Sitting of 28 June 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Training
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of Stare for Employment what is the current percentage of people who undertake training for work who subsequently find employment.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): Thirty-seven per cent.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. From my inquiries locally with the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council, it appears that the figure for young people in my constituency is higher—but it is the percentage of people who actually complete training courses. Is it not time that the Government did more to ensure that young people and those in training for work schemes complete their courses? They would then have a far better chance of obtaining employment.
    Mr. Hunt: I agree. I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at the fact that in the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC area the rate is higher for those who have completed training for work—it has risen from 40 to 44 per cent.—and I congratulate all those involved in the TEC on having done such a good job. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since December 1992.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 70,000 youngsters who take part in the modern apprenticeship scheme each year get the best and most relevant training for work and stand a high chance of securing good employment thereafter?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The target of increasing from about 12,000 to more than 70,000 the number of youngsters each year who achieve national vocational qualification level 3 will provide a substantial number of youngsters to fill the skills gap at craft, technician and supervisory level. That is important for our economy as we continue to try to be as competitive as possible.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Are not a number of training providers highlighting a growing trend, in that the proportion of the budget allocated to direct training by each TEC during recent years has been declining because the TECs have to fund a number of other schemes and, unfortunately, a number of them are spending money on administration? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at their budgets and ensure that a higher proportion of money goes to direct training rather than to other areas?
    Mr. Hunt: I constantly seek to encourage a dialogue between the local Member of Parliament and the local TEC on what should be the local priorities. I do not want to prescribe, in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, more and more of the budgets. I want to find a way to remove some of the existing restrictions to give more flexibility locally. Although the hon. Gentleman did not say so, I know that he will be pleased that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 16 per cent. since December 1992.

    Sex Equality Branch
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the priorities for the sex equality branch of his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The branch works to further the Department's key objective—to promote equality of opportunity for women in the workplace and beyond.
    Mr. Bayley: What help can the Minister offer my constituent, Mrs. Susan Craven, who was sacked by her employer Securicor after working as a cleaner at Queen Anne's school in York for eight years? She was sacked in the 34th week of her pregnancy because she was admitted to hospital with complications arising from the pregnancy. She has been offered a new job on lower pay and with no holiday or sickness entitlement. When will the Government's sex equality branch take real action to provide equal employment rights for women?
    Miss Widdecombe: My first advice to Mrs. Craven would be to see what representations her Member of Parliament could make. I have received no representations from the hon. Gentleman that would enable me properly to investigate the case. Instead of raising the matter in the most public and superficial way, perhaps he will write to me making a proper representation so that I can then make a proper investigation.
    Mr. Marlow: If the Equal Opportunities Commission did not exist, no Conservative Government would conceivably set it up, so will my hon. Friend get rid of it? There is enough feminist claptrap around without the taxpayer having to pay for this nauseating, sexist institution.
    Miss Widdecombe: I must disappoint my hon. Friend. We have no plans whatever to abolish the EOC; rather, we welcome a closer working relationship with it, as evidenced by the recent fair play initiative.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that one of the best things that the sex equality sector of her Department could

    667
    do is to consider the provision of universal child care so as to allow women with responsibilities for looking after children to go out and work if they chose?
    Miss Widdecombe: Child care provision is already increasing in just about every category. There is increasing day nursery provision, and increasing provision by registered child minders; there is also the Government's initiative to provide £45 million, through the training and enterprise councils, for after-school child care. The Government are addressing child care issues. Why do we never hear Opposition Members welcome those increases?

    Training
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to extend the training for work programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: Training for work helped 294,000 people in England last year, which is over 20,000 more than originally planned.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment has fallen yet again in the city of Chester? It is 6 per cent. lower than it was a year ago, and 35 per cent. lower than it was seven years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the view on the ground, and particularly that of CEWTEC—the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral training and enterprise council—that the training for work programme has had an important effect on employment, especially in regard to those with disabilities and learning difficulties?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree. The most important feature of training for work is that more than 85 per cent. of the client group are long-term unemployed. It is a very important programme, and has had a remarkable impact.
    Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work done locally. We share the same training and enterprise council, which is coming up with imaginative and exciting new ideas. I also pay tribute to the Employment Service, which places a substantial number of unemployed people in work. I believe that in Chester nearly 7,000 unemployed people have been placed in work over the past 12 months. I commend all who work in the local jobcentres for that remarkably good result.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Secretary of State read a very interesting letter written by Mr. J. H. Pitman and published in the heavy dailies a few weeks ago concerning deficiencies in Britain's training programmes? Has the right hon. Gentleman asked to meet Mr. Pitman to discuss his concerns?
    Mr. Hunt: No, I have not. Inquiries are taking place, and the hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has asked on several occasions for anyone with evidence to come forward. As for the letter, I shall study it again and come back to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Hertfordshire not only has unemployment fallen by 12.5 per cent. in the past year, but we have seen a tremendous result from the youth training guarantee? Delays have been reduced from 108 to just six in the past year. Does that not show that young people in Hertfordshire are being given a far better chance than ever before?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree. We must continue to present young people in Hertfordshire and elsewhere with an increasing range of opportunities. The new modern apprenticeship scheme will be at the heart of the Government's strategy, and our recent announcement that the opportunity to take part in the scheme is to be extended beyond 16 and 17-year-olds to 18 and 19-year-olds is an important step forward.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning this year's re-registration of trade union membership; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): If the hon. Gentleman's question is about check-off, various representations have been received.
    Mr. Barnes: My question is about registration and re-registration by trade unions and trade union members. Is it not time that some deregulation was introduced for our trade unions? Why do they have to jump through so many hoops in terms of their existence and organisation and in terms of being recognised and negotiating? And why is the Minister so vindictive towards railway signalmen, who all do a far more responsible job than he does?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is out of sorts with the times and his potential party leadership. Gone are the days when the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) used to describe ballots as
    "a scandalous and undemocratic measure against the trade union movement".—[Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol.48, c.210.]
    It appears that the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the movement in his own party. The Government spoke for the British people and the vast majority of trade unionists when we reformed the trade union movement and gave it back to its members.
    Mr. Jenkin: Although unemployment has been falling in the North Colchester constituency, the registration of trade unionists has not been one of the factors which may have assisted that. However, employers are worried about the succession of European Court cases that have been lost by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Prime Minister that we need to look at the way in which the treaty of Rome is operating in this area with a view to reform in 1996?
    Mr. Forsyth: As my hon. Friend knows, I always agree with the Prime Minister, particularly on that point. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, there is a link between falling unemployment in his constituency, as in every other, and our trade union reforms. It is because of our trade union reforms that we have been able to create a climate which has attracted 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Community into Britain, thus creating jobs.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Hunt: Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment fell by 20,100 last month to 2.661 million.
    Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend has already acknowledged the success of training and enterprise councils, based as they are on local initiatives supported largely by local businesses. Is he aware that the North Yorkshire TEC, which was four years old last Friday, has already helped more than 12,000 individuals and firms, helping many of them to get back into work? Does not the success of that initiative give the lie to the Labour party's claim that the Government are doing nothing about training?
    Mr. Hunt: I join my hon. Friend in commending his local training and enterprise council. I know of North Yorkshire TEC because my hon. Friend has just sent me a copy of its annual report which highlights a range of exciting and imaginative initiatives. Also, it is well known for its high-powered marketing approach and the way in which it extends the hand of help to so many in my hon. Friend's area. I commend the way in which he is working so closely with his local TEC.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister accept that there is not the slightest reason for complacency on the part of the Government as regards unemployment? Far too many people, certainly in the west midlands but also elsewhere, suffer the appalling indignity of not being able to find work, with a substantial number having been unemployed for longer than 12 months. When will the Government recognise the injustice, indignity and humiliation suffered by people without employment and try to get the figure down to at least the level that existed when the Tories took office in 1979?
    Mr. Hunt: Why does the hon. Gentleman not take pride in the fact that since December 1992 unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 12 per cent? I, too, take pride in the fact that over the past 18 months unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by more than 300,000 while in the rest of Europe it has risen by more than 1.5 million. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that our policies are working and that we have 70 per cent. of our working age population in work, which is one of the highest percentages anywhere in Europe?
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Given my right hon. Friend's personal commitment to ensuring improved employment opportunities for disabled people, will he examine the difficulties that training for work procedures entail for small specialist providers of training for disabled people? In particular, will he consider the possibility of providing regional budgets for disability training with a view to reducing the time, effort and cost involved for trainers and for training and enterprise councils in the present fragmented system?
    Mr. Hunt: I will continue to look at that problem as I want to ensure that all training and enterprise councils put equal opportunities and opportunities for disabled people at the top of their agenda. The Employment Service leads by good example: it sets a target on the number of disabled people to be placed in work, which is then divided among all the areas. In the next 12 months, the service aims to meet its national target of placing 55,000 disabled people in work and it is confident of achieving that.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Treasury's summary economic forecast, published today, states that while
    "unemployment has fallen…employment…has yet to show strong recovery?"
    In view of what he has been telling the House about the fall in unemployment, will he explain why not enough jobs are being created and whether the fall in unemployment does not have far more to do with disillusioned people dropping out of the market than with the creation of new jobs to take people back into work?
    Mr. Hunt: The Opposition have argued that we should accept Labour Force Survey and International Labour Organisation measure of unemployment and employment. In the 12-month period between winter 1992 and winter 1993—the latest period for which statistics are available—unemployment fell by 180,000 and claimant unemployment figures fell by 187,000. In the same period, the number of jobs increased by 147,000. Those figures show that there has been a substantial increase in employment.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the determined efforts of the European Commission to impose social costs on British industry, will my right hon. Friend continue to do everything that he can to resist any measures from Brussels that would increase unemployment in this country?
    Mr. Hunt: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will continue our efforts to persuade our colleagues in the European Union that the only way to create jobs and to overcome the rising tide of unemployment elsewhere in Europe is to ensure that we have measures to remove burdens on employers, that we have a stable economic background—the strength of which in the United Kingdom is shown by figures released today—and that we have a much more flexible labour market. That is the only way to ensure that we create jobs.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Secretary of State explain why he refers to the level of unemployment while his Department refers to that of unemployed claimants? Why is a reduction in the number of claimants not reflected in the level of employment? Is it not just a fiddle by the Government? If they spent half as much time getting people back to work as they spend fiddling the figures, a lot more people would be back at work.
    Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place and that he has made such a swift recovery from a rather unfortunate accident. I refer again to the statistics that I just gave, as I am not too sure whether he could have been listening. I referred to the ILO measure of unemployment, which shows that in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available unemployment fell by 180,000 while at the same time employment rose by 147,000. Instead of casting stones at the figures and insults at the statisticians, the hon. Gentleman might reflect for a moment on my answer, which disproves his allegation.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage change in economically inactive adult males of working age since 1981.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: There has been a 60 per cent. increase.
    Mr. Hain: Is that not significant and does it not give an indication of the hidden level of unemployment? The economically inactive working age totals—the Department's own totals—show that more than 2.5 million adult men of working age, some of whom admittedly are disabled or sick or perhaps have taken early retirement, are being pushed off the official register by the Government's manipulation although they want to work. Why do the Government not have the investment policies to give them an opportunity to work? In Wales, for example, one in every three men is unemployed, by any measure, if we take the official totals and the economically inactive totals. That represents a grotesque waste of talents and abilities.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be, for the hon. Gentleman's support for the reform of invalidity benefit. The hon. Gentleman will know that of that 60 per cent. increase in those who are economically inactive, two thirds of the people involved are registered as sick or long-term disabled. The biggest increase in recent years has been among students, as a result of the Government's determination to encourage more people to go into further and higher education. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to those figures.
    Mr. Devlin: In areas such as mine, and in Wales, where older traditional industries were restructured in the early 1980s, the Government have taken several significant initiatives to try to bring down the level of male unemployment. Despite the difficulty in training older men to learn computing and similar skills, have not many of those measures in the north of England been strikingly effective?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The great benefit of the job seeker's allowance, when it is introduced, is that it will ensure that every measure is used to encourage people to get back into the labour market, which will be good for them as individuals and for the economy as a whole.
    Mr. MacShane: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the German Government, German employers and the German trade unions on ensuring that there are 600,000 young apprentices in their engineering and manufacturing industries? What hope can he give the 16 to 18-year-olds in Rotherham, who have pitifully few apprenticeships and traineeships in industry—the lowest number in the European Community?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am astonished that Opposition Members should praise the German Government in the House, yet not praise my right hon. Friend for his initiative on modern apprenticeships in this country. I am also astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not find time in his question to praise the fall in unemployment in his own constituency.

    Working Hours
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has made of the number of United Kingdom workers who would be affected by a statutory reduction in the working week to 35 hours.
    Mr. David Hunt: The estimate is 14.75 million.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, which could not demonstrate more clearly the
    672
    wisdom of the Government's robust rejection of the social chapter. Will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to reject the current conditions of that chapter, knowing the catastrophic effect that they would have on the success of British companies? That fact seems to have escaped the unreformed socialist party, in the shape of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
    Mr. Hunt: I give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance, and add that when the 48-hour working time directive originally came from the Commission it was designed to compel people to work no more than 48 hours a week. Mr. Ford, a member of the European Parliament on the Opposition side—
    Mr. Prescott: We are not the Opposition there.
    Mr. Hunt: Mr. Ford, who is from the Labour party, said that he would like to see—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East calm down for a moment and recognise that Mr. Ford has argued that instead of a 48-hour week there should be a 35-hour week right across the European Union? [Interruption.] I hear several voices approving that idea. That would mean telling 14.75 million people in the United Kingdom that they would no longer be allowed to work the hours that they chose. It would also impose costs of £20,000 million on industry, as well as a compulsory pay cut of £20,000 million.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State, therefore, tell us why 68 per cent. of those at work in the United Kingdom are forced to work the longest working week in Europe to earn a decent living wage? Those are not the hours that they want to work; they can earn a decent wage only in that way. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that since 1979, British income per head has fallen from the European average to below the European average? Will he remind us which party has been in government since 1979?
    Mr. Hunt: I have two points in answer to that three-pronged question. First, in the United Kingdom, the average working week is just less than the average working week in the European Union. Secondly, let us look at take-home pay. I have here the latest table for European countries, which I am very willing to place in the Library, which shows annual take-home pay in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in 1991. For a single person, take-home pay in the United Kingdom was the second highest in the whole of the European Union.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the TEC movement; and what matters were discussed.
    Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet TEC representatives to discuss a wide range of topics.
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a successful visit on 6 June to Somerset training and enterprise council. She may also be aware that Somerset TEC recently commissioned a survey which showed that 79 per cent. of all recently started-up businesses were still flourishing 18 months later. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility

    673
    of giving a high priority to bids under the single regeneration budget? They are extremely important to those who seek start-up funding.
    Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the performance of Somerset TEC. I confirm that the survey showing that 79 per cent. of new businesses were still trading was extremely encouraging and correct. The business start-up scheme is now part of the single regeneration budget. All bids for the regeneration fund, which is now included in that budget, will be most seriously considered. It is worth recording that 650,000 business start-ups were successfully implemented in the past year.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: When the Secretary of State arid the Minister met the TECs, did they discuss the London School of Economics report which showed that because of Government underfunding, the TECs were locked into delivering low-quality training simply for the unemployed? Does the Minister agree that if we are to begin to harness the potential of the nation's labour force and to enhance skill levels, we shall need considerably more than a change of direction by the Government. We shall need a change of Government.
    Miss Widdecombe: We discussed not merely the LSE report, but far more up-to-date findings which show that the quality of TEC training is steadily improving. It is worth recording that there have been 165,000 youth training or credit starts since August, 650,000 business start-ups and 272,000 training for work a year. When we measure outcomes in terms of national vocational qualification level 3, which I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can call a derisory qualification, we find that the TECs are delivering training in very much the way that we hoped and that they are getting better at it all the time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate his local TEC on its performance.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the standards that the Department uses to measure the effectiveness of the TECs are adequate? Is she also satisfied that the performance of the best TECs is published regularly to enable TECs that are not so effective to catch up?
    Miss Widdecombe: The measurements that we use measure skills gained, qualifications gained, successful outcomes and those in employment at the end of training. We believe that those measures are the best as they successfully establish what the outcome of training has been. We are satisfied that they are correct and we are satisfied that there is increasing performance by the TECs. Having published the league tables of TECs, which give comparative performance, we believe that the best practices will now be disseminated and that TECs that have poorer performances will be encouraged to improve.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his most recent estimate of the number of people who are counted twice or thrice in the employment totals.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Three per cent. of the employed work force have two or more jobs.
    Mr. Flynn: Was not it unfair of Mr. Alan Clark in his diaries to say that the Department of Employment did nothing but concoct useless schemes to con the unemployed off the register, ignoring entirely the imaginative, creative energetic work that takes place in the Department every month to fiddle the employment and unemployment figures? Should not the Department's headquarters be recognised for what it is; the country's biggest, most shameless, most disreputable massage parlour?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am responsible for many difficult things, but, fortunately, I am not responsible for Mr. Alan Clark's diaries.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Has my hon. Friend any idea of the number of people who are registered unemployed or are registered for benefit who are working?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are proposing to introduce the new job seeker's allowance, which will help to ensure that people are targeted and that we give them the help and support that they need to get back into employment. It is interesting that a number of those measures in the past have resulted in people leaving the register entirely. It is wholly proper that our resources should be concentrated on minimising the number of people who face unemployment and on helping those who face unemployment back into work.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Minister explain why the Department's own statisticians have agreed that the adjustment to the unemployment criteria figures have reduced the claimants by at least 500,000 and that the double counting for the employment figures has increased them? Is that a pure coincidence or, by political design, just one, big, major fiddle?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense. I cannot think why we have Question Time after Question Time when he makes the same points about the figures. Presumably, it is because he is not able to give the House any answers as to how he would deliver the full employment which he boasts he and his party can achieve.

    Redundant Service Personnel
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to visit the Wiltshire training and enterprise council to discuss the reemployment of redundant service personnel.
    Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit Wiltshire training and enterprise council. However, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will meet TEC representatives when he visits the Royal British Legion training centre at Tidworth next month.
    Mr. Coombs: I am sure that if my hon. Friend or, indeed, if my right hon. Friend were able to visit the Wiltshire training and enterprise council, they would be made well aware of the excellent job prospects which we now in have in northern Wiltshire. They would also be told of the concern over the future of the business start-up scheme. May I draw, again, to the attention of the House the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson)? There is considerable concern

    675
    about future funding prospects under that scheme, especially for the ex-service men, who will be looking for work in the Wiltshire area in the near future. Is there anything more that my hon. Friend can say to give comfort to the TEC and to those potential beneficiaries of the start-up scheme?
    Miss Widdecombe: At the kind invitation of my hon. Friend, I shall be delighted to visit Wiltshire TEC as soon as it is possible to do so. Meanwhile, may I tell him that, within three months of being made redundant, 80 per cent of ex-service personnel are employed or otherwise settled according to their own requirements. Indeed, that is given a high priority. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the help given to redundant service personnel by my Department. I can assure him that that will continue. In response to the question about the business start-up scheme, I can only reassure my hon. Friend that funds have been made available in the single regeneration budget and that all bids will be considered on their merit.
    Mr. Janner: When the Minister is considering the re-employment of service personnel, whether at the Wiltshire TEC or anywhere else, does she put that into the overall structure? Has she or the Secretary of State discussed the sacking and redundancies among service personnel with the Secretary of State for Defence? If so, how many service personnel has the Secretary of State for Defence said are likely to be made redundant in the next six months?
    Miss Widdecombe: There is constant contact between my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Defence. These matters are regularly discussed.

    Labour Statistics
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in Yorkshire and Humberside have been placed in work by the Employment Service in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: A total of 132,200 people have been placed in employment in Yorkshire and Humberside by the Employment Service. That is 16.7 per cent. more than in the previous year.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the investment in jobs in Batley and Spen by Thomas' of Europe, which was again recruiting for its work force, and the £1.5 million investment by Thomas Carr in new spinning machinery for carpet yarn, which will safeguard jobs and, we hope, produce more in the near future?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am aware of that good news. I am not surprised that Batley and Spen has benefited from inward investment and growth in employment, and especially from having such an able Member of Parliament who never ceases to take the opportunity to bang the drum for their benefit and to support jobs in her constituency.
    Mr. Barron: Between 1981 and 1991, Yorkshire and Humberside lost more than 110,000 full-time jobs. They have been replaced by 123,000 part-time jobs—a full-time job loss equivalent of somewhere in the region of 62,000 jobs. Are the Government proud of that record?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely proud of the Government's record in encouraging the creation of part-time jobs. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, he will find himself in trouble with the feminist wing in his party because two thirds of part-time jobs are held by people who want part-time jobs, not people who cannot find full-time jobs. Many of them are women who are able to get back into work while maintaining their family responsibilities. That is the result of the Government taking on the vested interests for which the hon. Gentleman speaks.

    Careers Service
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the careers service.
    Miss Widdecombe: A new framework for providing careers services is now in place which should see a more flexible, effective and higher quality careers service, giving greater value for money for clients and the taxpayer alike.
    Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will know that the range of careers available to young people nowadays is much wider than ever before. In what ways is the careers service ensuring that our young people have a full grasp of that wide range of opportunities?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right: there are more opportunities for young people than ever before. They will be enhanced yet again in September when modern apprenticeship prototypes become available in a whole range of new opportunities. Government investment in the careers service has resulted in more impartial, more frequent and better quality advice. As the second round of the pathfinders exercise is completed, those good effects will spread. Not even Labour Members can resist congratulating the Government on modern apprenticeships, accelerated apprenticeships, the new careers guidance announced in the White Paper—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The answer is far too long. I have other hon. Members to call.
    Mr. Hardy: While one has great sympathy with, and appreciates the work of, the careers service, can the Minister tell the House whether the advice of the careers service is to ensure that young people seeking assistance are warned that many of the jobs that they will be persuaded to take will provide salaries or wages of £2.20 an hour, as offered to some of my adult constituents, and would therefore allow the Minister to describe them as economically active? Would the Minister also describe them as economically and socially deprived?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no inaccurate advice is given by the careers service.

    Training Credits
    Mr. Trend: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have taken up training credits; and what plans he has to extend the scheme.
    Mr. David Hunt: More than 100,000 young people in England have started using youth credits and we intend to extend them throughout England next year.
    Mr. Trend: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the volume and variety of training experience for our young people has increased through training credits, and that modern apprenticeships should further increase the scope of training opportunities for our young people?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only do we have one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in the European Union—or well below the European Union average. In the new modern apprenticeship scheme, we now have some exciting new opportunities for all 16, 17 and, subsequently, 18 and 19-year-olds to start work-based training in an apprenticeship mode which I believe will be an example to the rest of Europe.

    Job Seeker's Allowance
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the proposed job seeker's allowance on the efficiency of the labour market.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The job seeker's allowance will encourage wider and more effective job search.
    Mr. Booth: Does the job seeker's allowance encourage imaginative use of long-term unemployment? Does it also remotivate people who have lost their motivation through consistent rejection? Is it one more imaginative and exciting scheme from a party which is imaginative and exciting?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. The introduction of the job seeker's allowance will mean that those people who have been unemployed for a long time will be given the help and support that they are entitled to expect to get them back into work and that those people who are resting on unemployment benefit will find themselves being asked to take more active steps to find work. That will be good for them and good for the economy as a whole.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me for injecting a little ray of sunshine so early in today's proceedings by drawing his attention to the economic forecast published this morning by the Treasury, which shows prospects of steady growth coupled with low inflation? Does he agree that that highlights the success of our economic policies and further shows that the policies of the Labour party, with their limitless public spending, would damage the economy, damage jobs and damage our businesses?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to be cheerful about the forecast this morning. Growth is higher and inflation is lower. We now have a clear chance of sustainable growth with low inflation for the period ahead.
    678
    That is extremely good news for the British economy. It is a chance that lies ahead of us and we have no intention of letting it slip.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Prime Minister agree with what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in Barcelona yesterday—that in Spain family ties are stronger and there is a greater spirit of local community than in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I do not have the same knowledge of Spain as my right hon. Friend has, but I can say that my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech in Spain yesterday—an excellent and serious speech and one of a series that have been made by my right hon. Friends, addressing problems of concern to everyone in this country.
    Mrs. Beckett: As the Prime Minister has in effect endorsed the Chief Secretary's speech, I must presume that he agrees. After 15 years of Conservative Government, if family life in Britain is undermined, why does the Prime Minister think that that is the case?
    The Prime Minister: All my right hon. Friends are concerned about the role of the family and how to maintain it. For us, family values and family life are central not only to our national life but to the existence of each and every person in this country. What my right hon. Friend has made clear and is self-evidently the case—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House.
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend has made clear—I think that this is the kind of matter that we ought to be able to discuss without the sort of interpretation that the right hon. Lady puts on it—is that there are many areas of family life which are not the concern of Government and in which the Government are not the best arbiter. We have a responsibility for providing some vital services such as education, health and others, but the reality is that the essence of family life lies within the family itself. My right hon. Friend was right to draw attention to that.
    Mrs. Beckett: It seems to me that the Prime Minister has yet again endorsed what the Chief Secretary said. I shall put to him for the second time what I put to him a moment ago. Why does he feel that family life and the spirit of community in Britain have been undermined in the 15 years his Government have been in power? I remind him of what he said in Los Angeles last year. He said:
    "We have been here for 14 years. There is no one else to blame for anything else that has gone wrong."
    Is not that the most truthful thing that he has said in years?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Lady has perhaps not read my right hon. Friend's speech in full. If she had—
    Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.
    The Prime Minister: Well, I would be surprised if she had read it, but, if -she says she has, she clearly did not understand it.
    If she had read it, she would no doubt have seen the rest of my right hon. Friend's speech. He made an excellent case for free trade, deregulation and economic policies which encourage innovation and self-respect. He made the

    679
    point clearly that only if we do that can we sustain the genuine services necessary to sustain the family and those in genuine need.
    I note the right hon. Lady's strong support for the welfare state. Perhaps she will set out the areas that she would seek to improve, and how she would propose to finance that improvement.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty that there will be in justifying an increase in Britain's contribution to the European Community budget at a time when our defence budget is being drastically pruned. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the existing difficulties in explaining why soldiers, sailors and airmen are being made redundant at the same time as people working in the black economy continue to live at the expense of the taxpayers, drawing benefits to which they are neither entitled nor have earned?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern to stamp out social security fraud, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has stepped up the fight against it. We are looking, for example, at the possibility of introducing personalised cards as one of the methods of ensuring that we minimise and, I hope, eradicate social security fraud against the taxpayer.
    As far as the first half of my hon. Friend's question is concerned, he will no doubt be aware of the agreement that I reached in Edinburgh on the future financing of the Community, which set clear and rigorous limits, not for the traditional five years of an agreement but for seven years of an agreement, and at a lower rate of increase than in the past. It also safeguarded the British rebate which was at some risk from our European partners. That was money which we had to fight hard to keep. I might add that, had we not had a veto, we might not have been able to keep that money.
    Mr. Ashdown: Given the present economic situation, is the Prime Minister opposed to further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England?
    The Prime Minister: I have made my view clear that I am not at this moment in favour of further steps to increase the independence of the Bank of England.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: If the signalmen's strike is not settled soon, will my right hon. Friend consider making a ministerial broadcast on the subject—however much it might embarrass the Opposition to find someone willing to accept the right of reply?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has finally broken cover on the subject of the strike, even though the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has been notably silent. The hon. Gentleman has said that he supports the strike, and so do 40 of his Back-Bench colleagues. It will be interesting to see whether any of the leadership contenders do the same. After all, 40 votes are 40 votes.
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoon: Is the Prime Minister reminded of the career of Frederick Augustus of York, who lost his job as commander in chief following a disastrous European campaign? Is not the Prime Minister's problem that he is neither up with those who make and shape European policy, and is too often down with those who would have Britain leave the European Union? Is not it the case that the Government's policy, like the grand old Duke of York, staggers from one crisis to the next and fails to protect Britain's longer-term interests?
    The Prime Minister: I think that, from a party that would abandon the veto, talk of protecting Britain's long-term interests will sound pretty hollow to most people in this country. The Opposition's European policy is to find out what the others want and then agree with it so that they can claim not to be in a minority. I have been able to discover not one area of originality in their European policy. We have set out and will continue to set out our own vision of how Europe should develop. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be surprised at the echo, right across Europe, of the nature of the European Community which we wish to develop.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's announcement that parental choice will be extended by allowing the expansion of popular schools and grammar schools? Is he further aware that, despite their blurred rhetoric, the Opposition are still committed to the abolition of grant-maintained schools, hate grammar schools, and would deny parents the choice to which they are entitled?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Opposition dislike choice of almost any sort—they have a difficult choice to make in the next few weeks. Yesterday's announcement is excellent news for parents, giving them more choice and letting good schools grow. I regret the fact that the Opposition have such a negative education policy—the abolition of grant-maintained schools; the abolition of training and enterprise councils; the abolition of the assisted places scheme; the abolition of teacher training reform; and the abolition of performance tables. They would abolish everything that would provide more information for parents and a better education for children. However much they may dislike it, they should remember how they cut education budgets when they were in Government. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) came into Government because her predecessor declined to make cuts. She came into Government to cut.
    Dr. Godman: The Prime Minister knows of the derailment of a train in Greenock on Saturday night. The driver—a young man from Glasgow—and a young lad from Greenock were killed instantly. They were murdered by murderous individuals who placed concrete slabs on the line. Since then, two copycat incidents have taken place in Cumbernauld and Duddingston, fortunately with no loss of

    681
    life. Will the Prime Minister and his Transport Ministers assure the House today that Railtrack will do everything in its power to eliminate such murderous behaviour? Will they assure us that the safety and school liaison units will not be reduced, as some people fear, but given an enhanced educational role to reduce, if not eliminate, such terrible acts against train crews and passengers?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my condolences to the family of the driver, Mr. McKee, and to Mr. Nicol, the passenger, who were so tragically killed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it appears to be an act of mindless vandalism that has resulted in the death of two entirely innocent people. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Strathclyde police are conducting an inquiry into the incident and treating it as murder. In addition, Railtrack and British Rail are conducting a joint investigation. The Health and Safety Executive inspector has already visited the site and the railway inspectorate is working alongside in the investigation. We will do all that we can to eliminate the possibility of such incidents in future and bring to book those responsible for this one.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence that, as soon as the chattering classes start
    682
    to talk up the possibility of a future Labour Government, trade union militants start to rear their ugly heads? Does not the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers strike provide a timely reminder of what has always happened under Labour Governments and what would happen under a future Labour Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the House really wants to know is where Bambi stands on the rail strike?
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    The Prime Minister: I am prepared to take responsibility for the opinion of many people, but not for that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He must answer for himself, when and if he returns to the House. [Interruption.] I think that most people will have noticed that the contenders for the leadership of the Labour party, although addressing every conference that presents itself up and down the country, will not be addressing the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers conference. One of them is sponsored by it. They seem happy to take its money, but unwilling to address it.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: The Prime Minister is very keen to express his views on choice, and especially on market testing. Will he consider market testing his Government by having an election?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, in 1996 or 1997—and we shall win it.

Tampons (Safety)
3.30 pm
Ms Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will Members leaving please do so very quietly and quickly? We have business to conduct. Please leave very quietly. [Interruption.] Order. There is a lady attempting to address the House.
Ms Primarolo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health; and for connected purposes.
Toxic shock syndrome was defined by doctors in the USA in 1980 as a severe infection of the blood, identified by a collection of symptoms, including sudden high temperature, vomiting, diarrhoea, headaches, confusion and low blood pressure. Without treatment, the infection can rapidly cause fatal respiratory and kidney failure. Toxic shock syndrome strikes men, women and children.
The infection is caused by the production of toxins by common bacteria that are present on all of us. The aspect that has attracted the most attention is the fact that, in half the cases, young women have been struck by toxic shock syndrome who have been using tampons.
The bacteria are carried by 35 to 50 per cent. of adults. They are harmless, move freely over the body frequently and are not connected with how often we wash ourselves. However, when suitable conditions arise, the bacteria have the ability to produce toxins or poisons which enter the bloodstream and circulate around the body, attacking the vital organs.
The presence of the toxins in the blood stimulates the body to make antitoxins, which have the power to neutralise the poison, but in young people that immunity may not have had the opportunity to develop, so the body is overwhelmed. Most tampon-related TSS infections occur in the age group 15 to 25, and most TSS infections from wounds and bites occur in men and children.
The bacteria do not always produce toxins during menstruation, but when they do, it is almost always associated with tampon use. The exact link between the tampon and the toxin is not known. There is no simple cause and effect; if there were, prevention could be specific and easy. Tampons have not been found to cause TSS—any one of a combination of symptoms could trigger the toxin production, but the link with tampons appears to be clear.
There are more suggested links, but what is known is that all types and brands of tampons have been linked with TSS. A particularly high absorbency tampon called "Rely" was linked to an upsurge in TSS deaths in the United States of America in 1980. The brand was withdrawn from the market, and has never been on sale in the United Kingdom, because of the recognised links.
There is currently no way of testing whether one is immune to the toxins. There is no way of carrying out checks on the levels of bacteria and their likely consequences. It is possible to avoid that form of TSS by not using tampons, but many millions of women wish to use them. My Bill seeks to make clear the precautions that
684
women should take to minimise the risk. It calls on the Government to take specific steps with the manufacturers to make the situation clear to women.
Three young women have died from tampon-related TSS in the past seven months. It is a rare disease, but that is no reason not to act. In Bristol earlier this year, a young woman of 32, with two small children, died tragically from TSS. Her mother wrote to me to support my Bill. She said that her daughter felt unwell on Friday, was vomiting and had a high temperature on Saturday, and had dramatically low blood pressure on Sunday. She died on Monday, after six cardiac arrests, and nobody made the connection between her illness and TSS.
Toxic shock syndrome is treatable with antibiotics, as long as it is identified early enough. Scores of women who have survived the illness and suffered the results of severe blood infection are receiving counselling. Many women have had their legs, toes or fingers amputated as a result of the disease. But the Department of Health refuses to send out leaflets to doctors, on the grounds that the illness is not a high enough priority.
Many general practitioners fail to recognise the illness, perhaps understandably, because of its rareness. Two doctors took no notice of Jane Grant when she suggested that the tampon that she was wearing might have something to do with her feeling unwell. She spent 10 days fighting for her life after her symptoms were wrongly diagnosed. That is simply not acceptable.
At present, tampon packets carry voluntary warnings, but they are so tiny that many people miss them. We need to ensure that the symptoms are well known, that women are provided with the necessary health warnings, and that the Government give priority to researching the disease.
A father who wrote to me about the death of his 15-year-old daughter in 1989 from TSS, connected with the use of tampons, sums up the situation perfectly:
"We have no complaint about those who attended our daughter. All of those who treated her clearly wanted her to survive as much as we did. No apparent stone was left unturned. She died however because a few well-established and simple facts about TSS were not widely known to any of us who were in a position to influence her treatment in those crucial early hours of her illness."
Even the manufacturing industry understands the difficulty. My Bill seeks clear prominent warnings on packaging, an alert card explaining what the symptoms are and what one should do, research and information to doctors, and to ensure that the Department of Health makes TSS a notifiable disease so that we can start collecting the information truly to understand what the disease is, why it strikes women and how we can eradicate it.
3.39 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am rising to oppose the Bill, although it seems an eminently attractive proposition. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) has highlighted an important issue, but it needs to be represented accurately. I am not associated with the tampon industry in any way, other than having discussed the matter with its representatives.
It is important that the items under discussion, which have improved the lives of so many women, should not be misrepresented, and that the hon. Lady's actions should not be allowed to scare women unnecessarily throughout the country.
In the detail of her notice of motion, the hon. Lady has called for Government regulations to make provision for

685
certain warnings on packaging and advertisements. I do not believe that any such legislation is required. The tampon industry has already made adequate provision for warnings about toxic shock syndrome on its packaging. Indeed, as early as 1980, warnings appeared on instruction leaflets inside the boxes and since the beginning of 1993 on the outside. They are quite clear. I shall read the warning:
"Attention—tampons are associated with toxic shock syndrome. TSS is a rare but serious disease that may cause death. Read and save the enclosed information".
I cannot understand how the hon. Lady believes that placing warnings on advertisements, presumably even television advertisements, can contribute to health understanding.
Toxic shock syndrome, its symptoms and risk reduction factors, comprise a complex condition believed to be better dealt with in a more educational environment. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has seen the Tambrands Education Service literature or the Marion Cooper Advisory Service literature, which cover TSS, not in isolation, but in relation to the whole picture of an individual's health, including details on TSS.
Inaccurate information and misleading statistics have been circulated on TSS, and the Association of Sanitary Protection Manufacturers, which represents the majority of United Kingdom manufacturers of sanitary protection products, has compiled a detailed fact sheet on the known and established facts, which is widely circulated to GPs, among others. As GPs rarely see the condition, the ASPM has made provision to notify the clinical definition, arid has recommended questions for GPs to ask patients to reduce the chance of misdiagnosis.
TSS is a very rare illness, and, as the hon. Lady said, can be contracted by men, children and women—both menstrual and non-menstrual. There were only 18 confirmed or probable cases in 1992 and 16 in 1993, out of a total population of 58 million, and of those cases five, sadly, resulted in death. The Public Health Laboratory Service indicates that, of those, one or two deaths are associated with tampon use.
The Medical Research Council is not supporting any specific research into TSS, but rather basic research into staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria which causes TSS. The bug lives quite harmlessly in more than 35 per cent. of the population, but can be triggered in a minute number of cases into producing toxins. I agree with the hon. Lady that research into this organism and its effects is desirable and should be encouraged, as it affects men and children as well as women, but highlighting its relationship to tampons alone could distort the research, which needs to be more widely based.
I want to get the matter into perspective. A report in The Guardian on 21 June stated that more than 100 people a year die of paracetamol-linked kidney failure, and between 630 and 676 women die annually in the United Kingdom as a result of complications in pregnancy and childbirth, so
686
the risk is far greater in these cases than the one in 15 million chance of woman contracting TSS related to tampon use and subsequently dying.
This Bill is a regulation too far. As the hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesperson for her party, British industry should be aware that, based on her proposal, it can expect even more regulation were there to be a Labour Government.
I felt very sad, as we all did, for the families who have had someone die from possible TSS that could be tampon-related. I do not want in any way to minimise their loss. However, I must say that the tampon industry takes its responsibilities very seriously, and works to a voluntary code of practice that was developed with the Department of Trade and Industry.
Tampons have made a real and positive contribution to the way in which women can live their lives. More than 5,000 people are employed in the industry, including union members of USDAW, TGWU and AEU. The Bill could not only threaten their jobs but send the wrong message to women who choose to use tampons. While I do not for one minute underestimate a very rare, unpleasant and sometimes deadly condition, it is necessary for someone to underline the safety of the product and to set at rest the minds of millions of women who use it with no adverse effects. I am sure that some of those women are in the Chamber right now.
I do not want to make this a party political matter, so I shall not press it to a vote. However, it is important that excessive intervention such as is envisaged in the Bill should be highlighted, and that unnecessary scaremongering by the Opposition should not go unchallenged on such an important health issue for women.
Like the hon. Lady, I want more research into TSS for the sake of women and also for men and children, but not at the expense of the peace of mind of women throughout the country who use or wish to use tampons.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Jean Corston, Ms Clare Short, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Harriet Harman, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Ian McCartney and Dr. Lewis Moonie.

