioner?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly wish to work with the new Presidency as soon as it takes up its responsibilities to reach a common accord on a new Commission President as speedily as possible. I cannot yet say who that will be, but I think that there are a number of people who would be worthy of consideration. My hon. Friend makes a valid point about a job description.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Prime Minister said that there were two very good candidates available other than the one being discussed—Sir Leon Brittan and Dr. Lubbers. Will he assure the House that, if Dr. Lubbers's name were to come forward again, he would not use his veto, notwithstanding Dr. Lubbers's federalist tendencies?
The Prime Minister: I made it clear some time ago that, in the event that Sir Leon Brittan's candidature for the Presidency did not receive the support of colleagues, I could accept Dr. Lubbers.
Mr. Ashdown: But Dr. Lubbers is more of a federalist.
The Prime Minister: I could accept Dr. Lubbers. Whether Dr. Lubbers's name will come forward again seems very doubtful.
Mr. Ashdown: But he is more of a federalist.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has probably never met either of those gentlemen. He has certainly never sat and negotiated with them. He has certainly not sat round the table reaching decisions with them. He has certainly not met them in bilaterals time after time after time. The right hon. Gentleman should either speak about things about which he knows or say nothing.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give us his assurance that any candidate approved by the British Government for the Presidency will pass the test of being in favour of Britain's opt-outs on the social chapter and the single currency and against a further move towards a united states of Europe?
The Prime Minister: We have those opt outs and we intend to retain those opt outs, so the position of the new President on those is not especially relevant. I shall repeat the point that I made a moment ago. I shall look at each candidate for the Presidency on their individual virtues and make a judgment on that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the Prime Minister help the House on a question of straightforward

565
fact? Is it true or is it untrue that, as reported in the press, his Chief Whip told him that if he did not exercise the veto he would be opposed this autumn for the leadership of his own party?
The Prime Minister: I can tell the hon. Gentleman categorically that no such conversation took place and no such advice was received.
Sir Peter Hordern: Is not it important to the future of the European Union that proper consultation between member countries should take place before the summit meetings? How can it otherwise be the case that two well recognised figures, both eminently qualified—Dr. Lubbers and Sir Leon Brittan—were bypassed by a secret conclave between the French and the Germans at Mulhouse? That cannot be a satisfactory way in which to proceed, and it would be a bad day for this country and for the European Union if it were.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend in what he says, and I have every expectation now that there will be a proper consultation over the next few weeks and that a satisfactory candidate, who will be accepted by all, will then emerge.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when all the clamour has died down and the flag-waving has ended, in a quieter period, he and others will have to make a choice about who is going to get the job? It would be fair if I were to ask him if he will he give a guarantee to the House that he will veto each and every federalist who is put up for that job.
The Prime Minister: If that was a job application, I would certainly veto the hon. Gentleman. I repeat the commitment that I gave the House a moment or so ago. I will consider every candidate on his merits, and I will not bind myself beyond that consideration.
Sir Peter Tapsell: In stating my full support for my right hon. Friend's cool, determined and far-sighted representation of our country in Corfu, may I invite him to garner support and strength from the fact that the British people instinctively understand that the so-called European Union is increasingly in danger of becoming the latest vehicle for the age-old German desire to dominate Europe so that those who really have the interests of a democratic Europe of co-operating nation states at heart will need to work a good deal more effectively after Corfu to bring that about?
The Prime Minister: I believe that the Community is a collection of nation states, the voices of all of which need to be taken seriously and considered. There is no doubt that the Community must reach its decisions collectively and that no individual nation should have excessive influence.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Does the Prime Minister accept that I am familiar with the European views of Dr. Lubbers? Will he tell the House precisely how Dr. Lubbers's views on the future development of Europe differ from those of Mr. Dehaene?
The Prime Minister: Well, he is a free trader for a start. I think that that is rather important. He is much more in
566
favour of subsidiarity and deregulation. He is not in favour of extra expenditure; and he is an Atlanticist. Would the hon. Gentleman like a longer list?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, no matter how he had voted on the Presidency, he would still have had the niggling criticisms from the Opposition Benches? Does he accept that to put the interests of Britain first has to be the aim of any British Prime Minister? Does he agree that it is wrong for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties to make the statement that we have no influence at all in Europe unless we go along with plans that have been pre-arranged between Germany and France?
The Prime Minister: That certainly is the practical effect of what has been said by the Front-Bench Members of both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party. It is all very well saying that we seek co-operation and that a difficult circumstance would never arise so we would never have to use the veto. I am afraid that that is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
The reality is that from time to time, for very good reasons, there are matters in which every nation state finds itself at odds with its European partners. In those circumstances, unless the veto is maintained on matters which may be of vital interest to this country, we would inevitably have to follow the views of others, with no escape route whatever for the British. That is not an acceptable position to the present Government. I regret very much that it is acceptable to the Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: As the relevant article requires common accord, is there not a duty on all members involved to avoid action that could create common discord? The Prime Minister has told us that the customary procedures of consultation were not carried out on this occasion. If they had been, and bearing in mind the support that Dr. Lubbers had from a number of other countries, is it not likely that we would have had Dr. Lubbers as the President of the Commission?
The Prime Minister: I think that is quite possible.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that four nations which did not have a vote in Corfu will warmly welcome the stand that he took on the question of the successor as President of the Commission? They are Austria and the three Scandinavian countries, which do not want to join a European Union on 1 January that is dominated by a French and German axis.
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House is deeply disappointed that he has not released the remaining quotations from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the Leader of the Opposition? In order that we may be aware of the principles of the Labour leadership on Europe, perhaps my right hon. Friend will release one a day for the next eight days.
The Prime Minister: There might well be occasions when it would be appropriate to release some of the others.
I very much believe that it is vital for Europe that the French-German reconciliation continues. All of us who look over a period of years believe that to be entirely right. I very much hope to see that continue and that the close relationship between France and Germany itself will

567
continue. Equally, we ourselves both seek and now enjoy a close relationship with both those countries and our other European partners. That close relationship does not mean accord on every subject; nor would it ever be likely to be the case with nations of such varied interests. But we seek a common accord wherever we can and we seek the best relationship not only with France and Germany but with France and Germany and our fellow partners in the European Union.
Mr. John Fraser: What accommodation does the Prime Minister anticipate will be reached between the Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus to enable Cyprus to be admitted as a member of the Community?
The Prime Minister: It is a considerable way off before Cyprus is likely to be admitted as a member of the Community. Certainly, if the dispute between the north and south is unresolved, it will be extremely difficult for Cyprus to be admitted to the Community. What we have said is that we will look at that and consider the case in the next phase of enlargement—that is certainly some years away.
But I share a view that I think the hon. Gentleman would accept: first, we must continue with the United Nations' efforts to try to find a satisfactory accommodation to the long-standing problem of Cyprus. We have, for example, had British troops there now for nearly 30 years, and other United Nations countries for a similar period, so we will continue to seek that accommodation. Secondly, although this is not yet a matter discussed with our European partners, clearly we hope that that dispute will be resolved before it is possible for Cyprus to become a member of the European Union.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the importance to the Belgian economy of the presence of European institutions in Brussels, it makes it doubly imperative that any Belgian candidate for the Presidency should receive the unequivocal support of all member states?
The Prime Minister: I believe that any candidate needs the unequivocal support of all 12 member states. I have no doubt that there are men of talent in each of the European countries—all 12 of them—who could perhaps serve as President of the Commission. It is not the nationality of the candidate that I consider relevant; it is the attributes that the candidate has.

Point of Order
4.26 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It arises out of Welsh questions when the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) referred to my constituency of Cynon Valley and the housing situation there. Not only did he not tell me beforehand that he would raise the matter; he also made a grossly misleading statement which I hope he will correct. He is not known for his courtesy in the House, but I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will point out to him the error of his ways.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me to deal with. Of course, the hon. Lady can use the Order Paper—I am sure that she knows her way round it—by means of questions or an early-day motion in order to correct the statement.

BILL PRESENTED
  PUBLIC CONVENIENCES (No. 2)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones, supported by Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Ian McCartney, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Andrew Smith, Ms Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Simon Hughes and Ms Liz Lynne, presented a Bill to secure a uniform provision of public lavatories by local authorities throughout the United Kingdom; to set certain minimum standards for such public lavatories; to require the provision of lavatories designed for persons with disabilities and the provision of nappy changing facilities; to make unlawful any discriminatory charging in respect of the use of local authority public lavatories; to make further provision in respect of turnstiles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 July, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  FEES AND CHARGES
  That the draft Seed Potatoes (Fees) (Scotland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the draft European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  Question agreed to.

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 7

Housing and environmental services, Scotland

Class XIV

Vote 8

Local environmental services and housing, Scotland.

Class XIV

Vote 13

Family health services (part), Scotland

Class XIV

Vote 14

Hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Select Committees (Role)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. MacKay.]
[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1989–90 (HC 19), on The Working of the Select Committee System, and the Government response (Cm. 1532.)]
4.27 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I greatly welcome this opportunity to debate the role of Select Committees. It is 15 years almost to the day—the actual anniversary was last weekend—since the House approved a motion for reforming its Select Committee system and establishing departmental Select Committees to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the various Government Departments.
At that time, Norman St. John-Stevas, who was much involved in these affairs, said that it could constitute the most important parliamentary reform of the century. While that may have seemed a little over the top at the time, none the less there is some justification for saying that it has made a substantial difference to our procedures, and in many ways has been a considerable success.
It is almost four years since the Select Committee on Procedure reported on the working of the Select Committee system. The House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and that Committee for the report which they produced after taking a great deal of evidence from all those who were concerned about these matters. The Government replied formally to the points raised in the Procedure Committee's report, but it is rather extraordinary that we have had to wait four years for an opportunity to debate it.
The Committee reached the conclusion that the departmental Committee system as a whole had proved itself a valuable and cost-effective addition to the House's ability to perform its proper function of holding Ministers to account. Certainly I believe that, in that respect, it has been a considerable success.
Looking back over the past 15 years to when the change was made and a new Administration came in under the then Mrs. Thatcher, it is strange to reflect that her most lasting contribution to political events may not have been the Falklands war or the miners' strike or even—in the light of what was said a few moments ago—her battles with various members of the EC, but the introduction of the departmental Select Committee system. That may be something of an irony, but nonetheless I think it is interesting.
I recall that some distinguished Members at the time—Michael Foot, Enoch Powell and others—said that we would draw attention away from the Floor of House were we to establish such a system. I do not believe that that has been the case. It is certainly the case that some Members have difficulty being both on the Floor of House and in Committee at the same time. The reality is that that there are no fewer than four Committees sitting at this moment whose Members are therefore unable to be with us this afternoon.
Mr. Giles Radice: I just wish to correct a factual mistake by the right hon. Gentleman. Enoch Powell was a member of the Select Committee of

571
1976 which proposed the system of departmental Select Committees and, while he took some persuading, he came out in favour of that. He was a supporter of that idea.
Sir Terence Higgins: Enoch Powell certainly was a supporter of the idea, but he had some qualms that it would affect the Floor of the House. I do not believe that that has been the case. The crucial thing is that the system has greatly improved the ability of the House to hold Ministers to account. For many years, power seemed to be shifting from the House of Commons towards the Executive. That was reversed.
We all know that, at Question Time on the Floor of the House—not least because the questions change from moment to moment—it can be very difficult to pin a Minister down. It is also very often the case that, during a winding-up speech, a Minister will have little difficulty in avoiding the more difficult questions which have been put to him. It is a different ball game in exchanges in front of a Select Committee, where a Minister can be questioned for two hours or more. If the Minister is clearly on weak ground, the Committee can make that clear.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman think of any examples off the top of his head when, on a crunch issue—an issue that really matters—a Minister has been held to account? I sat there when Leon Brittan, who has been much mentioned this afternoon, came before the Trade and Industry Select Committee on the crunch issue of Westland, and I realised how feeble the Select Committee' powers were.
Sir Terence Higgins: That is the exception which may prove the rule. The reality at that time was that it was difficult to pursue matters to a conclusion, and I think that that was an exception. In many other cases, it has been possible to pursue Ministers very effectively—not least, for example, on the Treasury Select Committee.
Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked for an example of someone being held to account, and Professor Joad would ask what we meant by "being held to account". It is noticeable that the person mentioned by my hon. Friend is not now a Member of this House.
Sir Terence Higgins: That may be the case.
May I also make an important point suggested during the rather excellent debate on procedure which we had only last week: that the House would be very different if it sat in a semi-circle, rather than in confrontation across the Floor of the House. I believe that current design of the Chamber is undoubtedly the right set-up. There is no doubt, however, that the semi-circular arrangement in Select Committees, where witnesses appear before an all-party group, has created an effective forum. That is especially clear, for example, on television.
It is also extraordinary that Select Committees seem to reach unanimous conclusions and publish unanimous reports, which never seems to happen on the Floor of the House. In the past 15 years, one of the undoubted strengths of the system has been the fact that Select Committees have published unanimous reports, across party lines. Those reports have correspondingly had a greater influence than would have been the case if those Committees had simply divided on party lines.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it was extremely wise of the Select Committee on Broadcasting to insist that Select Committees, rather than merely the Chamber should be broadcast on television? As a result, although the public regard what goes on in the Chamber with some cynicism and contempt, they are greatly impressed by the work of those Select Committees.
Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend has made a good point. In common with all hon. Members, I have received letters from constituents complaining about the behaviour during Prime Minister's Question Time, which is what most people watch on television. In contrast, I have received a number of letters from those who watch the affairs of Select Committees on television. They believe that those Committees provide a much more in-depth, civilised and sophisticated approach to dealing with political issues. That is extremely important to the standing of the House.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the right hon. Member give way?
Sir Terence Higgins: I shall gladly give way later.
Apart from holding Ministers to account, Select Committees have given officials a much higher profile than before. They are now subject to more stringent scrutiny than that which they may receive from their Ministers, who might be preoccupied with a great many other issues.
The role of the Liaison Select Committee—
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Member give way?
Sir Terence Higgins: Let me make a little progress, please.
The Liaison Select Committee normally meets in private and rarely publishes reports, so its work is not generally understood. It has the important role of co-ordinating the work of the various Select Committees and resolving difficulties between them.
I have had the privilege of chairing that Committee for seven years, and it is surprising to note that I have co-operated and worked with no fewer than six different Leaders of the House. I seem to have survived in my position rather better than they have. Every one of them has been a great supporter of the Select Committee system. On the whole, the interface between the Liaison Committee and Government has worked remarkably well. I have also enjoyed similarly successful discussions with and co-operation from the Opposition, which is important.
There are problems of co-ordination from time to time—for example, because of the overlap between the work of the Public Accounts Committee and a departmental committee, when covering the same ground. Problems have also arisen about getting information from the Government, particularly when it is classified or confidential. We have, however, worked out a reasonable modus vivendi.
I should like to comment, on an all-party basis, on the role of the Whips in Select Committees, which I believe should be limited. I recognise that, if we are to have a Government majority on each Committee, while ensuring that some of those Committees are chaired by Opposition Members, that can be achieved only by consultation through the usual channels.
That system has worked pretty well on the whole, but I

573
believe that, once the chairmanship of Committees has been agreed at the beginning of a Parliament—always a difficult task—the actual election of those Chairmen should be left to the Committees themselves. I have become concerned about the role of the Whips, for two reasons.
First, in the debate that took place on 13 July 1993, the view was clearly expressed that there was a rule that Committee Chairmen should not serve more than a certain length of time. I believe that there is no such rule, and that it was invented by the Select Committee on Selection at the time. It was absurd to suggest that such a rule applied only to one side of the House. I hope that we shall hear no more of that rule. On the other hand, we would not want to end up with a seniority rule such as exists in the United States.
I say all that with no personal interest, because I had already decided that I should not continue as Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee. I hope that a similar case, in which the hand of the Whips is clearly discernible, will not arise in future.
Similarly—as Chairman of an all-party Committee, it is appropriate that I be even-handed—I was deeply concerned about the events of recent months when restrictions on travel by the Opposition Whips inhibited Committees' work. That was totally counter-productive. Committees were not just prevented from travelling abroad, but the Education Committee, for example, was prevented from travelling around the country to visit schools. The Opposition's idea that that would annoy the Government was ridiculous. I hope that we can treat it as a one-off event. It is important that Committees established to serve the House should be able to operate in an uninhibited manner.
Mr. Faulds: In case my earlier "Hear, hears" were not recorded, I stand simply to put it on the record that I thought that the nonsense a few months ago was absolutely ridiculous, and typical of some of the rather raddled minds of the Whips. I strongly endorse the comments which the right hon. Gentleman has just made.
Sir Terence Higgins: It is clear from the expression on the face of the Opposition Whip that the hon. Gentleman's views have been duly noted.
May I say a word about overseas travel? Some of the comments that have appeared in the press are entirely misplaced. We operate on a budget which, compared to those of other countries, is extremely limited. The Liaison Committee seeks to deal with the matter stringently, so that we get value for money. In its report, the Procedure Committee suggested that there should be a sub-committee of non-travelling members on the Liaison Committee. At least we have moved some way in that direction.
I was originally elected as Chairman of the Liaison Committee because I was serving on that Committee and had a base, in that I was also Chairman of the Treasury Committee. In this Parliament, the view was taken that it was a conflict of interests if the Chairman of the Liaison Committee also held the chairmanship of another Committee. So it was decided that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee should not have a base Committee. That is the position in which I now find myself. It follows that I do not travel overseas with Select Committees, and can be impartial.
574
I strongly stress that travel proposals are examined stringently. Anyone who has been on one of those visits knows that they are hard work and of value to the Committees concerned.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I have sat under his chairmanship and believe that he is an extremely impartial, hard-working and intelligent Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
Will he emphasise strongly that, despite its best endeavours, the Liaison Committee is so mean with Parliament's money that Select Committees have to rush across time zones with little respect for the work which they are supposed to carry out? I have been on Select Committees on three occasions when insufficient time was allowed to members physically to recover from the travel which they were expected to do. That is damaging, and I hope that it will be taken into account in future.
Sir Terence Higgins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the commercial at the beginning of her intervention. Clearly we must strike a balance on those matters, and I hope that we do so as far as possible, taking account of the important point which she has just made.
The House may not be fully aware of an interesting development that has occurred largely at the initiative of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It has carried out an experiment on so-called "video conferencing", whereby, instead of travelling overseas, a video conference links the Committee with witnesses abroad.
It raises some technical problems with regard to the evidence that is taken, the procedure of the House and questions of costs. None the less, we must examine it to see whether it enables Committees to take evidence from people overseas without the expense of them coming here, or the expense and time consumed by colleagues going overseas. That development may not commend itself to everyone, but it is well worth considering. We shall need to take careful account of the implications for the formal procedures of the House.
The other formal duty of the Liaison Committee concerns the selection of estimates days, of which we have three a year or, in practice now, six half days a year. I wish to disagree with the report of the Procedure Committee, because it suggested that those estimates days should be replaced by days for debate on Select Committee reports generally.
Estimates days are the only occasion when the House can debate the detail of public expenditure. They were introduced because the House was in an absurd position, with literally no opportunity to debate the detail of public expenditure. Although, to some extent, estimates days are a little artificial as, under Standing Orders, the House is allowed to debate only a reduction in public expenditure and not an increase, they provide an important opportunity for it to study the detail.
It is important that Committees' terms of reference say clearly that they are responsible for looking at the expenditure, policy and administration of the Departments concerned. No one who serves on Select Committees could doubt that the first of those items—expenditure—is not dealt with as thoroughly as the other two. The reason is largely technical. The form of the estimates is scanty, consisting of bare titles and figures, and Committees have found them difficult to assess.

575
Over the years, and since I left the Chair, the Treasury Committee has been assiduous in looking at the form of those estimates, and we have gradually seen the development of the departmental Select Committee reports, which incorporate much of the information that used to appear in the raw state in the estimates. Technically, it is important to have estimates days, but the new departmental reports provide Committees of the House with a real opportunity to study expenditure in a broader framework, and to deal with the merits of the case.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that, in proposing subjects for debate that were not concerned with the estimates, on a number of occasions Committees put in rather fallacious factors about estimates, so that they could come forward, on an estimates day, and have those debated? I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend about the need to ensure that estimates can be debated, but, equally, an important Select Committee report that is not concerned with estimates should not be ruled out from debate because it does not deal with estimates.
Sir Terence Higgins: I entirely take my right hon. Friend's point. I suggest that we retain the estimates days, but also have an opportunity each year for a certain number of debates on departmental reports and the expenditure described in them, on the basis of the reports from the various Select Committees. Perhaps, as with the estimates days, the choice of which reports to debate should be left to the Liaison Committee.
This year, a "unified Budget" has been introduced—but it is a myth. It is not really a unified Budget. We have always debated public expenditure and taxation together, in the autumn statement and during the Budget debate. Nothing has been gained in that respect. However, there has been a substantial reduction in the amount of time that the House has for debating economic affairs.
Instead of the autumn statement and the public expenditure White Paper in the spring, and the Budget running through until August, we are now down to a single event each year.
At the moment, we spend nearly all our time debating taxation, not public expenditure. With a unified Budget, insteadof having more debate on public expenditure and therefore bringing the two sides together, we now have even less time for debating public expenditure.
I say to the Leader of the House that there has been a considerable saving in Government time as a result of the so-called unified Budget. I believe that a reasonable amount of that time ought now to be allocated to the debates on the Select Committee reports on the public expenditure described in the annual reports of the Departments.
The third leg of this argument, which emerges very clearly from discussions in the Liaison Committee, is that time is needed to debate other Select Committee reports. Some Committees, such as the Defence Committee, have set opportunities during the year for doing so; the Treasury Committee also, although on the limited basis that have described, has a regular opportunity for doing so; many of the reports are "tagged", as the expression is, so that they can be used in debates on specific subjects, but still no regular time is available to debate the reports of Select Committees in general. We need a separate allocation for
576
that, which would reflect the growing importance of the Committees and the growing respect in which they are held.
I shall briefly mention one or two subjects before concluding—one, mentioned in the Procedure Committee report, concerns Standing Order No. 116 and the issue of advanced copies of reports. There have been some problems about that. I know that one of the Committees, whose Chairman is unable to be here this afternoon, is concerned about it. I hope that we could amend the Standing Order to two sitting days instead of 48 hours. That would enable Committees, in exceptional circumstances, not to publish reports before the weekend, but to release them on an embargo basis and publish them on the Monday. I hope that it will be possible to do that.
The Procedure Committee has dealt adequately with powers. Committees have very great powers to require the production of persons and papers, but those powers do not extend to the summoning of Members of this House or Members of the House of Lords. I think that that is right. The Procedure Committee rightly draws attention to the fact that, although there was a slight problem with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) some time ago, it is unlikely that anyone will refuse to give evidence if they are asked to do so by a Select Committee. The Government have adhered to their promise to ensure that Ministers do.
It is true that we may not summon Members of the House of Lords, although I was rather surprised at the comments of Lady Thatcher, who was invited recently to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying that she was not prepared to do so, as an ex-Prime Minister. She was entitled to say that she would not appear as a Member of the House of Lords, but to my knowledge no similar rule extends to ex-Prime Ministers. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and Lord Callaghan have, I think, appeared before Select Committees.
Mr. Ainger: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability and the importance of the unanimity of reports, and now he has moved on to powers. Does he accept that it is important that topicality is also taken into account in specific reports, and that the Government respond to those reports in a reasonable time?
I mention that because the Transport Select Committee, of which I am not a member, published a report on search and rescue in west Wales and the Dover straits, and the evidence contained the information that a search-and-rescue facility would be withdrawn from my constituency on 1 July. That report, which recommended that the search-and-rescue facility was not withdrawn, was published on 29 March. The Transport Select Committee still has not received a response from the Government.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in such circumstances, powers should be given to the Select Committee to obtain a response in a reasonable time?
Sir Terence Higgins: A specific provision already exists, as I think the Leader of the House will confirm—a time limit in which the Government are required to respond. I have on occasion pursued the matter when it appears that that time limit is likely to be exceeded, but I shall happily inquire into the matter that the hon. Gentleman has rightly mentioned.

577
I shall make a point about the European Legislation Committee, which is a non-departmental Committee. Both it and the Public Accounts Committee in its traditional role, and especially its extended role with regard to value for money exercises, continue to serve a very important function. However, the position of the European Legislation Committee is extremely difficult. It considers about 800 to 1,000 Community documents a year, it recommends examination of about 300 to 400 a year that have legal or political importance, and it takes evidence on seven or eight every week from the Government.
In spite of the enormous efforts of this Committee, we must consider whether that is a satisfactory way to proceed. I have a hankering after the proposal that I made the previous time the subject was examined—that there is a case for the individual departmental Committees to have a Sub-Committee that considers European affairs.
The departmental Committees have the expertise, whereas the ad hoc Committees that meet in the morning move from subject to subject and have no serious expertise on the specific matters that are being discussed. It might be necessary to augment that Sub-Committee with volunteers who are specifically interested in European affairs. I hope that we may reconsider that proposal.
Finally, I make two arguments about the future. First, I have been deeply worried, as was the Procedure Committee, about the delay in establishing Committees at the beginning of a Parliament. The problem is that, at that crucial moment, no one in the House represents the interests of Select Committees. Therefore there is prolonged delay, not only while the Government are appointed—that takes place very quickly—and not only while the shadow Cabinet is appointed, but afterwards. The Procedure Committee report said that, on previous occasions, about one eighth of a whole Parliament had passed before the Committees were set up.
Before the next general election, we need to establish some mechanism for ensuring that that delay is not as prolonged as it has been in the past. However, I pay tribute to the present Leader of the House, who was extremely helpful in setting a record—but not a very good one—in getting the Committees set up after the most recent general election.
It is a real problem, because the staff are sitting doing nothing, the Committees are unable to proceed with the work, and the Government remain unscrutinised during that period. That is a very important issue, which we need to tackle very shortly, so that the mechanism is in place before the next general election, either by setting a specific time limit or making an arrangement about the time expiring after the shadow Cabinet and the Cabinet have been appointed.
I do not believe that our system will ever develop into the American system, as there is a fundamental difference between our two constitutions. We have a system in which the Executive comes from the legislature, which necessarily means that Select Committees cannot have effective functions in the same way as those in the American system.
I believe that the Committee system in its reformed state is a substantial improvement on the previous system. The amount of work done in Select Committees is not generally appreciated by the public at large, but it is valuable. We
578
need a firmer link between the Committees and the extent to which their reports can be debated on the Floor of the House. I hope that we can make further progress on that.
5 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I was a member of the 1976 Procedure Committee which first proposed the establishment of a system of investigative departmentally related Select Committees. It is not revealing any secrets to say that our proposal was a compromise between those who merely wanted to keep the Expenditure Committee system—including Mr. Enoch Powell—and those of us, including Phillip Whitehead, who has just been elected as a European Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and myself, who wanted a much more ambitious system.
Eventually, after a long debate and an all-day seminar session—in which we persuaded Mr. Powell that a departmentally related Select Committee system would merely draw out the implications of the Expenditure Committee system of the 1960s because that system included a series of Sub-Committees—we came up with the following ideas. We stated at the time:
"a new balance must be struck, not by changes of a fundamental or revolutionary character in the formal powers of the institutions concerned, but by changes in practice of an evolutionary kind, following naturally from present practices."
That was a nod to Mr. Powell. We said:
"We have approached our task not in the hope of making the job of government more comfortable, the weapons of Opposition more formidable, or the life of the backbencher more bearable, but with the aim of enabling the House as a whole to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern state for which they are answerable, and to make the decisions of Parliament and Government more responsive to the wishes of the electorate."
We hoped that the investigative Committees would
"become the 'eyes and ears' of the House in relation to Government departments, drawing the attention of Members to matters which require further political consideration and providing Members with advice and informed comment which can nourish the work of the House in scrutinising and criticising the activities and proposals of the Executive."
That was what we were trying to do.
We were fortunate to have as Leader of the House of Commons when the Thatcher Government first came to power, Norman St. John-Stevas. I am not certain that the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, knew what was happening when she set up the Select Committees. That system was very much the baby of Norman St. John-Stevas, who took the proposals of the Procedure Committee—I am sad to say that they had not been implemented by the Labour Government, partly because the then Leader' of the House, Michael Foot, was against the idea—and ran with the ball. As soon as the Conservative Government came to power he introduced the proposals.
Norman St. John-Stevas saw the new system as the most important parliamentary reform of the century. I think that that was going over the top. He implied that if departmentally related Select Committees were set up it would enable us to change the balance between Parliament and the Executive. I think that he had an inappropriate model in mind and thought in terms of the American committee system. As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, comparison with the United States of

579
America is inappropriate. There is a separation of powers in America, with a weaker party system; America operates in a different political framework.
When departmentally related Select Committees speak, Governments do not fall and Ministers do not resign.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Pity.
Mr. Radice: It is a pity perhaps, but that is the reality. But the Committees have been a success. They have become the focus for ideas, pressures and debate. If my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was still in his place I would have mentioned the good work that his Committee, the Select Committee on Social Security, has done on social security and, in a previous form, on the national health service. The hearings and reports of Select Committees influence the climate of opinion in the country.
As was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—I wanted to call him my right hon. Friend because he is my friend—the Member for Worthing, Select Committees help to call Ministers and civil servants to account. We do not expect them to resign, although occasionally they should have done so, but they come before us to answer a series of questions on their policies and decisions. The departmental Committees provide a good forum—a much more effective forum than the Floor of the House of Commons. In Question Time any Minister who is on form, well briefed and worth his or her salt will be able to answer questions on an issue as there will not be a sustained series of questions.
In a Select Committee, if a Minister has a serious problem and is asked a series of questions by a well-briefed member of a Select Committee, he or she will find it much more difficult to evade the question. If he or she does evade the question, it will be obvious that that is precisely what is being done and when, as at present, the proceedings are on television or radio, that can be telling. It is no accident that the 6 pm and 7 pm news often carry the proceedings of Select Committees as that is where Ministers let their guard drop for a moment or two and occasionally come out with information that is embarrassing to the Government.
I remember asking the present Chancellor of the Exchequer a series of questions on the impact of the Budget. I asked him whether it was not the case that if the two Budgets were put together the combined result would amount to 7p on the standard rate of tax and he said yes. I do not think that he would have said that on the Floor of the House of Commons, but he did so in the Select Committee. It was a revealing moment that was picked up by the popular press precisely because it was shown on television. In an odd way it helped people to realise that the Government had raised tax considerably. But if one listened to the Budget one would not have gained that impression. That shows how Select Committees—through the different format of the hearings—can influence debate in the country and the public's knowledge.
The departmentally related Select Committees are fortunate in having their own radio and television programmes. I have met people who have watched on television or listened on radio to those programmes, sometimes in their baths at 11 o'clock on a Sunday night, and who like to talk about them the next day—so we have our fans, and the programmes are clearly effective.
The point has also been rightly made that, in these Committees, an element of consensus can develop which is
580
impossible on the Floor of the House. Of course, it does not go very far; if there is a major policy difference between the two parties, it cannot be papered over in a Select Committee. But the very fact that the views of the parties can be rehearsed in a hearing represents a plus for Parliament. Indeed, sometimes the hearings are more important than the reports that we issue. That sometimes applies to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, when it is difficult to get a consensus—although the right hon. Member for Worthing would agree that our analyses are often better than those of the Treasury: they certainly stand the test of time better.
A word about reforms. I heartily agree that we need to protect the system against the party Whips. I do not want to go over history here, but the way in which a couple of Chairmen were leaned on and got rid of at the beginning of this Parliament was little short of scandalous. It is perhaps a pity that we took our retaliation—during the divisions between the two parties earlier this year—on the Select Committee system. I hope and am sure that that will not happen again.
It is fair to say that Government responses to Select Committee reports are sometimes so bland as to make them rather pointless. I have been looking at one or two Government responses to Treasury Select Committee reports, and they are good examples of what I mean. On the whole, Governments try not to take reports too seriously, particularly if they criticise the Government. Perhaps those reports need to be better linked with debates on the Floor of the House. Many years ago the Procedure Committee recommended eight such debates a year; we still have only three.
The development of the next steps agencies has not been fully taken into account by the Select Committee system. Now that nearly three quarters of all civil servants operate in agencies, the Select Committees must respond to that fact more effectively.
There may be a case in this for more specialist staff for the Committees. Hon. Members should remember that there is in fact no limit on the number of specialist staff that Committees can have. It is therefore up to us: if we see the need, we have to do something about it. A careful look should be taken at that.
My last point about the reforms concerns "the sending for persons and papers", in which area Select Committees have on a number of occasions been blocked by Government. The Westland affair was one occasion when Select Committees wanted certain members of the Executive to come before them but were blocked by the Prime Minister of the day. The problem was either that there was no majority on the Committee for insisting on attendance, or that the alternative meant coming to the Floor of the House, where the Government's majority would have come into play. So the power to send for persons and papers was inoperable.
In most cases, of course, Governments are prepared to accept Select Committees' demands, although the Osmotherly rules, drawn up by the Executive—without the support of Parliament—to govern how civil servants should operate before Select Committees, stipulate that civil servants appear to answer on behalf of Ministers, and only if Ministers want them to. There is a possible conflict between departmental Select Committees and Government Departments; it does not usually come into play, but it has done on occasion and it will again.

581
We therefore need to tighten up the rules in that area. Select Committees should not have to come to the Floor of the House to obtain their powers when they are challenged by Ministers or Governments. They should just be given full powers to send for persons and papers. That would give them the strength that they need when Governments try to resist them.
As an example of conflict that can arise between the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Government, I offer the fourth special report on the proposed attitude survey of the civil service. It might be thought sensible of the Committee to want to ascertain the views of civil servants before reporting on the future of the civil service. We have said that we do not believe that Sir Robin Butler, or the Minister, or the trade unions, can necessarily tell us the views of civil servants on a number of key issues—hence we needed to conduct a survey of attitudes.
We certainly realise that this is a delicate matter, and we have said that we are prepared to co-operate with the Government and to submit questions to them. Unfortunately, that offer has been rejected outright by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We have published his correspondence on the subject, which reads like a script from "Yes, Minister". It has certainly caused some laughter among Members of Parliament and journalists.
In the correspondence, the Chancellor argues that our questions are political, that they are concerned with Government policy, that they would help to politicise the civil service and that they would set a dangerous precedent. The Committee, with its Conservative majority, was united in disagreeing with that view. We said that the views of civil servants on the management matters that directly affect them are very different from matters of policy. And it is about the former that we want to ask questions, not about policy.
Secondly, we say that we are a responsible, cross-party Committee with a built-in Tory majority and with no interest in politicising the civil service. Thirdly, we point out that the Government, academics and trade unions have asked similar questions in the past. Sir Robin Butler says that he does not want outside bodies interfering in the relationship between him and the civil service. I pointed out in return that I did not think Parliament or its departmentally related Select Committees were just any old outside bodies. We represent the taxpayers; as such, we are perfectly entitled to find out the views of civil servants. That is what we have been trying to do, but we have been blocked.
Although we have issued a report, there is probably no way in which we can proceed to conduct an attitude survey at the moment. We could table a motion, but then we would draw into play the political majority on the Floor of the House, where other considerations also apply. That is why I have come out this evening in favour of giving the departmentally related Select Committees the power to send for persons and papers—precisely so that we can conduct an attitude survey of that type.
The reforms introduced by Norman St. John-Stevas and proposed by the Procedure Committee of 1976 have provided a useful additional and effective weapon for Parliament in the scrutiny of the Executive. All those who were involved in that should be congratulated, as should
582
hon. Members who do the work in the departmental Select Committees. On the whole, they do a good job. The Committees are one of the most hopeful features of this Parliament.
But it would be wrong to be complacent. We must consider ways in which the system can be reformed and in doing so we must remember that that is not just in the Government's hands, but in our hands, too.
5.20 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on bringing about this debate. The report on the working of the Select Committee system was published in the 1989–90 Session of Parliament, so I hope that we are not returning to the old structure of delayed debates on Committee reports which I thought that we had improved. Indeed, I recently congratulated my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on holding a debate fairly quickly after the publication of the Procedure Committee's most recent report.
I also thank my right hon. Friend for apologising to the House on my behalf for my absence during a debate on a procedural matter a week ago. The debate was announced only on the previous Thursday, when I was already on my way to the far east to represent Parliament in a certain matter. I wrote to both my right hon. Friend and to the Liberal Democrats, who initiated that debate, apologising for my absence.
The creation and the working of the departmental Select Committees have been a considerable success. That success is absolute and definite and no one can deny it. At no time before their creation could Back-Bench Members have a Minister or senior official sitting in front of them answering questions solidly for two and a half hours, if necessary, on the subjects for which that Minister or official was directly responsible. It is not like Question Time, when a Minister has to respond to only two or three supplementary questions. If a Select Committee is doing its job properly, it can persevere until it either obtains an answer or shows up the inadequacy of the Minister in dealing with the matter before the Committee.
Perhaps even more important—although this is not always accepted and has not yet been mentioned in the debate—is the fact that any Secretary of State will say that his Department is now much more aware that its actions or the actions of its Ministers are liable to be open to the closest parliamentary scrutiny in way that has never previously been the case. Therefore, Departments are much more acutely aware of acting in ways that are acceptable to Parliament and do not run the risk of appearing to ride roughshod over parliamentary restrictions or opinions. That is of considerable importance.
The Select Committees have been successful, but can they be improved? The answer must be yes. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has made some suggestions for achieving that. I want to make three suggestions. The work rate of some Committees could be improved. Perhaps they could consider more than one subject at a time. I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that the financial spend of Departments should be more closely examined. Often, that is not a popular thing for the Committees to do; it is not as sexy as a political or policy inquiry. However, it is

583
important that Chairmen look more closely at how they examine the estimates of the Departments that they are monitoring.
On administration and policy, it is important that Select Committees follow up their reports to determine how, and in what manner, the Government have reacted. Once a Committee receives the Government's response, it should look at the matter again, not just let it die as though it did not matter any more.
The 1989–90 report was extensive, running to 80 or 90 pages, and extensive evidence was taken. For students of history, it is important to recognise the closeness of the examination. It is of interest that one of the major factors was the unanimous view of the Committee that Select Committees should not be turned into something akin to the American congressional investigatory committees, usually staffed and run by young lawyers and ambitious research assistants out to establish their reputations. The view of the Procedure Committee was that our Select Committees should be dominated by Members of this House and that their effectiveness should be assisted by the proven excellence of the Clerks in the Clerks Department and by the Committee's ability to call on specialist advisers when necessary.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Durham, North that there is no restriction on the number of advisers or experts on whom the Committee can call for assistance if it thinks that to be necessary. However, they do not have to be a permanent staff. There need not be a build-up of people permanently on the payroll. Paragraph 93 of the report said about additional staff:
"present staffing levels are probably about right…and I fear that if we had more staff our inquiries might become staff-driven rather than being Member-driven as they are at present."
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about not having excessively large staffs, but it is also important that the Clerks Department should be given proper weight when delegations go abroad. The Clerks are absolutely essential to the taking of evidence and the recording of minutes. I want to follow up a point that I made previously and emphasise that it would be quite wrong if, for any reason, delegations were allowed the services of only one Clerk. That would be quite unfair on a 10-day visit. It would also be counter-productive.
Sir Peter Emery: I respect the hon. Lady's views, but I am diametrically opposed to them. I believe that unless a Committee divides into two parts and therefore must have a Clerk to deal with each of those parts, it is quite possible for one Clerk to deal with a Select Committee. After all, he should not have to nurse hon. Members; they are adults who should be able to look after their own arrangements. They should not have to rely on being herded around by a Clerk. They should be responsible enough to be on parade when they are meant to be. My judgment is that, in the spending of money, one Clerk will do in most instances—but that view is not unanimously held by the members of the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.
Paragraph 162 states:
"There is little or no demand from Select Committees for any increase in their powers to send for persons, papers and records."
That view was held by almost every Chairman that we interviewed.
I noted with interest the point made by the hon. Member
584
for Durham, North—and it is nice that we can begin debating matters, which is not always the case. However, the Government must have some protection, to be able to ensure that their view can be heard and perhaps accepted. I urge the hon. Member for Durham, North and his Committee to table a motion to be considered on the Floor of the House. It may be that the Government, rather than debate the matter in full, would give way. There are different ways of applying pressure. The structure that we set goes further than perhaps the hon. Gentleman imagines, in the way that he interpreted the position in his arguments.
Mr. Radice: That is probably good advice, and I will communicate it to the Chairman of my Committee. It may influence him and other members of the Committee in future. I say only that it is problematic. The right hon. Gentleman implied that Select Committees will go in for irresponsible surveys that have no purpose or point other than to embarrass the Government. I am sure that that is not the case. It has not been my experience as a member of Select Committees over a long period and as someone who entered the House many years ago. It is about time that we trusted the parliamentary side with a little more responsibility. If we do not, we will be blocked if we try to extend its power and influence.
Sir Peter Emery: This is the first time in 14 years that such a matter has arisen. The last occasion was the Westland affair—but that was different, in that the witnesses were blocking the way. Both the Ministers called blocked the situation. It was not so much the Committee's inability to get papers as the inability to break down the defence that two different Ministers were making.
Certain important recommendations made by my Committee in 1989–90 have been implemented, for which I thank the Government. We recommended that the Health and Social Security Select Committee should be divided with the splitting up of the Department of Health and Social Security. We insisted that there should be a Scottish Affairs Select Committee. That took some time, but it eventually came about in 1992. We pressed for a joint committee with the other place or a sub-committee on science and technology, and we now have a Select Committee dealing with that subject.
We also ensured that when new Departments are established, a Select Committee is created—as happened with the Select Committee on National Heritage. We also insisted and insisted and insisted that there should be a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, which was the last of our recommendations to be adopted.
Procedurally, exchanges of evidence between the Public Accounts Committee and departmental Select Committees, which were something new, have been accepted, and Standing Orders Nos. 122 and 130 were amended to allow Select Committees to call on the Comptroller and Auditor General. Select Committees had not fully considered the use that they could make of the CAG in their work.
The recommendation that the remit of the Home Affairs Select Committee should include the work of the Law Officers' Departments was also adopted, as was the proposal for a maximum of one hour's debate on motions to replace Committee members, with the amendment of Standing Order No. 14. I give those as examples of the Government working to meet the Select Committee's

585
recommendations. I thank them for that, despite my criticisms of the Government for not debating the issue for some time.
I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council three recommendations that were not adopted. The first has already been mentioned. We recommended that the embargo on the publication of reports under Standing Order No. 116 should be amended from 48 hours to two sitting days, which would allow for the weekend factor. That is still a problem and, after close consideration, I do not believe that the Government's objection to that proposal stands up.
Secondly, I said earlier that departmental Select Committees should be able to ascertain cases to take up in respect of the National Audit Office. The Government did not object, but that recommendation does not seem to have been adopted.
Thirdly, the Committee urged greater use of a Special Standing Committee on Bills, which has not happened. I hold the Government to blame for not dealing with that matter. Every Minister who has piloted a Bill that passed through a Special Standing Committee—there is evidence of this in our report—said without exception that it greatly helped. The Whips' concept that such a procedure automatically delays the Standing Committee was negated by evidence from Ministers, including that from one well-respected Secretary of State in the present Government.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is one of the report's most important and valuable recommendations. If it helps the right hon. Gentleman's case, we would be willing to consider timetabling to make such arrangements work.
Sir Peter Emery: I must consider the hon. Gentleman's exact words, but that sounds like a major step forward. I am delighted to hear that from a member of the Labour Front-Bench team because that proposal would not hurt the Government but would help Parliament. It would certainly help outside bodies to know that their evidence would be fully and properly put to a Select Committee.
The report's general conclusion is that Select Committees work effectively and are most efficient when there is no strong political division on the matter under consideration. Select Committees and their reports are of most use and influence when they reach unanimous conclusions. When a conclusion embraces all political opinions, that has a considerable effect on the Government, who must take note of what is said. Most Committee Chairmen realise that inquiring into a politically motivated subject does not get anywhere, because that is not the best way to proceed.
What really interests me is the fact that the vast majority of reports from departmental Select Committees have been unanimous. The House can work in unity, although the press often suggests otherwise, and what the television cameras show at Prime Minister's Question Time makes nonsense of the idea. When hon. Members are giving serious consideration to important subjects in Select Committees, they are able to reach a unanimous view: that is the strength of Select Committees and of our political system. Select Committees hold the Executive to account, which is what Parliament is here to do.
5.40 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: It could be said that a little local difficulty in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry precipitated this debate: some of the views expressed to the Liaison Committee on its behalf probably gave rise to the need for such a debate on the Floor of the House.
Unfortunately, I am not as well prepared as I should be. The Select Committee returned at the weekend from a visit to South Africa; when I left on the previous Friday, my Whip told me that there was a three-line Whip tonight—not on this subject—but when I arrived home, I found that the Committee Clerk had sent me a note asking me to come down this afternoon to take part in the debate. In any event, I wish to raise some points of principle.
In October 1992—for the first time ever, I believe—a motion was tabled asking for a report to be prepared by a Select Committee on the closure of 31 pits in the United Kingdom. That was a politically charged debate; the Government made something of a concession in requesting the Select Committee to deliver a report to the House—they did not ask for a referral. It is important that Select Committees are not brought into disrepute and used by Governments as safety valves to resolve politically charged situations, but I think that that is what happened then.
When we presented the report with its 31 recommendations, those recommendations were carried nem con. I had approached the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the Leader of the House and the President of the Board of Trade, asking not only for the report to be debated on the Floor of the House—which it was—but for the recommendations to be voted on. Unfortunately, that did not happen: although the Chairman of the Liaison Committee made strong representations to the Leader of the House, he was unable to secure the necessary time.
That would have been possible only if the Government had allowed a procedural motion, enabling you, Madam Speaker, to select not just one but two or even three amendments to the motion relating to the White Paper and the Committee's report.
Two inquiries were running simultaneously at that time. The Select Committee's inquiry was transparent, in that some 97 per cent. of the evidence received was in the public domain: I believe that the taking of evidence was televised extensively. Also in progress was the Government's inquiry into the closure of the pits, which took place in camera—although some of the evidence emerged via the Select Committee. The reports were debated, but we were not allowed to vote on the Select Committee's recommendations. Try as I might, I—as the Committee's Chairman—was unable to bring that about.
It was a disappointment. The Government should not table a motion requesting a Select Committee to conduct an inquiry and compile a report, and then deny the House the right to vote on the Committee's recommendations. I accept what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said about general debate on estimates, and the tabling today of a motion allowing a special debate on Select Committees; but I think that we should also consider Select Committee recommendations. We should explore the possibilities, and consider whether it is best for us to engage in debates such as this on a motion for the Adjournment, or to have the right to vote on such recommendations.

587
I agree with a number of hon. Members who have spoken that the strength of Select Committees is unanimity of purpose: without that, the system would fail. A few weeks ago, during a discussion on the subject, someone observed to me that Select Committees provided the only opportunity for consensus politics in our adversarial system. I accept that such a system is probably right for the United Kingdom, but it should contain a little island of consensus politics.
Why was a Select Committee containing a Government majority able to reach a certain decision on a controversial issue such as the closure of those 31 pits? Partly, I believe, because when evidence is subject to scrutiny an argument becomes compelling. Although political dogma will come into play from time to time, a logical consensus will be reached by people who sit in a Committee for two or three months, taking evidence twice a week, with all the evidence and the background before them.
As an eminent person who is now in the House of Lords said to me, had the poll tax—among other major issues—been subjected to the same process, a saner view might have prevailed, and the tax might never have been introduced.
As I have said, it is wrong for Governments to do what I believe the Government did at the time of the coal inquiry, and use Select Committees as safety valves to defuse politically charged situations before a proper debate can take place.
It was unfortunate that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee mentioned video conferencing immediately after he had spoken about Select Committee visits. My report to the Committee was very carefully worded. I hope that the Committee will consider the matter, and that the Leader of the House will also take it on board.
Using new technology, the inquiry into fibre-optics was able to take evidence from two high-ranking Americans that we could not have obtained without video conferencing. We should consider such facilities for the House, especially in view of our position in the European Union: I understand that Brussels has them. Perhaps they could be installed in Parliament street, where the new developments are taking place. We could use such state-of-the-art technology for a number of purposes, not just in Select Committees. I am sure that the excellent evidence that we have obtained from our two American witnesses will have made our report more authoritative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) raised an interesting point about the development of next steps agencies and quangos. A number of people have expressed concern about the continued removal of powers from the House, because—as my hon. Friend pointed out—of the number of civil servants who are employed by agencies.
A review similar to that suggested in the 1989–90 Procedure Committee report, should be conducted of the future role of Select Committees in, for example, the procedure outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and video conferencing. It should consider the scrutiny of appointments. If we are to continue to take powers from the House and give them to unelected quangos, the eyes and ears of the House should examine appointments before they are made. It has been alleged that appointments are becoming increasingly political. Whichever party is in office, I do not believe that political appointments are good for the democratic process.
Select Committees should review how this place and the
588
Executive evolve. The report that we are now debating is some five years old, which shows the need to ensure that Select Committees are up to date, are in tune with current thinking and are fully scrutinising the Executive. The terms of reference of the next review should not be as wide as those for the 1989–90 report, which stated that the system was evolutionary and should be monitored from time to time to ensure that it was working well.
I apologise for the fact that, because I promised to meet some people at half-past six, I may not be here for the Minister's winding-up speech.
5.51 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), not only because I agreed with much of what he said but because it gives me the opportunity to say that he has been a wise, sensible and thoughtful Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I was delighted to serve under him—and long may I do so.
A great consensus is growing in this Chamber. I am in considerable agreement with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, except for one point, which I shall deal with shortly.
Last week, Madam Speaker uttered a little homily on the way in which questions should be expressed to the Prime Minister. Obviously, she recognised that, over the years, Prime Minister's Question Time has descended into a pantomime farce. She referred to the proper way in which to obtain information from the Government—which I fear was the triumph of hope over experience.
For years, Question Time has not extracted a scintilla of information from the Government, whichever party has been in office. As a humble Minister, I found it the easiest thing in the world to avoid giving any revealing answers at Question Time. If the Government wanted to publicise something, the written parliamentary answer was a useful medium.
The adversarial atmosphere of the Chamber bears little relevance to the search for information. There may have been a time many years ago when Question Time and debates afforded some scrutiny of the Executive, but that was when there were fewer and more independent Members, and much looser party ties. Alas, the Chamber has become more and more show business and a source of copy for local press and media.
We should consider the Select Committee system in that context. In 1979, I had some doubts when Select Committees were introduced by Lord St. John of Fawsley. I was impressed by the romantic view of the Chamber held by Enoch Powell, Michael Foot and, I believe, Lord Whitelaw. Having served on three Select Committees, I am convinced that they are the only way forward in terms of scrutiny and restraining the increasingly all-powerful Executive.
Select Committees have done something to arrest the decline in the public's esteem for Parliament. I sat on the Broadcasting Select Committee, which saw through the introduction of television into Parliament. As I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, that Committee wisely insisted that the media were not only to concentrate on Prime Minister's Question Time and idiotic occurrences in the Chamber but to give a broad picture of the House and to broadcast Select Committees.

589
I have been struck by public's comments about Select Committees. They said, "In the Chamber, you looked exactly as we expected you to look when we heard you yelling and bawling on radio." But they were amazed and impressed by Select Committees, saying that they had never thought that hon. Members could behave so well and so sensibly. They had not realised that hon. Members could call to account Ministers, civil servants and bureaucrats in Select Committees, which is not possible in the Chamber.
That was a distinct plus for the Select Committee system and for Parliament. We must consider Parliament as a whole and do our best to raise our esteem in the eyes of the public.
One can take two views of Select Committees: first, that they are a useful means of keeping restless or idle Members out of mischief and harm's way—that is probably the establishment view—and, secondly, the better view, that they are the only means under our constitution of properly scrutinising the Executive.
If that system is to be improved and built on, a few suggestions should be borne in mind, some of which have already been referred to. First, more powers should be available to Select Committees.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central referred to our great work—it was three months' hard labour as far as I was concerned—on the pit closure report. We conducted the most vigorous internal debates before we agreed on the final report. Good God, we went away for drinks, came back and got in a huddle. It was 11 o'clock at night, after all-day activity, before we came finally to the virtually unanimous conclusion. As the hon. Member said, that is a valuable aspect of Select Committee work.
If Select Committees are to continue to develop, they must be properly supported. I contrast our system with the back-up system in the United States of America. I agree that we should not copy the United States system, but the back-up there is substantially greater.
I agree that the question of the Clerks must be considered. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I am slightly more impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) than by his. Clerks are often overworked, particularly on overseas visits, where they have a tremendous amount of work.
I believe that there is too much cheeseparing—this is typically British—or spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. It is important that members of Select Committees should go abroad. We should not have to worry about the media complaining about it—they travel abroad at the drop of a hat, and do so first class on Concorde, with huge expense accounts. We need to ensure that the job is done properly. If the job is worth doing, it is worth doing well, which means looking carefully at the back-up provided.
Secondly, the House should have adequate time to consider reports. It simply will not do to undertake work in immense detail, with Clerks, experts and Members of Parliament sitting all hours only for a report tamely to run into the sand. The procedure should be reformed, although I do not know how it should be carried out. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will pursue the matter to ensure that we can insist that Select Committee reports get proper and adequate consideration on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real difficulty is that, the more effective a Select Committee report is, especially if the Committee has analysed and scrutinised matters such as Government expenditure programmes, the less welcome it is to the Executive? There is a real difficulty in ensuring that the reports that most need to be debated are given time. We could end up with many debates on the innocuous reports and no time for debates on the difficult ones.
Sir Anthony Grant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I shall say a word or two about that in a moment.
Sir Peter Emery: Our hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is not right. The decision on what should be debated is left to the Liaison Committee. An application is made to the Liaison Committee, which then decides, once the time is allocated, which reports will be debated. It is nothing to do with whether the Government wish to restrict time on a report. It is right to have that clearly understood.
Sir Anthony Grant: In that case, I shall direct my remarks away from the Treasury Bench and entirely to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who I hope will consider carefully the need to give adequate time to our reports.
Thirdly, the Committees should be properly constructed. They should be drawn from a broad base of knowledge, experience and enthusiasm. I believe that too many hon. Members are excluded. Perhaps too many Front-Bench Members are excluded; that is for the Opposition to say. There may be too many Front-Bench Members. Too many people may be involved in party committees who do not seem to qualify.
I believe that there are far too many Parliamentary Private Secretaries. We seemed to get on perfectly well with half the number when I first came into the House, but we are now knee-deep in them. If we had fewer, they would be able to perform a useful function on Select Committees; many of them are excellent people.
I now come to the one point on which I differ slightly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing—the chairmanship, which is always a difficulty. A case could be made for the senior Member to take the Chair, as happens in the United States. That should not, of course, happen if he is ga-ga. We can all point to examples of that.
Sir Peter Emery: Is my hon. Friend looking at himself?
Sir Anthony Grant: I was not looking at anyone except you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In normal circumstances, there is a case to be made for the senior Member taking the Chair. That would avoid a great deal of party chicanery, bickering and ill-feeling.
Above all—here I come to the most important point, which has already been stressed—there should be the minimum of interference in the work of Select Committees by the Government or by the Opposition establishment through the usual channels. Other hon. Members have referred to Enoch Powell. He said that the usual channels and the Whips Offices performed the same functions as sewers; they are essential. However, the activities of the usual channels should be kept as far away as possible from Select Committees.
There are many Select Committees apart from departmental ones. The members of those Committees are directly appointed by the Executive. There is the Select

591
Committee on Procedure, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), whom the Government wisely chose. There are the Select Committees on Members' Interests, on Privilege and on Administration. There are a range of Committees in which the Government have a very direct say, so the less say they have in the setting up of the departmental Select Committees, the better.
I cite two examples, which have probably been referred to, of bad interference by the Executive during this Parliament. At the start of this Parliament, there was deplorable confusion, and there was a conspiracy over chairmanships. That caused great annoyance to hon. Members on both sides and to me; many people were very irritated. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, a rather spurious doctrine was enunciated about the length of time people could serve as Chairmen. It was a tiresome and tedious time, and what happened was wrong.
The second example which happened this year—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) will know about this—was the blocking of a visit by the Trade and Industry Select Committee to South Africa. We were doing a report on trade with South Africa, and it was ludicrous to suppose that we could conclude our report without actually going to the new South Africa. The visit was blocked by the Opposition establishment during the non-co-operation war.
That was absolutely wrong. Party political rows between Front-Bench Members or anyone else in the Chamber should not block the work that Select Committees need to do to produce their reports. We should be ever vigilant to ensure that such incidents are not allowed to happen again.
All who believe, as I do, in parliamentary democracy, and who believe that it is fundamental not only to our constitution, but to our freedom, should unite and be determined to enhance and strengthen the Select Committee system—which is undoubtedly here to stay.
6.5 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge, South-West (Sir A. Grant). I agree with almost all his comments. I certainly agree with his comment about the all-party nature of the Select Committees; I have found that to be a tremendous strength.
The Welsh Affairs Select Committee was the only Committee in the previous Parliament which did not have a Government majority. In this Parliament, the Government have been unable to ensure that every member of the Committee represents a Welsh constituency. If the choice was between retaining the Committee and abolishing it, we would be willing to pay that price. I am in the 11th year of my chairmanship of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. I am therefore especially pleased that I am an Opposition rather than a Conservative Member in terms of security of tenure.
I intend to make a few points about the role of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. I appreciate that its features are not common to all the Select Committees. The post of the Secretary of State for Wales encompasses a wide range of responsibilities, although it does not include the major responsibilities of defence, foreign affairs and the police.
592
The first thing that we try to do is to involve as many people as possible in giving written evidence. The gap between power and people can become wide. We believe that it is important that as many individuals and groups as possible feel that what they have to say about their experience will be listened to by the Select Committee.
Our next inquiry will be into the rehabilitation of those with serious head injuries. National organisations such as Headway—the National Head Injuries Association—and the Carers National Association will, of course, give evidence, as will the Department of Health, the Welsh Office and other significant players in the field. However, it is important that individuals who have gone through the trauma of, for example, being involved in a serious motorway car accident, being taken to a trauma unit and taking many years to recover from that horrible experience—and their families—can write to the Select Committee to say what their experience has been. They will be able to feel that they are participating.
I find such participation especially valuable when we take oral evidence in the Principality, which we do as often as we can. When, for example, the sea wall at Towyn broke and many hundreds of families were made homeless, it was a superb experience to be able to take evidence in Towyn so that the people who had been affected could see what we were doing in taking evidence and then publishing our report, after which the Government would publish their response.
Secondly, certainly in a Select Committee of our kind, the micro-level of analysis is especially significant. From my experience, it is easy for a Government Department, with its army of civil servants, to be able to duck and dive, and weave all kinds of cul-de-sacs for Select Committees to go down. However, if that Select Committee is operating at the micro-level, it is virtually impossible for the Government to follow it down the path that it takes. I shall give a couple of examples.
In 1983, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office issued waste management paper No. 25 on clinical waste incineration. That document was in existence until 1990, when the Welsh Affairs Select Committee looked at toxic waste disposal in Wales. We discovered that the health authorities were not especially quick in responding to requests for information on their incinerators, so the Committee sent them a questionnaire to attain information on every clinical waste incinerator in the Principality, including questions on what the temperature was to be in the main burner and in the after-burner, what scrubbing facilities they had and so on.
When we then asked the health authorities—every one of them—to appear before us in the House and they came, we were amazed to discover in January 1990 that only three of them had ever heard of waste management paper No. 25. Indeed, those three had only discovered its existence two weeks previously, when we had asked them to come up here and pay us a visit. We asked the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment what had happened, to be told that, unfortunately, the document had not been issued to the relevant pollution bodies in England or in Wales—the health authorities at that time—but had been sent to every district authority in England and Wales, which had no responsibility whatever for that form of air pollution.
The response was wonderful. Of course, it was not from the Secretary of State for Wales. He delegated that responsibility to a clerk in the Welsh Office. When the

593
letter came back—it was published, of course, as an appendix to our report—it contained a wonderful sentence, referring to why the wrongful issuing had occurred, along the lines that, with the given level of hindsight, it was impossible to know what went wrong, but it was reissuing waste management paper No. 25 and that this time it was being sent to the bodies in England and Wales which were responsible for monitoring the emissions from clinical hospital waste incineration. Only at that micro-level of considering every incinerator were we able to identify such a matter.
The second example is to do with local authorities and their relationship with the Welsh Office over rural housing in Wales. We decided to ask every local authority for information on the number of houses that had been given planning permission in the open countryside in Wales which were departures from and contrary to local and county structure plans and Welsh Office planning policy guidelines.
We were so shocked by the results of the questionnaire that we looked back a few years before that date and followed up what had been happening with six of those authorities. We found that hundreds of houses in the Welsh countryside had been given planning permission contrary to Welsh Office guidance and the respective county structure plans. When we asked the Welsh Office about that, it found it rather astonishing and representatives from various councils were summoned to London to meet the Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office to try to explain why particular houses had been given permission against the structure plan. The experience in north Cornwall was certainly salutary because it came at the right time.
When the Select Committee pays visits, certainly in the Principality, I have found it worth while never to tell the people whose premises we are looking at that we are coming. Whereas advance notice is convenient for them, it is especially inconvenient for us because it enables what we want to see to be easily concealed. I shall never forget the time that one of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution started to come round Wales with us when we looked at landfill sites in the Principality. We were astonished to find that those sites could have been pleasure camps for any recreational form of sport or whatever, so clean were they, so seagull-free and without a whiff of any odour of any kind. However, when we decided to ask the inspector to return home and we continued our journey without visiting the sites which had been planned, the story was rather different. Therefore, it is well worth while not to turn up when the red carpet is laid out, but to turn up unannounced and see what is really going on.
The fourth rule of Select Committees is about informing people of what is available to them when we consider particular topics. We astonished the people of Wales when we considered treatment centres. They do not exist in England, but are unique national health service facilities in the Principality. If any person has been waiting for more than four months for in-patient surgery on cataracts, major joints, or hernias and varicose veins, they may be admitted not only to their local hospital, but to one of the treatment centres, which provide a marvellous facility for elective surgery. We were able to educate and train doctors because
594
they seemed to be especially slow in knowing about the existence of the centres and, therefore, patients were being denied access to them.
Fifthly, Select Committees are useful as a method of educating hon. Members who serve on them. We have no in-training facilities in the House, no retraining facilities, and no way in which to keep us up to date, in detail, of what is going on. We tend to be cocooned in this establishment and the usual channels try to keep us here as long as possible. It is no disgrace at all to admit that it is of enormous benefit for those of us who serve on Select Committees to be aware in depth of what is going on in the subject areas which we consider.
Sixthly, it is important that Select Committees pay more attention to Government responses. It is fine to spend months looking in detail at a topic, to feel some sort of enormous relief to reach the end of an inquiry, to have written the report, for—one hopes—unanimous agreement to have been reached, for the report to be dispatched and to be waiting for the Government to respond. Then the response is filed and no more is heard on the issue until we want to examine it again. It would be useful for the Select Committee to examine the Government on that response. The Minister could be asked back to the Committee and questioned in detail on why this or that recommendation was not accepted. That could be a way forward.
Lastly—I do not think that the Leader of the House is in a position to accept this readily—in terms of open government, it would be rather nice if Select Committees could spend the occasional day or, pushing it, the occasional week, nosing around the Departments that they monitor. The Welsh Select Committee could spend a week in the Welsh Office in Cardiff. Members of the Committee could roam round the Department finding out how it works at first hand and prodding here and there into files to see what is the ambience of the Department.
I get the impression that Governments are not too happy when a Select Committee starts walking around the Department that it is supposed to monitor. Although it may be a little early for the Leader of the House to make such a decision, I would certainly welcome an arrangement whereby we could enter the hallowed places of knowledge to mix with civil servants without some watchful eye behind us ensuring that we do not talk to the wrong person in case we find out things that are a little embarrassing for us to know.
With those few comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make this speech. The Select Committee system is superb. Without it, I would have long left this place because, as many hon. Members who have spoken before me have said, it gets rid of the adversarial element and allows us to look objectively as best we can at the evidence before us and constructively to move the debate forward. We do so in the hope that, if the Government accept some of our constructive recommendations, the quality of life and the decisions of the Government will be improved for the benefit of us all.
6.21 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: The debate has enabled us to pause, even for just two and a half hours, and take stock of the achievements of the departmental Select Committee system and to assess its value to good government and

595
parliamentary activity. It has allowed us to assess the extent to which it commands the interest and, to a greater degree, the confidence of the public.
Perhaps the most obvious advantage of the Select Committee system has been manifest today. The House is at its best, it is always said, when we are not too adversarial, everyone agrees with everyone else and, if disagreement forces itself upon us, we respond only in the most civilised and well-mannered way. As a result, I am sure that this debate will not feature on either the 9 o'clock or the 10 o'clock news later today.
I was a member of the old-style Select Committee, which was all things to all Departments. I was on the sub-committee of the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee under the leadership of Mrs. Renee Short. In one period, we reported on preventive medicine, juvenile crime and unemployment. As hon. Members will realise, that spread our expertise so wide as probably to be of little use to anyone. I am sure that the departmental Select Committee system that we have now is a decided improvement on that.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who is a most worthy, diligent and effective Chairman of the Liaison Committee and Select Committee Chairman, that the record of departmental Select Committees is considerable and well justifies their creation. I agree that they hold Ministers to account effectively and that they keep civil servants on their toes. A civil servant never knows when he or she might be called to account personally for his or her work.
Select Committees inform Parliament of the important evidence available on subjects of current importance. The Home Affairs Select Committee has taken up raging issues such as legal aid and violence on video at the very moment when they have raged. As the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), the Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee, said, the Select Committees ensure that we become experts and therefore much more able to make the work that we do in Parliament credible.
Lastly, Select Committees come to conclusions which influence Government, as I hope that the Home Affairs Select report published this week on racial attacks and harassment will do before the Government conclude the proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
I would go further and suggest that in the public eye, now that television is with us and has highlighted the knockabout of politics, the Select Committee system may be seen as one of the saving graces of Parliament itself. The public, who might otherwise be led to believe that this place is a madhouse of shouting, ranting, cantankerous, unobjective noisemongers, can see that Parliament is much more than that. I understand from the television operators that there is a surprisingly high level of viewing of programmes based on Select Committee activity. In short, the Select Committees have raised the standard of Parliament higher in the estimation of the people we represent. That is a thoroughly good thing.
To go even further, in a world in which nations are emerging into the daylight of democracy, the example of this Parliament, both good and bad, may have some effect in influencing the structure of new parliamentary democracies and in helping to reform democracies of longer standing. My American friends tell me that they sit glued to their armchairs with their popcorn while they watch what happens in this place, not only at Prime Minister's Question Time. Certainly, the departmental
596
Select Committees have been the subject of great interest among visiting democratic Parliaments as they have emerged from communism or wherever. That is another source of pride for the system.
I shall not take up the time of the House by commenting on the procedural points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other colleagues, save to say that I agree with most of them and that the strengthening that has been called for is likely to improve the working of the system even further. However, I would add that there are some rather silly rules that we could well get rid of, particularly those relating to broadcasting.
Last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee visited the offices of the British Board of Film Classification. The hon. Member for Gower will note that we go out into the hallowed precincts of agencies and Government Departments. While we were there, we discovered that although the proceedings were public, they could not be televised because there was only one instead of two cameras in a fixed position. That afternoon we held a press conference upstairs here in the House. It could not be televised even in a room with two fixed cameras approved for the televising of the proceedings of Parliament because it was not a formal meeting of the Committee. I hope that common sense will prevail in such matters when the procedures come to be reviewed, as they are clearly absurd.
I wish to raise one other matter which I hope will be considered for the future. It is a matter of some substance and importance and would take our Select Committee system into a completely new area. One of the agencies with which the Home Affairs Select Committee has dealt is the Law Commission. One of the tasks of that august body under a series of distinguished judicial figures and latterly under the guidance of Mr. Justice Brooke has been to reform the criminal law.
Almost everyone agrees that what would most reform the criminal law is the creation of a code of criminal law. However, that is light years away under our present system. There is simply no machinery for dealing comprehensively with a large subject such as the codification of the entire criminal law because there is no time in the parliamentary year to deal with it, even though much of what would be agreed by a commission and then fed into what I postulate might be a new Select Committee would be entirely non-contentious.
If we do not have such a system, one problem is the frustration that is engendered. The inadequacy of Parliament may lead the Commission to recommend the taking of policy decisions, or inspire the judges to take policy decisions, which they did recently in deciding against Parliament—although they seem to have forgotten that that was so—on the introduction of a crime of marital rape. Public policy decisions are for Parliament; they are not for academics, agencies and judges.
I ask the Procedure Committee and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider whether we might devise a Select Committee, perhaps of both Houses of Parliament, whose function was solely to reform the criminal law—to do it steadily and relentlessly over a period, calling witnesses, arguing the issues and coming to conclusions which are reasonable, sensible and acceptable to all those involved in the administration of the criminal law.
Of course, it would be necessary—here is the rub—to bypass the Chamber on all issues except those which raise questions of public and political principle and policy. The

597
age of consent, the question whether there should be an offence of marital rape, the age of criminal responsibility, the question whether the sentence for murder should be mandatory or discretionary and a whole string of other similar issues would be a matter for this Chamber, and this Chamber alone, but most of the matters that would be included in a criminal code would be non-contentious matters which Parliament, through either the House of Lords or the House of Commons, or both together in a Select Committee, could agree. That would reflect adequately and properly the needs of society.
If we could devise such an additional Select Committee system, we might be able to make progress on criminal law reform in general and on a code of criminal law in particular. We could thus simplify, clarify, spread knowledge and understanding of, and speed the administration of the criminal law, and Parliament would have taken a big step towards improving the social fabric and order of our society. That is, after all, the main reason for our existence.
6.32 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I rise for the second time in about a week to talk about parliamentary reform. For the sake of those who heard my speech the first time round, I shall try not to duplicate the remarks that I made on that occasion. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I spent much of Thursday eulogising, if not the hon. and learned Gentleman personally, the report on racial violence and racial harassment to which he referred. It is a superb report, although I wonder whether the Home Office will see it in such a good light.
Many of the reports produced by the House are the result of a great deal of research and wisdom. Regrettably, that wisdom is rarely transmitted to those at whom it is directed—that is, the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) said, we spend a long time on a report, wait three months for an anodyne response and that is virtually the end of the matter. The report may circulate around the Department, never to resurface. If anything is acted on, it may be a little bit of a recommendation. Academics may pick it up, so it is regurgitated later.
I should like to see a serious study done, as was done by the old Expenditure Committee. I was interested to see that the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee did a detailed analysis of the recommendations that were made. What happened to those recommendations? Regrettably, much of the endeavour has totally dissipated. When one adds the amount of time that we put into researching and arguing a report, it seems to be an inadequate response.
Frankly, I am disappointed that we are debating a report that was published in the 1989–90 Session. It has taken a long time to debate the report; it is almost time for a new Procedure Committee. I am even more disappointed by the appalling response of Members of Parliament. I am pleased that there are some Committee Chairmen present, although I am disappointed that we do not have infinitely more. The Leader of the House can gleefully pass on to his colleagues the message that the troops are not really interested in parliamentary reform, so there is not much impetus. I hope,
598
however, that he will seek almost self-generation in the matter and try to go down not only as the Leader of the House who was seriously interested in parliamentary reform but as the Leader of the House who sought and was successful in implementing a number of significant changes.
Regrettably, we are complacent about the way in which we operate. We pat one another on the back and say that the Select Committee system is basically satisfactory. The Government say in their report that they agree with the Procedure Committee that the
"system is basically sound and does not stand in need of major reform".
That is like asking the Italian mafia whether they are happy with the performance of the Italian police. Of course the Government will say that they are happy with the existing arrangements. They are the substantial beneficiaries of a Select Committee system which does not properly harness the abilities, competence and knowledge of hon. Members, for two basic reasons.
First, Members of Parliament do not seem to be all that enthused about procedural change; secondly, Ministers are delighted that having got over the worst in 1979, with the system being more or less imposed on them, it has not proceeded much further. I was desperately hoping that the report of the Procedure Committee would say something like this: "As the Select Committee system has been operating since 1979, we have had ample opportunity to analyse its successes and failures. We have now decided that, having conferred no power whatever on the Committee system, other than the power to send for persons and papers, the time has come to confer some significant powers on the Select Committee system". There is nothing at all about that in the report. If another Procedure Committee is set up, I wonder whether it would exude the same sense of self-satisfaction.
I very much admire what the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said. Indeed, I agreed with almost everything that he said. However, he exhibited a tendency of which we are all guilty—that of comparing the House of Commons with the United States Congress, which is an unfair comparison because the constitution of the United States conferred decision-making powers on Congress as part of the reaction to the reality of strongly centralised decision making in the United Kingdom. When we say that we cannot go too far down that road, of course we cannot. However, we do not often compare our parliamentary and Select Committee systems with similar parliamentary committees. It would seem that we do not compare at all favourably with the United States system.
We produce reports that are as good as any, but we have no power to legislate and we have no power in the Budget. What we have is a factory for manufacturing reports which are often completely ignored. We say that there should be a bridge between reports and debate, but there is hardly any bridge at all. The Government said that they do not want to give more time for such debates. Of course they do not. I find the whole thing profoundly unsatisfactory.
We have influence only in the Select Committees. Occasionally, we are able to move, change and reverse policy. Often, when a report comes out, there may be no other news and the Government are forced on to the defensive—there are instances where that has happened. The media may concentrate on one report and the Government may be embarrassed into taking action.