Tampons (Safety)
  TAMPONS (SAFETY)
  Ms Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for tampon packaging and advertisements for tampons to carry certain warnings and information, and to require the Secretary of State to make regulations for these purposes; to lay upon the Secretary of State duties with respect to research into, and publicity for, tampons and health; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Points of Order
3.48 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At your convenience, could you reflect and rule on the entirely new practice of hon. Members speaking against a ten-minute Bill and then not pressing the matter to a vote? As I understand it, it is a new practice and an abuse of House of Commons procedure.
Madam Speaker: It is not at all new—it is well established, and is included in "Erskine May". Any Member seeking to oppose such a Bill is free to do so. Of course, that hon. Member must raise his or her voice in opposition, but the matter does not necessarily need to proceed to a Division. That is for me to determine, depending on the voices that I hear.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further point of order on that matter. I have made a ruling. The matter is covered in "Erskine May". It is there for hon. Members to look at.
Mrs. Currie: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. It might be worth reminding hon. Members, especially women Members, that, if they want to introduce Bills that need the support of women on both sides of the House, they might invite some to become sponsors.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will have no argument about whether women Members are invited to sponsor Bills. I take it that the hon. Lady's point of order does not relate to that.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. When a 10-minute Bill is to be opposed, is it not the convention for the hon. Member opposing it to give notice to the hon. Member presenting it? Is that not an elementary courtesy?
Madam Speaker: No, that is not the case. The hon. Member opposing the Bill must listen to what is said by the promoter before he or she can decide whether to oppose it.

Coal Industry Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Coal Industry Bill
  Clause 12

    RESTRUCTURING SCHEMES IN RELATION TO PROPERTY ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 12, line 46, leave out from first ("that") to end of line 47 and insert—

    ("(i) that person consented to the provisions of the Scheme so far as they relate to him;

    (ii) no persons to whom obligations are owed, whether in respect of contamination or other liabilities arising out of the occupation of any property used in connection with coal-mining operations by the Corporation or its predecessors, is likely to sustain loss as a consequence of the Scheme.")

    3.50 pm
    Mr. Stewart Bell: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (b), at the end to add
    '(iii) any such liabilities, including environmental liabilities, arise in relation to coal mines and abandoned coal mines, in which case those liabilities shall be transferred to the Authority on the restructuring date.'.
    Madam Speaker: With this, we may consider the Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1: in page 13, line 7, at end insert—
    '(5A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers under this section to make a restructuring scheme in accordance with which any person other than—

    (a) a person mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d) above, or

    (b) a body of whom all the members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown,

    is to become subject to any liabilities, to have regard to the fact that it would not be appropriate for the scheme to provide for the transfer of any of those liabilities to any person except where it is reasonable to believe that that person is a person who will be able to finance their discharge.'.
    Mr. Bell: Opposition amendment (b) to the Lords amendment simply seeks to square assurances given by Ministers many times, but not yet acted on. It seeks a full transfer of liabilities from British Coal to the Coal Authority on the restructuring date.
    We are all aware that coal mining is not like any other business. We are all aware that it leaves behind long-term liabilities; we are all aware of its tremendous impact on the physical environment—subsidence, polluted water and contaminated land—and know that those effects can persist for decades.
    We are also aware that, in the past, British Coal has taken action to control, prevent or even remedy that legacy; but what will happen when British Coal ceases to exist? Where will the responsibility lie? Will not the coalfield communities that will exist long after the pits have gone suffer unduly unless the liabilities are dealt with by another responsible body, such as the Coal Authority referred to in the Bill?
    The amendment seeks, in a limited but important way, to ensure that communities are fully protected from circumstances in which environmental damage is allowed to continue because the legally responsible party is unable to pay for the necessary remedial work.
    We all know of the work that has been done up and down the country—especially in County Durham—to rid the county of dereliction from its coal-mining and industrial past. It could be said—as Durham county council

    689
    says—that that has been an outstanding achievement by a partnership between central and local government going back 25 years.
    As a consequence of that partnership, residents and businesses have been able to pick themselves up and involve themselves in new types of investment—sometimes in overseas investment. Our amendment will ensure that the upward curve of investment and improved environment in the coal communities will continue, by providing for environmental liabilities to be transferred to the Coal Authority.
    What we seek would be in line with the Minister's own commitment in a letter to the leader of Durham county council, dated 8 November 1993, to establishing a long-term framework to deal with water pollution from coal mines in the context of coal privatisation. The amendment would clarify that framework in respect of pollution related to abandoned mines of all kinds.
    We know—this relates to the Government's amendment—that none of the transfer schemes will work in Durham, because there is no deep mining left there. There will be no private buyers to take on themselves the obligations laid down in that amendment. Who, then, will be responsible? Will it be the county council, the National Rivers Authority, some other Government Department or the appropriate river purification board? Will there be another review? The Department of Trade and Industry moves the problem from one pair of hands to another, not even stopping to wash them, as did Pontius Pilate.
    I am aware of the statements made in the other place by Lord Strathclyde on 26 April this year, when he sought to assuage the anxieties of his colleagues. He recognised the concerns that arose
    "about the threat of water pollution from coal mines and about the effects of privatisation."
    I doubt whether he reassured many of his noble Friends. There is no legislative commitment to meet the residual liability for British Coal's past actions. There is no legal obligation upon British Coal to continue to pump and there will be no private buyers.
    He recognised that
    "continued pumping is required to prevent a serious pollution incident; or at all events, to give an assurance that such an incident can be avoided."
    He was certain that there must be a commitment to maintain pumping for as long as it was needed in order to prevent the risk of serious pollution. Again, we have no legislative commitment. Those who sat on the Committee considering the Bill asked for such commitments repeatedly, but we were never given them.
    According to Lord Strathclyde, we were soon into the area of spending—limited resources, Exchequer restraints and the hand of the Treasury over-arching across the Bill, as it does so many other measures.
    We have all read the speech made in Spain by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It seems that, if we want to know what the Government are thinking, we must look at speeches made as far away from these shores as possible. That is what the Chief Secretary did. He told the Spaniards that markets should be controlling Governments.
    Here at home, there will be no resources, or at least only limited resources, to decide whether pumping continues in County Durham and elsewhere. The noble Lord Strathclyde said:
    690
    "noble lords on all sides will recognise that its resources will be necessarily limited."
    He wanted to assure the other place that the Coal Authority would
    "in due course have a specific budget earmarked for these purposes".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 541–42.]
    We have a liability that pumping will continue, contingent upon there being resources. Again, we have no legislative commitment, we have nothing in writing, nothing in the Bill and nothing on the statute book.
    I know that the noble Lord Strathclyde is not in the second-hand car business. However, I have read how one of the candidates for the deputy leadership of the Labour party buys himself a new car every 18 months and drives 40,000 miles in a few weeks. I am sure that he would not buy such a car from the noble Lord Strathclyde.
    If we would not buy a car from him, why should we believe anything that he or the Government say when it is not written down on the statute book? Why should those who may have to live with the consequences of water pollution believe them? Why should the people of Durham believe them? Why should the people of other coalfield communities where there are no longer deep mines believe them?
    Dr. Kim Howells: If anybody doubts my hon. Friend's description about what is going to happen in Durham, I invite them to visit my constituency to see the filth that is pouring out of abandoned mines now. Pumping has already ceased in that area. Ferrous oxides are staining the rivers and killing all the life. Incidentally, those rivers have been cleaned up through the heroic efforts of local authorities.
    Mr. Bell: The Government's amendment misses the point completely, and would not deal with the situation described by my hon. Friend and others. Their amendment is based on the premise that there will be a licence, and that there will be a Coal Authority. It does not take into account what happens when there is no longer extraction and the deep mines no longer exist. When the Coal Authority is gone, everything is gone.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my hon. Friend considered the fact that there has always been concern about the safety and pollution of beaches? When there are no pits left in coalfields such as south Wales, Durham, Derbyshire, and so on, there will be a problem of river pollution that could be 10 times worse than the problem with the beaches. The National Rivers Authority found nothing in the River Doe Lea, because it never looked for anything until the Coalite business occurred and there was dioxin contamination.
    It is conceivable that the rivers will be heavily polluted, particularly when the mines are closed. Nobody is responsible for them. The NRA will go only if there is a serious complaint, as was the case with Coalite. Unless something is put into the Bill, we will face a problem with all the rivers and streams in coalfield areas such as that which arose with the beaches before the European directive.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose vast knowledge of the coal industry goes back many years, and whose interventions in the House have helped the Opposition but have irritated Conservative Members.
    Mr. John Cummings: I represent the former coal-mining area of Durham, whose beaches have gradually become despoiled in the past 50 years and are now perhaps the worst in the United Kingdom. The pit at Londonderry and the Joicey Coal Company are no longer with us. The National Coal Board became British Coal, which will have gone by the end of the year and will be replaced by some nondescript shapeless body called the Coal Authority, which will be devoid of form and financial substance when it carries out its works.
    Despoiled water is percolating into the grounds of Auckland castle, the palace of the Bishop of Durham. The problem has been increasing over a number of years. No one appears to want to take responsibility for dealing with it. I agree that the Minister is an honourable gentlemen, but I doubt whether he will still be in his job to honour assurances that were given in Committee. We want our proposals to be included in an Act of Parliament to give us some protection.
    4 pm
    Mr. Bell: I testify to the despoliation of the beaches near Horden colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). As a child, I spent my holidays walking along those beaches; seeing coal on the beach is not a sight that I will forget.
    The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) links with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. In the past few years, the Government and local government have tried to rectify the environmental damage. In the House, in Committee or in the other place, we have heard bland statements that somehow, someone, somewhere will deal with pollution. When one reads the fine print of the Bill, one does not find a definitive promise, commitment or assurance that someone, somewhere will be specifically liable to continue the work of cleaning up the environment.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: The problem exists not only in coalfields in England and Wales but in Scotland. We are still tackling problems that arose before nationalisation. I want to add my weight to the appeal to the Government to include concrete provisions in the Bill. They should not do a Pontius Pilate. I know that the Minister is not listening. I hope that my hon. Friend will insist that Scotland is covered and that the amendment will be written in tablets of stone rather than left to the discretion of some unknown person.
    Mr. Bell: We are trying, if not to get commitments in tablets of stone, then to get them on the statute book, but vague promises and statements have been made on the subject. In his wind-up speech, the noble Lord Strathclyde said in the other place:
    "Civil liabilities of the corporation will stay with the corporation on the restructuring date. When the corporation is ultimately wound up, those liabilities will be transferred elsewhere in the public sector before British Coal is dissolved. British Coal cannot be left with liabilities when it is wound up. We must find a home for those liabilities and we shall do so under the restructuring scheme."
    That will not be done under the Bill, The Government have not given commitments to the House, to the other place or to coalfield communities, which are looking to hon. Members to ensure that such commitments are written, if not in tablets of stone, then in the Bill.
    Lord Strathclyde continued:
    692
    "By becoming the freehold owner of coal and coal mines, the authority will automatically acquire the responsibilities, including environmental liabilities, running with that ownership, which it will pass on to mine operators under the terms of the lease in respect of areas which it licenses for coal mining."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 208.] That misses completely the point about the deep mines that no longer exist, and from which coal is no longer extracted, but where mine water still needs to be pumped.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: In Blyth Valley, as in all the other constituencies, we have a problem. Unfortunately, that problem is not so much water but gas. When Bates colliery—our last pit—was closed, we found underground workings filled with water, which pushed out the gas. We had to drill and put shafts in to relieve the air pressure, because people were being gassed.
    We had a bit of a job to persuade British Coal to take responsibility for that at the time, although eventually it did. But what will happen in the future we do not know. There is nothing in the Bill. If those workings are not maintained and fall into disrepair, gas will escape and gas everybody in Cramlington and Blyth Valley.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He will remember that we first met at Bates colliery one Saturday morning in 1978; I cannot remember the time or the exact date. He has made a good point about the uncertainty. The Bill engenders uncertainty among coalfield communities and people who wish to protect the environment, and uncertainty for individuals. Lord Strathclyde missed the point completely, because, where the deep mines are no longer extracting coal, there is no successor authority to British Coal. That is the problem that faces the House, and the Opposition are trying to define it clearly.
    It all boils down to nothing more than guidelines. We have Government assurances, and they mention broad objectives and reasonably practical standards; protection is to come second best to resources, and an enhanced environment is to be dependent on everybody from the National Rivers Authority to "appropriate river purification boards", but not on the Government.
    Of course, as the Opposition have strongly argued, if the Bill had contained strong environmental safeguards and a proper environmental framework, the Government would not need to rely for safeguarding the environment on voluntary agreements over which they have no legal control, and we would not have had to table the amendment to the Lords amendment.
    This is not a party political point; it is not high politics or high drama; it is a sensible decent amendment designed to alleviate the worries of people in coalfield communities and provide proper assurances for the future of those communities. There would be assurances concerning the control of mine water, and people would be less likely to suffer the consequences of mine water pollution. If the amendment were accepted, it would make the Bill clear. To eradicate doubt and uncertainty is one of the functions of the House, and the House will be at its best today if it accepts the amendment.
    Mr. Martin Redmond: I shall be extremely brief, but it would be remiss of me not to add weight to the case for the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). His speech was well structured but, regrettably, the Minister was too busy gobbing when he should have been listening.

    693
    If he had listened, he might have learnt something. Regrettably, yet again, our words have fallen on stony ground.
    The amendment is important because of the Government's past practice. When they have relied on voluntary agreements, those agreements have failed. If we are to believe the Government, the environment is vital, not only to this country, but to the rest of the world. Here the Government have the opportunity to practise what they preach. The onus is on them to introduce legislation to bring improvements.
    Don drainage in Doncaster, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) knows, was the result of extra money being paid by local people. If subsidence occurs and interferes with that drainage, there will be an impact on the environment. Pollution is bound to follow. I suggest that, for once, the Minister listens to Labour Members and accepts the amendment.
    One of the problems is that the Government propose to leave the matter to the voluntary sector. Mine owners in the past did nothing to ensure that we had a healthy environment. Given that, the Minister must accept the amendment if we are to ensure that future generations will have a proper environment.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Does my hon. Friend recall that in his area, as in mine, spoil heaps in mining areas have been an important issue in the past 20 to 30 years? Happily, Governments have taken action to deal with spoil heaps. The majority of spoil heaps, certainly in my area, were created in the days of private enterprise, but over the past 30 years the Government have had to accept responsibility for dealing with the problem, which they did not create. We face a similar problem now. The industry was nationalised from 1947 until now. Many of the water pollution problems need to be dealt with by the organisation that owned the industry—the British people, through the British Government.
    Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point about spoil heaps, which is a valid one. The coal tip at Yorkshire Main pit caught fire. The pollution caused was not water pollution, but air-borne pollution which caused serious environmental health problems for a number of my constituents downwind of the fire. The Minister should look at the past voluntary agreements, which have not worked, and he should also consider other privatisations carried out by the Government. Leaving matters to the voluntary sector has not worked, so I suggest that the Minister accepts the amendment. Let us move forward to a better future.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: A number of my hon. Friends will recall that my interest in the environment of the coalfields, especially the South Yorkshire coalfield, is long standing. When I entered the House in 1970, I made a fuss about the disgusting condition of our main rivers in South Yorkshire—the Rother, the Dearne and the Don—which were in the lowest category and were little better than open sewers. The Yorkshire Rivers Authority gave a pledge that our rivers would be brought to recreational standard by the mid-1980s. In the mid-1980s, the authority promised that they would be brought to a decent standard by the year 2000. I now wonder whether that standard will be reached.
    The reason for my doubt is that many of the streams that feed into the rivers were maintained to a more decent
    694
    standard than the rivers they joined, because of the work of the National Coal Board and the South Yorkshire mines drainage unit. Those bodies controlled the discharge from abandoned pits.
    I remember spending time with Mr. Ditchfield and his colleagues at the South Yorkshire mines drainage unit, which was based in my constituency, and being lowered to the bottom of a shaft of a colliery which had closed in 1873. The shaft had to be kept open for the purposes of pumping. Unfortunately, because of British Coal's economising, the mines drainage unit was closed and the responsibility was passed to Silverwood colliery in my constituency.
    But Silverwood colliery is about to close, and the industry will be privatised. The responsibility will accrue to the Coal Authority, and we have not had any assurance that the Coal Authority will have the resources, or the legal power, or the interest, or, in fact, the size of membership and staffing resources, to enable it to do its job.
    The Minister is somewhat less enthusiastic about the privatisation of the mining industry than he was when the Bill was first produced.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar)indicated dissent.
    4.15 pm
    Mr. Hardy: Oh, no. When the Government wanted to privatise the pits, they were a great deal more enthusiastic and cheery. But, as the months of consideration went by, they began to realise the scale and liability which would accrue when the public sector's interest diminished—the liability of the legacy of hundreds of thousands of men who suffered or may suffer the consequences of industrial disease. The liability to the environment may be greater than that. It is such a great liability that I do not think that any private insurer would offer a policy.
    It is little use the Government and our local authorities devoting resources and giving priority and a great deal of attention to promoting our economic revival as a result of the closure of our pits if not enough is done to prevent the devastation which can follow in the absence of a proper exercise of responsibility. All my hon. Friends who have intervened—a great number already have—will have surely drawn the Minister attention's to the fact that the Coal Authority must have the capacity, in terms of law and resource. It seems essential and, in the interests of those areas affected, the amendment must become part of the Bill.
    I hope that, in replying, the Minister will give us that assurance and also give the coalfields of Britain—and former coalfields—the assurance that the authority will have the capacity to exercise properly the responsibilities that the Minister and his colleagues will have placed on it.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I share with him, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the constituency responsibility for Breich water and the Almond. One needs only to go along the Almond now, which, incidentally, used to be a clean river because it was cleaned up, and one can see bubbles of iron oxide. There is a real ferruginous pollution problem.
    I do not believe in muscling in on the Committees of other Bills on which hon. Friends have worked extremely

    695
    hard, so I shall content myself with one question, when I have the Minister's attention. I shall ask the question when I have the Minister's attention.
    Who is responsible? Lengthy correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland and talking to Scottish Ministers has not identified who is responsible for the cleaning up of the Almond and Breich water. It is a simple, straight question. If those in the Box cannot answer it, I would hope to receive a letter from the Department.
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: The arguments have been well rehearsed over the past months while we have considered the Bill. However, even at this late stage, it is important to press the amendment for the people who live in the coalfield communities, because, over the years, they have lived with pollution and dereliction. People who live in coalfield villages and towns have high aspirations for their children and for their environment. They have seen enormous dereliction over the past few months.
    Over the past year, the Nottinghamshire coalfield has been laid waste by a closure programme. The people of Nottinghamshire now want to see the environment lifted, and the amendment would provide a way of doing that. It would secure the future over contaminated land and pit spoil heaps.
    The people in Nottinghamshire want to see Sherwood forest come again. They have an ambitious scheme to create a new community forest—a forest that will be planted on the spoil heap. Some of the spoil heaps may pass into the ownership of voluntary bodies. The people of Nottinghamshire do not want to be left with commitments that they cannot meet. Assurances have been given by the Minister and his colleagues in another place, but the amendment would secure that future.
    The amendment also brings to a head the issue of mine water, which has been pursued relentlessly by my hon. Friends. At Annesley, all the water from the western side of the Nottinghamshire coalfield and from Derbyshire is pumped up. Annesley colliery is now closed. Discussions are now going on between the National Rivers Authority, British Coal and other partners about its future.
    Annesley colliery lies next to Newstead village—next to Newstead Abbey, the home of Lord Byron. It is an area where local authorities, led by governing borough councils, have made major changes. They are lifting and building the environment. Unless the issue of mine water is resolved—and resolved quickly—there will be real problems. The amendment before the House would secure that future. It would put some real commitments in the Bill.
    I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). The Minister has talked about the importance of the Coal Authority. Now that the Coal Authority has a chairman—and I understand that a chief executive will be announced shortly—it is essential that it is properly resourced and has adequate personnel to tackle these issues. At present, the feeling in coalfield communities is that the Coal Authority could be a lame dog—a dog that will not bark. Our amendment aims to back the Coal Authority and ensure that things happen in coalfield communities to give them a better future.
    In the past, the Minister has argued—indeed, he may well use the same argument this afternoon—that the amendment would wreck the Bill and cause difficulties for the private sector. I do not believe that that is the case,
    696
    because my discussions with the private sector suggest that it is anxious about privatisation. Private sector companies are anxious about the liabilities that might have to be picked up. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that he is talking to private sector companies about that issue.
    We want a better environment for coalfield communities. Even at this late stage, the amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: This is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister is prepared to take it on board. He will recall that the issue was raised time and time again during the long Committee stage.
    At one point, I explained to the Minister the situation that has arisen in my constituency as a result of the River Don being polluted by a colliery that closed down in the latter part of the 1960s. That is something which the community opposed over a long period, but it has been unable to get anything positive done. That could easily be the situation with many of the collieries which have already closed, and those which will close in the future, unless we have a similar amendment.
    I dra w the Minister's attention to a situation that occurred only a few weeks ago in my constituency. Once again, it illustrates the sort of situation that we may face time and time again in mining communities. The Worsbrough reservoir is fed by a beck that runs down the countryside from Silkstone. It is also added to by many abandoned mine workings.
    One of those mine workings, the Stafford mine, which closed down many years ago, is the low point for many of the collieries around. It has pumped into that beck some 1.5 million gallons per day. In October 1993, British Coal decided that it would stop the pumping operation. That has had a catastrophic effect on the reservoir, because one of the local sewage plants also feeds into the reservoir. That is adding immensely to the problems in the reservoir which have been experienced by local anglers.
    I wrote to the Minister on the issue. When Lord Strathclyde discussed the amendment in the other place, he made the point that problems such as that at Worsbrough reservoir would become high priorities. Therefore, it is essential that the Minister tells us today whether he is prepared in circumstances such as we face at Worsbrough to give a direction that the pumping should be restarted. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he will give a direction that the pumping should be restarted at the Stafford colliery to alleviate the problem in Worsbrough reservoir.
    I should also point out to the Minister that this morning we received a letter from the National Rivers Authority stating that it was prepared to spend £35,000 on aeration equipment to try to alleviate the problem. However, that will by no means ease the problem, because the reservoir is also the source of the River Dove in Yorkshire. As the reservoir becomes polluted, so does the River Dove. It is essential that we have aeration equipment, and that pumping is restarted at the Stafford mine.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to accept the amendment, and that pumping operations will be restarted at the Stafford colliery.
    Ms Joan Walley: I should like the Minister to deal with one issue in respect of

    697
    environmental liabilities. When we are talking about flood water, it is easy to see what the specific problems are. The particular problem to which I wish to refer is now becoming commonplace throughout coal mining areas, particularly in Stoke-on-Trent, North. It is the issue of mine shafts and adits. The problem is not quite subsidence, and is not easily visible. It seems to me that the problem has come about as the result of a specific disagreement between British Coal and the Law Society.
    Some time ago, British Coal had an obligation to say whether there was a former mine shaft within 5 in of a property, although 5 m was never specified. It seems that there is now a voluntary agreement, under which, if there is a mine shaft within 20 m of a property, British Coal has to disclose the fact. Only since the property market has started to move again and the new arrangement came into force have we begun to understand the extent of the problem in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. Many houses currently on the market have been blighted simply because British Coal has said that there is a shaft within 20 m of the property.
    In his reply on the overall environmental liabilities, I should like the Minister to deal with the issue of mine shafts. How is it anticipated that the costs of searching for mine shafts will be met? Anyone who bought a house before the new agreement came into force had no idea that British Coal would come up with the information that there was a mine shaft within 20 m of the property. I understand that the cost of carrying out the search amounts to about £800. I might add that the search is a fairly dangerous undertaking.
    When we talk about transferring costs from British Coal to the new authority that will take its place, we must make certain that, at the heart of the legislation, we ensure that the costs of identifying former pit shafts, adits and so on has been met. People—many of whom have given their lives to the coal industry—must not find themselves with a property which they cannot sell, simply because they fall within a 20 m rule. I can well imagine the Minister saying that the matter might in some way impinge upon the regulations which relate to subsidence, but the technicality of it is that those mine shafts are not quite the same thing as subsidence.
    4.30 pm
    We need an undertaking from the Minister today that, if we do not get the matter sorted out as we reach the final stages of the legislation, he will consult the Coalfield Communities Campaign and local authorities to make sure that individual home owners do not have to meet those enormous costs. They must not be prevented from moving on and selling their homes. We are talking about contaminated land and about a legacy of environmental dereliction, and I want some firm assurances from the Minister today in that respect.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for not being here when he opened the debate, as I was on my way back from an engagement in my constituency.
    As hon. Members have said, this matter has been argued in this place, in Committee, on Report and in the other place. I say to the Minister that the issue between us—which is addressed in the Opposition amendment tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team and signed by my hon.
    698
    Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and myself on behalf of our party—is whether the undertaking given in the other place is written into the Bill, and is not left as mere words uttered in debate in Parliament.
    The key issue is to make sure that the liabilities are perceived to be liabilities which do not lead to risks arising unintentionally on people who cannot bear them. Do the Government have a clear policy about the issue in relation to their privatisation of energy? For example, is the attitude evidenced by the amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade intended to be a precursor to a similar attitude in relation to the nuclear industry? What is the Government's policy towards risk arising from environmental liabilities on privatisation?
    The difference is simply that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government have came to the House and asked us to accept something which says that they think that the risk should arise
    "except where it is reasonable to believe that that person…will be able to finance their discharge."
    That is the only time when the transfer of liabilities will carry that guarantee. It is an objective test, and the Minister will know the difference between one and the other is the difference between an objective test and a subjective test. The "reasonable to believe" test introduces a characteristic that is a lesser protection than that which was put into the Bill in the Lords.
    People clearly want the best protection against environmental risk, and I hope that the Government will accept that there must be the best protection. Whether the Government think that protection should reside with the Coal Authority—as is argued from the Opposition Benches—or somewhere else, I hope that they are consistent with what they always say elsewhere, and that the best environmental protection will be guaranteed.
    Therefore, if that is the case, there is no argument but that the amendment passed in the Lords should be the amendment sustained. The Government amendment, which weakens that provision, should not be adopted by the House.
    Mr. Skinner: My view is that, if the Government do not do anything about water pollution, it will be a disaster waiting to happen. It might not happen next week or even in a couple of years, but in three or four years somebody will ask what we were doing in Parliament to allow this to happen.
    My mind goes back to Aberfan. We had a nationalised industry at that time which meant that we could do things in an emergency. But Aberfan was a disaster, and people asked what was going on. As everyone knows, they piled up all the stuff on top of a mountain and more than 200 kids in the village school were swamped. Fortunately, because it was under public ownership, a direct grant for clearance programmes could be set in process. We had such a slag heap removed in Clay Cross when I was on the local authority.
    Under private ownership, the potential owners of 19 or 20 pits will not carry the can for such problems. When Silverhill colliery next to my constituency was closing, I was told that every pump used to pump water out of the pit cost £5,000 a week to run. That is a lot of money, and I think that Silverhill colliery has two pumps.
    All my colleagues and others well versed in mining procedures know that that amount can be multiplied countless times in every coalfield, given the amount of

    699
    pumping that went on. In Derbyshire, for instance, there are no pits left. I believe that one pump is operating at Creswell colliery for the whole of north Derbyshire. It is laughable.
    The net result is that the water is rising at Bolsover and a land slip has already occurred. Six houses have been demolished. British Coal and the Department of the Environment say, "It's nothing to do with us." But six people have lost their houses and many more are placed in jeopardy. We want £1,500,000 from the Government so that the county can start a drainage scheme. That kind of thing will be the pattern in every coalfield.
    Some people may argue that that is relatively clean water, but what happens in areas where the water is polluted? Those of us who are old enough remember the days before public ownership. I would have my earhole belted because I used to jump over little streams which we used to call "ochre water" because they were a dirty yellow colour. The water poured off the tips of privatised pits. That is the sort of feature that will occur in future.
    The Government send people to Rio and all those environmental conferences, but do not care tuppence about the environment when it comes to the test. They have dogmatically pursued their privatisation scheme without thinking it through and now they have a problem.
    Remarkably, in a series of votes today, Labour Members of Parliament will support amendments on the side of country landowners—they are involved in trying to save the property, whereas we are doing it because we know that it is morally right—while the Tories will go into the Lobby to attack their own people. The issue is not just about playing partisan politics. It is about the morality of allowing all that pollution to take place, as my hon. Friends have said over and over again.
    Nuclear power gets £1.3 billion. We think that it is for production purposes, but the Government tell us that it is for decommissioning—for what happens after the production process. Is what we are discussing the same as the nuclear argument? We are asking who will clean up the mess once the production process has been completed. The decommissioning of the coal mining industry is the same argument.
    We are told that the Government must find up to £22 billion in the next several years to decommission all the nuclear power plants. We are not asking for that kind of commitment today. All we are asking is that the Government come to their senses and understand that there will be major environmental pollution in every coalfield in Scotland, Wales and England. It is time that they accepted the morality of the amendment, which will go a little way towards resolving the problem, not for today or even next week, but for generations to come.
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the House will not misunderstand me when I say that this is a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of a re-run of previous debates, and that there is a fundamental difference of view between Conservative Members and Opposition Members.
    It is straightforward. Opposition Members believe that the Coal Authority should be responsible for all liabilities, even liabilities that arise in areas that are owned by private sector coal companies. Conservative Members say that the
    700
    Coal Authority should have responsibility for all liabilities except those that arise in areas that are the responsibility of the private sector.
    We debated the issue in Committee, at the very beginning. At that stage, I was able to put several hon. Members' anxieties in perspective, at least, and I firmly established that the Coal Authority is responsible in the vast majority of cases. It will, in practice, be an exception for a private sector mining company to have responsibility; the exception will be where it has purchased the assets.
    Much as I enjoy the contributions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—this time as ever—I think that he did not recognise that fundamental position.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us what he told us in Committee, but he is still missing the point—that, where there is no licensed operator, in relation to deep mines from which coal is no longer extracted, the responsibilities and liabilities of British Coal end in limbo.
    Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
    Mr. Bell: Perhaps, as the Minister says, they will become the responsibility of the Coal Authority.
    Mr. Eggar indicated assent.
    Mr. Bell: The Minister nods. The Opposition are arguing that it is not in the Bill. If he says that responsibility lies with the Coal Authority, why should he not now accept our amendment? Then we shall all know that it is in the Bill and that it is the responsibility of the Coal Authority, and we can all rest reasonably in peace.
    Mr. Eggar: It emphatically is in the Bill, because the Coal Authority, under clause 73, takes over the ownership of all unworked coal and coal mines, including all abandoned mines. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely clear that, where the private sector does not own the assets, the liabilities and such assets as there are are transferred to the Coal Authority.
    The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) seemed to me to be identifying the core point, which is about the resources—funding and manpower—that will go to the Coal Authority. I attach much importance to that, and I have very much taken on board the points that he made.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned a specific, important matter in his constituency, and I will write to him about that.
    Mr. Dalyell: Scottish law is slightly different. The highly competent Lothian river purification board and its officials, such as Mr. William Halcrow, do not know where responsibility lies. Will the Minister give the undertaking that one of his expert senior officials in Scotland will sit down with the board's officials and consider what is an urgent ferruginous pollution problem?
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman makes a specific request of that nature, I undertake to pass on his anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to ask that the problem be investigated at a senior level and that, if possible, a satisfactory outcome be reached.
    The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) raised a specific point about mine shafts' interrelationship with the Law Society. It will become the responsibility of the Coal Authority, as I understood the thrust of her remarks, and I will ensure that it tackles that specific issue because I have not come across the specific

    701
    issue of "undiscovered" mine shafts before. I am grateful to her for mentioning it, and I will ensure that we follow that up.
    Finally, I think I signed a letter to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) at the weekend. I am sorry that he has not received it, but. from memory, I think that active negotiation and discussion is going on between British Coal and Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. British Coal acts as agent for Yorkshire Water at present, and discussions are going on about the way that the issue should be handled. The hon. Gentleman should have my letter soon. I am sorry that he has not received it yet. I hope that that will set his mind at rest.
    We accept the basic thrust of Lords amendment No. 1, although the precise wording might give rise to problems—it would introduce some uncertainty as to whether the Secretary of State had discharged the obligation. We have therefore proposed Government amendment (a). I understand that the proposer of the Lords amendment accepts that our amendment meets the fundamental point that he wished to address. I think that it is more precise, and I therefore hope that it will be acceptable to the House.
    4.45pm
    This is a familiar debate. I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming than I have been able to be on previous occasions. I am convinced that the Coal Authority will discharge its liabilities appropriately, and that the anxieties that have been mentioned by many Opposition Members have been—
    Ms Walley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I make certain what he proposes in answer to my point—that he will ensure that he meets all those people who have expertise about the problem, and that we can have meetings to discuss the issues that I brought to his attention?
    Mr. Eggar: I cannot give the hon. Lady a firm pledge that I personally will be involved in the meetings, as I am sure she will understand. I am sure that my officials are aware of the matter, but I personally am not. I understand the origin of her concerns, and I will ensure that the matter is inquired into. If there are what I would call "loose ends" to it, I shall do my best to ensure that they are sorted out.
    I hope that, with that assurance, the Opposition will withdraw their amendment.
    Mr. Bell: I have no intention of withdrawing it. Clause 73, to which the Minister drew my attention, deals with interests, not obligations. It deals with coal that is in the pits which may be used again by the Coal Authority, but not the environmental liabilities about which we have spoken.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:ߞ
    The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 282.

    Division No. 273]

    [4.47 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Austin-Walker, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Barnes, Harry

    Allen, Graham

    Barron, Kevin

    Alton, David

    Battle, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Bell, Stuart

    Ashton, Joe

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    702

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Berry, Roger

    Jamieson, David

    Betts, Clive

    Janner, Greville

    Boyes, Roland

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Bradley, Keith

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Burden, Richard

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Byers, Stephen

    Keen, Alan

    Caborn, Richard

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Lewis, Terry

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cann, Jamie

    Loyden, Eddie

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Church, Judith

    McCartney, Ian

    Clapham, Michael

    Macdonald, Calum

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    McLeish, Henry

    Clelland, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    MacShane, Denis

    Coffey, Ann

    McWilliam, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Madden, Max

    Corbett, Robin

    Mahon, Alice

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Mandelson, Peter

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Marek, Dr John

    Cox, Tom

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Cummings, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Meacher, Michael

    Dafis, Cynog

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Milburn, Alan

    Darling, Alistair

    Miller, Andrew

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Morley, Elliot

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Denham, John

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Dixon, Don

    Mudie, George

    Dobson, Frank

    Mullin, Chris

    Dowd, Jim

    Murphy, Paul

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Eastham, Ken

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Olner, William

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    O'Neill, Martin

    Fatchett, Derek

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Faulds, Andrew

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Parry, Robert

    Flynn, Paul

    Pendry, Tom

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Pike, Peter L.

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pope, Greg

    George, Bruce

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Prescott, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Purchase, Ken

    Gordon, Mildred

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Radice, Giles

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Grocott, Bruce

    Redmond, Martin

    Gunnell, John

    Rendel, David

    Hain, Peter

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hanson, David

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Hardy, Peter

    Rogers, Allan

    Harvey, Nick

    Rooker, Jeff

    Henderson, Doug

    Ruddock, Joan

    Heppell, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hodge, Margaret

    Short, Clare

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Skinner, Dennis

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

    Hoyle, Doug

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Snape, Peter

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Soley, Clive

    Hutton, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Illsley, Eric

    Spellar, John

    703

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Stevenson, George

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stott, Roger

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Straw, Jack

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wilson, Brian

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Worthington, Tony

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Timms, Stephen

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Turner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Vaz, Keith

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Walley, Joan

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dicks, Terry

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Ancram, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Ashby, David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Eggar, Tim

    Atkins, Robert

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evennett, David

    Bates, Michael

    Faber, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Booth, Hartley

    Forman, Nigel

    Boswell, Tim

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Forth, Eric

    Bowis, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bright, Graham

    French, Douglas

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gallie, Phil

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Garnier, Edward

    Burns, Simon

    Gill, Christopher

    Burt, Alistair

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Butcher, John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Butler, Peter

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butterfill, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Cash, William

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Clappison, James

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hague, William

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Colvin, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Congdon, David

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Conway, Derek

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Couchman, James

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cran, James

    Hawksley, Warren

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

    Hayes, Jerry

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Heald, Oliver

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hendry, Charles

    Day, Stephen

    Hicks, Robert

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Devlin, Tim

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    704

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jack, Michael

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jessel, Toby

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Sackville, Tom

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Key, Robert

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knapman, Roger

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shersby, Michael

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

    Sims, Roger

    Knox, Sir David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lidington, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lightbown, David

    Spring, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Steen, Anthony

    Lord, Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Stern, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stewart, Allan

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Streeter, Gary

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sweeney, Walter

    Maclean, David

    Sykes, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Madel, Sir David

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Malone, Gerald

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mans, Keith

    Thomason, Roy

    Marland, Paul

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marlow, Tony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

    Mates, Michael

    Tracey, Richard

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Tredinnick, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Trend, Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Walden, George

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waterson, Nigel

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Watts, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Whitney, Ray

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Whittingdale, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Willetts, David

    Norris, Steve

    Wilshire, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Page, Richard

    Wood, Timothy

    Paice, James

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Patnick, Irvine

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Pawsey, James

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.
    Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 22, to insert new clause—Designated mining museums—
    ". The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the administration of the financial assistance provided by him for coal mining museums during the period of three years following the restructuring date, within six months of the end of that period."
    5 pm
    Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this we may consider the following Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 2: After clause 59 insert the following clause:—
    As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period of three years beginning with the restructuring date, the Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out particulars of—

    (a) the financial assistance provided during that period to coal-mining museums, so far as it has involved the making of payments for that purpose to any person by the Secretary of State;

    (b) the manner in which the provision of that financial assistance has been administered; and

    (c) the use to which that financial assistance has been put by the coal-mining museums which have received it.'.