599
I recall a report with which the Defence Select Committee was involved in the early 1980s regarding the physical security of military installations. It was an important report, because a Standing Committee on privatising the royal ordnance factories was proceeding parallel with the Select Committee inquiry into physical security in military installations. The Government intended to privatise security, kick out the Ministry of Defence police and bring in a contract security firm.
I was a member of both the Select Committee and the Standing Committee, and by the time we reached clause 27 of the Bill the Defence Select Committee had totally destroyed the Government's argument. Everyone on the Committee was happy that the Government relented. That was one of the few triumphs for the Standing Committee system. In reality, an inquiry by the Select Committee resulted in the change and it was accelerated by the fact that when our report came out there was no other news. The Government were therefore forced into a corner and they climbed down.
There are two lessons there. We should not need to rely on the fortunate absence of other publicity and the process of legislation should be linked with the process of investigation. The Procedure Committee report recommended that greater attention be given to Standing Committees and that in Session 1990–91 there should be more Special Standing Committees, but nothing whatever came of that.
Looking at the Government's response—the paper is yellow with age and fraying at the corners—I agree that there should be more emphasis on broad expenditure priorities. The trouble is that We tend to be more interested in high policy than in the boring minutiae of the budgetary process. In that sense, some of the blame lies with ourselves.
The Government said that there would be no sub-Committees because the Procedure Committee did not want them, but I see sub-Committees as a means of increasing one's output by putting more pressure on the Government on a variety of fronts. The Government do not want that to happen.
On special advisers, the Government and the Clerk of the House said that they did not want
"a standing army of Parliamentary experts".
The use of the words "standing army" is clearly abusive. I believe that a Select Committee backed by professional expertise is the best way to proceed. If there is not animosity between the Clerk and the advisers, there is some turf protection and I can understand why the Clerk does not always want to see too many advisers.
We should have more power to increase staffing levels, and I agree that we should do more to link with the Library. We have a marvellous Library with marvellous staff, but I would ask anyone who gets too carried away to go to the congressional research service and see the extent of research there. No one can dispute that it is a different political system, but I believe that the quality and extent of research being done for congress members by the congressional research service is such that we should seek to bridge the gap between it and our system.
On allowances and facilities for entertainment, the Defence Committee had a visit from a Nordic defence committee a few years ago and its members dragged out of us our entire allowance. They could not speak a word of English, but they knew all the brands of whisky and other
600
drinks and we were destitute as a result. It is a good idea to entertain modestly, but we can hardly be described as the last of the great spenders.
In conclusion, we should have appropriate powers as we often have to deal with labyrinthine bureaucracies. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower talked about nosing around Departments. He may find the task of nosing around the Welsh Office difficult, but I suspect that nosing around the Ministry of Defence would result in immediate incarceration. As a Back-Bench Member, I sought an unclassified briefing from a middle-ranking civil servant in the MoD. The meeting was arranged, but it was vetoed because a Back Bencher could not get into the MoD to talk to a middle-ranking civil servant. The bunker in the MoD is not under it—it extends up to the brain: it is an Ottoman approach to decision-making and we are not the beneficiaries of it.
6.44 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) makes a powerful case for the rights of Select Committees, and in particular for the right of Select Committees to eat into time on the Floor of the House. He makes that case in an effective and unique way.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)—unusually for him—opened the debate on a note of controversy. He said that the setting up of the Select Committees may turn out to be Baroness Thatcher's lasting monument, and something for which she will be enduringly remembered. I dare him to go and tell her that. I do not think that that would be her perception of the 1980s, but the right hon. Gentleman is a brave man and I wish him well.
The core issue—all speeches have drawn this out—is the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. Speaking from memory, I do not think that Baroness Thatcher was always to be found on the libertarian side of that argument. Perhaps for the right hon. Member for Worthing, history and the passage of time lend enchantment.
The purpose of Select Committees is to underpin Parliament's right to scrutinise, investigate and influence the work of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) spoke about effective control and stewardship over Ministers. He also spoke about Select Committees being the eyes and ears of the House over Departments. The conclusion from the Procedure Committee's report was that, in general, the Select Committee system is essentially sound and not in need of major reform. I accept that, but there are a number of issues arising from the report which deserve further consideration.
The broad conclusion of the Procedure Committee is right, and I thank the Committee for its review. I do not mean it unkindly when I say that the debate is timely. I know that the report came out in 1989–90, but nevertheless the debate is timely because, as the House will know, a number of matters concerning the reform of parliamentary procedure are under consideration. The report usefully informs future debate and will act as a benchmark. The fact that it does not propose any substantial change does not detract from its value, nor from its thoroughness. The

601
Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), fairly observed that it is a comprehensive piece of work.
Among the important issues raised are the relationship between Select Committee reports and the Floor of the House, and the role for departmental Select Committees in scrutinising departmental expenditure, including scrutiny of executive agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North pointed out that three quarters of all civil servants now work for agencies, rather than directly for Departments.
The Procedure Committee report comments on the giving of evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) referred to the scrutiny of appointments and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) mentioned the scrutiny of the Government's responses to individual Select Committee reports.
The other key issues to emerge from the Procedure Committee report include the points made about the role of the National Audit Office, and the relationship between the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee on the one hand and departmental Select Committees on the other. A very important recommendation by the Procedure Committee—I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Honiton regarding the matter—was about the use of Special Standing Committees.
Time is short, so I can only refer to one or two points rather than doing the debate justice. I can see clearly that it is frustrating for departmental Select Committees to produce reports which do not get a chance to be considered on the Floor of the House. I understand the pressures of time on the Government—any Government, and not just this Conservative one—but we should try to find a middle way. If the suggestion of using estimates days is flawed, we should try to find some other way to ensure that the work of Select Committees is reflected in debate here on the Floor of the House. Not everything will be debated, but something should. In the current discussions, we can at least examine that issue again and see if something can be done.
Another continuing theme in the debate has been the extent to which departmental Committees should involve themselves in scrutinising departmental expenditure. The Conservative party's view on that seems to have changed, because at one time it was very enthusiastic about it. Each year, Departments produce a document that sets out their spending plans. We used to have a whole day's debate on those plans, but the last one was in May 1991 and it has now slipped out of the parliamentary calendar. We cannot even get an assurance from the Leader of the House that that debate will be restored to us this year. It is right that Parliament should take seriously its responsibility for scrutinising public expenditure, and the Select Committees have a role to play in that.
The establishment of Special Standing Committees is an important suggestion. Some Bills occur every year, the Finance Bill being an obvious example, and they contain controversial and less controversial measures. There is an overwhelming case for a taxes management Bill, which could be dealt with by a Special Standing Committee to which experts with specialist knowledge could give evidence. Such a Bill would consider matters that do not tend to be the subject of controversy between the parties.
602
Those relating to anti-avoidance represent a shared objective between the Opposition and the Government, although one would not necessarily think so when one considers how they are dealt with in the Finance Bill. It would be far better for us to listen to the specialist evidence from the Inland Revenue, the Institute of Taxation and others and then make considered recommendations.
Sir Peter Emery: Get it right the first time.
Mr. Brown: Exactly so.
I know that accepting such a proposal would mean a longer gap between the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and its formal Committee stage, but the Opposition would be willing to agree to a timetable on a taxes management Bill. That would mean that the less controversial matters, once considered in the Finance Bill, could be dealt with in a measured and orderly way. Everyone in the outside world, as well as parliamentarians, would know on which day specific rafts of clauses would be dealt with and that consideration would be undertaken in a mature and considered manner. If the drafting was defective—that is a problem for Ministers—it would be exposed through the Special Standing Committee procedure and the relevant changes would have to be made. That could be achieved with all-party agreement, rather than in an adversarial manner.
There will always be rows between the parties on the main issues contained in the Finance Bill, because whether to raise or lower taxes is a controversial matter. That should be fought out when considering a truncated Finance Bill in Committee or on the Floor of the House, which is where we consider the main tax proposals anyway.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) referred to the work of the Law Commission, which considers similar complex issues. There is a clear case for establishing Special Standing Committees to consider specialist, complex legislation. I urge the House and, in particular, the Leader of the House to consider it.
The hon. Member for Cambridge, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said that in the past 15 years there had been a shift in the balance of power from Parliament to the Executive. I believe that that is apparent even within the Executive, with a further concentration of power in the hands of the office of the Prime Minister and the closest advisers to that individual. Almost imperceptibly, British government is becoming increasingly presidential. There are many reasons for that, not least government by a single party since 1979. We have to accept our share of the blame for that.
If parliamentary democracy is to work and command respect, we must assert Parliament's rights as enthusiastically as the Executive asserts its own. The case for the reform of parliamentary procedures, by consent, is overwhelming. The case for Select Committees will have been reaffirmed by today's useful debate.
6.53 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): This has been a most interesting debate. The first thing I should do in what will perforce be a fairly brief contribution is to thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) on pressing for this debate—I was happy to accede to his request—and on the way in which he introduced it. I should like to thank and

603
congratulate all the hon. Members who have taken part, because we have had a genuinely constructive debate, even if it is not the kind which reaches definitive conclusions. A number of issues have been raised and I undertake to reflect on them.
I have had the privilege to be Leader of the House for just over two years and I hope that I can at least claim that my support of Select Committees and my desire to ensure that they work as well as possible has been reasonably demonstrated. Despite the observations from one or two people on the occasional delay in setting up Committees, we have not done too badly in this Parliament. I have checked up on the dates and I can tell the House that the new Parliament met for the Queen's Speech on 6 May—it had met earlier for swearing in and the like—and we had set up the Select Committees in a mere two months on 13 July.
That was done against a background in which I was told almost daily by the representatives of the newspapers that they did not believe that we would get the Select Committees set up by the summer recess. That achievement was a demonstration not just of my support, but of the Government's support for Select Committees, as is our acceptance of the great majority of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, together with the recent establishment of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland.
I will say no more, and I say it quite unequivocally, than that I am a strong supporter of Select Committees for precisely the reasons that have been echoed during the debate—the improved scrutiny of the Executive, the scope that they provide for constructive consensus across party boundaries on a number of issues and their real and constructive influence. I would not be as dismissive or as pessimistic about them as the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was. Those Committees have exercised that constructive influence on a number of important issues, not least those with which I was concerned for many years as a Minister with responsibility for health and social security.
The debate has highlighted a number of important issues for consideration by the members of the Select Committees themselves, as right hon. and hon. Members have generously acknowledged today, and by the Liaison or Procedure Committee. I am sure that the Chairmen of those Committees have taken careful note of the suggestions made.
The unanimous theme expressed during the debate—it is always one of the most popular themes in Parliament—has been to bash the Whips. One or two Whips are present and no doubt they feel duly chastened. They will take note of what was said. The proposals concerning the membership of Select Committees, which drew some criticism from hon. Members on both sides of the House, were made by the Committee of Selection. I am sure that the Chairman of that Committee will take note of what has been said, as will those who were castigated over the difficulties that arose from visits abroad or the absence of
604
such visits during the period when the usual channels were not operated by those in the Opposition. I do not want to be drawn further into that potentially contentious matter in the circumstances of this brief speech.
A number of points raised are in the hands of Committees and their members, including those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about the work rate. Other hon. Members spoke about the scrutiny of spending plans. Many Select Committees consider their Departments' spending plans and there is nothing to stop them doing so. There is nothing to stop them looking at the work of executive agencies and calling for evidence from the heads of those agencies. There is certainly nothing to stop them doing more to follow up their reports, as hon. Members have urged them to do today.
The debate has highlighted tensions, which I so often see in my role as Leader of the House, between the conflicting demands made from different quarters. Against the repeated desire of hon. Members for as little interference from the Whips as possible, to use their terminology, must be set the tension created by the suggestion for enhancing the powers of Select Committees to act directly without seeking a resolution from the House.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) also suggested that the recommendations of Select Committees should automatically be put to the vote in the House. If those suggestions were put into effect they would, almost inevitably, enhance the interest that the Whips would feel they would have to take in Select Committees. I put that as gently as I can, but it is the likely effect. I believe that the House would be right to be cautious before adopting some of the proposals made in the debate.
The Chairmen of the Procedure and Liaison Committees must accept that there is an obvious tension between the persistent demands for progress on the Jopling report—with which they sometimes associate themselves—and the demands for more and more time to debate the reports of Select Committees. Perhaps those tensions can be resolved, but they certainly exist. They come alongside many of the other difficult points which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and I are trying to tease out in our on-going discussions, which will also take account of some of the points that have been made about our economic debates.
I have little time in which to comment on the specific proposals that have been made. The Procedure Committee may care to look further at some of them, including video conferencing and the points about the European Legislation Committees. It is for my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and his Committee to decide whether they wish to undertake further examination. I hope that we shall all reflect on the useful points that have been made in this debate. I conclude my remarks simply by saying that, in line with the spirit in which I have approached the establishment of Select Committees, their work and this debate, my response will be constructive.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
7 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £3,291 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sum voted on account in March, this brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £5,824 million, an increase of 4.1 per cent. on 1993–94 provisional outturn.
The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet, which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. I remind the House that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office for law and order services are not covered by the order before us tonight.
As is customary on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision in the two agriculture votes amounts to some £164 million. In vote 1, some £25 million is to fund EC and national agriculture and fishery support measures that apply throughout the United Kingdom. In addition to the various pre-funded market support measures under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes some £10 million to assist structural improvements, by way of various capital and other grants; £14 million is to provide support for farming in special areas, by means of headage payments for hill cattle and sheep.
In vote 2, some £139 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. That includes £59 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services; £44 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, fisheries and forestry services; £22 million is for central administration; and £5 million is for the rural development programme, an increase of £3 million over 1993–94.
In the Department of Economic Development's vote 1, £130 million is required for the Industrial Development Board. That will enable the board to carry out its role of strengthening Northern Ireland's industrial base and to meet its existing commitments, primarily in the area of selective assistance to industry.
The board's continuing success in attracting internationally competitive inward investment to Northern Ireland is very welcome. Thirteen projects were successfully negotiated last year, representing a total investment of £259 million, and 2,309 jobs were promoted, against a target of 2,250. The board hopes to build on those successes in the coming year.
In vote 2, some £94 million is required. Some £34 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. That will allow the agency to maintain its successful track record in developing, strengthening and improving the competitiveness of small firms in Northern Ireland.
Some £14 million is for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, which seeks to improve the performance of local companies through increased innovation, research and development and by technology transfer. That
606
underlines the importance which the Government attach to improving the competitiveness of business in Northern Ireland to enable it to meet the challenges of the international marketplace.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will be interested in the work of the Department of Economic Development, but when discussions take place, as I imagine they do annually, will my right hon. Friend try to balance the protection of jobs through that work in industry and making Northern Ireland's economy competitive, with the 35,000 farming jobs, of which 10,000 to 12,000 are full time? The average cost of agricultural support is £1,200 per farm, which is good value compared with the cost of agricultural support in the rest of the United Kingdom and with some of the economic development investments which the Government rightly make.
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as he brings to the House considerable knowledge of Northern Ireland, having been a distinguished Minister in the Province. I shall urge upon my hon. Friends, in their ministerial capacities, the necessity to heed his wise advice.
Finally in that vote, £12.5 million is for the Northern Ireland tourist board to assist the further development of tourism in Northern Ireland. In 1993, a record 1.26 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, the fifth consecutive year of growth in visitor numbers.
Mr. David Trimble: Is not that figure of 1.26 million visitors misleading, as most of them are people returning home or visiting relatives? Is it possible to know how many genuine tourists there were?
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for early notice of that point. I pray that, before the conclusion of the debate, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), will be able to comment authoritatively on the division of those statistics.
In vote 3—
Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way before he leaves the subject of the tourist board?
Sir John Wheeler: I shall not leave that subject if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on it.
Mr. Ross: Is it not of concern to the Minister that there now seems to be no member of the tourist board specifically concerned with the principal tourist area of Northern Ireland—the north coast? Why does not that area have a representative on the board at present?
Sir John Wheeler: Individuals appointed to the tourist board of Northern Ireland are appointed not on a geographical basis but on the premise that they will serve the interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. As there are many claimants to the work and services of the tourist board, I sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will feel that that is the wisest course of action.
In vote 3, some £204 million is for the Training and Employment Agency. That includes £53 million for the youth training programme, to support some 12,000 training places and on-going expenditure on a new training facility in west Belfast.

607
Some £53 million is for the action for community employment programme, to provide 9,500 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. Some £24 million is for the job training programme, which offers training and work experience to unemployed adults. That is £1.6 million more than in 1993–94, and will allow the programme to expand from 5,700 places in March 1994 to 6,000 by March 1995. Eighteen million pounds is to assist companies to improve their competitiveness by training and development of their employees.
Token provision of £1,000 in vote 4 is to cover residual expenses in connection with the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry. That is offset by further proceeds from the share sale. A supplementary estimate, covering actual expenses and proceeds from the sale, will be presented to the House in due course.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. In vote 1, £183 million is for roads, transport and ports. That includes about £152 million for the development, operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's public road system. An extensive programme of maintenance work on carriageways and bridges is under way, complemented by new road construction, and improvement schemes. Construction work on the Belfast cross-harbour road and rail links is well under way, with completion of the rail link and stage 1 of the road link expected by the end of the year.
Vote 2 covers housing, where about £188 million will provide assistance, mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell us what he has in mind for the dualling of the A8 and of the A26?
Sir John Wheeler: At this precise moment, I have nothing in mind, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State may have something in mind before the end of the debate.
When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing this year will be about £570 million. That is an increase of £14 million on 1993–94, and will support the continued improvement of housing conditions.
Vote 3 covers expenditure on water and sewerage services, where gross expenditure is estimated at £200 million. Nonety-three million pounds is for capital expenditure, and £107 million for operational and maintenance purposes.
Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. What amount is set aside, in the capital expenditure to which he has referred, to continue the privatisation of the water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland?
Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will seek to give the hon. Gentleman an authoritative answer on that. If not, I shall ensure that he has a written response as soon as possible.
In vote 4, £136 million is for environmental services. That includes about £34 million for urban regeneration measures, which continue to be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. As in previous years,
608
that will generate much greater overall investment through the successful partnerships that have been established with the private sector.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,317 million, an increase of 3.6 per cent. on last year's provision. Vote 1 includes £807 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £40 million on 1993–94. That includes £760 million for schools and colleges of further education, which should maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at present levels.
Forty-seven million pounds is for libraries, youth services and administration, and £40 million for boards' capital projects. That includes the provision of new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. Some £133 million is for voluntary schools, and £11.5 million for integrated schools.
In vote 2, £109 million is for local universities to enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. One hundred and twenty-four million pounds is for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including about £17 million for arts and museums and about £3 million for community relations.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. In vote 1, about £1,293 million is for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts and family health services. That is an increase of 6.8 per cent. on last year.
In vote 3, gross provision of £206 million is for the Department's administration and other costs. That includes £116 million for the Social Security Agency, £14 million for the Child Support Agency, and £13 million for the health and personal social services management executive.
Some £1,302 million in vote 4 is for a range of social security benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. That represents an increase of 4.3 per cent. on last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1994, but an increasing number of beneficiaries.
In vote 5, £458 million is to cover expenditure on the independent living fund, housing benefit, the social fund and payments to the national insurance fund.
Finally, I turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel, where, in vote 3, about £4 million is for the community relations programme. That reflects the importance that Government continue to attach to community relations in Northern Ireland.
In my opening remarks, I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the estimates. I hope that, in replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond to the points that have already been raised with me, and any other points that hon. Members may raise during the debate.
I commend the order to the House.
7.18 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I thank the Minister for taking the House through the allocation of funds among the spending Departments in Northern Ireland. I do not intend to delay the House unduly this evening, because this is the opportunity for Members of Parliament from Northern

609
Ireland to mention a wide range of concerns—which I am sure they will, judging from past debates. However, I shall discuss several issues.
The Minister talked about funding for transportation. I do not know whether he was in the House this afternoon when the Prime Minister presented a report on the European summit meeting in Corfu, but one of the items on the agenda was European transport integration. The Prime Minister mentioned the link between Dublin and Belfast. I thought that money had already been made available for the improvement and upgrading of that railway line. I should be grateful, as I am sure would everyone else, if the Minister would say, when he winds up, precisely what that means in terms of European funding for transportation infrastructure in the island of Ireland.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as this is an important cross-party point. There are benefits in running a line across to Wales and then to Dublin, but it is worth emphasising to my hon. Friend the Minister that using the line up through Scotland to Lame will be of great advantage, not only for Northern Ireland, but for the northern part of the Republic of Ireland. In the European discussions, I hope that the needs of Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be overlooked, and that the Republic of Ireland will not gain all the benefits from the line to Wales.
Mr. Stott: As I said, it is my impression that an allocation of 50 million ecu has already been approved for the upgrading of the Dublin-Belfast railway line. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will know, as a former Minister, Northern Ireland Railways is shortly to conclude work through Belfast to Lame, so that there will be a direct link from Dublin to Lame for people who want to travel that way, which is all to the good.
The Minister mentioned funding enterprise, and funding training. I hear what he has to say, and I make no apologies for the fact that I have previously raised the Government's record on unemployment in Northern Ireland. Overall unemployment continues to be a key concern in the local economy, and is of overriding importance to those people in Northern Ireland who are out of work or face the uncertainty of unemployment prospects.
The people of Northern Ireland continue to feel the full force of the Government's ineptitude, and are experiencing the highest rate of unemployment in any region in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is about the size of a riding of south Yorkshire, and has a population of a little over 1 million. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is 13.1 per cent. of the total work force—an appalling level.
I genuinely welcome any decrease in the rate of unemployment, and I note that the figures for May show a slight fall in the level. But closer inspection and an accurate interpretation of those figures show that there is no room for complacency. Anyone who has read the "Northern Ireland Economic Review and Prospects" by Coopers and Lybrand will see that clearly.
More than half those registered as unemployed in the region are classified as long-term unemployed, and have been out of work for a year or more. While there has been
610
an increase in the number of people in employment of about 2,200, which is to be welcomed, the increase is made up entirely of female part-time jobs.
I welcome the creation of a flexible job market which extends choice to workers whose life style and needs suit part-time employment, but more than one fifth of the region's unemployed have been out of work for more than five years. It is therefore self-evident that the creation of part-time posts has had no significant impact on the number of long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. They are the people who seek genuine security for themselves and their families, and are attempting to shed their state dependence through secure full-time employment.
The number of employees in full-time employment in Northern Ireland fell by 3,290 between December 1992 and September 1993. Despite what he said, the Minister has this evening been unable to offer any new hope to the long-term unemployed in order to help them back into full-time employment.
On closer inspection of the most recent figures, we see that the most appalling statistics are revealed in the travel-to-work areas. Eight out of the 12 travel-to-work areas in Northern Ireland have unemployment of 18 per cent. or more. Strabane continues to suffer the highest unemployment, with more than one quarter of the work force in its travel-to-work area unemployed. Of the 566 Northern Ireland wards 107 have a male unemployment rate of more than 30 per cent.
Those statistics lead to the undeniable conclusion that the Government are simply not doing enough to get the unemployed of Northern Ireland back to work and to help give them a future. It is perhaps the youth unemployment rate that, above all, highlights the worst neglect of skills and potential among Northern Ireland's population. More than a quarter of those aged between 17 and 24 are unemployed. What hope does the Minister bring to the Dispatch Box for them this evening?
Wherever young people live in the United Kingdom, their unemployment leads to widespread poverty, homelessness and a justified resentment. However, in the Northern Ireland context, it leads to disillusionment, and a spin-off, because the paramilitary organisations are readily available to exploit the problem. Unemployment and the lack of hope are probably the greatest recruiting sergeants for paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
It is surely the Government's duty to offer those young people hope in the form of increased opportunities and, in so doing, frustrate those who seek to take advantage of the frustration of Northern Ireland's young unemployed. The Government have consistently failed to deal with the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I have outlined the statistics to show that this evening.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the training of young people in Northern Ireland, and the cuts taking place in training facilities?
Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a subject of which I have some experience. I recently visited a number of higher education institutions in the Province. There, I was told of the conflict between what the institutions can offer young people in terms of engineering training and qualifications, and what the training boards are doing in Northern Ireland. The two organisations seem to be at cross purposes, and funds are not properly directed at the

611
problem. The Government have not focused on the problem of training in the way that the hon. Gentleman and I believe they should.
I wish to mention the prospects for public expenditure in Northern Ireland. The Government have been engaged in across-the-board cuts in public expenditure, as well as the implementation of increased taxation and value added tax, in an attempt to dig themselves out of the economic hole into which they have plunged this country. In Northern Ireland, the increase in public expenditure announced by the Minister today and on other occasions amounts to a rise of just about 4 per cent. in 1994–95, which, allowing for inflation, represents very little change.
Recent changes to the health service in Northern Ireland have done nothing to redress the increased resources spent on health management and patient care. Instead, the health service in Northern Ireland has been faced with an extension of the Government's obsession with privatising, and commercialising health and social services care.
The Government use the language of the marketplace in an attempt to sell ill-health and rationalise the sick. In particular, the Government have repeated mistakes already made in other parts of the United Kingdom, and have failed adequately to fund the provision of community care in Northern Ireland. Caring for patients in the more familiar surroundings of their own homes will cost money. If the Government are genuine in their offer to those people, they must clearly find the wherewithal to ensure that care in the community is effective.
One effect of the Government's so-called rationalisation of health provision has already been felt by the Royal group of hospitals in Belfast. The city's hospital provision is to be cut by means of the merger of Northern Ireland's two biggest hospitals. This move will reduce already limited bed capacity by 20 per cent. of the total—that is, by 750 beds by 1997.
The record of the Royal Victoria hospital is agreed worldwide to be one of the very best. It currently boasts 36 specialties on the site—not only the greatest number in the United Kingdom but the greatest number in any hospital in Europe. In addition, at least five senior consultants at the hospital rightly enjoy worldwide reputations, and their opinions and lecturing skills are in demand the world over.
The plans to destroy the world-class capacity at the Royal Victoria hospital are strongly opposed by patients, medical staff and both local communities—and by people from across the region who receive such excellent care at the hospital.
The Royal Victoria is situated in the middle of the worst killing ground in Europe; it is regrettable that its experience is still required. Will the Minister therefore ask his noble Friend to look closely at the plans of the Eastern health and social services board, and to intervene to prevent the dismemberment of the Royal Victoria and the royal group of hospitals?
I note that the Prime Minister last week received a deputation of Northern Ireland doctors, who brought to his attention the enormous number of people who had signed a petition. There is real feeling in Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast, about this hospital. I hope that the Minister's noble Friend will not just brush off these genuine feelings.
As for electricity privatisation, the isolation of Northern Ireland's key electricity system, and its consequent vulnerability, mean that the strategic implications of privatisation should have warranted a much higher place in
612
the consideration of the surrounding issues. It is clear, however, that the key factors behind the decision had nothing to do with an energy strategy, and were primarily based, first, on decisions by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office that, in order to win their ideological spurs, they needed to play their part in the privatisation policies of the Government—however belatedly.
Secondly, the Treasury needed to acquire the assets from the sale to fund the ever-burgeoning public sector borrowing requirement. Both are short-term approaches. It is abundantly clear that energy provision needs instead to be based on strategic planning. Indeed, this short-termism is evident in the hands-off approach which the Department of Economic Development is now adopting.
Having put the legislation and the framework for privatisation in place, the Government and the Department have taken key decisions that have tied up long-term supply contracts, none of which can be cancelled before 1996. Further, the regulator is debarred from expressing an opinion on the decision to proceed with the interconnector to Scotland.
In my view, the DED and Ministers have taken decisions that are in the best interests of the DED and Ministers, not of Northern Ireland Electricity or the consumers there. They have achieved the political objective of privatising a major asset in Northern Ireland. They have brought £700 million into the Treasury and have been forced to concede only £14 million over four years to the larger groups of energy consumers by way of recompense.
Having taken the key decisions, Ministers can now stand back and, should anything go wrong, transfer the blame to the three key operators: the generators, the regulator and what they call market forces. The decisions already made on long-term contracts and the Scottish interconnector mean that the Department has effectively cut off debate about new generating capacity, and has tied the regulator's hands and ability to control existing generating contracts for some time to come.
I do not wish to trespass on the territory of tomorrow's debate on the privatisation of Belfast harbour, but I suspect that my hon. Friends will show that the dogmatic approach adopted by the Government, while refusing to take into account the unique regional circumstances of Northern Ireland, is short-sighted, and no more than an attempt to get their hands on the cash from that valuable asset.
This order represents nothing more than a shuffling of an already meagre budget for Northern Ireland. The Minister has nothing new to offer, particularly for the unemployed. Of that, the Government should be thoroughly ashamed—
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Just before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer one question? He accuses the Government of spending too little in Northern Ireland. How much does he intend to spend if he comes to power—and how would he pay for it?
Mr. Stott: The Minister and the Northern Ireland Office have produced a report for the scrutiny of the House; it is my function to point out its shortcomings to him, which I believe I have done with some clarity. It is not my duty this evening to tell him what we would or would not do: it is the Minister who has to answer for his actions in Northern Ireland. I am pointing out to him the disgraceful amount of

613
unemployment there. In his position as a retread, he cannot get away from the fact that the Government have been in office for 15 years, or from the issue of unemployment.
7.36 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate gives us an opportunity to deal with matters of grave concern to those who represent Northern Ireland in the House. The Opposition spokesman highlighted the high rate of unemployment in our Province. No public representative of Northern Ireland could be happy with that. Some of our constituencies enjoy better rates of employment than others, and we are happy for those who are in that fortunate position. In general, however, every Northern Ireland Member feels grave concern about the matter.
I regret the fact that no member of the Social Democratic and Labour party is present for the debate. We may disagree vigorously with the SDLP about the constitution, but here is one matter that should unite all our public representatives: the future well-being and prosperity of the people of Northern Ireland. Our people should be able to earn their livelihoods, get a rate for the job and bring up their families in the conditions that they would want.
Let no one underestimate the seriousness of the unemployment problem in our Province. Ministers on the Front Bench—they appear to be smiling at the moment, but I do not suppose that they are smiling at this—need to acknowledge the seriousness and scale of the problem, and show us that they have in mind measures to bring about some alleviation of it. Perhaps then we will be on the road to the day when there will be ample employment for members of every class of society in Northern Ireland.
I am especially concerned about training in Northern Ireland. Those in the training centres training our young people fear that there is to be a cut in funding that will result in great heartache for our youngsters, especially in the working-class districts of our city of Belfast. I note that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) is nodding and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) fully agrees with what I am saying.
I am not in a position to speak for parts of the Province other than the city in which I live, but there is a concern throughout Northern Ireland that financial cuts in training projects will knock the heart out of many young people who, when they leave school, look first to training. I pay a warm tribute to those who have dedicated their lives to training. I have visited the training centres and I am amazed by the large percentage of the youngsters whom they train who obtain permanent jobs rather than simply joining the unemployment queues. We should be grateful for that. The Minister's mind must be full of all the information that he is about to release. It will be like Noah's flood. Can he tell us something about training? Will there be a serious cut in funding?
There has been a series of crises in agriculture. The low prices in the pig sector seem to have stabilised or to have improved a little. However, there is still a difficulty because of our peripheral location and our distance from United Kingdom and EC markets. That means an added cost on imports, especially animal feed and, consequently, an increase in output costs. Northern Ireland producers face
614
a supplement of at least £12 a tonne on freight costs for feed. That is a disadvantage and I urge the Government to do something about it.
There are two ways in which the Government could tackle the problem. First, there could be a feed cost equalisation premium to ease the farmers through their days of difficulty. Secondly, we could do something that other EC member states do—exploit our EC membership. We could ask for intervention grain to be stored in Northern Ireland. The EC, not the Government, would then pay for the transport. It would also pay the rent for the grain to be stored. When the farmers have an emergency, they could use that grain for the same price as is being paid in the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is what other EC countries do, so why do we not do so to help the hard-pressed farmers of Northern Ireland?
When the Minister replies and releases that tremendous flood of information on us, will he also respond to that vital point? I have been pressing it for a long time. Indeed, I have pressed it in Europe and the Commissioners tell me that they envisage no difficulty with my suggestion. Therefore, we should be prepared to exploit the system for the benefit of our farmers.
There is great concern in Northern Ireland about animal health and the dangers posed to the Province through the introduction of diseased animals from countries where internal controls and health measures are less vigorously enforced. Northern Ireland has an agriculture system second to none. We can boast about it and the way that it is run.
I pay tribute to the noble Lady Denton, the Under-Secretary. She has given her energy and zeal to helping the farming community and it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that. Indeed, I was glad to carry her bags to the plane today as I felt that it would show that some people appreciate what she has done for the Province. I am glad that she is to join the Minister at talks in Brussels so that there will be direct representation of the Northern Ireland position. Anyone who knows anything about Europe knows that deals are made between Ministers, not civil servants.
A tremendous problem faces Northern Ireland agriculture. I believe in the environment and I believe that we should preserve our heritage and our environmental assets in the rural countryside. However, instead of being dictators, environmentalists should be partners with the farming community. They should help the farmers to preserve the rural environment. That is important.
The Minister must face the difficulties in agricultural planning. All hon. Members with rural constituencies with farming communities are pestered daily with a particular problem. The mother and father have done their stint on the farm and they want a retirement bungalow on their land. They want to end their lives on their own property. The Government are doing all that they can to block the necessary planning applications. I raised the matter on the last occasion that we debated the appropriation order, but nothing has happened. The cottages are tied to an agricultural lease and must be used by someone working in agriculture.
When old people retire and die a house is vacant, but that house cannot be let to anyone other than someone working full time on a farm. Today, there are few full-time farmers in Northern Ireland. The agricultural position in Northern Ireland is different; there is a different playing field. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member

615
for Bridgwater (Mr. King), knows all about that. I ask the Government to investigate the matter and release houses so that they can be sold or rented to people who want to live in the countryside but cannot fulfil the present lease agreement. I urge the Minister to study that matter urgently.
A document that was published on planning in the countryside mentioned farmers only once. It was very good of its authors even to mention that farmers lived in the country. I asked one of them to show me the word "farmer" and he replied, "That was a big mistake. We should have used it more often."
We were told that there would be an easing of planning procedures, and that appeals would run more smoothly and be more realistic. That is neither my experience nor that of my colleagues in the House, who have complained to me that they have great difficulty with rural planning.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the relaxed procedure was introduced as a consequence of a court case that found against the planning service, but a subsequent action overturned the original decision—so the planners are back where they started?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I want not procedures founded on a court case, but the law changed so that the lease and original planning condition can be broken. We know that the system is not working. There was a time when it was all right and people were happy, but that is not so today.
Linked with farming is fishing, and investment is needed in modern port facilities. The Minister with responsibilities for that aspect knows that to be true, from her visits to fishing communities. I am sure that they put their case far better than I could. Slipways are needed, specially at Kelkeel, and so are improved ice production plants, to meet the needs of the fishing fleet.
General Government policy in Europe is greatly restricting days at sea for our fishermen, who are being pushed to the limit. There is strict policing of fisheries in Northern Ireland—there are no Nelsons putting their telescopes to a blind eye. Serious problems have arisen at the quayside, and the Government must seriously pursue that matter.
We are seeing the opening up of the waters of the Irish box to the Spanish fishing fleet. When they arrive, it will not be like the Spanish Armada, when God sent his winds and broke it to pieces. This time, the Spanish will break our fishing facilities to pieces. One thinks of the number of Spanish vessels with double bottoms, so that they can take from the sea three or four times the allowed quota.
The United Kingdom had a good card to play, because it is our waters that the Spanish are fishing, but previous Governments and the present Government have not played that card. They should have vetoed some of the concessions that were made to other nations in respect of access to our fishing waters.
A problem also exists in respect of the electricity interconnector with Scotland. Carrickfergus and Larne councils have come out in opposition to the interconnector. It is feared that 700 jobs in the Northern Ireland power industry could be lost. With electricity prices rising, a serious situation could arise. Also, environmental damage could be done to the unspoiled part of Island Magee. Environmental groups in Galloway are also opposed to the Scottish installation.
616
I know that there is to be an inquiry, but will the Minister accept its findings? In the past, the Government have put their pen through the findings of certain inquiries that they did not like. What was the use? Will the Minister say tonight that whatever may be the result of investigations, the Government may be depended upon to ensure that the inquiry's findings are implemented? That is something that the Minister cannot dodge. He comes from Scotland himself and must know something of the agitation there.
All of us are concerned about the completed feasibility study into the building of a new university of Ulster campus at Springvale in west Belfast, which will require the injection of £100 million. There are fears that money would have to be taken from other education projects in Northern Ireland and its education budget. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that tonight. People are worried as to how the continuing revenue costs of such a university would be met.
There is the continuing threat of closure of small rural schools, and continuing pressure on schoolteachers, parents and pupils from educational reforms. I say to the Minister who is to reply, who has responsibilities for education in Northern Ireland, that his reaction to deputations has been appreciated. The Minister has listened, taken some propositions on board and been helpful in, many cases. However, there is much concern about the educational issues that I mentioned.
Northern Ireland still has a big housing problem. Is the Minister prepared to review the amount of money allocated to housing in the Province, which still has housing queues? One can find married couples with children who are still living with their in-laws. At a home that I visited the other day, the whole family—mother, father and four children—slept in one room. One would think it possible for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to do something, but it is not prepared to purchase ground and build new houses in that area. People do not want to leave the neighbourhood in which they were brought up, and they should not have to do so. They should be rehoused in the same district. The Housing Executive should immediately be given the proper resources to undertake necessary work. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
As to roads, on 16 June the Under-Secretary said:
"I welcome the inward investment project to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I recognise the importance of access to Larne port. We hope to upgrade part of the road in 1997–98."—[Official Report, 16 June 1994; Vol. 244, c. 749.]
Which part of the road does the Minister intend to upgrade during that time? The Minister who opened the debate, who told us that his colleague would answer, must have been reading Hansard, or must have known what was in the mind of his other colleague; he was certainly very confident about what was in the mind of the Minister of State who is sitting next to him this evening. We have been given a date, and I wonder what will happen in 1997–98.
What will happen to the road from Ballymena to Antrim, the A26? As Member of Parliament for Antrim, North, I feel very aggrieved. The hospital for which the land was purchased should have been our main hospital, but it was taken from us. A firm promise was made that the roads to Antrim from Ballymena and further north would be designed so that people who became ill and had to be transported for half an hour, three quarters of an hour or an hour would have good roads on which to travel. That promise has not been kept.

617
The Antrim hospital, which is now up and running, is not sufficiently accessible to the people. It should be serving an area from as far north as Ballymoney, and even Coleraine, down to the borders of Antrim. Moreover, we were promised cars, ambulances and other conveyances. A committee was set up to monitor what happened in Larne. When people become ill in the night or have an accident, they are rushed to Antrim; the ambulance then leaves, and after receiving treatment those people must sit in the hospital all night because there is no transport to return them to Larne. That is happening repeatedly.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what he knows about the problems with the new hospital in Antrim. If he knows nothing, perhaps he will make inquiries and write to me. This is a serious matter, and it is coming to a head: there will be more problems with people being taken to hospital and simply left there.
I am also very concerned about the European rail link. The official map that has been issued shows just one link, with Dublin; there are branch links elsewhere on the island of Ireland. I raised the matter by means of a deputation, and the Commissioner said that he would look at it. I do not know what the current position is.
I do know, however, that there is tremendous agitation in the Irish Republic, which is trying to destroy the port of Larne. Larne is the second largest port in the United Kingdom—a good port, which used European money wisely and well. European Commissioners have taken photographs and exploited the port, saying, "This is the way in which European money is being used to benefit society." Now, the money that helped to make the port what it is, will be sidetracked in an attempt to take the volume of traffic away from Larne and keep it in the Republic.
As we know, the shortest sea route is across to Scotland. It is sad that the rail link has been closed, for big business could be done. I trust that, in their representations to Europe, Ministers will push for Larne's status to be maintained. It was established with the aid of European money, and has shown that it can produce the goods. I hope that we shall see a fight for its salvation. If European funds for the Dublin to Holyhead route are to be increased, let that be countered with similar funds to make the roads to Larne what they ought to be.
Finally, I believe that the Royal hospital should be kept. Unfortunately, it has a location problem, but one that the people of Northern Ireland have weathered. Given its international standing, the hospital should be preserved and helped. I think that there is a good place, too, for the City hospital, and that the hospital appreciates that.
Patients from Cork can be operated on in the Royal Victoria hospital, while patients from my constituency have to go to Scotland. There is something wrong with that. No one in the medical world would challenge the capability of the Royal hospital, whose surgeons and other professionals have the highest qualifications and have proved it worldwide. Why should our people have to travel to Scotland for operations, while people in the Republic can use the facilities of the Royal Victoria hospital? A hospital must serve its own community first; then, if it has places for others, it must serve them. I hope that the Minister can give us more information about the treatment
618
of patients outside Northern Ireland when we have the facilities in Northern Ireland, and beds in Northern Ireland hospitals are being closed.
We are all very concerned about old people, and about the senior citizens' homes over which there is now a question mark. The other day, at one of those homes, I spoke to an old lady who was over 90. She told me, "I have been here for more than 20 years and I should like to end my days here, but I am told that I may have to be shifted away from the few friends I have left in this community." Such action is not good for the aged, or for those who should be looking after them. Let me issue a plea for sympathy and concern for the aged in our Province: let us not close, willy-nilly, homes that have done such good service to the community. There is much emphasis on home care nowadays, but some people cannot go home because they need care all the time. If they can be cared for at home and want to be there, that is fine; but the needs of some cannot be met through home care, and we must provide for them.
Those are some of the matters that concern me. I hope that the Minister will give them his attention.
8.9 pm
Mr. William Ross: I begin by taking issue with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who said, in praising the Royal Victoria hospital, that it was situated in the middle of the worst killing ground in Europe. I know that we have our problems, but we have not yet approached the level of killing in places such as Bosnia. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that his words were not as wisely chosen as many of the rest of his remarks.
Mr. Stott: I acknowledge that I said that, but I had meant to say "in the European Community". I acknowledge that in the past two or three years we have seen dreadful scenes in some areas of Bosnia. Even the hon. Gentleman would not deny, however, that in the past few years the area around the hospital in Belfast has been a terrible place for people being killed.
Mr. Ross: I acknowledge that, not least because the area is within a square mile of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and the number of deaths has been horrendous. It would wrong, however, to let folk outside Northern Ireland or even the United Kingdom believe that the position is worse than it is. God knows, it is bad enough—we do not have to add to the misery.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) discussed retirement dwellings and the right to sell. No one should be under any delusions that this is a difficult matter. Hon. Members will know that I am a farmer, so I am well aware of the problem and of the extended family nature of the farming community in Northern Ireland. Two or even three generations can be resident on or near the family farm. I fear that, if we loosen the right to sell too much, applications for other dwellings will be made in 10 or 20 years' time. The Minister is nodding and I am sure that note has been taken of the matter. I hope that there will be some loosening of the right to take tenants into such accommodation, which would often relieve farmers of the problem for years. The matter is worthy of consideration.
While I am on the issue of planning, I should like to raise an issue that has caused me some concern. A large

619
housing development was constructed in my constituency, after which other constituents found that water pressure had disappeared from their homes. I made inquiries and was told that the Water Executive was doing its best to remedy the problem and that, within the next month or so, it would be remedied. When I made further inquiries, the water service told me that the development was such that water demand would be outside the range of the existing main and that the developer should liaise with the Water Executive.
That is fair enough as far as it goes, but I hope that the provision of public utilities such as water will be given greater consideration. Towns such as Coleraine and Limavady are expanding like mad, but not enough consideration is given by the planning authority at an early stage as to whether a public utility—water, sewerage or electricity—will be up to the job. That creates enormous problems for people moving into dwellings. I should say that that is the first time in my 20 years in the House that such a matter has been brought to my attention. If it is happening in my constituency, I am sure that it is happening in others, and I see one or two heads nodding in agreement. Some consideration should be given to improving procedures to deal with such problems.
The next problem is of constituents who contract a rare medical condition. I am sure that every hon. Member knows that there are an endless variety of medical conditions, many of which are very rare. As it happens, this year three totally new conditions have been brought to my attention. In the first case, the individual was told by doctors, including the consultant at the Royal Victoria hospital, that he had multiple sclerosis. It was then discovered that he did not and that he was possibly the only person in Northern Ireland with that particular disease, but that he could be cured by a difficult and delicate operation. His family faced a horrendous time in the period between the diagnosis and the operation.
The second case appeared to involve hlyasthema gravis—an awful auto-immune disease that causes fluctuating, sometimes fatal, weakness. Again, the individual involved suffered many problems. The third case involved a constituent who I know personally and who had contracted dystonia, the symptoms of which are very nasty. He and his wife were working. Over a period of months, he suffered increasing and great pain. The family income went clown enormously because he had to leave his work. Like most young couples buying a house, he was a comparatively young man. Doctors had some difficulty identifying the condition. They also ran into a series of problems in relation to the financial help to which they were entitled—a problem that is common to the cases of the three individuals who wrote or came to see me.
Families in that position, often with no experience of how the social security system works, face severe problems. They look to all the statutory agencies for help and experience difficulty in receiving disability living allowance, severe disability allowance, mobility allowance and other benefits. As only the wife is working, they suffer an horrendous drop in family income, which has a devastating effect on the family.
I am not an expert in such matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) knows a lot more about them than I do. The Government must consider them because they involve distressing cases. It may not always be true that hard cases make bad law, but sometimes they call for rather more sympathy than is
620
readily apparent to those of us who are brought face to face with the consequences of such illnesses. The matter goes much wider than that. So far this year, I have had three cases. Heaven only knows what horrors await hon. Members at their next constituency surgery or in the post tomorrow morning. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider the matter.
I have heard of one or two cases where students were involved in motor accidents and were unable to continue their studies for some time, or suffered an illness that rendered it impossible for them to return to their studies. As they had not been paying national insurance contributions, they could not draw the benefits that were available to other people. They intend to return to their studies. Those involved in car accidents may, in some cases, eventually receive some compensation, but they have to get from where they are to that happy position. In the intervening period, some of them are without any income and are totally dependent on their parents, who are often incapable of supporting them.
Something needs to be done. I have corresponded with the Minister in regard to one student. I hope that the problem will be resolved because it is clearly a United Kingdom-wide problem. It needs to be looked at and dealt with sympathetically to allow these young people some income while they are recovering until, eventually, they can continue their studies. It would be an enormous waste if those young people said that they were giving up their studies and surrendering the possibility of grant.
The next matter has occupied quite a few column inches in my local newspapers. It arises out of the large payments now being made for electricity produced under the non-fossil fuel obligation. The Minister is well aware that there has been a hullabaloo over the wind farm on Rigged hill. There is some talk about what is happening at Corkey, but that is not my immediate problem because it is in another constituency. There is continuing concern and unease in the community in Limavady about the Rigged hill project, although the council has decided that it will not raise any objection, even after listening to the folk on both sides of the question at a recent special meeting.
It is interesting that the Northern Ireland legislation appears not to require a formal environmental impact study. At least in the Corkey case and in the case of Rigged hill, an informal report was prepared. I have looked at the 1985 EC directive and at the United Kingdom regulations that brought it into force in 1989.
It is interesting that two categories are covered under the EC directive and the regulations. There is a need for reports on the water generation of electricity and for generation through thermal stations. Indeed, the legislation runs rather wider than that. Nowhere is wind generation mentioned. We are told that we must take into consideration all the developments that have an impact on the landscape, as the EC directive says, and on the environment, as the regulations say—in civil servants' eyes, those phrases may or may not mean the same thing—in terms of the visual effect.
I have seen wind farms in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Anyone who says that they are not intrusive is living in a dream world. The wind farms can be seen from many miles away. In the report on Rigged hill, folk were told that the windmills would be 30 m high. In fact, they will be 60 m high—four or five times the capacity of the project originally mentioned.
Sir John Wheeler indicated assent.
Mr. Ross: I see the Minister nodding. He is well aware of the fact.
The matter is not as simple as it appears and we need to take a careful look at wind generation generally. Rigged hill is part of the escarpment that runs from Benevenagh in the north to beyond the Glen Shane pass, a distance of 20 to 25 miles. Every inch of that escarpment is a first-rate place for a wind farm. Whenever I mentioned that to the planners, they said, "Wind farms will not be built the whole way along." My immediate reaction was, "Why not?" It must be one of the best sites in the British Isles for a series of wind farms.
We need to sit down and put on our thinking caps before going any further down this road. The beauty of the countryside and its tourist potential are such that we must have some regard for the visual impact. There are not normally many folk on those hills, which are hundreds of feet high. However, we must think rather more seriously about the whole matter than has been the case hitherto.
The constituent who raised the matter with me pointed out that there was a letter, which is mentioned in the documentation, which was sent to the B9 energy section from the Londonderry division of the town and country planning service on 24 November 1992. There was also a letter to EM Consultants on 21 May 1993. My constituent has been unable to see the letters. I assume that, as they have been issued by a public body, they should be available to the public. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an undertaking to place them in the Library and then tell me when they are there because I would like to see them.
Environmental impact studies have a whole series of regulations surrounding them. They are supposed to be available to the public and copies are supposed to be made available to the general public. Councillors are supposed to be told about them. The reports prepared in these two cases were allegedly available, but they were never advertised. No one knew that the reports were available for examination. My constituent, who found out about them more or less by accident and then went to have a look, is not very happy. If we go down this road, the general public must be taken along with us. They must be given an opportunity to object to anything that they think might have a long-term detrimental effect on the landscape in which they live. I hope that planners will be rather more open about such matters in the future.
I want to touch on one or two other matters, not least the horrendous case of pollution in the River Strule. As the House knows, I believe that work keeps interfering with my angling. I am afraid that I do not get very much angling done these days.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Shame.
Mr. Ross: It is a shame—a dreadful shame. The duties of this place and our duties to our constituents dictate that we must spend a lot of time away from the river bank.
Unfortunately, someone let a large amount of wood preservative into the Strule. As the Minister, who is also a keen angler, knows well, nine miles of the river were poisoned to the extent that the water plants were killed. It was not a happy situation. We were fortunate that the salmon smolts were away, but that did not protect the resident fish or the following year's salmon smolts in that area. It was a large kill.
622
I believe that the source of the pollution has been traced. I hope that remedial measures will be taken and that measures will be put in hand to ensure that such an incident is extremely unlikely to happen again. We have far too much pollution. Every year, we have a whole catalogue of disasters. The people who are responsible wash their hands in public and say, "We are very sorry that it happened. Please leave us alone and we shall get on with the work." The reality is that many people use the water for recreation, and they have put time and money into their activities, often on a voluntary basis. It is just not good enough that people seem to be able to walk away from these horrible pollution incidents, which damage other people, and that they get off practically scot-free.
I now turn to sub-head 3 of the vote for the Department of Finance and Personnel, which refers to money being spent on community relations and cultural traditions. It is all intended to improve relations between the various sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We then find that the way in which the Secretary of State intends to improve community relations is to bow to the Irish republican demand that street names should be put up in Irish.
I do not know who advised the Secretary of State and I do not know which Minister is responsible for the matter. It is just about the daftest idea that has come out of the Northern Ireland Office for many a day. Will the Government never learn that, if they take all those soft stories at face value, all they do is annoy far more people than they please? I do not hear Irish spoken very often in the streets of Dungiven, which I would have thought is one of the places where one may well expect to hear it. I do not hear it in everyday use and I do not think that many people do.
Since Irish has been taught and learned in Northern Ireland, it has been for a blatantly sectarian and political purpose rather than an educational one. If the Minister does not like that, he should go back and examine the evidence and he would gladly come to the conclusion that my assessment is correct. That proposal should be dropped and the money should be used for something far more useful. While talking about how the Government may use that money, may I point out that Limavady grammar school is still waiting for the go-ahead for its building programme. That money would make a favourable start in that process.
I hope that it will not be long before the Minister accepts the good advice which arose from several quarters and from the General Synod of the Church of Ireland—as it happens, it was held in Cork this year—where a number of leading clergy drew attention to the nonsense of integrated schools in the Northern Ireland context. We have been told that everybody has their freedom. I well remember the roots of the whole idea of total parental freedom of choice, rather than dealing with the schools in which there was something wrong. I am aware that the Government are so heavily committed to the idea that they are unlikely to change their mind, but if they had any wit they would drop it and some of the other proposals and get on with providing a proper education in every school in Northern Ireland. Then, if people are anxious to go to good schools, they can go to state schools and the voluntary grammar schools, which are largely integrated anyway.
I also hope that the Government have not lost sight of the need for the Coleraine hospital, despite the diminished number of beds which, apparently, are to be provided in Northern Ireland in a few years' time.
8.31 pm
Sir James Kilfedder: For a number of years I have been fighting, and fighting relentlessly, on behalf of the Banks residential home in Bangor in my constituency to prevent the closure of that excellent home, which provides facilities for elderly people. I have been fighting to stop the dispersal of the residents there—senior citizens—who have come to regard the Banks as their own home.
A year ago, I presented a petition to Parliament, which was signed by many thousands of people. In all, 16,000 local people have signed petitions for the retention of that valuable facility in my constituency. I have written numerous letters to the Secretary of State for Health, to her predecessors and to the chairman of the Eastern health and social services board and other officials. Yet the threat of the closure of Banks and the eviction of the residents still hang over the heads of those vulnerable, elderly people. I therefore take this opportunity once again of protesting in the strongest possible terms at the inhumane way in which those people are being treated.
It would indeed be unfortunate if the Banks residential home were closed. It would be a traumatic experience for everyone in the home. For a group of frail, elderly people, with an average age of 85, it is devastating, and that devastation is being imposed on them by a body which is supposed to be statutorily charged with their welfare. That is a mockery. I refer, of course, to the North Down and Ards community health and social services trust, which no longer seems to believe in democratic accountability to the people that it is supposed to serve.
There is widespread community support throughout the North Down area for the plight of those poor people. The fight to prevent the closure has been organised and co-ordinated by a body of people known as the Friends of the Banks, led by Mrs. Marion Smith, the chairman of the pressure group. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues.
The campaign is based not only on emotion, although I must admit that I feel emotionally involved with those unfortunate people who seem to be pawns of an unthinking bureaucracy, but on the logical argument that there is a continuing need for the Banks. The home provides a first-class facility for full-time residential care, for respite care and as a base for a whole range of community support facilities for the elderly.
Indeed, the local unit trust appeared to accept that the Banks residential home is a first-class facility. Its own inspection team has given it top marks as a first-class establishment, and I can confirm that from my experience over the 24 years during which I have been a Member of Parliament for the constituency of North Down. I have visited it frequently each year, and I have long had connections with the Banks through meeting its residents and meeting relatives there and attending some of the functions there. I have always been impressed by the care and the consideration shown by all the staff towards the residents, and I know that that impression would be strongly endorsed by the residents and their relatives.
Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene on this important issue. The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) has described the appalling situation over the application by the people who form the trust. Is it not a fact that we are witnessing what we described would happen—undemocratic, unrepresentative,
624
unthinking people appointed to the trust by the Minister? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that he should condemn the way in which the trusts have been formed and the lack of democratic accountability of those appointed trusts?
Sir James Kilfedder: I readily adopt what the hon. Gentleman says about the attitude of the people in that unit of management. It was my opinion that they were there to serve the people. Certainly all the people that I have met felt that the people appointed to the trust are not serving them, the people of North Down, but are serving themselves and masters elsewhere. They are there to serve the people—the patients, the elderly and all those in need. In my view—I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said—they are falling down on their duty and turning a deaf ear to the pleas of people in this case: the supporters, the relatives and the residents of the Banks residential home.
The only reason for suggesting the closure of the home is that the site is a valuable one and its sale would partly provide the cash for alternative community care facilities. I am not certain whether the cash would be used wisely. I am sure that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) would echo that fear. The home is on a valuable site. The land, I understand, was given by a private individual for the specific purpose of providing the home. However, once the home is sold, developers may buy the land, but the money from the sale may be wasted on some other project. I feel that it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul if, in fact, the trust intends to provide some other facilities, although I wonder whether, at the end of the day, it will. Surely we have not reached the stage at which progress in community care provision is achieved at the expense of the elderly and vulnerable residents of the Banks.
Leaving aside the sense of outrage at the proposal, the consultation has been abysmally handled by the unit trust. It has been forced to make postponement after postponement because it has mishandled the consultation. It was forced by the High Court to appoint an advocate to represent the old people at the home. The latest postponement arose from representations by the High Court about the way in which advocacy had been handled.
All the delays are simply adding to the trauma of the residents, who are becoming increasingly upset and depressed. Indeed, my latest information is that they are being given conflicting information by the unit trust about the outcome of the legal proceedings. Surely the fact that the unit trust has been endlessly forced to delay its procedures shows that the proposal is seriously flawed. Why cannot those old people be taken out of their misery by receiving an assurance that the Banks residential home will not close?
The situation has become so unreasonable that I strongly urge the Minister to intervene and to direct the unit trust that, in the interests of the old people, the closure procedure should be indefinitely abandoned.
Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the hon. Member will be glad to know that many people throughout the House wholeheartedly support his contention and his appeal to the Minister. I am sure that the Minister, realising the strength of feeling in the House, will do something about it.
Sir James Kilfedder: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. I hope that his words will be taken in by the Minister. Perhaps we could have a positive response

625
when he replies to the debate. If action is not taken quickly, there will be a powerful feeling in Bangor and in the rest of my constituency of North Down that no one in authority cares any more.
I am most anxious that elderly people should remain in their own home as long as is humanly possible; I have said that often in the House. It is good for them to remain in the area that they know and where they have friends and where their church and other facilities are located. However, they need help with cleaning the house, making a main meal, lighting fires, washing and maintenance of the garden. That means the provision of home helps and other carers. Therefore, it is lamentable that home help hours have been seriously reduced and elderly people are left with less support. Our senior citizens are vulnerable at all hours of the day and night. I am absolutely disgusted that they do not receive the help that their years of service to the community entitle them to in the twilight of their life.
Elderly people are vulnerable in many ways. I drew attention only a short time ago in the Chamber to the way in which some youths have behaved towards elderly people. Greater action is needed. More police ought to be provided to stop gangs of youths banging on the doors of elderly people's houses late at night, throwing rubbish into their gardens, urinating on their front doors, writing obscenities on their walls and so on. We ought really to try to safeguard and look after our senior citizens. They deserve not just compassion but support, and something must be done to protect them and to give them the quality of life that they surely deserve.
8.44 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: First, I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, during the last Northern Ireland Question Time, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred to the A8 to Larne. If he looks up the reference, perhaps he will find out precisely what are the plans for that road. I agree with what has already been said about the importance of the Larne road and the A26, which is essential to the north of the Province and to the new hospital in Antrim.
Vote 2 of the Department of the Environment vote is for housing. We have received a considerable number of complaints both by letter and in the House about the inset fires fitted in Housing Executive houses. I have made my views known on the matter. Many of the complaints were well justified, although there was a great deal of scaremongering as well. I took the matter up with the Housing Executive at the invitation of the Minister and with the National Coal Board and the Coal Advisory Service. I found that both bodies had been working hard to find out just what the problems were.
I have seen test rigs and I can tell the House that the investigations have been exhaustive. Up to the present, they have been inconclusive in some respects, but the Executive and the Coal Advisory Service have certainly done their utmost to try to solve the problem. There is a problem with the fires and a problem with the flues. Those problems have been investigated. The point can certainly be made that the fires are not terribly handy for the elderly people who use them. There is a tendency to keep out all the draughts in a room. Unfortunately, to make a fire burn properly and keep alight a certain amount of air is required.
626
I welcome the fact that the Housing Executive is now looking at a new open fire, similar to the old Baxi-type fire, which draws in air almost artificially. I have great hopes for that fire. It would certainly serve and please those people who wish to have an open fire and at the same time run a given number of radiators, using fuel which is suitable for clean air zones. I put those points on the record now because in the past I have criticised the Housing Executive and the Minister on the matter.
An allocation problem still exists in the Housing Executive. None of us envies the job of the allocation officers because when they please one person they disappoint a hundred, but there is a case to be made for a return to giving some preference to local applicants. Unfortunately, if there are empty houses—or voids, as the Housing Executive calls them—in a given area, folk come in from all sorts of places to occupy them and local applicants are turned down because those coming in from outside appear to have greater priority. That matter should be examined. We should keep the local people in the locality where they have been brought up and wish to remain.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) said about care in the community. I certainly agree with all that he said. However, if we are to have care in the community, the Housing Executive also has a responsibility to provide proper housing for those people. Elderly people who want to live in the community or who are being asked to live in the community certainly cannot climb stairs or live in an upstairs flat. They require suitable housing.
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on this important subject. Is he aware that pensioners and their families have been prohibited from buying their Housing Executive homes, although in some cases those homes may be in low-demand areas?
Mr. Forsythe: I am aware of that, although I was made aware of it only a short time ago. I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) will keep me right on this—that even if pensioners have the cash to buy their home, the Housing Executive will not allow them to buy it. That is unfair. If pensioners have the cash and can buy a home without even getting a mortgage, I cannot see what objections there could be. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that matter.
We have certain types of houses which are not being occupied. Sadly, that means that some areas are going downhill because we have a lot of empty houses. That is a great pity because there is a shortage of certain types of housing. Perhaps that matter, too, can be examined.
I remind the Minister of a problem from the past which, unfortunately, is still ongoing. I understand that the case of the Orlit houses has not been settled. A certain type of Orlit house is still causing problems. I understand that the tenants of Orlit houses which were sold by an unregistered housing association are not being treated in the same way as tenants in registered housing association houses.
Mr. Molyneaux: I know that my hon. Friend shares my concern for a fairly large group of Orlit home owners in Lisburn in my constituency who have through no fault of their own have fallen foul of what appears to be a defect in the law because their houses were built by an unregistered housing association. There seems to be some slippage in

627
the drafting of the legislation between what I call the Ian Gow Bill and the Order in Council. We had to wait three years for the Order in Council. When it emerged, it seemed to be defective. I wonder whether my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) would accompany me to see the appropriate Minister, because it is a grave injustice.
Mr. Forsythe: I would certainly be willing to meet the Minister about such an important matter, and I would be pleased if my colleagues were in a position to go together.
The hon. Member for North Down referred to vandalism on housing estates. There is a case to be made for joint action to be instituted between the police, the Housing Executive and the social services. We have great problems in certain housing estates, and that is a great pity. Unfortunately, we find that when one bad tenant is put into a housing estate, within a short time 70 per cent. of the people on the housing estate want to be transferred.
Sadly, I have to point out that in some areas the drug problem is also serious. It is difficult for public representatives to explain to constituents who are worried about vandalism and drug problems that it would appear that certain things cannot be done. I ask the Minister to examine the situation carefully. Perhaps a task force involving local councils and so on could be set up to examine the situation and try to resolve some of the problems in this respect as they are serious for those who live in certain areas. It is sad that there are such problems.
Vote 4 of the Department of the Environment vote is for planning. I agree with all that has been said about tied dwellings. I am also concerned about the situation in which farmers, their families and others cannot seem to be able to build on their own ground. I shall digress slightly from what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said. My sympathy is with my constituents, not with the planners trying to keep people from building.
If we are to keep people on the land, and to keep the farming community as a family or a group, we should make allowances for that. Certainly, if we are to have empty cottages or bungalows throughout the whole of Northern Ireland simply because there is a planning rule which says that they cannot be sold or let to people who are not in the farming community, the purpose of spending millions of pounds on building Housing Executive houses escapes me if we cannot use them. I agree that that matter should be examined again.
One gets annoyed when one phones the planning service and the planning service says that these are the new guidelines. The guidelines have not been through the House; they are decided by the planning service. We are not told about them. There is no local council input. The decision is taken and the guidelines are then presented to us as being set in stone and we cannot change them. We greatly object to that.
We naturally object when enforcement is requested but is not carried out. Yet when we do not want enforcement, the planning service does it. Sometimes I think—and I say this to my friends in the planning service in my area—that they are perverse in that if we want something done, they do the opposite, but perhaps I am being unfair.
I wish to refer to vote 5 on the Department of Health and Social Services, and I want to put on record that we in Northern Ireland also have problems with the Child Support Agency. I know that the subject gets a lot of mileage in the Select Committee on Social Security—of
628
which I am a member—and I know that we have debates in the House about it, but the same applies in Northern Ireland as applies in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are complaints about the CSA and hold-ups in assessments. We know that letters are not being answered and phone calls are not being returned—at least we are told that. That seems to be the same in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom. The same points are made on the subject. Why should clean breaks not be accepted? The debt switch arising from divorces and the travel-to-work expenses of the absent parent are not allowed for. Fifty per cent. of the pension contribution is allowed, not 100 per cent.
If a lady marries a man who is an absent parent, her income is immediately taken into account to keep the children of the absent parent. Some people would say that those things are not supposed to happen, but we know that they are happening. Sadly, that is the case, although even natural justice should demand that those things should not happen. It is rather unfortunate.
It is accepted that, when the subject of the CSA went through the House, everyone agreed that it was a good idea that parents should look after their children. Everyone would have applauded that, but there is a way of doing it and we should look at the subject again seriously. I must emphasise to the House that I and my colleagues are well aware that the staff of the CSA are doing precisely what the House requested them to do, and it is most unfair to hear about the aggravation which CSA staff are receiving. We must try to change the system to help those who are disadvantaged by it, but people should not take it out on the workers. We in the House gave them a task which they are now doing.
I would like to mention also "The Future of Pensions" recommendations which will be debated by the House and which will also apply to Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will understand when I say that improvements and changes in pensions law should be brought in as soon as possible.
One thinks of evidence given by the Harland and Wollf management regarding the pension fund. They seemed to treat the members, former members and workers with great disdain and did not pay any particular attention to their views. I understand that the management saw the report and thought that it supported what they had done. In fact, the position was the absolute opposite. The pension fund trustees have not yet appointed a representative from the pensioners—unless one counts the chairman, who has now retired but remains as chairman of the trustees; one wonders whether he perhaps regards himself as a representative of the pensioners.
I hope that When the privatisation processes for the airport and the port of Belfast are taking place the Government will take into account the ideas and the new proposals in "The Future of Pensions" and build those into the pensions provisions in the privatisation of those companies.
I would like to ask the Minister briefly about the social fund. The social fund report from the Auditor General in the Northern Ireland Audit Office says that there were 1,901 cases of recoverable loans abandoned or impracticable to pursue. Why was that the case? The figure in the accounts states that the amount was £153,000. I would be the last to say that we should pursue people if they are

629
desperately in need of money and are deserving of it, but we should have an explanation as to why it was not possible to recover that money.
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the disability living allowance. Nowadays, people suffer from new ailments and medical conditions which are not recognised by the medical practitioners who examine the applicants for the living allowance. That lack of flexibility should be considered.
The introduction of an identity card is an excellent idea. That little plastic card could carry a photograph and all the relevant details about an individual. Those in receipt of benefit could then take it to the post office for the purposes of identification. That would provide an excellent job for sub-post offices, which we are keeping. There is talk about the privatisation of the Post Office, but I know that we are keeping our sub-post offices. The card could also identify those who go along to vote, as that procedure is still subject to problems.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should consider going a bit further and having an identity card in Northern Ireland for all purposes, including voter identification. In the past there was a difficulty about the introduction of such cards, but now that we have all-party agreement on it and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), the Social Democrat and Labour party representative, is now in favour, surely its introduction would be a non-contentious issue on which the Government should move ahead.
Mr. Forsythe: I agree. It is an excellent idea. It is not a particularly difficult job to produce the identification details required; they could all fit on the back of the card, just like our Access cards. Now that there is agreement across the House on its introduction, the Minister should consider it. My colleagues and I would support its extended use.
Vote 2 for the Department of Economic Development covers tourism. The Minister had a little debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East about the membership of the tourist board. He said that certain people were best suited to serve on the board and I would not disagree with that. I am not quite sure, however, whether there is an hotelier on the board. If there is no such member, perhaps that is why local business people who apply to the Industrial Development Board for help to build a hotel or complex are told that they cannot have one because the board will only give such grants to large hotel chains which come to Northern Ireland or to hotels associated with such chains. I am reliably informed that that is the practice, so perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that when he replies. If it is true, it is disgraceful. We are talking about helping to attract people to Northern Ireland, and who better to do that than local people?
In connection with vote I for the DED, I congratulate the Minister, as I have done in the past, on the new investment and new firms that have come to Northern Ireland. I have seen the benefits of that in my own constituency and I welcome them. I know that the IDB has done a lot of hard work to attract such investment. As I have said on previous occasions, it is most unfortunate when the media choose to play down and, on occasion,
630
attack certain investments which people have worked hard to get. I give a black mark to the media for talking down or criticising certain matters. My second criticism of the media is that when the IDB is holding confidential discussions the media tend to leak the fact that those discussions are taking place, with the result that others get to know about the matters in hand. That is unfortunate.
I disagree with the Minister's high praise for the Local Enterprise Development Unit. My praise for the IDB does not carry over to LEDU, because it is supposed to help and encourage local people by putting them in a position in which they can create more employment but, sadly, that is not happening. I am sorry to end my speech on that note, but it must be said.
9.10 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I welcome the finances that are rightly being given to the people and departments in Northern Ireland.
A number of the issues raised by hon. Members in a debate on the appropriations measure earlier this year have, unfortunately, not been dealt with. I trust that that will not happen tonight. Some hon. Members apparently feel that this debate is a waste of time. As happened in the past two important debates, one party is missing. Perhaps it feels that it can achieve better deals from Ministers outside the Chamber. It is about time that those who take the trouble to come to the debate and raise issues that are essential for their constituents received appropriate replies. The matters raised tonight are of grave importance to our constituencies.
Under the vote for the Department of Agriculture is the item "Castlederg Flood Defences". The estimate provision for 1994–95 is £16,000 and the amount to be spent in future years is £855,000. In winding up, will the Minister tell my constituents whether the amount to be spent in future years means directly after 1994–95, or will we have to wait before further money is spent on that item, which has been identified as of great importance for my constituents? It is important that it automatically follows on and that that money is spent to correct a matter that has caused great concern to many of my constituents, especially the owners of property and shops in the town of Castlederg.
Deep concern is still felt within the pig industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) rightly mentioned that prices have been better recently, but the industry needs the careful eye of the Government. An important part of my constituency's industrial community is Unipork in Cookstown. I am sure that the Minister knows that I welcomed the takeover of Unipork, and it was warmly welcomed in my constituency, but in several parts of the Province workers are deeply worried about their future and that of their employment.
I trust that the Department of Agriculture and Baroness Denton, who has that responsibility in another place, will keep a keen eye on that development. I wish Unipork in my constituency well; I wish the new firm and the people who run it every success. However, they should be keenly conscious of the people who have given excellent service to the pig industry throughout the years, whose rights must be guarded. I hope that the Minister will recognise that in her watching brief on development in the pig sector.
I shall now discuss the Department of Economic Development, and express my deep worry about what is happening in that sector. Will the Minister tell the House

631
the up-to-date position regarding ground intended for economic development that is owned by the Department throughout the Mid-Ulster area? Urgent Government action is needed in the industrial development of my constituency. We need to know the up-to-date position regarding ground in Omagh, in Cookstown, in the district of Magherafelt, which is shared between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), and in Castlederg, an area of deprivation for many years. We are thankful that Castlederg is starting to come out of the doldrums, and that things are starting to appear much better for it after many years of terrible carnage and suffering, but we need to know the plans of the Department and the Industrial Development Board for the rest of my constituency.
Industrial development seems to be directed largely at certain areas. West of the Bann is identified as an area where industrial development is greatly needed, but I have studied the figures and I am worried. I hope that the Department is willing to investigate what has happened as regards industrial development. In the west of the Province, some areas outside the city of Londonderry—areas in my constituency, including the area verging Strabane, Omagh and Cookstown—have the greatest or second greatest unemployment in the entire Province. I believe that the Department must do more to ensure that industrialists come, because there is plenty for them to see that would attract them if they were brought into the area.
The IDB has done an excellent job and I join the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) in congratulating the IDB on the efforts that it and its chief executive have made. I appreciate their efforts and their work, but there must be greater incentives, and financial incentives, to encourage people. That is especially so given that the west of the Province is suffering because, while we are told of the great challenge of Europe, we lack the infrastructure to encourage the developers to come to the west.
Bearing that in mind, I naturally move to the vote concerning the Department for the Environment, and the essential part, which links with the Department of Economic Development. I ask the Minister to inform the House of the date of the commencement of the Cookstown bypass. We were visited by the Secretary of State, who has been visiting different councils and meeting councillors. He had a lunch and asked councillors, "What are the most important issues confronting your area?" That all sounds good, but in reality it is a public relations exercise. The Secretary of State raised the people's hopes.
I was at a meeting of industrialists, the elected councillors of the area, the schools and the rest of the community representatives. They were asked what they felt to be of vital necessity for the Cookstown area. The unanimous view of everyone present, who had been invited by the Secretary of State, was that essential to the development of Cookstown was the Cookstown bypass.
The Secretary of State—a Cabinet Minister; we could have had no one higher except the Prime Minister—visited the region and was interested in its needs and development. I thought that the most natural thing for me, as Member of Parliament, to do following the meeting which the Cabinet Minister attended, and where he listened to views with keen interest, was to send a letter asking when the Cookstown bypass would be built. We now have the vote and the details about the finances from the Department of
632
the Environment, but there is no mention of the Cookstown bypass, not only in the plans for 1994–95, but under the heading of money to be spent in future years.
What were the dinner—where a unanimous opinion was given—and its costs all about? Surely there must be more behind them than just a PR exercise. On behalf of my constituents, I demand that the Government not only say that they will listen to the people but take action based on the unanimous view of the region's political parties, industrialists and educationists. That is, that the Cookstown bypass is vital for Cookstown and its future development in economic and industrial terms and within Europe. The project would not involve big sums of money, but, without it, the future of the industrial development of the region will be stymied.
In the light of the Secretary of State's visit and the great hopes raised in the community, I must ask when we will get the Cookstown bypass. The question may be regarded as a hardy annual by the Minister as I have asked it on numerous occasions, but the problem will not go away until action is taken. I want not a PR exercise, but essential action. I am delighted that Ministers come to the region to see what is happening. I am delighted that they come to see the deprivation and neglect in the west of the Province, especially in the regions that I have mentioned tonight. However, I do not believe that it gives the community any heart if visits are made, questions asked about the needs of the area and seeming promises are made that action will be taken by the Department, when they all turn out to be a damp squib. That provides no help to the community.
In my constituency, in Omagh the main A5 is recognised as a trans-European highway—not many places have such big names, and it is a wonderful thing in this age of the European Union. It sounds tremendous, but means nothing. It has been so designated by Europe, but in the vote I find nothing from the Government about the money that is to be spent on it. All that I can find is that £700,000 is to be spent on stage 2 of the Omagh pass, but without phase 3 of the development in Omagh and the rest of the road network, the other work will be useless. We need not only the designation of the trans-European highway, but action to be taken on it.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East will join me in saying that we still await the Magherafelt bypass, which is essential for industrial development. We cannot face the challenges of Europe without the tools to do the job. If industrialists come to the area and find that they have to sit in traffic jams—time is money to them—they will not wait around for long. They will pass over the area and go somewhere else with better roads. That does not represent a fair sharing out of the available finance. I speak for an area that has suffered greatly from the lack of money that should have been voted by the House for its road development and maintenance programme.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and others who have described the deep frustration felt in the countryside about the planning process. I resent the idea that officials care more about the countryside than do elected representatives. That is designed to give the impression that the only people who want to protect our environment are civil servants and Government officials. As a former civil servant I might add that I care just as much about the environment and the countryside as a

633
Member of this House as I did when I worked in the Department of Health and Social Security—and I have remained both civil and a servant to this very day.
When a council gives its unanimous approval to some project, surely that ought to mean something. The tragedy is that, oft times, once a council has given its unanimous approval to a countryside development, officials say, "We have listened to your argument; we have consulted; we are still going to turn you down." This causes great resentment. It is no easy matter to get the unanimous approval of a local government institution in Northern Ireland: it is tough enough getting it in this House. Officials should not, therefore, give a development the thumbs down in the face of a council's unanimous agreement.
Will the Minister give his attention to those who have been battling to save the Ballynahone bog near Maghera? That may not sound particularly interesting to some, but the people of the area want it designated a site of special scientific interest—which it is. Recently, there was an application to rape the countryside around the Curran bog. The local community and their elected representatives made representations—the latter as the defenders of the community. Interestingly, the Department is giving the go-ahead for the rape of the countryside around the Ballynahone bog, and I feel that it should give my constituents' interests more consideration than that. I trust that the Minister will reply on that point.
I have already asked the Minister questions about the serious pollution in the River Mourne and the River Strule. There have been major pollution incidents on both rivers in recent times. Wood preservatives got into the River Strule and much of the fish life in the river was destroyed. It was a major pollution of the river. Water from those rivers is used for human consumption so there should be greater curbs on those using detergents and industrial chemicals.
Farmers have to install catchment tanks for effluent from their silo pits. If there is any seepage, the Department of Agriculture comes down heavily on the farmer—and rightly so because we must not allow pollution. There are frequent court appearances. Industry should be compelled to carry out similar environmental protection in the interests of wild life. Will the Minister tell us the up-to-date position on the restocking of the Rivers Strule and Mourne?
I have been contacted by the Ardstraw anglers' club about the proposed site for a hydro-electric generator at Spamount mills on the River Derg. The anglers are deeply concerned about that and made four points. The River Derg is not a large river and the volume of water required to run the proposed plant could ruin the entire stretch of water for anglers. They are worried about the turbine design. If it has high revolutions per minute, it will be lethal and will kill a large number of fish. It is crucial that measures are taken to ensure the survival of fish in our local rivers.
With the installation of a hydro-electric generator comes the necessity for a well-designed fish pass that will be inaccessible to poachers and will allow the passage of fish in low water. The hydro-electric generator will cause a large loss of fish in the River Derg. Will the operators contribute to a restocking programme to redress that loss? Perhaps the Minister could respond to that point.
634
I want briefly to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a number of other issues. Many people throughout the Province are concerned about the length of time that it takes the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to deal with the backlog of applications for grants. A constituent of mine applied for a grant a year ago, but he has only recently been asked for sketch plans. His application is still in the pipeline and little progress has been made. That is not a criticism of the Housing Executive; it is an appeal to the Minister to provide the finances necessary for it to employ the staff to process the applications quickly and to meet the costs of grants awarded.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South mentioned the sale of two-bedroom bungalows for senior citizens. That is of concern to people in my constituency. Can the Minister ensure that urgent action is taken on the issue of Melburn close and Melburn park in Cookstown? We need to money to uplift the environment and improve the houses on that estate. If the money could be made available, that would be deeply appreciated by the residents.
Will the Minister deal with the question of the provision of science laboratories? I received a response to that point from the Minister responsible for education, but there is urgent need for the new-build science accommodation at the Cookstown high school. I have been promised the provision of two science mobiles from September 1995, but given the finance available in education, action ought to be taken to meet that high school's urgent needs.
Mention was made of the Child Support Agency, about which there is deep concern in all parts of the House. One of my constituents was blamed for fathering a child but was totally innocent. An apology was finally offered but there was no recognition of the deep hurt and anxiety suffered by the families concerned. That accusation against a totally innocent man nearly smashed a marriage. He was sent a simple apology saying, "We're sorry this happened and will try to make sure that it doesn't happen again." Such an attitude is totally unacceptable and redress ought to be available to individuals who have suffered in that way.
It is time that the Child Support Agency devoted its energies to tracking down fathers who pay nothing rather than going for those who have consistently and honourably paid for their children's upkeep down the years and have never dodged their responsibilities. It seems that the CSA's efforts are directed mainly at fathers who are already paying, and it is placing an intolerable burden on them. I resent that, and so do my constituents.
There is deep concern in the Province and further afield about the rights of disabled people in employment. The Government must produce meaningful and appropriate legislation to tackle that issue. Pressure must be kept up and legislation put before the House quickly. If the Government acknowledge their responsibilities to the physically or mentally handicapped, such legislation will quickly be on the statute book. Without it, we will simply be listening to words, and the community will not forgive inaction in that regard. Handicapped people are getting a raw deal in finding a proper and appropriate place in society. They are one of society's most neglected groups. My colleagues join me in supporting action and legislation that will bring that iniquitous situation to a conclusion forthwith.
9.37 pm
Mr. David Trimble: It is a pleasure to note that the debate will be wound up by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), because this morning I had the pleasure of welcoming him to my constituency and to Banbridge high school. As the Minister will appreciate, some of his comments on that occasion with regard to tonight's debate have proved most apposite.
It was a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman cut the sod for the new building at Banbridge high school. It was a most happy occasion. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that he will maintain his popularity in the area by also releasing funds for the school playing area that will be necessary when construction of the new building, which is on the site of the old playing field, is complete.
Schemes are going ahead in the rural part of Banbridge to amalgamate primary schools. Unusually, those schemes have the complete support of the local community, but there are financial problems—and they should be remedied as soon as possible.
It is a pity in some respects that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and his party colleagues are not present this evening, because the hon. Gentleman had an interesting written question down last week, relating to the number of jobs promoted in each Northern Ireland district council area over the past 10 years. My eye naturally turned to the two council areas that comprise my constituency. I noted the healthy but not surprising figure for the borough of Craigavon, which has the second largest concentration of manufacturing industry after Belfast in terms of size.
My other council area, Banbridge, was a very different story. Over a 10-year period, the Industrial Development Board had promoted a total of 200 jobs—and it should be borne in mind that the IDB recognises that only about two thirds of jobs promoted are actually created. None of those jobs involved investment in the area. That is particularly annoying given that the IDB announced only a few days ago that it was abandoning proposals for industrial development to land adjacent to Banbridge's dual carriageway, which would, in principle, have been a very suitable site.
Mr. Stott: Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have mentioned the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—who are very good attenders of Northern Ireland debates—are not with us this evening because they had to give evidence to the Boundary Commission, which was doing its review today.
Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. May I point out that the Newry inquiry is also considering the seat of Upper Bann? Newry and Armagh council proposes its division into two parts to form new constituencies. That merely reflects the view that hon. Members take of their priorities.
The figures that I cited—which were obtained by the hon. Member for South Down—relate to a 10-year period, and clearly demonstrate neglect on the IDB's part. I stress the word "neglect". Both the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit seem to have a fixed state of mind: once they move south of Lisburn they can think only of Newry, forgetting about Banbridge on the way down there. Perhaps they think that Banbridge is a prosperous town,
636
because it appears to be expanding; but most of the expansion is caused by people who are coming to live in a "dormitory" town, rather than to work there. It will not be healthy for the town's future if the population expansion is not matched by an expansion of job opportunities.
Other Government Departments, as well as the IDB, have neglected the town during the past 10 years. A number of public bodies used to have offices and employees there, but that number has diminished: Departments have been closing offices and moving them out, and the number of public jobs in the area has consequently declined.
Those issues need to be tackled, especially the issue of land development. As I said, the IDB was right in principle to consider developing land next to the dual carriageway. There were problems with the particular site involved, but others are available; they may be closer to Dromore than to Banbridge, but they are still in the Banbridge district council area. I hope that the IDB will deal with the position as a matter of urgency, so that we can have good-quality industrial development land in the district council area.
Let me deal more generally with issues involving the IDB and LEDU. There seems to be a certain inflexibility in the approach of the two agencies. For example, a firm in the Craigavon area has been a client of LEDU for some time; it is now thinking of expanding in a way that might make it more appropriate for it to become a client of the IDB, but there are difficulties in transferring a client from one agency to the other. LEDU is making difficulties about transferring the client to the IDB, although the size and development of the firm make the transfer appropriate. It is remarkable that these bureaucratic issues, which seem to be connected as much with the empire building of agencies as anything else, are acting in a disadvantageous way.
Inflexibility arises in another way. One valuable development in the Craigavon area has been the Craigavon industrial development organisation—one of the first local authority initiatives in this respect, which the Government are now encouraging. That is fine. It is a challenge to which Craigavon local authority has responded imaginatively, but it has not received a similar response from the agencies, in which I include the Department of Economic Development. They have their own settled patterns and a cast of mind which says, "not invented here". If they have not thought of the idea, they are reluctant to accept the thinking of other people.
We are trying to promote a Craigavon partnership, whereby the local authority's initiative can operate as an overall body to bring together the statutory agencies. We are not receiving the response from the statutory agencies that we should be. I hope that there will be more wholehearted co-operation between the statutory agencies and Department of Economic Development and local authorities engaged in such economic development.
A small example of such non-co-operation is that CIDO wishes to expand and have a third unit providing slightly larger accommodation—5,000 sq ft—in the Lurgan area. A private enterprise partner is prepared to put money into the project. The proposal has been with the statutory agencies for quite some time, but it is moving at a snail's pace. One almost feels that the agencies resent the initiative and drive that the local authority is showing. That is not an appropriate response or attitude for it to take.
Last week saw the first publication by the Fair Employment Commission of one of its affirmative action proposals. This is a matter to which I may return in the

637
future, but I shall make a few comments on it now. The proposals reveal in clear terms a criticism that we have made of the FEC and of the fair employment programme, but which has been denied by Government—the concept of quotas. We said that legislation is heading towards quotas. The Government said, "No, it is not; we do not intend to have quotas".
Last week's publication contained six so-called affirmative action programmes of action that must be taken by an employer. The programmes are legally enforceable because the FEC is in a position to issue directions to the employer. The FEC has placed on the employer the requirement of achieving a certain percentage of applications and appointments. What is that if not a quota?
A quota cannot sit alongside the requirement of appointments being made on merit. There is an important issue of principle here. It is amazing to see a Conservative Government ignore this issue of principle, because were it to happen on their home patch they would take a different approach. There is a distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It is right that there should be equality of opportunity, but nobody in his right mind thinks that, even where there is complete equality of opportunity, it will automatically and fairly result in equality of outcome in every place of employment. That is not to be expected. Talents and circumstances will vary and historical patterns will apply in various places. Equality of opportunity is one thing; equality of outcome is totally different.
The Fair Employment Commission, as announced by its chairman a couple of reports ago, has set itself the target of achieving equality of outcome in every place of employment in Northern Ireland. It has said that it is setting quotas for all those places. It does not initially set quotas for all of them, but if a firm comes to the FEC's attention or annoys the chairman in some way, he can bring the apparatus to bear and require people to enter affirmative action programmes. That can be backed up with statutory declarations and firms can be given a specific quota that they must achieve, with ferocious penalties to be applied if they do not achieve it.
The matter must be considered. A couple of years ago, the then Home Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech in the House dealing with questions of racial equality in England and Wales, stated that the Home Office had decided that it was not appropriate to try to achieve equality of outcome for ethnic minorities in England in all places of employment because of the problems to which that would give rise. Yet that is exactly what is happening in Northern Ireland.
It is only a matter of time before some of the disadvantaged ethnic minorities in England and Wales—the employment disparities for Afro-Caribbean people, for example, in England and Wales are just as great as, if not greater than the employment disparities in Northern Ireland—say, "Why are special measures adopted in Northern ireland, but not in England?" It is only a matter of time before they say that the reason is that nobody is shooting people or letting off bombs on the issue in England. It is then only a matter of time before thoughts move further among disadvantaged people in England and Wales. The Government need to think about the matter
638
more clearly. One cannot corral the issues into Northern Ireland and expect them to have no application in equivalent situations elsewhere.
I have criticised the concept of quotas. Even if one accepts quotas, one has to say that the Fair Employment Commission in Northern Ireland is applying the quotas in a dishonest and unbalanced manner. I take as an example one of six firms—a bakery in Castlereagh; I am not sure whether it is in Belfast, East or in Strangford. The FEC has set a quota for the firm by reference to its catchment area, or what it takes to be the catchment area. It has taken the area of the city of Belfast and the district council of Castlereagh. It has looked at the people who are economically active in those areas and has found out that there is a certain percentage of Catholics. It has then set a quota with reference to that figure. That is a dishonest way in which to proceed.
The firm is situated in Castlereagh in east Belfast, and the bulk of the employees are drawn from east Belfast. Is east Belfast taken as the catchment area? Oh no. The catchment area is broadened to include north and west Belfast, where there are very few employees. If it is broadened to include north and west Belfast, why not broaden it on the other side to include North Down and Ards? Geographically, they are no further away. In terms of communications and in terms of journey time, they are closer. In terms of human, social and geographical factors, they are closer than west Belfast. It is a question of sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. It is a question of adopting a consistent approach. Such an approach has not been adopted in this case, and that is why I say that the matter is dishonest.
The quota system is unfair in the way in which it operates. I take the example of a firm called Quinns in Fermanagh. The employees are predominantly Catholic and there are only a handful of Protestants—1 or 2 per cent. A quota has been set for that firm. It has been told that it must achieve a target of 12 per cent. of applicants and appointees. I am quoting from memory, so I may not have the figure exactly correct. It is not clear how that figure is arrived at. In what the FEC takes to be the catchment area of Quinns, 45 per cent. of those who are economically active are Protestant, yet the quota is 12 per cent., not 45 per cent. Why?
The third example is a firm in my constituency. The catchment area, as determined by the FEC, is 40 per cent. Catholic, so the quota is 40 per cent. Catholics. Why is there a disparity between that firm and Quinns? There is something unequal. In the six cases, there is a pattern of inequality in the FEC's approach. I fear that it is an issue to which we shall return again and again. As I have said, a wrong approach, in principle, has been adopted. Not only is it wrong in principle, but it is being carried out in a dishonest manner.
I am using the word "dishonest" deliberately. I am not saying that it is by mistake or through negligence, but that there is malice involved. I make that reference knowing full well the personalities involved. That issue, especially with regard to fair play, is one that I may develop again on another occasion.
Mr. William Ross: When my hon. Friend is detailing the different approaches used by the Fair Employment Commission, he neglects to mention that, in my area, it leaves out of the reckoning those people from the Irish Republic and elsewhere in the British Isles who are

639
employed by firms such as Quinns, organisations such as the Western health and social services board and many others.
Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Those issues are left out. There are many more things that one can say. The statistical basis on which the Commission is operating is inaccurate because it is drawing from figures relating to the number of persons employed and unemployed in some areas, which we know are not accurate, especially in the rural areas and close to the border.
Anybody who has had any dealings with the issue knows that the two greatest elements which affect economic activity and which are most likely to create a black economy are agriculture and the cross-border areas, where many people take jobs in one jurisdiction and claim benefit in others, or engage in activities such as smuggling. In certain areas, the employment statistics are not reliable. At a firm not very far away from Lurgan in my constituency, the management in a previous dispensation were in the habit of laying on a bus on Fridays so that the workers could go down to Newry to claim benefit. Of course, they no longer have to claim in person, but that is a different issue.
I shall move from the issue of the Fair Employment Commission to something that falls directly within the scope of the Minister: arts policy and matters related to cultural traditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) also touched on that issue when he referred to the local government legislation and the provision for street names in Irish. I wonder how many of those street names in Irish will be in Ulster Gaelic, or whether they will be in the dialect of Gaelic taught in certain schools—a modern invention based on what is thought to be the Gaelic spoken in the centre of Ireland.
Those who have studied the area know that there are three different forms of Gaelic spoken on the island of Ireland. The schools and others who are promoting the so-called Irish language in Northern Ireland today, under the aegis of the Minister, are not promoting Ulster Gaelic. One wonders why that is so. Most people who are involved in its promotion are perhaps not aware of the distinction between Ulster Gaelic and the Gaelic spoken in the centre of Ireland. Ulster Gaelic is on the borderline between Scots Gaelic and that spoken a bit further south.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister would be fully aware of Scots Gaelic.
Mr. Trimble: Of course the Minister is fully familiar with such matters, in which I hope he will take a keener interest.
Returning to arts, cultural traditions and so on, I am disturbed by the policy papers being produced by the Arts Council. It seems to be recognising only what it calls a classic tradition and an Irish tradition in the arts and related matters. Where is the British tradition? The classic tradition, as it recognises it, refers to certain forms of high art. It also recognises what it calls an Irish culture and supports certain forms of cultural activities in the broad sense which are passed off as being Irish. Where is the British in that?
The Minister will also be familiar with the pipe bands association. I am sorry to say that, in the recent world championships, the Ulster pipe bands were temporarily demoted from their dominance of pipe-band playing. They
640
will be back. The Field Marshal Montgomery pipe band will be back, I am quite sure, as the champion of champions, having being the champion of champions for many years and having lost it only this year.
The Minister cannot fail to be aware of the number of Scottish pipe bands that exist in Northern Ireland and the high level of activity in them. Has the Arts Council ever recognised it? Does the Arts Council recognise it? Has it done anything to promote that aspect of popular culture?
Anyone who goes around our towns, particularly on a Friday night, cannot help but notice the large number of band parades that take place. That is another clear demonstration of popular culture. Thousands of people are involved in musical activity in connection with such bands. The Arts Council will not support pipe bands, which do not fall within its concept of classic culture or Irish culture. Something is being left out. That reinforces the unease that many of us have felt about the Arts Council and other cultural traditions in Northern Ireland in recent years. We feel that the Arts Council does not reflect what most people want and do. It reflects only certain aspects of culture as a result of pressure generated sometimes by pressure groups within Northern Ireland and sometimes by pressure groups outside.
Time is moving on. I should like to make a few brief comments about some of the points that have been made by other hon. Members. Some references have been made to transport matters and in particular the transport links of the northern corridor through Belfast, Larne and Stranraer to Carlisle. The Minister will know that we return to the issue again and again because it is tremendously important to the Northern Ireland economy. We are distressed at the number of occasions when people give public support to a different corridor which will not benefit the Northern Ireland economy so much.
We appreciate the help that we are beginning to receive from the Scottish Office in representations to Europe about the northern corridor. I only wish that the Northern Ireland Office was just as vigorous on that matter and, in particular, took account of the disadvantage that we suffer because we are not eligible for funds from the cohesion fund. We know that the rules of the European cohesion fund cannot be changed. We do not qualify for cohesion fund moneys, but the southern corridor does. Consequently that part of the country will be able to invest to the disadvantage of our major outlets. What does the Northern Ireland Office propose to do to rectify that imbalance and ensure that the northern corridor and our major outlets of Belfast and Lame are not placed at a disadvantage, especially in view of the effect that that will have on our economy and on unemployment?
Planning has been mentioned in the debate, as it has in other debates. I find myself in fundamental agreement with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on agricultural occupancy conditions. The conditions restrict the occupancy of certain of the properties in the countryside which are subject to them to persons who are wholly or mainly employed in agriculture or were last so employed.
The important point is that, given that farming units in Northern Ireland are much smaller and that half the people who own farming units work only part time, to what extent is it reasonable to draw the agricultural occupancy condition so tightly that the person has to be wholly or mainly employed in agriculture? Particularly as changes take place in agriculture and the income derived from it

641
diminishes—as it will as the years go on—an agricultural occupancy condition restricted to people mainly or wholly employed in agriculture is too tight.
It might be more appropriate to restrict agricultural occupancy to people who have a genuine connection with the countryside and a bona fide reason for living there. The conditions must be more flexible. The Department can do something about that immediately. It does not require legislation. It is a matter of policy and the way in which the agricultural occupancy condition is framed.
Mr. William Ross: Considering what my hon. Friend is saying, and as the Government are pushing the whole question of diversification, surely it is feasible that anyone who is involved in such diversification fails to qualify.
Mr. Trimble: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. If we have a more flexible approach, and if the occupancy condition relates to people who have a genuine connection with the countryside and a good reason for living there in terms of family connection or whatever, that would take care of the problem. I am not arguing for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions entirely.
There was a time not long ago when the planning service was rather lax. It was granting permission under the exceptions to the rural planning policy and not attaching an agricultural occupancy condition to it, and the temptation to make a quick killing by selling the property to persons who did not have a connection with the countryside was too great. I agree therefore that there must be some form of condition, but it must relate to the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland, in social terms and in terms of farm size.
I shall make one further point on this matter. As many people wish to live in the countryside, not necessarily in individual farm dwellings but certainly outside towns, I am sorry that the planning service has not given more thought to creating new villages in the countryside. If new villages were created, it would help to absorb some of the demand that has been generated by persons not connected with the countryside who want to live in a more rural environment.
There are places where new villages would have developed if there had been no planning controls. I can think of one area in my constituency adjacent to the shores of Lough Neagh. If there were no planning controls, a village would be beginning to emerge naturally in that area. Planners are trying to prevent those natural developments from taking place through planning controls. Is that desirable? We should have a slightly more imaginative approach on that issue.
10.6 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I defend the right of my colleagues on both sides of the House to pepper the Minister with every sort of problem on every vote contained in the Northern Ireland estimates, which are effectively the appropriation order. However, I shall concentrate my fire on one matter.
In that, I have the pleasure of directly following the issue raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about planning. I know that, if the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) were here, he would be assenting as well, because it is an issue
642
that he raised during the debate on the previous appropriation order, when he emphasised the considerable frustration of people with the planning service.
Before I refer to that matter, I must endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann about the Full Employment Commission and its behaviour with so-called goals and timetables, and the total inconsistency of the way in which it applies the legislation, which is sometimes little short of a personal vendetta for those who do not toady to the chairman of the Full Employment Commission. We shall come back to that issue.
I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down the road of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. I shall keep my powder dry on that matter, as the Select Committee is presently examining it.
I raise these issues because, by and large, if I can get a satisfactory response from Ministers on matters of constituency interest, I do not feel that it is necessary to bring them to the attention of the House. I find that Ministers are helpful in dealing with those issues, and I rarely find it necessary to bring a grievance to the House.
There is a major problem affecting the borough of Castlereagh, part of which is in my constituency of East Belfast, part of which is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), part of which is in the constituency of Strangford and part of which is in the constituency of North Down. Not only was the borough divided so badly. Back in the early 1980s, when my party was in control of the council, we had to adopt a recreation policy for the whole of Castlereagh.
We looked around, and we did not have to look much further than neighbouring Belfast to see the folly of building conventional leisure facilities which cost ratepayers millions of pounds. In Belfast, some £8 million is spent in leisure services on facilities which are duplicated on street corners all around the city and which cost considerable amounts to run. There is a limited clientele for those facilities and, while we have excellent leisure facilities, they are all of the same kind throughout the Province, and they are competing for the same market.
My colleagues and I concluded that it would be sensible for us to look for a niche which was not being catered for by other councils and one which, in financial terms, would do more to pay its way and attract larger numbers of people. We proceeded on the basis of a development at Dundonald, which was to have been the Dundonald international ice bowl. The property was to contain an international-sized ice rink, ten pin bowling, children's play centres, a laser area, restaurants, and function suites for all sorts of recreational activities.
A tourist park was to be built outside the facility, which was to include a large man-made lake with boating, sporting and wildlife aspects. There were to be tennis courts, a golf course, a driving range, camping sites, an hotel, a cinema and other facilities and provisions.
We approached the Department of the Environment, which was having none of it. We were told that, if we wanted to proceed with the scheme, the normal 75 per cent. grant which was being accorded to all of our sister councils across Northern Ireland would not be accorded to us, because it was more of a commercial enterprise. The council, rather than burdening the ratepayers with a provision similar to that which everyone else had done, decided to go it alone. In doing so, the council knocked on the door of Europe, seeking funding on the basis of providing tourist facilities in Northern Ireland.

643
In 1985, the council was successful in being offered a grant of £4 million for the provision, and it was agreed with the European Community that the scheme would proceed in two phases. The first phase opened in 1986, and has returned a trading profit every year since. It has made a trading profit of about £1 million in a period when some £50 million was lost in Belfast on leisure services.
In terms of our intention to save ratepayers money and provide new facilities, it was a success. But the problems started to occur when we attempted to fulfil the remainder of our obligation to the European Community following the building of the leisure park provision. First, we submitted our case to the Belfast urban area plan hearings.
Hon. Members from outside Northern Ireland may not be fully aware of the planning restrictions in Northern Ireland. District councils are not capable of giving themselves planning approval: they must go to the Department of the Environment and put in an application like everybody else, whether it is for an extension to a garage or whatever.
The Department of the Environment decides on those issues after consultation with the district council and following the normal public consultation process.
We put in our planning application to the 1998 Belfast area hearings. Everyone had the opportunity at the public hearings to argue for or against the proposals. When the Belfast urban area plan 2001 was issued, I was pleased to note that the planning commissioners, who had listened to the evidence, and the Department of the Environment and its then Minister, supported the second phase of Castlereagh scheme. We therefore felt sure that everything would move smoothly from then on.
Full of enthusiasm, as soon as the Belfast urban area plan came out, we immediately got our architects and consultants to prepare the easiest of the schemes, so that we could start immediately. We planned to follow up with the rest of the scheme while the first phase was proceeding.
The Department of the Environment, however, refused to accept it in that manner, and stopped us immediately proceeding with the scheme. At considerable cost and effort, it required us to undertake the lengthy process of bringing in all our consultants to submit the entire scheme in one go. We sought to accommodate the Department, and withdrew our planning application for part of the development, in deference to the advice that it had offered to us.
The consultants were brought in and asked to work up the entire plan. We then had detailed consultations with all the Government agencies concerning road services and relevant environmental issues, and had discussions with the planning department and whomsoever. We assumed that, once we had given the Department of the Environment, to its satisfaction, the details that it had requested on various matters, the rest of the process would be a simple one.
We did not take into account the fact that, regrettably, a local government election was in the offing. The local Tory party, which had no other policy that it felt would be attractive to the ratepayers of Castlereagh, sought to make an election issue of the theme park. It did so in an attempt to generate some publicity for itself and to create noise far greater than its strength in the area. As a result, the Department of the Environment ran scared and called for a public inquiry.
It might be worth noting that the local government election gave its own verdict to those Tories who had led
644
the campaign—most of them lost their deposits, and all were rejected by the electorate. Not one of them was returned to the council.
The public inquiry was held on 5 January 1993, but up until this moment, we have still not received an answer as to whether approval has been given. The development would bring literally thousands of jobs to Northern Ireland, both in the building industry as the project proceeds and in the services industry when it has been constructed. The issue is of considerable importance in terms of employment and in terms of the finance from Europe. As I said, we had support from Europe in grant aid, part of which we took up for the first phase of the development, while the rest is still sitting there.
We subsequently received a letter from the Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development. He is also, peculiarly enough, the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment. Wearing his DED hat, the Minister told us that, if we had not completed the theme park by 31 December 1994, the grant would be withdrawn. At the same time, wearing his Department of the Environment hat, the Minister is refusing to give an answer to our planning application so that we can proceed.
We cannot win until the Minister sorts himself out. I do not ask him to act on the planning application and the report, which he will by now have received from the planning commissioner—who, in the middle of the process, had a heart attack but, happily, is now back at his desk. That added further delay to the process.
I simply ask for an expeditious response from the Department to the Planning Appeals Commission report. It is essential that we have that immediately if we are to have the least chance of meeting deadlines set by the Minister under his Department of Economic Development portfolio.
We also ask the Minister to be flexible in terms of that deadline. We need a speedy response from the Department of the Environment's planning service to the reserve matters that must be dealt with, for the whole matter must be dealt with in a few months' time. That does not mean that the £30 million to £40 million development must go up within that time, but enough of it must go ahead in order that we receive EC funding.
First, we need a speedy response to the planning application; secondly, we need flexibility in terms of the deadline; and, thirdly, we need some movement from the planning service to help us get speedy approvals for the reserve planning issues.
If the Department of the Environment planning service is considering planning legislation, and a new draft order is in the slips, will it deal with some of the issues which it has failed to deal with thus far? The first concerns ex post facto planning applications, an issue which I have raised it in the House before.
Northern Ireland now has almost an epidemic of people who start construction—even of housing estates—and put in their planning applications afterwards. They reckon that, once the construction is there, it will be difficult for the planning department to demand that it be knocked down, which gives them the edge with their application.
I suggested to the previous Minister responsible for the environment that a possible solution was to institute a penalty system for those forced to put in a planning application after construction had begun. I suggested that the cost of an ex post facto planning application should be 10 times as much as a normal one. That could amount to a considerable sum for those who breach the law on major

645
housing developments and other aspects of construction. The new order, when the Department eventually gets round to it, should consider that issue.
Another issue which the Government should deal with, either through the new order or through regulation, is what I would call an anomaly whereby a privileged position is given to those involved in agriculture. I do not argue against that, but those involved in equestrian sports and rearing horses should be entitled to the same planning leniency as those directly involved in agriculture.
Equally, those involved in tropical and ornamental fish do not have the same privileges as those involved in the farming of other fish or in agriculture. The same encouragement should be given to them as is given to those directly involved in farming.
I support the view that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about reform of the agricultural occupancy conditions. As mine is a suburban constituency, several of my constituents have expressed anxieties about that. The Department must consider the issue.
I also think that the Department must bring into law, as opposed to general precedent, a right of appeal for objectors, and an entitlement to neighbour notification. During those glorious days of the Northern Ireland Assembly, from 1982 to 1986, the Environment Committee, of which I was Chairman, made a recommendation to the then Under-Secretary of State, who is now warming himself in Hong Kong, to the effect that people should have the right to neighbour notification—that they were entitled to know if someone intended to build close to their home or business, so that they might be properly consulted and have the right to object.
We went a step further than the Department eventually did; we asked not only that they should be written to directly, but that what are termed "planning poles" should be erected on the site—I think that some Scandinavian countries do it—so that not only the people who live adjacent to the place where the building will be erected, but the people who use that area, can see that there is an intention to develop a piece of ground.
I would ask that, instead of that being done as a matter of precedent in the Department, where it is not required by law but is done by the grace and favour of the Department, it be brought into an Order in Council, so that it would be a legal right on which people could rely.
The same is true of the right of appeal for objectors. It depends on the grace and favour of the Department whether, if two thirds or more of a district council supports objectors to an application, the matter can go before a public hearing—what is now in article 30 in the new planning order. I ask that that be part of a new planning order, instead of just a general regulation in the Department.
I trust that the Minister will consider those suggestions, which, speaking as one who is involved at the grass roots with planning issues, would do much to take away some of the frustration that many of us feel in knowing what is needed in our areas but having bureaucrats tell us what is good for us.
I have no axe to grind against the people who are involved in the planning department. I recognise that they have a difficult task, and that decisions have to be taken.
646
But, like every other hon. Member who has spoken about those planning issues, I do not believe that enough account is taken of the people who live in the areas, those who are involved on the ground and those who represent the people on the ground. If the planning service is supposed to be a service, who is it servicing if it does not recognise the wish and the will of the people?
10.27 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: This debate, like all the other debates on the appropriation orders, allows hon. Members from Northern Ireland to develop the discussion involving their constituents and their constituencies. Because circumstances permit, the 10-minutes rule on speeches does not apply and therefore the debate has widened into a discussion of many aspects that are of importance to Members when considering an appropriation order.
I draw the attention of the House to the part of the schedule of the order that refers to the Department of Economic Development, because a great deal of taxpayers' money is allocated in the order for the purpose of industrial development and the creation of jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), in opening the debate for the Opposition, expressed anxiety about and dwelt at length on the subject of unemployment.
I received in the mail a copy of the front page of the Carrickfergus Advertiser of 15 June 1994. The report states that the new mayor, Sam Crowe, is asking for the Prime Minister to intervene over the proposals by the Northern Ireland Office to close the commercial activities of the Carrickfergus harbour. I understand that there has been significant and lengthy exposure on the future use of the Carrickfergus port.
I also understand that one reason why the town's mayor wrote to the Prime Minister was that the Department of the Environment has issued a vesting order on the commercial land and has given the port users until the end of July to vacate the site. Employees at the port have been put on redundancy notice. The problem in Carrickfergus has been intensified because of the order issued by the Department of the Environment.
Those job losses come on top of other recent major job losses in the region. We must ask what the Northern Ireland Office is thinking of to allow vesting orders to be imposed on commercial land, driving businesses away from the township. It appears to outsiders that the Department's economics is that of the madhouse. That seems to be an apt description of the Department of the Environment—jobs are being lost because of the dogma attached to the closure of the commercial activities at the Carrickfergus port. I thought that when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was developing his argument about the port he would refer to that subject because of the significance to it of the order that has been issued.
I understand that there have been discussions on the subject over a long period. When the alterations to the town map for the 1988–95 period were being considered, the problem was discussed. There was also a significant discussion on the port's future at a public inquiry in November 1992 on the Carrickfergus maritime area. There was a recent debate at a meeting of the Carrickfergus town council. A report on the debate was sent to me. A motion

647
was put before the council to rescind a previous decision agreeing to the closure of the commercial industries in the region.
One councillor mentioned the issue of abandoning the harbour. He said that councillors had once again been misled when they were told that from 1 July all operations on the commercial harbour would cease. He said that the harbour was not part of the hinterland and that commercial activity should be retained at the harbour. When the debate was winding down an alderman asked the town clerk to seek legal advice from the town solicitor on the consequences of voting for a rescinding motion. He concluded:
"I am distressed and very annoyed about the redundancies. I work with unemployed people every day of the week and I see the ravages of unemployment. It is the scourge of the nation when people are made redundant."
This sort of involvement by a whole community goes to show the depth of the concern felt about unemployment, the loss of revenue to the area and the lost job opportunities that ensue.
Carrickfergus harbour has been the backbone of the town, and one can understand the worries about the consequences of redundancies for the community. It is now accepted that mistaken decisions have been taken over the past few years. They should be analysed and reviewed. Redundancy and its causes should not be taken lightly by Ministers, and they should now review the planning approvals given in connection with the drawing up of the town map.
On behalf of the locally elected representatives, business men and trade unionists of the town, I ask the Minister to consider withdrawing the vesting order to allow me, and other interested parties, to discuss the matter with him so that a full investigation can be launched into the whole affair of the Carrickfergus port.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred to the water supply in parts of his constituency. Earlier, I questioned the Minister about what is happening to the water industry in Northern Ireland. I would be interested to know how much is being spent on privatisation, for instance. Problems with water supply and sewerage systems should be given a much higher priority than privatisation.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) discussed the housing situation. The last time we debated an appropriation order I dwelt at some length on it too. The situation has not improved much since then. More resources still need to be channelled into providing new homes, improving existing stock and accommodating the homeless. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to what the hon. Gentleman had to say on this subject. Northern Ireland still has a significant need for more housing.
Finally, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised the issue of health and social services. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has an Adjournment debate on this very point tonight, and I do not want to take up time that he could spend developing his theme. I would, however, draw attention to a press statement issued by the Civil Liberties Council on 9 June relating to the issue on which the hon. Member for North Down spent his entire speech: the closing of homes for the elderly. Who is responsible for closing old people's homes? Is it the health and social services board or the new trusts? The hon. Member for
648
North Down put the blame on the new trusts. If that is the case, why do they not carry out reasonable and proper consultation with all those involved? One of the problems is that people are not aware of what they are entitled to or of the consultation procedures that should be adopted.
The Minister should investigate the reasons for the lack of proper consultation. Perhaps he would give the new trusts some guidance to ensure that before they make a decision they consult those who will be the victims of that decision.
What sort of animal have the Government introduced with the new trusts? The hon. Member for North Down accepted that they are bodies with no responsibility to the community, are unfair and undemocratic, yet they decide the destinies and quality of life for many old people in their areas. Will the Minister listen to the Northern Ireland Council for Civil Liberties on this and other matters involving community care?
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is developing an important point about the unrepresentative character of the trust boards. Does he appreciate that exactly the same point can be made about the area boards, which are equally unrepresentative?
Mr. O'Brien: That point has been raised in previous debates on appropriation orders. It is true that the health and social services board is in the same category. New quangos are being introduced. The Government should accept that they were wrong when they set up the health and social services board. They should have included some system of democracy when setting up the trust boards. I dwelt on the issue of the trust boards because I share the concern expressed by hon. Members about what is happening to old people's homes. There is a need for the greater involvement of local people who are answerable to the community. Until that happens, the issue will be raised in every Northern Ireland debate in the House. Unfortunately, many people will suffer in the meantime.
I ask the Minister carefully to consider the points raised by many hon. Members. Action needs to be taken on a number of issues, and especially on the question of old people's homes and the Carrickfergus port. I hope that the Minister will accede to some of the points raised tonight.
10.43 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I shall deal first with the last point raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about where the final decision lies. I do not want to pre-empt my answer to the Adjournment debate or to the points raised about the Banks residential home. However, my noble Friend Lady Denton must endorse any decisions. She made it clear that she has visited or will visit the homes concerned and will weigh up all the information that she receives before making up her mind on the closure proposal. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my noble Friend is most sincere in giving that undertaking.
Tonight, as usual, we had an interesting debate. I was sorry that, yet again, the Liberal Benches were empty. The Leader of the Liberal party tells us of his interest in Northern Ireland, but when we debate the nuts and bolts of how Northern Ireland works the Liberal Bench tends to be empty. We all regret that and a number of comments have already been made which I do not intend to take up.
Mr. Peter Robinson: How is possible for the Minister to admonish absent Liberals without admonishing absent SDLP Members?
Mr. Ancram: That matter has already been raised. It was dealt with and an explanation was given by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). Members of the party to which the hon. Gentleman referred normally attend such debates. I was making the point that, despite the fact that the Liberals purport to have an interest in Northern Ireland, the Liberal Bench tends to be empty on these occasions. I am sure that that is of great regret to all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that I would deploy a Noah's flood of answers in responding to the debate. His analogy may have been wrong. I feel more like a cork floating on the flood of points that emanated from speeches made tonight. I shall deal with as many as possible, but if I fail to deal with a particular point I will—as is traditional—arrange for the hon. Member concerned to receive a letter from me or from the Minister responsible.
It is important in a debate such as this that Northern Ireland Members have an opportunity to raise matters of concern to their constituents, as was done tonight. When I wound up the last appropriation order debate, I remarked that it remained a matter of sadness to me that the public hear not a selling of Northern Ireland—persuasion that Northern Ireland is a good place to live, invest and create jobs—but almost the opposite. The nature of the process is such that we tend to talk Northern Ireland down. I say to all hon. Members who quite rightly raised the question of unemployment—which I shall address in detail later—that if we are serious about attracting investment and jobs to the Province, we should remember that we do ourselves no good by continually describing Northern Ireland in the somewhat lurid terms used in debates such as this.
I begin by putting myself forward as the salesman for Northern Ireland and placing one or two important points on the record. Northern Ireland's economy is growing faster than the national economy. We did not hear much about that tonight, but it is a fact. Seasonally adjusted unemployment has fallen in eight of the last nine months. The Industrial Development Board has come in for compliments and criticism tonight, but it had considerable success in attracting inward investment over the past two years, and it made a promising start this year. That is all building towards the sort of jobs that we are looking for in Northern Ireland.
As to agriculture, income from farming increased 17 per cent. in real terms in 1993, which must be welcomed. The sum of £5 million was made available for rural development—£2 million more than last year, which reflects the importance of trying to develop the countryside for the benefit of the whole of Northern Ireland.
I will deal later with the specific points about housing, but the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's gross resources in 1994–95 are £522 million, which is £17 million more than last year—not a reduction, as was suggested. The number of unfit dwellings reduced from 11 per cent. in 1987 to 8 per cent. in 1991. That is good news for those who live in houses in Northern Ireland and for those whom we are trying to attract to Northern Ireland. Per capita spending continues to be substantially higher than nationally, at £788 in 1992–93; the UK average was £586. That, too, is to be welcomed.
650
Health and social services have also come in for a good deal of comment this evening. Spending has risen by 37.8 per cent. in real terms between 1980–81 and 1994–95. This year, £1,293 million will be spent on hospitals, community health, personal social services, trusts and family health services—a 6.8 per cent. increase on last year's spending.
While making valid points about problems in their constituencies, Northern Ireland Members must not lose sight of what is good in Northern Ireland, or of the continuing need to put that message across. Ultimately, that is more important to the development of the Northern Ireland economy and to Northern Ireland jobs than many of the other matters that we discuss in debates such as this.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's defence of the Government's policies, but does he accept that people are not in a position to hear that sort of good news in tonight's debate because the task of Northern Ireland Members is to draw attention to areas which still need improvement? Outside the House, we certainly present a positive image of Northern Ireland, but it is the Government's job, not ours, to defend their record tonight.
Mr. Ancram: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is not just a question of defending the Government's record; it is a question of pointing out that many good things are happening in Northern Ireland. We all want to say that, and it is my responsibility to put it on the record now. We have heard a good many gloomy stories about the Province this evening.
I come now to the specific issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), intervening in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, pointed out that the number of "pure" holiday visitors to Northern Ireland had doubled in the past five years. One in five visitors is now a holidaymaker. Of the 1.26 million visitors to Northern Ireland in 1993–94—that figure was mentioned earlier—250,000 are "pure" holiday visitors. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that he can work on those figures in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) raised the question of the links between the Republic and Wales, and whether they were receiving more favourable treatment from the European Community than the Northern Ireland-Scotland links. In the first instance, it is for the EC to decide what types and levels of funding are made available to member states under the structural funds; it is then for each member state to decide how to allocate the resources thereby made available. So far, projects to develop links between Northern Ireland and Scotland have benefited considerably from EC grants, and have remained competitive with links between the Republic and Wales. I hope that that will continue.
The hon. Members for Wigan and for Antrim, North both made important points about unemployment, to which I referred earlier. I recognise the seriousness of unemployment in Northern Ireland, but I am pleased to note that the unemployment figures for May 1994 show a decrease of 1,000 on the previous month, and of 5,400 on May 1993. The seasonally adjusted total has fallen for eight of the past nine months; in January it fell below 100,000 for the first time since July 1991. Although there is no room for complacency, it is important to note that the trends are moving in the right direction, particularly in comparison with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

651
The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned the long-term unemployed. As he knows, there are a number of programmes that demonstrate the Government's anxiety to deal with the problem—action for community employment, the job training programme and Enterprise Ulster. All those are being used in the attempt to make inroads into a serious problem.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned inadequate funding for community care reform. Again, I think it important to put on record that the Government have made substantial allocations of additional money for that purpose. In 1993–94, the boards were allocated £29.45 million, of which £24.63 million was transferred from the social security budget to spend on the new arrangements. A further £41.22 million has been allocated for 1994–95, and £35.34 million will be allocated in 1995–96, bringing the total cumulative additional money for community care to £106 million. In the light of what has been said, it is important to register that point.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North made a large number of points, and although I may not be able to deal with them all I shall try to deal with some. Like many other hon. Members, he raised the issue of rural planning. The objective of the Department of the Environment's rural planning strategy is to assess and balance the need for development of houses and jobs in particular areas against the need to protect and conserve the environment within that area. It aims to match development to rural settings with the right design and has been generally welcomed. Although some people are unable to build houses in the countryside—they tend to be the ones that, inevitably, we hear about—it is worth pointing out that on average 78 per cent. of planning applications submitted each year for development in rural areas are approved. Although we hear some of the difficult stories, a much more balanced picture appears when we look at all the statistics.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I assume that the Minister does not take into account the number of inquiries that are made and the fact that the planning department advises applicants that they need not make an application because it will be refused.
Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that in planning terms it is dangerous—I speak from a certain amount of personal experience—to consider only inquiries, which can be made on a number of levels. It is important to look at the number of applications, which shows an applicant's seriousness, compared with the number that are approved—the vast majority.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked about training in Northern Ireland. The allocation to the Training and Employment Agency in 1994–95 is £203 million, compared with £193 million in 1993–94. Allocations to all major training schemes have increased. We are concerned to help as many young people as possible, and those figures fly in the face of some of the suggestions that have been made tonight that training resources have been reduced.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North raised the question of the Springvale campus. The Government have made it clear from the outset that we shall consider any case put forward by the university, but a decision will take into account an examination of the implications for the higher education system in Northern Ireland as a whole, the impact that the scheme would have on the regeneration of the north and west Belfast area and an assessment of the
652
public expenditure implications, given the current limitations on available resources. A number of the concerns that the hon. Member raised will be considered by the Government.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) covered a number of points which had been mentioned by other hon. Members. In particular, he raised the issue of Irish street names. The removal of the prohibition on non-English street names is part of the process to achieve a more open and tolerant society and is a practical manifestation of the Government's recognition of cultural diversity. It should not be seen as a forerunner to bilingualism. It will be for councils to decide whether to erect dual language street names, but if they do, one name must be in English. There is an obligation on councils to take account of the views of occupiers in the street before deciding whether to put up a street name in a language other than English.
The hon. Members for Londonderry, East and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) raised the disturbing question of the water pollution incident on the River Stroule. This has been a matter of major concern. The Department of the Environment is continuing its preparation of a file to send to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a recommendation to take legal proceedings in relation to the spillage of the wood preservative which gave rise to the incident. That shows the seriousness with which the Government regard that problem.
Mr. William Ross: Surely there is a split personality in the Government's approach? They say that we must integrate everybody, make everybody like each other and become more like each other, and create a more homogenous society; yet they then promote two totally different cultures and always talk about two different communities. Will they make up their mind one way or the other?
Mr. Ancram: When the hon. Gentleman is next in Scotland, he might go to look at Skye, where he will see examples of signs in Gaelic. They were introduced some time ago as a recognition of cultural diversity. We should not be afraid of cultural diversity.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East raised the question of rare illnesses and has written to me about that. He also mentioned the particular case of students. Like others, students may be eligible for income support, notwithstanding the absence of a prior contributions record. That remark is in line with the letter that I wrote to him recently on the matter.
The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised the question of the Banks home. I know that he has raised it on a number of occasions and that he always speaks with great feeling and great eloquence on the subject. I am certainly aware of the strength of feeling in North Down and in the House. I assure him that my noble Friend Lady Denton is fully aware of the concerns. If the trust decides to close the home, my noble Friend will be asked to consider and endorse the decision. My noble Friend has agreed to meet a number of delegations of interested parties and she has also signalled her intention to visit this and any other homes to meet residents and to listen to their views, which is a point made by the hon.

653
Gentleman. No doubt we shall return to the issue again in the Adjournment debate a little later. I wish to make clear to the hon. Gentleman my noble Friend's intention.
I also put on record my rejection of the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) during the speech by the hon. Member for North Down. People who are appointed to serve on boards and trusts face many difficult choices and decisions, and they do so in the wider interests of all the people in the area. They have a difficult job and I believe that we should recognise their public-spiritedness rather than criticise their efforts to serve their communities.
Mr. William O'Brien: Given the Minister's description of the trusts, will he explain why the home's residents were not consulted, advised and given all the information before the decision was made?
Mr. Ancram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend the Adjournment debate. I do not want to pre-empt what I shall say then. This is very much at the heart of the matters that will be raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I think that we should await that debate.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that when a home is to be closed, it is malpractice for civil servants to tell people, "You had better put your name down for a home convenient to this one; if you do not do that now, you will be shifted 10, 20 or 50 miles away from where your people visit." That happened in Broughshane in my constituency, when the Minister's predecessor told me that the home would not close until he met a deputation, yet it was closed before the deputation could meet him.
Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that my noble Friend Lady Denton has fulfilled all her commitments to meeting delegations of people. The hon. Gentleman paid a kind tribute to my noble Friend, for which I was grateful. She has said that she will meet delegations and listen before she comes to a final decision. I should leave it at that because she has to make a difficult decision. She has made it clear that she will make it in the light of comments.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) raised the question of the health service and transport in the rural areas of his constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The provision of hospital services to people in the glens of Antrim has not deteriorated as a result of the transfer of acute services from the Waveney and Moyle hospitals to the new Antrim hospital. Travelling time to the hospital is longer, but the time taken to reach a patient in a emergency remains as before. A very wide range of out-patient clinics is provided at the Waveney and the Moyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), the Under-Secretary of State, will shortly be meeting representatives from a number of councils in the area to discuss road access. My noble Friend Baroness Denton has always made it clear that she is keen to hear concerns about health matters generally.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South also raised the question of Orlit houses. I understood that he and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) were keen to meet my hon. Friend and I shall pass that request
654
on to him and, in any case, I shall write to the hon. Member for Antrim, South about the matters that he raised. He also raised a specific question about the pension rights of employees in the case of privatisation of Northern Ireland airports. It is not intended that the rights of members of the pension scheme, whether current or past, or the assets of the scheme will be affected in any way by privatisation. Privatisation of the ports is being discussed tomorrow and I hope that the position on that can be clarified at that time.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster raised a number of points, many of which, again, were covered by other hon. Members, but he raised the question of Unipork in particular. As he knows, its operational control was taken over by Bridgewater Food Holdings plc. The business, which represents a major part of the Northern Ireland pig industry, has suffered considerable financial losses in recent years. A restructuring plan is currently being prepared by the new owners in an attempt to achieve ongoing viability. The eventual configuration of the business will not be known until the completion of that plan. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster also raised the question of flooding in Castlederg. I can confirm that financial approval has been given to the proposed scheme to provide flood protection on both sides of the banks of the Derg.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised the question of fair employment. I must begin by responding—
Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ancram: Of course.
Rev. William McCrea: While appreciating the time that the Minister has at his disposal, there are a large number of other matters which have been raised and there are certainly other matters which have not been raised. For example, the hydro-electric matter in my constituency was raised and there are other major matters of concern. Will we get detailed replies on those through the post?
Mr. Ancram: I told the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members at the beginning of my winding-up speech that, on any matters which I do not cover now, I or my hon. Friends or my noble Friend will write to hon. Members. In cases where a matter has been raised by a number of hon. Members, I shall ensure that the reply is made known to them all.
I am trying to deal with what I believe to be the important issues raise and an important assertion was made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann on fair employment. I shall begin by refuting his allegations of dishonesty. The recently published report of investigations into six companies which the Fair Employment Commission commenced under section 11 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 found three firms to have employed too few Protestants and three firms too few Catholics.
The affirmative action agreed with all six firms—they were on both sides of that particular problem—included encouraging applications from the under-represented communities, each company's advertisement welcoming applicants from the under-represented communities, effective action to maintain an environment free from harassment and equal opportunity awareness training for all employers. While scales and timetabling have been agreed, it is unrealistic to believe that an exact balance can be achieved, reflecting the overall balance of the Northern

655
Ireland working population. I heard what the hon. Member had to say and as it is detailed and complex issue I will, if I may, write further to him on that matter.
Finally, I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He raised the question of planning applications. I shall, of course, bring his comments about the need for an early decision on the planning application in Castlereagh to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in his capacity as Minister with responsibility for the environment. Likewise, I shall draw to my hon. Friend's attention the other detailed points which were made about the planning process, which were shared by other hon. Members from Northern Ireland.
Mr. William O'Brien: I shall make two points. In the opening statement, when reference was made to the question of expenditure on the water and sewerage service, I asked if it would be possible to give information as to what is being spent on the privatisation of the water services and there was a suggestion that we might hear that information before the end of the evening. Has the Minister any views on the Carrickfergus port?
Mr. Ancram: If I may, I will take that matter to my hon. Friend the Minister and write to the hon. Gentleman. I will also write to the hon. Gentleman about the water privatisation proposals and put the reply in the Library. Proposals have been made about expenditure to ensure that in the coming years there is a sufficient water supply to meet the needs of Northern Ireland. That is the most important point and the point at the bottom of the question that he asked. I can give him detailed figures on that. If I may, I will do so in writing.
Mr. Stott: I apologise to the Minister for not raising this issue when I spoke earlier. On page 7 of the order £220,000 is allocated to the Northern Ireland assembly. Is that estimate included with a view to any progress that may be made in the talks in which the Minister is currently engaged? If he does not want to answer that question now, perhaps he will write to me about it.
Mr. Ancram: I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. He should not read into that figure any hidden or unsubstantiated agenda that I am not prepared to talk about tonight. I suspect that the figure reflects the ongoing costs of preserving the current position. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and make it clear.
As I said at the beginning, while the Government listen to the legitimate points that have been made by hon. Members tonight, it is important that we do not lose sight of the work and commitment that the Government put into Northern Ireland. I listened tonight to many people saying that in some ways the Government did not recognise the needs of Northern Ireland and that Northern Ireland was underfunded. I leave one thought in the minds of hon. Members tonight: in terms of overall expenditure, Northern Ireland enjoys a lead of more than one third above average United Kingdom expenditure. That reflects the Government's concern about the problems which exist in Northern Ireland. That concern is real and it will continue. I commend the order to the House.
Ordered,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.

HEALTH
Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Bates be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Jonathan Evans be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Neubert, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY
Ordered,
That Jane Kennedy be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Kate Hoey be added to the Committee.—[Sir Michael Neubert, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
Ordered,
That Mr. Kevin Hughes be discharged from the Select Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills and Mr. Stephen Timms be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Residential Homes (Northern Ireland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
11.11 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I was interested in the Minister's comments in the earlier debate. He accused us of not talking up Northern Ireland. It is because we are concerned that the high quality of care manifested in Northern Ireland may be hindered by some policy changes that I am delighted to be able to have this Adjournment debate tonight.
At the outset, I should say that I share the tributes that have already been paid to Baroness Denton. She is one of the few Northern Ireland Ministers in my experience over the years who listens rather than using that lovely old English phrase, "I hear what you say," which means, "I am not listening at all and I am certainly not heeding what you say."
We are equally aware of the constrictions that are placed around a Minister. I had the unhappy experience of dealing with a civil servant who was advising a Minister about housing in my constituency. He said that there had never been houses in that area on that road. Thankfully, one of the delegation had the Ordnance Survey map of the year of my birth, which showed houses on that road.
I am happy to bring before the House some of our anxieties arising out of the closure of residential homes by the Eastern health and social services board. I welcome the opportunity to raise the matter, because it has immediate implications for the area that I represent. It also has widespread ramifications which will affect people not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain. Perhaps a cautionary word should go out to the planners: people may not be in the fortunate position of being able to pay for their own care in latter years. We are all getting older and the lifespan for many appears to be increasing. In 30 to 40 years, today's planners could be those requiring care. Therefore, we should all be guided by the principle: "Do unto others as you would they should do unto you".
As a convinced supporter of community care and care in the community, I have never seen them as cheap options. I certainly take issue with national health service planners who seem at times to be using the elderly as pawns, and I object most vehemently to money mattering more than people.
The background to the debate concerns the Department of Health, which has stated its intention to increase the number of elderly people aged over 75 having their long-term needs met at home, rather than in residential care, nursing homes or hospital settings.
Accordingly, the Eastern board has targeted a reduction from the existing provision of 1,823 independent homes and 394 statutory homes to 1,296 independent homes and 303 statutory homes. In south and east Belfast, growth in the private sector was encouraged by the Department and boards, but now many such homes are under threat. However, the real sufferers are elderly people who believed that their latter days would be spent in the settled home of their choice.
Significantly, south and east Belfast have twice the number of over-75s and over-85s as the other three community units of the Eastern health and social services board.
Ms Rachel Squire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the rigidity of the decision-making by the Eastern heath and social services board about residential homes has been completely unacceptable to the residents, staff and communities concerned? Will he join me in urging the Minister and, indeed, Baroness Denton to tell the board that it must take into account the wishes of the communities concerned and start thinking about people, rather than only targets and beds?
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Lady's contribution. She was concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, and travelled to Belfast at the weekend to discover first hand some of the issues affecting the staff, residents and carers. I share her views about the rigidity of the decision-making.
I shall turn to the criteria that were set to evaluate options. They were, first, the fabric of the building, including costs and suitability for its purpose—although so used for some time—secondly, the standards set by the Registration and Inspection Department; thirdly, the current demand and vacancies; fourthly, the running costs; and, fifthly, the locations within the area. The board added further criteria after discussion, including interest shown by the number of people attending meetings and the comments made. Presumably that took cognisance of the residents' views.
I give that only by way of background, as the issue is much wider. There is a difference in the national health service between the regions. In England, there is an obligation on local authorities to spend 85 per cent. in the private sector. In Scotland, there do not appear, as yet, to be clear guidelines. In Northern Ireland, however, it appears to be purely a numbers game, in which the target calls for 12 per cent. to be catered for in the independent sector, and only 2 per cent. of the elderly to be catered for in the public sector.
The rigidity of the formula does not allow for proper transitional arrangements. People, not beds, would be a better starting point, especially where it was admitted that it would be cheaper to keep open Ardview house in Ardglass.
Community care, as I understand it, should be offering choice, but instead, this chimera is offered. However, those in residential care are offered no choice. Surely there should be a transitional period. Those coming newly into care could have an informed choice and know what their options are, while those already in care should be left to finish their lives in peace.
In 1989, more than 88 per cent. of over-75s lived at home. By the end of 1992, that had fallen to an estimated 82 per cent. I suspect that that was because the Department and the boards were pushing for private homes to be developed. The 1992–1997 strategy document sought to increase that percentage again to 88 per cent. by 1997. However, it would appear that, whereas the Department set a period of five years for the adjustment to take place, the trusts have drastically reduced that to two years.
There does not seem to be any logical basis for the policies being adopted, other than a headlong rush to save money. The Banks home, which has been referred to this evening, has been described as "beautiful and convenient", Ardview as "beautiful but not convenient" and Cairns

659
house as "old and adapted". Old See house is a comparatively modern, purpose-built building. All are scheduled for closure.
As I have watched not only in the Eastern board area, but also elsewhere in Northern Ireland, it would appear that monetary pressures have led to decisions being taken on the hoof without proper principles or discussions occurring. It is suggested that choice is offered, but no choice is given, because prior decisions have been taken. There can be no useful participation, since the beds are being drastically reduced. Support for residents is being eroded as they are being removed from their areas. The vaunted principle of consent is being denied.
The Minister will be aware that, in exasperation at the way in which they have been treated, legal challenges have been made. I ask the Minister tonight for a clear commitment that there will be no further closures until the issues have been resolved. I do this insofar as the board was challenged in court, and it would seem to me that the incoming community trusts should have been included with them as correspondents.
In fact, in a letter from the Central Services Agency legal eagles dated 13 June 1994, the planning department of the board—in reference to the Banks and Cairns judicial review—were advised:
"it is no longer of any consequence and should not hinder any decisions being taken in respect of these two homes."
On the other hand, I draw the Minister's attention to the remarks of Mr. Justice Kerr in the High Court in May, when he suggested that it might be better to take no action on closure until the legal issues were resolved.
May I set out some of the disappointments which have already surfaced? While an advocacy service was promised, the residents had to push for it. The Friends of the Banks had to apply for it on 24 May. That was already on the late side, as—I am sure the Minister will agree—an advocate should be there at the beginning before battle lines are drawn and before the board or trusts decided on closure. The principle of advocacy is one which I, and I hope all reasonable people, support. The advocate should be there, not merely to listen, but to challenge the case for closure.
What has happened has been to some degree a travesty. The system does not appear to be independent, since the board appoints. Nor has it acted as a proper advocate. In the case of Banks, the advocate appeared to cobble together an arrangement. In Cairns and Old See, I admit that the co-operation was better. However, both sets of advocates ultimately relied on grants from the Department, and were not participating in the decision-making process. What plans does the Minister have for taking the process forward positively?
I contend that elderly citizens would appear to have few rights, and professionals can steamroller decisions which are made before any consultation process has been reached. I am not unmindful that options can be studied, but if they are not put forward for rational discussion, we are left only with a charade.
That was clearly illustrated in the decision by the Southern health and social services board to close Moylinn in Craigavon. The decision was announced to the residents on 7 July 1993 by the general manager of the unit, although the consultation period was to have commenced in September 1993. It would appear that the board had already decided to close Moylinn and transfer the residents to the new Fold home in Lurgan.
660
With a clever display of casuistry, it was argued that the board did not decide until later. It is not surprising, therefore, to read Mr. Justice Kerr's view:
"For a consultation period to be meaningful or worthwhile, the body conducting the consultation as a preliminary to making a recommendation must at least be prepared to change the view which it had formed before the consultation took place".
That is what any reasonable person would expect.
Sir William Wade put it well in his sixth edition of "Administrative Law":
"Where there is a statutory duty to consult persons affected, this must genuinely be done, and reasonable opportunity for comment must be given".
When other depositions highlighted that the Fold housing association had acquired the site of the Manor house in Lurgan for £4,000, when a similar property opposite was sold on the open market for £150,000, serious questions must be asked. Why shut so many homes, yet subsidise a new one? Was Moylinn really not suitable?
I should like to refer, finally, to a particular constituent, Miss K. G. Faris, now living in Ardview house. The Down-Lisburn unit of management has decided to close it on the issue of accessibility. Only two letters were written on that issue, however, on behalf of the same resident in St. John's house, Downpatrick. Is it not significant that one of those was written by a civil servant working for the Department at Dundonald house? I understand that the noble Lady Baroness Denton has had a letter on the subject, naming the writer.
Furthermore, it seems that Ardview will be shut, but then used as a facility for mental health and disability programmes. Although I recognise that there may need to be rationalisation as well as development of such services, is it just coincidence that the principal social worker who was responsible for the unit's residential homes for the elderly is now director of mental health services for the Down-Lisburn trust?
Although I could enlarge even more on the concerns expressed not only by residents and carers in the Eastern board, but by those even further afield, I will rest my case, so that the Minister is able to respond. If he cannot, I hope that Baroness Denton will exercise her manifest concern and restrain the headlong rush for closure in the statutory sector and show caution in the face of undoubted pressures that have appeared in the independent sector as a result of the strategic changes.
To change the metaphor, we should be wary, or else the chicks, or perhaps the old broilers, will come home to roost.
11.27 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on obtaining this important debate. I am grateful to him for raising the question of the closure of residential homes by the Eastern health and social services board.
My noble Friend, Baroness Denton, who has responsibility for health and social services matters in Northern Ireland, has asked me to say that she is particularly conscious of the anxiety felt by those frail elderly people who are accommodated in the homes that have been marked down for closure. She has already visited one of those homes at least and has spoken to the residents and carers. She has undertaken to visit all homes

661
that are referred to her for consideration. On her behalf, I welcome this opportunity to make clear the Government's view on the rationalisation of residential homes.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the new community care arrangements were anticipated in the 1990 policy document, "People First". The new arrangements recognise individual needs and incorporates a proper needs assessment, which allows programmes of care to be individually tailored to suit the needs of the individuals and their carers. That is a most important concept to which the Government are fully committed. As a direct consequence of it, it became necessary to review the level of residential accommodation in the Eastern board area.
The Department of Health and Social Services' regional strategy for 1992 to 1997 requires boards to ensure that the service provision in the community is adequate to meet the assessed needs of the elderly population aged 75 and over who wish to stay in their own homes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the majority understandably do.
Trusts and directly managed units have responded to the new arrangements and are putting in place the essential range of home care, respite care and other non-residential services that will provide the necessary support for people who chose domiciliary care in preference to residential care. In most instances, people prefer to remain in their homes provided that adequate support is available. That fact is borne out by the figures. Of the 5,900 care packages agreed up to the end of last year, 50 per cent. were domiciliary based; 30 per cent. required nursing home care; and 20 per cent. were in residential care homes. It is clear, therefore, that as an increasing number of people choose to remain in their own homes, boards will have to develop and improve packages of care available in the community.
Some of these services will be provided by non-statutory agencies, which demonstrates the achievement of another essential element in the Government's community care policy—the need to develop a mixed economy of care by encouraging providers from the voluntary and private sectors to take on a greater responsibility for the provision of services.
We place great emphasis on the assessment process, which involves listening to people, and on the development of additional packages of care provided by a range of providers in the community. A framework for the monitoring and evaluation of the new arrangements has been put in place.
It is important that the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the provision of more services in the community has not been stimulated by a desire simply to cut costs, because care in the community is not a cheap option—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) may laugh, but it is certainly not cheap. In bringing forward those reforms, the Government are responding in a sensitive and flexible way to the needs and wishes of individual clients and their carers. The Government recognise the importance of properly financing those reforms and have transferred responsibility form the social security system to the health and social services boards.
Money has followed that move. In 1993–94, almost £30 million was transferred; that increased to more than £70 million in 1994–95. In 1995–96, £106 million will be
662
available to boards for the development of community care services. Those sums, together with the resources which boards were already expending on community care, represent a substantial commitment to that important group of people.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way if I have a little time before the end, but I want to deal with some of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my noble Friend and I understand the fears of elderly and other vulnerable people and their carers about the level of services available for them. However, what I have said already should go some way to allay those fears and I think that I have demonstrated that every care has been taken to safeguard that vulnerable group of people.
Far from being a threat to the welfare of the elderly and others, the new arrangements are designed to add security and quality to their lives and, wherever possible, to enable them to remain active and part of the community in which they have lived, in some cases for many years.
Attention has rightly been drawn to the sadness that can arise when an elderly person is required to move from a residential home that is to be closed, but the most traumatic move for people is when they have to move from their family home into residential care. There are few instances when such a move is welcomed and many people worry about the prospect of moving away from their familiar surroundings for months before the move takes place. The families of the elderly person also find this move traumatic and are often heard to say that they feel guilty because they cannot care for their elderly relative at home. The policies which we are now implementing aim to delay that move for as long as possible.
I hope that what I have said helps to put in context the background to the present review of statutory accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, with a diminishing demand it is no longer appropriate to maintain the present levels of residential accommodation. It is clear that fewer residential and nursing home places will be required in future. If we do not rationalise the overall number of places, two things will happen.
First, many high-quality, well-run independent homes will be faced with closure as the diminishing need for residential accommodation is met entirely by the statutory sector. We should not run statutory homes that are not being used to full capacity, and therefore trusts and boards will be forced to abandon the non-statutory provision in the first instance. We also know from experience that it is more expensive to maintain people in statutory homes than in the private and voluntary sectors, and by moving the balance of care towards statutory homes we would be failing to make the best use of available resources.
Secondly, the need to maintain excess accommodation will delay the implementation of improved community care services by reducing the resources that boards can move into their wider community care programme. In order to accommodate a few deserving people, we would be reducing the level of community services available to many more.
If I may discuss the specific points relating to the Eastern health and social services board, it has considered nine homes for closure, and a full round of consultation has now, I understand, been completed. It was the board's

663
intention to ask my noble Friend to endorse their decision. However, the process has been complicated by the judicial reviews that have arisen from the consultation about some of the homes. In the time since the board began the consultation exercise, the homes have become the responsibility of the newly formed trusts. It will be necessary therefore for the trust boards to consider each closure and to decide if they wish to proceed before Baroness Denton is asked to endorse their decision. That means that the local provider will be, and must be, directly involved. The exceptions to that rule are Warren house, Drumlough house and Ardview house as the decision to close those homes was taken by the board before the judicial review was requested.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, Mr. Justice Kerr, in his ruling on 31 May 1994, rejected the application. The case for closure of those homes has been passed to my noble Friend and it is her intention to meet as many as possible of those people who have asked to speak to her about the closures. She will also visit all the homes and will weigh up the arguments before coming to a conclusion. I am sure that she will also wish to read what the hon. Gentleman has said here tonight. She has already visited Ardview house. She wishes to reach a decision as quickly as possible so that the uncertainty can be removed and, where it is decided to close a home, so that the people concerned can be carefully relocated and begin to build a life with new and old friends without the uncertainty.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman still wishes to intervene.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I look forward to specific answers to the points that I have raised, but I raise one more. The figures that the Minister gave about people going into homes would have left 20 per cent. to be accommodated in homes for the elderly, yet the target is 12 per cent. in the private independent sector and 2 per cent. in the public sector, so 6 per cent. are unaccounted for.
Mr. Ancram: I shall draw that point to the attention of my noble Friend and ask her to write to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will appreciate that the decisions that she has to take are not easy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that she will make them with concern for the residents as the priority in her agenda.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman can also appreciate why it is necessary for the rationalisation programme to go ahead. It is not a thoughtless dictate, designed to reduce costs or deliberately to close down good-quality, well-utilised homes for elderly people. I understand how difficult it is for the people who are directly affected by a home closure and I give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that no existing resident of a home that is to be closed will be forced out into the community.
We recognise that most people who have moved out of
664
their own homes are happy with the type of care that they receive. We know that those homes are now their homes, and fellow residents in a sense their family. We shall deal gently with those people who are to be moved, and we shall give them a choice of alternative accommodation, taking into account groups of friends who would like to stay together.
Trusts will provide an independent advocacy service to ensure that the residents and their families are provided with the full information about the options available to them. The service will collaborate with trusts and units to ensure that the needs and wishes of residents are being considered. Existing residents will be accommodated in other homes just as good as where they live at present. My noble Friend Baroness Denton will keep a very close watch on this programme.
Hon. Members will be reassured to know that the figures obtained for the first nine months, from April to December 1993, show that the assessment and care management processes are coping very well. During that period, boards received 6,600 referrals for care management and carried out more than 5,900 assessments. The split of assessments completed between programmes of care was 73 per cent. elderly, 9 per cent. mental health, 8 per cent. mental handicap, 8 per cent. physical and sensory disabled and 2 per cent. other adult client groups. More than 90 per cent. of the assessments commenced within seven days from referral and at least 80 per cent. of assessments were reported to have been completed within a week. That major achievement has resulted from meticulous preparation by both Government and boards.
It is also important that we keep a close eye on the standards that we have set for access to, and the delivery of, care. If people wish to remain in the community it is important that we have in place high quality services to support their choice. In September it is our intention to undertake a detailed inspection of the assessment process. The focus of that inspection will be to seek to establish that local assessment arrangemments have embraced the priniciples that underpin the community care changes.
The Eastern board has made substantial progress in the development of domiciliary care schemes. The board offers a wide range of facilities for respite, including residential and nursing home care, day care and various forms of sitting services. I hope that the new arrangements for that care will be generally welcomed for their flexible response to an invdividual need. While understanding the deep concern of those affected, I also hope that I have managed to persuade the hon. Gentleman tonight that we have the interests of the residents in those homes at heart.
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 at nineteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Court of Justice
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will take steps to publish a record of the accumulated legal costs borne by the United Kingdom in the cases initiated against Her Majesty's Government in the European Court of Justice.