    Mr. Eggar: Although the Lords amendment reflects an agreement that had been reached regarding its objective, we stated in the other place that we would come forward with our own wording. That is the reason for the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    A number of hon. Members present will remember the debate on mining museums some months ago. There were discussions following that debate, and on 9 June my noble Friend the Minister of State told the other place that we would make available transitional funding of some £900,000 over three years, and that that funding would be made available to the Yorkshire and Scottish mining museums and the Big Pit mining museum in south Wales. That will replace help in kind currently provided by British Coal.
    It is fair to say that the announcement by my noble Friend has been widely welcomed, as has the gist of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the House.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Government amendment represents an attempt by the Government to correct what they considered to be shortcomings in the amendment voted on in the other place; our misgivings derive essentially from its caution.
    Although the three-year commitment is far too short, we recognise the distance that the Government have moved since we originally debated the issue in Committee. At that time, the Government were in large measure indifferent to the plight of the museums and did not properly appreciate the scale of the contribution made to them by British Coal. They have moved a considerable distance since then, although probably not far enough.
    706
    The Government have identified the three main museums—the one in Yorkshire, the one in Scotland and the Big Pit in south Wales. There may well be others which deserve assistance but which the Government have not seen fit to support on this occasion.
    Ms Walley: One museum not so far included in the list is Chatterley Whitfield museum in my constituency, which, as the House knows, has already closed. Urgent discussions are taking place with a view to establishing whether there is any way in which Chatterley Whitfield could reopen and whether part of the national coal collection could come back to Chatterley Whitfield as part of the operations that the Charity Commission is considering. It is important that Chatterley Whitfield should not be excluded from any discussions because it may be in a position to reopen at some stage in the near future.
    Mr. O'Neill: The whole House knows the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed on a number of occasions over the Chatterley Whitfield mine. It is perhaps significant that, although the Minister referred to three mining museums, the amendment makes no mention of a number. I hope that that leaves the door open for some discussion.
    We have one misgiving in particular about the formula that the Government have reached. The role of local authorities will be quite central to the future success of the mining museums, but this is a time of great uncertainty for local authorities; we do not know what the boundaries will be or what responsibilities local authorities will have after the Government's programme of changes and reform.
    We recognise that the Government are probably making the best of a bad job, but the amendment none the less marks a sizeable achievement on the part of the people, the organisations and, in particular, the local authorities that have campaigned to secure a future for the museums.
    Coal mining museums represent a substantial repository of the industrial and cultural heritage of our mining communities. We want them to continue. We believe that, at the end of the three-year period, their success will be such that the Government will be well advised to provide the necessary support to enable them to thrive and expand.
    We give the amendment grudging and limited support. We do not say that with any malign intent, but had the Government been forthcoming earlier, we might have been spared a great deal of the anxiety that has been expressed on these matters by Members of both Houses.
    We pay tribute to those in the other place who were able to secure a majority for a proposition that did not receive majority support in this House, and we recognise that the assurances given by the Government have in large measure been met by the amendment. The proposal does not go as far as we would like, but we are pleased that we have achieved some concessions. We shall wait with interest to see what form the report will take, because in three years' time it will be delivered to a Labour Government who will be more sympathetic to the plight of the museums and more likely to encourage their future success when the opportunity arises. For those reasons, we are happy to give the amendment our backing.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: One or two hon. Members will recall that I tabled a new clause on Report dealing with the issue of mining museums. I have a particular interest because the Yorkshire mining museum is in my constituency. There was great concern that no

    707
    consideration had been given to the future assistance for that and other mining museums on the back of what had previously been provided by British Coal. I welcome the fact that successful efforts were made in the other place to change the Government's mind. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that it is a welcome move.
    I want briefly to pay tribute to those in the other place, from all parties and from none, who were very much involved in lobbying the Government. I want also to pay tribute to those from Yorkshire who worked very hard to bring about the Government's change of mind. I must also mention Dr. Margaret Faull and her staff at the Yorkshire mining museum. They have kept everyone effectively briefed on the predicament faced by that and other museums. They worked long and hard and they will have gained some crumb of comfort from the success in the other place.
    I should be glad if the Minister would deal with the distribution of the funding. The proposal is for £100,000 per year for each of the three museums. That distribution is a little unfair as two of the three museums include an underground element that adds to their costs. I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has just walked into the Chamber; he has been very supportive.
    I echo the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan about what happens after the three-year period has elapsed. We want a guarantee that the museums will not face a death sentence and that attempts will be made to secure funding, from whatever source, so that they can continue to play a valuable role.
    As I said, we welcome the Government's change of mind. We are not entirely satisfied but at least the amendment represents a move forward on an issue of great concern in my constituency and elsewhere.
    Mr. Hardy: I do not have a museum in my constituency, but I have long been interested in the history of the mining industry. For the greater part of the period from 1850 to 1950, about 1 million men were engaged in the industry. Before 1850, hundreds of thousands were. The impact of the industry on the social and economic history of our country—especially in the numerous coalfields that existed, some of which still exist—is such that the historic importance and relevance of the industry and its legacies must be retained. For the Government to turn their back on the museums in three years' time would be an act of crass philistinism.
    I ask the Minister to assure my hon. Friends who have museums in their areas that the museums' maintenance will be encouraged because of the historic and educational importance of that inheritance.
    Mr. John Gunnell: I, too, welcome the fact that funding is being made available to ensure that the three mining museums maintain their present role. I pay tribute to those who have visited the Yorkshire mining museum at Caphorse colliery. The Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage and several noble Lords who spoke on the matter in the other place visited the underground mine and appreciated its great educational benefits. I am sure that it is one reason for their Support.
    708
    5.15 pm
    However, some significant limitations must be dealt with. There should be some relationship between the distribution of the grant and the help in kind that the museums received from British Coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has my support in his contention that, although the even distribution may represent parity as between Scotland, Wales and England, it does not represent parity in expense. I hope that that part of the proposed report referred to in Government amendment (a)(c)—
    "the use to which financial assistance has been put"—
    will relate to the help in kind given by British Coal to the museums. The grant should replace that help.
    The original proposal was for the report to be delivered six months before the end of the three-year period. The amendment changes that to
    "As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period of three years".
    I hope that that will not cut out any extension of the grant should that be necessary. I am sure that each of the museums will work hard to attract sponsorship to provide the money that they need. If the distribution of grant is even, the Yorkshire mining museum will have to find an additional £70,000 from year one because previously it received help in kind from British Coal of £170,000 a year.
    This is an important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to what a future Labour Government would do. I am a member of the board of trustees of the Yorkshire mining museum—a non-pecuniary interest—and I shall ensure that the other members are made aware of my hon. Friend's comments.
    The Caphorse colliery began in 1791. It existed at the time when Mozart died. The grant will help to ensure that it continues to exist. However, that must amount to more than three additional years of life.
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the trustees of the Yorkshire mining museum will want to hear what the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) might have a view on such spending commitments should the unthinkable happen.
    I do not wish to mislead the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), so I must tell her that I cannot hold out any realistic hope of assistance for Chatterley Whitfield.
    On the points about the division of funds between the three museums, quite frankly whatever way we had decided to divide up the available money would have attracted criticism. Arguments were put on behalf of each museum, but we felt that the best practice would be to allocate the same to each of them. I am sorry that some museums feel hard done by, but I feel that that is the best way to do it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.
    Amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].

  Schedule 5

    PENSIONS PROVISION IN CONNECTION WITH RESTRUCTURING
    Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 102, line 29, after ("by") insert
    ("or in accordance with the directions of")
    Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 22.
    Mr. Eggar: This series of technical amendments relates to pensions provision. Let me record my thanks to all who have been involved in discussions about the pensions issue—the trustees of the many schemes and all who have worked to assist them. I also thank the Opposition formally for the co-operative way in which they have approached the debate.
    I think that there was always a genuine worry, shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that a technical but emotive issue would enter the political arena in a way that would upset many elderly pensioners for no good reason. The mining industry as a whole—unions and trustees—and hon. Members on both sides of the House have co-operated to bring about an outcome that is satisfactory from all points of view, without upsetting pensioners.
    Mr. O'Neill: I join the Minister in thanking the trustees, who devoted considerable time and effort to wide
    710
    consultation on the nature of the changes. When they went to Ministers, those Ministers had to heed what was being said, because pensioners, beneficiaries, trustees and others had a strong case to make. Ministers recognised that, and the necessary changes have been made—to the general appreciation, although not necessarily the overwhelming satisfaction, of most people.
    Some 97 per cent. of members of the scheme are now beneficiaries, and a very small number are still contributors. It is therefore essential that proper provision be made for the long term. As I have said, it is to the trustees' credit that consensus was established: the arrangements were sold to the Government in a constructive way, and our constituents who are beneficiaries can now look forward to the future with far more certainty than they could when the Bill first appeared.
    The Opposition pay tribute to all who played a substantial part in trying to make this section of the Bill benefit people who have made a great contribution to a once great industry, and to the economic well-being of the country.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 102, line 50, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
    ("(3A) The modifications of an existing scheme that may be made by regulations under this paragraph shall include modifications making such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for cases where either—

    (a) there are assets of the scheme representing a relevant surplus, or

    (b) the assets of the scheme are insufficient for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.

    (3B) The modifications mentioned in sub-paragraph (3A) above may contain—

    (a) provision for a relevant surplus, and the assets representing it, to be apportioned between—

    (i) the part (if any) of the surplus which is to be retained in a reserve ("an investment reserve") as an asset of the scheme, and

    (ii) the remainder ("the distributable part") of the surplus;

    (b) provision for the management of assets representing an investment reserve and for the manner in which any such assets are to be applied;

    (c) provision for income accruing in respect of assets representing an investment reserve to be added to the reserve;

    (d) provision for the manner in which assets representing the distributable part of a relevant surplus are to be applied; and

    (e) provision, for the purposes of any provision under paragraphs (a) to (d) above, for modifying any decisions' as to the way in which relevant surpluses determined as at times before the restructuring date. and the assets representing any such surpluses, are to be treated.

    (3C) The provision as to the apportionment of any surplus or assets to an investment reserve that may be contained in modification made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall not include any provision authorising the allocation to such a reserve of any part of a surplus determined as at a time after 31st March 1994, or of any assets representing any part of such a surplus, except where the allocation is made for making good amounts that would have been comprised in the value of the reserve if assets representing any part of it had not been applied from the reserve in meeting a deficiency that arose as at any time by reason of the other assets of the scheme having been insufficient as at that time for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.
    (3D) The provision as to the application of assets representing an investment reserve that may be contained in modifications made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall include provision for the Secretary of State to become entitled where—

    (a) any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below have been entered into in relation to pension obligations under the scheme in question, and

    (b) the value of the assets representing the reserve exceeds the aggregate amount required for the purposes for which the reserve has been retained,

    to assets of the scheme representing the amount of the excess or, where those purposes have ceased, the value of the reserve.
    (3E) The provision as to the application of assets representing the distributable part of a relevant surplus that may be contained in modifications made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3A) above shall include provision for the Secretary of State to become entitled where—

    (a) the surplus is one determined as at a time on or after 31st March 1994, and

    (b) any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below have been entered into in relation to pension obligations under the scheme in question,

    to assets of the scheme representing no more than one half of the distributable part of that surplus.")
    Amendment made to Lords amendment: In line 7 of proposed sub-paragraph (3C), leave out 'that' and insert 'which' (apart from any entitlement for which provision is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3D) below)'.
    Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to [Special Entry].
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].

  Schedule 8

    AMENDMENTS OF THE OPENCAST COAL ACT 1958
    Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 117, line 29, at end insert—
    ("Terms on which orders to be exercised
    .—(1) The owner of the interest against whom the compulsory rights order (in this paragraph referred to as "the owner") has been made shall be entitled to—

    (a) payment on the basis of either—

    (i) the open market value of the rights granted as would have been fair and reasonable if the agreement had been made between a willing grantor and a willing grantee, or

    (ii) the compensation for the losses caused to him assessed in accordance with sections 17 to 23 of this Act,

    whichever is the higher, and

    (b) secure such terms, guarantees and other security from the person entitled to occupy the land in respect of which the compulsory rights order is conferred (in this paragraph referred to as "the operator") as are necessary to protect the owner from any loss, damage, claims or other costs related to the exercise of the compulsory rights order.

    (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a)(i) of this paragraph, the assessment of the open market value shall take into account—

    (a) the basis on which the operator has entered into agreements with the owners of other interests to permit the working of the same coal deposit, and

    (b) the basis on which the owners of other interests have entered into agreements with the operator or other mining companies for the extraction of coal on comparable sites.

    712
    (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a)(i) of this paragraph, the fact that the operator is in or to be in, a special position by reason of his having secured the licence under Part II of this Act to the exclusion of others shall be ignored.")
    Mr. Eggar: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may consider the following: Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 126, line 16, after 'section', insert—

    '(a) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words 'Subject to subsection (3A) of this section,"; and

    (b)".

    Government amendment (b) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 126, line 17, at end insert—
    '(5) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—
    "(3A) Where—

    (a) any compensation is payable for any year by virtue of this section in respect of any holding, and

    (b) the amount of that compensation falls to be calculated in accordance with section 18 of this Act by reference to the market value of rights which, if the compulsory rights order were not in force, could not be conferred for that year or any part of it except by or with the consent of one or more persons who are included in the persons directly concerned but do not fall within subsection (3) of this section,

    the entitlement to that compensation shall be apportioned, according to the extent to which those rights could not be conferred for that year or part of a year without their participation or consent, between those persons and any person falling within that subsection.
    (3B) Subject to subsection (3C) of this section, the persons entitled under subsection (3A) of this section to a share of any compensation shall include persons whose participation in or consent to the conferring of any right would be required if the right were conferred at some time after the beginning of the year or part of a year in question; and any apportionment under subsection (3A) of this section shall take account of the length of the period for which any person is, during that year or part of a year, a person without whose participation or consent any right could not be conferred.

    713
    (3C) No person shall be entitled under subsection (3A) of this section to any share of any compensation in respect of any such easement or right as might give rise to an entitlement to compensation under section 31 of this Act."
    (6) Subsection (4) of that section shall cease to have effect.
    (7) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) above shall not apply in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed before the restructuring date.

    Calculation of compensation
    15A. In relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date the following section shall be substituted for section 18, that is to say—

    Calculation of compensation under section 17
    18.—(1) The compensation payable for any year in respect of a holding to which section 17 of this Act applies shall be a sum equal to the annual borrowing cost for that year of the market value of the rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in relation to the holding.
    (2) For the purposes of this section the market value of any rights conferred by a compulsory rights order shall be equal to the amount which, as at the date of entry, would (apart from the order) represent the fair market price, as between willing and independent parties, for the grant of those rights by a person entitled to grant them and for the period for which the order is to have effect.
    (3) In calculating for the purposes of this section the fair market price for the grant of any rights, due allowance shall be made for any entitlement to compensation which may arise, otherwise than by virtue of section 17, under any of the provisions of this Act.
    (4) For the purposes of this section the annual borrowing cost for any year of any amount ('the market price') is the aggregate sum which would fall to be paid in that year by way of payments of interest and re-payments of capital if the market price had been borrowed on the date of entry on terms which—

    (a) required interest to be paid and capital to be repaid by way of the relevant number of equal annual instalments; and

    (b) provided for interest on outstanding capital to become due immediately before the time for the payment of each instalment, at an annual rate equal, as at the entry date, to the rate prescribed under section 35(8) of this Act;

    and in this subsection 'the relevant number' means the number of years for which, when it was confirmed, the compulsory rights order was to have effect.
    (5) Nothing in section 17 of this Act or this section shall confer any entitlement to compensation in respect, of the annual borrowing cost of—

    (a) any amount representing the value of any person's interest in coal, or

    (b) any amount representing the value of any opportunity arising by virtue of an interest or right in or in relation to any land to obtain or make use of any rights to win, work or get any coal

    (6) Where the period for which a compulsory rights order is to have effect is extended under this Act, section 17 of this Act and this section shall have effect in relation to the additional period as if the rights conferred for that period had been conferred by a new compulsory rights order."
    15B. Sections 19 and 20 (additional annual compensation and special compensation for cost of removal) shall not have effect in relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date.'.
    Amendment to Government amendment (b) in lieu, leave out new section 15A and insert—

    Calculation of compensation
    15A. In relation to any compulsory rights order confirmed on or after the restructuring date the following section shall be substituted for section 18, that is to say—

    Calculation of compensation under section 17
    18.—(1) The compensation payable for any year in respect of a holding to which section 17 of this Act applies
    714
    shall be a sum equal to the annual borrowing cost for that year of the market value of the rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in relation to the holding.
    (2) For the purposes of this section the market value of any rights conferred by a compulsory rights order shall be equal to the amount which, as at the date of entry, would (apart from the order) represent the fair market price, as between willing and independent parties, for the grant of those rights by a person entitled to grant them and for the period for which the order is to have effect.
    (3)(a) In calculating for the purposes of this section the fair market price for the grant of any rights, regard shall be had to any entitlement to compensation which may arise, otherwise than by virtue of section 17, under any of the provisions of this Act.
    (b) Where the holding is subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, the fair market price shall be calculated on the assumption that the holding is available for occupation with possession and in any such case the fair market price shall be apportioned between the freeholder and the tenant according to the respective value of their interests.
    (4) For the purposes of this section the annual borrowing cost for any year of any amount ("the market price") is the aggregate sum would fall to be paid in that year by way of payments of interest and repayments of capital if the market price had been borrowed on the date of entry on terms which—

    (a) required interest to be paid and capital to be repaid by way of the relevant number of equal annual instalments; and

    (b) provided for interest on outstanding capital to become due immediately before the time for the payment of each instalment, at an annual rate equal, as at the date of payment, to the rate prescribed under section 35(8) of this Act;

    and in this subsection "the relevant number" means the number of years for which, when it was confirmed, the compulsory rights order was to have effect.
    (5) Nothing in section 17 of this Act shall confer any entitlement to compensation in respect of the annual borrowing cost of any amount representing the value of any person's interest in coal.
    (6) Where the period for which a compulsory rights order is to have effect—

    (a) is extended under this Act, section 178 of this Act and this section shall have effect in relation to the additional period as if the rights conferred for that period had been conferred by a new compulsory rights order; or

    (b) is terminated at an earlier date than the end of the period for which the order was made for any reason, the outstanding payments of the annual borrowing cost, being the outstanding repayments of capital and the payment of interest calculated in accordance with subsection (4)(b) of this section, shall become payable on the date of early termination.".'.

    Government amendments (c) to (m) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
    Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 48 and No. 50.
    Mr. Eggar: It is important to put the amendments in the right perspective. We are not discussing whether particular opencast developments are acceptable; that is a matter for the planning system.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends recognise the concerns that have arisen about such developments and their environmental impact. As the House will know, Ministers have been reviewing the planning guidance—mineral planning guidance note 3—and have conducted a wide-ranging public consultation exercise. This afternoon, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced his intention—in the light of the responses that he has received—of removing the reference to the national interest in MPG3.

    715
    I am sure that that announcement will be widely welcomed, and I consider it a useful clarification which will help to ensure that the guidance incorporated in what has up to now been MPG3 is seen to be fair by all parties. My colleagues will finalise the guidance as soon as possible.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister for alluding to answers given this afternoon. Presumably he means the answers given to two questions on the Order Paper. Can he —through his officials or his parliamentary private secretary—ensure that hon. Members can at least have sight of the answers, which must have been published by now and must be in the building somewhere, during the debate? This is clearly an issue central to the discussion that will follow over the next hour or so.
    Mr. Eggar: I shall do my best to ensure that hon. Members have the text. The answer was given at 3.30 pm in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).
    Mr. Hardy: If the reference to the national interest is to be removed from MPG3, why do we have to maintain until the end of the decade the right compulsorily to acquire other people's land for the purposes of opencast mining? Presumably that right was introduced in what the Minister regards as the national interest. If the Government have recognised that the national interest has changed and are removing reference to it from MPG3, why do we have to go ahead with the compulsory purchase of private land by private business? It is completely hostile to the principles that are supposed to motivate Conservative Members.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall address those issues as the debate moves on.
    Mr. Gunnell: I understand that there has been a press release this afternoon. It might be helpful if hon. Members could see the comments that have been made, as they may range a little wider than the answer to the parliamentary question.
    Mr. Eggar: I shall do what I can to ensure that the text of the answer is available. It might be for the convenience of the House if I try to make arrangements for it to be placed in the Vote Office. I apologise for its non-availability. I understand the concern.
    Lords amendment No. 37 provides for compensation based on market values. We have accepted the principle that lies behind that amendment, but we have sought to table a practical and effective replacement for it.
    Our replacement amendment makes it absolutely clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the assessment of market value must be based on the fact that the nation owns the coal. We believe that the amendment should not in any way transfer the value of the coal to the landowner either directly or indirectly. Our view on that is absolutely clear.
    That is why we have some reservations about the amendment to our amendment (b) in lieu, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The effect of the omission of subsection (5)(b) of our amendment is to transfer a considerable amount of the value of the coal to the landowner. We have always made it clear in
    716
    discussions on this issue that the coal belongs to the nation and not the landowner. Although we have always been open to discussions about a fair market value for the surface land, we have not been willing to discuss, as part of the Bill, the transfer of the value of the coal to the landowners.
    Other differences between the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside and for Harborough relate to the way in which the annual payments are calculated. We have gone for a fixed rate of interest rather than a variable rate. We think that that is more straightforward. Given that the average length of time involved in such activities is about six or seven years, that is not an unreasonable approach. Sometimes landowners will gain, and sometimes they will lose, as the variable rate rises and falls.
    Another minor difference is that we have used the words "due allowance". The amendment tabled by my hon. Friends uses the words, "regard shall be had". Our calculation is much more precise.
    It might be helpful if I put on record a number of important aspects. It is important to know that compensation will not be paid in respect of any interest in the coal simply because, as I have said, the landowner does not own it. It is firmly established that the coal in the ground, just like petroleum and some other special minerals, belongs not to the landowner but to the nation. That must be material to the determination of the market value of rights to occupy land for the purposes of coal extraction.
    Equally, no compensation will be payable for any opportunity to win work or get coal arising as a result of interest in or ownership of the land. That is a straightforward consequence of the fact that the landowners do not own the coal. To do otherwise would devalue the ownership of the coal and could transfer a significant part of its value to the landowner. That part of our amendment is consistent with the principles established by the important decision of BP v. Ryder in 1988. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred to that in a previous debate.
    There has been some discussion about whether the move towards a market value approach for compensation is likely to be more beneficial to the landowner. The annual payments under the existing code take account only of the existing use of the land, whereas the market value determined on the principles of the amendment would be capable of taking into account any alternative use of the land other than coal extraction, in so far as the alternatives might reasonably be thought to affect the market price of the rights to use the land.
    The result of the move towards the market price is that we have lost some certainty. In reality, the compensation that is determined in individual cases may be better than under the old system, or it could be the same or may even be worse. That will now be a matter for the market valuation of those rights as determined in the light of the principles that I have outlined.
    It is clear that the Government do not accept the amendments passed in the other place that relate to compulsory rights orders. Contrary to the view held by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), we believe that compulsory rights orders are properly controlled in that they are subject to the agreement of the Coal Authority. As an individual operator, one cannot insist on a CRO without

    717
    the agreement of the Secretary of State. That must be the right way forward. The CROs come to the end of their period automatically in five years. In the meantime we have agreed to undertake a joint valuation, together with other minerals, to consider the way forward.
    The short answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth is that, if we do not have CROs in place, the existing right of the state to own the coal could be negated by a landowner who refused all reasonable offers to exploit his coal. I say "all reasonable offers" because of the severe restrictions on the CROs.
    Mr. Clapham: The Minister talked about CROs running for the next five years. As he knows, the capacity of the deep mines is such that they can easily fulfil their contracts with the two generators. So why is there a need to maintain a capacity of 17 million tonnes of opencast mining when we should be looking to decrease that capacity to no more than 5 million tonnes? Surely, if we did that, there would be no need for CROs.
    Mr. Eggar: Future projections of the level of opencasting are critically affected by the need to acquire planning permission, which has always been the effective regulator of opencasting. I am not caricaturing the debate in which the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and others have been involved, but they see the planning procedure as the regulator of the amount of opencast mining. [Interruption.] Some activity on the Opposition Benches suggests that the answer to the question has been circulated.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: The Minister says that it is for the planning authority to give guidance and, in effect, be the policeman of planning applications, but the planning authorities refuse many applications, only for them to be granted on appeal by the Secretary of State, particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland. It seems that applicants are given a nod and wink and told, "If you don't get it passed by the local authority, it will be passed by the Secretary of State." That is no way to run a country, and certainly no way to run the coal industry.
    Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the outcome of some appeals. I do not have the statistics at my fingertips, but a considerable number of appeals are turned down. Most hon. Members, if not all, accept that we must have an appeal mechanism. They like the system when an appeal favours their constituents. but dislike it if the decision goes the other way.
    The important thing is the change in MPG3—an area that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, as a fair man, will recognise that we have addressed in the national interest.
    I hope that I have described the reasoning behind the Government's amendments, why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends does not meet with our agreement and why we do not feel able to agree with the Lords amendment on CROs.
    Mr. O'Neill: We thought that amendment No. 37 would enhance the Bill as it would go some way towards allowing deep mines to compete fairly with opencast by ensuring that opencast operators paid full compensation when obtaining compulsory rights orders to extract coal against a landowner's wish.
    The criteria on which compensation should be based were not those adumbrated by the Minister, that somehow
    718
    landowners have a claim of right to ownership of the coal—that is vested in the nation, which we accept—but, first, where a loss to business carried out on the land would arise; secondly, where other values resulting from undisturbed ownership of the land such as amenity and sporting use would be endangered; and, thirdly, that account should be taken of disturbance caused by opencast mining, including dust, noise and general disruption. As drafted, amendment No. 37 covered those factors by referring to the market price paid by operators for access to similar sites and the price paid by operators to obtain access to land on the same site owned by other landowners. Without such compensation, there is less incentive to reach an amicable settlement with landowners, and opencast coal production is given artificial assistance in production which is denied to other mineral extraction processes, including deep coal mining.
    You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a fair degree of cynicism surrounding the planning mechanism. We all know how, times without number, opencast developers have made applications in the certain knowledge that if they do not win with the local authority they will certainly win with the Minister, and that even if the application goes to a public inquiry the Minister will find in favour of opencasting. In some respects, it must be said that the national interest provision of MPG3 was largely meaningless and perhaps not the best way of proceeding.
    5.45 pm
    The Government say that somehow Lords amendment No. 37, which commended itself to Cross Benchers, the Opposition and the serried ranks of landowners, is unworkable and that therefore the Government amendments are necessary. They say that compensation should not be available for general disturbance. Many of my constituents have had to put up with opencast mining and have considerable experience of the disturbance caused by dust, noise and general disruption. Such disturbance often arises from the carte blanche that is offered by ministerial diktat to insist that opencast mining goes on and that no provision is made for the legitimate concerns that local authorities would seek to reflect in a qualified acceptance of a planning application. A local authority may choose not to reject an application out of hand but to impose controls that we would regard as a reasonable defence of people's rights, yet we are told that such controls are not necessary as they cover matters of a different character. We do not accept that that recognises the ownership of the coal by landowners. We recognise that in some instances compulsory rights orders will be necessary.
    Under amendment No. 38, we recognise that they might be necessary for large operations and for markets that cannot be satisfied from another source. Coal mines adjacent to electricity power stations produce coal that needs some form of sweetening which can come only from other sources. More of our deep mines are being closed, for whatever reason, thereby denying access to reserves of coal with the sweetening potential. On occasions, it will be necessary to have certain opencast development. We do not rule out opencasting completely, but it must be subject to the most stringent conditions possible. That is the thrust of amendment No. 38. A landowner who has refused a reasonable offer for access to coal should have the chance

    719
    to protest, but we would not wish opencast to have an advantage over deep mining where all other things were equal.
    The two amendments address several concerns that have been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. There have been repeated references to and discussion of opencast, the problems that it creates and the difficulties that we have encountered with it in our own areas. Indeed, those concerns found a ready echo in the dying moments of Report stage, just before Third Reading, when Conservative Members almost rebelled. They went as close as they could to the brink, but then they fell back on their own side, into the arms of the Government. They had tabled the amendments, but we had to move them because they chickened out at the last moment. It would appear that this evening, at or even beyond the last hour—the amendment is starred and might not have been selected —another attempt is being made. Yet so far as I can see, one of the Conservative Members whose name is attached to the amendment is not even in the Chamber. I am sure that he realises that we have reached the appropriate stage in the handling of the Bill and that he ought to be in his place, but he still has not arrived.
    We regret the Government's approach. We think that the House of Lords achieved a substantial improvement to the Bill which would have afforded a degree of protection far greater than the sop offered today by the Secretary of State for the Environment. We believe that opencasting will be a continuing and accelerating problem in the months and years ahead, especially with a regulatory authority as weak as the Coal Authority to look after this country's coal reserves.
    For that reason, we oppose the Government's intention to disregard the Lords amendments and we give notice that at the appropriate time we shall go into the Lobby to resist it.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The rudeness of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) does him no credit, especially as my hon. Friend may well support much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. That is not the hon. Gentleman's best point. I should explain to him that my hon. Friend has been chairing two Committee sittings this afternoon. He has been to the Door of the House, but owing to other commitments he has been unable to be here, so I am afraid that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and other hon. Members will have to listen to me instead for a moment or two.
    Mr. O'Neill: No gratuitous offence was intended, but it is up to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) to establish his own sense of priorities. On an issue of such significance, and at this stage in the passage of the Bill, I should have thought that his priorities would lie here rather than elsewhere.
    Mr. Garnier: I shall not detain the House further by having a spat with the hon. Gentleman across the Floor of the House. I want to advance some arguments rather than to have a row, because those may produce some answers from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, a man whose integrity and intellect I respect and admire.
    I shall deal briefly with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside and myself to the Government amendment. It suggests a
    720
    different form for new clause 15A. My first argument is about our proposed new subsection (3)(b) which, as hon. Members will see, would constitute an addition to the Government amendment. I shall not read it out, because it is on the amendment paper, but I shall explain why my hon. Friend and I—and, I dare say, others—find it of importance.
    We note that the Government have still not addressed the concern for landlords where the holding is let. At present the compensation is due to the person who occupies the surface for farming—that is to say, the tenant—yet the compensation covers greater losses and interests in the land. A reference should be made to ensure that the market value is assessed on the basis of vacant possession, to recognise all interests and to apportion between the landlord and the tenant in relation to their interests. As I have opened my remarks in that way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will not surprise you to hear that I am a co-opted member of the Rutland and Leicestershire committee of the Country Landowners Association, and sit on its parliamentary and legal sub-committee in London.
    My second point relates to the proposed new subsection (4)(b), which deals with interest. Our complaint here—or at least, our concern—is that for compulsory rights orders covering seven years or more, the imposition of a fixed rate of interest from the outset could work unfairly. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister dealt with that problem to some extent, but when the market value is to be repaid in instalments over several years the payments should reflect the arrangements that the owner may have made following the making of the order. We suggest that interest should be paid at the rate prevailing at the time of each instalment.
    My next point relates to our proposed new subsection (6). Again, I shall not read it out as it is on the amendment paper, but one can see that it is an enlarged version of the corresponding part of the Government amendment. Our complaint is that provision should be made for all outstanding sums to be paid if the order is ended early for any reason. In the open market the parties would accept such provision in their freely negotiated agreement, but that does not happen under the compulsory rights orders arrangements in the Bill. We suggest that the arrangements should be incorporated into the Bill to ensure that the person against whom the order is made is paid the full market value of the rights.
    I now come to what may be the most contentious aspect of our proposals—our rewriting of the proposed new subsection (5). Our amendment sought to remove the Government's proposed new subsection (5)(b), which refers to
    "any amount representing the value of any opportunity arising by virtue of an interest or right in or in relation to any land to obtain or make use of any rights to win, work or get any coal."
    That flows from the preamble in subsection (5):
    "Nothing in section 17 of this Act or this section shall confer any entitlement to compensation in respect of the annual borrowing cost".
    I have a preliminary point to make about that: the English in proposed new subsection (5)(b) is impenetrable. I have been at the Bar since 1976, and a Member of the House for a little more than two years, and I suggest that the time has come for Parliament to pass legislation capable of being understood at a glance. It should not require the assistance of hot towels and hot drinks to disentangle the English. That piece of English is appalling, and the Minister would do well to ask for it to be clarified.

    721
    By way of background, I refer the House to what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, Lord Strathclyde, said on Report in another place when dealing with the various sorts of compensation orders and the Government's attitude to compensation:
    "One other obvious category of potentially reasonable request from the landowner would be for better compensation for disturbance. There may be some kind of disturbance which would be caused by the proposed workings and which is particular to the case. A request for extra compensation in such circumstances might well be reasonable. In fact, I believe that it would be eminently reasonable."
    Here I interpose to say that I wholeheartedly agree. The noble Lord continued:
    "A further factor I would mention is the possibility of alternative uses for the land. If the landowner has a good case that, but for the opencast development, he would be able to go ahead with a different kind of development he would naturally seek greater compensation. I believe that this is sometimes called 'hope' value.
    I do not think that it would necessarily be unreasonable for the landowner to seek compensation enhanced by the 'hope' value of the land, although of course everything will turn on how realistic those hopes may be. But all these matters would have to be considered in the particular circumstances, and what I have said must be taken to be just an indication of what may be relevant matters."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1569–70.]
    Unless I am being deeply obtuse, it appears that the Government's attitude to that aspect of the Bill has changed somewhat since it left the other place.
    There is no dispute between the Government and myself over proposed new subsection (5)(a); the exclusion of the coal is understood. However, the assessment of the proper market value must take account of the purpose for which the order is made, and the physical effects of the exercise of all the rights, including the operations undertaken on the land. In other words, the assessment of value must take full account of the matters set out in sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the Opencast Coal Act 1958.
    I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Gelling (Mr. Mitchell) is here. The factors set out in our proposed subsection (4)(b) would be taken into account by operators seeking access by negotiation, as they are supposed to do in the free and open market. To exclude such provisions will again disadvantage those who are subject to an order for the use of their land. We suggest that in an ideal world the Government's proposed subsection (5)(b) should be deleted.
    6 pm
    Lords amendment No. 38 is most important. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have said that compulsory rights orders would be available only in the last resort and that an operator would have to show that an owner of an interest in the land had been unreasonable in refusing to negotiate the terms he had sought. There has been no requirement on an operator for him to show that there is a need for the coal under the land. The wish to work the coal appears to be enough.
    The basis for compulsory rights orders is partly set out in the Coal Authority explanatory note. Amendment No. 38 seeks to impose strict conditions on the power to grant a compulsory rights order. Most important is the need to show that the relevant coal is needed to fill a market that cannot be met from elsewhere. If there is no need for a deposit of coal to be worked other than to profit the coal mining company, it cannot be right for any person to have
    722
    his interest in the occupation of the surface confiscated from him. If there is no need for the coal and access cannot be negotiated, the company should look elsewhere.
    If the Government cannot accept the amendment, surely it would be right to firm up the policy set out on page 29 of the explanatory note to make it clear that the powers are of last resort and that there is a duty on the operator to show that it would be reasonably necessary for the coal to be worked. It should be made clear that the owner can take all such steps as would normally be taken to obtain security in the performance of the obligations under the CRO.
    Those are important issues which have not been set out adequately or clearly by the Government during the passage of the Bill. For the future benefit of those affected or those involved in the coal mining industry, these matters should be spelt out in the Bill or in the explanatory note. As my parting shot, I invite the Minister to see whether he can apply his mind and those of his officials to the need to firm up the explanatory note to make matters clearer. It is not my job to embarrass the Government and I do not intend to force my difficulties or dissensions to the vote. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind the landed interests of this country. They are the bedrock, in so many respects, of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Redmond: When speaking on an earlier amendment, the Minister said that he had heard it all before, time and again. He could probably say the same about Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 38. However, if he had taken heed of what was said earlier, there would not have been so many Lords amendments. The tragedy is that the Government have refused to listen to Opposition Members when they have sought to give guidance and to protect the national interest.
    This debate concerns landowners, but does that include people with gardens adjacent to roads that will be blighted as a result of heavy lorries moving along them if planning permission is given?
    The Minister said that coal belonged to the nation. That is rich coming from a Government who have sterilised millions of tonnes of coal underground and who appear to be going for opencast, which is environmentally unacceptable. In my constituency, there is a piece of land that may be used for opencast. It is owned by British Coal and rented out to farmers. I would never want that piece of land to be used for opencast, irrespective of any amount of compensation given. The area has been blighted for many years as a result of coal mining activities. I hope that the Minister will take note of that point in relation to the amendments.
    We asked earlier about the importation of coal. If we cut coal imports as well as the amount of opencast, there would be less need to talk about compensation as we could go back to extracting coal from the deep mines to which we are geared and for which we have the skills.
    What is the interest of the general public? We talk about compensation for landowners, but we do not talk about compensation for the general public who will suffer as a result of the noise and pollution caused by heavy lorries. Will local authorities be compensated as they have to maintain the roads? The side roads and country lanes were not built for heavy vehicles, so they will obviously fall into disrepair. Landowners move from A to B along country lanes, so it is perfectly proper for the Government to consider the depreciation in the standard of roads when opencast takes place.