  The Solicitor-General
  Legal costs excluding travel and subsistence totalled approximately £90,000 in nine out of the 10 cases brought since 1 January 1986.

  Prosecutors' Code
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to make the revised code for prosecutors known to the public.

  The Attorney-General
  The revised "Code for Crown Prosecutors" was published by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 21 June 1994. It has been widely distributed to those with an interest in the criminal justice system. Copies are available from Crown Prosecution Service headquarters.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases have been referred to him in the last 12 months as being unduly lenient sentences.

  The Attorney-General:
  One hundred and sixteen sentences have been considered and I have applied for leave to refer 46 as appearing to me to be unduly lenient.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to make an official visit to the Crown Prosecution Service in Chester to discuss the work of the office; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no plans to visit the Crown Prosecution Service in Chester, but I shall be visiting offices of the Crown Prosecution Service in the north-west area, of which Chester is a part, in the near future.

  Guildford and Woolwich Bombings Inquiry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when and in what form he expects to publish Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings case; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I expect to publish the report shortly.

  PC Guscott
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Attorney-General what change of policy will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service as a result of the case of PC Guscott at Bridgwater magistrates court.

  The Attorney-General
  The CPS is aware of the difficulties and dangers which police officers face in their work. This is a factor which is always taken into account in deciding whether the prosecution of a police officer is in the public interest. The public interest however also demands that officers should conduct themselves within the law. These cases are considered with great care according to their individual merits. The DPP does not consider any change of approach to be necessary.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on dealing with cases of racial harassment.

  The Attorney-General
  The revised edition of the "Code for Crown Prosecutors" makes it clear that a prosecution is likely to be needed if, among other considerations, the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin.

SCOTLAND

  Law Officers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the Lords Advocate and Solicitors-General who have held office since 1964.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  Lord Advocate

  George Gordon Stott QC

  1964

  Lord Wilson of Langside QC

  1967

  Norman Russell Wylie QC MP

  1970

  Ronald King Murray QC MP

  1974

  Lord Mackay of Clashfern QC

  1979

  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom QC

  1984

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC

  1989

  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry QC

  1992

  Solicitor General

  James Graham Leechman QC

  1964

  Henry Stephen Wilson QC

  1965

  Ewan George Francis Stewart QC

  1967

  David William Robert Brand QC

  1970

  William Ian Stewart QC

  1972

  Lord McCluskey of Churchhill QC

  1974

  Nicholas Hardwick Fairbairn QC MP

  1979

  Peter Lovat Fraser QC

  1982

  Alan Ferguson Rodger QC

  1989

  Thomas Cordner Dawson QC

  1992

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the review of the Scottish criminal justice system; and what conclusions he has reached on proposals for improving the delivery of justice in Scotland.
  395
  Mr. Lang
  I have today laid before Parliament and published a White Paper entitled "Firm and Fair" which sets out the Government's proposals for reform of the Scottish criminal justice system. The White Paper is the culmination of a wide-ranging review of the Scottish criminal justice system and criminal legal aid, in which I have sought the views of all those with a genuine interest in the delivery of justice in Scotland. The response to the four consultation papers we issued was very encouraging. We have received a large number of thoughtful comments which have been carefully considered. The White Paper contains the Government's conclusions following that consideration.

  The White Paper also reports on our consideration of those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which were of relevance to Scotland and includes proposals on other aspects of the Scottish criminal justice system which were not part of the main review exercise.

  The proposals in the White Paper seek to ensure that offenders are quickly identified, brought to account and punished and that all those who come into contact with the criminal justice system, whether as victims, witnesses or jurors, are dealt with fairly and sensitively. The proposals include action to tighten up bail procedures and to deal with people who commit offences while on bail, changes to pre-trial procedures, the operation of the jury system, the powers of the courts and appeals procedures.

  On certain issues, I have concluded that there should be no change or that further work is necessary. One of the most controversial issues on which I consulted was the future of the not proven verdict. This provoked a healthy public debate. The clear weight of opinion was, however, in favour of retention and I have decided that the three verdicts, including not proven, should remain.

  I also consulted on the need for change in the Appeal Court's consideration of appeals and the handling of alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland, in the light of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice for a new independent review authority for England and Wales. The response to the consultation was inconclusive and, given the complexity and importance of these related issues, I have decided to appoint an independent committee, which will include a senior member of the judiciary, to consider both these matters in the Scottish context and to report to me. I shall announce the membership and remit of the Committee soon.

  The consultation exercise has been productive and worthwhile. I believe that the proposals contained in this White Paper will command widespread support. I also believe that they will significantly improve the delivery of justice in Scotland. Where legislation is required to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper, it will be brought forward at the next available opportunity.

ENVIRONMENT

  Appointments
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what proportion of(a) chairmen, (b) chief executives and (c) board members of (i) urban development corporations and (ii) housing action trusts are women.
  396
  Mr. Gummer
  The number and proportion of women in urban development corporations and housing action trusts are as follows:

  Number of Women

  Proportion of Women

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (i) Urban Development Corporations

  (a) Chairmen

  0

  0

  (b) Chief Executives

  0

  0

  (c) Board Members

  22

  18

  (ii) Housing Action Trusts

  (a) Chairmen

  1

  20

  (b) Chief Executives

  0

  0

  (161)

  (c) Board Members

  22

  46

  1The acting chief executive at the shadow Stonebridge housing action trust is a woman. The parliamentary process to establish the HAT is currently underway.

  Sweetloves Reservoir, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of North West Water plc's actions in respect of the preservation of the amenity values of Sweetloves reservoir, Bolton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have considered carefully the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend over North West Water's proposed redevelopment of the Sweetloves reservoir, together with the information provided by the company to my Department. While I consider that it would have been better if the company had carried out consultations prior to draining the reservoir and bringing forward its redevelopment proposals, I am satisfied that failure to do so does not of itself constitute a breach of the company's statutory environmental duties under the Water Industry Act 1991. I have however written to North West Water informing it of my serious concerns over its handling of this matter.

  Quarries, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy relating to the development of quarries within the area of Doncaster metropolitan borough council.

  Mr. Baldry
  Policy guidance on the provision to be made for minerals in development plans is given in minerals planning guidance notes 1 and 6. In particular MPG 6 sets out regional apportionments for meeting projected demand for aggregates to 2006. In drawing up policies and proposals in their development plans for meeting the demand for aggregates and other minerals, mineral planning authorities should have regard to the local apportionments for the supply of aggregates and the other guidance in MPG 6.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of South Yorkshire metropolitan borough councils in rank order their full-time equivalent number of employees per thousand of population.
  397
  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, figures are available for the total number of employees per thousand of population. These are:

  Staff1

  Population2 (thousands)

  Staff per thousand population

  Barnsley

  11,386

  225

  50·6

  Doncaster

  14,718

  294

  50·1

  Rotherham

  12,581

  255

  49·3

  Sheffield

  22,959

  531

  43·2

  Sources:

  1Joint Staffing Watch March 1994.

  2OPCS mid year estimates of population 1992.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority, housing association and voluntary sector hostel bedspaces for single homeless people there were in England on(a) 31 December 1993 and (b) 31 March 1994, or the most recent figures available.

  Sir George Young
  Information on short-life accommodation managed by housing associations in England, including property owned by a local authority, is published for the year ending 31 March 1993 by the Housing Corporation in table 13.1, page 47 of "Housing Associations in 1993", an analysis of the annual statistical survey, part 1, general report. No information is held centrally on short-life accommodation owned by local authorities and not managed by housing associations. A copy of the report is held in the Library.

  Domestic Heating Radiators
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on accidents arising from surface heat of domestic heating radiators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment does not keep statistics on this subject. In general, reducing surface heat to a level which is completely safe will also result in living space temperature falling to a level incompatible with comfort.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations cover the surface temperature of domestic heating radiators.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no regulations relating specifically to the surface temperature of domestic heating radiators. In sheltered accommodation, such as nursing homes, the relevant local authority has responsibility for setting a maximum surface temperature for radiators.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans she has to increase the powers of local authorities and affected persons to take action against noisy neighbours.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local authorities and individuals already have a range of powers to tackle neighbour noise nuisance.398

  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities can serve abatement notices to control noise from domestic and other premises which they judge to be a statutory nuisance. These powers have recently been extended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 to control certain types of noise in the street, including misfiring vehicle alarms. Contravention of abatement notices can lead to substantial fines.

  In addition, a number of local authorities have successfully confiscated equipment such as hi-fis and stereos where an abatement notice has been ignored. Individuals can also take their own action in the magistrates' court to have a noise nuisance abated or they can take civil action.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the current distribution of standard spending assessments in reflecting need to spend in(a) deprived local authority areas and (b) Birmingham.

  Mr. Curry
  The standard spending assessment formulae, which apply to authorities throughout England, contain many indicators related to the additional need to spend in deprived local authority areas. As well as the economic and social indices which reflect general needs, there are indicators such as the proportion of children in lone-parent families or in families receiving income support, homeless households, households living in non-self-contained accommodation and elderly residents with a long-term illness. These indicators have been chosen after detailed statistical analysis of the patterns of local authorities' spending.

  Housing
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the analysis of English housing fitness contained in the report "English Homes—A National Asset?" presented to him in March; and what proposals he intends to make in response.

  Sir George Young
  The analysis of housing fitness contained in the report "English Homes—A National Asset?" is based on the 1991 English house condition survey, published by the Department in September 1993. The recommendations of the report are being considered in the context of the Department's current review of the future of private housing renewal programmes.

  Stadium, Stoneham
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the report of the public inquiry into the proposed community stadium at Stoneham, Southampton.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is hoped to announce the decision shortly.

  New Forest
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses to the Department of the Environment's consultation paper "The New Forest: The Government's Proposals", published in September
  399
  1992, were received by the Department before the end of 1992; and of these responses what proportion supported the Government's proposals that (a) statutory designation should be given to the area broadly related to the heritage area proposed by the New Forest committee and that (b) a planning regime similar to that which applies in the national parks and the Broads should apply to this area.

  Mr. Atkins
  We received 209 responses to our consultation paper on the New Forest before the end of 1992. Sixty per cent. of these responses addressed the issue of a statutory designation for an area related to the New Forest heritage area, of which 84 per cent. supported the proposal for a statutory status which would bring with it a planning regime similar to that which applies in the national parks and the Broads.

  Objective 5b Grants
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what steps his Department is taking to provide advice and support to local authorities in preparing bids for objective 5b grant;

  (2) in which part of his Department objective 5b bids are handled.

  Mr. Baldry
  Applications for funding under objective 5b of the European structural funds will be handled by secretariats located at the appropriate Government office in each region.

  Local authorities and other potential applicants to use objective 5b funding may obtain advice and guidance from the appropriate regional office. The European Commission is currently considering proposals for the use of the funds in each of the eligible areas, which have been prepared by the Government offices in consultation with local partnerships including the local authorities. When agreed by the European Commission, these single programming documents will provide the framework within which decisions on project applications will be made, and further guidance will be made available to interested organisations.

  City Challenge
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards voluntary agencies funded through City Challenge which operate unsatisfactory employment practices and procedures.

  Mr. Baldry
  Decisions as to which agencies and projects City Challenge supports are matters for individual partnerships set up under the initiative and the appropriate local authorities. As far as possible, the partnerships should be satisfied that the agencies operate within the requirements of the law.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Durum Wheat, Italy
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the discrepancy between the claimed and the satellite measured areas of durum wheat in Italy.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand that work on remote sensing commissioned by the European Commission in 1990 400
  identified some discrepancies between the actual and declared areas of durum wheat in Italy. Appropriate action was taken by the Italian authorities. Remote sensing can make a useful contribution to preventing fraud and the Commission is continuing to encourage its use in appropriate circumstances.

  Nutrient Intakes
  Ms Corston:
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the recommended 1991 daily intake, reference nutrient intake and lower reference nutrient intake, for children of different ages; and what percentage these figures represent of the values recommended in 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information concerning the reference nutrient intake—RNI—the estimated average requirement—EAR—and the lower reference nutrient intake—LRNI—for 33 nutrients were published in the 1991 Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 41 "Dietary Reference Values (DRV) for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  It is not possible to establish what percentage the 1991 DRVs represent of the 1979 recommended daily amounts—RDA—because figures are not comparable in the two reports.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set out in tabular form the non-contributory benefits and contributory benefits, where the rates of contribution are the same, available to Members of the European Parliament and hon. Members of this House on ceasing their employment, setting out the reasons for any differences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  A resettlement allowance is payable to Members of the House in accordance with the Resolution of 22 May 1991 at rates that vary between 50 and 100 per cent. of annual salary according to age and length of service. Our intention is that the same terms should be available to Members of the European Parliament. Accordingly, the Home Secretary laid an order on 24 June making certain changes to their scheme in line with improvements already made in the scheme for Members of this House.

  Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament pay contributions of 6 per cent. of salary for pensions at retirement, as distinct from cessation of employment. The Home Secretary laid an order on 24 June to make certain changes to the scheme for MEPs to ensure that the benefits are the same for both schemes.

PRIME MINISTER

  Broadcasting Act
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission to investigate the workings of the Broadcasting Act; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. However we are keeping the working of the Act under review.

  Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what instructions are given to security staff at No. 10 Downing street for dealing with beggars in the vicinity; and how many problems with beggars have been experienced in the last three months.

  The Prime Minister
  None, in both cases.

  British Pension Rights
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received since 1 January 1993 calling for the unfreezing of British state retirement pensions in those countries where British pensioners are denied annual upratings.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received numerous representations.

  Press Releases (Recycled Paper)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Government Departments which issue press releases on recycled paper; and what percentage of press releases from each department are on recycled paper.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The use of recycled and environmentally friendly paper for the issue of press releases is a matter for individual Departments. However, the Government's policy, as set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", is to use its influence as a major consumer. It discriminates positively in favour of recycled and environmentally-friendly products and will use recycled or environmentally friendly paper wherever this is available, of adequate quality and represents value-for-money.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the extension of the Konver programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European Commission announced a second Konver initiative for the period 1994–97, to assist the regeneration or areas affected by job losses due to defence changes. It is one of 13 community initiatives to be financed from the European structural funds.

  These funds will contribute £380 million to Konver II; the allocation for the United Kingdom, and Gibraltar, will be known in July. The eligible areas should be determined in September; they will, as before, include areas other than those designated for objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) of the funds. A general programme describing the intended application of Konver II in the United Kingdom, and Gibraltar, is due to be prepared by October, and then needs to be agreed by the Commission. It is therefore unlikely that individual applications for grant can be considered before the new year.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what stage of preparation are draft contracts for the contracting out of the Insolvency Service's mechanical processing work.
  402
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No decision has yet been taken on whether to contract out this work. Drafting of any contracts has not, therefore, begun.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the prosecution rate for inadequate accounting records by the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Stoy Hayward Consulting was invited to bid for the second phase of the work in a single tender action.

  United Kingdom Manufacturers (Investment)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that United Kingdom manufacturers are investing in increased capacity to increase exports and displace imports; and if he will publish a list of the industries in which such investment is taking place.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on the reasons for investment by a sample of United Kingdom manufacturing industry is contained in the CBI "Industrial Trends Survey", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  European Regional Funds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department has allocated a budget to make matching grants available to objective 5b bids in line with EU rules.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No; there is no such rule.

  Structural funds projects are funded jointly by the Community and the member state. My Department, and others, make public expenditure provision for the forecast value of the Community contributions. The remainder of the cost of each project is the responsibility of the beneficiary of the Community grant.

  Electrical Engineers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to use the Institution of Electrical Engineers INSPEC database and information service.

  Mr. Eggar
  The DTI information and library services use those sources of information most appropriate to each individual inquiry they receive. The ILS has accessed the INSPEC databases regularly over the last 10 years or so, using a variety of hosts. In addition, the ILS subscribes to a number of IEE publications.

  British Coal
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many employees of British Coal have been removed from their posts on the grounds of conflict of interest where they have been interested in participation in a management buy-out of their colliery; and if those in senior positions within British Coal are deemed to be affected by the same conflict of interest.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: This is a matter for British Coal, which has put in place detailed internal guidelines designed to avoid any potential

  403
  conflicts of interest. These procedures require any manager wishing to participate in a management buy-out to obtain the consent of the chairman of the corporation to do so. I understand that in each case potential conflicts of interest are assessed and appropriate measures put in place.

  Electricity Order
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects amendments to the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990 to be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 April 1994, c. 253]: I have today laid before Parliament an order further amending the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1990.

  This order, and the earlier order which I laid on 14 April, will bring into effect a package of five amendments to the exemption order that I announced at the end of last year. One effect of this order will be to allow more companies, including some joint ventures, to be included in a qualifying group of companies that may be supplied by an unlicensed on-site generator. In addition, more small generators may be exempt from the requirement for a generation licence, as a result of the change to the definition of a "qualifying group".

  This package of amendments will reduce the regulatory burden on small generators, on-site generators and companies which sell on a small proportion of the electricity they purchase.

TREASURY

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the revenue the Treasury will derive from the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; how much of this will be attributable to the imposition of value added tax on the standing charge element of domestic fuel bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Latest published estimates of the revenue yield were set out in annex B to chapter 4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report for 1994–95". Approximately 12 per cent. of the VAT yield is attributable to the standing charge element of domestic fuel bills.

  Departmental Spending Reviews
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and which Departments have been asked to conduct a fundamental review of their spending; how many and which Departments have produced a report as a result of such a review; and how many and which Departments have(a) published and (b) plan to publish such a report.

  Mr. Portillo
  Four fundamental reviews were started in early 1993 covering social security, health, education and the Home Office. A further eight were announced in the November Budget last year. These covered employment and transport programmes, the legal Departments, Trade and Industry, Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, Her 404
  Majesty's Treasury and urban expenditure. It is intended that all Departments will conduct such reviews by the end of this Parliament.

  The reviews once started are on-going. There are no plans to publish reports on the reviews, but their output will, as the first four reviews did last year, inform the annual public expenditure survey decisions.

  Government Deficit
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the central Government deficit in the last financial year as a percentage of gross domestic profit; and what is the maximum level allowed under the Maastricht convergence criterion.

  Mr. Nelson
  There is no maximum level for the budget deficit allowed under the excessive deficits procedure of the Maastricht treaty. Rather, there is a reference level of 3 per cent. of GDP which is one of the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a country has an excessive deficit.

  The measure of the budget deficit used for the excessive deficit procedure is the general Government financial deficit—GGFD. This is provisionally estimated at 7.8 per cent. of GDP in 1993–94. The projections in the 1994–95 medium term financial strategy showed the GGFD being reduced to 3 per cent. of GDP in 1996–97.

  Income Statistics
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 April,Official Report, column 169, if he will make a statement on measures being taken to allow for changes in the family expenditure survey and in the classification of both income and taxation to improve time series statistics on the distribution of income, or specify upper and lower ranges of possible error, to overcome the problems of comparability.

  Mr. Nelson
  The family expenditure survey is modified over time to improve the quality and usefulness of the data and consequently changes are made which can have an effect on the continuity of published data. The aim of the Central Statistical Office article on the effects of taxes and benefits on household income is to give the best estimates for the current year. It is not possible to eliminate all inconsistencies.

  Places of Worship (VAT Exemption)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rationale underlying the decision for places of religious worship to lose their VAT exemption from 1 April 1994.

  Sir John Cope
  The religious activities of churches remain outside the scope of the VAT system but they pay VAT on the things that they buy. The introduction of VAT on fuel and power from 1 April 1994 applies across the board to all consumers.

  National Savings Adjudicator
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the salary of the national savings adjudicator; how many disputes he has settled during the last year; and if he will give a breakdown of the settlement.
  405
  Mr. Nelson
  The national savings adjudicator is paid for the amount of work he is required to carry out, at a rate of £32 per hour plus associated travel expenses. In 1993–94, this totalled£5,450.

  In the year to 31 March 1994 the adjudicator dealt with 10 disputes. A breakdown of the types of dispute is outlined:

  Summary of hearings held in 1993–94

  National Savings Bank Deposits

  National Savings Certificates

  National Savings Stocks, Bonds and Premium Bonds

  Higher interest rate claim

  —

  2

  —

  Third party title claim

  4

  —

  —

  Denied receipt of monies allegedly paid

  2

  —

  —

  Negligence

  —

  —

  —

  Miscellaneous

  —

  2

  —

  Total

  6

  4

  0

  Award made in favour of claimant

  2

  2

  —

  Claim dismissed

  4

  2

  —

  Total

  6

  4

  0

  Number pending as at 31 March 1994

  6

  0

  2

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money previously attributed to civil service expenditure has not been accounted to that source of expenditure due to the establishment of executive agencies, in each year since the first executive agency was established; if he will publish a table breaking down the figures for each agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Expenditure by next steps agencies remains part of their sponsor Minister's programme.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money which was previously accounted to the civil service pay bill has not: been attributed in each year since the establishment of the first executive agency; if he will publish a table breaking down these figures; what was the gross and net civil service pay bill in each relevant year; how much has been saved for accounting purposes by the civil service pay bill due to the establishment of executive agencies, expressed as a percentage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Spending by next steps agencies on civil service pay remains part of the total civil service paybill.

  Public Expenditure
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the identifiable amount of public expenditure per head of population in Scotland; and by what amount, as a total sum for Scotland as a whole per annum, this differs from the average for England.
  406
  Mr. Portillo
  Identifiable general Government expenditure per head in Scotland in 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available, was £3,968. The equivalent figure in England was £3,290. The total difference in public expenditure between the two countries, on this basis, was therefore some £3.5 billion.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the official estimate of the United States and Japanese direct investment in the United Kingdom as a percentage of direct investment in all European Community countries in each year from 1989 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: Fully comparable information on direct inward investment in the European Community from outside the EC is not available. However the following estimates for the years 1989 to 1992 have been prepared, based on the most readily available sources.

  Value of stock of direct investment in United Kingdom as a percentage of that in all EC countries

  Year

  United States

  Japan

  1989

  42·1

  37·7

  1990

  40·4

  40·5

  1991

  39·5

  40·9

  1992

  38·8

  41·2

  Sources:

  1. United States Department of Commerce: "Survey of Current Business".

  2. Japanese Ministry of Finance: "MITI News".

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  MI6 (Cleaners)
  Mr. Spellar:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the estimated annual savings to be achieved from the replacement of regular cleaners at MI6 by contract cleaners.

  Mr. Hurd
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his answer to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 21 June at columns 85–86; the contract for office cleaning services at the new Secret Intelligence Service headquarters at Vauxhall cross will achieve a substantial saving to public funds. It is not our policy to give detailed information about the expenditure of the individual security and intelligence agencies.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers & Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst & Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Arthur Andersen, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) other services in (1) 1980 to 1983, (2) 1984 to 1987, (3) 1988 to 1991 and (4) 1992–93.
  407
  Mr. Goodlad
  The table shows the relevant information for contracts let out to the named companies by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic and aid wings in 1992–93.

  Privatisation

  Market testing

  Management advice

  Audit

  Consultancy

  Other services

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Coopers & Lybrand

  1

  21,000

  6

  123,000

  17

  7,374,000

  1

  53,000

  1

  355,000

  5

  900,000

  KPMG

  —

  —

  3

  58,000

  —

  —

  5

  313,000

  1

  5,000

  1

  56,000

  Ernst and Young

  1

  175,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  76,000

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  83,000

  —

  —

  3

  142,000

  2

  417,000

  Touche Ross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pannell Kerr Foster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  29,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  No contracts were let by the FCO to Arthur Andersen, Grant Thornton and Robson Rhodes in 1992–93.

  Caribbean Sugar
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the United Kingdom Government are taking to ensure the continued support for Caribbean sugar in the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government remain firmly committed to the sugar protocol to the Lomé convention, which provides levy-free access to the European Union at guaranteed prices, negotiated annually, for 1·3 million tonnes of cane sugar from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Of the Caribbean countries, Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana and St. Kitts benefit from this protocol.

  Nigeria
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are currently taken by diplomatic personnel in Nigeria positively to promote the interests of British industry in that country; and what plans he has to improve such representation in the immediate future.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has commercial officers in Lagos, Abuja, Kaduna, Kano and Port Harcourt—the latter two were opened in late 1993. They are there to seek out export opportunities, advise British companies on the business to be won in the market, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination, and to organise inward and outward trade missions. A programme of promotional activity agreed by the tropical Africa advisory group, Department of Trade and Industry and the FCO is underway with a view to increasing our market share.

  The level of commercial representation in Nigeria was reviewed and adjusted by a team of inspectors in February and March 1994. The staffing requirement will be kept under review.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the number of British citizens who are currently resident in Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are 7,000 British citizens registered with British diplomatic missions in Nigeria. In addition, the high commission in Lagos estimates that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 British citizens who are not registered. The total is therefore about 10,000.
  408
  Similar information on contracts let to the named companies in the periods 1980–83, 1984–87 and 1988–91 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out Her Majesty's Government's policy on relations with Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd:
  We value our relations with Nigeria. We hope to see firm progress soon towards a restoration of democratic civilian rule.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the extent to which release from custody has now been granted for those human and civil rights activists arrested in Nigeria following the annulment of the June 1993 presidential election; and what response he has made to such releases.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Those arrested immediately after the annulment of the June 1993 election were released shortly afterwards. We welcomed these releases.

  In the last few weeks however there have been fresh detentions, including Chief Abiola, presumed winner of the 1993 election. We strongly regret those arrests and call on the Nigerian Government to engage all sides in political dialogue.

  Antarctic Protocol Secretariat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to announce the siting of the Antarctic protocol secretariat.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Discussions continue among Antarctic treaty consultative parties about where the proposed Antarctic treaty secretariat should be sited. We hope that the secretariat will be in operation by the time that the environmental protocol to the antarctic treaty enters into force.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impartiality of the Nigerian forces in supporting the UNOMIL peacemaking mission in Liberia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no reason to doubt the commitment of Nigerian forces to help implement the peace process.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom's aid budget was(a) given as bilateral aid, (b) multilateral aid and (c) administered by the . European Community in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and currently.

  Mr. Hurd
  In 1979–80, 72 per cent. was bilateral aid, 12 per cent. was channelled through multilateral institutions other than the EC, and 16 per cent. was administered by the EC.

  In 1983–84, the figures were 55 per cent., 15 per cent., 30 per cent.; in 1987–88 the figures were 60 per cent., 16 per cent., 24 per cent.; and in 1992–93, the most recent year for which figures are available, the figures were .54 per cent., 21 per cent., and 25 per cent. respectively.

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

  Mr. Hurd
  My noble Friend the Baroness Chalker is in regular contact with her European counterparts to increase the effectiveness of aid to Bosnia.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position on aid to Rwanda.

  Mr. Hurd
  Since 6 April 1994, Britain has committed over £11 million bilaterally of emergency aid for displaced Rwandans and Rwandan refugees in neighbouring countries. We continue to monitor the situation closely and plan a further assessment mission to the region next month.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the overseas aid budget for sub-Saharan Africa goes to assist sustainable development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992–93, 78 per cent. of total bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa was provided as development assistance.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received this year in favour of the United Kingdom raising its contribution to overseas aid to 0·7 per cent. of GNP; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to receive representations from hon. Members and others. The Development Assistance Committee has just reported that United Kingdom aid in 1993 was above the average of OECD countries in terms of percentage of GNP.

  Malawi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Malawi about humanitarian needs caused by drought; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In April, the Government of Malawi appealed for help to offset a serious crop failure resulting from poor rains. We have pledged 10,000 tonnes of emergency food aid costing about £2.5 million. We have also pledged a further £3 million in balance of payments support for 1994–95 to help pay for additional imports of maize. This is in addition to our earlier pledge of £12 million of balance of payments aid to support Malawi's reform programmes.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the money in the United Nations Liberian trust fund has been spent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In addition to the United Kingdom contribution of $1 million, other contributions to date to the Liberian trust fund have been from the USA, $19·8 million and Denmark, $0·3 million.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 14 April, Official Report, column 259 for details of how the United Kingdom contribution is being spent. The other contributions have gone towards the costs of deploying equipping and maintaining the Ugandan and Tanzanian battalions as well as helping to maintain the rest of the ECOMOG force.

  St. Kitts and Nevis
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the timetable for reviewing the framework for economic assistance to St. Kitts and Nevis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We expect to review the nature of our bilateral aid programme to St. Kitts and Nevis in early 1995. The programme will be fully committed until then, largely on assistance to infrastructure development.

HEALTH

  Dentists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of(a) general dental practitioners in practice, (b) general dental practitioner practices, (c) community dental practitioners and (d) salaried dental practitioners, for each family health services authority area in England for each year since 1984; and if she will express these figures per 1,000 of the population resident in each family health services authority area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information will be placed in the Library. Information is not collected on general dental practices. As community dentists are employed by national health service trusts or district health authorities, information is not available by family health services authorities.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were in training for state registration in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Pre-Registration in Training Population—England Years ended 31 March 1987–1993

  Total Pre-registration

  1st Level Registered: Total

  2nd Level Registered: Total

  1987

  60,192

  50,813

  9,379

  1988

  58,042

  50,167

  7,875

  1989

  51,116

  47,333

  3,783

  1990

  51,628

  49,608

  2,020

  1991

  49,350

  48,667

  683

  1992

  51,760

  51,679

  81

  1993

  52,245

  52,214

  31

  Source: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Nutrition
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the numbers and percentages of the population, by age and income, with inadequate nutritional intakes for the last five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to issue a report updating the 1986–87 dietary and nutritional survey of British adults.

  Mr. Sackville
  The adult survey was part of a rolling programme of surveys on diet and nutrition covering all population groups. The adult survey will be repeated after 1998.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been commissioned by her Department on the adequacy of nutritional intake among children in the last five years;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the recent trends in the nutritional adequacy of the diets of children, by household disposable income and socio-economic status.

  Mr. Sackville:
  Twelve months' field work for a dietary and nutritional survey of children aged one and a half to four and a half years was completed in July 1993. Data from this survey are now being analysed. A report of the survey is expected to be published in the autumn. It will provide information on the links between nutritional adequacy and dietary patterns and a full range of socio-economic variables.

  The survey was carried out as part of the joint Department of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food national diet and nutrition survey—NDNS—programme which was set up to ascertain the dietary habits and nutritional status of all sections of the population in an eight-year cycle. Field work on a survey of schoolchildren aged five to 15 years is expected to begin in 1996.

  In addition the Department of Health has, since 1975, commissioned five-yearly national surveys of infant
  412
  feeding practice. The last survey was in 1990. Plans are now underway for the 1995 survey. The Department has also this year commissioned a survey of infant feeding practices in Asian ethnic subgroups of the population. The results of this survey are expected in 1997. Socioeconomic data are collected in all surveys of infant feeding practice.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Redmond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the perinatal mortality rate in each of the past 10 years in each district health authority in (a) South Yorkshire, (b) West Yorkshire, (c) North Yorkshire and (d) Humberside.

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

  Prostheses
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will amend the patients charter so that patients who by their general practitioner are to undergo hip or knee major joint surgery are informed of the type of prosthesis to be used.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The patients charter already sets out the right for patients to be given a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks and alternatives, before the patient decides whether or not to agree to the treatment.

  VAMP National Medicines Database
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made regarding the VAMP national medicines database; and what discussions have been held with(a) commercial and (b) academic research organisations in the United Kingdom and the United States of America regarding its future.

  Mr. Sackville
  Discussions with Reuters Ltd., the owners of the VAMP research databank are continuing. A seminar has been arranged for 11 July for interested researchers, academic departments, pharmaceutical companies and representatives of national health service organisations at which views will be canvassed on the best long-term management arrangements.

  Infant Mortality, Yorkshire and Humberside
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of infant mortality in each of the past 10 years in each district health authority in(a) South Yorkshire, (b) West Yorkshire, (c) North Yorkshire and (d) Humberside.

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

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what variation there is in the provision of infertility treatment between each regional authority in England; and what waiting lists are maintained.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those health authorities which(a) will

  413
  purchase in-vitro fertilisation treatment for any couple of child-bearing age, (b) will purchase in-vitro fertilisation treatment for a restricted group of couples and (c) will not purchase in-vitro fertilisation treatment for any couple.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of each individual health authority to determine its provision of infertility treatment. Information on which health authorities provide in-vitro fertilisation treatment is not available centrally. Available information on waiting times for infertility treatment is given in "Hospital Episode Statistics, Volume 2", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives she proposes to reduce waiting lists for infertility treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are committed to reducing all waiting times, including that for infertility treatment. Patients charter guarantees limit the time people have to wait for hospital treatment. District health authorities are encouraged to improve upon these guarantees.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances there are per head of population in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England and (e) the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville:
  It is for individual ambulance services to determine the number of ambulances which meet the requirements. Total numbers of vehicles in England and Wales are not available centrally.

  I understand that Scotland has 92 accident and emergency ambulances per million population and that Northern Ireland has 80 accident and emergency ambulances per million population.

  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints she has received in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 from patients and organisations representing patients at Walsgrave hospital, Coventry; and what assessment she has made of the working of the patients charter there.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received a number of letters about the Walsgrave hospitals national health service trust in Coventry. These have been referred to Mr. David Loughton, chief executive of the trust. Meeting the requirements of the patients charter is the responsibility of the trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Robert Jordan, chairman of the Walsgrave hospitals NHS trust, for details.

  Hospital Trusts (Complaints)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to reduce the number of complaints received by hospital trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts should be seeking constantly to raise the standards of care provided to meet the aspirations of health care purchasers and individual patients. They should give patients every opportunity to make comments and suggestions or put 414
  forward complaints on their services. Patients' complaints can and should be used for enhancing the quality of the health services provided.

  Patients Charter, West Midlands
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement as to how the patients charter is working in(a) hospitals in the west midlands and (b) the health service in the west midlands;

  (2) what benefit to patients the patients charter has given in the west midlands.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The patients charter has brought benefits to national health service patients in all areas, including the west midlands, by informing patients of their rights and the standards of service they can expect to receive. It is an important step forward in ensuring the delivery of quality services to patients.

  Vaccination Targets
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentive payments general practitioners receive under their contracts for meeting vaccination programme targets; how the payments are related to the number of vaccines administered; and what limit exists on the number of vaccinations for which payments are made.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Two incentive payments are available to general practitioners for meeting immunisation targets. The first is for achieving either higher or lower targets for immunising children aged two against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, and, from 1 July this year, Hib meningitis. The second is for booster immunisations in children aged five against diphtheria, tetanus and polio. Details of the payment mechanisms are contained in the "Statement of Fees and Allowances", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of out-of-court settlements for medical negligence claims involving national health service bodies in each year since 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 10 May,Official Report, columns 484–86, if she will itemise which national health service bodies have been involved in medical negligence claims, and for what amount;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 14 March, Official Report, column 537–38, if she will itemise which national health service bodies have been involved in medical negligence claims; and for what amount.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information supplied to the Department by national health service bodies is provided voluntarily in confidence on the basis that it will be collated to show regional and national trends.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish an updated list of the chairmen and non-executive members of regional health authorities.
  415
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 25 April at column 68. Mr. P. Wright has since filled the vacancy on the board of the North West regional health authority.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of remuneration paid to chairmen and members of(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) national health service trusts and (d) family health service authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 5 May 1993 at column 91.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will show for each NHS trust into which band the trust falls for the purpose of evaluating the chairman and non-executive members' salaries.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of each trust to pay its chairman in line with the appropriate band for that trust, which is based on the unit's turnover in 1988–89. Information on the band applicable to individual trusts is not available centrally. The annual rate of remuneration for all non-executive directors of national health service trusts is currently £5,000.

  NHS (Private Accommodation)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private pay(a) bed units and (b) wings there were within the national health service in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are local matters about which the Department does not collect information.

  Medical Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to penalise medical consultants for inadequate performance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for employing authorities.

  Surgical Interventions (Quality)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of all surgical interventions are provided by unsupervised junior hospital doctors; what evidence she has as to whether the quality of this care is good; and what evidence she has as to monitoring of these practices and the provision of quality control by non-clinical managers.

  Mr. Sackville
  Detailed operational issues are the responsibility of health authorities and national health service trusts. Information on which staff undertake surgical interventions is not available centrally.

  Hospital consultants are responsible for ensuring that junior doctors do not undertake any surgical intervention which is beyond their competence and for providing adequate supervision. The report of the 1991–92 national
  416
  confidential enquiry into perioperative deaths—NCEPOD—published in 1993, commented that in some specialties, basic specialist trainees should not be left to work alone without suitable supervision and direction. NCEPOD has recommended that consultants and hospital managers at local level should work together to achieve this. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Health authorities are now responsible for funding clinical audit through contracts, and non-clinical managers are therefore involved in deciding the agenda of topics for clinical audit.

  NHS Chief Executives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what deficiencies she has identified in career training for chief executives in the NHS; and what plans she has to remedy them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is a wide range of training and development programmes for chief executives and other senior managers in the national health service, much of it carried out at local level to meet the specific requirements of individual managers and the changing needs of the service. The national health service executive works with managers of professional and educational bodies to ensure that chief executives are able to meet the demanding standards expected of them.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by London health district, the total number of acute beds for each of the past five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information will be placed in the Library. Figures for some district health authorities may not be comparable over the period because of boundary changes.

  During the period 1988–89 to 1992–93 there was a 4.49 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients treated.

  Local Pay Agreements
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects all trusts to be operating local pay agreements.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 provided for all trusts to employ staff on such terms as they think fit. The chief executive of the NHS executive wrote on 6 June to the chief executives of all trusts asking for local action plans to be established by October 1994 for local pay machinery to be in place by February 1995.

  Matrons
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to re-introduce the post of matron into all NHS hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The exact titles and responsibilities of senior nurses are for local decision. The title matron may be used if appropriate. Every national health service trust is required to have a senior nurse as an executive director.

  General Practice Manpower
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the trend in entry into general practice in the last three years; and what assessment she has made as to the adequacy of entry to compensate for loss.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Over the past three years there have been approximately 1,400 new entrants to general practice per year in England and Wales. This has been sufficient to ensure a continuing increase in overall numbers of general practitioners.

  Distinction Awards (Consultants)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report on consultants' distinction awards will be published.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are considering the report of the working party on the review of the consultants' distinction awards scheme, and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Lynfield Mount Hospital
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will appoint an independent inquiry into how a patient admitted to the secure unit located at Lynfield Mount hospital in Bradford escaped from the hospital grounds on 21 June; what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the security arrangements at the secure unit and in the hospital; and what her policy is in respect of the location of secure units in residential areas.

  Mr. Bowis
  Bradford community health national health service trust has instigated a full investigation into this matter.

  Hospitals are responsible for ensuring that security of pyschiatric patients is maintained at a level consistent with the risk that they may present to themselves or to other people. The siting of national health service facilities has, since April 1991, been subject to the normal requirements of town and country planning legislation.

  Table 1

  General Dental Services, adult and child patients deregistered, the number of dentists deregistering patients from week ending 3 July 1992 to 1 April 1994 and the number of additions to dentists' registers1 during July 1992 to March 1994, by region.

  England

  Region

  Number of patients deregistered

  Number of1 additions to dentists' registers

  Dentists deregistering 2adults

  Dentists deregistering 2children

  England

  659,134

  21,119,080

  2,392

  246

  Northern

  20,038

  1,486,949

  52

  14

  Yorkshire

  34,368

  1,661,152

  220

  27

  Trent

  40,485

  1,976,989

  159

  19

  East Anglia

  41,987

  861,961

  113

  9

  North West Thames

  17,324

  1,692,096

  103

  6

  North East Thames

  23,342

  1,875,752

  121

  16

  South East Thames

  88,521

  1,670,670

  280

  18

  South West Thames

  68,196

  1,275,543

  143

  1

  Wessex

  63,590

  1,152,992

  123

  1

  Oxford

  75,831

  1,045,617

  252

  4

  South Western

  115,719

  1,426,337

  333

  33

  West Midlands

  29,168

  2,028,579

  121

  13

  Mersey

  8,665

  1,123,464

  107

  6

  North Western

  31,900

  1,840,979

  265

  79

  Source: Department of Health

  1Includes transfers of patients from one dentist to another and inclusions on a dentist's list of a former patient whose registration had lapsed.

  2Some dentists will have deregistered adults and child patients and will appear in both columns.

  Practice Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific evidence she has as to the cost-effectiveness of the increase in practice nurses in primary care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are satisfied that the effect of the increase in practice nurses is evident in benefits to patients, for example, through support of general practitioners in the provision of the following services;immunisation—over 90 per cent. of GPs have achieved top rates;
  97 per cent. of GPs have reached cervical cytology targets; over 90 per cent. of GPs have reached band three of health promotion, while almost 90 per cent. of GPs have been approved to run chronic disease management programmes for the treatment of asthma and diabetes;
  a survey conducted by MORI in 1991 found that almost four out of five elderly patients, over 75 years of age, who were offered a health check took advantage of it while nine out of ten of those patients who had the health check found it to be useful.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were eligible for free dental service during pregnancy and one year after the birth of the child in each of the past three financial years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been deregistered by their dentists in each regional health authority since 1 July 1992; and how many dentists in each of the RHA areas have been involved in deregistrations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 June 1994]: The information is shown in the tables. Over a similar period total patient registrations rose by 1,049,178 or 3·8 per cent.
  419

  Table 2

  General Dental Services, adult and child patients deregistered, the number of dentists deregistering patients from week ending 8 July 1994 to 10 June 1994 and the number of additions to dentists' registers1 during April 1994, by region.

  England

  Region

  Number deregistered

  Number of1 additions to dentists' registers

  Dentists deregistering2adults

  Dentists deregistering2children

  England

  28,631

  1,100,653

  85

  12

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,295

  164,009

  8

  0

  Trent

  2,916

  90,373

  3

  1

  South Thames

  5,109

  154,977

  25

  4

  North Thames

  937

  164,422

  9

  0

  West Midlands

  2,360

  95,421

  4

  0

  North West

  1,844

  177,826

  17

  6

  East Anglian and Oxford

  5,328

  98,982

  4

  0

  South West

  6,842

  154,643

  15

  1

  Source: Dental Practice Board

  1Includes transfers of patients from one dentist to another and inclusions on a dentist's list of a former patient whose registration had lapsed.

  2Some dentists will have deregistered adults and child patients and will appear in both columns.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what contingency plans he has formulated for co-ordination and liaison between Governments and international agencies responsible for supervising broadcasting standards and broadcasting regulation compliance with specific reference to sexually violent and explicit material should the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis proceed with his plans to disband the obscene publications branch of the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that no proposals about the future of the branch have been made, but the Metropolitan police have given assurances that the work of the branch, as it relates to broadcast material, will continue.

  Audio-description Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has made to broadcasting authorities concerning the availability of audio-description services on television for blind and partially sighted people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. But I know that a consortium of the Independent Television Commission, the BBC, the ITV Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, together with a range of industrial and academic partners, are developing the Audetel project. This project aims to provide an audio-description commentary on television to help those who are blind or partially sighted to understand the programme. I understand that the BBC and ITV hope to begin experimental transmissions in July.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research has been undertaken by his Department into the use of audio-described television for blind and/or partially sighted people in the United States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Audio-description services for television were introduced in the United States in 1990. It is for the partners in the Audetel project to consider how far American experience is helpful in developing audio-descriptive services in the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Prevention
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is given by his Department in conjunction with the Department of the Environment to local authorities regarding crime prevention through planning and design.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In February the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in consultation with the Home Office issued a circular on "Planning Out Crime" which gave detailed guidance to local authorities and others about planning considerations relating to crime prevention. Specialist advice on designing out crime is also provided to local authorities and others by police architectural liaison officers.

  Birds of Prey (Thefts)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been for stealing(a) captive and (b) wild birds of prey in each year since 1990 and each month during 1994.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of offenders convicted under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 from 1990 to 1992 for offences related to birds are given in the table. Information is not collected centrally as to the species involved.

  Number of offenders convicted under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 of offences related to birds England and Wales

  Offence description

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  Protection of wild birds (Section 1)

  24

  33

  33

  Protection of nests and eggs of wild birds (Section 1)

  2

  12

  7

  Illegal entry into bird sanctuaries (Section 3)

  —

  2

  —

  Protection of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3)

  —

  1

  —

  Protection of the nests and eggs of wild birds in sanctuaries (Section 3)

  —

  —

  —

  421

  Offence description

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds (Section 5)

  9

  6

  5

  Protection of captive birds (Section 8)

  7

  —

  4

  Police (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police functions he intends shall be subject to measurement in order to provide a basis for performance-related pay for chief constables and other senior officers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle:
  This matter is under discussion with the relevant interests.

  Mr. Michael:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the possible incentives he is considering as the rewards in a system of performance-related pay for chief constables and other senior police officers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 20 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, (Mr. Shersby),Official Report, column 9.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will restore the practice of publishing quarterly detailed figures for recorded crime in England and Wales and in each police force area as soon as such figures can be compiled by his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to revert to quarterly publication of recorded crime statistics.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what sources of information he relies for an assessment of intensity or persistence of law-breaking with regard to the age and sex of offenders compared with the generality of the population; and if he will publish such of it as is not already published.

  Mr. Maclean
  The main source of official statistics on criminal careers is the offenders index, a database containing information on all serious convictions in England and Wales from 1963 to 1992. Studies carried out using the offenders index include cohort studies which enable estimates to be made of the percentage of the population with serious convictions at different ages and by sex. Periodically, the offenders index is supplemented with information on cautioning collected from police forces. Information on the offenders index and studies carried out using it is contained in "The Offender; Tale: Janus Studies", a copy of which is available in the Library. The results of cohort and other analyses based upon the offenders index are published regularly and will continue to be so.

  A detailed analysis carried out by the Home Office research and planning unit of criminal careers, including involvement in offending, frequency of offending and factors associated with persistance and desistance analysis, was published last year.
  "Analysing Offending: data, models and interpretations", by Roger Tarling, published by HMSO.

  Air Rifles
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to introduce measures to control the purchase of air rifles by mail order;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to introduce greater controls over the purchase and possession of air rifles by young people.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. There are already extensive restrictions on the purchase, possession and use of such weapons, particularly in relation to young people. In its second annual report, the Firearms Consultative Committee, the independent statutory body established to advise Government on the firearms legislation, concluded that the law as it stands is adequate to deal with current levels of misuse. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to introduce further controls.

  Immigration Act 1971
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals under the age of 18 years who are(a) asylum seekers and (b) others are currently detained under the powers of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended; and what is the age of each such person.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 23 June, there were 10 people detained under Immigration Act powers who were, or claimed to be, under the age of 18. A breakdown by age is in the table:

  Numbers

  Asylum Seekers

  15 years

  11

  16 years

  0

  17 years

  8

  Others

  17 years

  1

  1The detainee who claims to be 15 years old has been medically examined and is believed to be several years older.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to effect changes in the fire precautions and safety regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans at present to make changes in the fire precautions and safety regulations. However, there are proposals for changes in the report of the interdepartmental scrutiny of fire safety legislation and enforcement which was published on 22 June. A copy of that report has been placed in the Library of the House. The Government are committed to full consultation on the report's recommendations before considering whether changes should be made to the current legislative regime.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received concerning the effects on New Commonwealth children
  423
  learning English of reductions in section 11 funding; and how many such representations were (a) favourable and (b) unfavourable;

  (2) what changes he proposes to make to section 11 funding; and over what time scale.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received many representations from local authorities and associations, teacher unions, ethnic minority communities and other interested parties about reductions in section 11 funding which, it was announced in November 1992, would need to take effect in 1994–95 and 1995–96. Such representations have essentially been to express concern about implications of reductions for the education system. However, there has been widespread support among relevant organisations for the approach, which we have announced we are adopting from 1994–95, of paying grant in the form of an annual budget to each grant recipient, rather than as a fixed percentage of actual salary costs, in order to ensure maximum flexibility for grant recipients in using the substantial funding which remains available.

  In the future, funding to meet particular needs of ethnic minorities will be available from the section 11 programme, or through wider regeneration programmes under the single regeneration budget.

  Motor-propelled Boats
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has to protect tourists using the foreshores and beaches of Wales from nuisance caused by the use of motor-propelled boats; and if he will bring forward legislation to limit the use of such boats.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Secretary of State has no powers to control the use of power boats on the foreshores and beaches. Local authorities are able to make byelaws to control public bathing and to regulate the navigation of seaside pleasure boats to prevent danger to bathers, but this does not include a power to prohibit the use of particular types of craft. There are no immediate plans to introduce legislation to increase local authorities' powers in this area, but problems of competing demands on coastal areas were the subject of recent discussion papers published jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. Responses to these papers are currently under consideration.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry or residence as persons of independent means were refused in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on persons of independent means refused entry clearance, or admission, to the United Kingdom is not available. Twenty such persons were refused an extension of stay, and five were refused settlement, in 1993.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made over the past 12 months for persons to come to the United Kingdom or continue residence in the United Kingdom as persons of independent means on the basis of assets in excess of £500,000.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on persons of independent means applying for entry clearance, or 424
  admitted, to the United Kingdom is not available. One hundred and twenty such persons were granted an extension of stay, and 140 were granted settlement, in 1993. Such persons had assets of not less than £200,000, or income of not less than £20,000 a year. Separate information on persons with assets in excess of £500,000 is not available.

  Asylum Seekers (Detention Centres)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers held in detention of 13 June by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of detention, (d) place of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information available relates to people detained under Immigration Act powers on 22 June, who had applied for asylum at some stage. It is set out in the table:

  (a) Nationality

  Numbers

  Algeria

  57

  Angola

  12

  Azerbaizhan

  1

  Bangladesh

  8

  Bulgaria

  1

  Cameroon

  2

  China

  3

  Colombia

  6

  Cyprus

  7

  Djibouti

  1

  Egypt

  4

  Ethiopia

  4

  Ghana

  62

  India

  117

  Iran

  1

  Iraq

  3

  Israel

  2

  Ivory Coast

  12

  Jamaica

  1

  Kenya

  7

  Lebanon

  1

  Liberia

  8

  Libya

  2

  Morocco

  3

  Mozambique

  1

  Nationality doubtful

  5

  Nepalese

  2

  Niger

  5

  Nigeria

  99

  Pakistan

  13

  Peru

  1

  Poland

  5

  Romania

  10

  Russia

  2

  Sudan

  4

  Sierra Leone

  11

  Singapore

  1

  Slovakia

  9

  Somalia

  6

  South Africa

  4

  Sri Lanka

  25

  Tanzania

  2

  Thailand

  1

  Togo

  3

  Tunisia

  1

  Turkey

  36

  Uganda

  3

  Ukraine

  1

  Yugoslavia (former)

  3

  Zaire

  28

  TOTAL

  606

  425

  (B) By gender

  Number

  Males

  565

  Females

  41

  Total

  606

  (C) By length of detention

  Number

  Over 12 months

  18

  6–12 months

  101

  2–6 months

  318

  1–2 months

  68

  Under 1 month

  101

  Total

  606

  (D) By place of detention

  Number

  Immigration Service

  Campsfield House

  135

  Harmondsworth

  94

  Gatwick Beehive

  8

  Queens Building

  11

  Stansted

  7

  Port Detention

  7

  Newhaven

  6

  Prison Service

  Aberdeen

  1

  Belmarsh

  4

  Blakenhurst

  8

  Brinsford R C

  4

  Bristol

  4

  Bullingdon

  1

  Brixton

  3

  Canterbury

  31

  Cardiff

  1

  Chelmsford

  4

  Dover

  23

  Durham

  2

  Elmley

  1

  Erlestoke

  3

  Exeter

  5

  Feltham

  4

  Glen Parva

  1

  Gloucester

  1

  Greenock

  8

  Haslar 1

  93

  High Down

  11

  Holloway

  3

  Hull

  4

  Leeds

  4

  Lewes

  3

  Liverpool

  3

  Norwich

  5

  Pentonville

  18

  Reading

  1

  Risley

  1

  Rochester

  1

  Shrewsbury

  1

  Strangeways

  9

  Swaleside

  1

  Swansea

  1

  Wandsworth

  7

  Winchester

  8

  Winson Green

  38

  The Wolds

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  6

  Police Cells

  10

  TOTAL

  606

  1Haslar Holding Centre is primarily an Immigration Service Detention Centre, although managed by the Prison Service.

  426

  (E) By immigration status at the time of application

  Application made at Post following arrival in the United Kingdom

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  303

  258

  45

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and other immigration detainees were being held in police stations during each of the past three months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 22 June, 10 people who had at some stage claimed asylum were detained in police cells under Immigration Act powers. Historical information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police (Firearms)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were fully trained in the use of firearms in(a) 1983 and (b) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There were 13,020 authorised firearms officers in England and Wales on 31 December 1983, and 6,769 on 31 December 1993. The drop in numbers reflects decisions by chief officers of police to concentrate their firearms capacity in a smaller number of highly trained officers.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers sustained firearm injuries in the course of their duty in(a)1983 and (b)1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1985, the earliest year for which figures are readily available, 16 police officers were injured by firearms in the course of their duty in England and Wales, none fatally.

  In 1992, 11 police officers were injured, one, a special constable, receiving fatal injuries.

  Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Prison Births
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) of 10 May,Official Report, column 73, regarding babies born in prison, what were the circumstances in which one baby was born in prison in the year 1987–88 and two babies in 1988–89; at what prison the mothers were being detained; and if he will make a statement in respect of his Department's instructions about mothers giving birth in prison.

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

  Letter from Philippa Drew to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 June 1994:

  427
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the circumstances in which one baby was born in prison in the year 1987–88 and two babies in 1988–89; at what prison the mothers were being detained; and if he will make a statement in respect of his Department's instructions about mothers giving birth in prisons.
  The establishments where the mothers were being detained at the time of birth were:

  1987–88: HMP Styal

  1988–89: HMP Holloway

  1988–89: HM Remand Centre Risley

  In each case the babies were born in prison establishments because the progress of labour was too fast to allow the mother to be taken to hospital in time. It is the usual practice for mothers to be delivered at a designated local hospital. On the rare occasions that the birth takes place in a prison establishment, the birth certificate does not show that the birth took place in prison. It instead indicates the area in which the establishment is located.

  Police Officers (Abuse of Authority)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were charged with abuse of their authority in(a) 1983 and (b) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Figures are not collected centrally on the categories of disciplinary charges leading to disciplinary proceedings.

  Substantiated complaints from members of the public of oppressive behaviour by police officers numbered 207 in 1993: assault—94; oppressive conduct or harassment—41; unlawful or unnecessary arrest or detention—72. Equivalent figures are not available for 1983.

  Firearms
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of firearms circulating illegally in Britain; and what assessment he has made of whether the number is increasing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have made no such estimate. The Government take the illegal possession of firearms very seriously, but I am aware of no hard evidence which would indicate that it is increasing.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have had their firearms certificate withdrawn for misuse in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available centrally.

  Police Injuries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work days were lost by police officers who sustained injuries in the course of their duty in(a) 1983 and (b) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the number of injuries is not held centrally. In 1990, the earliest year for which complete figures are readily available, a total of 53,626 days' sick absence resulted from assaults on police officers in England and Wales. In 1992 the equivalent figure was 47,023. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were serving a life sentence and were released from prison after serving less than 10, 15 or 20 years, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Time served under sentence1

  Year of release

  Less than 10 years

  10 less than 15 years

  15 less than 20 years

  1983

  49

  44

  7

  1984

  39

  18

  7

  1985

  23

  32

  5

  1986

  19

  19

  6

  1987

  15

  24

  8

  1988

  31

  31

  3

  1989

  20

  42

  10

  1990

  14

  41

  16

  1991

  21

  35

  9

  1992

  20

  44

  18

  1993 2

  15

  29

  24

  1Other than those released on compassionate grounds.

  2Figures for 1993 are provisional.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the future role of the fire service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans at present to change the role of the fire service as laid down in the Fire Services Act 1947, as amended.

  The role of the fire service and other bodies responsible for enforcing fire safety legislation is currently being considered in the light of the report of the interdepartmental scrutiny of fire safety legislation which was published on 22 June. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. The Government are committed to full consultation on the report's recommendations before considering whether changes should be made to current legislative and enforcement regimes.

TRANSPORT

  Roadworthiness Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) of 21 March,Official Report, columns 105–7, how many spot checks on the roadworthiness of vehicles were carried out in the year 1993–94; what was the number of traffic enforcement spot checks carried out in the same year; and how many spot checks are planned by the Vehicle Inspectorate for the current financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The following is the information:

  Roadworthiness Inspections

  1993–94

  PSV spot checks

  124,521

  HGV spot checks

  2120,335

  LGV spot checks

  320,035

  Taxis and Non-testable vehicles

  1,558

  429
  1Excludes 5,165 special checks on emissions.

  2Excludes 3,342 special checks on lighting and 10,589 on emissions.

  3Excludes 33,103 special emission checks on cars and light goods vehicles.

  Note:

  In 1993–94 the Inspectorate was not asked by Departmental customers to conduct full roadworthiness spot checks on cars.

  1994–95 (planned)

  PSV spot checks

  124,442

  HGV spot checks

  2120,413

  LGV spot checks

  318,960

  Taxis and Non-testable vehicles

  1,303

  1Excludes 4,869 special checks on emissions.

  2Excludes 3,372 special checks on lighting and 9,129 on emissions.

  3Excludes 33,807 special emission checks on cars and light goods vehicles.

  Traffic Enforcement Inspections

  Type of vehicle

  1993–94

  1994–95 (Planned)

  Heavy Goods

  240,379

  306,000

  Public Service

  34,574

  34,000

  Light Goods

  19,230

  13,157

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the result of the cost benefit analysis calculations for(a) the Swainswick and Batheaston bypass on its own and (b) the Swainswick and Batheaston bypass together with the road schemes connected to its northern and its eastern end;

  (2) if he will list the financial years in which funds have been allocated for the road schemes connecting with (a) the northern end and (b) the eastern end of the Swainswick and Batheaston bypass.

  Mr. Key
  These questions are operational matters for the Highways Agency. The chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 27 June 1994:
  I am writing in response to your two recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Transport about trunk road schemes near Bath. These are matters for which the Highways Agency is now responsible.
  The results of the cost benefit analyses for these schemes are as follows:

  (a) A4/A46 Batheaston/Swainswick bypass

  Net present value (low growth)

  £3·2 million

  Net present value (high growth)

  £17·7 million

  Benefit:Cost ratio

  1·32:1

  (b) A46 Upper Swainswick—M4 Tormarton improvements

  Net present value (low growth)

  £13·1 million

  Net present value (high growth

  £42·2 million

  Benefit:Cost ratio

  2·78 :1

  (c) A36 Beckington—East of Bath improvement

  Net present value (low growth)

  £4·3 million

  Net present value (high growth)

  £42·2 million

  Benefit:Cost ratio

  1·60: 1

  The results are dependent on future economic growth and figures are given separately for low and high growth, which are equally likely scenarios. The benefit to cost ratio is an average which is a useful indicator of returns from investments.430 Calculations have not been carried out for all the schemes together. There could be additional benefits with the completion of all three schemes, but each is justified in its own right in any event.We are at a comparatively early stage in the development of the A46 Upper Swainswick—M4 Tormarton Improvements and the A36 Beckington—East of Bath Improvement. They are still subject to the successful completion of statutory procedures. Apart from the costs of preparation, funds have not been allocated at this stage. The claims of these schemes on our limited rsources will be assessed against other competing demands at the relevant time.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what formula officials within his Department adopt to determine whether a scheme qualifies for transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Key
  No set formula is adopted. Criteria for eligibility for transport supplementary grant—TSG—are set out annually in a local authority circular on transport policies and programmes—TPP—submissions. The most recent circular, for 1995–97, is local authority circular 2/94, published on 25 May 1994. My right hon. Friend and I consider bids for TSG on their merits against the criteria and competing bids, within the resources available.

  Newly Qualified Drivers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many traffic accidents involving newly qualified drivers were reported in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Information about the number of traffic accidents involving newly qualified drivers is not available. However, a high proportion of newly qualified drivers who have recently passed their test are under 22 years of age. The following table shows the number of accident involved car drivers who were under 22 years of age, since 1990.

  Number of car drivers (under 22 years of age) involved in injury road accidents Great Britain 1990–93

  Drivers

  1990

  56,561

  1991

  51,017

  1992

  48,687

  1993

  43,823

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the terms of reference and scope of the feasibility study being undertaken into the upgrading of the west coast main line by Railtrack and West Coast Main Line Development Company Ltd.

  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack and WCML Development Co. Ltd. have published a summary of the terms of reference and scope of the study in a document entitled "The West Coast Main Line, Progress on the Feasibility Study". I have placed copies in the Library.

  Disabled People (Road-crossing Facilities)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by local authorities with provision of road-crossing facilities for(a) the visually disabled and (b) other disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of Transport has worked closely with local authorities since 1986 to give guidance on the use of dropped kerbs at road crossings to help wheelchair users in conjunction with tactile surfaces to provide guidance and warning to visually impaired pedestrians. The Department's guidance in this area is very widely followed by local authorities all over the country.

  In addition to tactile surfaces, audible signals at ordinary pelican crossings have been in use for some 25 years. More recently, the "Bleep and Sweep" audible unit has been developed by the Department for use at staggered pelican crossings. This provides a directional sound which overcomes the danger of confusion to visually impaired pedestrians. A tactile cone has also been introduced which provides guidance to pedestrians who are both deaf and blind. Most recently, puffin crossings have been introduced on a trial basis by the Department. These have the major advantage for elderly and disabled pedestrians that the amount of crossing time can be extended to accommodate the needs of those who move more slowly.

  Local authorities are being encouraged to include these facilities in both new designs and modifications.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to visit Paisley Gilmour Street railway station to evaluate its accessibility to disabled and infirm people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 22 June at column 245.

  Road Accidents
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities occurred in accidents involving(a) light goods vehicles and (b) cars over the last five years.

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

  Fatalities in accidents involving LGVs and cars: GB 1988 to 1993

  Casualties

  Year

  Accidents involving an LGV

  Accidents involving a car

  1988

  563

  3,967

  1989

  588

  4,300

  1990

  550

  4,183

  1991

  501

  3,704

  1992

  415

  3,466

  1993

  370

  3,069

EDUCATION

  Bullying
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will produce a children's charter advising children on their rights generally and on the matter of bullying in particular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to produce such a charter. The Department has, however, already published a leaflet of guidance for children setting out what they should do if they are bullied.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what decisions his Department has taken in respect of TECs in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on his Department's other involvement with TECs over the same period.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Employment Department takes the lead on the majority of decisions concerning TECs. This Department has been strengthening its relationships with TECs, for example, through a series of regional seminars this year hosted by DFE Ministers and senior officials at which issues of mutual concern and interest have been discussed.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many former students with student loans are not currently making repayments as their earned income has failed to reach 85 per cent. of average incomes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children of New Commonwealth origin he estimates will be taught English with resources obtained from the single regeneration budget; and what total amount of section 11 funding is being transferred into the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is not readily available for the current year in the form requested in the first part of the question. The bidding round for the single regeneration budget for 1995–96 does not close until September this year. It will be up to local bidding partnerships to decide what priority to give to the needs of ethnic minority children and to bid accordingly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has transferred, for incorporation into the single regeneration budget, the following financial year amounts from his Department's section 11 provision:

  £ million

  1994–95

  60·5

  1995–96

  53·0

  1996–97

  53·0

WALES

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of coronary heart disease in Wales; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 9,198 deaths in Wales from coronary heart disease representing 3· per 1,000 population. In 1983, the figure was 9,880, representing 3·5 deaths per 1,000 population.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had on the future of the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have consulted widely on the review and we are carefully considering the responses received. My right hon. Friend will announce his conclusions before the summer recess.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of unremunerated hours worked by district nurses in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Government
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on decentralisation schemes for local government in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the debates in the House at Report stage of the Local Government (Wales) Bill on 15 and 16 June. I will, issue guidance under clause 27 of the Bill in due course.

  Welsh Language Act
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the implementation of the Welsh Language Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Good progress is being made. Most importantly, the Welsh Language Board is preparing statutory guidelines for Welsh language schemes about which it will consult later this year and which my right hon. Friend will put before the House thereafter.

  Port Talbot Hospital
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Port Talbot hospital.
  434
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  West Glamorgan health authority is proposing to close this hospital and to move on to improved arrangements for health care, including a new modern hospital at Baglan.

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Welsh housing stock is constructed or adapted to meet the needs of physically disabled people at the latest date for which information is available; if he will break this information down into categories of housing tenure; what plans he has to enhance the availability of such housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the 1994 housing strategies and operational plans round, local authorities reported 2,678 local authority and 1,511 registered housing association properties as meeting the particular requirements of disabled people. These figures represent 1·27 per cent. of total local authority stock—as at 1 April 1994—and 3·62 per cent. of total registered housing association stock—as at 31 May 1994—respectively. Figures are not available for the private sector. Disabled facilities grants, local authority expenditure on aids and adaptations and the special needs policy of Housing for Wales are the main vehicles for ensuring an adequate supply of adapted housing.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total funding unaccounted for, or misused by, non-departmental public bodies in Wales during the year 1993–94; if he intends refunding such money to local authorities or relevant bodies which have suffered difficulties because of this mismanagement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The accounts for non-departmental public bodies for 1993–94 are currently being audited and will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand, (b) KPMG Peat Marwick, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) Price Waterhouse, (e) Arthur Andersen, w Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster for (i) privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) other services in (1) 1980 to 1983, (2) 1984 to 1987, (3) 1988 to 1991 and (4) 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is available only from 1988–89. Over this period the Welsh Office has awarded contracts to five of the firms mentioned for consultancy work, including market testing. Information on the number of contracts awarded is as follows:
  435

  1988–89 to 1991–92

  1992–93

  Market testing

  Consultancy

  Market testing

  Consultancy

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1

  9

  1

  5

  KPMG Peat-Marwick

  —

  5

  —

  5

  Ernst and Young

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse

  —

  3

  1

  —

  Touche Ross

  —

  13

  1

  5

  Details of expenditure with individual firms cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Medical Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what statutory basis he withheld the names of those medical consultants in Wales who currently hold merit awards.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The names of individual award holders have always been regarded as confidential on the ground that the earnings of individual members of staff are a matter between the employee and his or her employer. Publication of the names of award holders might also lead individual patients to judge the quality of the treatment afforded on the basis of the level of award held.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to remove the confidential nature relating to the names of those medical consultants in Wales who currently hold merit awards.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The working party to review the consultant's distinction awards scheme set up by the Minister for Health in November 1993 was asked to consider as part of its deliberations whether the names of award holders should in future be published. The report of the working party is currently being considered, and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Infertility, Gwent
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what provision is made for infertility investigation in Gwent;

  (2) what is the provision for infertility treatment in Gwent.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The provision for infertility investigation and treatment is a matter for Gwent health authority which will take into account need, competing demands and available resources.

  Exports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of Britain's manufacturing industry exports originated in Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Export statistics are collected on a United Kingdom basis by HM Customs and Excise at the point at which goods leave the country. It is not currently possible to routinely separate out figures for exports which originate from Wales.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales where is the highest recorded increase in the published extra-contractual raferrals tarrif between the 436
  tariff in 1993–94 and the tariff in 1994–95 and in the specialties of (a) ENT, (b) general surgery, (c) ophthalmology, (d) orthopaedics and (e) general medicine.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The highest average increase for general surgery is at Wrexham Maelor hospital NHS trust; for general medicine it is at Llandough hospital NHS trust and for ENT, ophthalmology and orthopaedics it is at Carmarthen and District NHS trust.

  These increases need to be interpreted with care as hospitals are refining both the classification of services and the way costs are allocated to them.

  Boat Accidents
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accidents involving motor-propelled craft and speed boats were reported off the coast of Wales during each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Commercial Property
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the commercial property market in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  During the past 18 months, my Department has received about a dozen representations, on four main areas—rent reviews, confidentiality clauses in leases, dispute procedures and unfair leases.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated income of the national insurance fund for 1993–94, in total, from each class of contribution, from the Treasury and from other sources; and what was the estimated expenditure of the fund for each benefit, administration and other outgoings.

  Mr. Hague
  The figures shown in the table are both provisional and estimated. The actual figures for 1993–94 will not be known until the autumn as full details of income and expenditure will not be available until then. The figures will also be subject to scrutiny by National Audit Office.

  Income of the National Insurance Fund:

  £ million

  Contributions

  Class 1: Employees

  12,224

  Employers

  19,576

  31,800

  437

  Class 1A

  430

  Class 2

  464

  Class 3

  43

  Class 4

  560

  33,297

  LESS:

  Recovery of SSP

  -679

  Recovery of SMP

  -434

  Total Contributions

  32,184

  State scheme premiums

  137

  Investment income

  500

  Payment from Consolidated Fund

  1,094

  Exchequer grant

  7,589

  Total Income

  41,504

  Expenditure of the National Insurance Fund:

  Retirement Pension

  28,169

  Widows Benefit

  1,046

  Sickness Benefit

  292

  Invalidity Benefit

  7,033

  Unemployment Benefit

  1,618

  Xmas Bonus

  116

  Guardian's Allowance and Childs Special Allowance

  1·5

  Maternity Allowance

  33·5

  Total Benefit Expenditure

  38,309

  Administration

  1,554

  Other Outgoings

  354

  Total Expenditure

  40,217

  Excess of income over outgo

  1,287

  Opening Balance 1 April 1993

  3,436

  Estimated Balance in Fund at the end of year

  4,723

  Note: The above figures are comprised of estimates from the Government Actuary Department for contribution income, the latest departmental view, based on the June in-year monitoring report of benefit expenditure and actual figures from the Department's accounting system. National Audit Office has yet to audit the figures which will be in the draft annual account and due to be presented to the Department's accounting officer in October 1994.

  Income Support
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify the annual income entitlement, supplementary benefit or income support, excluding housing benefit for(a) a single unemployed person aged 24 years and (b) a man and a woman both aged 34 years with two children aged 12 and 11 years, for each year since 1979, at April 1994 prices on the Rossi index.

  Mr. Burt
  The figures requested are in the attached table.

  Part of our policy in replacing supplementary benefit was to target benefit on those groups most in need, and we succeeded. Since 1988 we have given extra help, over and above normal upratings, to families with children. The income support rates for single people aged 18 to 24 take account of the fact that the vast majority live as members of someone else's household.
  438

  A Financial year

  B Single unemployed 24 year old

  C 34 year old couple with children aged 11 and 12

  1979–80

  1,974·53

  4,868·14

  1980–81

  2,012·82

  5,124·23

  1981–82

  2,064·88

  5,467·05

  1982–83

  2,118·34

  5,606·61

  1983–84

  2,182·33

  5,773·89

  1984–85

  2,185·28

  5,782·62

  1985–86

  2,188·14

  5,790·91

  1986–87

  2,208·75

  5,852·50

  1987–88

  2,185·95

  5,792·06

  1988–89

  1,790·41

  6,171·93

  1989–90

  1,785·39

  6,255·39

  1990–91

  1,750·05

  6,164·66

  1991–92

  1,764·48

  6,205·64

  1992–93

  1,829·63

  6,463·59

  1993–94

  1,838·64

  6,495·98

  Notes:

  Column B—shows for 1979 to 1988 the annual supplementary benefit entitlement, at 1994 prices, for a single householder. From April 1988 the figures are the annual entitlement to income support, at 1994 prices, for a single unemployed person aged 18–24. No additions which might have been payable within supplementary benefit or income support premiums for special needs have been included.

  Column C—shows for 1979–88 the annual supplementary benefit entitlement, at 1994 prices, for a couple (aged 18 or over) with two children aged 11 and 12. From April 1988 the figures are the annual income support entitlement, at 1994 prices, for the same family composition. No additions which might have been payable within supplementary benefit have been included. The income support figures included the family premium which is paid automatically.

  The Rossi index (ie the retail prices index less housing costs) has been used to revalue at 1994 prices because there is no housing element in the entitlement shown.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were claiming income support in Scotland, Wales and for each of the standard English regions for the most recent date for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the total number of partners and dependants of those income support recipients in each area.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Number of Claimants 000s

  Number of Partners 000s

  Number of Dependents 000s

  North East

  839

  153

  464

  North West

  812

  127

  455

  Midlands

  912

  178

  530

  London North

  1,018

  189

  595

  London South

  915

  155

  511

  South West

  411

  77

  210

  Wales

  312

  55

  174

  Scotland

  553

  79

  268

  Total

  5,771

  1,013

  3,207

  Notes:

  1. Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry August 1993

  2. Figures are for DSS administrative Regions.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the present policy of the Contributions Agency towards the allocation of national insurance numbers to people seeking work.
  439
  Mr. Hague
  The Department's long-standing policy has been to allocate national insurance numbers, in accordance with regulation 44 of the Contributions Regulations 1979, to applicants who may be liable to pay NI contributions. This includes the employed, the self-employed, those who wish to pay voluntary contributions and those approaching the age of 16. The Department also uses the NI number as an administrative identifier within the social security benefit system and allocate NI numbers to people who claim certain benefits and who do not already have a number.

  The Department has recently been reviewing the policy and procedures for allocating NI numbers to those who are seeking work. As a result, the Contributions Agency will shortly be issuing new guidance to its local offices. This will specify that they can accept applications from people who can demonstrate satisfactorily that they are seeking employment. If, however, the applicant cannot demonstrate satisfactorily why he needs a NI number, the Department may consider refusing the application. The Department's refusal to allocate a number in such cases does not prevent the applicant re-applying when it is appropriate to do so. Nor does it prevent anyone taking up employment before he receives a NI number.

  Living Standards (Children)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has commissioned or undertaken in the past five years in specific relation to article 27(1) of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child on an adequate standard of living.

  Mr. Burt
  No research has been undertaken specifically as a result of article 27(1) of the convention. However, research is regularly conducted into the role of social security and its impact on those in low income households. A list of research projects sponsored by the Department is published in the "Social Security Research Yearbooks"—formally the "DHSS Handbook of Research and Development"—copies of which are in the Library.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the rate of deduction from income-related benefits for capital held by the claimant; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Burt
  The Department has received correspondence on this issue from a variety of sources. We have no current plans to change the formula applied for taking account of capital in excess of £3,000 when calculating entitlement to income-related benefits.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been made on behalf of vaccine-damaged children for the vaccine-damaged payment, who have been accepted as vaccine damaged but were turned down because their disability was less than 80 per cent.; and how many parents have applied but have been turned down because of the six year ruling.
  440
  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the vaccine damage payment scheme 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. Richard Burden, dated 24 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Vaccine Damage Scheme.
  The information is not available in the exact format requested. I have been able to provide information from the first date from which figures are available, June 1981.
  Since June 1981 there have been 853 claims made on behalf vaccine damaged children for the vaccine damaged payment. Of these, 8 have been accepted as vaccine damaged but were turned down because their disability was less than 80 per cent.
  I am not able to provide you with details of the number of parents who have applied but been turned down because of the six year rule. This is because records held do not classify "parents" separately. However, I can tell you that since June 1981, with regard to all claims, the number of claims disallowed because of the six year rule is 209.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of vaccine damage payments and the financial cost of compensation paid out to victims and their families for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table1

  Year

  £

  1987

  150,000

  1988

  80,000

  1989

  70,000

  1990

  10,000

  1991

  50,000

  1992

  360,000

  1993

  60,000

  Financial compensation is payable only when there has been a delay in dealing with the claim. Since 1987, approximately £25,000 has been paid in this way.

  Note: 1Figures are subject to amendment as further awards may be made on review or appeal.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many vaccine damage cases seeking compensation have been rejected and how many approved, breaking down the figures by category of damage for which the payments were made, in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table1.

  Years

  Awards

  Disallowances

  1988

  5

  38

  1989

  2

  53

  1990

  Nil

  40

  1991

  2

  41

  1992

  216

  36

  1993

  3

  46

  1Figures are subject to amendment as further awards may be made on review or appeal.

  2The increase in awards for 1992 was due to a combination of factors and includes a number of awards for claims made in earlier years, some consequent upon Vaccine Damage Tribunal findings.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the vaccine damage scheme for each year since 1987.
  441
  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available)in the form requested. The administrative costs of the vaccine damage payment unit are subsumed within those of a larger administrative unit at Fylde, Blackpool.

  Benefits
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the live load in each of the area directorates in Scotland, Wales and England for sickness benefit, invalidity benefit and income support, of 16 to 17-year-olds, for the most recent date for which figures are available.

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

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema paid in 1993–94; what is his estimate for 1994–95; and if he will break down the figures by social security districts.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. The estimated total annual benefit cost for the 12 months following prescription was £6 million. A similar cost, at 1993–94 prices, is estimated for the second and subsequent years.

  DEFENCE Landmines
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the incidents involving British troops who are serving with United Nation forces in Bosnia have been caused by landmines produced or supplied by United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Hanley
  None of which we are aware.

  Bases (Sales)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the bases his Department has(a) sold since 1991, (b) is currently attempting to sell and (c) intends to sell in whole or in part;

  (2) if he will list the purchasers and purchase price of the bases his Department has sold since 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  The bases that my Department, sold between 31 March 1991 and 1 June 1994 are:Base and Location

  OFD Brixham, Devon

  OFD Willand, Devon

  OFD Swanvale, Cornwall

  Hamoaze House, Plymouth

  Royal William Yard, Plymouth

  RAF Mount Batten, Plymouth

  Mount Wise West, Plymouth

  Old Infirmary, Plymouth

  Leavesden Airfield, Hertfordshire

  Stoughton Barracks, Guildford

  RNSM Risley, Cheshire

  Cove Radio Station, Hampshire

  Filton Airfield, Avon

  Former Wilmslow MU, Cheshire

  RNAD Milford Haven, Dyfed:

  1. Depot

  442

  2. Land and Building

  3. Land

  4. Farmland

  5. Farmland

  6. Houses

  Wood Farm Camp, Malvern

  Wood Top Mill, Burnley

  Former Western District HQ, Shrewsbury:

  1. Mess

  2. MT Depot

  3. HQ Houses

  4. Land Burniston Barracks, Scarborough

  RAF Chessington, Surrey

  HMS St. Vincent (Furze House), London

  Harefield House

  Former ARE Depot, Bapaume Road, Portsmouth

  Ex RN Repair Depot, Fareham

  Eastney Barracks, Portsmouth

  HMS Mercury, Petersfield

  Signals Training Centre,

  Former RAF Sopley, Hampshire

  Jellalabad Barracks, Taunton

  RAF Escrick, North Yorkshire

  OFD Invergordon:

  1. Depot

  2. Tomich Pumphouse

  Storage Depot, Lathalmond

  Primrose Camp, Rosyth, Fife

  USN Radio Station, West Murkle, Thurso Bay

  Radio Station, Inverkip, Strathclyde

  SEMO Gillingham, Kent

  RAF Ely, Cambridge

  Gibraltar Bat-racks, Northampton

  RAF Orfordness (Site included an area owned by FCO)

  USN Facilities, Holy Loch:

  1. Commissary, Queen Street, Dunoon

  2. Dolphin Hall, Queen Street, Dunoon

  3. Ardnadam Complex, Sandbank

  4. Families Service Centre

  5. Medical/Dental Centre

  6. Land at Sandbank

  7. Supply Depot and Pier

  8. Sailing Club

  9. Rankin Complex

  Inveraray Pier

  RAF Biggin Hill, Kent

  Aerial Site, Hawklaw, Fife

  RAF Greatworth, Northamptonshire:

  1. Land and Buildings

  2. Land

  3. Land (2 plots)

  4. Land

  5. Land

  RAF Northcoates, Lincolnshire

  The bases that my Department intends to dispose of and is currently marketing are:

  Base

  Location

  RNSD Broughton Moor

  Cumbria

  CVD Hilton

  Derbyshire

  RNAD Trecwn

  Dyfed

  OFD Sully

  South Glamorgan

  PE & E Cold Meece

  Stone, Staffordshire

  DRA Swynnerton

  Stone, Staffordshire

  Meteorological Office Aughton

  Nr Ormskirk, Lancashire

  ROC HQ Church Lawford

  Nr Rugby, Warwickshire

  RAF Jurby Head

  Isle of Man

  Former HMS Phoenix

  Portsmouth, Hampshire

  Old Park Barracks

  Dover

  OFD Radford Woods

  Plymouth

  Renncy Lentney Camp

  Plymouth

  HMS Royal Arthur

  Corsham, Wiltshire

  Priddy's Hard

  Gosport, Hampshire

  Peninsula Barracks

  Winchester, Hampshire

  DRA Christchurch

  Dorset

  RAF Bentwaters

  Nr Saxmundham, Suffolk

  DRA Bedford

  Bedford

  DRA Farnborough

  Hampshire

  443

  Base

  Location

  324 Engineering Park

  Lathalmond, Fife

  RAF Hendon (East Camp)

  Greater London

  RAF Greenham Common

  Newbury, Berkshire

  Beavers Lane Camp

  Hounslow, Greater London

  RNSD Lathalmond

  Dunfermline, Fife

  PTS Medmenham

  Medmenham, Buckinghamshire

  OSDD Ruddington

  Nottingham

  RAF Swinderby

  Nr Lincoln

  DRA Waltham Abbey

  Greater London

  Royal Arsenal East and West

  Woolwich, Greater London

  Winston Barracks

  Lanark

  Former USN Communications Station

  Forss, Caithness

  'St Lukes', Regimental HQ and Museum, Aberdeen

  Grampian

  Fairfield House, Aberdeen

  Grampian

  CSOS Hawklaw

  Cupar, Fife

  Meteorological Office Site

  Shanwell, Tayport

  RAF Chicksands

  Shefford, Bedfordshire

  RAF Bicester

  Oxon

  It is my Department's practice not to disclose details of purchasers or purchase prices on the ground of commercial confidentiality. The sale prices did, however, represent the market value at the time of the sale.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individuals or commercial enterprises which have expressed an interest in buying each base his Department is currently trying to sell.

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

  Royal Navy Armaments Depot, Trecwn
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date tenders were invited from estate agents and surveyors for the contract to market Royal Navy armaments depot, Trecwn.

  Mr. Hanley
  Invitations to tender for the contract to market RNAD Trecwn were sent to estate agents and surveyors on 28 January 1994.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which individuals or commercial enterprises plans, details or inventories of the facilities at Royal Navy armaments depot, Trecwn were supplied during 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  As far as can be ascertained, no details or inventories of the facilities at RNAD Trecwn were released to non-MOD bodies in 1992.

  Mr. Ainger:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which individuals or commercial enterprises (a) plans, (b) details and (c) inventories of the facilities of Royal Navy armaments depot, Trecwn have been supplied since July 1991.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of the facilities in RNAD Trecwn have been made widely available to individuals, commercial enterprises, statutory bodies and local authorities. Although comprehensive records have not been maintained of all those to whom information has been made available, my Department is aware of over 80 individuals or organisations to whom this material has been provided.
  444
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department announced its intention to sell Royal Navy armaments depot, Trecwn.

  Mr. Hanley
  Together with the other "Options For Change" rationalisation measures, an announcement to close RNAD Trecwn was made on 16 July 1991.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date expressions of interest in buying Royal Navy armaments depot, Trecwn were first invited.

  Mr. Hanky
  Formal expressions of interest in buying RNAD Trecwn were first invited in the form of a press release on 11 April 1994 arranged by the Department's agents.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date(a) plans, (b) details and (c) inventories at Royal Navy armaments depot, Trecwn were first made publicly available to promote the sale at the base.

  Mr. Hanley
  Plans, details and inventories at RNAD Trecwn were launched to promote the sale at the establishment with the publication of the sales particulars on 27 April 1994, but details were available prior to that date on request from the Defence land agent.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which individuals or commercial enterprises details, plans or inventories at Royal Naval armaments depot, Trecwn were supplied during February 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) undertook in February 1993 to send details of RNAD Trecwn and a site plan to Mr. R. Philipps and these were delivered to him by the Defence land agent in March of that year.

  Naval Forces (Co-operation)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining the number and dates of the meetings which have taken place over the past 12 months between representatives of his Department and representatives of the French Government on co-operation between the naval forces of the two nations; what was the nature of the subject matter covered in these discussions; and whether the operation of nuclear missile submarines was discussed.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department holds regular discussions with French and other European nations during which many aspects of co-operation and equipment collaboration may be discussed, including issues related to nuclear deterrence.

  Hazardous Waste
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 26 May,Official Report, column 232, what the national and international regulations governing the movement and destruction of hazardous waste lay down as the minimum technical requirements for the handling of this waste; and whether these requirements obtain in all the third-world countries to which hazardous and toxic waste is exported.
  445
  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Transfrontier shipments of waste into and ow: of the United Kingdom are now governed by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 259/93, on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. The regulation fulfils the EC's obligations under the Basel convention. Shipments of wastes covered by the regulation must comply with a wide range of international transport conventions, listed in annex 1 to the regulation, dealing with the safety of consignments in transit. Disposal facilities in Great Britain must operate in accordance with authorisations given under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and waste management licences issued by waste regulation authorities under part II of that Act. The regulation prohibits shipments of waste for disposal outside the European Community, other than to EFTA countries which are parties to the Basel convention.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what rules govern the acquiring of information by Ministers or Whips on issues outside their responsibility and not connected with constituency issues.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no formal rules on this matter beyond the obligation of all Ministers to preserve the privacy of Cabinet business and protect the security of Government documents.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what rules govern the passing of information with a commercial value gained by Ministers or Whips on to relatives.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Ministers are expected to act in such a way as to uphold the highest standards and protect the integrity of public life.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what trends there have been in unemployment rates for the past 12 months for(a) females and (b) males (i) on a national basis and (ii) regionally.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Claimant unemployment rates for both males and females fell in every standard region of the United Kingdom between May 1993 and May 1994.

  Males

  Females

  Number

  Rate per cent.

  Number

  Rate per cent.

  Burnley TTWA 1

  2,629

  10·7

  644

  3·2

  Lancashire

  39,326

  10·7

  10,813

  3·7

  North West

  230,525

  13·7

  63,481

  4·8

  England

  1,691,942

  12·6

  513,200

  5·0

  1Travel to work area.

  446
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest official figures for the numbers of unemployed in(a) Greater London and (b) the Streatham parliamentary constituency; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on claimant unemployment is available from June 1983 and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. All figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest official figures for the numbers of unfilled vacancies in(a) Greater London and (b) the Streatham parliamentary constituency; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Comparable information is available from September 1985, down to the level of jobcentre offices, and on the unadjusted basis only. It can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the people of the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire placed in work by the Employment Service in the last 12 months were in(a) full-time and (b) part-time, (i) temporary employment giving the period of time contracted for and (ii) permanent jobs; and what information he has on the proportion of these jobs which paid less than a half of the current average hourly rate.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the 12 months to May 1994, the latest available period, it is estimated that about 80 per cent. of all those placed into employment by the Employment Service in the Doncaster and the Mexborough jobcentre office areas were placed into permanent jobs, the rest in temporary jobs of up to six months in duration. It is also estimated that about 70 per cent. of vacancies filled in the four quarters to April 1994 were for the full-time jobs, the remainder were for part-time jobs. No information is available on the rates of pay that these jobs attracted.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures available for(a) males and (b) females; and what these figures are for (i) Burnley, (ii) Lancashire, (iii) the north West and (iv) England.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest unadjusted claimant unemployment numbers and rates relate to 12 May 1994 and are given in the table:

  Barnsley/Doncaster TEC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list what training opportunities for disabled persons there are at the Barnsley/Doncaster training and enterprise council.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The training programmes open to people with disabilities are training for work and youth training. Disabled people are exempt from eligibility rules for these programmes.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the age, sex and the number of persons currently undergoing training at the Barnsley/ Doncaster training and enterprise council; and what were the figures in each year since its inception.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of age groups are not collected and are therefore unavailable. Information by sex is shown in the table:

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Youth training starts

  1991–92 (actual—part-year only)

  465

  337

  802

  1992–93 (actual)

  3,183

  2,432

  5,615

  1993–94 (actual)

  2,781

  2,224

  5,005

  Adult training—training for work

  1991–92 (actual—part-time only)

  1,278

  577

  1,855

  1992–93 (actual)

  4,003

  1,591

  5,594

  1993–94 (actual)

  7,298

  2,647

  9,945

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled persons have been trained at the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC since its inception; and of these, how many received employment on completion.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since the training and enterprise council's inception a total of 559 people with disabilities have started training; of these, 271–48 per cent.—have secured employment.

  University Graduates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of(a) Welsh, (b) Scottish, (c) Northern Irish and (d) English graduates secured full-time employment within one year of graduation in (a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe:
  The table shows the percentage of first degree graduates who were in employment at the end of the calendar year in which they graduated, according to the location of their university. It is based on surveys published by the Universities' Statistical Record and excludes graduates from the former polytechnics and central institutions which received university status from 1992 onwards. Information is not available on the employment status of graduates one year after graduation, and on whether they are in full or part-time employment.

  Per cent.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Wales

  50·1

  39·9

  36·3

  40·8

  Scotland

  56·9

  48·7

  45·0

  45·3

  Northern Ireland

  52·8

  50·3

  45·4

  45·8

  England

  57·0

  50·6

  47·5

  49·4

  Trade Unionists
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of trade unionists in 1979, 1985, 1990 and 1993 as declared to the certification officer.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that the numbers collated from the annual returns to him for the following years were as follows:

  Numbers

  1979

  13,212,354

  1985

  10,818,949

  1990

  9,810,019

  The membership figures for 1993 will be collated from the annual returns submitted to the certification officer during 1994. These will be published in his annual report for 1994, which will be available in April—May 1995.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what decisions his Department have taken in respect of TECs in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on his Department's other involvement with TECs over the same period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Every year the Department agrees objectives and resources for Training and Enterprise Councils in training, enterprise and vocational education.

  Over the past 12 months, we have introduced new arrangements to measure TEC performance and secure continuous improvement. These are the publication of inter-TEC comparison tables and the development of a new longer-term contractual framework.

  We have also emphasised the role of TECs as key private sector partners for the full range of economic development and regeneration activities through publication of new strategic guidance from six Government Departments.

  National Union of Teachers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action the certification officer has taken to satisfy himself as to the accuracy of the annual returns from the National Union of Teachers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that in assessing the accuracy of the annual returns from any union, and in the absence of any complaint from a member, he relies on the report of the appropriately qualified auditor which must form part of the return.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the annual returns from the National Union of Teachers have been supplied on time each year since 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Section 32 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 requires that a trade union shall submit an annual return to the certification officer before 1 June in the calendar year
  449
  following that to which it relates. I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that of the nine returns submitted by the National Union of Teachers since 1985, three were submitted by 1 June, four within the month of June, and the remaining two in the month of July.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the numerical strength of the National Union of Teachers as agreed by the certification officer for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that the total number of members shown on the annual returns submitted to him by the National Union of Teachers for each year since 1985 were as follows:

  Number

  1985

  253,672

  1986

  229,601

  1987

  224,538

  1988

  216,614

  1989

  213,482

  1990

  218,194

  1991

  214,675

  1992

  213,656

  1993

  232,243

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he has made to notify former Skills Training Agency employees of the extension to the preferential reinstatement arrangements for staff employed by Astra Training Services Ltd.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The decision to extend the preferential reinstatement arrangements for staff employed by Astra Training Services was announced to Parliament on 17 January 1994,Official Report, column 427. Those staff employed by Astra Training Services who had already been in touch with the Department inquiring about prospects for reinstatement were informed personally of the extension. The departmental trade unions were notified formally on 25 January and their assistance sought to ensure that those affected were made aware of the announcement.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers and grades of former Skills Training Agency employees who have applied for preferential reinstatement to the Department of Employment since 1 January and the numbers and grades of those who have consequently been reinstated; and whether he will extend the arrangements for a further period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The preferential reinstatement terms gave former Astra staff the right to consideration for posts within reasonable travelling distance of their home. Applications for reinstatement have been handled locally and no central register maintained. The information requested is not readily available, but I will write to the hon. Member in due course. When the extension was agreed it was anticipated that only a very small number of former Skills Training Agency staff were likely to benefit from these arrangements. I do know that some have done 450
  so. Although the period of the extension has now expired, the Department will continue to seek to find posts under the preferential terms until the end of the year for those who applied before the expiry date.

  Job Finders' Grant
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evaluation he has done of the job finders' grant pilots being run in the east midlands and parts of the west midlands.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The job finders' grant pilots will be evaluated by an independent research company. A contract has been awarded for this study and work on the evaluation has begun.

  Building and Construction Industry
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the incidence of accidents in the building and construction industry(a) in the first week of a new site and (b) on established sites.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to distinguish between(a) and (b) because information reported to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 does not contain the length of time a site has operated. The table provides overall recent trends in incidence rates for the construction industry for both employees and self-employed workers.

  Incidence rates1 for employees and self-employed persons working within the construction industry2 as reported to all health and safety commission/executive enforcing authorities

  1990–91 3

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Fatal

  Employed

  9·3

  8·8

  8·0

  Self-employed

  3·9

  2·5

  4·0

  Major injury

  Employed

  281·5

  272·4

  239·3

  Self-employed

  129·7

  112·5

  105·7

  Over three-day

  Employed

  1,616·2

  1,588·7

  1,328·8

  Self-employed

  216·4

  190·0

  199·5

  All reported

  Employed

  1,907·0

  1,869·8

  1,576·1

  Self-employed

  350·0

  304·9

  309·3

  1Incidence rates expressed per 100,000 workers.

  2As defined by 1980 Standard Industrial Classification division 5.

  3Years commencing 1 April.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory base.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The National Advisory Council on the Employment of Disabled People and the local
  451
  committees for the employment of people with disabilities, of which there are 60 in England, Scotland and Wales, were established by the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports;

  (2) if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual reports before Parliament.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult prior to legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their responses to advice supplied by them.
  452
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None, although the Department voluntarily consults these bodies as appropriate.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the advisory bodies which he has set up in his Department since the publication of "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's timetable for introducing the CONDAM health and safety regulations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Commission have made proposals on the implementation of the design and management aspects of the European Council's Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive. I am currently considering them and the representations that I have received.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Investment Protection Promotion Agreements
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current position on the proposed Investment Protection Promotion Agreements (IPPAs) with Cuba and the Dominican Republic.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, last year we made proposals for Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements to the Governments of Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Negotiations have since advanced with the Cuban Government who are seeking amendments to key points of substance in the draft text. We have sent further proposals to resolve outstanding issues and await their response. We continue to press the Dominican Republic Government to study our proposed text and to let us have a considered response.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware of the importance which business people attach to these forms of agreements, particularly when they are proposing, or hoping, to export to a country? Can she say, when the time comes for her honourable friend in another place, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, to visit Cuba in the autumn, whether or not we will be in a position to sign the IPPA between ourselves and Cuba, which would be a great encouragement to exporters and others generally?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly realise how important these bilateral agree-ments are because they encourage long-term investor confidence by setting high standards of investor protection. It is notable that since 1975, 66 such IPPAs have been signed and indeed in the first five months of this year eight have been signed. Therefore, we give full weight to business interests as regards having such agreements. As regards the visit of my honourable friend Mr. McLoughlin to Cuba in the autumn, we very much hope that we shall have had a satisfactory conclusion to our discussions with the Cuban Government by that time which will enable him to sign, but the ball is at the moment in the Cuban court.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Italy, France and Spain have signed IPPAs thereby giving their business communities an advantage over ours? The Minister must surely be concerned by this.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are indeed anxious to sign an investment agreement with
522
the Government of Cuba and with the Government of the Dominican Republic, and with a number of other countries too, but the very fact that some countries will settle for less investor protection than we believe is right for British business does not mean we should proceed in haste and regret it at leisure.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the UK is the second largest investor in the world and the fact that the Government have a good record on IPPAs, would it not be possible to increase that number and keep up that good record by paying attention to South-East Asia and, of course, the countries that were at one time under the heel of the Soviet Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have indeed paid attention to every country that is prepared to have a satisfactory agreement on investor protection but what I would not wish us to do is to sign up for half-baked agreements which do not protect British business interests, because that way the investments would not give us the sort of returns that those under the IPPAs have done.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, while I agree with the Minister that undue haste in these matters would be undesirable, will she explain to the House why it is that our European neighbours have been able to conclude their negotiations for IPPAs in advance of us? Will she also say what interim support is being given to British businessmen in the light of the delay in the signing of an IPPA agreement with Cuba?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, may I first of all correct the impression which seems to have arisen in your Lordships' House that there has been some delay? It was quite difficult to get Cuba to look at Investment Protection Promotion Agreements until fairly recently. Many negotiations in the past have been much more protracted than I sincerely hope these will be. In fact, Cuba and the Dominican Republic only expressed interest in an IPPA last year when we proposed a draft text to them. We are certainly determined to get the right sort of text and, as I hinted in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I would not want our businessmen only to be protected by the text that some other countries may have with Cuba or any other country.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene once again but I wonder whether the Minister could answer the second part of my question on whether any interim support is being given to British businessmen.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to your Lordships' House. The interim support is to give as much support as possible to British exporters and potential investors through the joint Foreign Office/DTI unit and also through our mission in Havana. That is the best sort of help we can give at present but I believe that our exports, which totalled £14 million last year, are a significant step forward despite the fact that until Cuba becomes a member of the IMF we cannot do anything

523
about the debt burden that Cuba carries, and has carried for some considerable time. That, of course, would help as well.

Truancy and Delinquency: Projects in Schools
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as a matter of urgency, projects are being set up in schools to deal with children excluded from school and with non-attenders.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the department is already supporting locally-devised projects to a value of some £14 million in more than 80 local education authorities under the truancy and disaffected pupils programme of the Grants for Education Support and Training Scheme for 1994–95.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree that £14 million has been provided to deal with truancy on the streets and that some projects have been successful. However, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a need for units within schools such as the one introduced in Birmingham by Barnardos and the local authority to deal with such children? I am sure that she is aware that delinquency and truancy are closely allied.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a connection. The projects are many and varied. They may involve appointing additional education welfare officers to investigate non-attendance and to improve home-school liaison; support for action against bullying, which we all know can lead to truancy; the installation of electronic systems; and, in relation to the matter which concerns my noble friend, training for teachers in managing the behaviour of difficult children, the establishment of LEA behavioural support units and improved facilities for home tuition and off-site units for excluded and other pupils.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we all agree that if the child is not in school it cannot be taught, and what it learns on the streets is what we do not want it to learn. That is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made. I do not get a sense of the scale of the problem from the Minister's Answer. Is this an area where voluntary bodies and LEAs can work very well together? I am not clear whether in this context £14 million is a great deal of money or a little money. My recollection of the Elton Report on truancy is that the scale of the problem is so large that that sum would not enable the relevant bodies to get to grips with it. Will the noble Baroness comment on that? Can she also say whether she has received representations from voluntary bodies on this matter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not believe that the problem is being tackled properly. First, there are many thousands of
524
schools up and down the land where there is no problem. We are building up a body of evidence from inspection reports as to why some policies work in some schools but not in others. The £14 million is directed mainly at those areas where there is a problem and where the schools do not appear to have solutions. As I said, the solutions are many and varied. We shall be evaluating those solutions to see what works.
The noble Lord will remember that Part III of the Education Act 1993 was devoted to children with special needs, which includes many of the behavioural problems we are discussing. The key is early identification. Schools should develop policies and strategies to nip all these problems in the bud. Where there are problems which are beyond the scope of a school, it should seek the help of outside agencies.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Minister misunderstood me. I did not suggest that enough was not being done. Nor, for a change, was I criticising the Government in this regard. I genuinely asked about the scale of the problem. As I understand it, the problem is still large. I do not suggest that it is easily solved. I simply seek enlightenment on where we go next.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we do not know the full extent of the problem. Help will be provided by the requirement on all schools to let the outside world know how many young people are out of school, with or without authorisation. We shall then have a full picture of the number of young people who are out of school. I agree with the noble Lord that children out of school are not being educated, and if they are not being educated they are in a spiral of deprivation. We want to do all that we can to ensure that young people are in school and benefiting from being in school.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the ways in which the problem has been dealt with in the past is through the provision of additional staff in classes who are allocated to children showing behavioural problems? Is that still being done? Is it true, as it is sometimes said, that those additional staff have been withdrawn? If the problem can be cured in the early stages in primary school, does the Minister agree that that is the best way of dealing with it and nipping it in the bud?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is difficult to answer the question specifically because staffing policy is now a matter for schools themselves. Some schools manage to staff very well and have policies to which all the staff are signed up and strategies which are applied at the earliest signs of disruption or poor behaviour on the part of children. However, sometimes the situation is so difficult that extra staff are brought in to help. Sometimes the local authority will collaborate with the school if the problem is very serious. Turning to my noble friend's concern, if the problem is beyond the scope of the school to cope with then outside agencies are the answer.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend entirely happy with her use of the phrase "disaffected pupils" in

525
that it suggests that the cause of the problem does not lie with pupils or their parents but with the school and the authorities concerned?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish it were as simple as that. In some cases a school may be poorly run. It may tolerate a level of behaviour which is unacceptable and to which the children respond. Children respond to a framework of discipline and knowing what is expected of them in school. It is increasingly obvious that where a school has a good framework of discipline, well understood by staff and children, the likelihood of unmanageable behaviour is much less than in a school where such rules do not apply.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, how many local education authorities have put forward projects under the scheme and have not received funding? I believe that the scheme put forward by the Manchester LEA met all the criteria that the ministry required. Will the noble Baroness explain why that scheme did not receive funding?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific. I shall write to the noble Lord giving the exact answer to his question. My understanding is that almost all LEAs which applied with a bid addressing the problem received some funding from the department. I find it almost inconceivable that Manchester received nothing. However, I shall check and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister. The £14 million allocated to non-school attenders is very much a "street" scheme which will get the children back to school temporarily. However, when the Education Act is implemented, will there be resources to set up special units within schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I stated that part of the scheme involves taking children off the streets and bringing them back into schools. However, I also mentioned that the projects included both training and improved facilities for home tuition and off-site units. The £14 million is particularly directed at new ideas for tackling a problem which is long overdue for attention. As my noble friend knows, there are such units. Indeed, in my own local authority they work well.

War Crimes Act 1991
2.51 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many instances of alleged war crimes are now being investigated under the War Crimes Act 1991 and whether they expect that a case will be brought to trial in the foreseeable future.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit is currently investigating 28 cases against alleged war criminals. It is not possible to say if or when a case will be brought to trial.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that it is now three years since the War Crimes Act was given Royal Assent without first having obtained the consent of the House of Lords. It is five years since the Chalmers Hetherington inquiry reported. Surely by now we would have expected to see some results, and some cases brought before the courts. Will the noble Earl say how much public money has been expended so far, and how much more will be spent on those inquiries?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right when he states that the Bill became an Act three years ago. However, he is not quite right when he states that nothing has happened: 369 cases have been investigated; 229 have been rejected; 112 of the people who were being investigated have since died; and 28 people are being investigated at present of whom 10 are being considered for prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble Lord asks when we can expect any results. I believe that he will agree that that is quite a considerable result. He asks when we can expect a trial. As he would expect, I cannot answer that question. He asks how much money has been expended. Up to the year ending 31st March 1994 the sum of £5,201,600 has been expended; and allowance has been made during the current year for the possible expenditure of £8,600,000. That will bring the total to £13,801,600.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, have all papers relevant to the decision to be taken by the Attorney-General under Schedule 1(5) to the Act been sent to the Attorney-General to enable him to take the decision as to whether any of those people are to be charged?
As the Act does not extend to Scotland, is it the intention to arrest those domiciled and ordinarily resident in Scotland and to bring them to trial in England?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering 10 cases. If she considers it appropriate to prosecute she will seek the authority of the Attorney-General whose responsibility it is to bring the prosecution on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. For obvious reasons I cannot tell my noble friend when or if that will happen.
Perhaps I may answer the last point with regard to Scotland. The Scottish investigations have been completed.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, while supporting the Act in principle, how many cases under investigation—I should have thought most—will turn on disputed issues of identity? In those circumstances, what is the prospect of a fair trial into these horrific crimes committed 50 or more years ago?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, those are hypothetical questions. I cannot tell him how many cases will depend on identity. I cannot tell the noble Lord how many would succeed in that regard.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, for how long is it intended to continue to spend public money at the very

527
high rate that my noble friend has just announced on cases which never come to trial? Would it not be sensible to admit that the whole issue is a mistake and had better be dropped?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the only reason why the investigation has been undertaken is that that was the wish of Parliament by the passing of the War Crimes Act 1991. I can understand my noble friend's desire to spend the money in other directions. That may be the view of many people. However, the view of Parliament was that the investigation should be undertaken. Expenditure has been allowed up to and including the current year. However, no further provision has been made for further expenditure after the end of the current year.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a classic example of the folly of the House of Commons ignoring the view of the House of Lords?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a highly provocative remark which my noble friend would not expect me to answer. Parliament has the right to make the laws. Both Houses of Parliament have the right to participate in the making of the laws, and there was a provision under the Parliament Act which brought the measure into effect.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that when the Bill was before Parliament, its supporters, including Ministers, urged us to note the experience of Canada, Australia and Israel which had taken roughly the same line as the provisions laid down in the Bill? Is he aware that subsequent experience in those countries has confirmed the worst expectations of the opponents of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in this respect. Australia has investigated all the complaints that it has received. Two people have been acquitted, and one case has been stopped because of the defendant's health. Investigations are continuing in Canada. It is doubtful whether one can compare the legalities and so forth of different countries because different countries have different laws. We can only concern ourselves with our country and our country's laws.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Earl, but I did not hear him answer the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as to what would be done with suspects resident in Scotland and whether they would be brought to England for trial. Can the Minister repeat the answer?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, If I may say so, that is a hypothetical question. First, we need to find out whether anyone in Scotland has to be brought to England for judgment. I cannot say whether that is likely to happen. All I can tell the noble Lady is that the investigations of people in Scotland have been completed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl stated that the not inconsiderable sum of just over £8 million has been set aside for the current financial year in connection with war crimes investigations. Does that sum include the cost of possible prosecutions?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, it does. The figures set aside for the current year are £500,000 allowable for police investigations, £1 million allowable for the Crown Prosecution Service and £7,100,000 for, dare I say it, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's Department. That sum would cover such matters as legal aid, court costs etc. Of course, if no one is prosecuted, there will be no legal aid.

Overseas Aid: GNP Proportion
3 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present proportion of gross national product allocated to overseas aid, and what was it when the Government took office in 1979.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, UK net official development assistance was 0.51 per cent. of GNP in 1979 and 0.31 per cent of GNP in 1993.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she is deservedly praised for her work? However, those figures indicate that the Government have consistently moved away from the target of 0.7 per cent. At a time when the Government claim that our economic recovery is stronger than that of other countries, no fewer than 12 out of 21 OECD countries devote a higher proportion of their GNP to overseas aid. What can we do to persuade the Government to give a higher priority to overseas aid and to start moving towards the target of 0.7 per cent. rather than away from it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's anxiety in the matter. However, according to the latest OECD statistics published last week, the UK oda/GNP ratio at 0.31 per cent. was above the average of all donors of 0.29 per cent. in 1993. We are concerned at the decline in aid flows from the OECD as a whole, but our aid has always focused on where it can do the most good. One of the important aspects of our aid is the continued high level of private finance flows to developing countries. We are the major provider of private finance, more than £1.7 billion in 1992, which is more than half the whole European Union total. Only Japan and the US do better. So aid is not the whole story; debt relief, a successful outcome of the Uruguay Round and private investment are part of the whole. Of course, those other issues are not included in the OECD figures.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what is the estimated value at this time of the peace dividend? Can she say how much of that is being used on overseas aid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will know that we have all wrestled for that figure. I do not believe that anyone has an adequate answer. I believe that we will only really benefit from the peace dividend if we see stability in those countries which previously spent so much money on armaments and which we are helping both through the well-respected know-how fund of Britain and in other ways, through the EBRD and EC funds of PHARE and TACIS. But it will be a long while before we know the real dividend.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm whether the figures which she quoted in her original Answer include the aid distributed via the European Community or the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that in 1995–96 Britain's contribution to the EC will be £3,500 million? That is approximately 0.65 per cent. of gross domestic product. Is it fair, right or moral that we should contribute nearly twice as much to already rich countries as we contribute to very poor ones?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety. My concern with the Question is for the aid programme. I am also anxious that the 25 per cent. of the UK aid budget which goes to the European Community should be well spent. I cannot forecast for 1995–96, but Britain can hold its head high in terms of the quality and targeting of its aid. I hope that in the years to come there will be more sense about the wider EC spending on which the noble Lord rather cleverly sought to persuade me to respond in his question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in view of the repeated horrific scenes—one of which was shown on television—of the massacres in some third world countries which part of the aid reaches, can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that money from the aid programme does not reach people or forces indulging in genocide against minorities?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the United Kingdom has been extremely careful with the £11 million that it has given in assistance for the refugees from the fighting in Rwanda. It has also been careful with the £170 million that we have given to those suffering in Bosnia. We often work directly with local groups, helped by our own non-governmental organisations, ensuring that the assistance goes, so far as is humanly possible, to those in need. We all know of bad examples where troops have stolen food or medicines; but, on the whole, I can be fairly confident in saying that well over 90 per cent. of what Britain intended for the victims has reached them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I agree with her that the quality and targeting of the aid is good? That is in part due to her own efforts and she should be congratulated. However, the central point of the Question is that the proportion of

530
GNP is decreasing. That is what is important. It does not matter about the methods being used; the important point is the proportion of GNP. We must persuade the Government to change that, causing the proportion to go up rather than down.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's anxiety about the proportion; but over the past five years the figures have varied from 0.27 per cent. to 0.32 per cent., averaging out at more than 0.30 per cent. Britain has made steady progress. The second point to remember is that as Britain's GNP has increased, the amount we spend on aid, which has been growing slowly but nevertheless growing, decreases as a proportion of GNP. It is important that we have good quality because that quality can produce more than it used to, as it certainly does in the case of Britain's aid programme.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Corfu.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships will certainly wish to hear that Statement. However, in view of the Government's proposals on the distance we have to go on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill I would point out that there will be no convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

London Underground (Green Park) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 12,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 13 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 to 40,

Schedule 4,

Clause 41,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 42 to 109,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 110 to 117,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 118 to 147,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 148 to 155,

Schedules 9, 10 and 11,

Clauses 156 to 159.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathdyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson moved Amendment No. 61:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Review of unreasonable official decisions
(".—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, this section applies to orders or decisions made under such statutory provisions as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(2) This section does not apply to any order or decision of a court or tribunal constituted under any statutory provision.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, no statutory provision shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State if a greater burden could arise on any person as a result of it being so prescribed.
(4) Where a person carrying on any trade or business is aggrieved by any order or decision to which this section applies on the grounds that the effect of such order or decision is either—

(a) to prevent him from lawfully carrying on the trade or business; or

(b) to interfere materially and detrimentally with the conduct of the trade or business,

he may apply to a magistrates' court for a declaration in the terms of subsection (5) (a) below.

(5) A magistrates' court considering an application under subsection (4) above shall—

(a) if it is satisfied that the order or decision to which this section applies imposes a greater burden than is reasonably necessary to achieve the objects of the statutory provision under which it is made, grant a declaration to that effect, and

(b) if it is not so satisfied, refuse to grant such a declaration, and may award costs either to the applicant or to the respondent.

(6) In reaching a decision on whether to grant a declaration under subsection (5) (a) above, the court shall have regard to—

(a) the scale and imminence of any risk to life, health or property,

(b) the impact of any action required by the order on the viability of the trade or business,

(c) the length of time for which the situation addressed by the order or decision has persisted, and

(d) the extent to which action other than that prescribed by the order or decision and having less detrimental effect on the trade or business might reasonably have been taken.

(7) The effect of a grant of a declaration under subsection (5) (a) above shall be—

(a) if the order or decision has come into effect, to suspend that order or decision, but without prejudice to anything done before it was suspended, and

(b) if the order or decision has not come into effect, that it shall not come into effect other than in accordance with subsection (8) below.

(8) Subject to subsection (9) below, a declaration under subsection (5) (a) above shall cease to have effect—

(a) at the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is granted, or

(b) on the expiry of any period prescribed either in the statutory provision under which the order or decision was made, or in any other statutory provision, for an appeal against the order or decision,
532
whichever is the later, and the relevant order or decision shall, unless it has been revoked or withdrawn, thereupon cease to be suspended, or come into effect, as the case may be.

(9) Where, within the period prescribed in subsection (8) above—

(a) notice has been given of an appeal, or

(b) an application for judicial review of the relevant order or decision has been made,

the relevant order or decision shall not cease to be suspended, or shall not come into effect, until the appeal or application for judicial review has been finally determined, and it shall then cease to be suspended, or come into force, only to the extent that is consistent with the determination of the appeal or the judgment of the court.

(10) An application under subsection (4) above may be made by—

(a) the person to whom the order or decision is addressed, or

(b) any person duly authorised by him,

and shall be made within the period of five days beginning with the date on which the person to whom the order or decision is addressed was notified of it (or was deemed by statutory provision to be notified of it).

(11) An application under subsection (4) above shall be accompanied by a fee of £200, which shall be refunded if the application is successful.
(12) A person making an application under subsection (4) above shall serve a copy, or cause a copy to be served, on the person who made the relevant order or decision, or on any officer of his, on the same day as the application is made.
(13) A magistrates' court shall consider an application for a declaration under subsection (1) above within the period of seven days beginning with the date on which it is made.
(14) Subject to subsections (12) and (13), the Secretary of State may, by regulations prescribe—

(a) the form of application for a declaration under this section, and

(b) the procedure to be followed by the magistrates' court on such applications.

(15) An order made under subsection (1) above, or regulations made under subsection (14), above shall be made by statutory instrument.
(16) In this section "statutory provision" means any provision in any Act of Parliament or any statutory instrument.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 61 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 62. The deregulation Bill will, I am sure we all agree, remove much unwanted legislation from the statute book. But the fact remains that most regulation will stay in place—and quite properly too. The concern is that it should be fairly and genuinely administered.
At Second Reading I raised the problem that is caused by the misapplication of regulations and the real injustices that occur when over-zealous regulators disproportionately or unreasonably interpret the law at the point of implementation. Many noble Lords will know of this from their own direct experience and others will not have failed to come across the remarkable stories of the numerous near-lunatic regulatory conditions that are forced on the owners of small businesses.
The law rightly cannot possibly attempt to define every regulatory condition. Thus substantial discretion is very properly left to the regulatory officer who is concerned. It is consequently at that point that on occasions the law is interpreted by over-zealous officials in a manner that no legislator in his wildest dreams would have anticipated when framing the original statute.
A number of us believe that there is widespread public anxiety over the inadequacy of appeal procedures

533
against such enforcement. While there are some appeal procedures, they are often cumbersome, slow and extremely expensive. Consequently, in practice they are hardly ever used and bad regulation goes unchallenged. It is unrealistic to expect small businesses and the proprietors thereof to go to the expense of a judicial inquiry costing many thousands of pounds quite apart from the inordinate delay. Some intermediate steps are surely needed.
Frankly, the checks and balances that the law normally has in place to see sensible conduct between two parties—as in this case between the regulator and the regulatee—do not exist. So the object of this new clause is to introduce a simple appeal procedure to give time for common sense to reassert itself.
The thinking behind this clause originated in this Chamber and was taken up in Committee in another place, where similar amendments were introduced. The Minister for deregulation welcomed the principle but wished to see whether he could find a different remedy. The new clause gives a right to any regulatee to apply to a magistrates' court for an immediate stay of a regulatory order if prima facie it appears to be unreasonable or disproportionate and there is no immediate threat to life and limb.
Perhaps I may illustrate this intention by one example. There is a well-known block of flats in London with an underground garage. The residents have quietly used that garage for the past 30 years with the full approval of the fire officer. Recently, a new fire officer has come along —who had, no doubt, just got out of bed the wrong side—and said that he will not reissue the fire licence unless immediate steps are taken to narrow the entrance to the garage to prevent double parking. The managers of the block of flats had to comply immediately with his demand, otherwise the garage would have been closed by the following Monday, which was the date of expiry of the previous approval certificate. After 30 years of use one could well ask what was the problem. Had the appeal procedures that we now advocate been in place, the proprietor could have gone at once to the local court and would, I believe, and should, have obtained a stay of that order.
More importantly, had he been able to turn to the regulatory officer and say, "Frankly, I think you're being unreasonable. I intend to take this to appeal", the chances are that the fire officer would have had second thoughts, would have realised that his conduct was indeed unreasonable and that a sensible compromise or retraction would be to everybody's advantage. Not least, much time and cost, which are eventually paid for by all of us in society, would have been saved.
We have examined alternative appeal procedures and can find none to date that offers the familiarity and speedy remedy of the magistrates' courts. They are already there, and the public and local solicitors know of them. Magistrates' courts are of course well versed in regulatory procedures. Indeed, they are already the mechanism through which enforcement orders are made. Through them justice is administered by good citizens who understand the meaning of common sense and of common sense interpretation of the law.
However, if the Government can come up with an alternative such as, for example, a regulatory ombudsman, I am sure that we would be the first to welcome it. But by using the magistrates' courts, no new appeal framework would have to be set up, though inevitably some extra workload would occur.
It is our belief that the very presence of sensible appeal procedures would broadly achieve the. better interpretation of the law that I am sure we would all wish to see. The law works best when it is not used. However, to make certain that there is no frivolous use of the courts for every minor disagreement, we suggest that the applications are accompanied by a fee of £200 which would be refundable only in the event of the court finding in favour of the applicant.
The procedures that we advocate give time for second thoughts and offer a stay of execution. We believe that they dovetail nicely in most cases into the wider pattern of appeal procedures which remain to be used after 14 days if neither party retracts. That is the background to our thinking.
Amendment No. 62 follows the same line of thinking. It puts an obligation on the regulator to advise the regulatee at the point at which any order is made of his rights under any appeal procedures. Here again, the very action of what one might call cautioning the regulatee would make the official concerned think twice before proceeding with an enforcement order which he might know in his heart of hearts was unreasonable and disproportionate.
Finally, I would like to stress that the object of these amendments is not to undermine regulation in any way but to make the interpretation of regulations by officials on the spot fairer, thus making the law better. On my own behalf and on behalf of my noble friends I commend this clause to the Committee. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: I should like to add my voice as well as my name to these amendments, at which my noble friend Lord Vinson has worked long and hard, which he has moved very ably and which address an issue that is of paramount importance to small businesses; namely, the right to appeal against wayward or unreasonable decisions by officials. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able either to accept these amendments or to promise to produce his own independent appeals procedure for the next stage of the Bill.
The Government have been moving very much in the direction of Amendment No. 61. I was encouraged by what my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had to say when he wound up at Second Reading, when he was able to inform the House that the deregulation unit had been asked to consider the issue as a matter of urgency. When the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs wound up the debate on the version of this amendment that was considered by another place, one of the things that he said was that the Government wished to ensure that there was a well-publicised, swift and effective complaints procedure which was easily accessible to business, and one, he added, which would not create a new bureaucracy. As my noble friend Lord

535
Vinson has pointed out, this amendment would not create a new bureaucracy. It would use the existing system of magistrates' courts.
It may be that that would not be the best solution for all cases. Perhaps there needs to be a differentiation between the different areas of enforcement. If that is the Government's view—and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish seemed to hint at that when he wound up at Second Reading—then I look forward to hearing their arguments. We have time to explore the matter thoroughly and to come up with the best solution before the Bill leaves this House in October. I would certainly not want to be a party to any new legislation that we adopted in haste and about which we could then repent at leisure—that is the besetting sin that is largely responsible for the need to bring forward much of this Bill in the first place.
This issue is important. Christopher Booker, whose dogged exposure of the oppression of businesses by regulation will be well known to many Members of the Committee, writing in the Daily Telegraph on 1lth May concluded his article by saying that an amendment such as this,
"has become the real acid test of whether the Government's Deregulation Bill is to have any serious purpose at all, or is just an empty charade which shows that ministers are still completely under their officials' spell".
That may be going a little far in the view of some Members of the Committee. But it brings out the great need to add to the Bill an effective appeals procedure against unreasonable decisions by officials which is also affordable by small businesses. The harm done by regulations is not due just to their existence but to the manner of their enforcement. These amendments seek to provide a practical remedy.
Lord Moyne: My noble friend Lord Reay mentioned Christopher Booker. It would be relevant to read into the record of this Chamber the whole book which he wrote with Richard North, rightly called The Mad Officials. I shall not of course do so.
My noble friend Lord Vinson spoke of widespread public anxiety—a characteristically moderate phrase but a serious understatement. Outside these walls there is a gale of genuine and justified anger among some of the most economically valuable members of our society. I shall illustrate the problem by a true story which has a comparatively happy ending. The main point is to show how some of the officials themselves are deeply unhappy about the situation. My noble friend Lord Vinson may be interested to know that in this case the fire officer comes out well.
A business man whom I know wanted to open a new shop in a south coast town. He took two-storey premises which had the requisite planning permission, intending to use both floors. He applied for building regulation permission to put lavatories on the first floor. Apparently, that brought the whole building under the 1993 building control regulations which would not otherwise have applied since trading had been carried on in those premises for about 100 years.
When the building control officer visited the premises with the fire officer, he told my friend that he

536
could not open the shop because the first floor on which the lavatories were to be put was at its furthest point slightly more than 18 metres from the exit on to the street. My friend is a lateral thinker and he put many alternative suggestions. Each time he was told that the suggestions did not comply. When he asked the building inspector outright for his suggestions, he was told, "My job is to tell you what you cannot do, not what you can do." In the end my friend came up with a solution of sorts, which was accepted; namely, that the lavatories should be on the first floor at the top of the stairs and the rest of the first floor should remain unused. That was not before further difficulty had been raised, to the effect that the door at the bottom of the stairs was a few inches more from the exit than the regulation allowed.
At this point the fire officer intervened and successfully pleaded for a minimal amount of flexibility. Later, off the record—this is the reason why I must not give any clues to identify the case but ask the Committee simply to believe me—the fire officer apologised for the building control officer's attitude and said, "Please try to put some pressure on these people to listen to us". That is what my noble friends and I are trying to do with this amendment.
As it stands, the Bill needs teeth. Our purpose is to supply them.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: I wholly support my noble friend Lord Vinson. There is a great deal of merit in these amendments. Unnecessary burdens on industry through erroneous interpretations of regulations go unchallenged because it is impossible to challenge them quickly. Also, many small and medium-sized busines-ses do not have the staff or the resources to pursue them and suffer accordingly.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I too would like to support very strongly the amendment moved with such commendable moderation by my noble friend and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench took note of it. In my view he could have expressed his admirable intentions with a little more roughness.
There is just one point that I should like to make. It is very easy for everybody to blame anonymous officials for the terrible things which take place in the process of rounding up, improving and clarifying regulations. One is tempted to ask why those regulations were not made clear in the first place. The process of adding to them is intolerable. I cannot believe that it is always officials who are to blame. I do not like to ask such an obvious question as, "What is a Minister for?", because one might get all sorts of answers. I hope very much that my noble friend will give this matter his serious attention.
Perhaps I may give just one example of the kind of thing that worries me about small businesses. Only two or three days ago I was talking to someone about a firm which had sought the help of the department. The firm is small; it is innovative; and it is a high technology business. Its achievements have received a certain amount of public notice. It is of distinction. When the firm approached the department seeking help it was told, "We are very sorry but what you want us to do is not within our guidelines". When asked, "What are your guidelines?", the answer was, "We are not at liberty to

537
tell you that". That is what I would regard as a classically unhelpful piece of dialogue. It leaves small businesses in a state of profound discouragement.
At the time, I said that I intended to put this case to my noble friend and ask him to give it his personal attention. I knew that he was a very unusual kind of Minister and listened to what was said to him. I was confident that in due course he would take effective action. I shall shortly seek the loan of my noble friend's attention so that I can tell him the details of this case.
There is no doubt that the Government are full of good intentions. But, as so often in our experience, the good intentions are hedged round with regulations and difficulties of every kind. Somehow those good intentions are inhibited from coming to fruition. I hope that my noble friend will take a fairly brutal stick to this process and that on this occasion he will show his good intentions by accepting my noble friend's amendments. I am not at all sure that I would welcome some alternative. I feel that it would necessarily be something rather more comfortable than accepting adjudication by an independent body such as Her Majesty's courts.
My noble friend is one of the most reasonable men that I know, as well as one of the most intelligent—I am talking about my noble friend Lord Vinson. I am not at all sure that he was not just a shade too reasonable on this occasion in suggesting that he might accept an alternative. I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench will find it very hard to better the ideas that he has put forward so cogently and with such eloquence.
Lord Cockfield: I am sorry to dissent from this chorus of approval for these amendments. I do not know whether it is an orchestrated chorus or an entirely spontaneous one. It was so well performed that a lack of prior practice seems to me to be improbable.
This is one of those areas in which a balance has to be kept between the needs of industry and the needs of the public at large. I entirely agree that many decisions are taken by official bodies which are not good decisions from the point of view of industry. Equally, those bodies take many decisions which are favourable to industry and pay insufficient regard to the wider public interest. That is particularly true in the case of planning decisions, which was the specific instance raised by my noble friend Lord Vinson. Sometimes planning decisions that are made in favour of a small business operate very much to the detriment of other people.
If business is to be given a right of appeal to the magistrates' courts I do not see why aggrieved citizens should not also be given a right of appeal against all decisions which they do not like. That was the point I tried to raise at Second Reading; that is, that the duty of the Government is not simply mindlessly to repeal every regulation to which somebody draws their attention. Their function is to hold a proper balance between the interests of industry and the interests of the public at large.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The difficulty in which we find ourselves is that on occasions like this industry A says that something must be done or must not be done. It has

538
a direct and personal interest in what happens. There is then a general feeling of, "Oh no, we don't like it", from people who have no genuine and personal interest in what happens. However, they may be founder and active members of special interest groups. It is those special interest groups which impose upon us regulation after regulation without any real balance of cost and analysis.
Of course, it is an extremely difficult balance to achieve. I understand that. And of course I understand that it may be more profitable for somebody to build a factory in my back yard which will affect me, but I do not like it. I do not want it and my interest is not exactly economic. I understand that difficulties exist, but sometimes we take too much notice of the NIMBY factor. We react to it because it is a powerfully expressed single interest lobby and we regulate for that.
We then encounter a further difficulty in that our civil servants are, above all, honest, efficient and enthusias-tic. When those three factors are combined we are: likely in the end to get "Horlicks"; but not the same "Horlicks" we get from Italian officials (I shall probably be called to order at any moment for being rude about them) or dishonest foreign civil servants who pay no attention to the regulations. Fortunately, our civil servants are extremely conscientious and the fault lies in their conscientiousness allied to single interest propositions. Somehow we must find a balance and a way through this problem.
Lord Moyne: One can be honest, enthusiastic and efficient and also be petty-minded.
Lord Northbourne: Having put my name to the amendment I must take up the time of the Chamber for one moment to try to convince Members of the Committee, in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that it is an important amendment. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that, interesting though their discussion was, it was not actually about the subject of the amendment.
The amendment concerns petty regulations applied by individual inspectors who may, perhaps because they got out of bed on the wrong side or hold a specific: view on a specific subject, unfairly impose a regulation on a business which destroys it. In those circumstances, it is important that the owner of the business can obtain some kind of relief as quickly as possible. That is what the amendment is about.
I greatly support the Government in their policy of deregulation. However, the amendment forms a modest second leg to their Bill. The first leg concerns wiping out a whole lot of unnecessary regulations, and that must be a good thing. In my view, the second leg must be to ensure that the people who implement the regulations which remain do so in a sensible and responsible way with a sense of proportionality. Most officials are sensible, responsible and have a. sense of proportionality. But a tiny proportion —naturally, as with any other human activity—make mistakes or are not so responsible. The stories circulate of those cases and I suggest that that is not only unfair to the businesses concerned, but also extremely damaging to the Government's policy—a policy we all want—of

539
small businesses developing. Small businesses become frightened that they will be stamped upon and wiped out by a mistake.
If the Government want to be popular—I assume that that is what politics is all about—then I recommend that they take the amendment away and bring back an amendment which will have something like the same effect. It must be wrong that one official can wipe out or severely damage a business which has been built up over decades by a family or an individual. I therefore strongly support the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: One has great sympathy with what lies behind the amendment and discussions in Committee in another place made quite clear that that sympathy extended across the whole of the political spectrum. Certainly I want to place my name on record in your Lordships' Chamber as saying that this sort of petty dictatorship must be stopped and small businesses should not be subjected to the sort of foolishness suggested.
However, the suggestion that every small business somehow has a halo round its head is not always right. The regulations exist to catch the cowboys for the benefit of properly-run small businesses which are dealing properly with health, safety, planning and so forth. I am sure that there will be general agreement on that and I see Members from all sides nodding.
My criticism of the amendment is the mechanism by which it is supposed to work. I have looked at it several times and do not understand how it can work. I do not understand how the magistrates' courts can be the proper place to deal with this type of problem. For a number of years I was a magistrate in the great city of Manchester. A varied bunch of people met from time to time on the Bench and a whole range of disciplines were involved. But if on any specific day somebody from the industry in which both the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and I were engaged—the chemical and associated industries —came before one or two of the Benches in that city I could not guarantee that the subsequent hearing would mean anything at all to the people sitting on the Bench.
That is my problem. I hope that the Government will find some mechanism, whether an ombudsman or some other arrangement, that is capable of dealing with the difficulties because they need to be dealt with. Frankly, I do not believe that the magistrates' court is the right place.
Lord Peston: I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am extremely sympathetic to both the thinking and the feeling that lie behind Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. The point was extremely well put by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Clearly we do not want a rogue's charter, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, had in mind. In my view, if a business cannot survive unless it breaks the law on health, hygiene or safety, good riddance to it. That is not something to which we could be a party.
I do not believe that that is the intention of the amendment. As I interpret its intention, it is about how some officials put the regulations into practice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that only a tiny

540
minority of businessmen may be aggrieved. But, if one is at the receiving end, to be told that one is in the minority is not much consolation. For example, the trading standards officers do a good job in difficult circumstances. But that does not mean that sometimes things do not go wrong. The problem is that a small businessman may interpret a specific regulation one way and the officials another. One tries to argue the case but the official's response may be aggressive, officious and unreasonable and he simply says, "Do it or legal proceedings will follow". One may still believe that one is right but is frightened by the thought of legal proceedings, cannot afford them anyway and gives in. The important point for the Committee to bear in mind is that in that case the businessman will feel aggrieved for many years and that is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Those are the reasons why, on the one hand, I am very sympathetic and, on the other hand, we do not want a rogue's charter. Then I come to the difficult bit: I simply do not believe that the amendment can work. For example, it does not have a clause which restricts it to small businesses, unless I have misread it; it applies to all businesses. So the case is less powerful, in a way, than it should be.
Secondly, the clause seems not to distinguish—and again the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, will perhaps take a moment to clarify this—between the merits of the regulation per se and the way that it is put into practice. I do not wish to use an amendment of this kind to undermine the regulations per se. I am concerned that if you feel that you are meeting the regulations in a perfectly sensible and effective way but it is not the way the official likes, you should have a chance to argue your case elsewhere.
I come to my final point, which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has already raised. My first inclination—and I mentioned this to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, after your Lordships' Second Reading—is that a magistrates' court does not seem to me to be the natural home for what I have in mind. If we could find the regulatory equivalent of the small claims court, which is a court that I am very keen on, I would be very much happier; or, alternatively, a regulatory ombudsman—and on looking round your Lordships' Committee I can see that it is full of excellent candidates for the job.
To summarise, I am sympathetic—and I hope that nothing that I have said will suggest that I am not. The fact that there is a minority of cases does not mean that we ought not to concern ourselves. Although I appreciate that this may be technically very difficult, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will say to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and his friends, "Come and see us in the department and one way or the other we shall see whether we cannot find an amendment that does the actual job you have got in mind; one which we can all support". Let me add that it is not obvious to me how to write that amendment. I am not suggesting that it is easily done. But I would certainly be unhappy if the noble Lord simply turned this down. I think there is an important consideration here which, if we can solve it, would be worth solving.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that I am wrong in everything that I am going to say but I am going to say it. I am not going to embark upon the merits of the kind of grievances which my noble friends and others have put before the Committee; I am not qualified to do so. I simply raise two separate points about the magistracy. First of all, is it the function of the judiciary, high or low, simply to second-guess the officials who are part of the Executive? I think that is an important constitutional question which has not been addressed at all in the course of this debate. My answer is, no, it is not a judicial or justiciable question. That is my belief; it may turn out to be wrong. I hope my noble friend will either be able to answer that or will consult with our noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor before he gives in to this particular magnet.
Secondly, of all the judicial bodies to deal with this particular grievance the last that I would choose is a magistrates' court. Magistrates' courts are already overworked to an almost unbelievable extent; they are composed of lay people who do not know anything necessarily about small businesses or what is reasonable to impose by way of a regulation inhibiting certain kinds of practices. They are courts that are designed to deal with petty criminal offences which are either proved or not proved after a judicial hearing with witnesses; they deal also with domestic disputes, and of course they have a licensing function about public houses, which are irrelevant for this purpose. The idea that you can suddenly offload onto the magistrates' courts system of this country this enormous, unmeasured and unmeasur-able burden—to try something which I do not believe even the highest judges can do except by way of a judicial review—seems to me, frankly, to initiate a nonsense. I hope that my noble friend will think very carefully before he gives into this.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: I too support this pair of admirable and well thought out amendments which are designed to support commerce—including small-scale commerce —as well as industry, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, seemed to suggest. I join the noble Lords, Lord Reay and Lord Moyne, in commending Mr. Christopher Booker for his tireless efforts in reminding us, week after week, of the abuses of petty officialdom.
The problems that these amendments seek to address are not trivial ones; on the contrary, they are very serious ones which cause financial misery, economic inefficiency and personal distress. It is time that we put a stop to them.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: One cannot but be delighted over the great support that there is for the need for an appeal procedure. I would like to draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Cobham to the fact that, although these laws are created to make a balance, the balance is now getting out of the picture. Clearly there are many more forces in society making it much more difficult for the right businesses and certain things to develop. We need to get that balance back. I hope that my noble friend will take on board the clear demand of the Committee for some kind of appeal procedure to be