    723
    I thank the Minister for making available to hon. Members the answers to two questions given by one of his ministerial colleagues. I hope that the Minister can clarify the following point. A local authority may have said in its long-term development plan that no opencast extraction will be allowed. Does the answer imply that if the local authority's long-term plan does not include opencast, opencast will be debarred for ever and a day? I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point. The answer also refers to proper protection for the environment. Does that mean protection for the public who live adjacent to opencast mining sites?
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 38. The Minister for Local Government and Planning made an announcement, which the Minister for Energy brought to the House. That announcement will be welcomed. I am grateful to the Minister's parliamentary private secretary for circulating copies of the answers displayed upstairs and in the Library at 3.30 pm. We do not yet have the new guidelines but today we have a trailer which deals with the one issue that was extremely controversial. It came up often in debates in which widespread opposition was voiced.
    I know that there is also widespread opposition in the country. I have realised, when I have been in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, that the biggest single point that the local community groups campaigning against opencast have always argued is that their local applications should not be decided on a notional definition of the national interest. That point has come out in the advance notice of the guidelines, which we shall get in July. I welcome that.
    A nuance in the announcement suggests that the Government did not think that that point altered the basis of planning decisions. I must say, looking at the guidelines as they were before, understanding the way in which inspectors work and seeing the way in which decisions were arrived at, that it was always possible for somebody to say that a national interest was involved, and that it did not matter how environmentally destructive opencast mining was, how good the quality of the agricultural land was or how much it would impact on the villagers. It is like the argument for nuclear power stations. I welcome those guidelines going.
    The case for amendments Nos. 37 and 38 has been put simply and I want to reinforce it with two statements of principle and then specifically address the reason why I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, accept the amendments. I realise that he comes here with his brief written by his civil servants, that the President of the Board of Trade has told him to stand by the brief and that his discretion may be limited at this stage. However, I hope that he is a Minister of sufficient longevity in the Department of Trade and Industry—indeed, this may be his last opportunity—to show that he has the authority to throw away the brief and to say, "I have decided that the amendment carried with all-party support in the Lords, and moved from the Cross Benches, is an amendment to support." I challenge the Minister to stand up to the President of the Board of Trade and the civil service and to back the all-party coalition in the other place behind the amendment.
    724
    Clearly, the amendment was a good thing. We should remember that somebody could have said, no matter what the owner of the land wanted to do, "We shall override you and insist on the land being used for opencasting." Amendment No. 38 says:
    "A compulsory rights order shall not be made or confirmed unless it is shown that it has not proved practicable to obtain the right by private arrangement because the owner has acted unreasonably and that"
    —there is a second condition—
    "the coal in the relevant land is required to supply a market which cannot adequately be met from other sources which are currently being worked or capable of being worked where a coal-mining company has secured all the relevant planning consents and has required the necessary interests in land, and"
    —a third condition—
    "the amount of marketable coal to be extracted as a result of the rights order being made exceeds 250,000 tonnes".
    There are also alternatives to that. The Government, as has been said from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), in the place of Lord Strathclyde in the other place, effectively said that the position as outlined in the amendment was perfectly reasonable and that they were willing to undertake it. This is another example of Opposition Members trying to hold the position attained by the Lords, which has said that it is not happy with the undertaking, that it wants something written into the Bill, and that it wants it to be clear—hon. Members are saying amen to that.
    Those of us who want to see amendment No. 38 retained believe that it is wrong for legislation to permit land to be compulsorily acquired. I heard what the Minister said and I accept, understand and appreciate that we are talking about the land and not about the mineral rights. Ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and I came to the House, in 1983—during that time we have both done our spokesmenship jobs on these issues—we have made it absolutely clear that we believe in coal remaining a Crown asset and a national asset and in it not being sold off. So there is no dissent between the Government Front-Bench spokesmen and us on that point.
    However, we argue that there should be other conditions. First, one must ensure that, if there has been a reasonable reaction by the owner of the land, if he says that it is needed for agriculture, that there is a long-term agricultural programme or that it is high-grade agricultural land, or if it includes on its edge a site of special scientific interest or is part of an area of outstanding natural beauty, that should be taken into account.
    6.15 pm
    Secondly, and most importantly—this is where we reach the national test from the other side—a compulsory rights order cannot be permitted when the argument is made that the land is not needed for opencasting because the market can be met from other sources. The argument that has been made over and again from this side of the House and that was made in the previous debate from the Tory Benches—
    Mr. Eggar: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that precise wording "met from other sources" could mean from imports? Therefore, since all grades of coal can be imported, the effect of the amendment which he is supporting would be that compulsory rights orders could never, in practice, be implemented.
    Mr. Hughes: The answer to the Minister's specific question is yes, of course it means from imports. When his

    725
    noble Friend in the other place said that he gave an undertaking that that was, indeed, the attitude that the Government would adopt, he clearly believed that that was a valid position to take. The debate in Nottinghamshire, in south Yorkshire, south of Leeds or in west Glamorgan, or in other places, about opencast mining would be relevant if the question was whether they would prefer the land to be ripped up or the coal to be imported. If that is the debate, let us have it.
    Of course, it has to be a market which cannot be met adequately from other sources. For example, the best anthracite coal is from the Betws colliery in south-west Wales. Therefore, it could not be met adequately from other sources because the best source of that quality of coal is underground coal from an underground pit. If the planning inspector or the adjudicator were asked to rule—
    Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister shakes his head, but that is exactly the case. One could have an evaluation of whether it was possible that the coal could be provided from elsewhere. The argument, put simply, is that it is often in the interests of the exploiter—the company—to go in and take opencast coal. However, first, there are plenty of pits underground which we ought to be using before that; secondly, opencast produces little work and little employment; and, thirdly, it results in such environmental destruction that often, for decades if not for ever, that countryside cannot be returned to its original quality and state.
    The argument about whether we have deep-mined coal, imported coal or opencast coal involves the way in which we protect acres and entire sectors of the country from being at risk, as they still are, from opencasting. We know, because British Coal has made no secret about it, that ii has designs on huge amounts of remaining open land in certain areas of the country. The plans are there, many of us have seen them and we know how many parts of our country are under threat. We believe that, to protect what was accepted in the House on both sides—I repeat on both sides—and by many Conservative Members, which was pushed almost to the point of rebellion, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan said, in the hope that it would be won in the Lords, we must accept the amendment. One of the most destructive forms of environmental degradation, endorsed by the Select Committees, is opencast mining. We either have to say that we believe in a mining industry and in supporting it and use the existing mining resources or we say that we are not worried about environmental destruction and, therefore, it may all be opencast in future.
    The Government have gone far enough down the road of closing the pits and of not making use of the best assets that exist underground. Some of us want the Government to be firm and to say that they are prepared further to countenance that, as an alternative, the country be left open to rape, ravage and violation—often, it cannot be put right—in the interests of cheap coal. I urge the Minister to use his authority, to stand up for the environment and to ensure, at last, that we support what was agreed on both sides of the House in the other place a couple of weeks ago.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall be extremely brief and I shall try to confine my remarks to within two or three minutes. I declare an interest, as a
    726
    member of the Country Landowners Association, that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the land in which I have an interest is coal-bearing.
    Obviously, I support the principle of privatisation, but if anyone is in any doubt at all about the sheer devastation of the countryside that opencast mining can cause, he should look at the speech made in the other place by Viscount Ridley, who spelled the position out very clearly. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also touched on that point.
    As for coal supply, when there is an emergency such as a war, it is obvious that we must have an Act like the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1918, and that of 1920. Unfortunately, those measures were incorporated into the Opencast Coal Act 1958. As the Minister has said, compulsory powers have rarely been used by either the Coal Board or British Coal. I am therefore extremely surprised to see them being made available to the private sector. While huge devastation to the countryside might be acceptable at a time of national crisis or when there is a critical coal shortage, it is certainly not acceptable when there is a world surplus in coal. Furthermore, the production of coal does not need special compulsory powers any more than the production of any other mineral.
    The Minister in another place talked about the last resort and negotiations. When negotiations are taking place between a private operator and a landlord or a farmer, how can those negotiations be free and fair when, as Viscount Ridley pointed out, there is the sword of Damocles—the compulsory rights order—hanging over the landlord? Can the Minister comment on that?
    I am concerned about the five-year period for the operation of the compulsory rights order. Surely, when a time scale is put on such an operation, there is frenetic activity during the last few months or weeks of the operation. The danger is that some of the larger private mining operators, such as Budge and Hanson, will want to ensure that they get the areas of potential opencast mining sorted out. There may well be intense negotiations, which would not be free and fair.
    We are talking about a fundamental principle. Whereas it might make sense for compulsory powers to be vested in the state vis-a-vis a private operator, surely it does not make sense that those compulsory powers be carried over to a private operator. An important principle is at stake. The Lords amendments recognised—reluctantly—that compulsory rights orders could continue, but they wanted to tilt the balance more in favour of landowners. That is why I am sympathetic to them, and that is why I would like the Minister to answer those specific points.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have participated in previous debates on opencast mining. I have said this before and I shall say it again: it does not matter what the Government do—they intend to dig as much opencast coal as they can get their hands on, especially in the north-east of England. If one lives in a Tory constituency, or if one is a Tory Member, one may get away with an appeal if one gets the ear of the President of the Board of Trade. However, if one lives in my constituency, which has never won an appeal, or in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) or of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), one cannot win an appeal about opencast mining. Whatever is on the table does not make a blind bit of difference.

    727
    In Northumberland, we have applications galore. Indeed, at the last count, the county council had at least 15 applications for opencast mining. It goes beyond the imagination when one thinks that the Government are trying to convince us and the people out there that they are restricting opencast mining. I should like to hear hon. Members talk about the need for coal and the country's coal needs. It is not a question of what the country needs.
    I know what the entrepreneurs who want to opencast will do with the coal: they will export it. They will put it on ships. A ship takes opencast coal abroad from my town. That is what the entrepreneurs will do with the coal. They are coming to this country because opencast coal is cheap. That is the idea.
    I do not believe for one moment that this or any other amendment will make any difference to opencast mining and the Government's intention to restrict it. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, the Government will rape and pillage wherever they can get the coal. Indeed, they would dig up my back garden if they thought that they could make a quick buck. That is the trouble with the Government.
    I shall refer briefly to Ellington colliery because it has been mentioned with regard to deep mining. Ellington is the only colliery left in the north-east. We hope that it will reopen. We think that it will because the entrepreneurs have made a bid for not only the colliery but the opencast that surrounds the colliery. That raises a good question.
    At present, Ellington colliery has two faces that could be manned and in production within a fortnight. Another face could be won out quickly and away within a matter of months. We also have the undersea reserves and the Amble seam with millions of tonnes of reserves. I must ask the entrepreneurs who are bidding for the colliery and the Minister whether the Amble seam will be developed. Will it simply be a case of raping the colliery, selling off its assets and then handing over the opencast mine so that it can be used, as was the original intention? If that is the case, it would be much better to shut the colliery and pull it to the ground, as the Government have done with every other colliery. That is what I believe the Government and the entrepreneurs are about. In Northumberland, all they are interested in is opencast mining—I shall be proved right before too long.
    Mr. Hardy: I shall try to be brief, not least because the Minister has heard me speak on this subject on numerous occasions. However, there are some important points to make.
    In the coalfield areas, there is bitterness because coal will be locked away for ever and our pits closed prematurely when two or three miles away someone will come along and make a considerable nuisance of himself on an opencast mining project that might take 10 years. We are talking about huge civil engineering exercises.
    I have supported, and will continue to support, opencast mining where the dereliction that it causes does not present an appalling nuisance to people who happen to live in close proximity to the site. Any hon. Members who look at areas to the east of Sheffield will see some superb sites which have been opencast for the benefit of the local community. The exercise did not cause an enormous nuisance to the community.
    728
    In some parts of the country—my area is one—there are attractive green-field areas and substantial coal reserves which are accessible for opencast mining. However, opencast mining can take place in those areas only if it causes an enormous nuisance to people in the vicinity. We are talking about the capacity to go very deep. I believe that the deepest opencast mining site in the British Isles today is about 850 ft. Such a project must operate on a considerable scale and exist for perhaps 10 years. After the war, there were opencast mining schemes in my area which went down to 250 ft. We marvelled at that; we used to go and look at them. The area looks rather nice 50 years later, but farmers cannot grow root crops there. The range of agricultural activity is still, and will for ever be, restricted. I discussed this matter with farmers in my constituency only a couple of weeks ago.
    I must ask the Minister to go a little further about the parliamentary answer that we were kindly given this afternoon. We have been given an assurance that such schemes will not go ahead unless they are environmentally acceptable—but environmentally acceptable to whom? Reference has been made to landowners, but who has made reference to local residents? If a landowner in my constituency decides that he will not sell his land or allow opencast mining to take place in response to the representations of his neighbours, who do not want to bear the banging, noise, nuisance and dust of an opencast operation, will he be regarded as acting unco-operatively or unreasonably?
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Some of the landowners in my constituency are trying to use opencast as part of the set-aside scheme that the Ministry of Agriculture operates. Opencasting is being promoted as a way of filling the quota of arable land taken out of production. Despite opposition from the whole community, opencasting will be allowed on green belt land. It is a serious problem, in which Government Departments are colluding so as to obtain benefits under the common agricultural policy. In that collusion, environmental matters are put completely to one side and the short-term gains from reaching targets for set-aside are put first. Unless the Minister gives a clear commitment that inspectors will not be allowed to use set-aside as an excuse, there will be large-scale, long-term opencasting in areas of high agricultural production for the purposes of taking land out of agricultural production at the expense of the environment and the community.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Hardy: I am delighted that I was able to give my hon. Friend the opportunity to make that point. I should have thought that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not allow people to gain a double benefit by obtaining a set-aside grant as well as money from opencast mining. That would seem to be a fairly simple thing and one which even this Government could control.
    My hon. Friend might like to know that during the Minister's speech the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) kindly gave out the answer to a question of enormous significance. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I again ask the Minister what is meant by the phrase "environmentally acceptable"? Does it mean what I hope that it means? Does it mean that the project has to be environmentally acceptable to the local community and the local authority? Does it mean that the Minister will no

    729
    longer overturn local authority planning refusals for opencast mining? I am delighted by this development. I wonder whether there is a slight chance that the suggestion that I made in Committee had some influence.
    At the time of the Committee proceedings and subsequently, I contacted the British Geological Survey and asked a number of questions to establish where coal reserves were. I wanted to point out that opencast mining might not be entirely restricted to existing coalfields in future. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) blandly said that there was no coal in Norfolk. However, there are coal reserves along, and close to, the Norfolk coast. I am not sure where the boundary of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is, but perhaps he will not be there to defend it should someone come along to extract the coal.
    I must tell the Minister that I took great care to find out whether there was any coal in the area around the home or constituency of the President of the Board of Trade. If there was, a number of people might be eager to set up a company, to be known as the Henley Opencast Mining Company, and to apply to Henley local authority to serve a compulsory purchase order on the President of the Board of Trade so that he could have the opportunity to experience the dust, noise and degradation that might well follow that exercise.
    Unfortunately, at this point, I have been unable to find any viable coal reserves in Henley. However, those researches led me to establish that in the green-field areas in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Oxfordshire and the constituency of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, there are such reserves. Perhaps the Minister's colleagues have taken the view that they had better insert the phrase "environmentally acceptable" in the Bill. I welcome the insertion, but we shall need some clarification from the Minister and his colleagues before very much longer.
    Mr. Tipping: Opencasting has been a major theme in the debates on the Coal Industry Bill. I shall return to it briefly. Many of us are worried about the balance between deep-mined coal and opencasting. Perhaps, if I can catch the Minister's eye, he will listen to what the private companies have been telling him. Those companies which have pre-registered have seen the profit in opencasting, but there is a view among the potential private owners that there is no profit to be made from deep-mined coal. They believe that, in the central coalfield perhaps, there is no profit in deep-mined coal and the real profit lies in opencasting. Therefore, some of the private sector companies are falling away. Perhaps the Minister will comment on a rumour which is widespread in the industry that, in the light of that disappointment, documents have been sent out to companies such as Hanson which have not pre-registered. In the past they have not shown an interest, but they are now being encouraged by the Government to buy the industry. Will the Minister confirm or deny that rumour this evening?
    I welcome the announcement this afternoon that national interest will not be taken into account in opencasting. That is significant for coal mining areas. It sticks in the craw of people in Nottinghamshire that our pits are being closed down at the same time as permission is being sought for opencast mining in west Nottinghamshire. That is the landscape of the Robinettes sites, the Cossall site and the Moorgreen site, that D.H.
    730
    Lawrence loved or, as people put it, made love in. They are important sites which should not be destroyed. I hope that issues surrounding opencasting will be discussed and decisions made at local level rather than at national level.
    Given the announcement made this afternoon, why will not the Minister accept Lords amendment No. 38? In the other place Lord Strathclyde said that compulsory rights orders would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. Lords amendment No. 38 defines those circumstances. It limits compulsory rights orders. If the Minister still wants to make friends in coalfield communities, he will accept amendment No. 38.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I wish to make one point which was prompted by what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. He said that we should dig up all the deep-mined coal and worry about opencast coaling afterwards. I must confess to a bias on the matter. When I was Minister for Coal I was alone one day in between Secretaries of State in the Department. I managed with the assistance of the admirable civil servants to sign the orders to liberalise opencasting and increase it to the present level of 250,000 tonnes.
    The point I make to all those who argue against opencast coaling is that they should bear in mind that if we are truthful, we will admit that deep-mined coal in Britain, especially if one takes into account the environmental considerations such as the sulphur content and so on, is not truly economic under almost any circumstances compared with imports. That has been the position of the unions for many years. That is the truth of the matter if one takes into account the genuine cost of raising the coal and the total costs associated with doing so.
    Mr. Clapham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Spicer: In a moment. I wish to make one point. Then I will certainly give way.
    The only way in which we can make British Coal in its wider sense competitive is by blending deep-mined coal and opencast coal. That is due to two factors. One is that opencast coal is mined at half the cost of deep-mined coal. The other is that opencast coal is sulphur and chlorine-free and, therefore, a clean form of coal. So if we are to have any competitive coal industry in Britain, there has to be an opencast coal industry.
    Amendment No. 38 deals with a fairly marginal matter. Compulsory rights orders are not made very often. Nevertheless, people such as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey hide behind such amendments. They say that it would not matter if we accepted the amendment because what they really want to do is stop opencast coaling. They should be honest.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). Then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are closing down collieries that produce at 88p per gigajoule, which is level with market prices? Does he agree that if we opencast for technical reasons such as sweetening because of chlorine content and so on, all that we need is about 5 million tonnes? I use that figure because when the Trade

    731
    and Industry Select Committee examined the issue it suggested that opencast mining should be reduced to 10 million tonnes. That was within a market of about 60 million tonnes. We are now down to a market of 30 million tonnes, so all that we require is 5 million tonnes of opencasting. That would mean that we could tackle it in a reasonable manner and not need CROs.
    Mr. Spicer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about the details of the costings of British deep-mined coal. Suffice it to say, and without going into too much detail, that those costings are often not very transparent. If one takes, for instance, a pit such as Selby, the way in which the sunk capital is computed into the pricing and costings is very dubious indeed. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would dispute the fact that there are massive hidden costs within the industry which somebody will have to account for one day.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, when he was Minister, we had in the north east of England—if my memory is right—only 17 deep-mined coal pits. At least half of them took in opencast coal, and we did not argue against that. The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that it sweetened deep-mined coal. We do not have any deep-mined coal in the north east now but, by God, we have plenty of planning consents for opencast coal at the moment. It is sweetening nothing.
    Mr. Spicer: The sweetening point is important, but the other important thing is the financial sweetening. Opencast coaling can be produced on average at half the costs of deep-mined coaling if we take into account the proper costing.
    I make my point in response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and in support of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is nonsense to say that there should be an amendment which in effect makes a CRO totally impossible—that is what the effect of the amendment would be—because of the undoubted value to this country of opencasting.
    An obvious qualification is that it must be done properly from an environmental point of view. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) acknowledged that nowadays, in most cases, the long-term environmental effects of opencast coaling are being properly addressed.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made the point that there are occasions when there is an acceptable proposal for opencasting, and there are places in the country where proposals have been accepted.
    The debate is that when there is not an acceptability within the local community, there can be a compulsory power to go ahead. In that case, there should be a test asking if there is an alternative. I understand that sometimes opencast coaling is needed, but the community must accept it.
    Mr. Spicer: I do not want to prolong the debate, and I do not think that there is much between the hon. Gentleman and I on that point, except to say that there will perhaps be circumstances in which a CRO is appropriate. The
    732
    amendment might make it completely impossible to introduce CROs and, for the reasons I have given, I think that that would be a bad thing.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been a massive run-down in the coal industry because of the fix in fuel market prices. It has always been my contention that if arrangements could be fixed, they could be unfixed later.
    During the previous Session, I introduced a Bill which would have unfixed the arrangements. If I could do that, I am sure that the Government will be able at some stage to introduce measures which mean that the getting of coal is more economically viable than in the present circumstances. A massive resource exists throughout the country which will lead to fortunes being made by certain people. That will be done by opencast techniques which will have serious environmental consequences, as many hon. Members have stressed.
    In my constituency, there is a stark distinction between the western and eastern sections. The western section is a rural area where mining goes back to the 16th century, and there was certainly a great deal of mining in that area in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are massive amounts of coal in that area not far from the surface.
    The eastern side is where the pits were shut, and there are no pits left now in Derbyshire. In that area, the disgraceful activity of further opencast developments will take place, and already opencast developments have been accepted in those areas.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the parliamentary question which we managed to table, and he said that the Minister had kindly supplied us with the answer. I do not look upon the question in quite the same way as that. I think that it is disgraceful that a matter concerning opencasting should have been presented by planted answers.
    6.45 pm
    It came out at half-past three today, and nobody in the Chamber knew about its existence until the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) scurried along the Benches and dished out the pieces of paper so we could see the answer. I found out about it a little earlier because a Lobby correspondent met me outside the Chamber and asked me what my views were on the press release from the Department of the Environment.
    When we have opencast provisions in the Lords amendments, and a whole series of Government amendments, the House should know in advance what the position is. Furthermore, I think that the answer tells us that the final guidance arrangements—the new mineral planning guidance—will be available to us only just before the summer recess. That is not acceptable. The House is considering Lords amendments and the Government's counter-proposals, and an argument is taking place on the planning agreement provision. That has knock-on consequences for what we think should be put forward in the legislation.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: I must apologise to the House for the fact that I was called away to an important meeting for the last half hour, and I missed the beginning of this debate.
    I think that the impression which might be created that the Opposition are totally opposed to opencast is not accurate. My experience of opencast in my constituency

    733
    goes back to the mid-1940s when it was essential to get coal to keep the war effort going. There was no opposition at that time, and it was recognised as a national issue that it was important to get that coal out.
    The opencast exercise at that time was very crude. There is a golf course in my constituency which is on the remains of an opencast site which was developed in the 1940s, and it is impossible to play on. It is certainly impossible for me to play on, and I think that the condition of the ground is the problem, and not my playing.
    When I was involved in local government in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we had an arrangement in my county council in Northumberland—which probably has the biggest potential opencast field anywhere in Britain—with the then National Coal Board opencast executive and then the British Coal opencast executive where there was a 10-year rolling programme. The executive came to the planning authority with proposals for projects which were 10 years ahead.
    We then sat down calmly and talked through the proposition. We adjourned the meeting, and came back after three months to talk about it again. But we had a reasonable and sensible programme based upon the national target throughout those years of 15 million tonnes per year being obtained nationally from opencast. The matter was dealt with reasonably.
    Obviously, there were problems. There were complaints and resistance to opencast sites being developed, but in general it worked extremely well. The real problem arose in recent years when freedom was given to almost anybody for opencast sites. One site was developed in my constituency a quarter of a mile from a pharmaceutical factory, and that caused all sorts of problems because of the environmental effects. There was even a mild threat that the factory would close because of the small opencast site.
    That is the sort of problem which we are facing at present and which, in my view, will be aggravated by the privatisation of the industry and by the free-for-all which will exist in terms of opencast site development. We shall not have the right balance in terms of local or national interest. It will be a free-for-all and if someone can sell his coal at a lower price than the guy along the road, he will prosper. That is not how I want my county to develop.
    I hope that the amendment will be accepted because it will ensure the right proportion of opencast coal mine development.
    Mr. Eggar: I seem to spend a lot of time putting to rest scurrilous rumours which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mysteriously hears about and then repeats in the Chamber. His comments have no substance whatever. He knows perfectly well, because I answered a parliamentary question on the matter, how many people have applied for qualification. I assure him that no more information has been sent out to people who have not pre-qualified.
    There have been two strands to this debate. First, a number of Opposition Members and one or two of my hon. Friends who have not spoken are basically anti-opencast. They are determined to use whatever mechanism is available to stop whatever opencasting may be contemplated. Secondly, my hon. Friends who spoke in the debate wished, in some way, to give landowners the value of the coal.
    In fairness to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. Friend the Member for
    734
    Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), they recognised the balance and the fact that there is a place for opencasting, given the correct environmental and other controls.
    The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is very much involved in these matters. But it is for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment to expand on the issues which he raised. He kindly recognised the fact that the debate had moved on as a result of the answer to the parliamentary question.
    I was surprised at the point made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). After all, the Government could easily have held this debate without making the announcement. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning and I thought that it would assist the House if we made that announcement, even though we could not make the full announcement on MPG3. Hon. Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, who has not been present for most of our debates, will recognise that, throughout the discussions in Committee and subsequently, I have been extremely forthcoming with the documents and have always responded to requests from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It therefore annoys me to hear the churlish response that we have had from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Barnes: Could not we have had the answer 24 hours earlier, as that would have provided a framework for our discussion?
    Mr. Eggar: The fact is that we had the answer in time for the debate. With the exception of the hon. Gentleman, all hon. Members present welcomed that.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Minister agree with the answer in relation to the document that has been discussed?
    Mr. Eggar: Of course I agree with the answer given by my hon. Friend.
    Some of my hon. Friends argued that more of the value of the coal should, in some way, accrue to the landowners. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has followed this issue carefully. He was, however, less than objective in assessing how the Government have responded to the interests and genuine concerns of landowners. May I spell out exactly what we have done?
    The power to initiate CROs no longer lies in the hands of the mining industry. In the future, it will lie in the hands of the Coal Authority. My hon. Friend did not recognise the fact that we have set out the intended policy of the Coal Authority to make CROs only in the last resort and after all reasonable efforts to obtain the landowners' agreement has failed. The Coal Authority will also ensure that any reasonable requirements for appropriate financial security are met. Once that has been done, the orders will be made, subject to confirmation by the relevant Secretaries of State. The Bill also sets out an absolute limit of 31 December 1999 for the continuation of those compulsory rights orders. At the same time, we have announced that we are initiating a comprehensive review of compulsory access powers for all minerals.
    As if that were not enough, since the Bill's introduction we have accepted the principle that compensation should be based on market value. We have agreed that there should be notification of all applications for coalmining licences and the transfer of existing licences. We have

    735
    introduced a mechanism to ensure that landowners can revert to the operator's best offer, even at the last possible stage, and compensation for non-coal minerals has been given in coalmining operations. So for my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough to say that we are not taking account of landowners' genuine interests is—I am being charitable—not putting the whole debate in context.
    On my hon. Friend's comments on the drafting of the Bill, I agree that we should all strive for clear drafting. It is a technical matter that relates back to the 1958 Act. Although its clarity may not be ideal, it is more understandable than my hon. Friend led us to believe.
    May I tell my hon. Friend bluntly that the Government have always made it clear that we shall not give the value of the coal to the landlords. The net effect of his amendment is that a significant proportion of the coal's value is likely, as a result of market negotiations, to lie with the landowners. It has always been made clear to my hon. Friend, representatives of the Country Landowners Association and others that we will not do that. I am sorry that he does not accept that, despite the fact that I have explained to him, and again in my opening speech, that that was the effect of his amendment.
    I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South about CROs. The absence of any CRO power, ahead of the review of compulsory access powers for all minerals, has the same potential effect in terms of giving additional value to the landowners. We have listened carefully to the landowners' wishes and consulted widely, but we have always drawn a bottom line. We are simply not prepared to go below that line.
    I hope that I have dealt with all the issues that arise from the amendments and that we can now move to a Division, should that prove necessary.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 223.

    Division No. 274]

    [6.58 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bowis, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Amess, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Ancram, Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Ashby, David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Atkins, Robert

    Burns, Simon

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Butcher, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Butler, Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Butterfill, John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Bates, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Churchill, Mr

    Bendall, Vivian

    Clappison, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Body, Sir Richard

    Coe, Sebastian

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Colvin, Michael

    Booth, Hartley

    Congdon, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Conway, Derek

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    736

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hunter, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Jack, Michael

    Cran, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jessel, Toby

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Devlin, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dicks, Terry

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knapman, Roger

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Duncan, Alan

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knox, Sir David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Elletson, Harold

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lidington, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lightbown, David

    Evennett, David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Faber, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Luff, Peter

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fishburn, Dudley

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Forman, Nigel

    MacKay, Andrew

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maclean, David

    Forth, Eric

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Madel, Sir David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Malone, Gerald

    French, Douglas

    Mans, Keith

    Gale, Roger

    Marland, Paul

    Gallie, Phil

    Marlow, Tony

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Garnier, Edward

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gill, Christopher

    Mates, Michael

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Merchant, Piers

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mills, Iain

    Gorst, Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hague, William

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Norris, Steve

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hawkins, Nick

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hawksley, Warren

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Page, Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Paice, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hendry, Charles

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pawsey, James

    Horam, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    737

    Richards, Rod

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Riddick, Graham

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Thomason, Roy

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

    Sackville, Tom

    Tracey, Richard

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Tredinnick, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Trend, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trotter, Neville

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shersby, Michael

    Walden, George

    Sims, Roger

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Watts, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Whitney, Ray

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Whittingdale, John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wilkinson, John

    Spring, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Wilshire, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Steen, Anthony

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Stephen, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Stewart, Allan

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Streeter, Gary

    Sweeney, Walter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sykes, John

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Ainger, Nick

    Church, Judith

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clapham, Michael

    Allen, Graham

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Alton, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Clelland, David

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ashton, Joe

    Coffey, Ann

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Barnes, Harry

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Barron, Kevin

    Corbett, Robin

    Battle, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bayley, Hugh

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cousins, Jim

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Cox, Tom

    Bell, Stuart

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dafis, Cynog

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Darling, Alistair

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Betts, Clive

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Blair, Tony

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Blunkett, David

    Denham, John

    Boateng, Paul

    Dixon, Don

    Boyes, Roland

    Dobson, Frank

    Bradley, Keith

    Dowd, Jim

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

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Burden, Richard

    Eastham, Ken

    Byers, Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Caborn, Richard

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chidgey, David

    Fraser, John

    738

    Garrett, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    George, Bruce

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Mudie, George

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Mullin, Chris

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Murphy, Paul

    Gordon, Mildred

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Olner, William

    Gunnell, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hain, Peter

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hanson, David

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Hardy, Peter

    Parry, Robert

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Pendry, Tom

    Harvey, Nick

    Pickthall, Colin

    Henderson, Doug

    Pike, Peter L.

    Heppell, John

    Pope, Greg

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Prescott, John

    Hoey, Kate

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Home Robertson, John

    Purchase, Ken

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Radice, Giles

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Randall, Stuart

    Hoyle, Doug

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Rendel, David

    Hutton, John

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Illsley, Eric

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jamieson, David

    Rooker, Jeff

    Janner, Greville

    Rooney, Terry

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Short, Clare

    Jowell, Tessa

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Keen, Alan

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

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Snape, Peter

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Soley, Clive

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Spearing, Nigel

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Stevenson, George

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Stott, Roger

    Lewis, Terry

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Livingstone, Ken

    Straw, Jack

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McCartney, Ian

    Timms, Stephen

    Macdonald, Calum

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Turner, Dennis

    McLeish, Henry

    Tyler, Paul

    McNamara, Kevin

    Vaz, Keith

    MacShane, Denis

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    McWilliam, John

    Walley, Joan

    Madden, Max

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mahon, Alice

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mandelson, Peter

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Marek, Dr John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Martlew, Eric

    Winnick, David

    Meacher, Michael

    Worthington, Tony

    Meale, Alan

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Milburn, Alan

    Miller, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Mr. John Cummings and

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Morley, Elliot

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 37 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 117, line 29, at end insert—
    ("Conditions to be satisfied before a compulsory rights order is made
    A compulsory rights order shall not be made or confirmed unless it is shown that it has not proved practicable to obtain the right by private arrangement because the owner has acted unreasonably and that—

    (a)(i) the coal in the relevant land is required to supply a market which cannot adequately be met from other sources which are currently being worked or capable of being worked where a coal-mining company has secured all the relevant planning consents and has acquired the necessary interests in land, and

    (ii) the amount of marketable coal to be extracted as a result of the compulsory rights order being made exceeds 250,000 tonnes; or

    (b) there is a present likelihood that the coal will remain unworked on account of other development proposed on the relevant land; or

    (c) the persons with power to grant the right, or any of them, cannot be ascertained or cannot be found; or

    (d) the persons from whom the right must be obtained or any of them, have not the necessary powers of disposition, whether by reason of defect on title, legal disability or otherwise.")

    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 221.

    Division No. 275]

    [7.12 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Chapman, Sydney

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Churchill, Mr

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Clappison, James

    Amess, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Ancram, Michael

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Arbuthnot, James

    Coe, Sebastian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Congdon, David

    Ashby, David

    Conway, Derek

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkins, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baldry, Tony

    Couchman, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Cran, James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

    Bates, Michael

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Day, Stephen

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Devlin, Tim

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dicks, Terry

    Booth, Hartley

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Boswell, Tim

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dover, Den

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Duncan, Alan

    Bowis, John

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dykes, Hugh

    Brazier, Julian

    Eggar, Tim

    Bright, Graham

    Elletson, Harold

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Burns, Simon

    Evennett, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Faber, David

    Butcher, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Butler, Peter

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Butterfill, John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Carrington, Matthew

    Forman, Nigel

    740

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Forth, Eric

    Malone, Gerald

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Mans, Keith

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Marland, Paul

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Marlow, Tony

    French, Douglas

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gale, Roger

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gallie, Phil

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Mates, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Garnier, Edward

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gill, Christopher

    Merchant, Piers

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Mills, Iain

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hague, William

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Norris, Steve

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hawkins, Nick

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hawksley, Warren

    Page, Richard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Paice, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Patnick, Irvine

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hendry, Charles

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Pawsey, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pickles, Eric

    Horam, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

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

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jack, Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jessel, Toby

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Sackville, Tom

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Key, Robert

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knapman, Roger

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shersby, Michael

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

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Knox, Sir David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Legg, Barry

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Leigh, Edward

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lidington, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lightbown, David

    Spring, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lord, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stern, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Maclean, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sykes, John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Madel, Sir David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    741

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Watts, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Thomason, Roy

    Whitney, Ray

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Whittingdale, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

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

    Willetts, David

    Tracey, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Tredinnick, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Trend, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Trotter, Neville

    Wolfson, Mark

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wood, Timothy

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Viggers, Peter

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Walden, George

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Ainger, Nick

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Allen, Graham

    Denham, John

    Alton, David

    Dixon, Don

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dobson, Frank

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Dowd, Jim

    Ashton, Joe

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Austin-Walker, John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Barnes, Harry

    Eastham, Ken

    Barron, Kevin

    Etherington, Bill

    Battle, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fatchett, Derek

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Faulds, Andrew

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bell, Stuart

    Flynn, Paul

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Berry, Roger

    Fraser, John

    Betts, Clive

    Garrett, John

    Blair, Tony

    George, Bruce

    Blunkett, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Boyes, Roland

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bradley, Keith

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Burden, Richard

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Byers, Stephen

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caborn, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hardy, Peter

    Cann, Jamie

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Chidgey, David

    Harvey, Nick

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Henderson, Doug

    Church, Judith

    Heppell, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clelland, David

    Hoey, Kate

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Cox, Tom

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jamieson, David

    742

    Janner, Greville

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jowell, Tessa

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Radice, Giles

    Keen, Alan

    Randall, Stuart

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Redmond, Martin

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Rendel, David

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rogers, Allan

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooney, Terry

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Short, Clare

    McCartney, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

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

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Snape, Peter

    MacShane, Denis

    Soley, Clive

    McWilliam, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Madden, Max

    Spellar, John

    Mahon, Alice

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mandelson, Peter

    Stevenson, George

    Marek, Dr John

    Stott, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    Meacher, Michael

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Milburn, Alan

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Miller, Andrew

    Timms, Stephen

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Turner, Dennis

    Morley, Elliot

    Tyler, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Vaz, Keith

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Walley, Joan

    Mudie, George

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mullin, Chris

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Murphy, Paul

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Winnick, David

    Olner, William

    Worthington, Tony

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Parry, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pendry, Tom

    Mr. John Cummings and

    Pickthall, Colin

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put the remaining amendments together.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 38: Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Martin O'Neill and Mr. Tim Eggar be members of the Committee; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Eggar.]
    To withdraw immediately.