542
set up which can be fair to all sides and which would give an opportunity for small businesses in particular to become effective very rapidly. More importantly, we need to get a balanced view on regulations throughout the country. Fire regulations can vary from area to area and it is impossible to know from one minute to the next what the regulations are. An appeal procedure would have the impact surely of at least levelling out the procedures throughout the country and balancing certain regulations.
I hope that my noble friend will take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and that we can sit down together over the period before the Report stage and come to a sensible agreement—an agreement which will appeal also to the other place—in which clearly a. similar view is held. I very much support such a. proposal.
Lord Strathclyde: I am genuinely grateful to my noble friend Lord Vinson and other noble Lords for putting forward these amendments and giving us the opportunity to debate them. What is well known to the Committee is that I spend a great deal of time before your Lordships at this Dispatch Box; what is perhaps less well known is that I also spend a great deal of time travelling the country and visiting many businesses, particularly small firms. It is true that one of their overriding concerns is the interpretation, implementa-tion and enforcement of rules and regulations, which they do not feel are dealt with in a fair, reasonable, or proportional manner. That is what is at the heart of this debate.
It is one thing to look to remove or lessen unnecessary burdens, as Clause 1 of the Bill does; it is quite another to ensure that where regulation is justified it is enforced in a fair, open and reasonable manner. I would say to my noble friend Lord Cockfield that what is at the heart of the Bill is not a mindless repeal of legislation—which I think were the words that he used —but rather the surgical operation that has been done by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover to make sure that the burdens that exist on business are genuinely necessary—and of course Parliament will eventually be able to make its mind up on that.
My noble friend Lord Peyton came in with a defence of officials and civil servants—and quite rightly. He asked the question, "What are Ministers for?" I am sure that he is much better able to answer that than I am. What is important in this debate is to make sure that we get to the right solution, which is why I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for his words.
At the heart of the new clause is the concern that any official decision that imposes a burden should be capable of being challenged and, if found to be unreasonable or arbitrary, overturned. Deregulation is as much about ensuring that right decisions are taken as about abolishing unnecessary ones. I therefore have every sympathy with the objectives behind the new clause—the ability, as my noble friend Lord Vinson says, for common sense to reassert itself. An ability to

543
appeal in itself provides a powerful discipline on those making decisions; they can be called to account and made to justify actions they have taken.
It is, however, important for there to be proper procedures at each stage where enforcers and businesses are in contact and for complaints to be dealt with effectively before they even reach the stage of a formal appeal. This is the approach that the Government are already pursuing. We are encouraging regulators to balance the cost of compliance with the objectives to be achieved; we are working to improve contacts and to create a much better understanding on both sides—by businesses and by enforcers—of why regulation is justified and how best to comply with it. There are a growing number of local business partnerships to that end along with the promotion of a code of conduct and improved and simplified guidance for business.
The new clause seeks to provide a single appeals mechanism via the magistrates' court to overturn any unreasonably burdensome decision. Since this issue was first raised in another place we have been investigating carefully the option of a legislative solution and in particular the issues raised by the kind of single appeals mechanism envisaged by the new clause. I have to report that our work is not yet complete.
The area of appeals mechanisms and complaint procedures is complex. There already exists a wide range of appeals and complaint procedures. Appeals are dealt with in all manner of ways. Some already go to magistrates' courts; others to the High Court. There are also appeals to Secretaries of State, industrial tribunals, inspectors, commissioners and, of course, the ombud-sman. I accept that the multiplicity of appeals processes may in itself be a criticism, but there are many different statutes and many different types of decision ranging from straightforward assessment of facts to highly technical judgments about the possible consequences of industrial processes for health and the environment. Different approaches to the handling of appeals involving specialised fora may well be the most efficient means of providing effective redress rather than a single mechanism as envisaged by the clause.
In Amendment No. 62 my noble friend Lord Vinson has included a requirement that when an enforcement decision is taken the business affected must be made aware of the appeal mechanism available. From the work we have already done we know that this is a feature of some existing systems and one which is appreciated by business. I can assure my noble friend and others who spoke in favour of the amendment that we share the objective of providing efficient and effective appeal mechanisms along with proper complaint handling procedures. What I would like to suggest is that the Committee agrees to allow the Government to complete their analysis of this complex issue and, working with the deregulation task force, to come forward with proposals which address the concerns expressed in the best way possible.
I think that is the best way to go forward with some of the criticisms that have been made today and perhaps to deal with the argument raised by my noble friend Lord Cockfield that our role should be a proper balance

544
between industry and the public interest at large. We still have a great deal of work to do. Fortunately, we also have a reasonable amount of time in which to do it. I hope that by the time we return to this issue at Report we will be able to have a much better informed debate.
Lord Vinson: I am extremely grateful to the many noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the principle behind the amendment. It was largely a probing amendment to try to get the debate given wider coverage and to try to find the best route. I am deeply heartened by the acceptance that there is a problem out there— except, that is, by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who perhaps throughout his life has been what one might call the arch-regulator. I am sorry that there was no deathbed repentance in saying that the gentleman from Whitehall perhaps does not always know best. Leaving that aside, I am very reassured by the Minister's statement. I take the full value of his word that he will come back to the issue at Report. Certainly, many eyes will be watching him and many ears will be listening to see that he does.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I hope that he will take this very valuable opportunity to press my noble friend on the Front Bench to give a firm undertaking to produce a proposal from the Government before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
Lord Cockfield: I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Vinson has finished or whether I am merely interrupting or speaking again, as I am entitled to do. I avoided replying to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who also attacked me on the ground that I did not understand his amendment. The trouble is that I understand his amendment only too well. Equally, as far as concerns the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, I spent 15 years in industry and probably know just as much about it as he ever did. What I am saying is perfectly valid. The Government have a balance to make. We all know that regulations dealing with health, safety, the environment, consumer protection and so on affect not only businesses but members of the public as well. The Government need to remember, if only in a political context, that it is members of the public who at the end of the day vote for them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Or against them.
Lord Cockfield: Or against them, as is the case at present. I accept my noble and learned friend's correction on that. I am saying no more than that a proper balance has to be kept. Of course there are instances where officials do stupid things. There are instances where officials do things that cannot be defended. There are also instances where officials fail to take into account the wider public interest. That is the point I am making: no more and certainly no less.
Lord Vinson: I am sure that there is more that unites my noble friend and I than divides us. He will recall that I went out of my way in introducing the amendment to say that behind it stood the desire to make the law work better. I am sure that that motivates us all.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord tells us what he is going to do, did I mishear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde? Apart from the deregulation task force, did he say that he would talk to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and his friends before coming back to us? Did I hear him give that assurance?
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, knows the way I like to do business. I am delighted to speak to him, to my noble friend and to anyone else who wishes to discuss the matter with me.
Lord Vinson: On behalf of my noble friends here and, I hope, on the other side, perhaps I may say that we shall look forward to these extremely constructive discussions. I do not want to run over the arguments again. I think that we are being led broadly to a solution. What I would like to hear from the Minister is perhaps a more forthright and categoric assurance that these issues will be addressed with a view to bringing forward a solution, which I accept may well be better than the one put forward, which will give quick recourse. There is out there in the wide world of the administration of regulations considerable injustice. Something needs to be done about it.
Lord Strathclyde: I said at the outset that I understood very clearly what the problem is. The debate we have had demonstrates that it is not the problem which is in doubt: it is the solution. That is why the Government are currently carrying out an urgent exercise on the whole manner of appeals procedures, some of which I mentioned. I said at the end that the Government would be looking to come forward with proposals. What I cannot confirm to my noble friend is that those proposals will necessarily be legislative proposals or proposals that would fit under the Bill. They may be or they may not be. What is important is to solve the problem so that the people who are being regulated at least feel that that regulation is being carried out in a fair-minded way.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may intervene again to ask my noble friend to go a little further than that. Will he at least give an undertaking to come forward at Report stage with a statement of the position that has been reached by the Government showing that he is really minded to deal with the problem and knows how to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend Lord Peyton will perhaps be surprised to hear that I am not at all concerned about being pressed on this matter. I shall be delighted, if I am given the opportunity at Report stage, to honour that and to make a commitment that I shall come forward with a statement explaining exactly where we stand.
Lord Vinson: In view of those very positive assurances it would not be right to divide the Committee. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity at Report stage to readdress the matter and to weigh up the substance of the Minister's suggestions. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen: This may be a convenient time to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council, Corfu
4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, about the European Council in Corfu.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a Statement about the meeting of the European Council which I attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
"The Corfu Council put another three building blocks in place in constructing post-Communist Europe.
"First, the Treaties of Accession signed with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden will help create the wider Europe that we seek: a European Union that extends from the Atlantic to the Arctic. I warmly welcome the positive vote on accession in the recent Austrian referendum. I hope referenda in the other three EFT AN countries this Autumn will be equally successful.
"Secondly, we agreed in Corfu that the association agreements with our central and eastern European partners must be fully and urgently implemented. So should the UK-Italian initiative to link these countries more closely with the foreign affairs and home affairs pillars. This will help them to prepare for full membership of the European Union as soon as possible. Cyprus and Malta, too, will be involved in the next phase of enlargement.
"Thirdly, the European Union signed a part-nership and co-operation agreement with Russia-— one of the most comprehensive agreements ever concluded between the Community and another country. President Yeltsin said that the agreement symbolised Russia's return to the economic life of Europe as an equal partner. He also pledged the support of his government in bringing about stability in central and eastern Europe and his willingness to work closely over former Yugoslavia.
"Russia has just signed the Partnership for Peace Agreement with NATO, and on 9th July President Yeltsin will play a full part in the political debate at the Naples Summit. I warmly welcome Russia's increasing integration with western political institutions.
"In the discussion of the problems facing people throughout Europe, I suggested a series of moves to combat drug trafficking and other international crime. The drugs problem in Europe is growing. Enough cocaine has been seized in the European Union this year to provide 24 million individual

547
doses. I pressed for more effective cross-border intelligence gathering on drug trafficking. I urged the Community to strengthen the Europol drugs unit and to set up the full European Police Office quickly, with a wide remit to tackle organised cross-border crime. I underlined the importance of action within our own countries. I suggested that the Union should hold a conference on drugs and organised crime, and should involve countries in central and eastern Europe.
"I was glad to receive wide support for these proposals, which were endorsed in the Conclusions of the Council.
"We made progress on two economic issues high on the British agenda. First, we agreed that markets in telecommunications and energy should be further liberalised, to give Europe's consumers access to wider, cheaper and more efficient services.
"Secondly, we strongly supported the German proposal to set up a European deregulation task force with businessmen as members, just as we have done in this country. This was agreed. The task force will help to cut back burdensome Community regulations on business.
"The Council endorsed the macro-economic guidelines drawn up by the Economic and Financial Council on the conditions for sustainable growth. We agreed that it was essential to continue cutting public sector deficits and reducing inflation. I reported that the British economy had grown by nearly 3 per cent. in the year to this Spring, and that unemployment had fallen here by over 300,000 since the end of 1992. Britain remains the fastest-growing of the big economies in the European Union.
"The Council approved a first priority list of 11 trans-European network projects. This includes the second Channel Tunnel rail link and proposals to improve the rail links between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Any contribution to the financing of such projects must come from within existing Community resources. At our insistence, the Council agreed that there could be no financial guarantee from the Community for trans-European networks. We believe that Europe's taxpayers must be protected against such open-ended commitments.
"We further heard evidence that the subsidiarity principle is being implemented successfully. We expect the number of main legislative proposals coming out of Brussels this year to be about half the number in 1993, and a quarter of the total four years ago. This is a very significant improvement.
"In external policy, the Council discussed Ukraine and agreed to step up support for economic reform and nuclear safety there, tied to the closure of Chernobyl. This discussion will be taken forward with the United States, Japan and Canada at the Economic Summit in Naples in early July.
"The Council once again discussed Bosnia. The Contact Group has done valuable work based on the European Union's plan; but there is an urgent need for the parties to show the will for a negotiated settlement if the process is to succeed. We agreed that

548
the European Union would make every effort with the United States and Russia to bring the negotiations to a point of decision.
"Let me turn now to the Presidency of the European Commission. The treaty lays down that the Commission President should be selected by 'common accord' to serve a term of five years. Common accord is vital. For the President of the Commission to serve the whole Community effectively, he must enjoy the confidence and support of all of its members.
"Before the Corfu Council, we told the Presidency and other partners that we supported Sir Leon Brittan's candidature; and believed a genuine consensus of all 12 Member States to be essential. No-one disputed the latter point.
"When we heard that Mr. Dehaene was thinking of putting himself forward at a late stage, we privately informed the Belgian Government and other partners that we could not support him. We warned that it would not be possible for him to attract a consensus of the whole Community. We hoped, therefore, that his candidature would not be pressed.
"Neither then nor at any later stage did any partner say that either Sir Leon Brittan or Dr. Lubbers, the two long standing candidates, was unacceptable. Both, of course, had outstanding credentials and long experience of the Community —Sir Leon Brittan as a Commissioner for six years and Dr. Lubbers from 12 years on the European Council.
"At the Corfu Council, four states—representing nearly half of the Community's European Union's population—did not support Mr. Dehaene in the long discussion on the first evening. In several interventions, I made our strong views very clear to the Council, as I had in a number of bilateral discussions.
"On the following morning, Sir Leon Brittan and Dr. Lubbers decided to withdraw their candidatures. Other European countries indicated that they could accept Mr. Dehaene. I maintained my position that we could not. I said that I had given the matter careful thought and that our decision would not change at any stage. I reiterate that position in this House today. I suggested that consultations should be put in hand to find a candidate who had the support of all.
"The German Chancellor, who takes over the Presidency later this week, said that he hoped to resolve the matter quickly, if necessary by convening a special summit on 15th July.
"Our position was not a personal criticism of Mr. Dehaene, although in our view Sir Leon and Dr. Lubbers had much stronger qualifications. For the next five years the Commission needs a President who is in tune with the times and the mood across Europe—a President whose instincts are with enterprise and competitiveness. Above all, Europe needs a President of the Commission selected with the full approval of all member states.
"The Corfu Council has highlighted an issue of increasing concern to many European Union members: that issue is the way in which decisions are reached. It is an important point of principle that the

549
key decisions require unanimity and that all member states should have an equal opportunity to participate in collective decision making. The procedures used for this decision, before and during the Council, were not satisfactory.
"There was no need for this matter to have come to an open division at a European Council. It should have been avoided. Had more comprehensive consultation taken place, as in the past, and had the views expressed by different states been heeded, it could have been avoided.
"I believe that there are a number of well qualified people who could take on this post, on the basis of a genuinely common accord. We stand ready to play our part in consultations on it. There is no reason why this should not lead to an early and satisfactory outcome.
"Madam Speaker, I want Europe to succeed. I want it to regain the affections of the people of Europe. I want a Europe with which all member states—soon to be 16, then 20—can feel comfortable.
"Achieving that may mean disputes along the way. But being a good European does not mean signing up to everything which our partners propose.
"At Corfu we fought for what we believe to be in the best interests of this country and of Europe. That, Madam Speaker, is what we will continue to do." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, like many conclusions following such meetings, the Statement falls into two parts. If I may, I shall address first the less controversial part before saying one or two things about the part that has created a certain amount of controversy. I have also noticed as regards such Statements that the contents of the Statement and the Communiqué do not necessarily coincide. Therefore, if one wants to get the full flavour of what was discussed one should carefully avoid relying solely upon what the Prime Minister says.
I received the conclusions about three-quarters of an hour ago. It is interesting that the Council spent an awfully long time discussing social affairs. It dealt with such controversial matters as the organisation of work, obstacles to part-time work, new forms of organisation of work, moving young people from education into work, and efforts to promote youth employment and to combat long-term unemployment, but there is not a word in the Statement about those. We must forgive the Prime Minister, however, because I understand that he was not even present for the discussions. Perhaps that is the reason why those matters were not included.
Of course, we welcome the accession agreements with the EFTA countries. We welcome the result of the recent Austrian referendum. We welcome the signing of the partnership agreement with Russia. We are glad that the Reflection Group now includes some Members of the European Parliament. I understood that the Government originally opposed that position. Of course, we support the trans-European networks. They may involve extra borrowing. I thought that the Government's attitude was somewhat over-negative

550
towards that, but, again, if one reads the Communiqué, one sees that the position is perhaps not quite so negative as the Prime Minister has led us to believe.
The European Council greatly emphasised the social dimension. We support a great deal of what was said. Perhaps I should read just one sentence from the Communiqué, which states:
"Finally the European Council invites the Commission to renew its efforts … making full use of the new possibilities available in the Treaty on European Union and in particular of the provisions on the protocol annexed to it".
So, the 11 are going to beaver away in accordance with Maastricht, and the British are going to sit outside watching them beavering away and no doubt complaining at the end of the day that they have not been properly consulted.
I turn now to the issue of the successor to President Delors. I am bound to say that my first reaction was;, "Well, here we go again. This is another foreign policy triumph for the Prime Minister". Once again, the Prime Minister has managed, with all the diplomatic skill for which he is becoming so famous throughout Europe, to produce the maximum amount of irritation with the minimum amount of political success.
It is worth asking ourselves—is it not?—what we set out to achieve and what we did in fact achieve. What was the object of the exercise? Was it to try to prevent a so-called "Federalist", whatever that may mean in this connection, becoming President of the Commission? If that was the object of the exercise, it was, on the face of it, unlikely to succeed. All the alternative candidates now being mentioned are very similar to Mr. Dehaene. They are all interventionists. They all believe in a strong and active Commission. They are all for a greater degree of integration in Europe. I am bound to say to the Government that if the result of this exercise is that they get Etienne Davignon as President of the Commission, they will have only themselves to blame for the amount of intervention that they will get from the Commission. I do not think that Mr. Dehaene was put forward because he has strong ideological views. He was put forward because he has a high reputation as a compromiser and a fixer inside his own country. He could hardly be otherwise, coming from Belgium and being the Prime Minister of that divided country.
We have succeeded so far in stopping one Belgian on somewhat spurious grounds. Are we to continue with a succession of vetos until we get someone we like? If that is so, the others may seek to exercise their rights of rejection too. Indeed, I can imagine nothing more damaging to any candidate than that he should now be supported by the British Government, such is the state to which our influence has now been reduced.
The Prime Minister said:
"For the next five years the Commission needs a President who is in tune with the times and the mood across Europe".
What does that mean? It does not mean,
"in tune with the times and the mood across Europe";
it means, "in tune with the British view of the times and the mood across Europe". There is no doubt whatever that 11 of the 12 countries thought that Mr. Dehaene was,
"in tune with the times and the mood across Europe",

551
otherwise they would never have backed him. When looking at this whole sorry affair, it is difficult to believe that the reasons set out in the Prime Minister's Statement are the real ones.
There are grounds for criticism—I accept them and join those making them—about the way in which France and Germany presented Mr. Dehaene's candidature. They were repeated in the Statement. But one then has to ask the next question because it is not sufficient simply to say that they should not have done it. The next question is: why was Britain not consulted by France and Germany? Why were we not part of that process? Is our position in Europe now so slight that Chancellor Kohl and M. Mitterrand no longer feel the need to take us into their confidence? At the heart of Europe? We are just about as peripheral now as a major power can possibly get. That is a tribute to the Tory Party's stewardship of the nation's affairs over the past 15 years!
The truth is that this farce was played out in Corfu not to accommodate any particular vision of a future Europe —I do not believe that for an instant—but to soothe the dissidents inside the Conservative Party. When the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—I am glad to see him in his place—and Mr. Lamont, let alone Sir James Goldsmith, approve of the Government's European policy, it is time for all sensible men to think and ponder well.
The Financial Times put it correctly and succinctly this morning when it stated:
"Unfortunately, one is forced to conclude that the veto was no more than an improvised and futile gesture to Tory Euro-sceptics —futile since no Commission candidate who would command a consensus on the continent is likely to attract their support, and the party's civil war over Europe can now only deepen".
I gather that already the Euro-sceptics in the Tory Party are demanding that the Prime Minister vetos any other "Federalist" candidate of whom they disapprove.
Mr. Major picked this quarrel himself on dubious grounds. He chose the corner and the colour of the paint, and he painted it himself. He has persisted in it and is still persisting in it with all the obduracy of a fundamentally weak man. He has succeeded in antagonising precisely those countries that we shall need in the future. In reality, he has done it for the sake of a few cheap plaudits from the irreconcilables in his own party. I find it deeply shaming.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we too can go along with many of the points that were made at the beginning. Clearly, we welcome the accession of Austria, Finland and Norway, and the second and third items which were reported and dealt with at the conference.
We note also the position of Russia and the fact that Russia has now signed a peace agreement with NATO. We welcome the full part that Russia is now playing. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord about the attitude of the Eastern European countries, the former members of the Warsaw Pact, who have some anxieties about the position of Russia in relation to the western

552
world. Have they been consulted? Have they anything to say about what is happening? Are we considering their interests as well as the interests of Russia?
We welcome, too, the two economic issues: they are the markets in telecommunications and energy and the European deregulation task force. We note that that task force will have businessmen as members, as was the case in this country. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that there are other members who are considering other aspects of deregulation. I give as an example the social issues that are connected with deregulation, which can be seriously affected by it. Who will speak on and look after those issues? Will people who are competent to speak in that regard be included in the task force which is to deal with European deregulation?
We welcome the remarks about Bosnia and Russia's relations with it. But, of course, what is of concern is the issue of the presidency. We agree that not necessarily is Mr. Dehaene the most ideal person to be the new President of the Commission, but that view may well be open to challenge. We agree, as did the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the way in which his name emerged was far from satisfactory. France and Germany getting together to put forward their candidate was not in accordance with the requirements of the treaty. It requires consultation with all members of the Community, which did not take place. Moreover, the Maastricht Treaty requires that there should be consultation with the European Parliament. The new Parliament, with its added powers, is meeting in July. Can we have an assurance from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the Parliament will be brought into the consultations, as required by the Maastricht Treaty?
What an extraordinary situation we now have in front of us. The Prime Minister has talked himself into a corner in which he is in opposition to all the other 11 member states. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, shakes her head. There is no question but that, whatever may have been the case during the discussions, ultimately none of the other 11 members supported the position taken up by the Prime Minister in Corfu. How can that possibly be to the benefit of the United Kingdom?
There are important issues to be decided, in particular at the inter-governmental conference in 1996. Before that meeting surely it is of the greatest importance to develop alliances and friends with whom we can discuss the issues that are of importance to us. We must be able to rely on obtaining collaboration in putting forward the issues that we wish to defend. However, after talking ourselves into such a corner, where will those friends come from? What kind of impact can we possibly have in 1996 if we are continuously seen as being the odd man out, the enemy of the development of Europe, based on a totally faulty idea of what federalism is all about?
This is to isolate Britain. It is extraordinary that we should claim that we are aiming to be at the heart of an organisation when we are locked in seemingly endless strife with the other 11 members of that organisation. Is that the way to get to the heart of any organisation? Is

553
it the way to have any impact and effect on the way in which that organisation will develop and affect in many vital ways the future of this country, as it is bound to do?
4.24 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the questions that they have raised does not indicate that I accept all that they have said. I accept that they have raised important and significant questions and I shall do my best to answer them. I need not delay too long on the first part of the Statement, on which the noble Lord commented, because there is a great deal of common ground on that. However, there are one or two comments that should be made.
It is not true that the British representatives—my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor —did not play a full part in the discussions on competitiveness and employment. Indeed, much of Friday afternoon and Saturday morning were taken up with those issues. The Council welcomed the evidence of economic recovery across Europe. However, it reaffirmed the need for structural reform, more flexible labour markets, better training and education and the cutting of European red tape.
We fully support the conclusions of the European Council that obstacles to part-time work should be removed and that it is important to find ways of tackling youth unemployment. Indeed, on both those issues the United Kingdom has one of the best records in Europe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, commented on the attitude of the former Warsaw Pact countries—the Eastern European countries. They were kept closely in touch with everything that was going on. The European Council spent a considerable time discussing those countries and the conclusions contain a number of proposals for strengthening the relationship with them and preparing them for membership. There is no reason to suppose that the Eastern Europeans oppose what has been agreed at Corfu.
The noble Baroness was also right to stress the fact that, in moves in this country and in Europe, in many cases deregulation has two sides to it. The first is the lifting of burdens on business and the second is the necessary protection of consumers. It is vital both here and in Europe that we identify the burdens and that is where we believe that the use of businessmen is particularly valuable and important. It is, as in this country, finally the job of Parliament to decide whether those burdens are rightly to be changed, whether they cease to have a valuable role or whether they should be moved in some other way. I agree with the noble Baroness that, while we defend the idea of using businessmen to help us with that task, there is the other side, which is most important.
With regard to the presidency of the Commission, the position is simply that, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord agreed, the Prime Minister used our constitutional right to a veto and prevented the appointment of a candidate whose views in several respects run counter to our key strategic interests. We

554
believe that Mr. Dehaene stands for ideas about interventionism and the gradual pushing of power to the centre of Europe, which we believe are out of date. We simply did not believe that he was the right person to be the chief manager for the next five years of a European Union. We made that clear at the outset. It is not a personal matter or an issue of nationality. We believe that the issue should have been dealt with by arriving at a candidate who could be supported by all members of the Community.
There have been a number of so-called crises in the history of the European Union. Compromises were eventually found. This occasion should be no different. Britain has often taken a stand of principle which has attracted criticism at the time, but which has resulted in satisfactory outcomes; for example, our budget rebate, our Maastricht opt-outs and our rejection of the Dutch presidency's federalist blueprint before Maastricht. Over the years, we have helped to shape the European Union agenda in key respects: for example, on the assistance of budgetary restraint; on the drive for the single market; the acceptance of enlargement; the new principles of subsidiarity; intergovernmentalism; and, most recently, the drive for deregulation and competitiveness. Therefore, we make no apology at all.
It is interesting that that was a major issue during the recent election campaign. The Conservative Party made it clear that it felt that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party would undermine our national veto. Their reactions to our use of the veto in Corfu bears out that point. It is to stand logic on its head to imply that Britain has influence in Europe only when it accepts the decisions of our partners.
At the next stage—and we shall play a full part in that —it falls to the new German presidency to find a candidate for the Commission presidency who is acceptable to the 12. The population of the European Union amounts to some 360 million people. It should be perfectly possible to find a candidate who will attract unanimous support. The Germans have already made it clear that the problem should be sorted out quickly. Their aim is to present the new president designate of the Commission to the first plenary of the new European Parliament on 20th July. We shall play our full part in that.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is unfortunate at the very least for one member state to find itself isolated by reason of its obduracy, by its refusal to countenance complying with its obligations and by persisting in policies which have the complete disapproval of all other member states? Will my noble friend tell me what pressure was put on Greece to cease its disgraceful behaviour towards the state of Macedonia in which Greece has been indulging now for some months past to the entire disapproval of all other member states in the Community?
Secondly, does my noble friend not agree that having heard the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, relayed, perhaps, from his years in Brussels, we should remember that the doctrine of appeasement within the European Community is far from dead?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend makes his points in his own way. Of course, he is absolutely right. The European Council and the Foreign Ministers have said repeatedly that the position with regard to Greece and Macedonia is unsatisfactory. They are seeking to bring pressure to bear to resolve that problem.
It should not be thought that for Britain to take the view that it did is anything novel or new in the European Community. I can remember not very many months ago the French being extremely difficult over the GATT negotiations; but that does not make them any less European. I can remember only days ago—and I do not know whether the problem has yet been resolved—the Italians being very difficult with regard to budgetary matters because they do not approve of the milk quotas. This country is entitled to stand up for its interests and while this Government are in office, they will stand up for them.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I have always tried to persuade friends that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is nothing like as nasty as he always sounds—although I hasten to add that that is usually without success.
Of course the Prime Minister was perfectly entitled to veto what the other 11 wanted. Nobody disputes that. The question now is whether the Prime Minister intends to veto any other candidate whom he assumes to be federalist. Will the noble Lord give us a definition of what European federalism really means to the Prime Minister and to the Government? Does the Minister accept that it may mean more and not less subsidiarity? In those circumstances, why should the Prime Minister oppose somebody who necessarily, on the Government's definition, is assumed to be a federalist?
With regard to interventionism, is it not a fact that the Council of Ministers is the supreme body? If the Commission seeks to be too interventionist, it is perfectly open to the Council of Ministers to oppose that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the Council of Ministers has a great say and, in a sense, disposes of many of the issues. But that should not mean that the position of the new president of the Commission, who will be president for five years and perhaps longer, is not extremely important. Those five years will see dramatic changes within the European Union. The direction of that change has become increasingly apparent. We should like to have a president who will sustain rather than retard that movement. We shall not enter into further negotiations with any desire to veto anybody. We shall seek to discuss with our colleagues in Europe a candidate who is acceptable to all member states, and I believe that that is possible.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that once again the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, speaking from the Labour Benches, is trying to obscure matters by his play with the word "federal"? In the minds of some continental philosophers it may mean less than central government. Mr. Dehaene and people who think like him—and this

556
can be found in every recorded speech that he has made —are in favour of what is called further European integration; that is, more laws made in Brussels and fewer laws made by national parliaments.
Mr. Dehaene would not deny for a moment that he takes that line. Do not Her Majesty's Government believe that while may have corresponded with the feeling in Europe that 10, 15 or 20 years ago, the recent European elections—both the voting and the number of abstentions in many countries, as well as other evidence —show that that is wholly out of date? Therefore, one is looking for a president who understands what is going on now and who will not repeat the litany of M. Monnet a generation ago.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend makes his point extremely clearly. I did not use the word "federalist" and I do not use it because I agree that it opens up a new discussion about what it means. We said that Mr. Dehaene stands for ideas about interventionism and the gradual pushing of power to the centre of Europe. We believe that those ideas are out of date. We wish to find a candidate who we believe has a feel for how Europe will be during the next five or 10 years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we seem to have got ourselves into a lot of trouble even though a year ago we were busily examining the Maastricht Treaty. I am given to understand that Members of the Government at that time, after tuition at Conservative Party headquarters, understood what was in it.
We are in the trouble that we are because we still have not read the treaty. It may be helpful to remind your Lordships that Article 158(2) of the treaty states:
"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord, after consulting the European Parliament, the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission".
Everybody seems to have forgotten the word "after".
The European Parliament is not in session until 15th July. It has not yet selected its committees, although I am quite sure that the committee which deals with pay and allowances will be one of the first to meet! But the European Parliament still has to determine a definitive attitude towards that most important problem. Indeed, that is right. As the Government say—I am quite sure that my noble friend agrees—the choice that is made as regards the President of the Commission is of crucial importance in the years that lie ahead, particularly in the year 1996 when the inter-governmental conference takes place. This is why the Corfu proceedings were entirely meaningless. The European Parliament had not been consulted and the views that the population of Europe have put forward to their various European Members of Parliament were not known. It will probably take some six weeks to two months for the European Parliament to articulate its views, bearing in mind that shortly after it assembles on 15th July it will depart for two months recess.
Where are we on this? Surely the main trouble is this; that Germany and France—I am not afraid to mention this —decided which way they wanted to go and they sought, by using what power they have in terms of the influence that they wield economically and financially in Europe, to railroad the rest of the Community into

557
supporting the candidate of their choice. I do not think it was right to do so. If I were in a Labour Government I would not be railroaded. I would follow the procedure laid down in the treaty itself with which I have acquainted the House. It may well be that the Parliament would reach a conclusion that was not amenable to me —maybe I would disagree with it—but at least the procedure would be followed. It should have been followed in this particular case.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not think I need go into quite such a wide survey of the scene as did the noble Lord, with his enormous knowledge of these matters. But the position is quite simple. The European Council has first to agree a nominee before it can put a name to the European Parliament. The discussions, as I understand it, at Corfu were to seek to agree a nominee to put to the European Parliament. There were three candidates on the table, so to speak, of which two were not objected to in terms of a possible veto by anyone. There was one candidate who, it was made abundantly clear, was unacceptable to one member state. As there has to be unanimity, we ended up, unfortunately, in the position we are in and we shall have to get out of it for the next time. However, I am sure the British Government did the right thing.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the very great support and admiration we have for the Prime Minister, who took his action at Corfu to protect not only British but European interests? Is it not recognised that even if Mr. Dehaene was a very suitable candidate to be President of the Commission—there are indeed doubts as to his political views—in view of the fact that he would be President of the Commission for five years, that would have influence on the whole of the future of the European Union? Is it not time that people realised that, particularly the Opposition, who seem to have been ready just to be dominated by a decision knitted and cobbled together by the German and French Governments? Is not that an intolerable situation? Should we not support the Prime Minister in standing up, as I say, for British and European interests?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that question. She is, of course, absolutely right. There was considerable unease in most other delegations about the way this matter had been handled and the way people's agreement had been taken for granted. Others expressed doubt there, and I see from this morning's press that others have expressed doubt since. I hope there is a lesson for all of us in this and that at the next meeting we find a candidate, who under the rules has to be unanimously agreed. That is the way forward.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, there is a puzzling aspect of the story and I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House can help us to see it more clearly. It was plain from an early stage that the Government's own candidate, Sir Leon Brittan, whatever his merits—I would not attempt to suggest he does not. have them—was not a candidate who would gain support. It is not really sufficient to blame a major defeat for British diplomacy on other countries' bad

558
behaviour. Why did we not take an initiative much earlier and look for a candidate who would meet exactly the criteria which the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have indicated; in other words, a candidate who would be a candidate of consensus? Why did we not take an initiative and find someone to put forward, because at the end of the day the failure of our diplomacy was marked by the withdrawal of the two other candidates, including Her Majesty's Government's candidate, who had only three supporters at the best of times?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I must say that I do not consider it to be a defeat to stand firm for British interests as we did on this occasion. I think it would have been a defeat to have gone along with some candidate who we did not think was acceptable. The position is that we supported Sir Leon's candidacy because we thought he was highly suited to the job. We also recognised that Dr. Lubbers was a strong candidate, and no other country thought that either of them was; unsuitable as a possible President of the Commission. We made it clear that the Belgian Prime Minister was unacceptable to us, and that was the difficulty we found ourselves in at Corfu, with the consequences that we all know about.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, following what the noble Lord has just said, what will happen now? Is it not right that the names, or the name, that the Government are going to put forward should be known to all of us? If it is a matter of the European Parliament playing a part in this, why not us? The noble Lord has reported to this House; we have heard about names being bandied about. Why should we not be able to discuss the name of a person that is to be put forward? I wish to ask one other question. This morning I listened to the "Today" programme—I never listen to it for very long but I listened to it this morning—and I heard the Home Secretary say that this was not just a matter of choosing a President. He said that there is a turning point and that this matter constitutes a movement of the European Community towards a free trade area. That is what he said. Was he speaking on behalf of the Government?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord, whom I have known for many years, occasionally puts on an appearance of innocence which never convinces me and which does not convince me this afternoon. If he seriously thinks that any candidate which the British Government consider to be a suitable President should be—I hope your Lordships will not feel I say this in any disrespectful fashion—bandied about in your Lordships' House this afternoon, I do not think that that would necessarily improve his chances of being elected. We believe the way to select a President of the Commission who is acceptable to all the members of the Community is to go about it with quiet diplomacy, and that is what we shall do under the leadership of the German Presidency.
Lord Monson: Does not the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is most regrettable that the official Opposition—or at any rate their Front Bench —see fit to attack Her Majesty's Government for having

559
the guts to stand up to what, by common consent, was Franco-German bullying; in standing firm not only for our own sake but for the sake of a number of smaller countries whose views, secretly, are rather closer to our own than they are to the views of France, Germany or Belgium?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am entirely content when the Opposition are attacking the Government. I get myself into some anxiety when I receive too much support from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, opposite. Therefore I am perfectly content that he should be attacking the Government in this way. But I think he is wrong for the reasons that I have said.
I believe the noble Lord made a good point. It perhaps is less difficult for a major nation like the United Kingdom to stand firm on these occasions. Some of the smaller countries of the European Union perhaps find it less easy to stand firm. Therefore it is the decision-making processes within the Community that we believe to be an important part of the lessons that should be learnt from these events.
Lord Howell: My Lords, may I—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, a sceptic voice from these Benches can add to the congratulations of my noble friend Lady Elles to the Prime Minister on the stand that he has taken—I think, and many of us think, with considerable courage—on this matter of the Commission President. In regard to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about there being other candidates who may be just as bad as Mr. Dehaene, I for one hope that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will veto them until we get a candidate who is acceptable to all European Governments.
My main question to my noble friend relates to the early part of the Statement, in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was glad to welcome Austria and hoped soon to welcome three more countries to make the Community number 16 and then to move on to 20 in due course. Some of us have a worry that if this process takes place the strength of the centre of the Community—the Brussels bureaucracy which many of us dislike so much—will be strengthened by a widening of the Community. Most of us support widening because we hope that it will lead to a weakening of the centre. Has my noble friend the Leader of the House anything to say on that fear? I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend warmly. I am delighted when he supports the Government on European matters, as opposed to my lack of concern when the noble Lord opposite disapproves of what I have to say. I believe that the accession of the four additional members of the European Union—which I very much welcome—will produce a Community which will be very different in character from the type of central, interventionist Community which was developing until my right honourable friend played a large part in arresting that movement. I believe that that will be even more so when the Community is enlarged to 20 members. I do not

560
want to tempt my noble friend too much, but that is why a number of us believe that the Maastricht Treaty was such a significant event in the development of the European Community.
Lord Howell: My Lords, having regard to the fact that the European Union has as one of its principal purposes economic advance, about which little has been said today, and the silence of the leaders of British industry, which has such fundamental trade with Europe, what discussions have the Government had with British industry and what assessment have they made of the effect of the continuing isolation of our Government, not only on this issue but on all recent important issues? Has the noble Lord read the statement made by Chancellor Kohl this weekend about future economic planning, which will require full co-operation and participation in regard to workers' rights in drawing up economic strategies? Judging by the assessment in The Times today, we have again lost on this vital question. What assessment have the Government made about the need for economic advance on these matters, on which we are also at odds with our 11 partners?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is wrong about that. As a result of the Copenhagen and Edinburgh summits and the most recent summit the British Government's agenda on economic affairs has now been widely accepted throughout the Community as the right way forward. That agenda includes improved competitiveness, labour market reforms, the importance of keeping down inflation and the control of public sector spending. All of those issues are issues on which the whole of the European Community has now united behind the British initiative. We are right at the centre of the developments taking place within the Community.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
4.53 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Undertakings as alternative to monopoly reference by Director General of Fair Trading]:
Lord Williams Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert:
(""Onus of proof in case of undertakings.
56ZA. The Director shall not make a proposal under section 56A below, or accept any undertaking proposed to be made under section 75G below, unless he is satisfied that the particular persons, the parties to the transactions or the relevant enterprises, as the case may be, have demonstrated that their activities or proposals for merger, as the case may be, are not against the public interest and will not result in a diminution of competition.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 63 standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The amendment that I have tabled is designed to bring some rationality to competition policy. Competition policy in legislation is, I admit, extremely complex.
I recognise that there is a mistake in my amendment. Under Section 75G, which is an amendment to the Fair Trading Act introduced by the Companies Act 1989, it is the Secretary of State who has to accept undertakings

561
rather than the director. I recognise that error in the amendment. Nevertheless, I believe that that is an error which could be rectified at a later stage if the Committee accepts the amendment today.
In my view competition policy is in a state of some confusion. It was set out initially in the Fair Trading Act 1973. I remind the Committee that that was quite a long time ago. Since then, the Fair Trading Act has been amended by the Companies Act 1989, in particular Section 147 which allowed undertakings as an alternative to merger references. Furthermore, arrange-ments were agreed under which large mergers would be treated under European jurisdiction under Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome. That led to a different tier of jurisdiction. It is now proposed under Clause 5 of the Bill to extend the principle of undertakings to monopoly references.
There are several difficulties with that. First, monopoly references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are made by the director—or, as we shall debate subsequently, perhaps by other people or by the Secretary of State acting on the director's advice. In cases other than newspapers, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is governed by the criteria of Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act, which define the public interest in what I accept is, and has been accepted for a number of years, a rather loose manner. Secondly, merger references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, when they arrive at the commission, are governed by the definition of public interest in Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act. Thirdly, large mergers— "Euro-mergers", to use that rather unpleasant expres-sion—are dealt with by the European Commission. The only criterion under Article 86 of the Treaty is reduction in competition.
Therefore, Section 84 of the Fair Trading Act applies only to domestic situations; namely, mergers which do not come up to the level that falls under European jurisdiction. There is no specific reference to what motivates the Secretary of State or the director in making a reference under any of this legislation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. And there is nothing in any legislation that determines on what basis such a reference should be made. Furthermore, the matter is taken out of its hands by the European Commission should the threshold be passed. The whole area at the moment is very messy and unsatisfactory. The criteria which may be used by the director or the Secretary of State may be quite different from the criteria to be used by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in judging them. That is the case both in monopoly references and merger references. Furthermore, if there is a large merger a wholly different series of criteria apply in the case of Europe.
We have for long argued that there should be a complete review of competition policy and that that review should translate itself into a consolidated piece of legislation which takes account of what has happened since the Fair Trading Act 1973 was passed and amended by the legislation which I have mentioned. My amendments are a modest attempt to achieve a certain rationality. The Companies Act 1989 introduced the question of undertakings. Undertakings were allowed

562
under Section 56A, as amended, of the Fair Trading Act when it was decided that the merger in question was not to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As I understand it, under Clause 5 that process is now to be extended to monopoly references. Again we have the problem regarding domestic mergers or monopolies where different criteria apply to different pieces of the legislation.
Our general belief is that in all cases of mergers or monopolies it is up to the parties to the transaction, the companies involved, to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that what they propose is in the public interest. It is not for the Government, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, or anyone else, to make that assertion unless the companies are challenged on their proof.
I do not wish to go into the process of short termism and how we have arrived at those views. Over a period of years, starting as I remember with the 1978 White Paper and subsequently confirmed, the DTI has shown that in the case of mergers only 50 per cent. are successful by any reasonable criterion. In the case of monopolies references, we have recently had the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on compact discs which has caused a certain amount of controversy. If Parliament will allow companies to give undertakings instead of being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on either a monopoly or a merger situation, surely the onus of proof that what is proposed in such undertakings is not against the public interest must rest with the companies involved. I should like to extend that onus to all merger references. However, in the context of the Bill, we are only dealing with undertakings. We believe that if companies are able to demonstrate that their proposals with regard to a monopoly or a merger is in the public interest, they are entitled to have such an undertaking accepted. If they are unable to do that, then the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Secondly, I believe that we should start to bring our criteria for public interest into line with the criteria of Article 86. We recognise, quite properly, that the total result regarding competition in the overall sense may not be entirely in the public interest of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, that is the criterion of Article 86. My amendment provides that such a measure will not result in a diminution of competition.
However, we recognise that there may be merit in the Government arguing in the forum of Europe that the public interest factor might be moved a little away from total insistence on competition. Nevertheless, those are the criteria before us. That is why my amendment is couched in the terms that it is.
I accept that my amendment is only a small and modest start. It is designed to ensure that those companies which enjoy the benefit of deregulation in the form of undertakings have an onus on them to prove that what they are doing is in the public interest. I have sought to define a little more clearly what I mean by that.
However, there are two principles which my amendment embodies. First, there must be a consistency of approach across the range of monopolies and mergers

563
between our own and the European jurisdiction. Secondly, if there will be any undertaking, the onus of proof must be with the companies which are either in a monopoly situation or which propose a merger. It is a modest amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for proposing his amendment in such a way. I am sure that deep in his heart he realises that there is nothing modest about the amendment. It is an important amendment which goes back to debates that he started in this House during the passage of the Companies Act 1989. He said that he would like to see such a clause provided for all monopoly and merger cases. At least the noble Lord is consistent.
The Committee will know that in 1984 the Government stated that mergers should be referred to the MMC primarily but not exclusively on competition grounds. That statement is still the bedrock of the way in which we deal with MMC policy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister at an early stage. Does he accept that while that may be the bedrock of the Government's views on references, it is not the bedrock of the duty on the MMC to report on those references?
Lord Strathclyde: The MMC is an independent body which looks at a range of criteria. Furthermore, we do not feel that a review of competition policy is necessary. We have had several reviews over the years covering all aspects of competition policy. In 1988 there was a review of mergers policies leading to the 1989 Act. There was, too, a review of restrictive trade practices. In 1992 there was consultation on abuse of market power. We are responding to the reviews already carried out. There is a great deal going on in the field of competition. Under these clauses, we are looking at how we can deregulate to make easier the policy on mergers and monopolies.
We are proposing Clause 5 because we believe that it is not always necessary to deploy the whole of the competition machinery, with the expense that entails for everyone, to solve the problems that may arise from the operation of monopolies. It may be helpful if I briefly explain the existing position.
Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to keep under review the carrying on of commercial activities in the United Kingdom and may, where he thinks fit, at any time make a monopoly reference to the MMC. It is for the MMC then to investigate whether there is a monopoly situation and if so whether it operates or may operate against the public interest. If the MMC reports adversely, undertakings may be accepted or an order made by the Secretary of State to remedy the adverse effects identified.
To solve competition problems arising from monopolies, all we have at the moment, therefore, is a full-scale reference to the MMC. Clause 5 provides a more flexible option to solve such problems, where appropriate, more quickly and at an earlier stage. We are

564
also proposing Clause 7 because it seems appropriate for companies and the authorities to have the same flexibility to solve competition problems that may arise from a merger, again without necessarily going through a full reference to the MMC. In each case, the objective is to provide a short cut to the right solution in straightforward cases where the answer is clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that it was a modest amendment but it would in fact defeat the whole object of Clauses 5 and 7. It would also eliminate the degree of flexibility which Section 75G of the Fair Trading Act already provides for companies to offer divestment undertakings as an alternative to a merger reference. Instead of clauses designed to resolve simple problems, we would have clauses which could only come into operation once it had been shown that no problem existed. We have designed the system to be fair so that it balances the ability of the authorities to take effective action, where that is necessary, with the interests of companies in lightening the competition machinery.
There will be no shady deals. Consumers, competitors and others interested will have the chance to comment and their views will be taken into account. We are therefore not weakening competition policy. If companies do not keep to the undertakings, they risk being taken to court. We are not supplanting the MMC's valuable role and will continue to look to it to investigate the more complicated cases.
We believe that Clauses 5 and 7 offer a common-sense approach. The existing Section 75G of the Act has already been used to provide quick, simple and effective solutions for mergers in a narrower range of circumstances. Now we are proposing to widen that range.
We believe that that should be in everyone's interest. The companies under investigation can get on more quickly with their business without incurring the considerable expense of an MMC investigation. The consumer benefits from earlier resolution of a competition problem and the market can start to work properly again.
I know that it may have been the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we should have a debate about competition policy in general. However, his views on the subject are well known and we have a fundamental disagreement. I accept that he was trying to introduce the concept of the public interest into these measures but I believe, for the reasons that I have outlined, the clauses should remain the way they are and provide that light touch, deregulatory system as regards undertakings.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am sure that when the noble Lord says that there will be no shady deals, he is telling no less than the full story. However, I feel in my guts—often quite a good way of judging where the contents of a piece of legislation really lie—that this is weakening competition policy. Given that the actions of the Director General of Fair Trading and the whole ambience of his department are influenced by the feelings within the Department of Trade and Industry, there is no doubt at all that both the Monopolies and

565
Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading reflect, to a considerable degree, changes in the Government's policy. The consequence of that— whatever the Minister may say—will be a weakening of competition policy.
Although we have been led to believe that the whole process that the Bill is engaged upon is a matter of cutting red tape, this goes far beyond that. It is a major issue of competition policy, and competition policy is at the heart of industrial policy for the Government, as for others.
It seems to me that what is at fault at the moment —and I do not deny that there is a problem although I am not sure that it is a matter of confusion, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, described it—is that there are delays which are an impediment to the proper functioning of government as well as of business. But surely the right approach or a simpler approach, which would be totally consistent with maintaining competition policy, would be to simplify the procedures of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In other words, references should take place as now, but there ought not to be a long delay and an elaborate inquiry which results in an unsatisfactory outcome.
If the noble Lord were to give me a satisfactory reply to the question that I wish to ask, it would put some of my anxieties at rest. Could he say what are the recent references by the Office of Fair Trading—he is already shaking his head, before I have completed my sentence, but if we are to judge the future we can only do it in relation to the past. When Ministers construct proposals of this kind, they have in mind examples of things which did not happen in the way that they would have liked them to happen. The noble Lord now nods his head, so perhaps he is moving in my direction. Can he give the Committee examples of the kind of references which have occurred and which he does not believe need occur in the future, given the provisions of this clause and subsequent clauses, including the safeguards which he believes are built in? If he would give examples, we could then judge both the importance of the clause and the view that we should take of the amendments before the Committee.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I am surprised that the Government do not accept and welcome the amendment of my noble friend Lord Williams. Since 1988 they have said on several occasions that more powers of investigation and enforcement are needed. Successive Directors General of Fair Trading have publicly expressed the urgent need for such action to eliminate practices which they have frequently exposed. Green Papers were published in March 1988 and November 1992, and a White Paper in July 1989. There have been several other statements since.
The DTI and the Office of Fair Trading Deregulation of Competition Law and Procedure Changes in January 1994 stated in paragraph 19 that the Government were conscious of the strong criticism levelled at them and remained committed to replace the legislation with a prohibition-based system. I believe that the amendment

566
of my noble friend Lord Williams makes a contribution towards that and I am surprised that the noble Lord does not accept it.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, the amendment makes a contribution to the debate. My point earlier was that it is a contribution that we have heard many times. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I have a fundamental disagreement about the issue, or his party and my party have a fundamental disagreement about it. I stand by what has been said in the past. We have no desire to weaken the cause of competition and do not believe that anything we propose in the clauses does that. Therefore, I cannot agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said.
What we are not doing is to change the criteria or powers for making references on monopolies or mergers to the MMC. Instead, we are providing flexibility to solve competition problems without employing the whole of the competition machinery. The clauses are, therefore, designed to provide faster solutions to sraightforward competition problems. That will save time, expense and effort for all concerned and, as I said, earlier, quicker solutions are in everyone's interests— consumers, competitors and businesses themselves. I would have hoped that this would be something that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, would welcome. It is the kind of short-cut, fast-track method which I would have thought he would welcome.
The noble Lord went on to ask me a question which is much more difficult to answer: if we are to judge the future, we should look at the past. Therefore, what kind of past undertakings do we see being used in the future under the new clauses? The Bill does not limit the type of undertakings that would be acceptable, but we would be looking for undertakings that would solve monopoly problems cleanly and simply where the issues themselves are clear cut. These are the kinds of assurances that would most likely involve future conduct: for example, ending discriminatory pricing or refusal to supply. The undertakings will need to be sufficient to solve the problem, otherwise—and this is important—there is still room to go for a full reference.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. I was intrigued by the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. He should not exaggerate the difference between us; we are strong advocates of competition and I cannot list the number of times that I have heard the Minister say that competition is the essence of the Government's policies and that they favour it. Therefore, that is not the point at issue. The point is how we judge it.
To help the Minister, perhaps I may put specifically two examples which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, had in mind. Perhaps we may take the two most ludicrous reports of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission over the past year. There have been several vying for ludicrousness. The MMC has become so ludicrous that I am even tempted to support the Government on the Bill. I find it hard to see the MMC as the consumers' friend any more. If the Government had their time over again, would they have submitted the problem of resale price maintenance being

567
introduced through the back door on the supply of perfumes? Would they have done it that way rather than through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which produced a quite astonishing report suggesting that resale price maintenance in that case is acceptable? To take the even dafter report on the supply of compact discs last week, which I am sure the noble Lord read as closely as I, the MMC came up with the statement that there was a monopoly but it was not against the public interest. Are not the Government taken aback by that at all? Does the Minister realise that that totally flies in the face of the Government's own policy statements? Would the Government, if they had the chance, use their own new route (to follow the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank) on the compact disc question? As I say, my own temptation —although of course I totally support my noble friend on the general matter—in regard to how the MMC is behaving is to wonder whether what we really need is a new approach to the MMC. I should really like something more practical, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, on, for example, those two cases.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I wonder whether I might intervene before the noble Lord replies to that very helpful comment by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He said, in trying to explain without examples—though I hope that he will now deal with the matter that the noble Lord raised—that matters that are suitable for an undertaking might be issues that are clear-cut. If the Minister does not want to go into a great deal of detail in terms of examples, could he tell us over a convenient period such as the past five years how many issues were so clear-cut as in his view to be ones where undertakings could be given? Then—and perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I overlooked this—could the Minister say (or repeat, if he has already said) how many fewer references he expects as a result of the Bill? Again, he holds up his hands as though he does not know. But there must have been some assumptions made within his department; otherwise it would have been extremely irresponsible to bring forward a proposal when he cannot give examples of cases that will not be referred and does not even know now how many fewer there would be. And finally, if this procedure is followed, what does the Minister imagine to be the length of time between the original consideration by the Office of Fair Trading, the request for the undertakings and the consultation? In other words, how much shorter will those occasions be than they are now? These are very simple questions and they must have been discussed within the department; otherwise the Minister would have been very irresponsible—and I know that he is not irresponsible—to bring the matter forward.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of very nice, very neat debating points. But I am not sure that they deal very much with the substance of the case with which we are dealing: for instance, on the whole question of the length of time involved. We shall come to that subject in later amendments. But the main point here is that time will vary depending on the industry being looked at or on the particular problem or

568
issue in question. Therefore it is not possible to say how much time will be saved. What we do know, however, is that there are substantial costs involved in going forward to a full reference. We believe that there are instances—certainly there will be instances in the future, once we have passed this measure, if it is passed —where it will save a lot of money and time to go through the short-cut procedure—
Lord Tordoff: I can quite understand when the Minister says that there are a variety of cases. But can he set some kind of proportion on the time that is likely to be saved? Clearly it will not be the same in each case. Will the measure cut the time by half? Will it cut the cost by half? We need some kind of guidance on what the effect will be.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord asks the unanswerable. There is not an obvious answer to those questions. We believe that the cost will be substantially reduced; by more than half, about half—
Lord Peston: By half then.
Lord Strathclyde: It may be by half; it may be by more than half. I hope that it will not be less. The whole point is to look at areas which are clear-cut and with which we can deal in a practical way.
I felt when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was speaking that there was an amount of admiration for the way in which the Government had brought forward these clauses and that the noble Lord was in favour of having this short-cut regime on the basis that, by having it, we might have had a different answer as regards some of the recent reports that have been made—
Lord Peston: I do not mean to interrupt the noble Lord. I was simply being helpful to the Government. I believe that competition is the consumers' friend. I have often heard the Government say that as well. The MMC certainly does not seem to believe that any more. I simply sought guidance as to whether the new procedure might help us in that regard. My concern is that the new procedure—as I shall demonstrate, probably ad nauseam, during the course of the rest of the afternoon—will weaken rather than strengthen. We shall come to that matter in due course. I would like the Government at least to recognise their own commitment to competition.
Lord Strathclyde: Many times I have recognised our commitment to competition. But we do have procedures in this country for looking at monopoly and mergers procedures, through the MMC and through the DGFT. The noble Lord raised two particular cases; namely, on retail price maintenance and on CDs. But he could have raised many others where the MMC has made adverse findings; for instance, on gas; private medical services; contraceptive sheaths; mortgage valuations; and national newspapers. And there have been others about which the noble Lord may not agree. We could have a debate as to whether or not the commission was wrong. I do not believe that this is the right place for such a debate. But as to the question of whether these are the kinds of cases that would have been dealt with under these new procedures, it would be

569
up to the director general to decide whether to make a proposal and for the companies to decide whether to agree undertakings. That is why these questions, which are well put by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, are impossible to answer. I hope that I have been helpful. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is no doubt itching to wind up this debate. I hope that I have given him an explanation of what is at the heart of the new clauses.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to intervene, but it seems to me that one of the key issues in regard to this amendment is the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned, as I did, the concern that exists in regard to the situation not only in this country but in a European dimension. There is a concern that competition is not the only mechanism to judge mergers and developing monopoly situations, but that there is a case for the public interest to be taken into account.
I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the apparent inadequacy of the deliberations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It reminded me of a question that somebody asked me a number of years ago; namely, why do we have only one Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is there not a bit of a monopoly there?
I wonder, bearing in mind the developments of technology and financial regimes in terms of the international financial markets and developments in patterns of trade, whether we need to make some changes in this area. I wonder whether the Minister can respond to those points, particularly with reference to the public interest issue which formed such a key part of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Williams.
Lord Strathclyde: I am well aware that that is the key part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. But I do not believe that there is any gap in the ability of the MMC, or indeed of the DGFT to be able to make his deliberations. The MMC is an independent statutory body. It has a role to assess the impact of activities and transactions on the public interest. It is the job of the MMC to weigh up carefully all the evidence from all interested parties, be they consumers, competitors or anybody else. It must then produce independent and objective reports. I for one have every confidence in the MMC's ability to perform that valuable role.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This has been an interesting debate—not least because of the Minister's replies to the various questions that have been put to him. I am surprised that the Minister, who normally treats these matters in an intelligent and sensitive manner, does not seem to understand that what is being asked of us in this Bill is by its nature a weakening of competition policy. We on this side are in favour of a strengthening of competition policy. He did not seem to understand that competition policy needs an overall review and an overall rationalisation in the way that I mentioned. He has not given us any examples of how that might have applied or how it might apply in future. When asked how much it will be, he says that maybe half will be spent and half will be saved. It is all very vague. I am

570
rather surprised that the Minister can come before this place, which after all is a revising Chamber, with such measures and not give us proper answers.
Competition policy remains in confusion. I return to what I said when introducing the amendment. The amendment is designed to introduce an element of rationality into competition policy. I agree that there is a divide between ourselves and the party opposite about the onus of proof. But I believe that by introducing the onus of proof in this very modest manner, and if we allow undertakings instead of references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, we simply push the whole matter forward onto what I regard as more sensible ground. In recognising that there is that divide, I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Airedale, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kennel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Listowel, E.

Warnock, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cadman, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Aldington, L.

Carnock, L.

Annaly, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Arran, E.

Chesham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Balfour, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Blatch, B.

Courtown, E.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boardman, L.

Cranborne, V.

Borthwick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Davidson, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Denham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

571

Ellenborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elton, L.

Northboume, L.

Faithfull, B.

Northesk, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Rather, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Palmer, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geddes, L.

Pender, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goschen, V.

Pike, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Hanworth, V.

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Renwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Richardson, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hesketh, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Holdemess, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Skidelsky, L.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stewartby, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strange, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Leigh, L.

[Teller.]

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Manton, L.

Vivian, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Merrivale, L.

Waverley, V.

Mersey, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wynford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 5, line 42, after ("considers") insert ("and is able to demonstrate").
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a great many amendments which essentially are to test the Government's statement, which the Minister has just repeated, that whatever we see under this chapter of miscellaneous deregulatory provisions, the Government's policy is not—and is stated not to be—a weakening of competition policy. In other words, the Government want to do things in a different way but their view is that it does not weaken competition policy.
Almost everyone who has written to me on the subject takes the contrary view. It is perhaps very difficult to make up one's mind because it would not be known whether the provisions weakened competition policy until they were used. Then it would be clear. The noble Lord heard me say earlier that I was not too happy with the present state of competition policy if it could give rise to the kind of reports from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that we have just seen. My first amendment, which is one of many, is a test of that.
As it stands, Clause 5 of the Bill refers to the director general and new Section 56A (1) (c) contains the provision:
"if he considers that undertakings offered to be given by particular persons would be sufficient".
We raised this matter in your Lordships' Committee on Thursday last when I was unhappy about similar statements in relation to the Secretary of State. I do not believe that "considers" is sufficient, particularly for those of us who take an interest in the matter—I refer to those of us in your Lordships' Chamber as well as those of us outside. We want more than that. We want the director general to demonstrate that the undertakings are sufficient. In other words, we want to be persuaded and we want to see how the director general was persuaded.
To return to an earlier example, I would have been quite happy if the undermining of resale price maintenance in the perfume case had been dealt with in that way. The scandal that essentially the perfume companies have undermined the work of the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Edward Heath— whose greatest contribution to the welfare of this country was the abolition of resale price maintenance which he introduced when he was President of the Board of Trade in 1963—is being repeated consistently by all sorts of companies, though the perfume case was by far the most disgraceful. Essentially the Monopolies and Mergers Commission validated that case.
I am interested in whether or not the Minister will say that under these rules—this is mutatis mutandis in this case —the DGFT will seek undertakings from people engaged in bad behaviour to desist from it; that he will demonstrate that it will work—that is the point of my amendment—and then we need not bother with a rather eccentric monopolies commission.
Members of the Committee will see that many other amendments tabled in my name are along the same lines as Amendment No. 64. My intention is to obtain a more positive statement from the Government that the provision will strengthen competition policy. If they are able to accept Amendment No. 64, nothing will show more clearly their commitment to this matter.
Lord Strathclyde: My main disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, lies with the contention that what we are proposing weakens competition policy. We do not believe that it does; it simply changes the procedures whereby the DGFT receives undertakings. The principle of undertakings was conceded some years ago and we are simply looking at ways of finding a regime whereby we can come to decisions neatly and easily. I believe that Amendment No. 64 is unnecessary and would lengthen the process unduly.
Under subsection (2) in new Section 56A, the director already has to set out, in his proposal to the Secretary of State, a whole range of information: the terms of the undertakings; the companies offering them; the facts of the monopoly situation which he believes may operate against the public interest; and the relevant adverse effects which he identifies. In short, he must present both the problem and its possible solution.
The Secretary of State, who has the final decision on acceptance, can therefore form his own view of the likely effectiveness of the undertakings. Moreover,

573
before making his proposal the director will have published a notice, under new Section 56B, setting out the adverse effects and the terms of the proposed undertakings. So everyone interested will have had the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the proposed solution.
I believe those arrangements, which are designed to promote a balanced and transparent assessment, are sufficient as they stand in providing the degree of certainty required to show that an adequate solution has been reached. I believe that we can also rely on the director to fulfil his independent role and come forward with well thought-out proposals. It would be wrong to require the director to prove indisputably that the proposed solution is right. I believe that the amendment could lead to a situation similar to that which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham warned against in our debate last week on Amendment No. 2. The onus of proof on the director to demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed undertakings would, in effect, mean that the courts could decide whether or not the proposal should go forward.
I do not believe that we need to increase the possibility of judicial scrutiny in that way. The director's consideration must in any case be based on reasonable grounds, or else there would be a risk of judicial review. The whole purpose of the clause is to provide the possibility of a short-cut solution, without a full-scale MMC investigation. The amendment would require the director to conduct a much fuller investigation. That would risk lengthening the whole process and supplanting the role of the MMC.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the clause already provides an appropriate level of certainty and transparency, and that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, can therefore withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. We are certainly on the same wavelength in that we are talking about the same subject. He used exactly the word that is at the centre of my concerns—transparency. He is aware that I was mystified by his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham last week in that merely making the common sense point that when one says, "I am going to do this", one ought to be able to show that it works—that is all I am asking—suddenly gets us into the deep water of judicial review and the heavy-handedness of the law.
I felt it was common sense that if the DGFT said, "These undertakings do this job", I should be able to put up my hand and ask him why. I am not asking him to go through the whole of the MMC report again, but I should like to be persuaded. To be told that merely asking the question "Why?" brings down galaxies of silks and goodness knows what else rather shatters me. I like to believe that the world is not quite like that; that one can ask a reasonable question and receive a reasonable answer.
Again, the noble Lord and I are on the same wavelength in that we agree on the objective. If we can make competition policy work as well or perhaps better than it works at the moment, and do it more efficiently, then the Government will get no trouble from me. That

574
is not where we disagree. I want a better case put forward that that will be so. The noble Lord cannot blame me if I am a teeny bit suspicious. He knows the disdain with which I view the deregulation committees —I am not sure whether that is their correct name— simply because of the monolithic way in which they have been set up. If those committees had contained a broader range of opinion, then the opinion of all the people concerned would have carried a good deal more weight than simply including the rather narrow range of opinion that was included. I would have been much more impressed in that case.
My concern is that if this kind of amendment comes from that kind of person then I become extremely suspicious, and the noble Lord cannot blame me for that. I was interested in his answer. What matters is that he is on record as saying that he and the Government are convinced that the provision will not weaken policy. Several other amendments will allow me to repeat my speech and him to repeat his. Indeed, if we had a Committee upstairs consisting purely of the noble Lord and me, we would proceed much more quickly and the Government Chief Whip would be a good deal happier. However, we are not doing it that way at the present time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 6, line 7, at end insert ("and an explanation of why he believes that to be the case").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 67.
Again, as the noble Lord points out, a statement is required to be made about the facts relating to the monopoly situation, which the director considers may now or in future operate against the public interest. This somewhat follows from the earlier ammendment of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I simply ask—and my heart sinks at what the answer might be, because I would not be surprised if it is identical to the one that I have just had—that he should add an explanation of why he believes that to be the case; why he believes it to be against the public interest. That applies also to Amendment No. 67.
It seems perfectly reasonable that one can ask the DGFT not merely to say "I think this is against the public interest", but to tell us why. I hope that the answer is not going to be "judicial review" again, but I fear it may be.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to bore the Committee and so I shall not use an identical answer. But I have similar reservations with this amendment as with the last one: I believe that it would be unnecessary and over-prescriptive to make the requirement. We are trying to provide this new mechanism and there is a danger that, in placing too many requirements on the director, a mechanism intended for resolving problems quickly and effectively will become too bureaucratic ever to be used. The director already has to specify what are the identified adverse effects on the public interest that might be caused by the monopoly situation.
The nature of the problem which he has identified, the facts causing it, together with the proposed solution,

575
will all be presented in the director's proposals to the Secretary of State. They will also previously have been specified in the director's notice published for consultation. This should be sufficient for anyone to evaluate the director's proposal. I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not think that that is a full enough answer.
The real question on this amendment and the ones that we will come to is that we have spent a great deal of time in working out how the proposals should work in practice, and we have eschewed putting other powers or duties on the director which may well hold them up. Our intention is for these things to be used where there is a relatively clear-cut case and we can reduce time and expenditure by avoiding a full reference.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I understand his argument about wanting to be efficient and effective, but, in the end, effectiveness depends on the outcome as well as just on saving time. It is a question of what you achieve. I do not see why demanding that the director supplements his statement of the facts with an explanation should be so burdensome to him. The important point is that if I stand away from it—either outside or inside your Lordships' Committee—and I want to argue with it, and if I have not had any statement as to why he believes that the matter is against the public interest, I will find it difficult to know how to have an argument. All he will do is say, "I point to this; I have got an undertaking on that, and I think that what is going on may now or in the future operate against the public interest." Even the noble Lord himself, if confronted with this, would immediately say to the director, "Why?" He would demand an explanation. If there was a Secretary of State or President of the Board of Trade side to this, I imagine that he would do that. All I am saying, speaking up and sticking up for the rest of us, is that I would also like to be able to ask the question why—and the easiest way that I could ask that question is for it to be incorporated into the legislation. He would then give me the answer without my having to ask him.
As to the judicial review point, I do not see that his giving reasons need have the consequences that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said. What it does do is raise the level of public debate on matters of this kind in a helpful way.
I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate, as I said before, that there is not a lot of difference in our attitude to competition, or to the need to speed things up. I am sorry that he did not say he would like to think more about some of this redrafting. So far as I know, the parliamentary draftsmen are salaried employees, so my asking him to look again at some of these matters will not raise the cost of government; it is not piecework, as I understand it. So, at the very least, the noble Lord might reflect on one or two of these matters. I think the Bill would be somewhat improved if it was drafted slightly more towards my philosophy of things than it is towards the Government's.
The noble Lord has listened to what I have said—and replied—and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert ("including an estimate of their quantitative significance").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 66 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 68 and 86 and I hurriedly look to see that the word "quantitative" is not misprinted on the Marshalled List as "qualitative", as it was last week. I hope that not too much official time was wasted in trying to work out what I had in mind—but I would be interested in the answers, if any were written—on the amendments containing the word "qualitative". "Quantitative" is what I wanted. This again I can deal with very briefly because I dealt with similar matters on Thursday.
When we are considering all matters of this kind, it is vital that we have a sense of scale as well as merely reorganising that the problem is there. I am certain that in practice—and the noble Lord need take no time to persuade me—that with this procedure, if it were in operation, someone would be looking at it in terms of scale and saying "How important is this?"; "How big are the detriments?"; "How much do we save?", and so on. So scale is of the essence. From what little knowledge I still have of economics, there are many problems with the economy on which very high powered articles are written but when you look at their quantitative significance they are fairly trivial. Their only significance is to provide a means whereby academics can get themselves promoted by writing esoteric articles. That is not something that I would criticise because many of us have got where we are that way in the first place.
But the fact is that, when it comes to policy, quantitative matters are important. I do not need persuading, as I have said, that the director would look at such matters in the normal way of working, but I should certainly like that on the face of the Bill so that I, as an interested person, could say of any proposals here, "What scale of a problem are we talking about; how do we measure the detriments?"—in rough terms, not necessarily to the last decimal point.
So I commend this to the Committee and look forward to hearing what the noble Viscount has to say.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have been looking forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said in introducing this particular amendment because so confident am I in his abilities that I knew that I would have a very clear understanding afterwards of what the effect of the amendment would be. As it is, I am still a little bit lost; I am not quite sure how useful it would be.
As I understand it, the purpose of the whole Bill is to get rid of restrictions which are unnecessary, silly and outdated. Some of them may have been silly from the very start. They are oppressive in their effects and therefore they should go. How my noble friend would possibly be able to give a useful estimate of the quantitative significance of getting rid of a silly regulation, I do not really know. I have said repeatedly during the passage of the Bill that I have a high regard for my noble friend's abilities and capacities; what does slightly surprise me is that a number of noble Lords on