Ports (Northern Ireland)
7.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): I beg to move,
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
I understand that it will be convenient for the House also to discuss the second motion:
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
The orders reflect provisions already enacted in Great Britain under the Ports Act 1991. It is primarily an enabling measure, designed to offer a more efficient mechanism than currently exists for ports to privatise themselves.
The order would empower any relevant Northern Ireland port authority to submit a privatisation scheme to the Department for approval. The scheme would transfer all the property, rights, liabilities and functions of the port's undertaking to a successor company formed under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
The order would provide powers for the Department to initiate a privatisation scheme for a port with an annual turnover of £5 million, index-linked, which has not itself submitted such a scheme within two years of enactment of the order.
It would require the port authority to pay the Government a 50 per cent. levy on the sales proceeds and it would empower the Department to vary the levy percentages on any gains from the disposal of land within 10 years of privatisation.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Reverting to the point the Minister made earlier, why is such a scheme not subject to an affirmative order in the House, as it is for the privatisation of trusts in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Smith: Because it would conflict with the constitutional position of the Assembly. It would create a difficult constitutional precedent. It requires an affirmative resolution of the Assembly, but here it would have to be subject to a negative resolution. In practice, if the Opposition were to pray against it at the appropriate time, there would be a debate in the House.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Opposition spokesman has raised a fairly crucial point. Perhaps we could return to it on Thursday, when we debate the renewal of direct rule. We shall be debating and voting on the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I hope that it is the ambition of the House to get rid of the 1974 Act as soon as possible.
Mr. Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that I have described the current position accurately.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I apologise for interrupting the Minister so early, but could he help the blissfully naive? He referred to 50 per cent. of the proceeds being clawed back by the Government. Who gets the other 50 per cent.?
Mr. Smith: The other 50 per cent. goes to the company. That follows the position in Great Britain, so that half the proceeds would go to the Treasury and, subject to any costs
744
which would be deducted first, and subject to any possible capital gains tax, half the proceeds would go to the company. That would be one incentive for privatisation.
Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister telling us that, if a company bids £50 million, or whatever the going rate for a port may be, they would have to pay only £25 million to the Government?
Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his question, as I did not understand it?
Mr. Robinson: If only 50 per cent. of the money from a private company purchasing the port goes to the Government, the other 50 per cent. effectively goes into the company's coffers. If a company bid £50 million, it would pay only £25 million to the Government.
Mr. Smith: Because there is no beneficial owner of the trust ports—the Trustee Savings bank is in the same position—the proceeds would go to the company, which would take that into account in deciding its bid. The position of trust ports in Northern Ireland is the same as it is for trust ports in the whole United Kingdom; there is absolutely no difference.
Finally, the order would provide powers to reimburse the costs incurred by a management-employee buy-out team in mounting a bid for the port undertaking.
The Department would issue guidelines for voluntary privatisation under the order. Those guidelines would provide that, in framing their objectives, ports should have regard to
"the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the successor company to managers or other persons employed by the company."
While the guidelines will be concerned primarily with privatisation by trade sale, other methods are not ruled out. However, any such proposals must be agreed by the Department.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned functions to be carried out by the successor companies that are now carried out by the authorities. On the important activity of dredging, will a statutory obligation be placed on the successor companies to continue that function?
Mr. Smith: I shall check on that point. I think that the successor companies will inherit the responsibilities of the trust boards. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a full reply at the end of the debate.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for being so courteous in giving way to so many interventions. I assure him that the issue I am about to raise is the only one that concerns me, so I shall not trouble him further.
All the ports in southern Ireland are being stuffed with EC funding and subsidies. Does my hon. Friend believe that a private port company would have the same eligibility for EC funding as a public authority? That is an important issue in terms of competition between the north and the south.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point. Currently, trust ports qualify for up to a maximum of 75 per cent. European regional development fund funding. In the private sector, that entitlement would be reduced to 50 per cent. It is an extremely important issue

745
when considering the benefits of privatisation. [AN HON MEMBER: "Which the Government will ignore."] I shall deal with that sedentary intervention, although I have been quite good at giving way to those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to stand up. We shall consider all the factors at the relevant time. As I have made clear, it is an extremely important consideration.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not amazing that, because the EC has been prepared to give a larger grant to a company controlled by the Government, it is now prepared to give those larger grants to Government-controlled operations in the south? The south is moving towards Government-controlled companies just to get EC money, whereas our Government are moving away from that. In doing so, they will prevent money that we pay into Europe from being returned to us.
Surely, as a Conservative believing in private enterprise, the Minister should realise that the EC is actually opposing competition and the very philosophy in which he believes. Rather than doing what he proposes tonight, he should keep the ports as they are in order to get back our money from Europe.
Mr. Smith: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not see any rationale in distinguishing between businesses that happen to be publicly owned—and giving them a larger grant—and those that happen to be privately owned. I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He identified what is undoubtedly an extremely important consideration. Obviously, I believe that considerable benefits would accrue from privatisation. However, he raised an important factor that must be considered at the relevant time.
As in Great Britain, the underlying policy of the order is essentially one of voluntary privatisation, although it does provide the Department with compulsory powers to require ports with a turnover limit of £5 million index-linked to bring forward privatisation schemes if they have not done so within two years of enactment. As I am sure the House appreciates, at present the only relevant Northern Ireland port in that category is Belfast.
I can inform the House that I received more than 50 formal responses during the consultation process, none of which has necessitated any change to the order. Some concern was expressed about the possible impact of the privatisation of the port of Belfast. I must again emphasise that this order is purely enabling legislation and does not implement the privatisation of Belfast or, indeed, any other port in Northern Ireland.
Mr. William O'Brien: I am interested in the Minister's point about the order being enabling. Did not the hon. Gentleman say this morning that this was a privatisation Bill? Therefore, his remarks now about it being an enabling measure conflict with the point he made this morning. Will he now clarify the position?
Mr. Smith: If I remember rightly, what I said on television this morning was that this is a privatisation measure, which it clearly is because it facilitates the privatisation of the trust ports. It will enable privatisation to take place. Within the next two years it will be open to the Belfast harbour commissioners, if they so decide, to put forward a scheme for privatisation. Only after two years had elapsed would the Department consider the possibility
746
of compulsory privatisation. That is the position. The measure does not give us the authority to compel the privatisation of the port of Belfast.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister giving way to so many interventions. He has compared this order with the 1991 legislation for Great Britain. How many ports have operated under that legislation? What steps have the Government taken to try to compel those who have not turned to privatisation to do so?
Mr. Smith: I am not sure of the exact position in Great Britain. I do not know whether the Department of Transport has required any particular privatisation scheme. I shall investigate and answer the point at the end of the debate. We may have reached the point where it would be open to the Department to do so, but I shall find out and provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. I think that the answer will be none.
As I explained, no such decision could be taken until two years after enactment of the order, and only then following consultation with both the port authority and interested parties, and detailed consideration of the implications of privatisation. If, after two years, and after consultation with the port authority, the Department decides not to use its compulsory powers, those powers will cease to be exercisable for a further period of five years.
I commend both the orders to the House.
7.36 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not think that I have ever heard such a short speech justifying such an arrant bank robbery of the people of Northern Ireland as the one we have just heard from the Minister. Because the order has remained below the line for such a long time, I had hoped that the Government would retreat from such a foolish and senseless course. Such a retreat would have been welcomed by all who are concerned with or work in the port. The Government have united opposition from those who work in Belfast harbour, from all the main political parties in Northern Ireland and from the vast majority of people living and working in Belfast and across the region.
Hon. Members have already pointed out the unsatisfactory way in which the measure is being introduced—as compared with what is happening in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Although the problems of an Assembly may be real, they should not take away from the Government the onus on them to introduce and justify their proposals. They should leave it to the Opposition to pray against the order. The Government should find a way of introducing their proposal in their own time.
The undemocratic nature of compulsory privatisation without debate, as exemplified by this procedure, is typical of the Government's cavalier attitude to this matter.
Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has rightly criticised the undemocratic nature of the procedure that is being used. Will he therefore vote against the interim period extension order on Thursday? That would cure the problem because, if the provision were not extended, we should again have democratic procedures in Northern Ireland.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman tempts me too much. I should be delighted if the powers went to a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland—when that is agreed among all the parties and both Governments with a strong internal settlement and even stronger cross-border institutions.
One of the senior executives of Belfast harbour commission described the procedures thus:
"Overall, one has to view privatisation as Tory dogma. If we assume that privatisation is not a good thing, the next thing you would bump into would be that the Government has a power compulsorily to privatise you."
If the harbour commissioners do not volunteer to commit suicide, they will be put down painlessly two years later.
At a time when the Government are rightly encouraging inward investment in Northern Ireland, there is a real possibility that one of Northern Ireland's indigenous profit-making organisations will be sold—possibly taken out of Ireland's control, and possibly even sold to a foreign purchaser, unless the Government say that they will prevent it.
Let me explain the broader significance of the port of Belfast to Northern Ireland's economy. Fifty-five per cent. of all imports and exports to and from Northern Ireland pass through the port of Belfast. The port thus provides not only employment and a degree of economic stability for the Greater Belfast area but a central focus for investment and employment throughout the region. Given the peripheral nature of Northern Ireland in relation to the United Kingdom, its ports provide a vital trade and tourism link between the island of Ireland and the rest of the European Community.
Northern Ireland, however, is in a unique position. Individual ports in the region not only compete with each other but face severe competition from ports in the Republic. It is against what is already a fiercely competitive background that the Government seek to privatise the port of Belfast—and, in doing so, have again decided to apply ideological dogma rigidly rather than following economic common sense.
The Government claim that the aim of the order is to improve effectiveness and efficiency, but they do not propose to privatise the most inefficient and ineffective ports in Northern Ireland; instead, they are forcing the sell-off of the most profitable of those ports, which has a turnover of at least £5 million. There could be no clearer illustration of the Government's real motives. They are not interested in the future of the region's dock industry, but they are eager to get their hands on substantial returns from the port of Belfast to cut the Treasury's deficit and put fat profits into the hands of their political and industrial friends.
That was brought out brilliantly by an intervention from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who asked what would happen to the other 50 per cent. It is a case of "Bid us a price, and we will give you half your money back": it is a Dutch auction. The money is going back to a company, and thence to private shareholders—money that has been raised by the harbour commissioners, and by the effort and integrity of a non-profit-making organisation to bring about the most efficient port in the north of Ireland. By "non-profit-making" I mean that it does not distribute its profits, but reinvests them in its own industry. All that money will be lost.
It would be ironic if, for example, one of Northern Ireland's main competitors in the Republic successfully
748
took over the port of Belfast. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) drew attention to the position of ports in the Republic. Northern Ireland's ports have drawn considerably away from those in the republic, but in the event of privatisation and the consequential increase in charges, that traffic will almost certainly be lost back to ports in the south.
At present, about a third of traffic going through the port of Belfast comes from the Republic. Ports in the Republic receive full support from the European Community, and—as has been pointed out—as a result of the decision to give them semi-state body status, that aid looks set to continue. Because of the cohesion fund, it is likely to amount to up to 75 per cent., and may rise even further.
The Government are deliberately, specifically and directly forcing the port of Belfast to face increased competition from the Republic—from ports that will be increasingly subsidised to enable them to make their affairs more efficient and invest more in their own infrastructure. They propose to sell off a profitable, efficient port that is gaining traffic from all over Ireland: they are prepared to see that traffic lost.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As a respected democrat, is the hon. Gentleman not genuinely worried about the EC sabotaging the Conservative principle of privatisation by exercising such discrimination in regard to grants? I accept that, as always, his views are sincere; does he not think it ridiculous that the EC should have a policy that discriminates wholly against Conservative policy, and may prevent us from doing what we wish to do?
Mr. McNamara: I have no problems with discrimination against Conservative policy—and if I am not worried about it, I do not see why the Community should be. I am prepared to see more and more money going into public infrastructure: that is why I want to keep the port of Belfast in the public sector. It works efficiently and effectively as it is.
Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that, if the port is privatised, charges will immediately rise and a great deal of business will be lost to the Republic. How does he account for the success of the port of Lame, which is already privately owned?
Mr. McNamara: Regular fast catamarans carry people to and fro across a 16-mile strip of water, but the port of Larne cannot take the shipping that the port of Belfast can take.
Mr. Roy Beggs: As the Member of Parliament representing the port of Lame, I assure the hon. Gentleman that as yet we have no catamarans running; but we have a very efficient ferry service. It is easier to get a boat to Scotland than to get a bus to some of the outlying villages. It is the regularity and reliability of a competitively priced service that makes the port of Larne attractive.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that an effective road system is needed to increase the attraction still further. I was disappointed that he left that out.
The port of Belfast has enjoyed substantial financial assistance from the European regional development fund transport programme, which has enabled it to keep several steps ahead of its competition in the Republic. That,

749
however, will be lost. During the past five years, a combination of substantial European funding and investment from its own funds has produced a £100 million port fund in Belfast, which has significantly improved the port's infrastructure and, consequently, its competitive edge. The facilities are new and modern; they are a testament to the sound management and astute business practice of the current Belfast harbour commissioners. However, the privatisation of the port—like the privatisation of Aldergrove airport—raises the question of the clawback of EC funds totalling approximately £60 million.
The Minister will recall that, at the time of the airports order, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) drew his attention to a letter from the European Commissioner, Bruce Millan. In effect, the letter stated that the question of clawback could arise in the event of the privatisation of the international airport. I must warn the Minister that the advice that we have received from the Commission about the privatisation of the port of Belfast is the same as that offered at the time of the Aldergrove sell-off. The EC may well decide to reclaim aid that was granted towards the development of the port's infrastructure in the ERDF programme; it may be especially encouraged to do that when told that half the purchase price is going back to the person who bought it.
Far from enhancing the port's effectiveness and competitiveness by privatising it, the Minister will prevent any further development of port infrastructure by means of EC funding. Meanwhile, the port's major competitors in the Republic will continue to enjoy all the benefits of European aid.
The order has a further worrying aspect, which is linked to infrastructure development and the ownership of the harbour estate. As a consequence of successful development across the estate, the port of Belfast now has a host of major and minor industrial tenants, including Shorts Bombadier, Harland and Wolff and many others. All the companies that located in the estate did so in the knowledge that the site had a good record for constantly developing and improving its infrastructure, and that the trust port arrangement ensured the existence of fair rents and leases. The Government's plans, however, leave the estate open to those who might seek to exploit the peripheral nature of the region.
The island of Ireland will be the only part of Europe that is wholly dependent on the use of ports for bulk import and export to and from the rest of the European Community. Consequently, if the new owners so wish, the estate can be left to run down on ever-increasing rents and leases. If short-term profit is the only motivating factor, why should the new owners make long-term costly investment. in the infrastructure of the port? Thanks to the European taxpayer, the new private owners of the port of Belfast will be presented with a highly profitable concern.
What will consequently become of the development plans following the building of the new £10 million link road on the County Down side? That link is helping to develop an additional 200 acres of estate and should bring an additional 5,000 new jobs, increasing the total Belfast harbour estate work force to about 22,000. In an area where jobs are desperately needed, the gamble that the Government are taking with that future investment is clearly unacceptable.
The plans contained within the order jeopardise significant future investments in the harbour estate and
750
with them the possibility of getting some of Northern Ireland's jobless back to work. There is less chance of a harbour rail link if we have to depend on private investment in order to achieve it rather than having public investment, possibly backed up by EC funds.
Let me deal now with ownership and accountability. The Minister will know that the regulations under which trust ports operate currently place the responsibility of care on the various statutory authorities that control the ports on behalf of and in the interest of the people serviced by the port. The regulations ensure that the harbour operates in the broadest interests of the wider community who benefit from long-term employment and investment prospects. The regulations further ensure that businesses are encouraged into the harbour industrial estate with fair charging and equal treatment in the allocation of berths and other port facilities. In short, the current regulations under which trust ports operate ensure that the long-term interests of the port and the estate prevail.
That formula has proved to be successful in the outstanding performance of the port of Belfast. Consequently, the Government should ensure that predatory ownership, particularly by companies in other member states, is not possible. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to retain a golden share in the port as they did with Belfast international airport? Would such a golden share be used to prevent investment by companies outside the United Kingdom?
Currently, all the profits made in the dock are reinvested in the estate. Money is raised in Ireland through the productivity of the people of Northern Ireland, and the profits are utilised for the benefit of the asset and the Northern Ireland economy. It is those very profits that are now to be used as an inducement to the potential purchaser. Those profits are all the incentive a predator needs to purchase the land bank. Thereafter, there is no incentive for any purchaser to improve on or invest in the infrastructure for the future. That is partly because the infrastructure is now very good and partly because purchasers can just sit there for 10 years, after which there is no levy and no clawback. Some of the richest land in Belfast, certainly some of that most ripe for development, will go to whoever purchases, at 50 per cent. of its face value, the new asset.
The people of Northern Ireland will have lost and the asset stripper will have gained a fast profitable return. Who might some of the predators be? Will it be the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, creating a monopoly in crossings to and from Liverpool? Will it be P and O, creating a monopoly with the port of Lame? Whoever else wishes to purchase the port of Belfast, will the Minister give an undertaking to the House today that the first option, if the Government go ahead with the sale, will be a management-employee buy-out and not a trade sale? Will he give an undertaking to the House that that will be the first thing that they will consider? That would at least ensure that a genuine commitment to the future of the port and to the Northern Ireland economy survived privatisation. That is very much a second best, however; things should be left as they are. As things stand now, there is a real danger of profit created in Northern Ireland being exported and creamed off; it could be just another example of absentee landlordism.
It seems that the success of the port of Belfast is not enough to curtail the Minister's zealous hunger for the notion of privatisation, even when the object of the Government's desire is operating competitively and

751
efficiently. This debate, as with others on Northern Ireland Electric and Aldergrove airport, will expose the Government's privatisation plans in Northern Ireland for what they really are—plans to stuff the Treasury with money and to sell off assets to their friends.
The debate will show how belated, ill-judged and inappropriate attempts to keep pace with the discredited sell-off of assets throughout other parts of the United Kingdom during the 1980s are now being followed again in Northern Ireland. I very much regret the fact that Ministers feel that they must prove their ideological purity by indulging in this foolish measure.
Above all, we are seeing a trust established by the people of Belfast—the users of the port—pass out of the control of Northern Ireland. The trust has been developed by the people of Northern Ireland. It has developed an infrastructure and a going concern of considerable efficiency, but now the moneys generated by it are likely to be passed out of Northern Ireland. There is a real chance that charges will be increased and that the port will lose its competitive edge against the improved infrastructure within the Republic. Is that really what the Government think is sound economic sense? The Government are engaged in a foolish process. They are playing dangerously with the jobs and opportunities of people who work within the dock estate, and with the whole basis of Northern Ireland's economy.
7.55 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I cannot recall how long it has been since I followed a speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) with my blood pressure as settled as it is now. I am pleased that we shall be fighting in the same corner this evening.
On the face of it, the draft statutory instrument appears simply to place upon the port the ability, if it so wishes, to consider putting forward a proposal for privatisation. In reality, when the order becomes law it will pave the way for privatisation and will put Belfast port, to which the order essentially applies, on the slips to be sold off—some might say sold out.
Before I deal with the content of the order, I should like to raise two issues. The Minister referred to the consultation process. He told the House that he had received more than 50 responses. I very much regret the unhealthy arrogance that he showed by saying that the 50-plus responses did not require the slightest change in the measure. That is in effect what he told a number of hon. Members at the beginning of January when he said that he did not consider that any changes were required to the order.
Will the Minister tell us how many of the 54 responses that he received—I believe that that is the correct number—supported the Government's action? Does he consider those most directly involved in the port to be among the supporters of the measure? Do the harbour commissioners support him? Are they cheering him on? Does he have the support of all the trade unions in the port? Does he have the support of the shipping agencies in the port? Does he have the support of all the other users of the land site of the port? It is worth providing a breakdown of the 54 responses so that we know how many support the Minister and how many oppose the order.
752
The second issue is a procedural matter about which I spoke earlier. The Minister will recognise that when similar legislation was proposed for the mainland under the Ports Act 1991 the same provision applied to ports on the mainland. If within a two-year period they wished to put forward a proposal for privatisation to the Department, the measure could be dealt with directly on their suggestion. If they failed to make a proposal within two years, the Government could proceed to privatise the port, but in those circumstances the Government were required to table an affirmative resolution in the House. In the case of Northern Ireland, however, the Government will have to table not an affirmative resolution but a negative resolution. If the wisdom of the harbour commissioners is such that, after two years, they recognise that privatisation is not in the interests of Belfast and Northern Ireland, the Department can step in and determine that the port should be privatised. The House will have no opportunity to debate the matter.
I wrote to the Minister on the issue, and he replied:
"If…the Belfast Harbour Commissioners failed to come forward with a scheme within the first 2 years, the Government would at that stage have to decide whether it wished to invoke the reserve powers and enforce the privatisation of the Port. Of course, such a decision would only be taken after detailed consultations with the port authority and with all other interested parties".
We are aware of the Minister's approach to detailed consultation, so I shall avoid making any comment about that. He does not believe that such consultation requires his attention, but his response suggested that there would be consultation with all other interested parties. Surely Parliament is an interested party. Surely it has the right to debate such matters. It is not good enough for the Minister to say in his letter that
"in the event of a prayer against such an order the Government would consider any request to have the matter debated on the floor of the House."
I urge the Minister to go a little further and to give a firm undertaking that if a prayer is tabled he will ensure that the matter is considered by the House.
It is sleight of hand to refer to the order as enabling legislation. As it affects only Belfast port, the Minister will understand if I concentrate on the Belfast harbour commissioners. The Minister clearly intends to reduce the number of seats on the Belfast harbour commission and to retain the power to appoint future commissioners. If a commissioner does not toe the line and is not pro-privatisation, the Minister can turf him out and arrange for the right people to be appointed. The Government have decided to privatise Belfast port. Referring to the measure as enabling legislation is a con trick, a sleight of hand and an act of trickery to ensure that the order is passed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that this is not a trifling matter but a serious issue that is important to the Northern Ireland economy. Naturally, it most closely affects the Belfast constituencies and I trust that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) will join us before the end of the debate and vote against the order, which will seriously affect his and my constituents and other hon. Members who represent Belfast.
The Northern Ireland economy will be affected by the proposal. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, more than half of the imports and exports to and from Northern Ireland come through Belfast port. When the channel tunnel becomes operational, the

753
Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are the two parts of the European Community that will be isolated. Bulk imports and exports will be shipped to and from the main ports of Dublin and Belfast.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that the draft order will result in poorer services and in dearer prices.
Mr. Tim Smith: Why?
Mr. Robinson: The Minister asks why. Less public finance—if one can call European Community funds public finance—will be allocated to Belfast port, so it will have to spend more money from its reserves. It will have to put up prices to meet the difference between what its competitors in Dublin receive in grants and what it receives. It will need more finance, and more finance through expenditure automatically requires higher prices.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the current charges have been set in a highly competitive market, as everyone who has spoken in the debate has agreed? There is healthy competition among the ports in the island of Ireland and, in the face of that, no port would increase its prices. Prices are set by the market.
Mr. Robinson: I hope that the Minister has now got it. He is making Belfast port uncompetitive and leaving it in a competitive market. It will not be able to compete because its main competitor, the port of Dublin, will grab all the EC funding at a much higher rate and will be much more competitive. Belfast port has the choice of putting up its prices or going out of business, so what will it do? It will put up its charges, to the detriment of the Northern Ireland economy. Belfast port is in a unique position. It already faces considerably more competition than ports on the mainland not only from other Northern Ireland ports but from Republic of Ireland ports.
The proposal is based on the Government's philosophy of privatisation. I do not take a doctrinaire view for or against privatisation. I was involved in pushing competitive tendering and privatisation before Thatcherism was popular, although it did not end up being very popular. Privatisation worked where I applied it because it was recognised that it would not work in all circumstances. It was necessary, therefore, to consider how it would work in commercial terms, in terms of jobs and in terms of the economy. When one applies those terms to the port, one finds that privatisation brings no advantage to Belfast port.
The Government have argued that privatisation takes the weight off the taxpayer meeting the costs of failing industries, but Belfast port is a success. It does not require handouts from the Government to meet its running costs or capital investment programme. The usual Tory line that propped-up, failing industries require the breath of privatisation does not apply to Belfast port. In the House of Lords, the Government spokesman said:
"The Government have consistently taken the view that the privatisation of the larger trust ports is an important element of the long-term strategy of opening up the ports industry to market forces."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 1991; Vol. 531, c. 348.]
The Northern Ireland trust ports, however, are already subject to market forces via competition either from Larne and elsewhere or from the Republic of Ireland. So that argument does not apply to the Northern Ireland ports.
754
It should be pointed out that the trade war—if such it may be called—between the ports of the Republic and those of Northern Ireland is being won by Northern Ireland. Between a quarter and one third of the imports and exports currently passing through Belfast port are for the Republic of Ireland, which shows that a significant slice of the Republic's trade passes in and out through Belfast.
Privatisation will not sharpen up a failing industry; the industry is already successful. I therefore ask: is it in the interests of the commerce of Northern Ireland that we lose the additional funding that would be available from Europe? Of course it is not. Is it in the interests of jobs? Everybody knows that the outcome of such privatisation processes is that jobs are lost, so there will be no advantage to Northern Ireland in the privatisation of its ports.
Only the Government's short-term interest is served by the order. It is a triumph of their ideology over the best interests of the community. The question must be asked, and answered: morally, if not legally, are the Government entitled to sell the Belfast port? I noticed that the explanatory document issued by the Department said:
"Trust ports are independent statutory authorities established under local legislation. They are not owned by anyone."
They may not be owned by anyone, but the Government will sell them anyway. That puts them in the position of receivers of stolen goods. Anywhere else that would be seen as a criminal act. The ports in Northern Ireland, such as Belfast port, are the property of the people of Belfast and of the people of Northern Ireland. They are not the property of a Tory Government to sell so that they can make the public sector borrowing requirement look a little better at the end of the year.
As I have already said, I am concerned that there will be a reduction not only in the grant, and therefore the investment, that will go into the Belfast port, but that it will become less competitive. A significant investment has been made in the past, and a considerable amount of European grant has been received. Over the past five years the port of Belfast has invested about £100 million in a ports development programme. Of that, £40 million came from its own funds and the remaining money from EC grants. That has helped the port to modernise its facilities, and it has added new facilities such as a roll on/roll off terminal. There are also new cranes, and the port has a vastly improved infrastructure.
We wonder whether, in the present circumstances, the EC could claw back the funds that it has already given to what was a public company. The House deserves a response from the Minister on that issue. Could European funds already granted be clawed back if the port becomes a private concern? The Minister says that the present available grant for the port is up to 75 per cent., but many people in the House will doubt whether a privatised port would get anything like the maximum of 50 per cent. of an EC grant. Indeed, some will consider it questionable whether it would get anything at all.
We must deal with the issue of the assets of the port as they currently stand. The bill may be, say, £50 million a year. The Minister has not offered us any better guidance on what he expects to net for his 50 per cent. of the income from the sale of the port. If he wanted to give us further guidance, it might be useful to the House. Can he give us a figure that he feels might be achieved by the sale of Belfast port?
Anyone who examines the assets connected with the considerable land site can see immediately that there are

755
significant assets that could be sold off to pay for the purchase that the company will already have made. It seems a remarkable bargain. First, the purchasers have to pay only half the price; then they can probably sell about a quarter of the goods to pay for it, and end up with the rest for nothing. That is the bargain that the Minister is offering as an inducement to privatise the port.
As I understand it, the House should give considerable approval to the position of the harbour commissioners. They have effectively said that their interest is not personal, because commissioners might do very well out of a programme such as that offered under the order. But the commissioners recognise that the interests of the Northern Ireland economy as a whole would not be advantaged by the reduction of European funding.
The considerable land assets can be sold off, with a fairly meagre pay-back to the Government should that occur. So far as I can recall off the top of my head, about 25 per cent. is payable if pieces are sold within the first five years, stepping down to about 10 per cent. for years nine and 10. After 10 years the purchasers are on their own; they can sell anything, and do not have to pay back any of the money at all. That seems a remarkable sell-off of a public asset that should not be the private possession of any company.
A further issue is the virtual monopoly that will be created by such a sale. So far, at least, the Government have not publicly addressed that problem. At present, the harbour commissioners use a high degree of judgment to ensure equality of treatment and fair charging at the port. However, if the purchaser should happen to be someone with a private interest within the port, the charging might be varied to the advantage of that private interest. So fair charging and equality of treatment may be changed, depending on who the purchaser is.
Considerable concern has been expressed by the Belfast Shipping Agents Association, which is worried that privatisation would create a monopoly. The association says:
"Our members are concerned, for themselves and for the other providers of services in the Port of Belfast, for importers and exporters of goods and for Northern Ireland consumers generally, that in this monopoly situation any excessive increase in port charges made by a Privatised Port Authority could have serious and detrimental effects on the Northern Ireland economy."
The association asks:
"Will there be a safeguard, such as a Regulatory Authority, built in",
so that any new privatised port arrangement will be monitored? The Minister should answer that question.
There is another question concerning the assets to which I want the Minister to respond. The Minister seems to be shaking his head. Just because he made a two-minute speech, it does not mean that everyone else in the House has to do the same. I want to point the Minister in the direction of some important aspects of the possessions of the harbour commission.
I am thinking in particular of buildings with significant historical interest, and also paintings, sculptures and maritime artefacts which belong to the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister make provision to ensure that those will form part of a maritime museum, rather than becoming the possessions of a new privatised company? The port of Belfast trade union side has argued that point strongly and I think that it is a strong case.
756
In conclusion, it can be seen that Belfast port is substantially different from other ports in the United Kingdom, especially in view of the competition from ports in the Republic of Ireland. Privatisation would do considerable damage to the whole of the Northern Ireland economy. The Government should be repudiated for their attempt to benefit their own financial interests rather than the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to take the sale off the counter. Indeed, I argue that the port is not theirs to sell. We are told that the Government's policy is to attempt to get Northern Ireland parties to agree. Here the Northern Ireland parties are in agreement about what we want, so what do the Government do? They form the obstacle to having those wishes fulfilled.
8.20 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The Government know that the overwhelming response from the general public, community organisations, the trade unions, Belfast city council and the political parties was direct opposition to the proposals. What confidence can we have that the interests of Northern Ireland will be taken into account during any future consultation process? That question is especially pertinent given that we have not yet had a response to the points raised in the submission.
The Government say that they have no economic or selfish interests in Northern Ireland. That statement rings hollow when we see the way in which they are systematically stripping Northern Ireland of its assets, leaving the Province weak, vulnerable and open to exploitation by monetary interests whose sole purpose is to prey on our people's work ethic and thereby amass vast personal wealth.
The port of Belfast, as our principal sea port, is the latest to suffer from this macabre and irresponsible attitude. Belfast is not in competition with any British port. Its main competition comes from the southern Irish ports and, at present, it compares very favourably with them. As a result of the order, that competitiveness will be lost.
As has already been said, the Dublin Government have already decided that their ports will remain in public hands, thereby maintaining their eligibility, as public concerns, for up to 85 per cent. European grant money, whereas private businesses are eligible for only 50 per cent. That is not a calm fishing reach and it tips the equation the wrong way, at our expense. I am also informed that the Dublin Government extend favourable tax treatment to their ports and that new harbour legislation is under way further to extend those advantages.
We all know that the port of Belfast has benefited substantially from the European regional development fund to help it restructure and modernise in a down-river relocation. I am, therefore, concerned about the precise changes in ERDF status that the privatisation process may bring about. It is conceivable that the European Community could, rightly, demand a return of a proportion of the grants if it believed that, under privatisation, the general public might not have the benefits and uses that they enjoy under the present status.
I am apprehensive about the effects that privatisation would have on the site of special scientific interest, which is essential to the welfare of many forms of wildlife that are

757
found in the location. It is widely recognised that the area is vital in the migratory pattern of water fowl. Although the private sector may not exploit an SSSI, it is most unlikely to invest in it and manage it to the same degree.
I am also concerned about safeguards against predatory ownership, especially by companies based in member states. Do the Government intend to follow the example of the sale of Belfast international airport and retain a golden share in the ports? Will there be a change of ownership structure? If there is, it will be essential that any purchaser can demonstrate a long-term commitment to the continuing success of the port so that customers and employees can be confident of a stable future under the new regime.
8.24 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: I bring to this debate the experience of having represented, for the past 10 years, the port of Immingham. I recall that in my first Session of Parliament I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Transport Bill which brought into being Associated British Ports, the private company that runs many of the ports in the United Kingdom, including the port in Hull and the one in my constituency.
I reassure Ulster Members that my intervention in the debate will be brief. I intend to make two main points about the orders, which I very much welcome. If any Ulster Member has any concerns about the benefits that privatisation may or may not bring, I invite him to come to Immingham in my constituency.
Opposition Members who served on the Transport Bill Committee threatened that all the ports on the east coast of England would close. They said that Immingham and Grimsby would go into a decline and that Hull would go into even more of a decline. Now we have Associated British Ports, which is not answerable to the old British Transport Docks Board and the Treasury. There is competition not only among the ports within the group but with other ports.
Felixstowe used to be difficult to compete against. The arguments put by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) today were put when Associated British Ports was set up. People said, "How will it be possible for the newly privatised ports of Immingham, Grimsby and Hull to compete against Rotterdam and Felixstowe?" Rotterdarn had European money pouring into the Europort. People asked how it would be possible for the little ports out in the cold in the private sector, which had no access to capital and no access to the Treasury, to compete. The truth is that they compete on their own terms with Rotterdam and Felixstowe. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would testify to that. The blunt truth is that there is a renaissance in the docks industry on the east coast as a result of privatisation.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is right about the renaissance of docks on the east coast of Britain. That may not be due solely to competition, although I concede that competition is important. What does he say to the point made by Unionist Members here this evening—that under the new arrangements, Belfast will be handicapped in competition with Dublin? That is the essential point. We are not opposed to competition. We appreciate that competition has been successful in other areas and we know that our ports can compete successfully. However,
758
the orders will handicap our ports in competition with their only and chief competitor. Will the hon. Gentleman address that issue?
Mr. Brown: I simply say that that is exactly the argument—I recall it well—used by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who also served on the Standing Committee in 1980–81. He made precisely that point about the relationship between Immingham, Grimsby, Hull and Rotterdam.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I have promised to be brief because I know that, as an intruder from England in a Northern Ireland debate, I must not take up too much time. However, I shall give way.
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with that. The fact is that the Belfast port and the Dublin port are on the same island. Therefore, they are in competition with each other. Rotterdam is not on the mainland of the United Kingdom. It is not in competition. Those ports are in competition with each other, not with Rotterdam.
Mr. Brown: I am afraid that that is simply not true. It is the case that the success of Immingham docks in securing for itself trade that once upon a time used to come from all the world, including South Africa and South America, and go to Rotterdam, which served Europe, now comes to Immingham and to Hull. I have to tell the hon. Gentlemen that it is precisely because of privatisation in the early 1980s that we succeeded in bringing to the east coast of Britain, rather than to the mainland of Europe, much of the international docks traffic that is now available to the United Kingdom. I say to hon. Members from Northern Ireland that docks traffic is international. It does not know boundaries in the way that they have suggested.
I now want to get on to the main—
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I shall not give way any more after this. I am anxious to press on to the main point of my speech.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I put to the hon. Gentleman the following case. Dublin is to receive money from the European Community. Remember, the south of Ireland is getting £6 million, when Northern Ireland has got nothing out of the European Community, and instead is paying up per head of its people—I have received those answers from the Treasury. If Dublin is to receive a £6 million kitty to build up the port and the new ports scheme, being a private scheme, is not to have the 85 per cent. grant—perhaps not even a 50 per cent. or a 30 per cent. grant—surely that would be unfair competition. The hon. Gentleman is talking about England in fair competition with others. I am talking of a situation that would be totally unfair.
Mr. Brown: I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is rather like the unfairness which Immingham, Grimsby and Hull had to put up with after they were privatised, to the extent that they were also handicapped by a thing on the mainland of the United Kingdom called the dock labour scheme. We had unfair practices, we had handicaps, we had unfairness against Felixstowe. Indeed, it was not until 1989 that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)

759
finally abolished the scheme, after much pressure and lobbying from my hon. Friends, and we were able to get rid of an unfair handicap. So I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He is talking of a relative unfairness on the island of Ireland. We also had a relative unfairness, yet never for one moment did I suggest that we should not go down the road of privatisation simply on the grounds of that unfair handicap.
Two years ago, the Government took a further step towards liberalising the ports industry by enabling trust ports to become privatised. To date, that process has proved a success and it is to be hoped that the remaining trust ports will follow the example of their colleagues. Of course, all of those ports have followed in the wake of the outstanding privatisation of ABP in 1983, which I have just described. I very much hope that the Belfast harbour commissioners and the trustees of other ports in Northern Ireland will give serious consideration to the advantages which privatisation may offer them.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—
Mr. Brown: I will not give way. I have been generous in giving way and I am acutely aware that we have less than two hours left. I hope that the remarks which I am about to make may find favour with the hon. Member for Belfast, East and a number of his hon. Friends. On the following point, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to reconsider, but to listen carefully to the points on the constitutional aspects of the order.
I have had the privilege of serving as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for one year. I was secretary of the Conservative parliamentary Northern Ireland committee for over six years, vice-chairman of that committee for two years and for one year the Government Whip with responsibility for Northern Ireland. I have always been acutely conscious of the arguments consistently advanced by hon. Members from all political parties in Northern Ireland about the manner in which our debates are conducted. On that, I agree that there may well be some merit in what they have to say.
My second point concerns the constitutional position on Northern Ireland ports should the Government, at some stage, decide to exercise their compulsory powers. I have no argument at all against the Government using those powers if they decide to do so. While I am absolutely in favour of the concept of privatisation and, perhaps one day, compulsory privatisation, it is a fact that, that under the terms of the order, Northern Ireland ports are put at a constitutional disadvantage. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East has already said, the statutory instrument would pass through Parliament under the negative resolution procedure, with no opportunity for parliamentary debate, whereas, for mainland British ports that are compelled to privatise—Aberdeen, Ipswich and Poole may fall into that category—a debate on the Floor of the House is automatically guaranteed.
I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but it is only right and proper for Northern Ireland ports to be treated in exactly the same way as their mainland counterparts. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has received a number of representations on that issue and has already
760
given some assurances about considering permitting a full debate. There is some merit in what hon. Members have said about getting the procedures for Northern Ireland on exactly the same basis as we have for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I hope that if hon. Members from Northern Ireland are not able accept my views and arguments in favour of privatisation, they will at least understand that I accept the case that they have put on the constitutional manner in which this order and consequent orders should be put to the House.
8.36 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: I am grateful for an opportunity to make a few brief remarks on the orders, which I want to oppose on the same grounds as those on which my party opposed the Ports Act 1991. We have heard from the Minister that the order is an enabling measure. Were that so, we would have no difficulty with it, because the enabling characteristics of it are not ones with which we would wish to take issue, but lurking behind the enabling characteristics is the threat of coercion. That is where we would part company with the Government.
There has been mention of the need for competition between ports and we very much support that. We recognise that, in the past, some trust ports may have viewed the private Bill procedure in the House as so complicated that they would get bogged down in it, so we have no problem with the principle of freeing up that procedure. However, if some port trustees—the Belfast harbour commissioners or whoever—see that process simplified and serve out the two-year time period, which is already contained in the mainland legislation and is envisaged in the orders, and then decide not to proceed voluntarily with privatisation, there seems little justification for the Government stepping in over their heads and trying to do it on a compulsory basis.
The Government do not seem to have listened to, or learnt from, their earlier legislation. Few, if any, of the candidates on the mainland involved in that earlier legislation who have failed to come up with proposals in the two-year period want, at this stage, to change their status. That is why we shall again oppose the Government over the orders. We believe now, as before, that the Government should not ride over the heads of the commissioners who deal on a day-to-day basis with those matters and who have arrived at a considered decision that takes into account local factors. Different ports have different characteristics. In the case of Northern Ireland—as hon. Members have already said, Belfast is the only port which is threatened because it is the only port which falls into the criteria—the economic difficulties that it faces simply cannot be overlooked. One must ask whether the area would be better off as a result of compulsory privatisation of the Belfast port. Many hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate have persuasively put forward the argument that it would not.
The Government believe that privatisation is an attractive option because it will give access to capital for development, it will in some way make it easier to develop surplus land and there will be more diversification of development. They have even suggested that it will become more profitable. Some of those arguments may be true, but will they all be true?

761
The record of Belfast port shows that it has already enjoyed success by reinvesting the surpluses that it has made by raising money on its own account. It has shown resourcefulness and imagination. It has an impressive growth rate—an increase of more than 40 per cent. in the past five years. There has been modernisation, and much land has already been leased to relevant commercial interests. Belfast port is a vital and integral part of the Northern Ireland economy.
Reference has been made to the disadvantage in the European grant regime that would follow any privatisation. What the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said earlier about competitiveness is right. The argument that Belfast would be at a sharp disadvantage, especially in terms of competing with Dublin, if it were on a completely different grant regime has not been satisfactorily answered by the Government.
Another point is accountability. The Belfast harbour commissioners draw on representation from various elements of the community in Northern Ireland. In the event of a compulsory sell-off, they would be replaced by an unaccountable—in any public sense—private body. That body could conceivably have directors who know little of the interests of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the port itself. Many of them may be anonymous and have little interest in it.
I hope that the Minister will give an unambiguous answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Would the Government use any golden share that they might retain to block a foreign interest coming in and taking over? Would the community be better off as a result of a private sale? Would a company whose sole motive was to make a profit serve the community better than the current Belfast harbour commissioners? Surely, employment is the most important thing to the community at large. The Minister has suggested that the economic opportunities arising from privatisation will assist in that regard, but I believe that we should be concerned about the threats that have been identified by hon. Members in this debate.
Finally, on the constitutional point, it seems wrong that the procedures for Northern Ireland should be different from those for the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the Minister referred to "considering" any request to have the matter debated on the Floor of the House. In a letter to Lord Holme, who speaks for us on these matters in another place, he went one step further and said that the Government would give "careful consideration" to any such request. That is not good enough. We must have an unequivocal commitment from the Government that any such move will be debated on the Floor of the House as a matter of course.
The bulk of the United Kingdom's trade still uses ports. The role of the ports in our economy is crucial. It is okay to set up enabling measures so that those who wish to privatise can take advantage of that. However, there can be no excuse whatever for forcing, over the heads of the commissioners, ports to privatise when they do not wish to do so, especially in the light of the unfair competition, in terms of European grant, that would result from privatisation.
8.43 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: While I, as the spokesman for my party on this subject, will be raising a number of concerns relating to these orders, it would be useful for me to give the House a little history lesson to highlight the changes that have taken place in electing or appointing harbour commissioners since the Origins of Port 1613.
In 1785, the corporation for preserving and improving the port and harbour of Belfast was set up by an Act of Parliament. That body was later to become known as the ballast board. The success of that board in expanding the ports operations led, in 1847, to a successor board—the Belfast harbour commissioners—being given authority and trust status further to develop the harbour under the Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. The new board set about creating three main channels for ships and earned Belfast the name of the trident port.
The Belfast Harbour Commissioners Board still runs the port and its nine members are appointed by the Minister. That came about because the Belfast Harbour Acts Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 was passed by the House, giving the power of appointment to the Department of Commerce—a power which subsequently passed to the Department of Environment and the Minister.
Under the 1847 Act, one third of the commissioners stood down every year and an election was held to replace or re-elect them. That election was held on the first Thursday in February under the control of the secretary of the Belfast harbour commissioners. It is interesting to know that the candidates and electors had to reside in Belfast or within seven miles of it. That was measured from the town's commercial buildings. For at least six months prior to the election, they had to own a vessel of more than 100 tonnes registered in the port of Belfast, and they had to own property with an annual value of £500, or £300 if it was a holding or a freehold estate. They were also required to pay a police tax of £6 to Belfast town council.
Basically, we can assume that the commercial interests associated with the harbour elected those running the harbour—the Belfast harbour commissioners. Perhaps, these days, the narrowness of that electorate could be criticised but it was wider than the appointments made and the orders raised by one person—the Minister—who is unelected by anyone in Belfast harbour, Belfast city or even Northern Ireland. If we place on top of that the proposal under article 12 to introduce privatisation by negative resolution, we can truly say that democracy in Northern Ireland does not exist.
My views on quangos are well known. As it is presently appointed, the Belfast Harbour Commissioners Board is a quango.
Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend is referring to quangos and how they are appointed. Is he prepared to acknowledge that, according to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there must be consultation with the Maryfield secretariat?
Mr. Forsythe: I understand that that is the case. Consultations can take place between the two Governments on the matter. The quango is similar to 150 other bodies in Northern Ireland. My friends among the

763
Belfast harbour commissioners will not like me saying that. I object to the creation of that quango and will continue to object to it until we achieve some change.
I am fully aware of the excellent work carried out by the present board and other boards through the years. Their work has been on a par with that of commissioners in the past, who were elected under a different system. I am also aware of what the port means and of the high regard in which the commissioners are held by the citizens of Belfast and the rest of Northern Ireland.
Leaving aside my views about the intentions of the order, I must put on record clearly, as other hon. Members have done, my strong objections to the method that is being used to pave the way to the removal of the port of Belfast from local control. It completely ignores the original intention of the Acts of Parliament, which were properly debated and amended or accepted by this mother of Parliaments. It represents a tremendous change for Belfast harbour in terms of democracy and so on.
Perhaps we should consider, for the benefit of those who do not have a Belfast background, what will be lost to local people if the control of the port is taken outside Northern Ireland under article 12 of the order. There is a 3,000 acre estate with 8,000 m of quayage. There are 70 berths, which include four roll on/roll off docks, six container docks, four dry docks and one shipbuilding dock. There are 58,000 sq m of transit storage sheds, and four grain silos which hold about 150,000 tonnes of grain.
As has already been mentioned, within that estate we have Shorts Bombardier, Harland and Wolff, the city airport and many other smaller firms, including Belfast West power station. I shall ask the Minister some questions at a later stage. Perhaps he will explain about the cross-harbour road and railway line which is being constructed. What will be the position of the road and rail network under the new arrangements for privatisation, if, indeed, privatisation takes place? I understand what the Minister said earlier about the order being a paving operation, but let us be honest: a paving operation is there to be used.
As others have said, the port accounts for 55 per cent. of all Northern Ireland's imports and exports. It has public user facilities for fuel oil, petroleum products, petroleum gas and aviation fuel. It has heavy lifting and general cranage. It has deep berths. All of those facilities are unavailable, at least to the same extent, in the rest of Northern Ireland.
As other hon. Members have said, the harbour commissioners' building contains many items of historical significance, many of which were gifts. The building is part of the history and culture of Northern Ireland. It is used for receptions. It plays a civic role. It hosts concerts and tours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said, many experts regard the estate as an area of scientific interest and are greatly worried about how they would deal with a commercial firm which had a profit motive.
Why is the successful port of Belfast being upset by a plan for privatisation? Belfast city council opposes it. The trade unions oppose it. Politicians have spoken against it. The people of Northern Ireland do not wish privatisation to happen. They would like the port to remain under local control. Perhaps the Minister will say that the port could
764
remain under local control if a proposal were made. But that cannot be guaranteed if the port is privatised. Unfortunately, I have to consider what the Minister seems to have ignored—the views of most of those who responded to the consultation process. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the port is being privatised for ideological reasons and because it is the policy of the Conservative party.
I shall now ask the Minister some questions, having given a history lesson. The Minister may already have been aware of the history, but I thought that it was worth putting it on the record. What precisely will be the position of the Belfast harbour police? I know that one of my Labour colleagues will probably raise a similar point if he manages to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. No mention has been made of that force. The same applied to the airport privatisation order.
We all have great admiration for the fine Belfast harbour police force. It has given stalwart service to the harbour over many years. It has done so in Northern Ireland and Belfast terms in the most difficult circumstances. It is important that the Minister should put on record the exact position on future policing of this substantial area within the city of Belfast.
There are several questions which the Minister was probably aware that I might ask. I do not wish to take up a lot of time. If the port is privatised, will he produce ideas and proposals for the Belfast harbour police before the privatisation plan is fully implemented?
It has been said by others, and is worth repeating, that the privatisation of the port would lose Belfast its trust status. Under the present status, the harbour commissioners enjoy a healthy level of profitability and they pay full corporation tax, which is very useful to the Exchequer. They receive no assistance from the Government for port development expenditure, and their ability to keep profits has allowed port development to be carried out with the assistance only of grants from the European regional development fund. That has resulted in the harbour benefiting substantially from those funds.
Will the Minister put on record what changes he sees taking place in the European grant regime? Could he share with us the impact of such changes? For instance, when Belfast port is privatised, would there be any requirement—as others have asked—for the Government to reimburse the grants received in the past by the Belfast harbour commissioners?
In that context, does not the Minister think that it is ironic—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is no longer here, as I would have liked him to have heard this—that the Government are laying an order to pave the way for the privatisation of Belfast harbour at a time when the cohesion fund status and aid through Intereg 2 is being applied to ports in the Republic of Ireland? Those ports are being offered grants of up to 85 per cent. because the Government of the Republic are reinforcing the trust status of the ports.
I need not repeat, but I reinforce, what been said about Belfast being treated differently under the order from ports in the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to article 10 of the Ports Act 1991. Will the Minister put on record how he intends to protect the port users, because a monopoly would be created if it were privatised? The port has public user facilities which other ports in Northern Ireland do not have. The only facilities for such products as aviation fuel, petroleum and low-pressure gas are in Belfast port and are

765
not available anywhere else. A monopoly in Belfast port could be crucial to the charges of those products and to Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister consider setting up a regulatory authority to monitor port changes and to prevent excessive profits? I agree with what has been said about the risk to firms of long standing which have given great service to the port—such as stevedores and ship's agents—and they in no circumstances should be squeezed out by a monopoly. That would be very unfortunate.
Will the Minister tell the House, if we get to the stage where the port is privatised, what will be the position of the port's pension fund? Perhaps he could tell us the position of the pension fund now, but he cannot tell us what it will be like in two years' time, because he is not a prophet. I am interested in this matter, because there will be a lot to think about if the fund is either in surplus or in deficit. In the past we have had to ask the Minister to put on record his views on the pensions position of the workers and the staff of the port.
If the port is privatised, will the Minister give me a proper undertaking—not a superficial undertaking—about the position of the members employed in the port, the pensioners who are already receiving their pensions and deferred pensioners who no longer work in the port, or are working there but are deferred pensioners? Will a condition of sale for any new owner be to continue the fund in its present form to ensure that all members, pensioners and deferred pensioners do not lose out in the future?
The Minister will be aware that a new company could take over a facility such as the port of Belfast and close the pension fund. Will he assure me that, if the port is privatised, the position for members of the pension scheme would not change because they would receive any amount due to them up to a given time? Would that pension fund be allowed to continue under the same conditions and providing the same benefits, and would that be written into any contract or arrangement between the Government and a new company, if the port is privatised? In that context, will the Minister assure us that all the recommendations contained in the document on the future of pensions presented to the House last week will be closely followed in any negotiations concerning the pension fund?
The democracy that now exists in the election of Belfast harbour commissioners will disappear and a Minister will appoint the commissioners. Instead of being allowed to debate future privatisation matters in the House, the matter will be introduced by negative resolution. For those reasons and because the port is so important to Belfast, we are not happy with the prospect of it being privatised. My hon. Friends and I have no ideological views one way or the other on privatisation except on the merits of the case. The merits of this case do not take us into the same Lobby as Her Majesty's Government and we shall vote against the order.
9.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am here tonight and have an interest in opposing the order not merely because I am a Labour Member of Parliament—although that is a good enough reason for being here—but because my constituents are angry about how badly my community in Tilbury was treated over the sale of its port and are concerned that similar circumstances should not befall the people of Belfast, who are also proud of their port.
766
It is worth trying to remind Tory Members that they are hearing me in the Chamber tonight partly because my predecessor, who lost the election, was a passionate advocate of the privatision of the port of Tilbury.
Mr. Tim Smith: A great man.
Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister says that my predecessor is a great man, but the good people of Thurrock did not think so. While I hope that I brought other qualities to the campaign, the fact remains that I am here partly because the people of Thurrock deeply resented the sale of their port, of which they were proud, and the fact that their Member of Parliament advocated that sale. Arguably, that is what cost Mr. Tim Janman the election and provided an extra seat for the Labour party.
Those facts give me a mandate not only to raise that matter but to say that I am proud to associate myself with the views expressed by Northern Ireland Members who on their constituents' behalf, strongly oppose Belfast's privatisation. The Government should reflect on this before making any attempt to trigger the sale of the port of Belfast: they have no mandate whatever for such a sale. The political parties in Northern Ireland demonstrably oppose such privatisation. The trade unions definitely oppose it, not only for employment reasons—although they are rightly worried about employment—but because the people of Belfast are proud of their history and of the harbour, which, to them, is a symbol of that history. That should not be minimised or dismissed: it is an important factor that the Government should take into account in considering the matter further.
I share the view of other hon. Members that this is a crazy and unacceptable way in which to treat Northern Ireland legislation. I do not care what happens or what is said elsewhere: as a Member of the House of Commons, I want the capacity and opportunity to scrutinise and probe the intentions of the Government and to examine all legislation in detail.
This order is equivalent to a major Act of Parliament, and in any normal and sensible circumstances would justify the full scrutiny of a parliamentary Committee. Why? Because we should be able to examine the Government's intentions. In the course of that legislative process, the Government would, almost as surely as night turns into day, discover that their measure was in some respects flawed. Even if they could not be persuaded by hon. Members that the provisions should be tempered, they would find that the draftsmen and their offices had overlooked some important factors. This legislative process and this order in particular are therefore bad from the point of view of scrutiny of our law-making process.
If we had had the opportunity to consider the legislation in Committee, many of the questions that have been posed by hon. Members tonight would have been answered. I suspect that many of those questions will not be answered when the Minister replies, but we shall see. Perhaps he will be understanding when some of us ask him to give way later: it would be reprehensible if he tried to plead shortage of time or to claim that he had not fully taken note of the point. He has a moral obligation to answer our questions tonight because the matter may well not come before the House of Commons again, in which case there will be no further scrutiny.
As the Minister would expect, and as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) rightly said, let us use the

767
future of the police at Belfast harbour as an example of a matter that we wish to probe. This important point would not only have a debate to itself: if we considered the legislation in Committee, it would probably be the subject of new clauses and amendments.
It is important that people who hold the office of constable should be protected from commercial considerations, which might well trespass on their work if the port were privatised. We do not know who the prospective purchasers might be. Some very undesirable outfits might purchase the port. For those purchasers to have access to and stewardship and ownership of a police force seems to me to be unacceptable.
In any event, I must declare that it is repugnant to me, as a matter of policy, that any police force should be in private ownership and control. I have said that many times. I may sound like a long-playing gramophone record but I say it once more. The Government are privatising police forces in Northern Ireland and in the port of Tilbury in my constituency. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is unacceptable. It is unfair to police officers, who are proud of their office, and it is unacceptable to other police forces that remain in the public sector.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister owes not only him but the people of Northern Ireland an explanation as to why he intends to proceed by means of an Order in Council rather than by means of a Bill, which would allow the hon. Gentleman and right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies the right to speak on the subject and amend the proposed legislation? The Minister owes the House an explanation as to why he has selected a procedure that gives the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected Members of Parliament and through friends such as the hon. Gentleman, no opportunity to amend the legislation.
Mr. Mackinlay: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. We shall see whether the Minister takes up that point when he replies.
I share a common interest with those who are protecting and promoting the interests of Belfast harbour and its people tonight. Unlike the rest of the trust ports that were subject to the Ports Act 1991, my port of Tilbury was privatised without further scrutiny being given to the proposals in the House. The matter was subject to examination during the Committee stage of the Ports Bill, so it received more scrutiny than-the possible privatisation of Belfast port. Once the Ports Bill was enacted, the port of Tilbury was treated extraordinarily and as distinct from the other trust ports. It was sold without any further reference, order or debate in this place. That is what will happen to the port of Belfast unless the Government can be persuaded to turn from their present course; there will be no further discussions in this place. We shall read in the financial pages one day that the port of Belfast has been disposed of. That is unacceptable and discriminates against Northern Ireland.
While provision exists for the compulsory sale of Aberdeen, Poole or Ipswich to be examined and voted on in the House, Belfast will not have that privilege. That is unacceptable. Let us ask the Minister for the true reason behind it. Is it not a fact that the Government know that
768
there will be considerable resistance if they try to push through an order relating to Aberdeen, Poole or Ipswich because they will have to allow the order to be scrutinised? By a quirk, they can push through the order relating to Belfast without further scrutiny, which suits their purposes because they need to try to start promoting legislation and getting greenbacks for the Treasury—the order is, to a large extent, Treasury driven.
If we had a proper legislative process, we could pursue the reasonable point made by many hon. Members about the buildings and artefacts of the harbour commissioners. When we were debating the Railways Bill, we had discussions about the artefacts of the railways, and how they would be preserved, kept in public ownership and made available to the public. I attended the sittings of the Committee that considered the Ports Bill, although unfortunately I was not then a Member of the House, and there was then a general debate about the artefacts of the railways after privatisation.
The harbour commissioners at Belfast have great artefacts and antiquities of which they are proud and which, it is felt, belong to the people of Belfast. I recall an enjoyable and interesting day when the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) took me to visit the harbour commissioners. I saw their buildings and learnt about the history mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). I am grateful that he related that history to the House as it should be placed on record. That history is inextricably bound up with the pride that the people of Belfast have in their harbour and the historic nature of the commissioners' office.
At some stage during our deliberations, the Minister tried to taunt the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) by implying that, unless the order was passed, the port of Larne would be disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Antrim, East, whose constituency includes the port of Lame, will no doubt speak on his own behalf. However, let me say that, while there is competition between Larne and Belfast, they also complement one another. There is a balance—one is in public ownership and one is in private ownership, and long may that situation flourish. But if the port of Belfast is disposed of, it will raise the question of whether there will still be two ports. The future would then be uncertain, which would obviously be damaging to employment and the communities that are largely served by the two ports. Far from these orders being an attractive proposition for Lane, their prospect raises great dangers. I look forward with interest to what the hon. Member for Antrim, East has to say.
Mr. John D. Taylor: There are more than two ports in Northern Ireland; we also have Londonderry and Warren Point. The Government are giving their full support and enthusiasm to expenditure, through the cohesion fund of the European Community, to advance the ports in the Republic of Ireland, and that will eventually lead to the closure of Warren Point harbour.
Mr. Mackinlay: The point made by the right hon. Gentleman is manifestly an important one. When I visited Warren Point, I saw for myself that the Republic opposite would benefit from the cohesion fund—and that is its entitlement—whereas Warren Point would not.
After all the bravado and macho politics displayed by the Prime Minister in his approach to Europe—and I shall not trespass too far down that road this evening—it

769
occurred to me to ask why, some months ago, the Government did not argue that the cohesion fund should extend to the whole of the island of Ireland. That would have been logical and would not have trespassed on other sensitive issues involving Northern Ireland and the Republic, but—so far as I am aware—it never crossed their mind.
The matter arose in European Standing Committee B and I tried to probe the Minister about it. Clearly, it had never occurred to him to go to Brussels and bang on the table and explain the extraordinary circumstances involving the interface between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that there is a strong case for the cohesion fund to extend to the island of Ireland. All the parties concerned would have understood that, but the Government did not even contemplate exploring the issue. That is absolutely wretched and jeopardises the port and interests at Warren Point and probably elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) gave us the benefit of his attention earlier. I regret that he is not here now as I thought he was talking through a hole in his hat when he suggested that there was a comparable situation as between Rotterdam and Cleethorpes. Has anyone heard anything so absurd? Certainly not today. If the port of Belfast loses grant from the European Community because it is sold off and if the port of Dublin and the Irish Government legitimately seek to exploit the cohesion fund there will demonstrably be disadvantages to the port of Belfast; for the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes told us what a great advantage privatisation was and how the Ports Act 1991 was so attractive. It is significant that, so far as I am aware, none of the trust ports that were subject to the 1991 Act have voluntary put up their hands and asked to be privatised. We are still waiting with bated breath to find out whether the Government will move in relation to Ipswich, Aberdeen or Poole. I hope that they will not. It is interesting to note that the equivalent of the harbour commissioners there have not volunteered their ports for privatisation, despite the attraction that we are told exists.
The Government cannot get their way there, so they decide to pick on a part of the country, a particular port, where there is not so much political clout or opposition as would occur were they to tackle Aberdeen with the political considerations there, Poole, which is a Tory area, or Ipswich, which is a marginal parliamentary seat.
I am also concerned about the implications for the dock workers. One of the experiences in the port of Tilbury is that people who were proud to be employed in the docks industry are now facing casualisation. There have been major redundancies and people are not employed on a full-time basis with the pay and conditions of service to which they are entitled.
On the other side of the Thames, it is important that people in Belfast are aware of what has happened to the port of Medway, where a tantalising carrot was put before the dock workers in the form of an invitation to join what I believe to be a wholly bogus and cosmetic management-employee buy-out. It was suggested that they could have a share in their enterprises. We have heard that commercial before—how it was all part of the Thatcher revolution; people could have a stake in their firms.
The good dock workers of Medway were invited to take shares in their port. Many did so. Not long after that port was sold to a so-called management-employee buy-out,
770
dock worker after dock worker was sacked. They then found that, under the small print, they were obligated to sell back their shares at £2.50 per share. Some of the purchasers of their shares were the port owners/managers. They got hold of those cheap shares and after a few months sold them again at a price of £37.50 per share. That was a rip-off. In my view, it was a form of stealing. It was a gross deceit perpetrated upon the workers.
Suppose that this measure had a Committee stage. If, on reflection, the Government felt that what happened at Medway was unfair, they could amend the order to ensure that even if someone lost his job he could hold on to his shares. [Interruption.] If I could just attract the Minister's attention for a moment, I should like to ask him a specific question. Will he ensure that if there is a management-employee buy-out, the shares purchased and owned by the dock workers will be sacrosanct? If dock workers lose their jobs through no fault of their own, will they be able to retain their shares? That is an important point that needs to be clarified this evening because that was not the experience at Medway and elsewhere.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is understandably concerned about the security of share ownership. Does he agree that it is important that the shares in the privatised company should not be owned by foreign interests?
Mr. Mackinlay: Absolutely; it is something that exercised us at the time of the sale of Tilbury. Indeed, it still does. Even if a port is sold initially to a management-employee buy-out—with a considerable amount of involvement from banks and other financial institutions—we do not know what will happen in the future. There will be compelling commercial considerations. Ownership and control could pass to the stewardship of people who do not have any loyalty to the locality, to the country or even to the ports industry. There is a great danger of asset stripping.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I was with the hon. Gentleman until his last few remarks. A new owner could have an interest in the ports industry, but in a port that was in competition with Belfast.
Mr. Mackinlay: That is absolutely correct. I am with the right hon. Gentleman all the way. The experience in England is that people will purchase ports with a view to running them down so that they can promote the other port or ports in their ownership.
Quite apart from the selfish interest that could emerge, it is a crazy way to run a ports industry. We are talking about strategic ports, vital to the economy of England in my case, and of Northern Ireland in the case of Belfast—and, indeed, of a large part of the northern part of the Republic of Ireland. The ports' development needs to be planned. Currently there is a delicate, complementary role between Belfast, Larne, Warren Point and the ports on the Foyle. With the absence of planning, England has too many ports, and at some stage some of them will lose out.
I have referred to the port of Dublin, but there are other ports in Ireland. The port of Cork is rightly exploiting the opportunities provided by European grants, to its legitimate advantage. I do not complain about that, but I think it is wrong for us to refer only to Dublin. The fact is that, given the major ports around the island of Ireland, Belfast will be the odd one out.

771
The port is strongly identified with Northern Ireland. It is an historic port—one of the great ports of the old empire. The Government should not dismiss its deep association with the city. Clearly they will not reverse their current course tonight, but I hope that in the not too distant future the Minister will state from the Dispatch Box that the Government, on reflection, have decided not to privatise the port but to leave it to the sensible stewardship of the harbour commissioners, with whose membership they will not tamper.
Opposition Members fear that, after the order is passed, there will be a period of uncertainty and disquiet. The harbour commissioners will be in limbo, and there will be anxiety among the work force and the trade unions. The Government should heed the popular view expressed by all Northern Ireland politicians, and the fact that a number of us have experienced the problems associated with port privatisation in other parts of the United Kingdom. A Minister should state from the Dispatch Box, in a matter of weeks, that after due reflection the Government have decided to leave the Belfast port and harbour commissioners to flourish in their enterprise, as they are currently trying to do.
9.32 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has taken an informed interest in Northern Ireland and shared the concerns of its people.
Last night, winding up the debate, the Minister of State chided Northern Ireland Members for not talking the Province up. We are here tonight to talk the port of Belfast up, because we fear that a port with a proud history may be shunted down a siding—as it were—that would not benefit either the port or the citizens of Belfast.
I should declare an interest, for several reasons. My son-in-law works in the harbour; my great-uncle was first secretary of the Belfast dockers union; I was a minister for 19 years, and part of my parish was the harbour estate; I represent Belfast, South, members of whose city council and corporation—previously—have been commissioners. For all those reasons, I feel that I have a right to speak tonight and to challenge some of the assertions that have been made.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was trying to make, but, knowing the kipper trade and the herrings to be found along that coast, I thought that he was bringing a red herring into the debate when he spoke of the wonderful developments on the east coast. In fact, there has been a lamentable decline in Britain's west coast ports. The thrust of the European transport system relates to Dublin, Holyhead and further down—and, on the other side, the main link that will cause congestion around the channel tunnel. Some of us have been arguing for the build-up of the west coast ports, including the ports of Larne and Belfast. In case anyone thinks that there is a problem between Larne and Belfast, I can tell hon. Members that my paternal ancestors came from east Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will realise that I am not trying to encroach on his domain.
Belfast has a proud tradition, but we are now in a period of uncertainty. In a sense we have an elected dictatorship.
772
For years we have been lectured in the House about looking after minority rights. When the minority of the nation represented by its Members in this House combines with trade union officials and business interests to tell the House that this is not the right way to go, we would like to think that there might be second thoughts.
Emphasis has already been placed on the concept of consultation. I have had to challenge the use of English in this place on more than one occasion when we have been told that co-operation was excellent. I always thought that when I received an excellent report, which was very rarely, it could not be much better. Tonight there has been another wonderful use of English. We have been told that two fundamental points came from the discussion period. Those points have not been addressed and the draft order is unamended. If they were fundamental points, surely the Government should have addressed them. I am delighted that on both sides of the House voices have been raised arguing for a proper form of democracy and for proper scrutiny of measures in this place. Some 22 years after the abolition of Stormont, there is no excuse for making a mess of Northern Ireland legislation.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Member speaks for almost everyone in Northern Ireland when he talks about consultation. Just this weekend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said and wrote that nothing would happen without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. We are talking not just about consultation but about consent. Yet here we have an Order in Council for which consent is not forthcoming from the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman not find that the procedure that the Minister is pushing through the House is in total contradiction and rejection of the philosophy expounded by the Secretary of State when he said that consent should be applied?
Rev. Martin Smyth: I share my right hon. Friend's concern about the use of English. Yesterday we talked about the concept of consultation and we discovered that consultation meant very little. It is obvious that consent has the same import in certain branches of English scholarship. I do not know whether it is something to do with American English, but it is not Ulster English or Scots English, where we like to call a spade a spade. We would like to think that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland was being looked for rather than something being imposed on us.
We have praised the development of the harbour estate and the landfill site and reclamation work, but now it is possible that, even allowing for clawbacks, some persons could come in later and profit off the backs of the forebears of the harbour commissioners who over the years have been expanding and developing the port. We believe that that is wrong.
Our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland have done marvellously well in pushing their cause within Europe. That is their responsibility and I do not criticise them, but I indict Her Majesty's Government for not pushing the case of Northern Ireland and its ports.
I asked the Minister a question at the beginning of his speech and I was amazed that he did not have the answer on the tip of his tongue. We have heard that Aberdeen, Ipswich and Poole ports have trust status but have not asked to be privatised. As far as we know, the Government have not pushed for them to be privatised. Why has the order been introduced when other legislation that is more

773
important to Northern Ireland and affects the everyday life of its citizens is waiting to be considered? The Minister knows that I have been waiting for legislation to deal with road traffic problems in Belfast, but I have been told that there is insufficient time in the legislative programme. We are not getting our priorities right.
I do not want tediously to repeat the points that have been made, but I endorse my colleagues' arguments and I am delighted that they have been reflected on the Government Benches.
9.40 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Article 12 refers to schemes initiated by the Department. In Northern Ireland we believe strongly that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That should be adhered to and borne in mind at all times.
Regrettably, recent bureaucratic meddling in port affairs in my constituency has been perceived as damaging in the borough of Carrickfergus. A decision has been made to cease commercial operations at the port of Carrickfergus. Was there collusion in Northern Ireland Departments to bring about the decline of Carrickfergus harbour, perhaps to make Belfast harbour even more attractive in the Government's privatisation programme?
The Minister should be aware of the decision taken some time ago in respect of commercial operations at Carrickfergus harbour, which is only 10 miles from Larne. At two public inquiries, it has been suggested that Departments and the council may have misled the commissioners into believing that an alternative port would be developed at Kilroot, but that has not happened. Will finance be made available to Carrickfergus borough council in the event of a decision to rescind the earlier decision to cease commercial operations so that Carrickfergus harbour can be regenerated and redeveloped as a commercial harbour and regain its former principal port status, which it achieved when record tonnages were recorded through the port? Did Northern Ireland Departments promote the scheme to cease commercial activities, and did they encourage the council to believe that it would get a replacement port at Kilroot, for which it would receive private and public funding?
Belfast port has become the principal sea port on the island of Ireland, handling more than 11 million tonnes of trade per annum. The private port of Larne in my constituency has the distinction of being the second busiest ferry port. I have no axe to grind today. I support the retention of the present status of Belfast harbour. Its success was largely attributable to the successful management of the harbour commissioners, who include representatives of the city council and the trade union movement, all motivated by a desire to improve the Northern Ireland economy.
There has been major modernisation and port development. I accept the right of the Government compulsorily to privatise Belfast port, but do they not recognise the potential of that successful port and the disadvantages that would result from a change in its status? Because of the advantages that are about to flow, the ports in the Irish Republic, such as Dublin, will have available grants of up to 85 per cent. for port development. As Belfast is a trust port, its harbour commissioners receive no grants or subsidies from Her Majesty's Government.
774
Retained profits, with assistance from European regional development funds, have financed port redevelopment and modernisation.
The economy of Northern Ireland as a whole benefits from the competitive pricing made possible by good management of all the facilities and assets managed by the Belfast harbour commissioners. Common sense dictates that when all is well there should be no interference. If the Government are determined to interfere, however, the bottom line is that the asset should be secured within the control of the people of Northern Ireland. Is the Treasury so hard up for cash that it has to recoup funds now rather than accept the ongoing annual benefits? I understand that £1 million was paid this year in corporation tax.
All Northern Ireland ports provide competition within Northern Ireland, which has made them attractive to Northern Ireland industry and, indeed, to industry in the Irish Republic, which makes use of our facilities. Millions of pounds every year are being relocated from the profitable private port of Larne and transferred out of the Province. If under privatisation Belfast harbour is lost to Northern Ireland control, its profits, too, will be lost for reinvestment in Northern Ireland. Surely the Minister can accept that the reinvestment of profits generated in Belfast harbour and the ongoing payment of corporation tax make a valuable contribution to the Northern Ireland economy and provide a worthwhile return to the Exchequer for its past investment. I therefore hope that he will accept that variety of management in harbour control has been beneficial and an asset to Northern Ireland, and that he will not proceed with a compulsory privatisation of Belfast harbour.
As I have said, I am conscious of the past advantages of private ownership, which helped to bring about the success and the development of Larne harbour, but I regret that in the present climate, with the greater advantage of EC funding going to the ports of the Irish Republic, the privatisation of Belfast harbour would bring with it serious disadvantages to the Northern Ireland economy as a whole. That would result in higher costs to importers and exporters alike, which could ultimately threaten jobs and employment opportunities beyond Belfast harbour.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I confess to a little puzzlement. Why, in theory or in practice, should one get less money from the EC for the ports in Northern Ireland if they are privatised than if they were in public ownership?
Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Lady for that specific question. What she describes is one of the anomalies of European regional development funding; regrettably, therefore, successive Northern Ireland Ministers have not managed to secure equal benefits for private and public ports in the Province. I hope that the Minister will specifically address that question further in his response.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) that as a party we judge each case on its merits. We see no merit in the proposed privatisation of Belfast harbour through this enabling legislation and we trust that there will be no future decision compulsorily to require the Belfast harbour commissioners to privatise that harbour.
9.49 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: We have had an interesting debate tonight. It is significant that the only support that the Minister has obtained in this debate has been from the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who represents a constituency on the east coast of England, which does not even face Belfast.
No Northern Ireland Member supports the order and no Labour Member supports the order. I doubt whether, if the Minister or any other Tory went to Belfast, they would find one person who supported the order. That is the extent of the issue. There is no support in the House from Northern Ireland representatives or from the Labour party, and there is no support among the people of Belfast. The Minister should take note of that.
Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the absence of support for the policy among the Northern Ireland parties. I remind the hon. Gentleman that only about 5,000 people out of the whole voting population of Northern Ireland supported the Conservative party in the recent elections.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman explains the depth of feeling. I bet that, if we approached Tories in Northern Ireland, they would not support the order, because the port of Belfast is key to the economy of greater Belfast and to the Northern Ireland economy in total. The port accounts for 55 per cent. of all imports and exports to and from Northern Ireland. The order can only mean poorer services and increased port charges, which will have a greater effect on the region than on Great Britain, because Northern Ireland relies on ports for trade and tourism links with the rest of the United Kingdom and the European Community.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) asked the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) why a privatised port should receive less grant than a port in public ownership. The Minister explained why in his opening remarks. Here we have a person who will go through the Lobby tonight to condemn the port of Belfast, yet who does not know what the consequences will be. The people of Belfast will suffer because of this legislation.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: From what I know of the European regional fund regulations, I do not believe that what Opposition Members describe will occur. I see no technical reason why the port should not get just as much, one way or another.
Mr. O'Brien: That shows once again that the hon. Lady is not aware of the circumstances or of the problems that she will create for the people of Northern Ireland in general, but in Belfast especially, by the way in which she votes tonight in favour of the order. Therefore, if the hon. Lady has any merit, the least that she could do would be to abstain or to vote against the order, because she is totally confused over the way in which the European Community grants will apply.
When the Minister was questioned, he explained in his opening remarks that the amount of grant received now, while the harbour is in public ownership, is 75 per cent., yet, under privatisation, it drops to 50 per cent.. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East and other hon. Members. It will have an effect on the economy of the harbour and the economy of Belfast.
The Government have wanted to claim that the order
776
will improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the port. Obviously, they are saying that privatisation will be a lesser burden on the taxpayer.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is within a hair's breadth of convincing the hon. Lady that it would be wiser to abstain or to vote against the order. It should be pointed out that the Minister made it clear to the House in his opening remarks that, while a grant of up to 75 per cent. would be available if the port was in public ownership, a maximum grant of 50 per cent. would be available if it was a private company, and some of us doubt that it would even get that.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's point is significant and relevant. However, may I also tell the hon. Member for Lancaster that we were told tonight that, if the port realises £50 million in capital for its sale, 50 per cent. of that capital will go back to the company? In other words, only 50 per cent. of the value of the port and the real estate which goes with it will go to the Exchequer. Therefore, one has to ask why Conservative Members want to privatise a port which is highly efficient and highly profitable, and which helps the people of Belfast and the Province of Northern Ireland. One has to ask why we are in such a position tonight.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If we take an analogy from Great Britain, from the hon. Gentleman's experience, would he say whether a private port such as Felixstowe had more or less capital investment than some of the publicly owned ports? If he cannot acknowledge that Felixstowe did rather better than most of the publicly owned ports, should he not draw this part of his speech to a speedy conclusion?
Mr. O'Brien: That is another example of a Conservative Member trying to find some solution to justify going through the Lobby to support the order, because, again, the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Belfast is a trust port. All the resources which are generated from that port go back into the business, or it reduces the charges. It is a trust port; it is not a port where there will be—or where there are at present—any benefits to individuals or to companies.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Opposition parties have acquiesced in the disgraceful procedure of putting the matter through by Order in Council, to which he has important, specific detailed objections, when they ought to have been debated by the Opposition through the usual channels in the House?
Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman feels that the business that we are discussing tonight should not have been before the House under the Order in Council procedure, we agree with him. The Minister should withdraw the orders and let us discuss the matter in the manner which has been requested by hon. Members. We should discuss the matter in Committee in the proper way, as legislation should be discussed.
Mr. Budgen indicated assent.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement. If he holds that view, the least that he can do is abstain from voting tonight. He accepts that the orders have been presented to the House in a disgraceful way. I

777
feel that more Tory Members share that view. I appeal to them: if that is their view, the least that they can do is abstain from voting tonight.
Ms Joan Walley: Is it not the case that the orders should be withdrawn so that we can have a proper debate about the Government's transport policy and see how ports and trust ports fit into the whole issue of transport?
Mr. O'Brien: Obviously, one does not want to move away from discussing the principle of the orders. My colleague has introduced a subject that I do not want to follow.
The orders will create complications and problems. I appeal to Tory Members to listen carefully to what is said, especially by Northern Ireland Members, so that we can put the orders in the proper perspective.
Mr. Budgen: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the official Opposition's position on the matter, because this disgraceful procedure has been supported by both Front Benches for a long time? Is it Labour's position that they will no longer support the use of the Order-in-Council procedure to impose legislation on Northern Ireland without proper discussion?
Mr. O'Brien: Each time we debate an Order in Council in the House or upstairs, we make it clear that the way in which the business is presented is undemocratic.
Tonight, we are debating compulsory orders or enabling legislation relating to privatisation of the port of Belfast. In any language, and in any approach to the matter, one can rightly see that hon. Members who support the Government have not fully realised the consequences of the orders. In that context, the least that the Minister can do is withdraw them and allow us to have a full debate on the issue, allow greater consultation and allow Members of Parliament and the people of Belfast to judge the Government's intentions more openly and freely.
With privatisation, the European grant support which has been so beneficial to the port of Belfast will decrease, if not disappear, as was pointed out earlier. There is also the question whether some of the grant that has been paid should be clawed back. Reference has been made to that in the past, and EC Ministers have said, as has Commissioner Bruce Milian, that there is a possibility of clawing back EC funding. Commissioner Millan also made that clear when we discussed the privatisation of Aldergrove airport. The way in which we judge the orders tonight will only be to the detriment of Belfast, the people of Belfast and the people of Northern Ireland.
As I said, the port of Belfast is a trust port, and the trust port arrangement already ensures that there is fair charging and equal treatment in the allocation of berths and other port facilities. There is a real threat that the ownership of privatised ports will be transferred out of Northern Ireland. The Minister was asked earlier to give an assurance that the ownership of the port of Belfast would not be transferred out of Northern Ireland. Hon. Members ask for that assurance because there is fear that, if foreign investors are allowed to take over the port of Belfast, they will engage in asset-stripping, which will be detrimental to the port and to the Northern Ireland community.
We are also aware that a handsome amount of real estate is attached to the port. That matter must have some bearing on the way in which the port will be disposed of. The
778
regulations under which trust ports operate place a responsibility of care on the various statutory bodies which control ports on behalf and in the interests of people in the hinterland served by the port—the people of Belfast. The port of Belfast operates in the interests of both the citizens of Belfast and the whole Province of Northern Ireland.
The board of the harbour commissioners is representative of port users, the business community, Belfast city council and employees, through their statutory joint negotiating committee, and representatives of the trade unions in Northern Ireland. In other words, the board is entirely accountable for the operation of the port of Belfast. That accountability will go under privatisation. There will be a lack of democracy and accountability to the people of Northern Ireland. Under privatisation, the only people to whom the board will be responsible are the shareholders.
When one considers the backcloth to the order, one cannot but object to the way in which it has been presented tonight. Hon. Members have expressed anxieties about the staff pension fund. We have seen some examples of what has happened to pension funds in other privatisation schemes. Northern Ireland Members have expressed fears that redundancies and unemployment could result from the asset-stripping that might take place.
We must also consider security. At present, the harbour commissioners organise security at the port. It has been suggested that the security force at the port could be part of a privatised police force. That again would be detrimental to the work of the port.
The people of Northern Ireland and a great proportion of people in other parts of Great Britain are opposed to this arrogant attempt to impose the ideology of the Tory party. They are opposed to this privatisation enabling Bill. I urge the Minister to consider the consequences and think about what has been said by hon. Members who represent constituencies in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. He should withdraw the order tonight. If the order is not withdrawn, we will divide the House and vote against it.
10.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): The Labour party has opposed every privatisation measure that has come before the House since 1979.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Smith: May I make some progress, as I have completed one sentence so far?
The Labour party has opposed every privatisation measure which has come before this House since 1979, yet it has no proposals to renationalise any of those industries which have been privatised, apart from having some debate about the future of the water industry.
Mr. William O'Brien: I can assure the House that, if the legislation is not on the statute book before the next general election, the nexrLabour Government will stop the privatisation.
Mr. Smith: That, of course, was not the point I was making. The fact is that the Labour party has no proposals to reverse any of the privatisation measures which the Government have put in place.
Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Smith: I shall give way in a moment, but I would like to try to complete my preliminary point.
The Government's privatisation programme has been outstandingly successful. Consumers have benefited, employees have benefited and shareholders have benefited. Even the socialist Government of Greece now proposes to privatise part of its telephone industry. Perhaps one day the Labour party will learn that there are advantages to be gained from privatisation.
Mr. Budgen: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when analogous legislation was put through this House in respect of the United Kingdom, it was done through the Bill procedure? Will he please explain, if I am right in saying that, how the people of Northern Ireland can have any proper confidence in the Westminster Parliament if the squalid procedure of Order in Council is used, which is used particularly to deprive them of their proper rights of discussion?
Mr. Smith: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, and I certainly would not claim that this was a perfect arrangement for the discussion of legislation. I think you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that time simply will not allow for every measure to be included in primary legislation. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing what the Minister has to say, and I am sure that many hon. Members also want to hear it.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may not be aware that, when we debated the privatisation of Belfast international airport under similar procedure and allowed three hours for the debate, the whole time was not taken up. That is an interesting indication of the level of interest. We do not rule out primary legislation for Northern Ireland business, but we must make a judgment in each case.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Smith: The difficulty is that we could spend the rest of the debate discussing this issue, and I would not be in a position to reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: May I ask the Minister whether the legislation to which he refers was amendable? Was there any chance—no matter how long we talked on it—that we could have made any difference, or added even a single full stop, to that order?
Mr. Smith: That is my very point. The legislation is not amendable, and I have said that I am sympathetic to the point that has been made. But there we are—that is the situation we are faced with. [Interruption.] I must move on, or I shall not be able to reply to any points raised during the debate.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Smith: I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add to what I have said.
Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister give way on that subject?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the port of Belfast—
Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about procedure, and I find myself in great sympathy with what the Minister said.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point for me at all. I would think that the hon. Gentleman's point is intended to refer to why the Minister is not giving way. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Taylor: I need a ruling on what you know, rather than on what you think , Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is up to the Minister to give way or not. He has indicated that he is not giving way.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked about the clawback of European grants. In certain circumstances, grants could be clawed back.
Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a different point of order.
Mr. Taylor: It concerns your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right to make a decision on what you think, or on what you know?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has made a decision, so it should be right.
Mr. Smith: As I was saying, in certain instances European grants could be clawed back. If they were, the amount clawed back would be reduced from the proceeds that went to the Treasury.
Mr. McNamara: The Minister is now saying that we would receive a sum, half of which would go to the company, and that any clawback would not be pro rata with the company but would be straight from the Treasury's take. Gosh, that is marvellous. This is a double Dutch order.
Mr. Smith: That is the position. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. We have made no decision about the matter. The order is an enabling measure. But he should remember that, if we decide to go ahead with privatisation, bids will be based on the information that I have just given the House.
Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Smith: No; because I want to deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point, about a management-employee buy-out. I agree with him that, in many ways, that would be the most desirable outcome, which is why the order makes special provision for such a buy-out, providing help to those who want to make a bid at the appropriate time.