577
the Opposition Benches should have an even higher opinion of my noble friend's capacities than I have. They recognise that he is able to see the future very clearly and to assess without undue difficulty the answers to the noble Lord's questions. My noble friend may have them but I think it would not be a very useful exercise even if he does.
6 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: The Government do not believe that there is a need for these amendments even in their corrected form as they would appear to over-complicate the process under discussion. The whole purpose of Clauses 5 and 10 is to provide flexibility for solutions to competition problems to be reached far more swiftly. For example, there may be cases where a company or a limited number of companies are suspected of unfair pricing or of refusing to supply products to potential competitors. In such cases the solution to the problem may be fairly straightforward if the companies concerned agree to change their ways. These clauses provide the flexibility to accept undertakings, as has been mentioned earlier, to solve relatively simple problems instead of going through a complete MMC investigation. The effect of the amendments would be to delay that process unnecessarily.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton not only on the question of the far-sightedness of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde but also that it is not clear what would be gained by requiring in all cases a statement of the quantitative significance of adverse effects in the director's proposal to the Secretary of State or in his notice published for consultation under Clause 5 or Clause 10. The director general is already required to specify numerous facts and other information both in the proposal and in the notice; for example, in a notice under Clause 5 the fact that a particular monopoly exists in a particular form or that the monopolists behave in a certain way. He is also required by Clause 10 to specify similar details in a notice of intention to accept undertakings instead of making a Competition Act reference. In each case he must indicate the possible adverse effects which the undertakings will be designed to alleviate.
We believe it to be unnecessary to require the director in all cases to give a quantitative estimate of the severity of the potential adverse effects either to the Secretary of State in his proposal, as suggested by the noble Lord's Amendment No. 66, or to those reading his published notice, as suggested by Amendments Nos. 68 and 86.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 66, the Secretary of State should generally be able to form his own view of the problem and the proposed solution from the information already provided in that proposal by the director. Similarly, readers of the published notice who are being consulted on undertakings as an alternative either to a monopoly reference or a competition reference should be able to form their own view of the adequacy of the proposed solution without requiring a detailed economic analysis in every case. Moreover, requiring the director in all cases to produce a detailed assessment right at the start of the consultation process

578
would risk dragging out the whole exercise. It would also appear to pre-empt that consultation exercise, which itself may throw up further facts and figures.
It is important to note that the director could always provide such an analysis where he thinks fit but the amendments would require him to do so in all cases. That would complicate and prolong the process precisely for those more straightforward cases where we are seeking a quicker solution to any problems identified. Holding up that solution would not benefit the company or its customers. For those reasons we do not believe that we should be over-prescriptive in these matters. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Viscount for his reply. I fear for once —perhaps for more than once— that I have not made myself sufficiently clear. If the director general had to do it my way—I should emphasise that my amendments are all of a piece although we are taking them separately-—far from complicating matters or prolonging them it would in many cases shorten and simplify them. The moment the director realised that he was going to come up with some numbers to show that the numbers were big enough to make it worth while he would soon see as a matter of common sense that a particular restrictive practice or a monopoly problem, although it was there qualitatively, had very little weight quantitatively and he would not do it. That is my whole point. Far from adding to his work, a very quick examination would show that it did not amount to a row of beans. Therefore, if someone had written to him about the matter he- would be able to say, "I have looked at this problem. I agree in purely formal terms that there is a problem of monopoly. But if you look at the adverse consequences they are so tiny that it is not worth while". That is why —I speak as someone who has spent a lot of his life doing quantitative work—quantitative work is so useful. It gives one a perspective and stops people fussing.
On the vital question of the merits of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I have to tell my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that for once I disagree with him. No one holds the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in higher esteem than I do. I am most shocked that he thinks that there are others who think more: highly of the Minister than I do. I say that in the hope of persuading the Minister to accept another amendment in due course.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord has completely misunderstood me. I was warmly welcoming the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has an even higher opinion of my noble friend than I do.
Lord Peston: Forgive me. In that case we are more or less in agreement. All I hope is that someone says something nice about me before the day is over.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peston: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 7, line 21, after ("Director") insert ("in public").
The noble Lord said: It is useful when we are in Committee to go over every matter. The purpose of my amendment is to do that. The amendment takes us back to transparency. What I am saying is perfectly clear. It is vitally important that the invitations referred to should be in public so that we can know what is going on. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, is to read out the standard lilac or turquoise coloured brief this time. However, I simply do not see that this requirement need in any way prolong the matter. It is simply a way of proceeding. The correct way of doing things of this kind is for those of us who are interested—the public and your Lordships—to be able to know what is going on. Adding the words "in public" is a useful amendment to insert in order to get that transparent outcome.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: For a moment I was very nervous that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would not move his amendment. I would not then have had the opportunity of asking him what he intends by it. If the amendment were accepted the clause would read:
"the Director in public may only make a proposal under section 56A — if.
Does that mean that he is free to make any proposal he likes in private and that the restrictions are on him only in public? That is the only way I can read the amendment. I think it is rather surprising.
Lord Peston: I am not certain that the noble Lord is placing my amendment at the right spot in the Bill. The Bill refers to representations and not to proposals. I refer to line 21 on page 7. That is where I mean it to be.
Lord Strathclyde: I like the way in which my noble friend Lord Peyton put it. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, had made a mistake which would have given us some cause for amusement. I would not have had to explain my opposition to this amendment because it would have been a nonsense. However, that was not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has put his amendment in the correct place, as I understand it.
This amendment takes us back to the debate which we had last Thursday about public consultation. We disagreed then and I believe that we shall disagree now. By making it necessary for representations to the director-general about draft monopoly undertakings to be made in public, this amendment deprives interested parties of the opportunity to make their views known in confidence if they wished.
It is a very strong principle as regards the kinds of consultations which governments carry out from time to time with individuals, that confidence is maintained at their request, particularly when commercial confidence is involved. Unlike the MMC, the director-general does not have the power to summon witnesses. If the consultation process had to be held in public and there was no opportunity for representations to be made in confidence, some competitors or customers of monopolies might be deterred from making their views known for fear of retribution.
We have already gone to some lengths to ensure that the whole process of identifying, consulting, advising

580
and deciding on undertakings is as transparent as possible. I do not see how this amendment would significantly add to the overall level of transparency. Very possibly, it could detract from the purpose of consultation which would involve consumers as well as companies. It could lead to a lessening of the ability of the director-general to decide on these kinds of cases. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord is quite right to refer to the last occasion when this matter was discussed. I am very sorry that we disagree on it. The Minister will recall what I said last time. If you want to make representations and you do not have the courage to make them in public, then I do not see why policy should be based on what you say. I would have thought that Members of the Committee opposite in other modes and when not trying to support the Government on this Bill, would always wish to favour transparency as opposed to covert ways of doing things.
We all know that in the real world people press things on the Minister saying, "I want to tell you this, but please don't quote me". The noble Lord will be horrified to discover that often people whom he believes to be his friends, come to me and say, "I would like to say the following to you, but I beg you not to let anyone know". I take the view that if people tell me things which I cannot repeat in public, then I do not want to know. Public policy should be based on transparent debate and not of the kind where someone says, "This is a problem, but I am not willing to let my name be made public". I am genuinely surprised that the Minister wishes to continue along that line. I understand that governments love that sort of thing. This is not a political point.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is slightly misrepresenting what I have said. I am entirely in favour of transparency and in an ideal world all these things would be made public. The problem is that very often when governments consult they are asked to keep matters confidential. We give that commitment. If we were not to do so, then it may well be that we would not get the information we need in order to make decisions and to make things more competitive and so on, which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, professes that he favours. That is the issue. It is not a question of the Government wishing for things to be more transparent. We believe in open government, as the noble Lord well knows. The point is that we are trying to get the best solution out of the consultation and that is why we keep certain issues private.
Lord Peston: May I return to this theme? We should not confuse consultation with representation. This is not a criticism of the Minister or the present Government. When I advised governments they always operated in this way. In my experience Ministers are very content to keep things "in house" so to speak. Increasingly I have come to the conclusion that that is not the right way to do things not so much as regards consultation, but concerning representation.
If you come to me and wish to represent a point of view as a Minister, in my opinion you must be willing

581
to make your view known in public. If you want to influence me, but do not want anything to be known, then I simply look askance at that. That is the point that I made last week. I accept the noble Lord's point that sometimes as regards information —and I mentioned this a few moments ago—people will only tell you if you keep the source secret. That happens to me and it has happened more than once in connection with this Bill. People have come to me and told me about the sins of the Government as regards some matter of regulation and then they have said, "We do not want you to quote the exact case". Presumably, they tell the noble Lord that as well.
When people come to me and say that, I simply reply, "I am not willing to work on that basis. If you tell me something which I cannot use in public then it is no use to me". I am sorry that we are in disagreement on this issue. However, I do not feel that we are in quite so much disagreement on this matter as we are as regards other matters. I believe that I have used the Committee's time sufficiently to air the problem and that is what we are trying to do concerning this section of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("within") to ("about") in line 22 and insert ("28 working days").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry for the delay. When you are doing everything on your own it is a slightly slower process than would otherwise be the case. This amendment was debated in the other place and I introduce it here to see whether the Government have any view on this question.
The Bill as it stands simply states,
"within such time as he may specify".
One sees why one does not want to be too prescriptive about this kind of thing. In so far as we all accept the Minister's view that we want a quick process and to get a move on, to specify a particular time—and "28 working days" is approximately one real month— would be worth doing. The matter was raised in the other place and I have tabled the amendment simply to discover whether the Government have had any further thoughts on the matter.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seems to be slightly overworked this afternoon. That is entirely his own fault, particularly when he moves an amendment which has already been dealt with extremely well in another place. Unfortunately, I suspect that he will get the same answer, although I have not consulted Hansard of the other place.
The noble Lord makes a perfectly reasonable point that if we want this matter to be dealt with quickly then a time limit should be specified. However, that would remove the director general's discretion to vary the consultation period according to the circumstances.
The purpose of new Section 56B is to build transparency and consultation into the system. We have taken care to ensure that everything is clear and above aboard and that everyone who wishes to comment will

582
have the chance to do so. That means, besides the monopolists themselves, their competitors, customers and anyone else with an interest.
We have left it open to the director general to specify the consultation period. He has an independent role and we think it best for him to judge this for himself. He is charged with the duty of keeping markets under review so that he can take appropriate action. I find it difficult to imagine that he would allow consultation to be dragged out by companies, simply to avoid a resolution.
But this is the point: every monopoly case is different. The interests and number of those who may be affected are also different—customers, competitors and consumers generally. There might be cases where concerns were clear and all those affected agreed quickly on the solution and sometimes not. It would be difficult to tie all this down to a fixed period which might deprive some parties of the opportunity to comment in time. I know that that is not the intention of the amendment. It is better to leave it to the director general to make up his own mind. After all, he is already charged with a very responsible job.
Lord Monkswell: I am sorry to intervene, but if I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the director general would consult over not too long a period and would not allow the consultation to be dragged out by interested parties who wanted to delay. That goes with the grain of the thinking that things need to be sorted out promptly and in a timely fashion, but let us consider the Government's own consultation record.
I specifically have in mind responses to education White Papers or to proposals for legislation in relation to education when the consultation period has been over the summer holidays when everybody in the educational establishment is away. That has meant that the consultation has not been very adequate, at all—to put the best interpretation on it. Could we have some indication from the Minister of what the Government's advice to the director general will be in terms of ensuring that enough time is allowed for representations to be made by interested parties? Particular times in the year or in the business cycle should be taken into account to allow interested parties to make adequate representation.
Lord Strathclyde: It is entirely fair to attack the Government but it is not fair to attack the director general. The whole point is that, ultimately, the director general has three choices: do nothing; go for a full reference; or go for the new fast-track procedure. If he decides on the fast-track procedure in consultation with the companies involved it must be in their interests for the consultation to be as quick as possible. If the consultation is dragged out on purpose by the companies involved the director general is still free to go for a full reference. The problem with a full reference is that it will be expensive, it will take a long time, and the decision may be even more uncertain. Therefore, it will be in the interests of the companies to ensure that the consultation is completed as quickly as possible. It must also be in the interests of the director to ensure that he consults as many interested groups as possible. I

583
sought to emphasise that that would include not just the company involved but its customers and, indeed, consumers generally.
Lord Peston: The Minister referred to "the director". I do not know whether by that he meant a whole class of directors that may or may not exist from now into infinity or the present Director General of Fair Trading. If the noble Lord meant the latter, I must advise him that the present DGFT is a very old friend of mine and that I do not regard it as remotely unfair of me to criticise him at any time. I know that he would not be in the least upset by it. He happens to be an extremely good person for the job.
I do not want to go over the ground trodden earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. However, presumably by saying that they believe in flexibility and do not want to be too prescriptive towards the director general, the Government must have given some thought to what a reasonable period of time is. The Minister says that 28 days is too short or does not give enough flexibility, but presumably a year would be too long. It would be absurd. Can the Minister enlighten me about his department's thinking on the period of time? I am not pressing for 28 days, but I am interested in what the department has in mind.
Lord Strathclyde: That is exactly the difficulty. I am not saying that 28 days is too short a period. In fact, in some small cases involving monopoly considerations, the director general could have the whole thing wrapped up in a couple of weeks. In the generality of it, I should not have thought that 28 days was wholly unreasonable and a year would be too long. However, for us to specify in legislation what the period of time should be would be unnecessarily to constrain the director general. That is the issue. That is why we believe that he should have that discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, says that the current director general is a friend of his and he naturally respects his judgment. I am sure that future director generals will earn the same respect that the current director general enjoys.
Lord Peston: I am interested in the Minister's remarks. I cannot commit myself, however, because I never know what mood I shall be in in the future. I hope that the Minister understands that amendments such as this are in the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve. We want to get a move on. I am glad to hear that if those who want to make representations to the director general say, "It will take us about a year to put a case before you", at least the Minister's department (although it would not be involved at that point) could take the view that that would sabotage the whole procedure. I take it that the Minister's interpretation of the provisions is that,
"within such time as he may specify",
means precisely that and that if the director general were to say, "I want your view within 28 days", then 28 days it will be. Can the Minister confirm that?
Lord Strathclyde: Of course. The director general comes to his view and sets a time scale. The companies or those with whom he is consulting must stick to that.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for clarifying the position a little. Although I cannot remember which amendment we are on—I suppose that it is Amendment No. 70—I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("in his opinion").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, unless my suspicions are correct and there is more here than meets the eye. Having read the clause, I cannot see that there would be any difference if the words "in his opinion" were removed. I am wondering whether those words drifted in from other pieces of typing in which they appear or whether the phrase has any meaning. That is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This is again the dangerous territory that we dealt with on our first day in Committee when we considered Amendment No. 2 and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham talked about making matters more challengeable in the courts.
In publishing the notice, clearly someone has to decide how to identify the persons who ought to see the notice when it is published. It is a question of the director general's opinion. The director general is best placed to take that decision. He has been in contact with the companies. His staff will have gained familiarity with the markets. He has an independent statutory role.
If the director general's decision on the manner of publication is such that no reasonable director could have made it, then he could be successfully challenged. But the amendment could deprive the director general of any discretion and might even increase the risk of legal challenge. I would not wish to suggest that the courts would come to the wrong judgment, but the director general is in a better position to make that judgment than the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he was suspicious about the words "in his opinion". My understanding is that we need those words so that it is seen that it is "in his opinion". If those words were omitted, the director general could be open to his view being tackled in the courts.
Lord Peston: I hear what the Minister says and I certainly heard what his noble and learned friend said last week. However, I am unhappy about it. I simply do not see why the legal profession should make us write bad English or include superfluous phrases (as far as logic is concerned) in our legislation simply because of its great fear and worry. Perhaps I should put it the other way round. Perhaps the Minister can explain this to me. Why would the director general do something other than that which is "in his opinion"? We should try to read the sentence as if it could have any other meaning. Is there any suggestion that the director general would do something that was not "in his opinion"?
As I said last week, I dislike clashing with lawyers on their playing fields; I would rather play on mine. But if I may say so, things have come to a pretty pass when we

585
are prevented from writing our legislation in a way that ordinary people can understand—I am sure that that is how the Minister and I regard ourselves—simply because of this sudden peculiar fear about judicial review. The sentence makes perfectly good sense to any reasonable person without the expression "in his opinion". If we were to set a general school certificate exam question, "Look at that sentence and, in your opinion, take out any phrase which you feel adds nothing", I am sure that any child would take out the words "in his opinion". I am sure that that is undoubtedly right.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to try my noble friend's patience but I too wonder whether these words are necessary. I was very much influenced by what was said the other day by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale: that the Minister's opinion was necessary in order to trigger the whole process. This case is slightly different. The use of the words "are likely" would indicate that an opinion is called for and that it would be no opinion other than the Minister's. I wonder whether in this case my noble friend can give way. The matter is of no great importance but it is different from the case that was mentioned the other day.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not have a huge problem with the issue either way. Unfortunately, in this matter I am the creature of the draftsman but I do not believe that a great issue of policy is involved. I am advised simply that, in order to create some certainty, this is the way it needs to be done. If the director's decision on publication were challenged, the court would have greater freedom to interpret the clause so as to allow it to substitute its own view. I understand that the words "in his opinion" put the matter beyond doubt. We may believe that they are relatively redundant words; but I am in the hands of the draftsman and I believe that they are the correct form of words.
Lord Monkswell: I believe that if the words were omitted, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment, the courts would be given the opportunity to intervene in a situation in which, in their opinion, the director has not done the job satisfactorily. If the phrase is left in, the courts will not have the ability to say to the director, "We are sorry but we think that you have got it wrong. Can you try again?". Effectively, the courts will have no discretion and injured parties, or those who believe that they have been discriminated against, will have no opportunity of putting the matter right.
Lord Strathclyde: I agree with part of what the noble Lord says. If the words, "in his opinion" are left out, the case is more challengeable. In any case, if the director is unreasonable in the way in which he makes his decisions, he is open to judicial review and therefore there is no great problem.
Lord Peston: I am an implicit member of the "Campaign for Clearer and Simple Legislation", of which I see the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as the leading figure in this Chamber. I often table amendments of this

586
kind in the hope that one day someone will accept one; and by that minuscule amount, legislation will be easier to understand. As a result, the income of lawyers will go down, which is another of my ambitions.
I do not disguise the fact that I become irritated when I receive answers of this kind. However, I am certain that the advice that the Minister has received is the best available to him. That irritates me even more. I shake my head sadly, but I have tried and I shall try again. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert:
("Proposals under section 56A: publication of response to representations.
"56BB.—the Director shall publish his response to any representations made to him by bodies representative of the interests of consumers or injured parties or their representatives in connection with proposals under section 56A." ").
The noble Lord said: At last we come to a matter of great substance, and I am certain that the "judicial review" card is not the one to play. As regards those who make representations, the interests of consumers are overwhelmingly important but other injured parties may be involved too. The director will receive such representations. To my deep regret, as the noble Lord has rejected my view of the matter, the director will be willing to receive such representations not made in public; in other words, he will consider matters covertly as well as overtly.
The next question is whether having received representations the director should respond to them. He will of course respond to them in the broad sense that eventually he will reach a determination. I believe that those who make the representations—whether they are the NCC or the Consumers' Association on the one hand or others who regard themselves as interested and injured parties—deserve more than a note or a printed card from the director stating, "Thank you for your representations. They have been noted by the Director General of Fair Trading". I imagine that: that is what happens most of the time. I believe that bodies which have gone to that trouble are entitled to know more positively the director's response.
I would enunciate this as a much more general issue in government but as we are discussing the more specific part of the Bill, I shall concentrate on that. It is a matter of some significance. I do not make this as a political point because I remember that as regards the Government whom I had the great honour to serve, one received representations and those outside wondered whatever happened to them. Did anybody receive them, read them or take any notice of them? Were they simply sidelined? Did they end up on a huge pile of papers so that the Minister could say, "I certainly received representations"?
The noble Lord referred to his commitment to open government. I agree with him. My commitment not merely to open government but to sensitive government suggests that something along these lines would be worth including on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked who reads all the information. I wonder who will read the reply. I believe that there is enough information and data in orbit without adding to the huge volume of the illegible. The task will take up a lot of time, too, because once people have to make public statements, they must be very careful. Surely in many cases these matters can be dealt with briefly. I would be most reluctant to ask the Minister to put this provision in the Bill because it would prolong the proceedings and add to the floodtide of useless information which is in constant circulation.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I wish to second my noble friend's remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, appeared to indicate that the director should respond to representations. No one could object to that view; but the publishing of all responses to any representations will generate an enormous amount of paper work. Who will receive it? Where will it be published and what will it cost? It is a piece of bureaucracy which I cannot believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with his sense of economy in the English language and so forth, can possibly desire.
Lord Strathclyde: We continue the debate on consultation. The amendment is similar to Amendment No. 85 and I do not know why they were not grouped together. Perhaps Amendment No. 85 will not be moved. There is nothing between the noble Lord and I in our desire for greater transparency, open government, and so forth. However, I do not see what useful purpose the amendment will serve. Like my noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lord Peyton, I believe that it could be counter-productive. Underlying the amendment, there appears to be an idea that the director would not be doing his job properly were he not forced to publish his response to representations. I believe that we can rely on him to come to a balanced view on the basis of all representations received and on any other information available to him. In his independent role, he must keep watch over markets and activities. He has shown in the past that he is willing to take action where he thinks fit.
I would not wish to tie the director to a particular course, but I assume that where representations are received he will normally respond direct. If the recipients consider that their comments and the director's response should be made available to a wider audience, there is nothing to prevent them seeking publication in a suitable journal. I do not see why the director himself should be forced to publish.
Moreover, the director's response will be likely to have to refer to the particular comments received from the person consulted. As I mentioned earlier, some companies as injured parties might be deterred from making comments to the director if they knew that his response was to be published. That is one difficulty with the amendment.
Another difficulty is that the amendment would risk simply keeping the debate open and prolonging the whole process. I believe that the opportunities for consultation and comment are fair and extensive. But at some point in the process a decision has to be made. It

588
would be wrong to leave the companies concerned, and the market generally—including customers and con-sumers—in a perpetual state of uncertainty.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will reflect further on the amendment. I know that he holds this matter dear to his heart, but I believe that the provisions as they stand provide the right balance between consultation and shortening the investigation process. I hope that the noble Lord will think again.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall certainly think about it further. I was rather horrified by his reply, as I was by the remarks of other Members of the Committee who intervened. In our society today large numbers of people say that democracy is a sham. They say that no one ever listens; and that when governments say that they wish to consult, they mean that they ask for opinions and then take no notice. This is an extremely serious matter, and that is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that this is an amendment of some substance.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, this. If no one is going to read the answers, why are the Government and the director asking for the representa-tions in the first place? That is the central point. The noble Lord's view is extremely cynical. Let us assume that there is a restrictive practice about which I am concerned. Although the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not wrong to be cynical, I should like to believe that someone had actually read what I wrote. And then I should like to believe that someone would feel that it would be useful and democratic to reply to me by saying, "I do not agree with you but this is my argument. This is why I disagree with you". That is what the Minister has been doing all afternoon. I agree that no one else may be interested but I am interested and at least it can be said that, although the Government or the director did not do what I wanted, I have some evidence that at least they thought about the matter.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that it is common ground among us all that when representations are made they should receive a reply. Nobody disagrees with that. The question is upon whom it should be incumbent to publish the reply. If the noble Lord made a representation, one would hope that he would receive a reply from the director. If he wished to make that reply public, no doubt he is entitled to do so. But it seems rather tedious for the director to have to publish every representation that he may receive. I believe that that is the difference between us.
Lord Peston: One of the problems with democracy is that it is extremely tedious. Noble Lords are probably finding extremely tedious the interchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and myself because I insist on asking the questions and, quite rightly, the noble Lord insists on answering them. The amendment deals with a matter which is merely a counterpart to what happens in this Chamber every day of the week.
I am concerned about the view which people have of our processes today. I was not able to persuade the Committee on Thursday in regard to my worries about

589
the nature of the Bill, which I dislike. I regard the Bill as a threat to democracy. I know that the amendment deals with matters at a much lower level and there is no threat to democracy at that level. However, if representations are asked for, one should believe that one's time is not wasted by responding. I do not seek a reply which says, "Dear Sir, thank you very much for you representations. I am taking note". Your Lordships will see that the amendment refers to:
"bodies representative of the interests of consumers or injured parties".
I should like the director to reply by saying, "I have considered your argument and I believe that it is flawed in the following way". That is exactly how the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been arguing with me this afternoon. Whether or not I agree with him, I feel that someone has considered what I have said and that I have done my job. This amendment is a counterpart to that.
I am worried that nowadays everybody is concerned only that industry should be efficient and so on and no one is concerned about the processes in our society. I know that I am being tedious, but I believe that this is a matter of some seriousness. I believe that the director should publish his response.
This is not a technocratic matter. I am a technocrat but I believe that technocrats should no longer be able to get away with saying, "This is something which will increase efficiency; end of argument". However, I have put forward my argument and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 7, line 46, at end insert ("unless in his opinion the inclusion of that matter relating specifically to that individual is necessary for the purposes of that statement or notice, as the case may be").
The noble Lord said: I agree with the noble Lord that if I am not willing to plod through the detail of the amendments, I should have stayed on the Back-Benches and then I could have sat in the park all afternoon listening to the band. I assure the Minister that I should have been infinitely happier doing that. But someone has to do this work and on this occasion it seems to be me.
In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82 and 83. They deal with what should and should not be in the public domain. I accept that I have had this argument twice before: once today and once last week. Therefore, I merely wish to go on record by repeating the point.
First, I should like clarification with regard to what is in the public interest in terms of disclosure. The general point is that if people wish to make statements, they should be willing to make them in public. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for one element of clarification. A few moments ago he spoke with great effect and at considerable length to Amendment No. 71 on which he urged several times with great clarity that the words "in his opinion" should be omitted. And yet Amendment No. 73 includes the phrase,
"unless in his opinion the inclusion",

590
and so on. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me why the words "in his opinion" in Amendment No. 73 are so pertinent whereas they were superfluous in Amendment No. 71.
Lord Strathclyde: At the end of this short debate, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will have an opportunity to answer that extremely pertinent question asked by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I was struck by exactly the same thought when I studied the amendments over the weekend, I am sorry to say. The amount of work which I have to do on the amendments knows no bounds but I am always delighted to do it.
Before I turn to the amendments, it may be helpful to explain the general background to the provisions on excision which are under discussion. In each case they closely follow the wording of existing sections in the Fair Trading Act which deal with the excision of information from MMC monopoly and merger reports. Therefore, we have direct experience of how such provisions apply in practice.
Careful consideration is given to the need for excision, whether to protect the public interest or the interests of third parties. Nearly all requests are made on grounds of commercial confidentiality. But Ministers do not by any means accept them all; at a rough estimate they probably agree to around 50 per cent.
In each case a balance needs to be struck between the harm to the public interest, individual or company that might be caused by publication and the harm that might be caused to the public interest by not publishing the information. I believe that the existing provisions have been applied carefully and properly, and I am sure that the same approach will be taken under the very similar provisions we are now proposing.
I turn first to Amendment No. 73. I would wish to remind the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we are talking here about the private affairs✶ of individuals, not their business affairs. The amendment would mean that the director need not have regard to the need for excluding information harmful to an individual, by taking it out of his published notice or proposal to the Secretary of State, where in his view that was necessary to understand the notice or proposal.
The existing text of subsection (2) in New Section 56C closely follows the wording in Section 82(1) of the Fair Trading Act, which applies to the publication of MMC reports. The director, like the MMC, must have regard to the need for excluding certain material from the published item. That includes material relating to the private affairs of an individual person, whose publication might be seriously harmful to him or her.
Therefore I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The director need only have regard to the need to exclude such material. He does not have a duty to exclude it. It is the Secretary of State who has a duty to exclude material meeting the statutory criteria from parts of the proposal that are published, under New Section 56G(4). But the Secretary of State must also
✶For the clarification of the meaning of "private affairs" of an individual, see Official Report, 20/7/94; col. WA2.

591
weigh the harm that would be caused to the individual by publication, against the harm that would be caused to the public interest by failure to publish. The existing, very similar provisions for publication of MMC reports have operated smoothly. I am not aware of any cases where information vital to understanding a report has been omitted.
Amendment No. 82 proposes that if the Secretary of State excludes material from the published statement of facts and adverse effects of the monopoly situation, on grounds of public interest under Section 56G(3), he must specify the nature of the public interest involved. Again, the provisions on exclusion of material reflect the provisions which already exist on exclusion of material from monopoly and merger reports. I can assure the Committee that it is rare to make exclusions from MMC reports on these grounds.
I do not see what useful purpose would be served by requiring the Secretary of State to specify the nature of any public interest justifying exclusion. Clearly, the kind of issues that spring to mind are those of defence or national security. But in such cases I imagine it would be obvious, from the context and nature of the exclusion, that precisely those aspects of the public interest were at stake. Why oblige the Secretary of State to state the obvious? Alternatively, it is possible that issues of national security or defence may be at stake, without that being obvious from the nature of the exclusion. In those circumstances, the effect of the amendment could negate the purpose of the excision and damage the public interest.
Amendment No. 83 would force the Secretary of State to publish information harmful to private individuals or commercially damaging to companies, even if there was no public interest in publication. There would be a public interest in publication if, for example, such information was necessary in order to understand the published statement of the facts and adverse effects of the monopoly, or the undertakings accepted. Besides doing direct damage to the interests of third parties, the amendment might deter others in future from letting their views be known if damaging information were to be released.
I do not think that any of these amendments would assist. I believe that the provisions which we have laid out provide the right balance between protecting the interests of individuals and companies, and ensuring the proper dissemination of information to the public. I hope, on that basis, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. I must say that I have learnt quite a lot from his reply. I am doubly indebted to him because, first, I did not know that only 50 per cent. of such representations were responded to. It is useful to have that on the record. Secondly, we are discussing fair trading and competition matters. I did not realise that defence and those kind of matters were underlying this kind of provision. As someone who in an earlier existence was involved with drafting such legislation, I cannot recall that I had anything like that in mind at all. Therefore I am quite intrigued that the

592
latest argument is that one cannot reveal something to do with a restrictive practice because some nuclear submarines might suddenly be exposed to a foreign threat, or something like that. However, there are never any limits to the arguments that the most brilliant of our officials can dream up in order to justify something. I am most impressed that standards are kept as high as that.
I am also interested to know that private affairs—I ask the noble Lord to confirm this—are known legally (this is all to do with law) to be a different concept from business affairs. I had assumed under private affairs one included a person's business affairs. I was not worried about what people might be getting up to in private: I was simply worried about open government. But can the noble Lord tell me whether private affairs and business affairs are concepts known in law and known to be different from each other? If he cannot tell me that, perhaps he will ask one of his officials to write to me.
I hope I may now explain the wording to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. Subsection (8) on page 7 of the Bill states—and this is the point—
"In this section, references to an appropriate manner, in relation to the publication of a notice by the Director, are to such manner as he considers most suitable for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of persons".
The relevant words are
"as he considers most suitable".
There is already reference to the director and what he needs to do. That is why the words "in his opinion" are otiose, apart from in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which is that somehow this is the key which turns off judicial review, and who are we laymen to argue, so to speak. But I was simply viewing this as a piece of continuous English. As regards the words "he considers most suitable", is he going to consider most suitable something that is not in his opinion? That is why the words "in his opinion" appear in my amendment, because under that proposal the director has to take a view. That is why I included those words. Therefore I do not believe that there is any inconsistency in my proposal. I hasten to add that my phrase "in his opinion" was not included for the sake of problems of judicial review, which is a subject that, as I have pointed out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I do not understand.
I have one final point to make as I do not wish to be too critical of the Government. I am fully aware that this kind of stuff goes into legislation all the time. One of the reasons I raise this matter is that I think there is some kind of memory bank in Whitehall and that in the middle of every Bill staff in Whitehall throw in some paragraphs of the kind we are discussing. I imagine the computer has a programme which states "Put in the secrecy/private interest clause at this point". The computer goes "ping" and the draftsmen put it in. No one does any thinking on that matter: it is just taken for granted that one bangs the thing in. Therefore it is increasingly the case that legislation is being written automatically. I do not criticise the Government because this has been happening for some time. I simply think that someone ought to get up occasionally—in this case it is poor old me—and query why we constantly just bang this stuff into legislation in what I regard as a

593
somewhat unthinking manner. However, as always, the Committee has given me more than a fair run for my money and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 8, line 31, at end insert:
("(5) Any modifications accepted by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) above shall be subject to the procedures for the consideration of representations set out in section 56B(6) (8).").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to the tremendous foresight of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He cannot apply that to me as I thought that we were going to stop at Amendment No. 73 and go to eat. I am slightly taken aback to find that I am dealing with Amendment No. 74.
The point of Amendment No. 74 is simply—I think I can both make the point and do the Minister's reply for him—that if the original procedure makes sense, which involves all the processes of considering the provision, consultation and other such processes, if the Secretary of State then makes some modifications, what is there in the nature of the case that would cause one not to need to go through all the procedures again to discover people's views? I do not understand, and I ask the noble Lord to justify it. If it was okay on the first occasion, should this not be an iterative process? There is a feedback here to the Secretary of State who modifies what has been proposed, but should he not then ask people about it again? I accept that this, unfortunately, prolongs the process, but if it was okay to do it in the first place, why does it cease to be okay in the second place? I am just interested in the logic of the Government's position here. If it were logical to do it once, why is it not logical to do it twice, or, I have to add, several times? I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, may be surprised to hear that there is more logic in this than initially seems to be the case. The Secretary of State is enabled in this new section to make any final adjustments to the undertakings as he is ultimately responsible for accepting them. He may wish, for example, to modify the detail of reporting arrangements to the authorities or to adjust the timing for compliance with undertakings slightly. I believe that it must be right that he should be able to do so without embarking on the whole process of consultation again, which would actively work against the interests of increasing competition as much as it might work in its favour. It would be clear whether modifications had been made because the draft and final undertakings must be published.
The amendment is also unnecessary because if the changes which are made by the Secretary of State were so substantial as to change the nature of the undertakings they could no longer be termed a modification of the undertaking proposed and the director would have to make a fresh proposal from scratch if he wanted to proceed.
I hope that that is clear to the noble Lord and that he will feel happier than he was a few moments ago.
Lord Peston: Again, the noble Lord has been immensely helpful. It had not occurred to me, and I thank him for placing it on the record, that if the modifications were substantial one would have to go through the process again. My amendment assumed that modifications were of a substantial nature and would therefore go through. I take it that the Minister is saying that, if as a result of going through the first procedures the modifications are significant, the Bill requires that one would have to go through the original consultations and representations again. I shall have to think about that, because I cannot see anywhere in the Bill a distinction between large and small modifications. The amendment assumed that the modifications concerned would be major modifications. Minor modifications would not concern me at all.
If the Minister will bear with me, I shall go away and scrutinise the Bill to see where it makes a distinction between large and small modifications and where within the Bill large modifications require repetition of the representation and consultation procedure. At present I cannot see it anywhere.
I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which was particularly helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at eight o'clock.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Goschen. )
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I intervene only to point out that 50 minutes were spent on the Statement and to ask the noble Lord the Whip what rearrangement has been made of the business on this Bill in consequence.
I did not intervene earlier because I could not relate that point to any amendment that was being moved. Also, during the debate on the Child Support Bill of notorious memory, the Government put in two Statements on a Thursday during the Third Reading of the Bill. As a result the second of many government amendments was not reached until after six o'clock. When we complained about that we were promptly deprived of our supper adjournment. I wanted the noble Lord the Whip to commit himself to supper before I made this protest, if it can be called such. It is purely platonic, because the noble Lord, Lord Williams, genially said that he would not think ill of me if I left before the end in any event.
Viscount Goschen: I note the noble and learned Lord's enthusiasm for the dinner break, which I am sure is shared by noble Lords around the Chamber. It is my understanding that we still intend to complete the business which has been scheduled for today.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene to say that I am very sympathetic to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. We often plan the business in order to ensure that important matters are dealt with at certain times. When I tried to work out

595
what we would debate today I was unaware that we would also have a Statement. This is not the time to raise the matter and I do not want to ruin the dinner hour, but I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has placed this query before us. I believe that at some point we may wish to consider it further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sale and Supply of Goods Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations 1994
7.5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The regulations before the House today amend primarily the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Consequential amendments are also made to numerous other pieces of legislation, including the Financial Services Act 1986.
The third directives complete the single European market for insurance by establishing the principle of the "single passport" for insurance companies. By this I mean the principle that an insurance company should be able to offer its products throughout the single market on the basis of the authorisation it receives from the member state in which its head office is situated. The regulations implement the single passport by removing EC insurance companies from the requirement to apply for authorisation before selling insurance products in the United Kingdom. In its place a system of recognition for EC companies is introduced.
The system of supervision established by the directives is largely based on the UK approach to the regulation of insurance companies, summarised as "freedom with disclosure". Many other member states currently operate more restrictive regimes. The removal of such restrictions will significantly increase the ease with which UK insurers can access markets in other member states. Insurers also stand to benefit because they will only need to meet the supervisory requirements of one supervisory authority and file one set of regulatory returns annually. Consumers within the European Union will in turn benefit from increased choice and greater competition between insurers.
These regulations represent a valuable contribution to the completion of the single European market for all goods and services. The UK has a strong and innovative insurance industry which has much to gain from the freedoms that these insurance directives provide. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peston has asked me to say that he and the Labour Front Bench are content with the order that has been submitted to the House tonight.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
7.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Duties with respect to the environment]:
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved a manuscript amendment:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In consulting the board under subsection (2) above the Minister shall have regard to the economic implications of any direction that he may give under this section.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am aware that manuscript amendments such as this are unusual at Report stage. However, I believe that the issue raised is self-explanatory and of significance. I consulted my noble friend Lord Lindsay and my noble friend the Minister before tabling the amendment. My noble friends agreed that it would be useful to have further clarification and reassurance. I hope that the House will consider that the issue deserves debate.
I am concerned about the position of farmers who hope to benefit in terms of the development and running of their businesses from drainage improvements but are thwarted by a ministerial direction which prevents the drainage works taking place and provides no compensation for their economic losses. I ask, therefore, that Ministers look very closely at the economic implications for farmers, who could be adversely affected if a direction were made preventing a drainage board from carrying out drainage improvements. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and as such we express no official opinion on it from this side of the House. At the Second Reading debate I indicated my personal view that it was in many ways a worthy Bill and adopted an attitude of what I hoped would be construed as benevolent neutrality. However, coupled with that attitude is the financial prudence which one would expect from someone like myself born north of the Border. I understand that the amendment is a probing amendment in order to gain from the Minister some reassurance about the manner in which the powers of the Minister in Clause 6 of the Bill may or may not be used. In order not to stand between the Minister, the sponsor of the Bill and the House, I give way at once to hear the words of wisdom falling as ever from the Minister's lips.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I hope that I can provide my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, with some reassurance.
As I have emphasised throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government's intention with regard to the

597
proposed Ministerial power of direction over internal drainage boards is that it would be used only very sparingly, in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, and only where there is firm scientific evidence that the actions of an IDB are causing or likely to cause serious damage or destruction to an environmental asset of national or international importance.
The Bill expressly states that a Ministerial direction would be given only after the Minister had consulted with the IDB in question, except in an emergency. The prime purpose of this prior consultation with the IDB is to allow the Minister and the board to discuss the nature of the perceived risk to the environmental feature in question and for the board to advise the Minister of the implications of any action to counter that risk that the Minister may be considering for inclusion in a direction.
The IDB will be in a position to explain to the Minister the consequences for flood defence and for other local interests of changes in water levels or other IDB management practices which may be contem-plated. That would include, for example, the impact on agricultural practices or other land use in the affected area. The IDB, which includes representatives of the relevant agricultural drainage ratepayers and other local interests, will be well placed to assess the likely economic implications of a direction and make them known to the Minister.
The implications for farmers who may have to change their patterns of production in response to a direction to an IDB —for example, to raise water levels —are worth noting. I can assure the House that Ministers would wish to weigh that factor against the importance of the conservation interests at stake, case by case, before deciding whether to issue a direction and indeed what kind of direction to issue. As I explained in Committee, it is very likely that directions would arise only in areas such as SSSIs, or the equivalent, where management agreements may be available to farmers and landowners. The availability or otherwise of management agreements would have to be assessed case by case and would be one of the considerations a Minister would take into account in reaching a final view.
In those very rare cases in which a direction is considered I can confidently say that Ministers will have the potential economic implications very much in the forefront of their minds—whether for farmers, local businesses or residents —alongside the flood defence implications and the conservation implications. I hope that this explanation will assist my noble friend as he considers what action to take on his amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for that very full reply from the Minister. I am grateful, too, for the support that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has given to the Bill, as indeed have the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on earlier occasions.
The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be specifically to require the Minister to have regard to the economic implications of a direction to an IDB when consulting that IDB about a proposed direction aimed at protecting an environmental asset of national or

598
international importance. But it is implicit that the purpose of the prior consultation with the IDB that my Bill requires, except in an emergency, before a direction is issued is to allow for consideration of the various wider implications for flood defence and for economic activity in the IDB area in particular.
The IDB is ideally placed to bring those matters to the Minister's attention. I welcome the assurances given by the Minister that Ministers would have regard to the economic implications of a direction for landowners and for other local people in businesses before reaching a final view on using it.
As the Minister said, there are a number of ways in which the economic implications of a direction could be addressed depending upon the circumstances. That will need to be looked at case by case in those rare circumstances in which a direction has been considered. In view of the assurances given by the Minister I hope that my noble friend Lord Addison will not press the amendment to the Bill.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I too, thank the Minister for his assurances, and reassurances throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.17 to 8 p.m. ]

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 5.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 83 not moved. ]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 10, leave out line 26.
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Peston and myself. It introduces the question of Schedule 1 which is to do with regulators and their duties. I have two points: one is eliciting explanation from the Government; the other is a point of principle.
First, the explanation. I am speaking to Schedule 1 stand part, as well as to Amendment No. 84. In Schedule 1 I do not understand the expression "concurrently" which appears in all the duties or entitlements of the different regulators in different sectors to operate with the Director General of Fair Trading. As I understand "concurrently", trying to give the explanation in plain English, it means that the appropriate directors general of whatever utility it may be are entitled to exercise the powers at the same time, "concurrently", but not necessarily dependent on the decisions of the Director General of Fair Trading. Thus, if the word "concurrently" is as I think it is in plain English, there could be disputes between, for example, under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, the director general of telecommunications acting concurrently but not necessarily in concordance with the Director General of Fair Trading. The word "concurrently" is pursued through the schedule.
Turning back to Clause 5, if I take monitoring of undertakings under the new clause which it is proposed to insert in the Fair Trading Act, the new Section S6E on page 8 states:
"The Director shall keep the carrying out of an undertaking".
With that phrase, we have to assume that in the case of telecommunications, the director general of telecom-munications can, concurrently but perhaps not independently and perhaps not even in concordance, conduct the same review. My question is: what is "concurrently" about? What does it really mean? I understand that the noble Lord is to respond and I should be grateful if he will explain the matter precisely since proceedings in this House determine the way in which courts interpret expressions in the Bill.
The problem of principle is that powers are given under this deregulation Bill to people who will apparently impose further regulation. So I ask the noble Lord how it is that sectoral regulators are given further powers of regulation under a deregulation Bill. How do we control the sectoral regulators?
Noble Lords have had debates about the regulation of utilities and we have no idea how the regulators are to be regulated themselves. That is a point of principle. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply—and I understand it is the Minister himself—to explain exactly how the regulators themselves are to be regulated, in addition to defining exactly what powers are to be given under Schedule 1 to the regulators of the various utilities.
The Minister may treat this as a matter of frivolity, but it is not. It is a very serious matter. I hope very much that the Government will be able to satisfy us that this is not an increase in regulation and at the same time satisfy us that "concurrently" means something which does not duplicate bureaucracy. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I can certainly confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is no question of frivolity in dealing with this matter. I am glad that he has given us an opportunity to discuss it. However, I suspect that he has made a mistake here—an unintentional mistake, but a mistake all the same. I understand that the word "concurrent" is the word used under the Fair Trading Act and that the sectoral regulators already have concurrent powers with the DGFT under the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act. Therefore, we are not giving the regulators any greater power or any less power under these provisions than they currently possess under the Fair Trading Act and their relevant responsibilities under it.
As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the clause provides a short cut to the right solution in straightforward cases where the solution is clear and with the opportunity for all those affected to comment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. If that already happens as a matter of practice and of law, why is there a schedule to the Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: I understand that all the schedule does is to provide for the extension of the powers in the clauses to deal with the relevant Acts in which the regulators are themselves regulated. Extending the

600
provisions to the sectoral regulators provides greater opportunity for problems to be resolved quickly where issues are clear cut. That again is to the benefit of everyone involved.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With respect to the noble Lord, that simply will not do. "Concurrently" quite clearly means "alongside", in the same time frame; it does not mean "in concordance with". It obviously excludes—it does not even possibly exclude—"in-dependently of. I quite accept that under present arrangements the Director General of Fair Trading will consult the Director General of Telecommunications, to take paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, on any decisions that he may wish to make. But to put a schedule in the Bill to say that the Director General of Telecommunications shall be "entitled to exercise, concurrently" either simply reflects existing practice, in which case there is no point in putting it into the Bill, or it has some merit in terms of the authority of the Director General of Telecommunications that he does not at present have.
Lord Strathclyde: I am obviously not explaining the situation fully. The point, as the noble Lord is no doubt aware, is that sectoral regulators have their own Acts: the Telecommunications Act, the Gas Act, and so on. All that the schedule does is deal with those different Acts in a schedule as opposed to putting them in the main part of the Act. There are provisions in the sectoral Acts dealing with consultation between the DGFT and the sectoral regulator concerned. The clause itself gives some flexibility to the regulators, who have concurrent powers already. For instance, they can make a reference or accept undertakings instead.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is demonstrating such great concern. I did not think that there was a problem here. I thought that the noble Lord would raise more general issues. However, I hope that that explains the situation as to why the word "concurrent" exists and what it means vis-à-vis this particular piece of legislation.
Lord Monks well: I really do not think that what the Minister has said to the Committee so far is quite adequate. We have to realise that in what appears on the face of this Bill the Government are creating a problem that effectively was not there before, in the sense that the Director General of Fair Trading holds his powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the regulators have their powers under the relevant privatisation legislation provisions.
At the time of privatisation the very reason that the regulators came into existence was that it was obviously felt that the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading were not adequate to deal with the particular problems associated with the utilities. So the powers of the regulators are different in a significant way from the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading. But the Government are now bringing the two together. By using the word "concurrently" in terms of the exercise of the powers they are creating a problem.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that this is the problem that I raised last week in terms of the orders that Parliament will have to consider with regard to all this

601
business, in that the orders will be determined in parallel by the two Houses of Parliament, and therefore we could end up with two distinct and different decisions being arrived at. It was pointed out by the Minister that the Government envisage some mechanism—and we are entitled to wonder whether that mechanism will be adequate—to resolve any conflicts.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also identified a parliamentary mechanism to deal with the problem. The fact that that mechanism goes back several hundred years and may not be relevant to today's situation is again a point that we may have to consider. But the problem that we are considering now under this amendment is the one that the Government have presented to us by giving powers "concurrently" to two sets of people: to the Director General of Fair Trading and to the individual regulators. We have to recognise that each of those individuals could arrive at different decisions. What the Government have not explained is what mechanism will be used to resolve that clash. By writing in the word "concurrently" in terms of exercising powers, they have presented us all with a problem and have provided no explanation as to how that problem might be resolved. The Minister really must do better in terms of trying to explain the situation and must give us some idea as to how those possible difficulties could be resolved.
Lord Strathclyde: I think I must be more stupid than I originally thought. I did not think that there was any problem with this proposal. The reason why I thought there was no problem is that the matter is of course dealt with in existing legislation (not the bit that we are dealing with just at the moment) and is all well laid out in the different sectoral acts and in the Fair Trading Act—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Whether or not this matter is dealt with in existing legislation, there is still an answer to be made to this Committee as to how, if there is a conflict between the Director General of Telecommunications and the Director General of Fair Trading under new Section 56E, which is the new section to be inserted into the Fair Trading Act, concurrent investigations can be reconciled. What is the procedure? Now whether that is a matter of administrative procedure the Minister must tell us. But he cannot put "concurrently" into legislation in front of this House without explaining in words of a few syllables exactly how these difficulties (if there are difficulties) are to be resolved.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that there are any difficulties. There have not been any difficulties in the past, and there is no reason why there should be in the future. However, the noble Lord has asked for an explanation as to how these powers operate. All that "concurrently" means is that the utility regulators have exactly the same powers in respect of their own sector as does the DGFT, and no more. The regulator and the DGFT agree on a division of responsibilities in relation to that sector. The point of this legislation is that this will apply for accepting undertakings, as it does with all

602
the rest. So if there is a problem in this, then presumably there is a problem in everything else. I am saying that there is not.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may—
Lord Strathclyde: Will the noble Lord please sit down? I am trying to explain. If the noble Lord keeps bouncing up and down we shall not be able to get any further.
The provisions in the existing sectoral Acts covering consultation would apply. That is the point. In each individual Act it is clearly laid out how the consultation procedures between the DGFT and the regulator fit in with each other. If, of course, two different proposals were made to the Secretary of State, he would then have to decide which to accept. I cannot foresee that situation arising. However, if it did, then quite naturally the Secretary of State would be in a position to make up his own mind. I hope that that deals with the issue—
Lord Williams of Elvel: In that case, why do the Government not produce a Bill which says that the Director General of Telecommunications shall be: entitled to exercise "together with" the Director General of Fair Trading? That would make sense.
Lord Strathclyde: I suspect that we are bound by words that have been used in previous legislation, and that to change the wording at this stage would create even more confusion. As we are a responsible legislative body we should look carefully at the precedents that have been set in the past.
Lord Monkswell: There are two points that I would make. The noble Lord says that the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading and the powers of the regulators are the same. Palpably, they are not. So far as I understand it, the Director General of Fair Trading does not have the power to determine the price of gas, electricity or water which the regulators effectively do have. There is a distinction in fact.
This section of the Bill says that the powers with regard to monopoly are effectively to be discharged separately but concurrently by the two directors—the Director General of Fair Trading and the regulators of the utilities. The Government still have not explained how a decision by the Director General of Fair Trading which may be at variance with a decision of the regulator of the utility may be reconciled. The directors general have powers in their own right and do not refer everything to the Secretary of State.
Lord Strathclyde: I think we are making much heavier weather of this matter than is necessary. The regulators do have different powers from the DGFT— that is why we have regulators—for their particular sectors. But there are many areas in which they have exactly the same powers. As I explained, the director general and the regulator will decide on sharing out their duties. If at some point they happen to disagree., then presumably the Secretary of State will make a decision. I cannot make the position much clearer than that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will agree with the proposition that I put.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Would the Minister care to move on to my second question: who controls the regulators?
Lord Strathclyde: The regulators are controlled by an Act of Parliament.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is all very well, but so are the Secretary of State and the Minister. They also are controlled by an Act of Parliament. So are we all.
This is a serious question, which has been raised on a number of occasions. With privatisation a number of bodies are set up which are designed to regulate private monopolies. The question arises, as it always does: to whom are the regulators responsible? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes—if I may use that Latin expression. There is no guarantee under any Act on privatisation that I have ever seen—the Minister must accept that I have dealt with a number of Acts on privatisation—in which the regulator is in any sense democratically controlled. I should be grateful if the Minister would reply to the question.
Lord Strathclyde: That is a fundamental difference of philosophy between ourselves and the noble Lord and his party. The fact is that regulators are accountable. The Select Committees of another place may and do call the regulators before them. Regulators' decisions can be subject to judicial review. If the regulator cannot agree to proposed new licence conditions, the issue is referred to the MMC for its view on the public interest. There are countless safeguards on this whole issue. We have strayed beyond the original amendment and indeed the purpose of these clauses. I cannot agree that the regulators themselves are a machine out of control, beyond accountability to Parliament.
Lord Desai: I am sorry to come in so late to the debate but perhaps I could clarify the issue. The problem is that the Government have not made up their mind whether they like monopolies or whether they like competition. They like "private" rather than "public" but it is not clear whether they like competition or monopolies. Therefore they have created many private monopolies. And because they love the word "private" they have put on a rather uncoordinated system of regulators which prevents us from having overall control of any kind over the monopolies. Moreover, it is not clear that those monopolies will be forced properly to compete.
We know what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his memoirs said about privatisation of the gas industry. I am sure that the Minister has read that tome and knows that the situation was scandalous. It is well known that in the United States the government enforce competition. The regulators have to enforce com-petition. I am not at all clear whether this Government want to enforce competition or merely to privatise. When they want to privatise they appoint regulators who do not have any clear regulator above them and therefore the whole system is a shambles.
My noble friend Lord Williams is entirely right when he persists in questioning whether the whole schedule is indeed correctly drafted.
Lord Strathclyde: I can assure the noble Lord that it is not incorrectly drafted. It uses as a precedent various pieces of legislation. In these clauses a similar power which will be available to the DGFT is given to the different sectoral regulators.
I shall not follow the noble Lord into a critique of the book of my noble friend Lord Lawson. Suffice it to say that transferring state businesses to the private sector has increased business efficiency, whether through competition or in other ways, has allowed many employees to take a direct stake in the companies for which they work and has led to a major change in attitudes. I know that it is not everybody's wish that we should privatise but I believe that the record speaks for itself.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Restrictive trade practices: registration of commercially sensitive information]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 9 leads us into restrictive trade practices, as indeed did Clause 8, with which we have no problem. The reason that I and my noble friend Lord Peston gave notice to oppose the clause is simply that we are concerned that it does not go far enough.
There was a consultative document—I have it in my hand—which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by Command of Her Majesty in March 1988. The paper reviewed restrictive trade practices policy. It was reviewed by a distinguished committee which came to the conclusion:
"In sum, our present system is inflexible and slow, too often concerned with cases which are obviously harmless and not directed sufficiently at anti-competitive agreements. The scope for avoidance and evasion considerably weakens any deterrent effect the system has and enforcement powers are inadequate. The requirement to furnish insignificant agreements is not only wasteful of official resources but imposes an excessive burden on firms".
I fully understand that in the context of the Bill the last sentence is the one taken up by the Government. Nevertheless the consultative document produced in March 1988 put forward very firm recommendations. As I understand it—if I remember correctly, we debated the document at the time—it was widely welcomed and agreed by the Government. Why have the Government not used the opportunity of this Bill to put the recommendations of this document into law? We have now been waiting for almost six years. The restrictive trade practices policy badly needs revision. When will the Government do something about it? Why have they not done something about it in the Bill?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps it would be helpful to explain that with this clause we want to bring the protection available for confidential information in

605
restrictive agreements into line with the protection already available for confidential information in published MMC reports. This is because the existing rules on confidential treatment for restrictive agree-ments are extremely narrow. Any information on the public register is of course available to any competitors. Where information is commercially sensitive, that can be extremely damaging to companies. Yet many agreements containing such information in fact raise no competition concerns.
The clause therefore widens the criteria which empower the Secretary of State to decide that certain details can be placed in the special section of the register that is not open to public inspection. That will enable companies to protect a wider range of commercially sensitive information, but only of the same kind as can already be protected from publication in MMC reports and also only provided that publication would not in fact be in the public interest; for example, in order to understand the restrictions in the agreement.
This clause is simply an attempt to offer equal protection to information in restrictive agreements as already exists for information in MMC reports, subject to the same conditions. If publication is in the public interest, the information will still go on the public register, even if harmful. But the point is to avoid damaging companies where there is no public interest to be served by doing so.
The Government are still committed to introducing an RTP prohibition, as soon as legislative time permits, prohibiting agreements which have an adverse effect on competition subject to an exemption system as opposed to the RTP Act, which is based on the forms of agreement irrespective of their effect on the public interest. The current proposals are short term measures to ease unnecessary burdens before an RTP prohibition is introduced.
I recognise that it is a long time since we consulted. However, these things sometimes happen and we hope to legislate shortly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Green Paper covers many issues, such as block exceptions, which would facilitate the cause of business and would be quite in keeping with the deregulation Bill as it is presently drafted. Has the Department of Trade and Industry recently looked at the Green Paper? Has the Minister read it? If so, why are its recommendations, in so far as they contribute to deregulation, not included in the Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: Officials in the department review outstanding legislation from time to time. But I must confess that this is not an area that falls under my specific responsibility in the department. Neither the noble Lord nor anybody else would expect me to read every single consultation paper issued by the department over the course of the past six or seven years. However, I take full responsibility for all the consultation papers that I issued in the name of the Secretary of State for the areas for which I am responsible.
The Bill provides an opportunity to ease the burdens on business caused by existing law. I am advised that it would not be possible to include restrictive trade

606
practices prohibition within its scope. That is why we have not sought to include other provisions and there is no time for a Bill in the busy programme for the current Session.
Lord Desai: Do I sense that in proposing the deregulation Bill the Government have been less than bold? They have left many matters lying which should have been reformed, especially the RTP. When one looks at the clause, as it is and as amended, it appears that the Government are saying, "We do not want to be too competitive; we want to leave things lying as they are". Surely it is time that they thought about this problem. Either they want competition or they do not want it. We do not want a half-way house in which the Government pretend to be for competition and are only for privatisation, which is not competition.
Lord Strathclyde: Bold! Of course we have been bold. It was the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston, who last week called the Bill a "constitutional outrage". If it was not the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it was certainly his noble friend. Of course we have been bold and are keen on competition. But we do not believe that to include RTP prohibition provisions in this Bill is within its scope.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that the Minister has not read the Green Paper and cannot read every document that his department produces historic-ally. I understand that the Minister wishes to disavow the document because it was issued by some other Minister at some other time and the fact that the matter was laid before Parliament is neither here nor there.
But the Government drafted the Bill and, in drafting the Long Title of the Bill, they could easily have arranged for the recommendations of this document to be included. The Long Title is long enough as it is, but it could have been extended by one or two sentences. If the Minister says that the matter is postponed for the Greek Calends, then that is what he says. I accept that it is not the Minister's responsibility, but I wish that from time to time he would consult with his officials and read the document that his Government put before us in 1988. I wish also that we could have a more satisfactory reply when the Government come to draft legislation. It is no good saying that there will be a Bill when time permits; we have heard that so many times. The document is dated 1988 and we are now in 1994. Here was a vehicle to do it. Why did not the Government do it?
Lord Strathclyde: I shall not allow the noble Lord, Lord. Williams, to get away with that comment. He entirely misrepresented what I said. I was happy to admit that I do not read every single consultation paper issued by the department and I also reaffirmed the Government's commitment to legislate on this important issue when time comes available.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Anti-competitive practices: competition-references]:
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert:
("(j) explains why these undertakings are appropriate, and
(k) states what other undertakings have been considered and why they have been judged to be inappropriate.").
The noble Lord said: I congratulate Members of the Committee for keeping going as well as they have without me. Amendment No. 87 concerns page 14, line 38, and is another of my amendments to clarify the whole question of undertakings, consultation and so forth. I believe it is the end of the whole series, which will no doubt please the Minister no end.
Essentially, the subjects that we are discussing are to do with undertakings. What is not very clear is what will be the nature of the final decision that is come to. The point of the amendment is again to ask that a statement be made about the appropriate nature of the undertakings and, more interestingly, to clarify what else was considered and how the decision was arrived at. The case is overwhelmingly again one of rational decision-making in public. The case against it is not wishing to discuss these things in public; or, alternatively, the one that has been paraded ad nauseam; namely, that it all takes too long. I would rather enunciate the rule that it is better to take a bit longer if it means that the right decision is taken, rather than for it to be speeded up on the ground, "Let us get a move on". That is not to say that I am not keen to speed up all processes of this kind, but I should like to feel that at the end I have come to the right decision.
Although perhaps some distance from the kind of practical case that the noble Lord has in mind, one of the things that intrigues me more and more about his responses to criticism of the Bill is that we bring out increasingly clearly what the Government have in mind in terms of using these procedures. I admit—and I have made it clear to the noble Lord—that I had assumed that the whole point of the Bill was that major issues would be dealt with in this way, but increasingly the noble Lord seems to be saying that only minor matters will be dealt with in this way. That is, in a sense, helpful. I am not saying that I approve, but it is certainly helpful.
To give an example that I think is relevant, the noble Lord will remember—although he was not then the Minister in the department—the saga of the investiga-tion into beer by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and all the undertakings that were given, and so on. I think my noble friends will agree on the total catastrophe that resulted. Practically nothing good has come out of it. What has always intrigued me about that is the one thing I never knew —what all the discussions were between the Minister, the Secretary of State and the brewers, and what the alternatives were. One aspect that has always been on my mind—and this is an appropriate occasion in which to bring it before the Committee—is that your Lordships will always be interested when decisions are made to know what else was considered, and why whatever else was considered was rejected.
This is probably the last of my amendments of this kind this evening. This is my last open government rational decision-making amendment, and I should like to hear once more what the answer is. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: What gives me great happiness is that this is the last of the series of amendments that we have had to discuss or endure since last Thursday on this subject. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, recognises that my reply will be very similar to ones that he has already received and I am therefore not impressed by the amendment that he has moved. The published notice referred to is the means of consultation. The notice requires the director to publish a host of information, including the course of conduct that he is concerned about, the identity of the person pursuing it, the goods and services involved and the adverse effects he has identified. The intention is that those interested, whether as competitors or consumers, will be able to comment on the suitability of the undertakings.
While the clause as it stands requires him to state the terms of the proposed undertakings, he is not therefore required to justify them or to rule out others. Interestingly enough, the amendment which the noble Lord has tabled would seem to defeat the point of consultation by requiring the director already to have made up his mind. I know that that is not the intention of the noble Lord—how could it be, given what he has said in the past? The notice will contain all the information necessary to allow those interested to comment.
It is important for this process to be conducted in an even-handed and open-minded way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, agrees with that. Perhaps his views on this are not so different from ours; what is different is the requirement to make that statutory.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I am surprised at the noble Lord's interpretation of my amendment. Essentially what will happen under this procedure is that the director will state some undertakings, and then all of this will be gone through. An alternative procedure, which I freely admit is slightly more complicated —perhaps quite a bit more complicated—and which will take a bit longer, is for him to say "I am considering this or that set of undertakings". I should have thought, in terms of the way that the director's office would work, that that would be probably going on anyway, with the director asking "What sort of undertakings should we be looking at here?"
What I am trying to bring out and to place in the public domain is some of the possibilities without the director making up his mind but saying "This is my preferred option. I did consider this other thing, but the reason I do not want to have representations on this other possible undertaking is", and he then sets out his argument. I agree that that complicates matters. It is not to suggest that he has totally made up his mind, but to suggest that he is an open-minded person considering a range of possibilities.
I agree that I am being pedantic. What could happen instead is that the director says "I am considering these undertakings" and then some outside body gets in touch with him and says "I think you ought to consider a different type of undertaking", and we get to the same end via a different route. My reason for doing it this way I think is fairly obvious. The director is, in some sense,

609
an expert, and if this procedure works—and I am always willing, doubtful as I am, at least to see whether it works —he will therefore know more about what undertakings are worth considering.
I hope that the Minister does not misunderstand; these are the only amendments of this kind for this evening's meeting of the Committee. There will be plenty of time to pursue my consultation, representation and democratic objectives, which seem to be fundamental to what we ought to be about on all of this. It is simply that there are other matters that the Committee is anxious to debate and that is why I am showing a modicum of restraint, which I know the Minister will approve of. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Striking off of Non-trading Private Companies: Great Britain]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 69, line 14, at end insert:
("( be made with the consent of the members of the company.").
The noble Lord said: I warn the Committee that these are slightly technical amendments and not designed to change the schedule in any particular way. They are therefore probing. I am fractionally concerned that the majority of directors, as in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, can apply to the registrar to strike private companies off the register without consulting the members of the company; that is, the owners of the company. I have therefore tabled this amendment in order to find out why the Government are prepared to ignore the shareholders of a company—even if it is non-trading —whose directors decide that they wish to remove it from the register. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is fractionally concerned about these matters—that is the phrase he used—and I can tell him that I agree that a company should not be struck off the register if its shareholders do not want it to be struck off. Perhaps I may explain how we mean to reach that objective, which is slightly different from that proposed by the noble Lord.
The procedure provides that copies of the completed application for striking off must be sent to all shareholders, any one of whom can object to the striking off. It is therefore in the interests of directors to ensure that all shareholders are content before they send in the application. But it would be too much of a burden to require all the shareholders to consent before application. They would all have to be traced. They would all have to fill in forms or have to attend a meeting. It would cost both the company and the shareholders time and money.
What of companies where shareholders cannot be traced for their consent to be sought; companies, for example, where a shareholder has moved to another country and does not reply to correspondence or where

610
a shareholder is a recluse and does not answer the door? Should companies with one shareholder like that be denied the right to take advantage of the new procedure?
The requirement for the directors to notify all the shareholders and the right for any one of them to object to the striking off is, I believe, sufficient to preserve the rights of the members of the company. It is a technical point. It was absolutely right for the noble Lord to raise the issue but I hope that my answer gives him satisfaction.
Lords Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps he can point me, because this is a difficult and rather technical schedule to read, to the measures proposed in the schedule which are what he expounded to us in his reply. It is a very complicated and technical schedule and I am prepared to admit that my amendment is covered by what is already in the schedule. However, perhaps the Minister can point me to those measures.
Lord Monkswell: While the Minister is trying to find the point in the schedule to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, perhaps I may ask another question. From what he said it sounded as though if there were a proposal to strike off a company and that was objected to by a member of the company, it would not take place. I may have misheard the Minister or he may not have explained himself adequately, but if it is the case that a member of the company can object and effectively stop the process, why should not members of the company be consulted beforehand and therefore save the whole procedure being gone through?
Lord Strathclyde: I had hoped that I had explained that in my first answer. We believe that it is an unnecessary burden both on the shareholders and on the company to do it in that manner. It is far easier to do it in the way we have described.
Perhaps I may point the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to new Sections 652B(6) (a) and 652C(2) (a) where he will see the words,
"a member of the company".
That is where the provisions apply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. However, does that allow a member of the company to protest? If that is the case, how many members of the company are needed? Is it a majority of members of the company or can any member of the company prevent it—any single shareholder holding even one share out of 1 million? Is that the correct interpretation?.
Lord Strathclyde: It is correct that any one shareholder can object to the procedure. There are other procedures for striking off. This is a deregulatory procedure. This is a short cut. This is light touch. If the company does not get the agreement of one shareholder there are other ways of achieving the same ends.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 70, leave out lines 5 and 6.
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 90. This is perhaps a somewhat technical matter. The Secretary of State can, by order, for the purposes of this sub-paragraph change a variety of things. That is not only in new Section 652B of the Companies Act but also in the subsequent section. I wonder whether it is right to give the Secretary of State those powers.
I look forward to the Minister explaining why the Secretary of State has these powers. It is very easy if one is not satisfied with the legislation that one produces simply to say at the end, in the final paragraph, "The Secretary of State shall have powers to change anything he wants". I should like to know that all the possibilities have been considered by the Government before we let this through. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I would expect at a Committee stage to be quizzed on the kinds of powers that we are allowing the Secretary of State to use. However, I do not think there is anything strange in this particular one. The Government do not want this new procedure to be used by companies which are trading, or which give their creditors and others the impression that they are trading, either before or after the application. Schedule 4 therefore sets out activities in new Section 652B(1) that the company cannot undertake in a period before application for striking off. Thus the company cannot change its name in the period before application. It must be non-trading and so on.
However, we cannot be sure that, when we have experience of the new procedure, we shall not find that a clever person has thought up some other way of pretending that nothing has changed. The delegated legislative power would enable us to close any such loophole. Furthermore, I can confirm that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has considered all the provisions for delegated legislation in the Bill and made no comments on either of these two provisions. I hope that that explains why we have asked Parliament for these powers and explains how they are going to be used.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation. As he rightly pointed out, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has not taken exception to the powers. Nevertheless, we can hope—I express no more than a hope —that the department has found out every conceivable possibility that might be used by ingenious people to get round this and that the power will not be called upon. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 73, leave out lines 47 to 49.
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 and 93. These are small but slightly intricate points and it is quite right that your Lordships should deal with them in Committee. Anyone who fails to perform a duty

612
imposed by the provision—it must be remembered that these clauses are to be inserted into the Companies Act —is liable if found guilty of an offence to be fined and in certain circumstances to go to prison. Are the Government really satisfied that criminalising such offences in such a manner is the right way to set about it? I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: What we are concerned with here is that the new procedure is not misused. We have therefore built in a number of safeguards to protect those involved in or dealing with the company. The key element in this is the creation of offences. The safeguards are there with the sole object of protecting the interests of ordinary people and businesses dealing with companies which may wish to be struck off. If they are to be effective they must be properly enforced. What would be the point of having them if people knew that they could be broken with impunity. In the last amendment I spoke about clever people who might try to find ways around the law. Likewise, if we had no protection we would be providing a rogue's charter which crooks could use to disappear from the face of the earth leaving strings of unpaid creditors and swindled shareholders behind them.
The question should be asked: why should the overwhelming majority of honest business people be penalised by having to keep a company going when it is no longer required? We are giving them a simple way to bring their business to a close. At the same time we must also make sure that those dishonest enough to use it know that there are appropriate penalties which will be brought against them. The protection is right and proper. I hope that I have explained at least the necessity for having them and that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I come in at this point because I am concerned at the precedent which is being set. The Government are saying that here we have a deregulation Bill and they are going to change, simplify and reduce the regulatory effect of the regime, but in the process introduce a new crime and penalties associated with it.
That may be all right in this part of the Bill because we are effectively talking about primary legislation. We go through the whole procedure of primary legislative consideration by both Houses of Parliament. My anxiety is that, having set the scene in this particular area of the Bill as a measure of deregulation, with new liabilities for fines and imprisonment, we are setting a precedent for the use of Part 1 provisions of the Bill for the future. Will the Government give an undertaking that they will not use them to introduce new criminal offences with the powers to fine and give imprisonment? We have to bear in mind that at that stage we shall have very curtailed parliamentary consideration of the legislative changes. Will the Government give that undertaking?
Lord Strathclyde: No, I will not give any such commitment. It is not necessary. We are providing for a new procedure in these clauses. I have explained why we need the offences. However, the offences in themselves are well precedented in the Companies Act

613
and they are available under Section 652E. All these offences were well precedented under the Insolvency Act 1986 and reflect the anxiety to ensure that the procedure is not deliberately abused to avoid the penalties of that Act. That is entirely appropriate and there is nothing untoward in these provisions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand what the Minister is saying and I am not unsympathetic. I have the general view that, wherever possible, Parliament should try to avoid criminalising offences. We are here discussing the "fast track", if I may put it like that, for the registrar to strike private companies from the register on application. I accept that there may be clever people who do clever things. Nevertheless, there is enough in the schedule to stop the clever people from doing clever things without criminalising it.
I very much hope that the Minister will look at this matter again before Report stage. I hope that he will discuss with the department the general problem of criminalising offences which do not need to be criminalised. Is the Minister going to give me an assurance that he will look at this matter again?
Lord Strathclyde: Naturally, without a commitment to make any changes, I am delighted to look again at this provision. The noble Lord is right when he says that we should be careful when setting up this kind of criminalisation. I spent a great deal of time this weekend looking at the proposals. The fact which convinced me that they were right was that they were well precedented in previous legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister, as far as his explanation goes. Because something is precedented in previous legislation does not mean that the Committee should pass the legislation before us. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister will recognise that this clause raises some difficult questions which were discussed at length in another place. I do not wish to go over all the arguments which were put forward there. From this Dispatch Box I have had the privilege of talking about beer on many occasions with, not least, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, when he was Secretary of State introducing certain regulations dealing with beer.
Originally Mr. Edward Leigh, who was the then Consumer Affairs Minister—and I only quote him because he was a Minister at the time—announced on 20th December 1991 that he was intending to implement Section 43 bringing the clause into effect. He said on that occasion:
"I have fought hard in Europe to retain the traditional British pint, … my view on consumer protection is that people should get what they think they are getting and what they pay for".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/12/91]

614
I do not believe that any Member of the Committee would dispute that particular statement.
But the scrapping of Section 43, as proposed in Clause 12, will effectively legalise the concept of the 95 per cent. pint. That is where we have objections. Indeed, as I understand it, the Brewers' Society is issuing guidance to its members to that effect. Of course, the brewers have said that compliance with Section 43 of the Weights & Measures Act 1985 would add to the cost of serving a pint, but the evidence has varied over time as to what the cost might be. What the brewers and the compliance cost assessment analysis which was carried out at the time fail to acknowledge is that 25 per cent. of all outlets already use beer meters and lined glasses. There is no evidence that those establishments charge more for beer. Indeed, there is an argument that says that that method of pouring beer is more efficient and less wasteful. At present customers paying for a pint are effectively—I use the word "effectively" advisedly— donating an average of 7 per cent. of its cost back to the industry.
It is clear that many beer drinkers—in fact, they number millions—already receive short measure. They are legally entitled to ask for a top-up at no extra cost, but how many will do that? In this clause the Government are asking Parliament to legitimise the serving of short measures and to endorse in law the notion of the 95 per cent. pint. We oppose that. That is why we have tabled this Motion.
Lord Tordoff: This is no laughing matter, as my late lamented noble friend Lord Winstanley would have told the Committee had he been here, when he would have said what I am going to say but much more cogently. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. I mentioned these matters on Second Reading when I received a stern rebuke from the brewers, who set out an awful lot of information for me about how well they did for the drinking public. But I am not impressed.
The simple answer is that people are getting short measure. The suggestion that you can ask for a top-up takes me back to the old story of the person who said, "Do you think you can get a whisky into that glass?" When the barman said that he could, the customer said, "Well, why not fill it up with beer?" One is also reminded of the slogan that occasionally appears on bars which reads, "Do not ask for credit because a poke in the mouth often gives offence". I suspect that there are a number of pubs from which you would be ejected rather rapidly if you went to ask for a top-up. Of course, that would not do their trade any good next time round, but not everybody has a choice of pubs these days.
The truth is that the Government are reneging on a commitment that was made by Mr. Leigh in another place. It is perfectly simple to give people a pint of beer when they ask and pay for a pint of beer. However, for year after year (because of the size of the glasses or because of the lack of metered pumps) the British public have been defrauded by the brewing industry. I know that the industry is a friend of the Government and has been so down the centuries. I am not speaking now from the old Methodist Liberal tradition of temperance, but

615
that was a great argument at the turn of the century. It was one of two great issues that divided my party from the government party. The Government were always the brewers' friends—and they are showing that again today.
It is about time that we recognised that somebody who orders a pint of beer ought to get a pint of beer. After all, it is in the Magna Charta that there should be proper measure for both beer and wine. Why are the Government trying to back out of their commitment, if not to fulfil some promises that they may have made to their friends in the brewing industry?
In my view, this almost undermines the whole basis of the Bill. It may appear trivial, but I think that it is symptomatic of the attitude that the Government have taken to deregulation on a matter with which they should not mess about. The law is as it is on the statute book, but the Government are now using this deregulation mechanism to get out of the commitment that was made to Parliament at an earlier stage. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Baroness Seear: I would not dream of disagreeing with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, but I should like one thing clarified. Is froth beer or not?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has asked the most pertinent question of this Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, argued his case on the basis of fair play. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that this is clearly a party political matter; that the issue had been decided in Magna Charta; and that we should go back to that. I am not sure that Magna Charta had anything to do with it. Then the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the central question. Beer is not like other products since froth is a natural part of the product. Whether or not it is part of the liquid pint is another matter altogether. However, it is misleading to compare a pint of beer, which contains at least 95 per cent. of liquid, with a pint of pre-packed milk.
A further problem is that it depends on where one does one's beer drinking. People in some parts of the country like a frothy, creamy head through which they like to drink the beer. People in other parts of the country have a kind of scum on the top. Those elsewhere have no head on the pint at all and it is all liquid. Therefore, there are strong regional preferences. It is open to customers to make it clear that they want something different; for example, a full liquid pint in an area where beer is usually served with a tight, creamy head. Of course, they are already able to ask for and should receive a top-up if they are unhappy with the amount of liquid beer that they have received.
I agree with all Members of the Committee who have spoken that it is important to safeguard the interests of the consumer and the vast majority of honest licensees who want to provide good service to the public. There have been successful prosecutions where short measures have occurred. The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association has issued a revised guidance, which should

616
be helpful in combating deficiencies in future. It sets out the association's view, not as pub owners but as producers of the product, on what constitutes a reasonable head when serving beer in a brim measure. It makes it clear that after the collapse of the head there should be a minimum of 95 per cent. liquid. The effect of the repeal of the section is to allow the continuation of the existing case law that a pint of beer may consist of liquid and a reasonable head.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about statements that have been made by Ministers and why we are looking again at Section 43. Against the background of the deregulation initiative we took another look at Section 43. We consulted with many interested parties and concluded that the costs of implementing Section 43 were disproportionate to the consumer benefit. We can foresee no circumstances in which this will change, which is why I recommend the repeal of Section 43 and agreement to this clause.
Lord Tordoff: The Minister gave the game away by saying that when the head has collapsed there should be 95 per cent. liquid. That provides the answer to my noble friend's question: is froth beer? Of course it is beer, but there is a lot of gas too. After the froth has collapsed one is still 5 per cent. short of what one has paid for.
Secondly, the Minister talked about consultation. What was the result of his consultation with the Consumers' Association and the Campaign for Real Ale? I suspect that they were not widely consulted on the matter and that the Minister consulted only with his friends, the brewers.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall not open up a further argument with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about the head, the froth and the 95 per cent. We have given clear guidance to trading standards officers, who will be able to refer to it as regards what constitutes a pint.
Of course, the consultation was varied. We came down on the basis that the increased cost would not in the end be in anyone's interest. Of course, consumers when asked whether they want a full pint will say, "Yes, we would like a full pint". However, we must take into account the general disruption of the increased cost. That is what we did and that is why we came to our conclusion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is clear from the Minister's reply that he did not consult the Consumers' Association or the Campaign for Real Ale. Probably he consulted only his friends. However, the most important principle in this case is that in 1991 a Minister gave a perfectly clear undertaking and the Government are now trying to renege on that perfectly clear undertaking. Under the circumstances, I must protest and in protesting I must take the opinion of the Committee.
9.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 17.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Aldington, L.