781
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was concerned about procedure, should we decide to go ahead with compulsory privatisation. As I said, we have made no decision about that, but if we decided to go ahead, we would want to consider carefully whether the matter should be debated on the Floor of the House. I think that it would probably be debated in response to a prayer.
Mr. Trimble: A few moments ago, in reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), the Minister said that he had great sympathy with his view that this matter was being dealt with inadequately. One way in which he could demonstrate that sympathy is by giving a clear undertaking to the House that, in the event of the Government deciding to make an order for privatisation, the matter will be debated in the House in a proper manner. Will he give that clear undertaking now?
Mr. Smith: I do not think that that would be sensible. We are discussing a hypothetical proposition. We shall give the matter careful consideration. Obviously, it depends from where the prayer comes. I think that the matter will be of sufficient importance to warrant a debate. Given that the Government have made no decision about the compulsory privatisation of the port of Belfast, and the fact that we have two years during which we shall want to hear the views of various people, not least the harbour commissioners, it would not be sensible to give such an undertaking now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way, as I wish to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who asked me about the harbour office. The harbour office is a grade A listed building, and it would continue to enjoy that protection even if the port were privatised.
Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend seriously believe that a procedure that allows for no amendment is a satisfactory way to deal with the privatisation of a port? Why does he carry on in that way if he wants to achieve the support of the people of Northern Ireland for this institution?
Mr. Smith: I have already dealt with my hon. Friend's point. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) was concerned about the environment and areas of special scientific interest. We would want to take that important matter into consideration if we were considering the compulsory privatisation of the port, but that ASSI status will remain, and the area will enjoy the same protection whether the business remains in the public sector or not.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) brought to bear his experience and knowledge of the port of Immingham and the success that the port has enjoyed following privatisation. Many ports in Great Britain have enjoyed similar success following privatisation, which is why I believe that, in certain circumstances, Belfast could benefit similarly.
Ms Walley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but does he accept that there is a difference between voluntary privatisation of trust ports and compulsory privatisation of trust ports, which cannot be properly debated in this place?
Mr. Smith: I certainly accept that there is a difference, and this is an enabling measure. First, we want to discover the opinion of the Belfast harbour commissioners. We want to find out whether they bring forward their own voluntary scheme in the next two years. It will be open to us, as a matter of law, to consider compulsory privatisation only in two years' time. Many of the important matters mentioned in the debate will be relevant to that consideration.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) acknowledged that some advantages would accrue from privatisation, and I welcome that. Obviously, there are some very strong arguments in favour of privatisation, and some arguments against it have been adduced during the debate.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) was especially worried about the Belfast harbour police. The Belfast harbour commissioners, as the port authority for Belfast harbour, appoint and employ harbour police by virtue of section 79 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The responsibility of the harbour police force is to employ a general policing and security service for the harbour estate, which comprises about 2,000 acres, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Training of recruits in general policing matters is carried out by senior officers of the force. All new recruits are given short-term training by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Training of members of the force in the use of firearms is carried out by a senior harbour police arms instructor, who is a fully qualified instructor, trained by the RUC. Members of the force receive refresher courses in the use of firearms every six months, and each member is issued with written instructions regarding the circumstances in which firearms may be used.
Mr. Mackinlay: What will happen in future?
Mr. Smith: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that in future the same arrangements will prevail. There will be no change in the present arrangements when—if—the port is privatised. If the port is privatised, there will be the same arrangements for the harbour police.
Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister take the opportunity, as he has the Floor, to explain to those of us who oppose the proposal for privatisation or enabling legislation what he regards as the advantages, if any, that will flow to Belfast harbour commissioners from privatisation?
Mr. Smith: Given the record of ports privatisation in Great Britain, I believe that considerable good news could follow, as business has held up well in those ports in spite of the recession; there has been a big improvement in productivity; financial reconstruction and rationalisation are continuing; employee involvement in the industry has been extended significantly; managers are being given the freedom to manage, and are actively seeking out and developing new business opportunities. The Government have made no decision about the privatisation of Belfast port, but I believe that those are some of the advantages that could accrue if they did decide to proceed.
Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister take on board the point that the experience in England is not relevant to a position where one will be disadvantaging Belfast significantly with regard to the capital that it can raise compared with its

783
competitor? What does he say about the position with regard to European development money, where our grant will be cut from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. or less, so we shall be disadvantaged?
Mr. Smith: I dealt with that matter earlier.
It being three hours after the motion had been entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [24 June].
The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 220

Division No. 276]

[10.24 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Cran, James

Aitken, Jonathan

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Amess, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Ancram, Michael

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, James

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Devlin, Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dicks, Terry

Ashby, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Aspinwall, Jack

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Atkins, Robert

Dover, Den

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Alan

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Baldry, Tony

Dykes, Hugh

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Eggar, Tim

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Elletson, Harold

Bates, Michael

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bellingham, Henry

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bendall, Vivian

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evennett, David

Body, Sir Richard

Faber, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fabricant, Michael

Booth, Hartley

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Boswell, Tim

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fishburn, Dudley

Bowis, John

Forman, Nigel

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brandreth, Gyles

Forth, Eric

Brazier, Julian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bright, Graham

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Browning, Mrs. Angela

French, Douglas

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gale, Roger

Burns, Simon

Gallie, Phil

Burt, Alistair

Gardiner, Sir George

Butcher, John

Garnier, Edward

Butler, Peter

Gill, Christopher

Butterfill, John

Gillan, Cheryl

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carttiss, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Cash, William

Gorst, Sir John

Chapman, Sydney

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clappison, James

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Coe, Sebastian

Hague, William

Colvin, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Congdon, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Conway, Derek

Hampson, Dr Keith

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hanley, Jeremy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hannam, Sir John

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cormack, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Couchman, James

Hawkins, Nick

784

Hawksley, Warren

Ottaway, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Page, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Paice, James

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Pawsey, James

Hendry, Charles

Pickles, Eric

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Horam, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Richards, Rod

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

Riddick, Graham

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Robathan, Andrew

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hunter, Andrew

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jack, Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Sackville, Tom

Jenkin, Bernard

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Key, Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shersby, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Sims, Roger

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knox, Sir David

Soames, Nicholas

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Speed, Sir Keith

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Legg, Barry

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Leigh, Edward

Spink, Dr Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spring, Richard

Lidington, David

Sproat, Iain

Lightbown, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stephen, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Luff, Peter

Streeter, Gary

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sweeney, Walter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

MacKay, Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maclean, David

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

Madel, Sir David

Thomason, Roy

Maitland, Lady Olga

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Malone, Gerald

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mans, Keith

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Marland, Paul

Thurnham, Peter

Marlow, Tony

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

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tracey, Richard

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Tredinnick, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Trend, Michael

Mates, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Merchant, Piers

Viggers, Peter

Mills, Iain

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Walden, George

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Moate, Sir Roger

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Monro, Sir Hector

Waterson, Nigel

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Watts, John

Moss, Malcolm

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Whitney, Ray

Nelson, Anthony

Whittingdale, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Wilkinson, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Willetts, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Wilshire, David

Norris, Steve

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wolfson, Mark

785

Wood, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mr. Bowen Wells.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ainger, Nick

Fatchett, Derek

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Faulds, Andrew

Allen, Graham

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Flynn, Paul

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Ashton, Joe

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Austin-Walker, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Barnes, Harry

Foulkes, George

Barron, Kevin

Fraser, John

Bayley, Hugh

Garrett, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

George, Bruce

Beggs, Roy

Gerrard, Neil

Bell, Stuart

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bennett, Andrew F.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bermingham, Gerald

Gordon, Mildred

Berry, Roger

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blunkett, David

Grocott, Bruce

Boateng, Paul

Gunnell, John

Boyes, Roland

Hain, Peter

Bradley, Keith

Hall, Mike

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

Hanson, David

Burden, Richard

Hardy, Peter

Byers, Stephen

Harman, Ms Harriet

Caborn, Richard

Harvey, Nick

Callaghan, Jim

Henderson, Doug

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Heppell, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hodge, Margaret

Cann, Jamie

Hoey, Kate

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Home Robertson, John

Chidgey, David

Hoon, Geoffrey

Chisholm, Malcolm

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Church, Judith

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clapham, Michael

Hoyle, Doug

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hutton, John

Clelland, David

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jamieson, David

Coffey, Ann

Janner, Greville

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Corston, Ms Jean

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cox, Tom

Jowell, Tessa

Cummings, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Keen, Alan

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Denham, John

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Dixon, Don

Khabra, Piara S.

Dobson, Frank

Kilfedder, Sir James

Dowd, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kirkwood, Archy

Eagle, Ms Angela

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Eastham, Ken

Lewis, Terry

Etherington, Bill

Livingstone, Ken

786

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Radice, Giles

Loyden, Eddie

Randall, Stuart

Lynne, Ms Liz

Raynsford, Nick

McAvoy, Thomas

Redmond, Martin

McCartney, Ian

Rendel, David

McCrea, Rev William

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Macdonald, Calum

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

McFall, John

Rogers, Allan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Rooker, Jeff

McLeish, Henry

Ruddock, Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Sedgemore, Brian

MacShane, Denis

Sheerman, Barry

McWilliam, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Madden, Max

Short, Clare

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Alice

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mandelson, Peter

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

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Martlew, Eric

Snape, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Soley, Clive

Meale, Alan

Spearing, Nigel

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Milburn, Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Miller, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Stott, Roger

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Morgan, Rhodri

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mudie, George

Timms, Stephen

Mullin, Chris

Tipping, Paddy

Murphy, Paul

Trimble, David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Turner, Dennis

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Tyler, Paul

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Vaz, Keith

Olner, William

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

O'Neill, Martin

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Walley, Joan

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Parry, Robert

Wicks, Malcolm

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Pickthall, Colin

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Pike, Peter L.

Winnick, David

Pope, Greg

Worthington, Tony

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wright, Dr Tony

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Primarolo, Dawn

Tellers for the Noes:

Purchase, Ken

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Quin, Ms Joyce

Mr. John Spellar.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on the other motion to be decided at that hour.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Fenchurch Street Line
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
10.36 pm
Mr. David Amess: All hon. Members are rightly looking forward to the summer recess. It gives us an opportunity to spend more time with our families. In my case that is initially a novelty. Over the past few years my summer recesses have been ruined by the breaking of a number of political storms. For example, one year the local health authority decided that it would close Basildon and Thurrock accident and emergency unit. Two days before the proposed closure, following a bloody row, we managed to keep the unit open and it is now the finest in the country.
Last year, the post office in Pitsea announced its closure and Tesco decided that it wanted to be the first to have a post office in one of its superstores. The whole matter developed into a fiasco and it was badly handled by both the protagonists.
Tonight, I want to share with the House the fact that on 23 July, for the first time in recent history, a main line station—Fenchurch Street—will close for seven weeks. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has agreed with me that it is appropriate to allow our hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to intervene in the debate, should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) could not be here this evening, but I know that he supports the thrust of my argument.
The closure of Fenchurch Street station will undoubtedly have a devastating effect on a huge number of our constituents. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will comment on British Rail's closure arrangements, and also make some general remarks about the programme for the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line.
We all know that travelling in itself is not a pleasurable experience. Certainly it has not been a pleasurable experience for many commuters in our wonderful part of Essex. I must be very careful about how I relay the awful experience that I shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and other hon. Members when we rode in a railway carriage with the present chairman of British Rail. I say that I must be careful because on the last occasion when I mentioned that experience in the House what I said was deliberately misinterpreted by some of our local socialist councillors, who do not commute to London and who also do not work. The journey that we shared with the chairman of British Rail was fairly frivolous: its purpose was to enable the chairman to experience the awful travelling conditions with us, although I am afraid that he did not acquit himself terribly well during the journey.
I make no criticism of the women and men who work for British Rail; they do a magnificent job. What they require is leadership. It is no good senior management of British Rail bleating when we embark on a privatisation programme if they do not accept responsibility and line up behind the Government.
My constituency contains three stations—Pitsea, Laindon and Basildon. In spite of the economic downturn, an increasing number of my constituents now commute to
788
London; indeed, I think it would be fair to say that Basildon's constituents are the life blood of many firms in London. Sadly, however, their mode of travel means that they are often treated like cattle: the station has poor facilities in terms of toilets, restaurants, seating and access for the disabled.
When people actually get on to the trains, they are squashed together—which is not always a pleasurable experience. At one point the service was so bad that British Rail gave out postcards to people getting off the trains, with a number of boxes for people to tick with the excuse that they could give their employers that day. On the return journey, travellers often found that they had to get off at Horndon on the Hill and walk down the track to their destinations. As if that were not bad enough, there are examples of trains going right through their stations. The line has been an absolute shambles, and the current industrial dispute—which Labour, as ever, supports: whatever the strike, Labour supports it regardless of the merits of the argument—is symptomatic of the problem.
I do not wish to be churlish; I pay tribute to our own rail network, which will offer some sort of service tomorrow. I think it is magnificent that the network has done everything possible to get our commuters to their destination throughout this ridiculous dispute.
In one sense, the LTS—London, Tilbury and Southend—newsline customer letter, issued in spring this year, contained good news. It told us that vital engineering work was being carried out as part of an £83 million resignalling project, including renewal of tracks, overhead electrification and signalling between Fenchurch Street and Limehouse. According to the newsletter, much of the project has been completed owing to work being scheduled to take place at weekends and during the night. It states:
"We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers and we have looked at other options. Unfortunately, the temporary closure of Fenchurch Street Station is essential if this part of the work is to be completed in the shortest time.
The date has been specifically chosen to be at a time when many passengers take their holiday and we hope that this advance warning will encourage others to take theirs at the same time."
Well, really. I hardly think that it will go down well with employers in London if everyone in our part of Essex decides to go on holiday and the idea that some of our constituents can take seven weeks off work is ridiculous.
The letter goes on:
"We are working closely with London Underground and Great Eastern to provide adequate alternatives but we realise that this closure will cause inconvenience to many of our passengers."
It certainly will cause inconvenience. It is being suggested that people from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will be travelling to Liverpool Street station. I commuted to Liverpool Street for many years. I pay tribute to the Government for the wonderful way in which Liverpool Sreet has been transformed. However, Liverpool Street station is not that near to Fenchurch Street station and that will cause considerable difficulty for many of our constituents.
I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he really believes that LTS has correctly estimated and seriously thought through the enormous disruption and convenience to some 30,000 users of the line. Business these days is tough and making a sustainable profit is not easy. Employers' patience is already well stretched with genuine excuses from our constituents. It is not good enough in this day and age to say, "My train was late." I question whether the closure is necessary or whether the

789
work could be done in the evening or at the weekend. I hope, for goodness sake, that we will not have the usual fiasco throughout the seven weeks where the work is done for the convenience of the contractors and that they fail to work all day and all night. We must ensure that the work is carried out throughout the entire seven weeks and that it is done to the highest possible quality because a huge amount of public money is being spent on this exercise.
The arrangements during the enforced closure are less than adequate. The press release from LTS dated 16 June is entitled:
"Thanks a Million—LTS Rail gives its commuters a million pound loyalty payment."
Who is kidding who? I hardly think that that is a windfall for our constituents. Anyone with any competence in mathematics can work out that a £50 rail voucher divided over seven weeks is not a great deal of money in compensation. Over the years, our constituents deserve better treatment than that. The offer is vague and totally inadequate.
LTS is suggesting that passengers spread their travelling time by travelling a little later or a little earlier than normal so as to avoid overcrowding. Here we go again. For whose convenience is the service operating? It should be operating for the fare-paying passengers. British Rail is not paying people to use the trains. Some of my constituents want to cash in a proportion of their yearly season ticket to cover the seven weeks and use alternative transport. It is totally unacceptable that at the moment British Rail is saying no. I hope that LTS will look again at its arrangements.
LTS says that the station is scheduled to reopen on 11 September. I do not believe that the advertisements have given us sufficient information. I wish that our wonderful River Thames could be used throughout the disruption. However, I inquired today to find that the journey from Tilbury to the City takes three hours, so that is not a sensible proposal. However, I am sure that people could come up with other alternatives.
The Labour party does not support privatisation. Let there be no doubt in the minds of our constituents that the Labour party has always opposed privatisation. My constituents could not care less who runs British Rail as long as the journey is comfortable, delivered at an economic price and the trains get to the stations on time. The hypocrisy of socialists is shown clearly when they say to people on their doorsteps, "Isn't it shocking that your taxes are going up? What we need is more investment in British Rail." Where the devil do they think that such investment will come from?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Amess: No, I will not.
That investment will come from increased taxes. The idea that there is some nest egg where the money will come from is nonsense. Socialists must be honest with the general public. If the general public are not happy with the amount of taxes that is being collected now, they will never be happy with the taxation that the socialists have in mind for us.
Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that it is a genuine point of order; this is only a half-hour debate.
Mr. Mackinlay: Of course it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have your guidance? The subject of this debate is exactly the same as the subject that I raised on the Adjournment some time ago. I invited the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) to join me for that debate, which was held in the early hours of the morning. He did not support me; I sat alone with the Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I suspected, that is not a genuine point of order but a misuse of the House's time and it is unfair on the hon. Member who has the half-hour Adjournment debate.
Mr. Amess: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is wrong. I phoned the Table Office at 4.30 am, but the debate had been held earlier. I am afraid that the days of honourable behaviour seem to be out of fashion. [Interruption.]
Can my right hon. Friend tell us who the bidders are for the Fenchurch Street line, what service they are offering managers and the general public and how precisely the privatisation programme will be carried out? [Interruption.] Socialists could not care less about the rail service. They are interested only in how people vote, which is why they tried to target my constituency in the 1992 election. It did not work then, and I intend to ensure that it does not work next time.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Amess: No, I will not.
Socialists spread their poison by telling the general public that services will deteriorate and that fares will rocket. It is a joke to suggest that services will deteriorate. They say that there will not be an off-peak service and that people will lose their travel cards and their concessionary fares. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some answers and make this a happy summer recess for everyone and ensure that our constituents get a better deal than the one announced by London, Tilbury and Southend.
10.52 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate my hon. and dear Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on initiating a debate on a matter that concerns so many of our constituents—trying to ensure that they get a fair deal from British Rail while it still exists. Thank goodness it is now being phased out.
I should like to say how much I appreciate the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister. We know that he is here on duty and how much he cares about the Fenchurch Street line—the misery line—which has been one of the disgraces of our public railway service for many years and on which our constituents have experienced the misery of travelling. Not only have signals failed over and again but carriages have been packed. We even had a dead sheep on the line that had not been removed, which gave new meaning to the phrase, "travelling like cattle".
I congratulate the Government on their recent £50 million investment in reviving signals on the line. They have done the best that they can in a hopeless situation. As we have now had the good sense to bring in the private

791
sector, I look forward, as I have for many years, to hearing the good news of the company that is likely to get to run our railway. Nobody could possibly run it more inefficiently and ineffectively than British Rail. I congratulate and support my hon. Friend, and look forward with great pleasure to what the Minister is to tell us.
10.54 pm
Dr. Robert Spink rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) should speak in the debate? There are only 12 minutes of it left.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)indicated assent.
Dr. Spink: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As well as the resignalling project—I congratulate the Government on providing the funds for that £100 million project—two further advances are needed. One is new rolling stock, and 25 of the 317 sliding-door trains will cascade down from the great northern line to our line at the end of 1995. That will be a great advantage to all our constituents.
The other great change needed is an improvement in the management and worker culture, methods and motivation on our line. That will come through the franchise arrangements, which I strongly welcome. I understand that the new management team of LTS Rail, headed by Chris Kinchin-Smith, has now formally registered its intention to bid for the franchise, with employee participation.
I welcome that, but I tell those people that over the coming months we shall watch most carefully developments in the culture, attitudes and motivation of managers and employees on the line. We shall watch especially carefully the way in which they handle the resignalling project. I hope that they will take on board the points so eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).
10.56 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on the great fight that he is putting up for Basildon and for rail passengers—[Interruption.]—despite the harassment from the Opposition, which seems quite out of place.
I want to make two points. First, we are delighted that the resignalling is going ahead. The line has been starved of investment and it is great that we are to get new signalling, especially as some of the signalling for Fenchurch Street is a little older than me. New signalling represents a big step forward.
Secondly, it must be said that, although the line has been dreadful, there has been a dramatic improvement since Chris Kinchin-Smith and his predecessor took over. My constituents feel that things are getting much better.
I also want to ask two questions. First, when on earth will the Government tell us what is the profit or loss on the Fenchurch Street line? I have been asking that question for years, and the Minister says that he will tell me when the time is ripe. That is rather like the Government saying that they will tell me when we shall reform the common agricultural policy. I should like to know the figures.
792
Secondly, could the Minister tell us what the benefits of privatisation will be? Unlike the young enthusiasts, as one of the older Members, I have always had some doubts in my mind. However, as we shall be one of the first lines to be privatised, we shall probably derive some bonuses.
The people of Southend have had a bad time. Things are getting a bit better now, but we should like to know what the glorious opportunities ahead are. Will we get cheaper fares? That would be great. Will we get newer trains? That would be great too. If the Minister would say when the time will be ripe to tell us the actual financial position of the Fenchurch Street line, I should be more than grateful. Of course, we pay tribute to the huge interest that he has taken in the line.
10.58 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I pay tribute to my colleagues, not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who led them, but to my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for their continued interest in the future of the line.
Clearly the resignalling scheme is essential; it will cost about £100 million. The signalling system is worn out, and the reason for 20 per cent. of the faults on the line is that system's ineffectiveness. Everyone welcomes the resignalling.
It is a radical solution to close the station for seven weeks, but I have looked into the question carefully and sought advice from the railway experts, especially those at Railtrack, and I am convinced that closure for seven weeks, although a great burden upon my hon. Friends' constituents, is better than the alternative, which could well be three or more years of part-time working at nights and weekends. That is no way to run a railway. Indeed, I had ministerial responsibility for the docklands light railway, and we all learnt something from that about the ability to run a railway and to improve the infrastructure. Seven weeks is a relatively short period, and I believe that it represents the correct way forward, bearing in mind that the signal box has to be removed, the track realigned at the station and all the old signalling removed.
Are the alternatives capable of handling the 25,000 to 30,000 commuters? I believe so, especially for those from Laindon, Basildon and Pitsea. I have looked into the alternatives. They include London, Tilbury and Southend trains crossing over to the Great Eastern line and running into Liverpool Street. We believe that some passengers will take that option—perhaps a half. Some trains will run through to Barking and passengers will be able to get off at either Upminster or Barking. Their tickets will be valid on the underground, so they can take the District line services into Tower Hill, Aldgate East and Liverpool Street. There will be a shuttle rail service from Upminster to Romford on the Great Eastern line and more trains will stop at Romford on the Great Eastern Line. Finally, there will be buses to take passengers who prefer to get on the Great Eastern line directly. I can confirm that LTS season tickets will be valid on the buses and on the underground, so there will be no additional payments.
I can also tell the House that Ministers will watch developments in July, August and September. There will be duty Ministers, including myself, in the Department. If there are complaints from the travelling public or from

793
Members of Parliament, we shall pay immediate attention to them. I can also tell my hon. Friends that we shall ensure that there is a free telephone line for passengers to ask about the availability of alternative services and to complain if the alternative services are not available. I understand that leaflets for passengers will be published shortly. Indeed, there will be an exhibition at Fenchurch Street this Friday.
On franchising, to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in particular, let me describe the chronology of events and then go on to say what I think the advantages are. We intend that the LTS line should be in the first group of franchises. The intention is that it will be franchised by the end of next year. The pre-qualification procedure will commence at the end of 1994 and the tender documentation will go out to the potential franchisees some time in the spring of next year. I shall then be able to answer my hon. Friend's question because we shall publish the financial data on that line and the other five lines in the first six on or about 1 April 1995.
Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: I shall not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have only a few minutes.
That data will be made available to the House in as much detail as possible because it is a matter of great interest not only to my hon. Friends but to others. I believe that with the line resignalled—we expect that to be completed by next April—and with new modern rolling stock, which will not replace all the rolling stock on the line but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point rightly said, will improve the existing stock—a process that I hope will continue through franchising—we shall have a line that, when it is franchised, will be a first-class performer.
There is interest, and not only from the existing management group. I pay tribute to what the management have achieved. Indeed, I dissociate myself from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon about the chairman of British Rail. I understand his comments, but I pay tribute to what the chairman, other senior managers and, in particular, the management of the LTS line have achieved. I have looked up the figures for punctuality. We have gone from 78.6 per cent. in 1991, to 89.7 per cent. in 1992 and to 92.8 per cent. in 1993. That is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind that we do not yet have the fruits of fresh investment in the line. That is a tribute to the management and staff of the line, together with the interest taken by my hon. Friends and by the Department of Transport. They have encouraged and drawn to the attention of the British Rail management the need to improve services. That is a real improvement in punctuality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked
794
what the advantages are and why we are going through the whole process. We have debated the matter many times before. There are three main advantages. The first is that we shall bring additional private sector capital on to the railways. When the franchise is let, it will have access to private sector capital. That will undoubtedly produce an improvement in investment. It will not happen overnight, but we shall see improvements in the facilities at stations, the improvement of car parking and better information systems available to the travelling public because we shall be freed from Treasury restraint and from the Department's budget.
Secondly, we shall have a management system delegated to the management and the owners of the line. The present management of the LTS line will be involved in future in running the line, whoever is the owner of the franchise company. I very much hope that the present management group will have an equity interest—I hope, a significant equity interest—in the franchise company. I hope that that hope turns out to be reality. However, we want other companies to participate in the franchising process and I am quite confident that that will happen.
I forecast that we shall also get a reduction in fares on the line—not necessarily in the peak period, that would be too much to ask, but for off-peak services, excursion service and contracted services.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me, but I hope that he will forgive me if I respond to the debate. I forecast that we will get those reductions in fares, which will bring a wider benefit to the travelling public. I invite my hon. Friends to visit the line for the ninth time as and when we have franchising.
I believe that, when it is franchised, "the misery line", as it has been depicted in the past, will turn out to mean that the London, Tilbury to Southend line, as a privatised line, will be one of the most successful lines serving the London terminuses. I repeat the commitment that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon that, during the summer and the seven weeks of inconvenience and disruption, which I believe is sadly inevitable in the best interests of the railway to get the job done quickly, Ministers at the Department of Transport will monitor the situation. We want as few as possible of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon to be inconvenienced. I am quite certain that, with co-operation, with the determination of Railtrack and the management of the London, Tilbury to Southend line, the job will be done properly and quickly and will be completed on time.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o 'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applicants for naturalisation, who had not been free of immigration conditions for 12 months at the time of their application, were granted British passports in 1992, 1993 and so far this year;

  (2) how many sportsmen and women who applied for naturalisation and had not been free of immigration conditions for 12 months at the time of their application, were granted British passports in 1992, 1993 and so far this year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not recorded.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances an applicant for naturalisation is granted a British passport within 12 months of being granted indefinite leave to remain.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  An applicant for naturalisation who is not married to a British citizen is normally expected to have been free of immigration time restrictions, but there is discretion to waive this requirement in the special circumstances of any particular case. It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all the circumstances in which this discretion would be exercised in favour of an applicant, but we would consider doing so where the 12-months period has been missed by only a few months, provided that the other naturalisation requirements were met in full and that the applicant had well-established links with this country. We are normally prepared to overlook more than this only if there exist compelling reasons of a business or compassionate nature. We will also exercise this discretion if, at the time the application is considered and is otherwise in order, the 12-month period has been completed.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it takes to process an application for naturalisation; and what targets have been set in terms of upper time limits.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Average waiting times for certificates of naturalisation in May 1994 were 15 months. No upper time limits for completing the consideration of applications are set, but we aim to process all applications as expeditiously as possible while ensuring that the

  Consultant

  Privatisation

  Market Testing

  Management advice

  Accounting

  Audit

  Consultancy

  Other service

  Total sum £

  1988–1991

  Coopers & Lybrand

  1

  1

  3

  3

  822,331

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  3

  303,145

  Ernst and Young

  1

  2

  1

  3

  614,610

  454
  statutory requirements for naturalisation are met. The target is to reduce average waiting times to below 12 months.

  Police Firearms
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of the inquiry carried out by the Lancashire police force into the recent loss, and recovery in Blackburn town centre, of police revolvers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that disciplinary proceedings are being taken against a police officer.

  Firearms
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving the use of firearms were committed in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures of notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which can be found in the Library—latest edition, 1992, Cm 2410, table 3.1.

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of firearms held on certificate(a) at present and (b) one year ago.

  Mr. Maclean
  Estimates of the number of firearms held on certificate are published in paragraph 4 of Home Office statistical bulletins "Firearm Certificates Statistics, England and Wales". Copies for 1991 and 1992 can be found in the Library.

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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, (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.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information on the number of contracts let by the Home Office to each listed company for the specified consultancies and the total sum paid to each company for 1988 to 1991 and 1992–93 is given in the table. Information for the years prior to 1988–89 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  455

  Consultant

  Privatisation

  Market Testing

  Management advice

  Accounting

  Audit

  Consultancy

  Other service

  Total sum £

  Price Waterhouse

  4

  1,731,981

  Arthur Andersen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Touche Ross

  7

  1

  779,700

  Grant Thornton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robson Rhodes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–1993

  Coopers & Lybrand

  1

  1

  145,000

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  1

  1

  *—

  Ernst and Young

  6

  1

  463,064

  Price Waterhouse

  2

  1

  1

  311,760

  Arthur Andersen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Touche Ross

  2

  6

  300,335

  Grant Thornton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robson Rhodes

  1

  *—

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *Individual contract values are not given on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Racially Motivated Attacks
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the reported number of racially motivated attacks by white people on non-white people within the Greater London area in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures are not collected centrally on the ethnic origin of perpetrators of racial attacks in relation to the ethnic origin of their victims.

  The number of white offenders in cases where there has been an arrest and the number of non-white victims of racial attacks recorded by the Metropolitan police service in the last three years are set out in the table. It cannot be assumed that white people were the offenders in all attacks involving non-white victims.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  White offender

  90

  106

  88

  Non-white victim

  424

  430

  495

  Attacks are classified as incidents of violence against the person.

  Information on the ethnic origin of offenders was not collected before 1991.

  Table: Offenders born in 1953: Estimated1 percentage of the population convicted2 of six or more offences, at selected ages, and the percentage of the total number of convictions2 of those born in 1953 attributable to these offenders

  England and Wales

  Percentages

  Offenders with six or more convictions2

  Under 17

  Under 21

  Age under 26

  Under 31

  Under 36

  MALES

  Percentage of male population born in 1953

  1

  3

  5

  6

  6

  Percentage of convictions of those born in 1953

  30

  47

  56

  60

  62

  Police (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the studies and research findings on which he based his decision to introduce a system of performance-related pay for senior police officers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend took account of the argument in support of relating pay to overall performance contained in the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards. But the most influential factor in the Government's decision to introduce performance-related pay for all ranks in the police service was the benefit it will bring to the police service itself. Distinguishing especially good performance from the average performance provides an incentive to people to improve the effectiveness of their contribution, bringing added benefit to both the organisation and the individual, and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

  Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the extent to which a small number of offenders commit a disproportionate number of offences, the percentage(a) of each age group and (b) of the total population that such a group constitutes and the percentage (i) of crime committed by the age group and (ii) of total crime committed in England and Wales that is attributable to such a group.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information in the following table is taken from a birth cohort study using the "Offenders Index":
  457

  Offenders with six or more convictions2

  Under 17

  Under 21

  Age under 26

  Under 31

  Under 36

  FEMALES

  Percentage of female population born in 1953

  3—

  0·1

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  Percentage of convictions of those born in 1953

  6

  11

  18

  23

  27

  1Based on the conviction histories of all offenders born in four selected weeks in 1953.

  2For 'standard list' offences, ie all indictable and triable either way offences and certain summary offences.

  3Indicates less than 0·05 per cent.

  United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd.
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. has been subject to a financial penalty due to the late delivery of a prisoners or prisoners resulting in the need to accommodate prisoners elsewhere; and what was the financial penalty on each occasion.

  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 Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of cases in which United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. have been subject to a financial penalty due to the late delivery of a prisoner or prisoners resulting in the need to accommodate the prisoners elsewhere.
  There have been no cases in which United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. have been subject to a financial penalty due to the late delivery of a prisoner or prisoners.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the Home Office has paid United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. for additional journeys or out-of-area journeys in respect of its contract to run Blakenhurst prison; and what was the amount paid on each occasion.

  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 Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of times the Home Office has paid United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. for additional journeys or out of area journeys in respect of their contract to run Blakenhurst Prison; and the amount paid on each occasion.
  No additional payments have been made to United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. for additional journeys or our of area journeys.

  Prisoner Escapes
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped from prisons in England and Wales on each day from 17 to 20 June; and if he will list the number of prisoners involved in each escape, the prisons from which they escaped, and whether they have been recaptured.
  458
  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 Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about escape statistics during the period 17–20 June.
  During this period, one prisoner escaped from HMYOI Wetherby. No-one else is believed to have been involved. The prisoner concerned returned to Wetherby on 22 June 1994.

  Full Sutton Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the disturbance at HMP Full Sutton on the weekend of 17–19 June; what damage occurred; what is the estimated cost of that damage; and what injuries there were to(a) staff and (b) inmates.

  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 Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 28 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the disturbance at HMP Full Sutton on the weekend of 17th–19th June; what damage occurred; what is the estimated cost of that damage and what injuries there were to (a) staff and (b) inmates.
  No disturbance took place at Full Sutton on the weekend of 17th–19th June. The only recorded incidents which took place during that period were two minor fires in prisoners' cells which occurred separately. No injuries were sustained by either staff or inmates and the damage caused to clothes, bedding and a single item of furniture were negligible in value. In both cases these small fires were extinguished by staff before the arrival of the fire brigade.

TREASURY

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether nature conservation orders made under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 apply to land owned or leased by the Crown Estate Commissioners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is applicable to Crown lands, including the Crown Estate, as set out in section 67 of the Act.
  459
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions taken within the last three years by the Crown Estate Commission has had"regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside"
  as required under section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The policies of the Crown Estate Commissioners on environmental issues are set out in their statement "Stewardship in Action". Activities associated with these policies are described in the annual reports submitted to Parliament each year by the commissioners. Copies of these documents have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much foreshore land is owned by the Crown Estate; and how much land owned by the Crown Estate is leased to(a) shooting organisations, (b) conservation bodies and (c) other bodies.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Crown Estate owns about half the foreshore in the United Kingdom. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, this amounts to some 1,600 miles of which the shooting rights have been leased on about 130 miles, and 480 miles have been leased to conservation bodies. The remainder of leased foreshore—very little is not leased—is let, mainly to local authorities and port and harbour authorities. In Scotland there is a public right to shoot, so that no shooting rights are leased. There, 3,100 miles of foreshore are owned by the Crown Estate of which 84 miles are leased to conservation bodies and 470 to other bodies, mainly local authorities, ports and harbours.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responsibilities the Crown Estate Commissioners have for wildlife conservation on land that they own or lease.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Crown Estate Commissioners have a duty under the provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961 to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it, but with due regard to the requirements of good management. Within this framework the commissioners are committed to an overall objective of balancing environmental with commercial and other needs in order to achieve effective stewardship. Strategies to support this objective are in place in each business group, but more particularly in the agricultural and marine estates, where wildlife conservation is a high priority. More specifically, the commissioners co-operate fully in the work of statutory agencies responsbible for the protection of wildlife in designated areas—for example, sites of special scientific interest and marine nature reserves. Full details of the policy of commissioners are set out in "Stewardship in Action", which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  United Artists (Cable Laying)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of whether United Artists is fulfilling the terms of its licence to install fibre optic cables 460
  in the Basildon area and that the criteria for siting of junction boxes is in accordance with the terms of the licence.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Regulatory responsibility for ensuring that United Artists fulfills the terms of its build programme rests with Oftel and it is content that the company is meeting its build obligations. The standard of the company's street works and the siting of junction boxes are Highway Authority matters. United Artists' licence includes conditions designed to ensure that the company operates in a responsible manner and adheres to all relevant street works legislation. Street works in the maintainable highway are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and its associated regulations, which are enforced by local highway authorities. The company's licence permits it to install junction boxes subject to certain conditions. The company is required to agree guidelines with the planning and highway authorities on the positioning of its above-ground apparatus. It is also required to inform the local authority of its intention to install apparatus and identify where they propose to place the apparatus so that the local authority have an opportunity to make conditions on the siting of the junction box. I have not received any evidence to suggest that junction boxes are not being sited in accordance with licence terms.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will visit the Royal Mail sorting office at Queensferry, Deeside, Clwyd.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have no plans at present to visit Queensferry post office sorting office.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Insolvency Service for closure of files(a) before 8 July and (b) for 1994.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The majority of the Department's agencies are set annual targets. For 1994–95 the Insolvency Service has been set the target of reducing the number of its open cases to a level equivalent to approximately 12 months' input. This will result in the closure of 53,000 cases.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the increased number of insolvency completions on the detection of fraud and the prosecution and disqualification of delinquent company directors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Although some specialist resource will be diverted to assist the process of increased case completions, the Insolvency Service still anticipates that it will devote some 25 per cent. more manpower resource to prosecution and disqualification activity in 1994–95 then in 1993–94.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much extra funding is being allocated to the Insolvency Service in the current year for(a) file closure and (b) fraud investigation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A total of £1·831 million has been allocated to the service from my Department's running
  461
  costs for 1994–95 to fund the additional work required to meet the case closure target of 53,000. The additional allocation provided in relation to fraud investigation for 1994–95 is £1 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost to the Insolvency Service of employing private sector secondees.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  For 1994–95 the estimated cost of employing private sector secondees and/or of engaging other private sector resources on a short-term basis will be £1·12 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the investigation by the Insolvency Service of potential offences or possible areas of investigation when reviewing whether insolvencies can be completed; and what are the reasons for this policy.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The investigation of an insolvency or the consideration of possible offences can be and often is conducted independently of its administration. Where, in reviewing a case with a view to the conclusion of the administration, matters are identified which, prima facie, require further investigation those matters receive full consideration.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his assessment of how the Insolvency Service's recent investigation in the local office information system will assist(a) the mechanical processing work of the service and (b) the investigation work of the service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service's investment in LOIS—local office information system—links a relational database to office automation software. The system assists official receivers in streamlining case administration, particularly in the document production area; and it will provide management with additional information relevant to the allocation of resources and monitoring of performance.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect increases in the rate of closure of files by the Insolvency Service will have on checks for fraud and prosecution of fraudulent directors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None. The additional cases to be closed in 1994–95 will already have been vetted for any requirement for further investigation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many private sector secondees are currently on loan to the Insolvency Service; and what work they are doing.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A total of five private secondees are currently in post in the Insolvency Service and a further two are due to start on 4 July 1994. Three of the secondees are working in the disqualification unit on disqualification matters and two are working in official receivers' offices assisting examiners. The two secondees due to start on 4 July 1994 will be working in the disqualification unit on disqualification matters.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Insolvency Service targets are affected by the completion of extra insolvencies in the current financial year; and to what extent.
  462
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations underlie the allocation of time in the Insolvency Service between mechanical processing work and core investigation functions.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A minimum amount of routine administration work has to be done on each insolvency. The Insolvency Service seeks to devote the minimum level of resource to such work consistent with a proper discharge of official receivers' statutory duty so that it can maximise the resource devoted to its investigative role.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the 18th report of 1993–94 from the Public Accounts Committee on the Insolvency Service executive agency and company director disqualifications.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Government's response to the 18th report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Insolvency Service executive agency and company director disqualifications will be published in due course.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many officials have been to the Insolvency Service on six-month contracts since the establishment of the service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many disqualification proceedings are expected to be issued in the current financial year, identifying those proceedings initiated by insolvency practitioners and those by the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There is no target for the number of disqualification proceedings to be issued. On present information, it would appear likely that in 1994–95 between 750 and 800 disqualification proceedings will be commenced, of which between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. are likely to relate to cases reported on by insolvency practitioners while the remainder will relate to cases dealt with by official receivers.