Kenyon, L.

Annaly, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blyth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boardman, L.

Moyne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Renton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Seccombe, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Sharpies, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Cox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

St. Davids, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

[Teller.]

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sudeley, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Elton, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Vinson, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gainsborough, E.

Wise, L.

Goschen, V.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Rea, L.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

[Teller]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Lloyd's

.—(1) Section 42 of the Financial Services Act 1986 is hereby repealed.

(2) This section shall come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State in an order made by statutory instrument for that purpose.

(3) Before making an order under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such representatives of Lloyd's and such other persons as seem to him to be appropriate.

(4) An order made under subsection (2) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: This is the first occasion which the Committee has had since, I believe I am right in saying, the Companies Bill, or possibly since the Financial Services Bill, as it then was, to debate Lloyd's legislation. It is certainly the first occasion that I can recall since what is known as "meltdown". It is not my purpose this evening to talk about those who have lost money because of their membership of Lloyd's. I have no intention of talking about bailing out Names, or compensation, or whatever. My purpose is to ensure, in so far as I can, that the insurance activities and reinsurance activities that are at present conducted by

618
Lloyd's, or under the Lloyd's umbrella—I choose my words with some care—are put on a sure footing for the future.
If I can just draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of Lloyd's—I use the Key Facts document, which is produced by Lloyd's themselves —the Lloyd's community has contributed £15 billion to United Kingdom invisible earnings since 1983, averaging 31 per cent. of the total UK invisibles contribution. Lloyd's leads two-thirds of the insurance underwritten in the London insurance market. Lloyd's generates employment directly or indirectly for an estimated 60,000 people. It is therefore my purpose to ensure that those very important facts, and the very important position that Lloyd's has—at least businesses that are conducted, as I say, under the umbrella of Lloyd's —should be maintained in the future. Nevertheless, there is a question mark over the future of Lloyd's.
The credibility of the organisation has suffered because of losses that have been incurred. Results which have been published have suffered from a series of events—some scandals, some examples of incompe-tence—all, I believe, resulting from a failure of regulation. I would instance only one example; namely, the conduct of certain members' agencies in recruiting members for Lloyd's without telling them the full facts about what membership implied.
The response of Lloyd's has been to institute a new regulatory board of 16, of whom four are working members. A business plan was published in 1993, which is broadly similar to other business plans produced by major enterprises. It is indeed a reasonable catalogue of aspirations. In addition, there has been the creation of a company, provisionally entitled "NewCo", to come into being at the end of 1995, which would be the mechanism by which pre-1986 liabilities will be reinsured to a limited liability company.
That may or may not work. The business plan, which is a series of aspirations, may or may not be achieved. But there is one important feature of NewCo. When it is set up —and we must assume that it will be set up—it will be a United Kingdom reinsurance company required, as Lloyd's itself has admitted, to meet DTI standards on conduct, particularly on solvency. Therefore, in part Lloyd's itself has accepted the need for government regulation.
That leads me to my amendments. Section 42 of the Financial Services Act (referred to in subsection (1) of Amendment No. 94) exempts Lloyd's, and permitted underwriting agencies at Lloyd's, from regulation of their investment business carried on in connection with or for the purpose of insurance business at Lloyd's. The amendment seeks to remove that exemption.
What is "investment business"? In my view—and I have made this perfectly plain on previous occasions on which I have spoken—it is not merely management of premium trust funds or cash balances. Investment also means investment made by members of syndicates. I accept that investment in that sense is in the nature of a contingent liability and not a direct cash payment; but there is a risk, and there is a reward. If there is any doubt about whether that should be considered an investment,

619
that can easily be rectified by an amendment to Schedule 1 of the Financial Services Act which, as the Committee will be aware, can be amended by an order from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can, by order, make an investment as a member of a syndicate in Lloyd's, an investment under Schedule 1 of the Financial Services Act.
If that is done, and if my amendment is accepted, membership of Lloyd's becomes in law an investment and therefore regulated under the Financial Services Act. It follows from that that the insurance and reinsurance activities—solvency ratios, and so on— would also in the end come to be regulated by the Department of Trade and Industry, because no investor in his or her senses would invest in either a company or a syndicate which was not properly regulated under DTI regulatory procedures.
I now turn to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of my amendment. I recognise that the amendment would lead to substantial changes both in the Financial Services Act and the Lloyd's Act 1982. I accept that those changes will take time to work out. I am advised that were my amendment to be passed without subsections (2) to (4), Lloyd's might have to cease trading. Some noble Lords might consider that that was not a bad idea. I have heard that expressed. Others might think that it was not a terribly good idea and that it was useful to seek to work out some way of making Lloyd's—I refer to all the activities which come under the Lloyd's umbrella, whether or not Lloyd's stays as a corporation—a proper organisation which will serve the United Kingdom and the financial service industry in the future.
I conclude where I started. My purpose is to provide a framework for the future for this very important industry. There is in the provision a substantial measure of deregulation. By adopting what I say, the regulatory framework of Lloyd's, which goes under the name of self-regulation, would have to be removed. So one removes one tier of regulation.
I very much hope that the Committee will look sympathetically at the amendment. I believe that it will be conducive to a proper and sensible way of running the insurance and reinsurance industry, which has been the scene of so much controversy in the past few years. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford: In supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, I declare an interest as a victim of Lloyd's—an interest which I believe I share with over 200 Members of your Lordships' House.
I base my support for the noble Lord on a rather general principle which in a sense is my own personal Tory philosophy. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to put it at least in its simplest form. I consider that the best economic results come from a dynamic market economy, but I believe strongly that it is a prime duty for any Government so to regulate that market that employees, consumers, investors and the environment are properly protected from exploitation.
As we know, a crucial ingredient of Lloyd's system of gearing up capacity in insurance through outside names is that those names pledge their entire resources

620
in an unlimited liability based on the success or failure of underwriting. Yet for many years, I suspect, many of those names have understood little, perhaps in most cases nothing, of the detail of what is being done in their name. The system has therefore always been conducted on the basis of urberrime fidei—the greatest good faith that Lloyd's names have in Lloyd's itself. Lloyd's insists on that standard for the policy holders whose risks it underwrites. It would therefore be hard to think of a financial system in which proper regulation is more crucial for the protection of both policy holders and of names.
Yet, deplorably in my view, 14 years ago, at a time when the need for the regulation of the financial community had become all too apparent, Parliament in an Act that I can only describe as myopic, decided to exempt Lloyd's from external regulation and to grant immunity to the Council of Lloyd's and its officers. It is true that there were, I believe, voices raised against the legislation. I have an idea that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has always been against it, and I salute him for it. I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson also had doubts about that legislation. However, the Lloyd's Act will go down in Westminster as one of the abdications of parliamentary responsibility. I am sad that it should have been passed under a Tory Government, although I believe that it was a Private Bill.
We now know two things that were then only suspected by some. First, there were some in Lloyd's for whom self-regulation was the licence to continue their incompetent, greedy and dishonest practices. Members of the Committee may remember that I gave a number of examples of each of those when we had a debate on Lloyd's in this House a year ago in July. It has been a combination which is now proving fatal for the financial survival of many families in this country and a number of families overseas also. Secondly, we know that there were at that time already those in Lloyd's who were well aware of the potential financial disaster which stemmed from the unlimited and vast liabilities of asbestosis and pollution. Indeed, it is generally believed that there were a number of underwriters who were anxious to leave their syndicates open in 1979, as they felt that there was no way of establishing the ultimate liabilities. They were, however, persuaded by the Lloyd's establishment that it would not be in the interests of Lloyd's to do so, particularly with the Lloyd's Bill going through Parliament.
The courts will, I trust, in due course insist on the release of the minutes of the council meetings of Lloyd's held at that time which will reveal in full the failure to protect names. At present, all we know for certain is that the then Lloyd's deputy chairman, Mr. Murray Lawrence, wrote to all members' agents on 18th March 1982 that they should:
"inform their names of their involvements with asbestosis claims and the manner their syndicates' current and potential liabilities have been covered".

621
As Mr. Adam Raphael said in his excellent book Ultimate Risk, which I recommend to those who are not members of Lloyd's as well as to those who may have been:
"The failure to [give this warning] led many thousands of unwitting names to join long tail syndicates throughout the 1980s. Many professionals at Lloyd's realised the dangers. Very few outsiders did".
Mr. Raphael actually quotes one estimate that during the next two decades asbestosis claims could total £30 billion or six times the present estimate of about £170,000 per name.
There is, however, one crucial area in which the Government retain the role and duty of a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has referred to it in his speech, and that, of course, is the monitoring of the solvency of Lloyd's. It is only if Lloyd's remains solvent that it can be allowed to continue trading. The responsibility for determining the solvency of an insurance business is ultimately that of a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is an absolute duty on the DTI, I believe, to judge solvency objectively and therefore to determine whether or not Lloyd's is solvent. It is not, in this context, to take into account whether or not it is opportune or embarrassing or in any way undesirable for Lloyd's to be declared solvent.
I am rather concerned that in practice the DTI seems to rely heavily on advice from Lloyd's itself on the question of Lloyd's solvency. Ironically, I believe, several of the Lloyd's officials involved in this process were themselves formerly civil servants in the DTI.
In this context, do not let us forget the example of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International which was not shut down until 1991, a date which was the product of regulatory failure. I obviously do not claim to be in any position to judge solvency. In any case, that is not an issue of relevance to the amendment. But what is relevant are the methods which Lloyd's seems to be adopting to get through the solvency test. First, there is the extraordinary practice introduced last year of hypothecating future profits to balance current liabilities. I refer, of course, to a decision made during the first half of 1993 to allow underwriters to return to names 5 per cent. of the premium income they had signed up for in respect of 1993, as a cash payment towards the huge losses that were then being declared for 1990 or as a contribution to names' solvency. That was totally contrary to the well-established Lloyd's practice of assessing the result of any underwriting year at the. end of 36 months, which is 24 months after the ending of the year concerned. This year Lloyd's is repeating the practice by hypothecating profits from 1994 towards the massive losses that were just announced for 1991. This time it is only 3 per cent. Perhaps the DTI has been getting cold feet. Well it might. Leading accountants to whom I have spoken say that such a practice would never be acceptable in respect of any limited liability company.
I must also point out that when it comes to solvency Lloyd's seems to speak with two voices—a public voice and a private voice. Here is the public voice:
"We are confident that the solvency situation is good. Quite frankly we would not be behaving this way if it were not".

622
That was Mr. David Rowland, the chairman of Lloyd's in the Daily Telegraph for 13th May. Now here is the private voice:
"By reason of the heavy losses which have been incurred in the Lloyd's market, in particular in respect of the 1989, 1990 and 1991 years of account, very substantial sums have had to be or are due to be paid to Lloyd's policy holders. Where a Name does not have funds remaining at Lloyd's and fails to put up fresh funds, his obligations are met from the Lloyd's Central Fund and Lloyd's then seeks to recover from the Name the sums paid out. At present in excess of £400 million has had to be withdrawn from the Central Fund held at Lloyd's. Until these funds are recovered, then clearly they are no longer available to pay further unfunded losses as they occur and the greater the delay in recovery proceedings the greater the risk to Lloyd's solvency and its ability to pay policy holders' valid claims…It is apparent that there has been and continues to be a wholesale effort made by certain Names to direct and dissipate funds that would otherwise be available to meet their Lloyd's obligations or to repay monies due to the Central Fund".
That is a quotation from a letter dated 23rd May—only 10 days later than Mr. Rowland's statement—from Mr. R.B.L. Prior, the deputy solicitor for the Corporation of Lloyd's to the Registrar of Civil Appeals at the Royal Courts of Justice.
I may say that Lloyd's advises me that the current value of the central fund is £904 million, of which at the end of 1993, £661 million was earmarked for solvency purposes. To put these figures in balance, Lloyd's further advises me that the total losses declared but not called for 1990 and 1991 are £2.6 billion.
We must all realise that there is some fundamental potential conflict between the interests of the Lloyd's insiders who work there and the outside names. Many of the insiders depend on the solvency of Lloyd's for their livelihood. If Lloyd's were to be declared insolvent, the best underwriters would of course simply set themselves up as limited liability companies. Indeed I understand that a number already have contingency plans to do so. But there might be many others for whom there would be little opportunity of employment elsewhere.
I hope therefore that what I have said will persuade the Government to look kindly at a specific proposal that I have for this year's solvency test by the DTI. I believe that they should recruit a panel of outside financial advisers, unconnected with Lloyd's but aware of the wiles of the world, to help them to make the solvency decision. I believe that a short report from the DTI on the solvency issue should be published to Parliament each year.
Perhaps I may now say a few words on the current outlook for Lloyd's, which is central to the crucial question of regulation and who should regulate. Sadly, the consequences of the Lloyd's Act is that never before in its 300-year history has its reputation for probity and confidence been as low as it is today. Outsiders have been wheeled in and out to try to patch it up. They identify what they feel needs doing and either find resistance to doing it or that it cannot be done. A few years ago we saw the arrival and departure of the excellent Mr. Ian Hay Davison. He was followed by Mr. Alan Lord, a former Treasury civil servant. Now we have the arrival of the energetic Mr. Peter Middleton, accompanied by the determined Miss Heidi Hutter.
Mr. Middleton has helped put forward the concept known as NewCo—to which the noble Lord, Lord

623
Williams, referred—into which it is proposed eventu-ally to reinsure the liabilities of the 478 syndicates from earlier years which now remain open and which between them have a premium income capacity of over £12 billion, which currently appears to be deteriorating at the rate of some 20 per cent. a year.
I understand that Miss Hutter is finding that the record keeping and analysis of many of those syndicates which it is intended to close into NewCo are so inadequate that so far it has proved impossible to establish an actuarial basis for NewCo to be set up. That may change.
However, I fear that NewCo may be raising false hopes. Its success as a reinsurer will depend on three factors. The first is the possibility of the members of the open syndicates being able to find the funds to finance NewCo so that it can finance valid claims. I fear that a number of names, maybe many, will not have sufficient resources to do so.
Secondly, it will depend on its ability to act as a tough negotiator, forcing many claimants to agree to commute their unreasonable claims to fair levels, particularly in the United States, rather than go through a process of litigation which in the United States has so far resulted in no less than 80 per cent. of all insurance payments for pollution and asbestosis ending up in the pockets of the lawyers rather than those of the claimants. If Lloyd's does get wound up, it could perhaps protect names from direct action in the American courts. Otherwise, it could well be, in the striking words of my noble friend Lord Vinson: "Let the last millionaire turn out the lights".
Thirdly—this is crucial—unless some way can be found to transfer the unlimited liability of the original members of syndicates into limited liability for NewCo which has taken them on, then if NewCo runs out of money the claimants will go straight back to the original syndicates and thus to their names. I am afraid that is why some wag has apparently re-christened NewCo "NewCon".
Lloyd's has been busy promoting the idea that the turn-round in its fortunes will come at least partly from higher insurance premium rates which should follow from the past disasters and that that is an additional reason for names to continue their membership and "trade through" the problems. Quite apart from the fact that "jam tomorrow" has been an inducement offered almost every year since 1982, it is simply economic nonsense. Lloyd's is in no position to make monopoly profits. Already there are many new entrants into the insurance market and already rates are starting to soften again.
I have spoken probably for too long but I believe that the case included in the amendment is one which makes it desirable that the Government should at least undertake to give very careful thought to the future regulation of Lloyd's and perhaps tell us more at Report stage.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In opposing the amendment I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of a firm of Lloyd's brokers. As such, I believe

624
that I form part of the Society of Lloyd's which the amendment seeks to bring under the influence of the Financial Services Act by removing its present exemption under Section 42.
When I first thought to speak to the amendment, it looked innocent enough on the Marshalled List. In fact I had not realised that the amendment would pave the way for a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that self-regulation should be removed from Lloyd's altogether and a suggestion from my noble friend Lord Marlesford that it should be encouraged to go into liquidation.
Having declared my interest, I must say that I would suffer no personal damage if the amendment as it stands, without the various attributes added to it by the two previous speakers, were to be accepted, except as someone who works in the London insurance market —of which Lloyd's is a vital part—and wishes to see it prosper. Until I heard the two earlier speeches I thought that that was a sentiment which would be shared by all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The noble Lord quoted some statistics from Lloyd's and the value of Lloyd's to the national economy. Those statistics are indeed accurate. But they probably amount to only half the benefit which the London market as a whole gives to the national economy. Having said that, I do not think that I can be accused of being likely to support Lloyd's blindly. Over the five years from 1978 to 1982 I was a constant, and at times vociferous, critic of self-regulation at Lloyd's as then practised. My noble friend Lord Marlesford was good enough to refer to my part in the Lloyd's Act. In fact I opposed the Lloyd's Bill through both Houses of Parliament and I objected particularly to the clause whereby Parliament eventually saw fit to grant Lloyd's a unique immunity for negligence. My view of that immunity is that it has not worked in the interests of Lloyd's or its members.
In fact this is the first time that I have spoken publicly about a matter concerning Lloyd's since 1983. I do so now only because the amendment seems to me, especially in view of what was said earlier, to be so unfortunately conceived and potentially damaging to Lloyd's and therefore to the whole London market, that I feel I must speak against it. First, there is a point of principle. Such a repeal of Section 42 of the FSA would cancel unilaterally the agreement made between Lloyd's and the Government whereby Lloyd's was permitted to retain its status as an independent SRO (unregulated by the Financial Services Act) in return for measures implementing the report of Sir Patrick Neill's independent committee of inquiry. That committee made recommendations designed to ensure that the regulation arrangements at Lloyd's provided protection for names comparable to that proposed for investors protected by the FSA. As I understand it, those recommendations were implemented in full by Lloyd's.
Secondly, the removal of the statutory exemption would have a number of practical consequences, none of which appears to be necessary or helpful; they have been given to me by Lloyd's as being particularly destructive at this time. First, managing agents, when

625
managing names' funds, would have to join an SRO, probably IMRO—I must ask the Committee to forgive the jargon but it will be in the interests of speed if I carry on—in order to continue to be authorised to carry out those functions. Secondly and similarly, members' agents when placing names on syndicates would be able to continue to provide that service (because it would constitute investment advice) only if they were authorised, probably by joining FIMBRA. Thirdly, Lloyd's itself would cease to be able to operate its own financial distribution system for syndicate funds or to continue to act as trustee of the Lloyd's deposit or special reserve funds, and vital day-to-day management of names' and syndicate funds would thus cease to be possible.
Those are just some of the practical difficulties the amendment might pose. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may not regard them as difficulties and I shall return to that. On the other hand, Sir Patrick accepted that it would be impracticable for the Lloyd's community to comply with the proposed conduct of business rules and the financial requirements of the other SROs. Instead he recommended certain improve-ments which are now in Lloyd's rules.
So much for some of the technical inconveniences of the amendment. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may say that he considers them to be desirable developments which he would be happy to see forced upon Lloyd's, whatever the consequences may turn out to be. I was going to suggest to him that he had not really thought his amendment through until he went on to confess that in actual fact his amendment does pave the way for the withdrawal of self-regulation from Lloyd's altogether.
It pains me to have to speak against my noble friend Lord Marlesford on this occasion, but it does seem to me mat his speech was inspired more by the losses that he has incurred at Lloyd's—and I know that many other noble Lords have suffered grievous losses—than by this amendment in itself. It does seem to me that Lloyd's problems are caused by enormous losses which are underwriting matters—they have been matters of underwriting judgment—and most of the losses, I have to say, were on policies written well before the Neill Committee sat in 1986–87. Be that as it may, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, seems to me to have a touching faith in the benefits which regulation by the Financial Services Act might bring to Lloyd's and her policyholders, as opposed to the regulation which is at present in store for them.
I cannot help feeling that the Maxwell Group pensioners might not share the noble Lord's enthusiasm, although I imagine that the noble Lord might claim that FIMBRA had not been going long enough to detect and expose or avoid the fraud in question. I do not know whether the noble Lord would care to comment on that point. But certainly it seems to me that Lloyd's, as presently organised, has at least as good a chance of protecting the interests that we are all concerned to protect as any that are likely to be set up by the Financial Services Act, especially in view of its record.
If the noble Lord had claimed that, I would have to put it to him that so it is with Lloyd's. The steps taken

626
by Lloyd's are fully satisfactory as far as implementing the Neill recommendations are concerned, and in protecting names and policyholders' moneys. I accept that underwriting losses are a cause of great concern to many—including my noble friend Lord Marlesford and other noble Lords, who may have lost substantial sums at Lloyd's—but this amendment as it stands, and that is what we are considering, does not and could not address underwriting policy. It certainly could not correct the results of past underwriting which are now causing so much misery.
Finally, I have to urge your Lordships that this is not: the moment to mess around with self-regulation at Lloyd's. As perhaps one of Lloyd's leading rebels over many years—if I may claim that distinction—I have to tell your Lordships" Committee that I do now have confidence in the team of people who are running Lloyd's. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford when he says that the reputation of Lloyd's is lower than ever; it actually is not. It is beginning to climb and is on the way up again. Mr. David Rowland, Mr. Robert Hiscox and Mr. Peter Middleton are doing all that is humanly possible to see that a great institution, which has certainly faced a considerable crisis, survives. I very much hope that this amendment will not be allowed to stand in their way.
10 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: I wish briefly to speak on this matter. I have an interest to declare. For 40 years I was a Lloyd's insurance broker, and for most of that time a name. I am now a resigned name with one very small line on an open syndicate. So I am not in any way hurt. It is two years since I was at Lloyd's, since I retired.
Most of the technical points have already been made. There is one other point worth mentioning, which is that neither the FSA nor the SRO rules are at all apt for securing the protection of policyholders. I would remind the Committee that Lloyd's 300 years of successful trading is founded very much on the security of its policy.
As to the practical comments, I would merely say one or two things very quickly. First, I disagree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Marlesford concerning the position of past losses. I was an insider, and I remember only too well how often I thought that the attorneys for the assureds were over-reserving; in fact it has turned out that they were heavily under-reserving from the past. No one seems to think about this point: the best legal brains that underwriters could employ in the USA got it every bit as wrong as the underwriters of 20 years ago. That point is well worth; making.
For the rest, I would merely support my noble friend who has just spoken and say that we should not knock: the team at the moment. The whole thing is in balance. It is very important to the country's balance of payments. Lloyd's brokers alone have now reached 1 billion dollars a year of invisible earnings and they need their underwriters. Let us not knock the team while the thing is in the balance and while we have the chance of success. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Vinson: I had not anticipated speaking in the debate but as my name was mentioned I hope the Committee will forgive me for doing so. I have probably both benefited and lost as much as anyone from Lloyd's over the years but I am not certain that a deregulation Bill is the right place to consider the re-regulation of Lloyd's. I think that the Clerks of the House have stretched things a little far by letting this amendment get as far as it has. Be that as it may, Lloyd's has been compared to a suspension bridge between the undoubted errors of the past and the golden future of tomorrow. I happen to believe that Lloyd's can do more for this country, for its members and for its members who have made losses by being encouraged and helped in every way to cross that suspension bridge without rocking it.
It is very much a question of judgment as to what the solvency basis of Lloyd's is. I defy anyone to read the minds of the warped judges in American courts making settlements against Lloyd's which in English courts no judge in his right mind would have made and then to extrapolate that in terms of the reserves for Lloyd's in the future. Indeed, Lloyd's is suffering from its own honesty as much as anything, because by declaring that it is a society that offers unlimited liability, it sets itself up as a fat cat or fat duck ready for plucking by the litigious American attitudes. In fact it just sits there ready to be got at. There will come a time—and I hope it will come shortly and no doubt may come through NewCo—when Lloyd's will have to say, "Enough is enough. We do not intend to go on meeting bogus claims any more".
That brings me back to the questions of solvency. Any good men or women true trying to assess the solvency of Lloyd's would have the greatest difficulty. One would have to pick parameters—at the extreme allowing for death by asbestosis of a child who had slept in the arms of its parents who had worked in the asbestos mine 50 years before; to the other more rational aspect that those who genuinely suffered from asbestosis have now virtually all died out and we must be getting near the end of legitimate claims. Somewhere in between is the solvency level.
I hope that in so far as the Department of Trade has a part in assessing the solvency levels it will look at the matter, in so far as it has to take a view at all, in terms of what is fair and what is reasonable, what is best and would have been concluded under English law, and set the solvency levels from that base. I believe that if it does so the call on existing members to finance NewCo, which might perhaps be better called OldCo, will enable it to be set up with solvency levels far in excess of any American insurance company, and Lloyd's can hold its head high, trade into the future and by so trading create profits that will enable it to treat more kindly, more reasonably and more generously those who are unable to meet their obligations in terms of their personal solvency and what they owe Lloyd's.
I believe that the amendment is ill-timed. We have currently heading up Lloyd's people of the greatest distinction and capability who should be given every chance. There may come a time to re-examine the regulatory basis on which Lloyd's operates but I do not think that that time is tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): It might be useful if I respond briefly on behalf of the Government at this stage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Vinson when I say that I do not believe that this new clause is appropriate for inclusion in this deregulation Bill. In fact, I do not accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it decreases regulation, but rather I think that it would lead to an increase.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord continues will he accept that it is not in the tradition of this House to criticise the Table? If the Table decides that an amendment is relevant to the Bill, then it is perfectly proper as an amendment.
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord give way? At no point did I criticise the Table or the Table Office in any way whatever. In the end, it is for this House to decide what is relevant to the Bill and not for the Table Office.
I was giving my considered view that I did not believe that this measure was a deregulatory one, but would increase regulation. But be that as it may. I believe that the noble Lord will accept that this is ultimately a matter for the Committee to decide. I was giving my considered view on it. It is for the Committee to decide whether the matter is deregulatory and whether it should be in the scope of Bill in due course.
Let us get back to the amendment. I appreciate the anxiety felt by many members of Lloyd's over the losses which they have suffered in recent years. I do not underestimate the effect that may have had on them. I believe, however, that names have to recognise that in part the losses that have been incurred result from events which have affected the whole of the insurance industry both in this country and throughout the world.
There may also have been poor underwriting at Lloyd's in the 1980s, when capacity was high and underwriting standards just may have slipped. These matters have already been investigated, and while it is evident that mistakes were made, no evidence has been found which shows there has been systematic fraud or malpractice. But there are cases currently before the Commercial Court. I do not believe that it would be right or proper for me to say anything further on those matters which must quite rightly be for the courts in due course.
I understand the intention of the noble Lord's amendment is that the new clause extends to names at Lloyd's the protection afforded by the Financial Services Act. As was made clear by my noble friend Lord Pearson, that question was fully investigated in 1986 when the Government established the committee chaired by Sir Patrick Neill. Their specific brief was to consider what should be done to give names at Lloyd's the same protection as that envisaged by that proposed by the Financial Services Bill, now the Financial Services Act. The committee made about 70 recommendations aimed at providing the appropriate protection for names—I stress that—as envisaged under the proposed Financial Services Bill. All except one of those recommendations—I believe that my noble friend said that it was all of them—have been implemented.

629
The exception is very much an incidental issue relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which I believe is not of any great significance.
Some Members of the Committee may think that the passage of time and particularly the level of losses referred to quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the changes since the Financial Services Act 1986, have shown that names still do not have adequate protection. As I believe the noble Lord is aware, the main reason that Lloyd's was excluded from the Financial Services Act 1986 was that the essence of Lloyd's was—and remains—insurance and not invest-ment business which is the main concern of the Financial Services Act.
The insurance business carried out by Lloyd's is not long-term insurance business for the purpose of the Act. The. amendment before us would only affect any investment business carried on by underwriters which is incidental to the main business of insurance underwrit-ing. To the extent that such business is being carried on, no one has suggested that there is anything wrong in the conduct of that business. It certainly has not been suggested by most of my noble friends who have spoken. I certainly see no reason for any change to the existing regime. I do not believe that a case has been made for bringing any element of Lloyd's business within the FSA. As I said at the beginning, I do not believe this to be an appropriate Bill for such a measure even if the noble Lord should feel that it is. I hope, therefore, that he will think of withdrawing his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on the point of relevance. It is a custom of this House—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may shake his head, but he had better get it into his head that it is a custom of this House—that we accept advice from the Table. If, in spite of everything and all advice we wish to table an amendment, the Table will advise the Leader of the House if the amendment is not relevant to the Bill. It is then up to the House to decide. That is the procedure of the House—and that is the procedure that should have been followed in this case if the Leader of the House had been advised by the Table that the amendment was not relevant to the Bill.
Lord Henley: I did not deny that it was the custom of the House that we should accept the advice from the Table. What I was saying was that in the end these things are matters for decision of the House or Committee or whatever. My considered advice was that it was not an amendment that decreased regulation. We are dealing with a regulatory Bill. I believe that it is an amendment that would increase regulation. However, I do not believe that this is an important point and I went on to argue thereafter the points as to why I thought that the noble Lord's amendment was unnecessary. I hope that he will not say that I was suggesting any alteration to the traditions of this House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am glad. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is not yet the Leader of the House and if he were the Leader of the House, he would no doubt be

630
advised as to how he should advise the Committee about whether an amendment is relevant. Until that time comes, this amendment is relevant to the Bill and will be debated as such by this Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, as I pointed out in my introduction, that Section 42 of the Financial Services Act exempted persons such as underwriting agents and Lloyd's as respects investment business. The noble Lord took a very narrow definition of "investment business". In my introduction I pointed out that it was up to the Secretary of State. I refer the noble Lord to Section 2 of the Financial Services Act 1986, which states:
'The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1"—
which defines what an investment is—
"so as to extend or restrict the meaning of investment for the purposes of all or any provisions of this Act".
It goes on to state that that order shall be subject to the negative procedure. It is quite clear. It was passed by Parliament in spite, if I may say so, of my opposition. The provisions were passed by your Lordships—and there they are. Membership of Lloyd's can be considered by the Secretary of State, should he so wish, as an "investment" in the meaning of Part I of the Financial Services Act.
That is the first important point. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me on that. If he wants to disagree with me, perhaps he would like to stand up and say so. All right, he agrees. Therefore, under Part I of the Financial Services Act, membership of Lloyd's can be an "investment business". That leads to all the various things that I described in my introduction. I hope that the Committee will agree that we have sufficiently discussed whether the amendment is relevant to the Bill. I do not want to go over the points that I have already made to the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Vinson.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said that there was an agreement between the Government and Lloyd's in 1986. Presumably the noble Lord was speaking from a Lloyd's brief. There certainly was an agreement, but it was in 1986 and a lot has happened since then. Just because there is an agreement between the. Government and Lloyd's it does not mean that your Lordships have to accept everything that the Government did in 1986. I cannot for the life of me see the relevance of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, went on to describe some of what he called the "practical consequences" of what I am proposing. Oh dear, Lloyd's agents might have to join FIMBRA. Oh dear, Lloyd's might have to become an SRO. Oh dear, what a pity. Oh dear, it might be regulated further by the Department of Trade and Industry. If the noble Lord is simply putting up the usual flag for self-regulation without any further argument, I accept that, as on previous occasions, there is a serious divide between the noble Lord and myself, I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I can think of other things that I might say about him personally, if he wants to go into that kind of game, but I do not. I do not believe that the question of whether Lloyd's or underwriting agencies joining SROs, FIMBRA, IMRO or whatever should deter the Committee from discussing the amendment in a serious manner.

631
Perhaps I may say without impertinence that I was most impressed by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. He recited many things that I had not previously heard and I am grateful to him for bringing to the Committee the benefit of his knowledge of the subject. I say again to Members of the Committee opposite and to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that my intention is not to worry about the names who may have suffered losses. My intention is simply to ensure that Lloyd's or the activities under its umbrella, if it is to be broken up, should be properly regulated and that it should have a future which takes the insurance and reinsurance business that is represented by Lloyd's through to the next century.
There was an interesting debate which was conducted entirely by Members of the Committee opposite. Apart from myself, no Member on this side of the Committee spoke. I understand that Members opposite feel rather sensitive about this whole question. They do so for two reasons: first, that as a result of self-regulation some Members opposite have suffered badly and, secondly, that other Members opposite have an interest in preserving self-regulation. I can easily understand that because as Members opposite have declared an interest they have their own interest—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I thought that I had made it absolutely clear that I did not have any interest in self-regulation as such surviving. In actual fact, I thought that I had made it clear that I had been rather a rebel against self-regulation over the years. Will the noble Lord confirm that he said in his opening remarks that all Lloyd's troubles stem from lack of regulation? That seems to me to imply that in his view Lloyd's needs more regulation and not less. Therefore, one must put it to the noble Lord: is this an appropriate place for this amendment in this Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have dealt with the question of whether this is an appropriate place. The point that I am making is not that Lloyd's needs more regulation but that it needs different regulation. In my view, self-regulation has not exactly worked since 1986. All I am saying is that perhaps we should try a different system—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord for the last time but he should also answer a point that I put to him. Would the Maxwell pensioners agree with his view on this matter? What comfort would the kind of regulation that he proposes for Lloyd's give to the Maxwell pensioners? Was it the fault of FIMBRA, was it the fault of regulation under the Financial Services Act, or was it the fault of the board? What was responsible, in the noble Lord's view, for the Maxwell debacle?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not know because I have no idea what in fact went on. If the noble Lord is suggesting—and I say this in all seriousness—that I in any way had any idea of what was going on I think that

632
he ought to say so outside the Chamber. He might find it rather expensive—but I am sure that he did not mean that.
The amendment that I put forward provoked a good debate, which was, on the whole, conducted by Members opposite. I do not propose to take it to a Division. I propose to read what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to look at what other Members of the Committee have said and, if necessary, to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 94A:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment to Insolvency Rules 1986
. For Rule 1.17(3) and Rule 5.17(3) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 there shall in each case be substituted—
"A creditor shall not vote in respect of a debt for an unliquidated amount, or any debt whose value is not ascertained, except to the extent that the Chairman puts upon the debt a minimum estimated value for the purpose of entitlement to vote." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with two identical regulations which are part of 700 pages, weighing 4 pounds, issued under one head which passed through the other place without debate. Nevertheless, they are of some importance at this time.
Members of the Committee may recall that I raised this question last week when I received an extremely courteous reply from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He said that his department was considering the matter urgently and needed to discuss it with the profession concerned.
The whole point arises from the operation of the Insolvency Act 1986 which introduced some extremely useful measures that have since been of considerable benefit to some businesses and companies in the United Kingdom. They were incorporated in Parts I and VIII of the Insolvency Act 1986. They provided means whereby voluntary arrangements could be arrived at by the creditors of companies and the directors or owners of a business. They allowed measures of reconstruction to be brought before the creditors and, subject to the approval of the court, thereafter they could be put into effect.
In general terms they have been very successful indeed. They correspond broadly to the operation of similar measures in the United States—what are called Section 11 arrangements—whereby voluntary agree-ments are reached between creditors and the directors and shareholders of companies. In the event, a considerable number of companies in the United Kingdom have been saved from liquidation and are now in business again. Quite a large number of individuals and partnerships likewise have been able to benefit from the provisions. Generally speaking, the Government's intentions have proved to be extremely beneficial and have achieved the desired objectives, with the support of Her Majesty's Opposition.
I have tabled the amendment this evening because the regulations which I seek to amend have become obsolete in view of the fact that they have been interpreted recently by the courts in a way in which it

633
was never intended that they should apply; and is quite different from the way in which they have been applied during the past seven or eight years.
I shall now particularise. When the directors of a company seek to come to an arrangement with creditors, believing that the company can be saved and restored to health again, a very critical situation arises between the creditors and directors of a company. It is a matter which rests largely on trust and very often it is extremely difficult to reach agreement.
In general, on being presented with a scheme of reconstruction by the company, the creditors agree to accept a lower amount in discharge of their debts than is on the books at the time; but they receive rather more than they would receive if the company was put into compulsory liquidation and not sold as a going concern. In other words, if no arrangement was reached and the liquidation took place, unless the business was sold very quickly as a going concern to some other company, the asset distribution would take place on a non-going concern basis and creditors would get but a fraction of the amount that was owing to them. I repeat that the arrangements arrived at between creditors and the owners of businesses and directors are a matter of the utmost delicacy and it requires a considerable amount of trust for one to be arrived at because all the time individual creditors may wonder whether other creditors are getting a better benefit than they are and so on.
In so far as the debts of a company are readily ascertainable—they are the ordinary book debts of a company and they are for an agreed, ascertainable amount—no difficulty normally arises. On the assumption that the insolvency practitioner acting on behalf of the company is able to persuade the creditors that the scheme is as sound a one as can be achieved in the circumstances, and also can satisfy the court likewise, then in the normal way the reconstruction proceeds, provided of course that the debts can be ascertained.
The trouble really arises when liabilities arise, or are thought to arise, which cannot be ascertained, upon which there is no agreement and which do not appear to be quantifiable. Such cases that arise are these: cases where an alleged creditor of the company apprehends that he ought to bring action against the company for reasons that are either real or imagined. Provided that there are applications, or that notice is received by the chairman of the creditors' meeting by midday before the day upon which the meeting is held, then they are bound to be taken into account by the chairman of the meeting in determining whether the 75 per cent. majority of the shareholders do in fact agree with the scheme itself—75 per cent. being the crucial figure which, if it is accepted by 75 per cent. of the creditors, then the way lies ahead for the insolvency practitioner to commend the scheme to the court for approval.
Up to 13th May, under the provisions of the Act, the position was stated—I quote from Regulation No. 5.17(3) on companies—as follows:
"A creditor shall not vote in respect of a debt for an unliquidated amount, or any debt whose value is not ascertained, except where the chairman agrees to put upon the debt an estimated minimum value for the purpose of entitlement to vote".
It is the construction which the courts have put upon this; provision that has led to the present position. The court in the case decided by Mr. Justice Ferris on 13th May interpreted that that provision meant that the chairman had to get the agreement of the alleged creditor for the unliquidated amount to the amount that ought to be taken into account for the purposes of determining the voting rights at the meeting itself. That is what has caused the problem. It is quite contrary to the interpretation placed upon the rule over the past seven or eight years. It was not previously interpreted that the chairman had to obtain the agreement of the alleged creditor himself or herself but had only to agree to determine the amount of the debt at whatever he considered the minimum value to be.
The minimum value could vary. If, for example, the unascertained or unliquidated debt had been in the knowledge of the directors for months, that would be one consideration on which the chairman at the creditors' meeting might decide that a certain value, although lower than the amount claimed, might be put to the meeting. It would, however, be rather higher than if the debt had come to the knowledge of the chairman of the meeting only 24 hours before the meeting itself and nobody had any other indication of it.
All the amendment seeks to do is to restore the interpretation which was previously placed upon subsection (3). It does not seek to do anything new. It merely seeks to re-establish the previous position within the context of subsections (4) and (5) which give certain rights of appeal.
In the normal course, the usual way to redress the position would be by bringing in an amending statutory instrument, regulation or rule. I have reason to believe that this is a matter of greater urgency. At any one time there are 20 or 30 companies or firms in such a position. Unless something is done to correct the position to what it is generally agreed that it ought to be and that it has been taken to be in the past, it may well be that those firms or companies will suffer. That is why the amendment has been brought forward tonight. That may even be done on a purely temporary basis if necessary.
The noble Lord may say that, so far as he can ascertain, the measure will not be widely applicable and therefore it can probably await the long-term review of the 1986 rules and the Act itself, which I understand is on the cards in any event. My answer to that is that if the matter is not of particular significance there is no reason why amending action cannot be taken now without harm to anybody, on the basis that if it is passed as part of this Bill it will be unnecessary to go through the procedure of having an amending rule or, on a longer-term basis, to await the complete review of the Act.
As I indicated in my rejoinder to the answer that the noble Lord gave me last week when I first raised the issue, I made myself available to the officials in his department. It would be grossly improper of me to refer to anything that transpired, save to say that, thanks to the Minister's co-operation, I found them very co-operative. I hope that they will advise the noble Lord accordingly.
Therefore, with the object—with which I am sure the noble Lord is familiar—of offering to help the

635
Government in this matter, I hope that the Minister may see fit to accept the amendment in order to speed up matters and to make matters far more convenient for himself. The ultimate review of the 1986 Act could then proceed at a more leisurely pace than would otherwise be possible, and possible injustice, inconvenience and grave concern to many people could be avoided in the immediate future. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: The Committee will be indebted to my noble friend for raising the matter today and for offering a solution to our problems. He drew the matter to the Committee's attention about a week ago. I was most concerned about the issue and the need for urgent action. Since then I have taken some advice which suggests that we ought to act more quickly rather than more slowly.
We shall not have another debate on what falls within the Long Title of the Bill. It seems clear that such a provision might help save some viable enterprises. That should be our only concern. I appreciate that there will be an eventual review of all matters to do with insolvency. At a later stage of the Committee during debates on contracting out we may deal with the future of the official receiver's office. I do not wish to go into that now.
I am not an expert. However, what my noble friend says makes perfectly good sense. His amendment makes good sense. I repeat that I am not an expert, but I assume that the department has its experts. Therefore, there are two possibilities. The first is that the amendment is correct, in which case let us accept it. The second is that the problem exists, whether or not the amendment is correct. At some time during the passage of the Bill the department must come up with a provision which does the job. If we have an opportunity to save businesses which would otherwise not be saved we must take no risks in that regard, even if a little extra work for one or two officials is involved. I hope that the noble Lord will respond positively and sympathetically to what my noble friend says.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee in welcoming the depth of detail with which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, introduced his amendment. As I said on 16th June, there is a need to discuss the matter with the profession. The preliminary view of the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency is that while an amendment to the insolvency rules is desirable, it is not immediately pressing as the effect of the relevant ruling does not appear to be prejudicial to the majority of voluntary arrangements.
It is considered that in many cases the chairman of a meeting will be able to come to some agreement with a creditor with a debt for an unliquidated amount, or any debt whose value is not ascertained, because if the proposal is offering advantages over liquidation or bankruptcy it will be in the interests of that creditor to participate.
As the noble Lord is aware, the insolvency rules which he seeks by this new clause to amend are a

636
statutory instrument and those rules are made by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Secretary of State after consultation with the rules committee.
The impact on the rules for meetings of creditors in other insolvency procedures will also have to be considered. We would wish to discuss further the issues with the insolvency profession to make sure that we have a satisfactory solution, and, if that involves an amendment to the rules, to use the prescribed and conventional route for such rule changes. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with that. I can assure him that we are taking the matter forward urgently.
Perhaps I may add, without wishing to enter too far into the debate of relevance to the Bill, that if the new clause does not decrease regulation I do not believe that it would be appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. Having said that, and taking note of what I said earlier, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. As to the propriety of the inclusion of the amendment in this specific Bill, I shall have to leave the matter exactly where my noble friend, Lord Williams of Elvel, left it in connection with the previous amendment.
I invite the noble Lord seriously to consider one other alternative upon which he did not touch. It is quite true that most creditors would find it advantageous to row along with the remainder of the creditors if, under the scheme, they would receive more than they would were the company to go into liquidation.
The noble Lord must, however, agree that there are circumstances which occur quite frequently where a debt is alleged against the company purely out of malice, without there being any real debt. But the allegation itself is sufficient to make the remaining creditors who propose to support the scheme uneasy. Probably making the allegation at the meeting of creditors can itself secure the complete abandonment of the arrangement already arrived at. The noble Lord can readily conceive circumstances where, at a creditors' meeting, a creditor who had no real fundamental claim against the company, but who had 24 hours earlier put in a claim on a completely unascertained basis, could in effect be blackmailing the company to come to some private arrangement with him, sub rosa, in order that the remainder of the scheme could go through. That is a possibility. I am not saying it is a strong possibility, but it exists.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will take that into account. I know it sounds unconventional, but the effect can be real and I am quite sure that he would not wish to be party, by not expediting the correction of the rule, to adding to the woes of many companies which would otherwise, on a correct interpretation of the law, be able to recover to the benefit of their creditors, their customers and their employees.
I am grateful for the assurance given by the noble Lord. He knows me well and realises that I shall return to the matter again, frequently, as a matter of urgency. In expressing my gratitude to him and his department, I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Building societies: direct participation in syndicated lending]:
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Freedom of banks to disclose information after 75 years
. In section 19(1) of the Banking Act 1979, after the word ("disclosed") there shall be inserted the words ("for 75 years after it was obtained").").
The noble Lord said: This amendment to Section 19(1) of the Banking Act 1979 has been suggested by Professor Charles Goodhart of the London School of Economics. Professor Goodhart says that, as it stands, the clause actually prevents a bank from disclosing information on a customer's affairs in perpetuity while the family or firm remains in being. Professor Goodhart says that the simplest approach would be to add another clause to allow a bank to disclose information on its dealings with a customer when those dealings were 100 years before. I have cut that interval of 100 years to 75.
Before discussing the issue generally of disclosure I have to declare an interest: the bankruptcy in 1893 of the fourth Lord Sudeley outlined by Dr. Chapman of Nottingham University in The Sudeleys—Lords of Toddington, of which there is a copy available in the Library. Dr. Chapman's paper has drawn the interest of parliamentarians in a way which crosses party lines. The noble Baroness, Lady White, suggested from it a debate in this House on the keeping and disclosure of banks' records. In another place a Conservative Member is to introduce an adjournment debate with a view not just to considering the fourth Lord Sudeley's case on its own but to pull similar cases out of the woodwork.
The view of this Committee, therefore, is prayed for to assist in the dialogue which will continue both in another place and in a public conference during the Easter of 1996 at the fourth Lord Sudeley's second home, Gregynog, in Powys, which is now part of the University of Wales.
The fourth Lord Sudeley held political office under the Liberal Government. He contributed to this House on naval affairs; he was a pioneer in the fruit industry; and he was largely instrumental in getting guide lecturers in museums. Apart from Gregynog, most of his land lay at Toddington, in Gloucestershire, which has been held by the family for nearly 1,000 years. The new Toddington was personally designed by the first Lord Sudeley, who was chairman of the commission for the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament.
As a landowner, the fourth Lord Sudeley was a victim of government policy and of its failure to introduce protection during the agricultural depression at the end of the last century. Far too late, in 1903, Joseph Chamberlain advocated domestic protection for industry and agriculture and imperial preference and 30 years later, during the depression of the 1930s the policies which Chamberlain advocated were accepted. This story is very well told by the noble Lord, Lord Amery, in his biography of Joseph Chamberlain.
To protect himself during the agricultural depression, the fourth Lord Sudeley diversified. He planted 700

638
acres at Toddington with fruit. In 1893 he should have been able to reach an accommodation with his creditors to carry out his intention of selling the Gregynog estate and selling Toddington with its orchards. Instead of that, the blow fell whereby he lost the entire family inheritance when Lloyds Bank filed a petition for bankruptcy. Dr. Chapman says in his paper that the formal reason for the bankruptcy was liquidity, but adds that to find the real reason we need to probe below the: surface, where there is no answer. Lloyds Bank is adamant that it does not know.
The law of libel constricts debate outside Parliament on whether, in point of fact, Lloyds Bank has this information but it does not suit the bank to let it out On this question, I have found opinion to be divided; but if Lloyds Bank indeed has the information it brings us to the problem of how the bank is in total control of its own information and, if it stonewalls, what is anybody going to do? We are left with an area of speculation which falls into three parts: first, that the fourth Lord Sudeley was the scapegoat when, after the Baring crisis which shook credit to its foundations, scapegoats had to be found; secondly, foul practice on the pan of the bank in collusion with outside parties which could acquire our assets on the cheap; and thirdly, that the petition for bankruptcy was the work of an enemy. Banks can be sensitive to political pressure, and the Liberal Party at the time was riven by a feud between the old Whig aristocracy like the fourth Lord Sudeley and middle class radicals headed by Joseph Chamberlain. The feud was exacerbated by Gladstone when he changed his mind in favour of home rule for Ireland. I hope that in this area of speculation the worst of it is untrue.
To leave the fourth Lord Sudeley's case and to speak of the significance of this amendment generally in regard to the disclosure of bank records, on the credit side banks already give access to records, unaware of the nature of Clause 19(1) of the Banking Act 1979 as Professor Goodhart gives it. This is the view of Mr. Malcolmson of the records held by the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, which has two large scale holdings deposited there, the Northern Bank and the Ulster Bank, and the law clearly needs to be altered so that such banks do not fall on the wrong side of it. In an important article in the Times Literary Supplement for 18th January 1985 Dr. Chapman says that much progress has been made in opening up the archives of banks, in particular the Bank of England, Barings and Rothchilds.
On the debit side, Dr. Chapman complains in his article in the Times Literary Supplement that the Bank of England has declined to publish any list of its holdings. Here it is worth remarking that the Bank of England is a public institution, indeed an instrument of the Government. Barings and Rothchilds, Dr. Chapman says, place severe restrictions on access. Barings refuse access to its information on capital profits and acceptances and Rothchilds refuse to reveal information on capital and profits, so no serious history can be attempted.
The disclosure of banks' records cannot be separated from the keeping of them, so it may be appropriate if I conclude with a few remarks on that. The old argument

639
that the banks cannot throw the expense of storage on shareholders is now greatly weakened, owing both to the ease and economy with which information can be stored with modern computer technology and the willingness of public repositories to take banks' records with access controlled by the bank.
Apart from the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland, which I have already cited, there is the Guildhall Library, the records of Huth's at University College London, and the records of Brandt's with the London School of Economics and London University. In such repositories records have a chance of being much better understood than by bank archivists. Dr. Chapman complained in the Times Literary Supplement that many bank archivists lack the necessary knowledge of financial history and the skills of the trained archivist.
How should banks be encouraged to keep further records? The Secretary of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts wrote to me that his commission disfavours the imposition of further statutory control since it would lead to the concealment and early destruction of the records which it was sought to preserve. However, his commission would welcome the preservation of further historical material.
What kind of material should it be? In canvassing the views of economic historians, I found that R.O. Roberts of University College, Swansea—I endorse his view —would like to see preserved full information on all the major decisions which banks take. In a case such as the filing for bankruptcy against the fourth Lord Sudely, that must include internal memoranda, reports to directors, and so on, to disclose the information on which the major decision was taken and the discussion which ensued prior to it. In the case of the fourth Lord Sudely, it is very galling simply to be given the bare entry from the Board Minute Book of Lloyds Bank that the petition for bankruptcy was filed and not to be told why.
I hope that this amendment and any debate on it will assist toward the fuller keeping and disclosure of bank records. This is a subject which, in the view of Dr. Chapman, is largely uncharted territory for economic historians. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The new clause would not achieve the effect that my noble friend Lord Sudely intends. The section of the Banking Act 1979 which it seeks to amend was in fact repealed by the Banking Act of 1987 and replaced by the provisions in Part V of the 1987 Act. Therefore this clause, if agreed, would have no legislative effect.
But leaving the drafting to one side, perhaps I may address the points made by my noble friend. Obviously I sympathise with the difficulties that the noble Lord's forebears may have experienced as a result of that decision by Lloyds Bank to file a petition for bankruptcy against the fourth Lord Sudely. But my noble friend will probably understand that I cannot comment directly on a commercial decision taken by a bank, especially one taken 100 years ago.
If the intention of my noble friend is to impose a requirement upon banks to disclose information about

640
their commercial dealings 75 years after the event, it would be a proposition with which I should have a great deal of difficulty. There are no precedents of which I am aware for introducing a statutory requirement for anyone—whether a bank, some other commercial enterprise or an individual—to disclose its reasons for taking a particular commercial course of action after some period has elapsed. I believe that such a provision would appear to imply a requirement to keep records for that period. Despite what my noble friend had to say, I believe that that could entail unnecessary costs and would certainly have no place in a deregulation Bill. Obviously, it it were simply a matter of law, back in the 1890s the parties concerned no doubt could have sought disclosure within the statutory code of limitations through the courts in the usual way. But I suspect that the cause of action of the noble Lord's predecessor, the fourth Lord Sudely, lapsed some time ago.
Perhaps I may also point out that Section 19 of the 1979 Act and Part V of the 1987 Act dealt with the treatment of confidential information obtained by the Bank of England in the course of its supervisory functions and not with the confidentiality of information held by the commercial banks. So even if Section 19 had still been extant, the effect of my noble friend's clause would not have been the one that he appears to seek.
While expressing sympathy with my noble friend for the troubles that his forebears experienced some time in the 1890s, I hope he will agree that this amendment is not the appropriate amendment for tonight. I hope therefore that he will consider withdrawing it.
11 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall continue. There is a conviction in some quarters that the bank holds the information. That opinion was expressed to me by the previous chairman of another bank. There are of course many other aspects of the fourth Lord Sudeley's case which will be debated in another place and also at the conference which takes place in 1996 in relation to whether banks should force immediate payment of debts when creditors can reach an accommodation, and so forth.
I thank the Minister for his reply. As the Minister acknowledged, with computer technology it is now so much easier to store information, and possibly at some stage consideration can be given as to whether statutory regulation on that aspect of keeping banks' records might be introduced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 97A:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("International ports
. In the Licensing Act 1964, after section 86 there shall be inserted—
"International ports.
86A.—(1) At a port where this section is in operation section 59 of this Act shall not apply to licensed premises which are located at an approved wharf within the meaning of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order bring this section into operation at any port which appears to him to be one at which there is a substantial amount of international passenger traffic.
(3) Before the Secretary of State makes an order bringing this section into operation at a port, he shall satisfy himself that arrangements have been made for affording reasonable facilities on licensed premises located at the approved wharf concerned for obtaining hot and cold beverages, other than intoxicating liquor, at all times when intoxicating liquor is obtainable on those premises, and if it appears to him that at any port where this section is in operation such arrangements are not being maintained, he shall revoke the order with respect to that port, but without prejudice to his power of making a further order with respect to that port."").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading I told the Minister that this was a matter to which I would return and it concerns something which I believe the Government should be tackling in the Bill. It relates to the anomaly which recently came to light in the way in which different forms of cross-Channel transport are treated by the present liquor licensing regime.
At airports the Secretary of State may make an order under Section 87 of the Licensing Act 1964, the effect of which is to enable alcoholic beverages to be served outside the permitted hours as defined in Section 60 of that Act. All major UK airports are the subject of such orders. In the case of those travellers wishing to cross to the Continent by sea they at present have a choice of conventional ferries, hovercraft or sea catamarans. Soon, of course, the Channel Tunnel will provide a quite different possibility. As competition for cross-Channel trade intensifies, so the services which can be offered to travellers on each system of transport become increasingly important. One such service, at least for the time being, is the supply of duty free goods.
A conventional ferry operating outside territorial waters may sell duty free beverages on board the vessel. The size of those vessels—they are now quite enormous —means that a wide range and quantity of goods may be carried. On the other hand, hovercraft—being much more akin to aircraft—do not have the space to carry bulk supplies of duty free drinks such as beers and lagers, and bulk purchases are therefore made at duty free shops located at the UK hoverport.
As a result of the hovercraft application of enactments order 1972, Section 87 of the Licensing Act 1964 has been extended to cover hovercraft and hoverports. The result is that cross-Channel hoverports such as Dover may sell duty-free drinks to travellers waiting to use any of the hovercraft services, including —and this is an essential point—the early morning and Sunday afternoon crossings which would otherwise fall outside the permitted hours.
The anomaly which was recently discovered concerns the treatment of SeaCats. Those passenger and car-carrying catamarans are capable of achieving much higher speeds than ferries but are considerably smaller. Those excellent vessels—I have already pointed out to the Committee that they are my preferred way of crossing the Channel—are not designed to carry substantial quantities of alcoholic drinks for sale duty-free on board. Instead, only a limited supply is carried primarily for immediate consumption, as is the case with aircraft and hovercraft. However, the

642
Folkestone duty-free shop is unable to service the needs of customers using the early morning and Sunday afternoon crossings because Section 87 of the Licensing Act does not cover SeaCats. At Dover, where there is also a SeaCat service, the restrictions do not apply because hovercraft also use the port and the Secretary of State's exemption order covers the duty-free shop at the hoverport. The position at Folkestone is being saved at present by what is known as a justice's occasional licence; but that is seen as a temporary measure.
The anomaly I described is heightened by the fact that under Section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 the appropriate Minister has power to make an order which excludes or modifies the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to the Channel Tunnel. He is therefore: able to disapply the prohibited hours restriction in the case of duty-free shops at the tunnel terminal at Cheriton, therefore placing Eurotunnel in the same position as airport or hoverport operators. I understand—and perhaps the noble Lord will remark on this —that such an order is indeed likely to be made for Eurotunnel.
The point is that it is quite apparent that there is no conceivable policy reason for imposing a more restrictive duty-free regime upon those of us who choose to travel by SeaCat—and I have declared an interest; "those of us" certainly includes me—than upon those who decide to take a hovercraft or a Channel Tunnel shuttle-train.
All noble Lords present will agree that the legislative background to this is arcane, but the deleterious consequences of the present state of affairs are all too real. If a form of transport is unfairly discriminated against, both the public and those whose jobs depend on the service may suffer. The Bill represents an ideal opportunity—entirely in the spirt of what the Government are choosing to do more generally—to remove the present anomaly by, in effect, extending the power in Section 87 so as to enable the Secretary of State to make an order in respect of Folkestone and any other international SeaCat terminal such as Holyhead.
I freely admit that there are several ways in which one could approach the matter. My amendment has the merit that it is the simplest and most straightforward approach. It inserts into the Licensing Act 1964 a new section conferring upon the Secretary of State the same powers in respect of international ports as he has under Section 87 in respect of international airports. This approach has the advantage that it is not necessary to define what a SeaCat is. This is very important because ferry technology is advancing rapidly, and it is quite possible that other, even faster, forms of carrier will be introduced in the next few years. It is better not to produce legislation that will soon be out of date and which because of its unduly narrow scope will create new anomalies. This is precisely the problem with the Hovercraft Act 1968 and the orders made under it.
My new clause would enable the Secretary of State to disapply the ban on sales outside the permitted hours where he considers that circumstances at a port warrant it. The new clause, like Section 87, is in permissive terms. It does not require him to act, but it gives him the

643
power to do so in the case of Folkestone and in any other port which would otherwise be at a competitive disadvantage.
The new clause focuses on the Customs concept of an "approved wharf" which, as the Minister is aware, is used in the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972. Otherwise, the clause follows the form of Section 87, omitting material which is irrelevant in the present context.
The new clause contains an important requirement, which is also present in Section 87. The Secretary of State cannot lift the permitted hours restrictions at the approved wharf unless he has satisfied himself that arrangements have been made for affording reasonable facilities in the licensed premises for obtaining hot and cold beverages other than intoxicating liquor at all times when intoxicating liquor is obtainable on those premises.
My central point is that every operator of a cross-Channel or other ferry service should be afforded an equal opportunity to provide the best service to customers as he or she possibly can. I am certain that that is the Government's view. The amendment that I have moved would enable this to happen. If a particular form of transport such as the SeaCat is penalised purely because of a legislative quirk—and everybody who has looked at this matter agrees that that is what this is— ultimately customers can suffer and jobs be put at risk.
The Bill presents an excellent opportunity for eliminating the anomaly that I have described. Those running SeaCat services—and I must say that I am not in the least involved with them; in other words, regretfully, it is not a firm that I own a share of or have been appointed to the board of—should not have to wait for an order to be made under Clause 1 of the Bill. I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there is a problem and that it can be rectified in the Bill without delay and worries over vires questions and other potential difficulties.
I hope very much that the Minister will respond positively and sympathetically to my amendments, and I look forward warmly to what he has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has proposed a new clause which would give the Secretary of State powers to grant exemptions to licensing laws at international sea ports similar to those powers which he has in respect of airports. The noble Lord explained the background to his new clause, which he foreshadowed at Second Reading. As he mentioned, the issue concerns the high-speed catamarans, dubbed SeaCats by one of the operators, Hoverspeed. It is important to say for the record that Stena Sealink also operates international high-speed catamaran services from UK ports.
I share the noble Lord's interest in catamaran services and have travelled on the one from Stranraer to the centre of Belfast. I was extremely impressed by both parts of the journey. At the risk of boring the Committee further, I share the noble Lord's interest a little further in that I am to open a conference and give an address on

644
the whole question of fast vessels with twin hulls. However, I shall not go into that any further. It is a fascinating subject.
Lord Tordoff: Will the noble Lord tell us where this exciting event is taking place and how we can get free tickets?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord will certainly not get free tickets. He will have to pay if he is coming to listen to me making a speech outside this House.
I understand the sentiments behind the new clause. It is a complex issue and it is not quite as simple as it first seems. It goes beyond the SeaCat question at Dover and at Folkestone which was originally raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Operators of high-speed catamarans want to be able to offer to their customers the full benefits of duty-free shopping which are available on conventional ferries. But space limitations and the need to keep weight down, which is another important aspect, together with the speed of the passage, prevent a comprehensive service on board SeaCats. Passengers wishing to make duty-free purchases must therefore use the facilities available at the SeaCat terminals.
There are no current powers for the Secretary of State to grant licence exemptions at sea ports. There are powers that cover airports and, as the noble Lord said, hoverports, under Section 87 of the Licensing Act 1964. As a hoverport, Dover is covered by this provision. Alternative arrangements are currently in place at Folkestone, as he explained, which allow the licensed premises there to remain open outside normal licensing hours. Sea Containers, which is Hoverspeed's parent company, would now like to see these arrangements formalised.
However, the clause before the Committee goes a little wider than that. It would allow exemption powers to be used at any port, not just those used by SeaCats. I should like to look closely at the implication for the whole ferry industry and indeed the Channel Tunnel. The noble Lord asked about the Channel Tunnel. I can tell him that the Secretary of State will want to consider the Eurotunnel case for special treatment regarding licensing hours under Section 11 of the Channel Tunnel Act. He will want to consider that case very carefully in the light of all the relevant competition, licensing and Customs and Excise issues. That he will be doing. But beyond my direct interest as Transport Minister in this issue, there are, as the noble Lord will be well aware, wider issues of licensing and duty-free matters which will also need careful consideration.
It has not yet been possible to consider fully the implications of this clause in the limited time available. However, for that reason I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the new clause tonight and give me and my colleagues an opportunity to go into this issue in greater detail. I am fully aware of the issue raised by the noble Lord. It is a perfectly justifiable issue to raise and a justifiable complaint from the operators of the SeaCat. We should like to study the issue carefully before coming to a final decision. I shall certainly keep

645
the noble Lord informed of where our various deliberations are. On that basis, I hope he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Lord. As he knows, I have been sitting on this Front Bench for a great many hours being rebuffed on amendment after amendment. But it has been worth waiting until 11.15 to hear a positive and constructive response to my anxieties.
I thank him for what he has said. I hope that he will be able to return to your Lordships with a proposal sooner rather than later because, as he rightly said, it is a matter which concerns the operators. It is a question of fairness in competition. I appreciate that there may be other technical difficulties. I shall be delighted if at any

646
point when he is making progress the Minister invites me to talk about it. But there will be time between now and Report stage. I say with total sincerity, and the biggest thanks that I can give the noble Lord, how much I appreciate his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  CHILD BENEFIT PAYMENT RECIPIENTS: RULES
  CHILD BENEFIT PAYMENT RECIPIENTS: RULES
  CONSERVATIVE PARTY CANDIDATE: REMARKS
  CONSERVATIVE PARTY CANDIDATE: REMARKS
  FIREARMS: LICENSING CONTROL
  FIREARMS: LICENSING CONTROL
  VEHICLE CRIME COMMITTEE: ROLE
  VEHICLE CRIME COMMITTEE: ROLE
  LANSBURY PAPERS
  LANSBURY PAPERS
  COUNTY HALL BUILDING: BANNER
  COUNTY HALL BUILDING: BANNER
  HOMELESSNESS LEGISLATION REFORM: DISCUSSIONS
  HOMELESSNESS LEGISLATION REFORM: DISCUSSIONS
  GYPSY SITES: PITCH APPLICATIONS
  GYPSY SITES: PITCH APPLICATIONS