  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
  The allocation and deployment of additional investigative resources will enable the Insolvency Service to increase the number of reports produced identifying criminal offences, including those relating to a failure to maintain adequate accounting records.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the conviction rate of directors who have traded fraudulently.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Prosecutions by my Department for fraudulent trading resulted in 11 convictions in 1991–92, 24 convictions in 1992–93 and 32 convictions in 1993–94. In relation to offences of fraudulent trading, as
  463
  with other prosecutions for which it is responsible, my Department's practice is to prosecute offenders wherever there is a realistic prospect of a conviction, where the other criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors are satisfied and where bringing such charges will enable the prosecution to put before the court an accurate picture of the defendant's wrongdoing as a whole.

  These criteria will remain the basis for prosecution decisions.

  Pulp and Paper
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made as to the adequacy of the supply of home-produced or imported pulp and paper for packaging and production; and if he will publish a table showing(a) United Kingdom production, imports and net home disposals of pulp and paper by end-use in each month this year to date compared to 1989, (b) the rate of return on capital required to make it profitable for United Kingdom pulp and paper manufacturers to invest in new capacity in the United Kingdom at current rates of exchange and (c) the actual rates of return on replacement and historic cost in 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates of the supply of pulp and paper for packaging and production are a matter for industry. Official statistics on manufacturers sales, imports and exports are published annually by the Central Statistical Office in Business Monitor PAS4710. Copies of this publication are available in the Library of the House. There are no official data on rates of return, but information may be available from commercial organisations which analyse company accounts.

  AGIP (Africa) Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what transactions his Department has had with AGIP (Africa) Ltd.

  Mr. Needham
  My oil and gas projects and supplies office has not had any transactions with AGIP (Africa) Ltd.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what decisions his Department has taken in respect of TECs over the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement with TECs over the same period.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has developed an increasingly close working relationship with the TEC movement over the last 12 months. We have placed particular emphasis on their role in bringing together Business Link partnerships in each local area and the importance of completing the national Business Link network by the end of 1995.

  The Government's White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" and our strategic guidance to TECs, published in May 1994, have both confirmed the importance of TECs working with other partners to agree strategies for business competitiveness and sustainable economic growth.

  To support this work and provide a more secure basis for planning business support services, we have decided that, from 1 April 1995, DTI funding to TECs will be for
  464
  a three-year period which will be rolled forward each year. However, three-year rolling funding will be available only to those TECs which have obtained a three-year licence from the Government office in their region and which can demonstrate satisfactory progress in establishing a Business Link.

  Markets
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change regulations relating to markets overt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A Bill to abolish the rule of market overt, which has Government support, is at present before Parliament.

  Standing Charges (Electricity)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the regional electricity companies regarding their policies on(a) standing charges in general, (b) standing charges for prepayment meters and (c) where consumption is low; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I discuss a wide range of issues with representatives of the regional electricity companies from time to time. Electricity charges are primarily a matter for the companies themselves and for the Director General of Electricity Supply. I understand that the director general is currently considering the issue of standing charges as part of his review of the RECs' distribution price controls.

  Pakistan (Trade Figures)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trade figures between the United Kingdom and Pakistan over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  Between 1989 and 1993 the value of United Kingdom exports to Pakistan increased at an annual rate of 9·7 per cent. while imports increased by 11·7 per cent.

  Nigeria
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the current level of United Kingdom investment in Nigeria and in the Nigerian oil industry; and what steps he is taking to further the interests of British investors in Nigeria.

  Mr. Needham
  According to the latest available information, the book value of United Kingdom assets in Nigeria in 1992 was £476 million. The value of United Kingdom investment in the Nigerian oil industry was £324·6 million.

  My Department is mounting a series of seminars entitled "Opportunity Africa" in conjunction with chambers of commerce around the United Kingdom which will feature Nigeria. We also plan to publish Nigerian market reports on ports management, power generation, agriculture and mining.

  We continue to encourage inward British investment where there is a good prospect of repatriation of profits. There is at present a need for the Nigerian Government to provide an enabling environment for investment.
  465
  We continue to lobby for a change in the current Nigerian legislation which limits existing investors to a maximum of 40 per cent. foreign shareholding. Although Nigeria has abolished this restriction for new investors, it has refused to make any changes to the rule for established companies because of political sensitivities.

  Nigeria
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Nigeria; what were the comparable figures for each of the previous three years; and what particular steps he intends to take to encourage further improvements in United Kingdom trade with Nigeria.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer27 June 1994]: In 1993, the United Kingdom had a trade surplus with Nigeria worth £522 million. In 1991 and 1992, the trade surplus with Nigeria was worth £295 million and £455 million respectively.

  As one of our major markets, Nigeria receives particular attention from my department in the key sectors of oil and gas, power generation and distribution, telecommunications, agriculture/water resources, ports management, mining equipment, railway equipment and pharmaceuticals.

  EC Industry Council
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the EC Industry Council held in Luxembourg on 22 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Council had a general debate on the report of the Bangemann group on Europe and the Global Information Society which has been presented to the Corfu European Council. There was welcome emphasis on the role of the private sector, liberalisation and market forces in developing the information society.

  Preliminary conclusions were adopted by the Council on the Commission's integrated programme in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises and the craft sector. This brings together existing measures and new proposals in favour of SME's within an overall framework. The Council agreed to complete its detailed examination of the programme by the end of the year.

  The Council heard a report from the Commission on the progress of the OECD negotiations on shipbuilding subsidies and emphasised the importance of concluding these in July as long as the few outstanding issues could be resolved satisfactorily.

  On steel, the Commission gave a progress report on the implementation of the article 95 state aid decisions approved in December 1993. In response to a request from the United Kingdom the Commission agreed to a minute statement that it would not hesitate to take action where breach of the article 95 decisions was established. The Commission also reported on progress being made with the restructuring plan for the Community's steel industry and informed the Council that, using its own powers under the steel aids code, it intended to permit Italy to give aid to assist capacity reductions among its private sector producers. The majority of the Council supported the Commission's approach. The United Kingdom was among those expressing reservations about the Commission's interpretation of the aids code, but we were able to obtain
  466
  agreement to tighter conditions being attached to any aid granted. Member states will be consulted on resulting aid applications from Italy on a case-by-case basis.

  Mahogany
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the sources within the Amazon rain forest area of the mahogany provided by Brazilian suppliers to the principal British importers.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: There are no official sources for information on the importation of Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom. The information has not been available since 1992 because the United Kingdom trade classification no longer separately identifies mahogany from several other non-coniferous woods.

  Information on United Kingdom importing companies and Brazilian exporting companies is not available.

  Illegal Arms Trading
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what knowledge the Government had of the activities of Mr. William Harper, Lieutenant-Colonel Eric Matson and Mr. Michael Aspin before their conviction in 1988 for illegal arms trading; and whether the Government had relevant information about these activities which was not revealed at the trial.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: As far as can be ascertained, my Department had no knowledge of the activities of the three men.

  European Regional Funds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each area in the United Kingdom that has been designated eligible for objective 5b status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 22 February 1994, Official Report, column 173.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the terms of reference of the inquiry into the future of the BBC include the possibility of scrapping the BBC in its present form and the creation of a new and cheaper form of public service broadcasting.

  Mr. Brooke
  Our consultation document on the future of the BBC, published in November 1992, set out the key issues for consideration, including the range of the BBC's programmes and services and how they should be financed. I plan to publish a White Paper shortly, setting out our proposals.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many television licences were sold in 1993; how many unlicensed television sets were estimated to be operating in 1993; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the estimated cost, per annum, of identifying and prosecuting people who do not have a television licence; and if he will make a statement.
  467
  Mr. Brooke
  Television licensing records relate to the number of licences in force, rather than the number of licences sold, and to the financial rather than the calendar year.

  The number of licences in force at 31 March 1994 was 20·75 million. The estimated number of households with unlicensed television sets at that date was 1.61 million, and the estimated number with a black and white licence but a colour set was 570,700. The cost to the BBC of identifying and prosecuting television licence evaders in 1993–94 was £15·9 million.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will now make a statement on the future of the BBC charter.

  Mr. Brooke
  I plan to publish a White Paper very shortly.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will publish for each county in Wales, for each local authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole the numbers of people(a) able to claim concessions to their television licence fee and (b) currently claiming such concessions to their television licence in respect of being registered blind or partially sighted;

  (2) what was the level of television licence fee for colour television users in each of the past 10 years; and what was the level of television licence fee concession paid to blind or partially blind people in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: From March 1985 to March 1988 the colour television licence fee was £58. Since then, the fee has been increased annually each April as follows:

  Year

  £

  1988

  62·50

  1989

  66·00

  1990

  71·00

  1991

  77·00

  1992

  80·00

  1993

  83·00

  1994

  84·50

  The reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people has remained at £1·25 since separate radio licences were abolished in 1971.

  I understand that the number of registered blind people in Wales at March 1993 was 9,595. It is not known how many of these own a television set. The number of people in Wales claiming the reduction for registered blind people is not available as records are not held in this form. Registered partially sighted people are not entitled to a reduction on their television licence fee on account of being partially sighted.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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, (f) Touche Ross, (g) Grant Thornton, (h) Robson Rhodes and (i) Pannell Ker Forster for (i)
  468
  privatisation, (ii) market testing, (iii) management advice, (iv) accounting, (v) audit, (vi) consultancy and (vii) other services since his Department was created.

  Mr. Sproat
  Since my Department was established in April 1992, it has let contracts to the consultants listed as shown in the chart.

  In addition, my Department has awarded a call-off contract to Touche Ross for audit services to be provided to its sponsored bodies. It has no minimum or maximum value and payment takes place between the sponsored body and Touche Ross.

  Consultancy Description

  Purpose1

  Value (£000's)

  (a) Coopers and Lybrand

  Review of Schools Library Services

  vi

  43·94

  Innovation workshop in preparation for DNH National Seminar

  vii

  1·76

  (b) KPMG Peat Marwick

  Evaluation Review of the European Co-production Fund

  iii and vi

  26·14

  Evaluation Review of British Screen Finance

  iii and vi

  48·41

  Study of contracting out in English public library authorities

  vi

  57·68

  Assistance in preparation of DNH Performance Appraisal system

  iii and vi

  80·00

  3 separate computer projects on behalf of The Royal Parks agency

  vi

  50·49

  (c) Ernst and Young

  Review of market testing in the British Library

  ii and vi

  36·00

  Review of facilities management in 16 museums and galleries

  Phase 1

  iii and vi

  4·50

  Phase 2

  iii and vi

  60·00

  Audit Services

  v

  11·00

  Feasibility study into the development of a computerised database of the statutory list of historic buildings

  iii and vi

  62·00

  (d) Price Waterhouse

  Review of the Arts Council

  iii and vi

  53·00

  Financial audit of British Library Project following privatisation of PSA

  v

  131

  (e) Arthur Anderson

  Nil

  —

  —

  (f) Touche Ross

  TV Licence Fee consultancy to assess the BBC's revenue gains and advise on the level of fee for the next 3 years

  vi

  207·90

  Management Review of the National Film and Television School

  iii and vi

  16·85

  (g) Grant Thornton

  Nil

  —

  —

  (h) Robson Rhodes

  Nil

  —

  —

  (i) Parnell Kerr Forster

  Nil

  —

  —

  1 (i) Privatisation.

  (ii) Market testing.

  (iii) Management advice.

  (iv) Accounting.

  (v) Audit.

  (vi) Consultancy.

  (vii) Other services.

  Museums
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what Government resources are allocated via museum bodies to assist with annual running costs of any museum; and what policy is used to determine such allocations.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department's grant in aid to the Museums and Galleries Commission includes £1·02 million in 1994–95 towards the cost of supporting the Tyne and Wear museum service. My Department gives no other assistance towards the running costs of museums other than those museums it funds directly.

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

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has taken no decisions in respect of TECs. The Department's only involvement has been to invite the appropriate TEC to attend each of the regional conferences which we are holding.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions will be held shortly between the World bank and the Government of Kenya about support for Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World bank will be meeting donors and the Government of Kenya on 20 July.

  African Development Bank
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the task force on project quality in the African development bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the work of the know-how fund.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund, Britain's programme of bilateral technical assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, now covers 24 countries in the region. Disbursements for 1993–94 were in the region of £61 million. A list of projects has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Yemen
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about Somali refugees in Yemen caught up in the civil 470
  war; and what efforts are being made by the United Nations and humanitarian organisations to take assistance to the Somali refugees.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There have been reports of over 170 fatalities and many more wounded in the Al Koud camp, east of Aden. Following negotiations with both parties to the conflict, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees evacuated the remaining refugees to safe areas. There is concern for the safety of Somali refugees in Aden itself. UNHCR is discussing with the local authorities the possibility of moving them to another location in Yemen.

  To date the United Kingdom has responded by contributing £100,000 to the ICRC appeal and a further United States $50,000 has been chanelled through the International Organisation for Migration.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's involvement with TECs.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Cabinet Office Office of Public Service and Science is involved with TECs in a number of ways.

  First, it has made itself known to all TECs as the recognised industry training organisation for the civil service. It has adopted this role in support of its objective to encourage and support Departments and agencies in meeting the national targets for education and training. This role is publicised to TECs through guides issued by the National Council for Industry Training Organisations, of which the Cabinet Office (OPSS) is a member.

  Secondly, the Cabinet Office organised seminars in London, Leeds, Cardiff and Edinburgh during 1993 as part of the programme of active support for the achievement of Investors in People across the civil service. The local TEC, or local enterprise company in the case of Edinburgh, was closely involved in the planning of each seminar, was consulted on likely local interest and supplied a speaker on each occasion.

  Finally, in terms of domestic involvement with TECs, different parts of the Department have or will have direct contact with their local TEC as they make progress with their own commitment to the Investors in People initiative.

  Child Support Act
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what limitations are placed on individuals employed in the civil service regarding campaigning to change the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No specific rules or guidance have been issued on campaigning to change the Child Support Act 1991. Departments and agencies that have responsibilities under the Act may, however, require their staff to avoid public comment on Government policy in this area in accordance with chapter 4 of the personnel management section of the civil service management code.

  Civil Service
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-European Union nationals are working for the British civil service in Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All officials working in the EC institutions, including those on secondment from the United Kingdom civil service, work for those institutions. There are non-European Union nationals working for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Europe and for the United Kingdom civil service in this country, but their numbers could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the Government's policy on answering under the citizens charter questions from members of the public concerning Government policy and its effect where the information can be obtained from the Central Statistical Office databank on payment to an outside contractor.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's policy under the citizens charter of extending access to official information is supported by the code of practice on access to Government information. The code does not, however, require Departments to provide information which is provided as part of an existing charged service other than through that service. Any data on the CSO databank can be obtained directly from the CSO as well as from outside contractors.

  1989–90 Number of contracts per firm per category

  Gen. MGT CON.

  IT.

  Privatisation (Includes Market Testing)

  Next steps (includes prior option studies)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  33

  44

  2

  0

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  13

  1

  0

  0

  Ernst and Young

  18

  0

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  24

  1

  1

  0

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  24

  3

  5

  0

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contracts Total

  112

  49

  8

  0

  Total amount of spend by 9 listed Consultancy groups £2,239,941.

  1990–91 Number of contracts per firm per category

  Gen. MGT CON.

  IT.

  Privatisation (Includes Market Testing)

  Next steps (includes prior option studies)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  28

  29

  1

  1

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  7

  1

  0

  0

  Ernst and Young

  14

  1

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  28

  1

  0

  0

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contracts Total

  82

  32

  1

  1

  Total amount of spend by 9 listed Consultancy groups £2,200,062.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arable Subsidy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by county the amount of European Union arable subsidy received for the latest year for which figures are available; and what were the figures for each of the past four years.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 448–50. The arable area payments scheme was introduced in 1992 and first payments were made in 1993. There are no comparable figures for previous years.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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, (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.

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to provide the information except at disproportionate cost. Figures are available, however, on a financial year basis, from 1989 under the categories of general management consultancy, information technology, privatisation—including market testing, and next steps agencies—including prior options studies, and are as follows:
  473

  1991–92 Number of contracts per firm per category

  Gen. MGT CON.

  IT.

  Privatisation (Includes Market Testing)

  Next steps (includes prior option studies)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  38

  26

  0

  3

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  14

  1

  0

  2

  Ernst and Young

  17

  1

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  22

  1

  1

  0

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  13

  10

  1

  0

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contracts Total

  104

  39

  2

  5

  Total amount of spend by 9 listed Consultancy groups £2,426,719.

  1992–93 Number of contracts per firm per category

  Gen. MGT CON.

  IT

  Privatisation (includes Market Testing)

  Next steps (includes prior option studies)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  27

  13

  0

  1

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  8

  1

  0

  0

  Ernst and Young

  14

  0

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  21

  0

  0

  1

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  21

  6

  2

  1

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contracts Total

  91

  20

  2

  3

  Total amount of spend by 9 listed Consultancy groups £3,118,228.

  1993–94 Number of contracts per firm per category

  Gen. MGT CON.

  IT.

  Privatisation (Includes Market Testing)

  Next steps (includes prior option studies)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  39

  2

  4

  0

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  14

  0

  0

  1

  Ernst and Young

  20

  0

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  22

  1

  3

  1

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Touche Ross

  38

  3

  4

  0

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Contracts Total

  133

  6

  11

  2

  Total amount of spend by 9 listed Consultancy groups £2,743,931.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role in the Province of the obscene publications branch of Scotland Yard.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The obscene publications branch of New Scotland Yard has no operational role in Northern Ireland. Criminal investigations into breaches of the obscenity laws are a matter for the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died from skin cancern in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:
  474

  Year

  Deaths from skin cancer

  1979

  27

  1980

  33

  1981

  39

  1982

  35

  1983

  31

  1984

  35

  1985

  41

  1986

  38

  1987

  29

  1988

  32

  1989

  30

  1990

  47

  1991

  28

  1992

  34

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

TRANSPORT

  Roadworthiness Checks
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last financial year the number of spot checks carried out on heavy goods vehicles, the number of immediate prohibitions, delayed prohibitions and defect notices issued.

  Mr. Key
  The table gives the information for roadworthiness spot checks.

  1993–94

  Number

  Heavy Goods Vehicles and HGV Trailers

  134,266

  Immediate Prohibitions

  8,951

  Delayed Prohibitions

  10,068

  Defect Notices

  18,206

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what studies his Department has commissioned into the effect on traffic congestion of the use by heavy goods vehicles of the inside three lanes on four-lane motorways;

  (2) what discussions he has had with motoring organisations regarding the use by heavy goods vehicles of the inside three lanes on four-lane motorways.

  Mr. Key
  I have commissioned no specific studies of the use made by heavy goods vehicles of different lanes on four-lane motorways nor have I consulted motoring organisations on this subject.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to promote the use of low or zero-emission vehicles for public transport services; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to promote the use of low or zero-emission public transport service vehicles to improve air quality in cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  There are no plans to promote low or zero-emission vehicles specifically for public transport services. However, the Department of Transport, in recognition of the contribution that motor vehicles make to urban pollution, will continue to set increasingly stringent emission standards for all motor vehicle categories. We are also conducting research to evaluate the role that alternative fuels and control technologies could play in minimising vehicle emissions.

  Last March, I announced a £1·2 million collaborative project involving the Departments of Transport, Trade and Industry, and Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to trial alternative fuels. This project will compare panel vans and urban buses using compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, electricity and biodiesel with conventional fuels. Sixteen
  476
  buses are being converted using funds exceeding £200,000 from local authority budgets, £116,000 of which was allocated by the Department of Transport.

  In parallel studies, the Department is assessing the effectiveness of various emission control technologies, including particulate traps, that could also help achieve lower emissions.

  MV Derbyshire
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete his investigation of the facts presented to him by the chief inspector of marine accidents following receipts of the evidence and footage from Oceaneering Technologies in respect of the wreck of the Derbyshire, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  It is too early to say when the examination of the material by the marine accident investigation branch will be complete to enable the chief inspector to be in a position to advise my right hon. Friend on the course of action which should be followed.

  Automatic Train Protection
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received British Rail's report on automatic train protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Bob Reid has sent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a report setting out the results of the BR's work evaluating the technical trials, costs and benefits of ATP systems. No decisions have yet been taken on implementation. My right hon. Friend has asked the Health and Safety Commission and Railtrack for their views on the report. The HSC's advice is expected in the autumn.

  The report's findings will be made available by Railtrack in the next few weeks. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rail Franchising Director
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what directions he has given to the Franchising Director in respect of payment of subsidy, where services do not operate.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has given no directions to the Franchising Director on this issue.

  London Underground (Fires)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fires have occurred(a) on London Underground property and (b) in London Underground stations in each of the last 10 years; which stations they were in; and how many of them involved escalators.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: The information is not held in the form requested. Figures are readily available only from 1990 onwards, and are not held for individual stations.
  477

  Confirmed Fire Incidents on London Underground 1990 to date

  Year

  In Stations (excluding escalators)

  On Escalators

  Other Property (track and rolling stock)

  Total

  1990

  658

  136

  1,830

  2,624

  1991

  80

  73

  993

  1,146

  1992

  59

  46

  525

  630

  1993

  56

  11

  365

  432

  1994 to date

  13

  5

  52

  70

  Safety
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department gives to value-for-money performance indicators for transport safety measures; and what research has been undertaken by his Department into such indicators.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: My Department strongly supports the use of value-for-money criteria in the consideration of transport safety measures and the need for systematic assessment of costs and benefits in the introduction of safety legislation. A range of research has been commissioned by the Department into the valuation of safety benefits, particularly in relation to road safety. The public transport operators also commission research in which the Department takes a close interest.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions officials of his Department have had with the National Audit Office concerning value-for-money performance indicators for transport safety measures.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: Officials from my Department participated in the National Audit Office seminar in July 1993 and have more recently had a number of informal discussions on performance measures for transport safety.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions are given to public inquiries after transport disasters regarding(a) the prioritisation of any recommendation produced by such inquiries and (b) the estimation of the costs of implementing any recommendations produced by such inquiries.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: The Department believes it important that consideration is given to the costs as well as the likely benefits of implementing any recommendations produced by public inquiries after major transport disasters. This is reflected in the terms of reference of Lord Donaldson's inquiry into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping which required that due consideration should be given to the economic implications of any new measures. The Department attaches importance to ensuring that any future inquiries also include this requirement. The Department has not issued specific instructions about the prioritisation of recommendations.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the number of category A air misses between civilian and military aircraft for each year since 1989.
  478
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: According to the information supplied by the National Air Traffic Services' joint air miss section, the number of category A air misses between civilian and military aircraft for each year since 1989, are as follows:

  Year

  Total

  1989

  12

  1990

  12

  1991

  8

  1992

  9

  1993

  4

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Ministers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to reducing the total number of Government Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the legislative measures for the benefit of disabled people which were introduced during the period that he served as Minister with responsibility for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  During the relatively short period when I was Minister for disabled people—September 1986 to June 1987—the Government introduced a number of legislative measures, including those which improved local authority services for disabled people bringing them additional rights of assessment; requiring authorities to consider the needs of carers; and improving information and consultation.

  Since I became Prime Minister disabled people have benefited from many more important initiatives such as the introduction of the disability living and working allowances, the access-to-work scheme and improvements to promote the integration of disabled pupils within mainstream schools. I have also made clear our commitment to do still more.

  Corfu Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals on environmental protection the United Kingdom has submitted to the European Union Heads of Government summit in Corfu.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom did not submit any specific environmental protection matters for discussion.

  Japan (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has had with his Japanese counterpart, Mr. Hata, in regard to his statement to the Japanese Diet on 17 June that Japan has the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office today.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has made statements in the House on whether he had plans to increase value added tax, both in terms of scope and rate, since he assumed office.

  The Prime Minister
  I have made statements in the House concerning VAT on numerous occasions, details of which are available in the Library of the House.

  AGIP (Africa) Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether he will appoint an independent committee, like that of Lord Justice Scott, to investigate all aspects of money laundering by AGIP (Africa) Ltd;

  (2) whether, further to his correspondence with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, he has initiated inquiries into money laundering involving AGIP (Africa) Ltd.

  The Prime Minister
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales investigated the allegations of misconduct on the part of its members and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify bringing a disciplinary case against them.

  Union Flag (Public Buildings)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he will take to promote the presence of the Union flag in Government and local government offices, institutions and law courts.

  The Prime Minister
  The Union flag is flown on Government buildings on approximately 20 occasions each year at Her Majesty's command to highlight days of national celebration. Other than that there are no restrictions ; local authorities and other organisations are free to display the Union flag as often as they wish, both inside and outside their buildings. While I have no plans to regulate further the display of the Union flag I would welcome its more frequent use as a symbol of our national pride and unity.

  Roberto Calvi
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what inquiries he has made in connection with the Banco Ambrosiano official Roberto Calvi.

  The Prime Minister
  None. The circumstances of Mr. Calvi's death were fully investigated by the police.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.

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

  Jill Rutter
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister in what grade Ms Jill Rutter is employed as a civil servant; and what are her responsibilities.

  The Prime Minister
  Ms Rutter is a grade 5 civil servant, seconded to the policy unit from Her Majesty's Treasury. Her responsibilities cover transport, among a range of other issues.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister in what capacity Ms Jill Rutter attended a meeting of the Railtrack board on 17 June; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Ms Rutter has never attended a Railtrack board meeting. On Friday 17 June, she attended a meeting of officials at the Department of Transport, at the invitation of Department of Transport officials, part of which was attended by some Railtrack employees.

EDUCATION

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 502, what is his current policy on the holdback of grants from the Further Education Funding Council; and whether the grant will be paid to the council to allow it discretion over payments to the individual colleges when they have satisfied its conditions.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend's policy on this matter is unchanged. He will reach a decision in due course.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to prevent colleges of further and higher education from withholding(a) pay increases, (b) references, (c) in-service training and (d) special benefits to those seeking early retirement and other means of pressure on to staff who refuse to sign the College Employers' Forum contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for each college to decide what action it will take in respect of the introduction of new contracts.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received in the last two years on the subject of student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Since June 1992 my right hon. Friend has received 175 letters from hon. Members and members of
  481
  the public on the subject of student loans. In addition my right hon. Friend has received a number of letters on the issue of student support generally. It is not possible to say how many of these mentioned student loans.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will establish a permanent organisation for investigation of accusations in respect of(a) nepotism, (b) preferential contract deals, (c) conflicts of interest and (d) other forms of corruption by principals and governors of colleges of further and higher education and universities; and how many investigations of individual colleges he has ordered to date.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend sees no need for a permanent organisation for the investigation of complaints.

  In the case of an institution in the further education sector my right hon. Friend may intervene under section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 in the event of mismanagement, on the advice of the Further Education Funding Council, or breach of duty. He has requested the FEFC to carry out investigations into the governance and management of two institutions in the further education sector.

  Under section 81 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, if it appears to my right hon. Friend that the financial affairs of any institution within the higher education sector have been mismanaged, he may, after consulting the Higher Education Funding Council and the institution, make directions to the council about the provision of financial support in respect of the activities carried out by the institution. No such direction to the council has been made in respect of any higher education institution.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 805, on new contracts for staff of colleges of further education, what authority the Further Education Funding Council has to bring pressure or offer inducements to colleges to move existing staff on to new contracts; and how it proposes to secure uniformity of conditions in colleges.

  Mr. Boswell
  The FEFC has asked each college to sign a declaration that contracts for new staff satisfy the two conditions that I set out in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 16 February,Official Report, column 842. It is for each college to decide what form of contract it wishes to introduce for new staff and whether it can then sign the declaration.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what instructions or advice his Department offers to firms auditing the accounts of colleges of further and higher education for reporting on staff privileges, membership of private health insurance paid for by the colleges or for the detection of fraud, nepotism or sweetheart contracts by governors and principals.

  Mr. Boswell
  Colleges of further education are required by their instruments of government to appoint auditors and to carry out audit work in accordance with the requirements of the Further Education Funding Council. The Further Education Funding Council Unit, the precursor of the Further Education Funding Council, issued in July 1992 advice on external audit, including guidance on the appointment of auditors, scope of audit 482
  and reporting arrangements. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Council both have powers to inspect colleges' accounts where they consider this appropriate.

  Colleges of higher education are subject to the auditing requirements of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The Council's audit code of practice was issued in July 1993. Higher education institutions funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England are required, from 1994–95, to disclose the actual total emoluments of the vice-chancellor, director or principal, including benefits in kind valued as cash.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 503, whether his Department has asked any colleges for explanations about the forms of contract they have agreed with staff, or approved any contract offered by any college;

  (2) what explanation he has sought from Manchester college of arts and technology about its new contract terms for staff.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has asked Manchester college of arts and technology to explain how its agreement with the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education allows it to sign the declaration to the FEFC that its new contract of employment for lecturing staff is significantly different from its current contract of employment. It has not sought an explanation from any other college.

  Universities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to include the bonds proposed to be issued on behalf of universities in the public sector borrowing requirements; and what factors he intends to take into account to assess whether such inclusion was required.

  Mr. Boswell
  Universities are classified as private institutions and loans they raise from the private finance sector do not add to the PSBR. The definition of the public sector is essentially a matter for the Central Statistical Office.

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the effect of his Department's funding for special educational needs grants for education support and training on other education budgets.

  Mr. Forth
  The GEST programme prioritises less than 2 per cent. of overall LEA expenditure. In 1994–95, there are five SEN grants which total £23·7 million of the overall budget for GEST of £270·6 million.

  It is for LEAs themselves to decide how much of their overall education budget to spend respectively on special educational needs and other areas of education.

  Nursery Classes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many full-time equivalent pupils in designated nursery classes in January 1993 were born between(a) 1 September 1987 and 31 December 1987, (b) 1 January 1988 and 31 March 1988 and (c) 1 April 1988 and 31 August 1988 in each local education authority;
  483
  (2) how many full-time equivalent pupils in primary schools, though not in designated nursery classes, in January 1993 were born between (a) 1 September 1987 and 31 December 1987, (b) 1 January 1988 and 31 March 1988 and (c) 1 April 1988 and 31 August 1988 in each local education authority.

  Full Time Equivalent1 of pupils aged 4 in maintained primary schools in each Local Education Authority in England

  January 1993

  Pupils aged 4 born between:-

  1 September 1987–31 December 1987

  1 January 1988–31 March 1988

  1 April 1988–31 August 1988

  LEA

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Corporation of London

  0·0

  8·0

  0·5

  5·0

  6·5

  5·0

  Camden

  0·0

  509·0

  1·0

  364·0

  18·0

  580·0

  Greenwich

  1·0

  1,050·0

  9·0

  782·0

  411·0

  229·0

  Hackney

  0·0

  871·0

  1·0

  560·0

  449·5

  229·0

  Hammersmith

  0·0

  477·0

  2·0

  363·0

  174·5

  220·0

  Islington

  0·0

  746·0

  1·5

  568·0

  363·5

  293·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·0

  313·5

  0·0

  246·5

  128·5

  93·0

  Lambeth

  0·0

  951·0

  12·0

  736·0

  326·5

  254·0

  Lewisham

  0·0

  974·0

  2·5

  798·5

  412·0

  237·0

  Southwark

  4·0

  1,112·0

  9·0

  771·0

  503·5

  366·0

  Tower Hamlets

  21·0

  969·0

  36·0

  685·0

  472·0

  290·0

  Wandsworth

  0·0

  791·0

  0·0

  609·5

  0·0

  1,071·5

  Westminster

  4·0

  469·0

  4·0

  332·0

  161·0

  153·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  0·5

  750·0

  1·0

  559·0

  2·0

  896·0

  Barnet

  0·5

  1,120·5

  0·5

  831·0

  8·0

  1,401·5

  Bexley

  0·0

  890·0

  0·5

  808·0

  173·5

  206·5

  Brent

  57·0

  960·0

  42·0

  732·0

  73·5

  1,232·0

  Bromley

  0·0

  1,156·0

  0·5

  938·0

  27·5

  225·5

  Croydon

  0·0

  1,287·0

  0·0

  1,005·5

  0·5

  1,788·0

  Ealing

  11·0

  1,172·0

  7·5

  905·0

  15·0

  1,437·0

  Enfield

  1·0

  1,081·0

  0·0

  871·5

  1·0

  1,447·5

  Haringey

  0·0

  943·0

  1·0

  671·0

  5·5

  1,116·0

  Harrow

  1·0

  855·0

  0·5

  622·0

  0·5

  1,015·5

  Havering

  0·0

  967·0

  1·0

  745·0

  2·5

  747·5

  Hillingdon

  1·0

  964·0

  341·0

  49·0

  590·5

  15·5

  Hounslow

  1·0

  841·0

  3·0

  697·0

  14·5

  1,087·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·0

  502·0

  13·5

  363·5

  5·5

  376·5

  Merton

  0·0

  695·0

  0·0

  511·5

  200·5

  359·0

  Newham

  0·0

  1,206·0

  379·5

  3·0

  522·5

  0·0

  Redbridge

  0·0

  953·5

  40·5

  655·5

  184·5

  520·0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·0

  569·0

  0·0

  209·0

  0·5

  375·5

  Sutton

  0·0

  702·0

  186·5

  34·0

  308·0

  15·0

  Waltham Forest

  1·0

  981·0

  13·5

  785·0

  445·0

  192·0

  Birmingham

  1·0

  4,907·0

  5·0

  3,618·0

  14·5

  6,263·5

  Coventry

  0·5

  1,411·0

  0·0

  1,053·0

  1·0

  1,762·0

  Dudley

  0·0

  1,293·0

  1·5

  1,060·0

  460·0

  246·0

  Sandwell

  23·0

  1,404·0

  16·5

  1,048·0

  26·0

  1,732·0

  Solihull

  0·0

  909·0

  0·0

  681·0

  0·0

  1,152·0

  Walsall

  0·0

  1,186·0

  0·0

  923·0

  0·5

  1,533·0

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  1,132·0

  0·0

  849·0

  2·0

  1,463·0

  Knowsley

  0·0

  808·0

  0·0

  642·0

  2·0

  955·0

  Liverpool

  1·0

  2,268·0

  5·0

  1,691·0

  8·5

  2,841·0

  St· Helens

  0·0

  775·0

  0·0

  604·0

  2·5

  1,003·5

  Sefton

  0·5

  1,171·5

  1·5

  927·0

  5·0

  1,503·0

  Wirral

  0·0

  1,419·0

  0·0

  1,169·0

  0·0

  1,907·0

  Bolton

  3·5

  1,226·0

  0·0

  934·0

  3·0

  1,599·0

  Bury

  1·0

  771·0

  1·0

  584·0

  4·0

  1,010·5

  Manchester

  6·5

  2,186·0

  24·0

  1,611·0

  1,660·5

  779·0

  Oldham

  0·0

  1,070·0

  0·0

  825·0

  1·0

  1,356·5

  Rochdale

  1·0

  1,005·0

  0·0

  787·5

  0·0

  1,303·0

  Salford

  10·0

  968·0

  14·0

  785·0

  24·0

  1,377·0

  Stockport

  8·0

  1,268·0

  9·5

  927·0

  20·5

  1,529·0

  Tameside

  0·0

  1041·0

  0·0

  817·0

  2·0

  1,337·0

  Trafford

  0·0

  929·0

  0·5

  666·0

  20·0

  1,141·0

  Wigan

  0·0

  1,406·0

  0·0

  1,028·5

  0·0

  1,673·5

  Barnsley

  0·5

  983·0

  0·5

  773·0

  399·0

  293·0

  Doncaster

  0·0

  1,325·0

  0·0

  1,023·0

  0·0

  1,723·0

  Rotherham

  0·0

  1,098·0

  0·5

  966·0

  542·5

  195·0

  Sheffield

  1·0

  2,135·0

  11·5

  1,712·5

  759·0

  660·5

  Bradford

  0·0

  2,392·0

  3·0

  1,895·0

  524·0

  1,715·5

  Calderdale

  0·0

  929·0

  0·0

  751·0

  0·0

  1,139·0

  Kirklees

  0·0

  1,782·0

  13·0

  1,304·0

  486·0

  1,027·0

  Leeds

  1·0

  3,056·0

  1·5

  2,422·0

  1,049·5

  1,152·0

  Wakefield

  1·0

  1,414·0

  2·0

  1,092·0

  462·0

  718·5

  Gateshead

  0·0

  820·0

  0·0

  585·0

  0·0

  1,058·0

  484
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of pupils aged four at the beginning of the school year 1992–93 being taught in nursery and infant classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England is shown in the table.
  485

  Pupils aged 4 born between:-

  1 September 1987–31 December 1987

  1 January 1988–31 March 1988

  1 April 1988–31 August 1988

  LEA

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Nursery classes

  Infant classes

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1·0

  1,089·0

  1·0

  810·0

  1·0

  1,375·0

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  828·0

  0·0

  581·5

  0·5

  1,063·0

  South Tyneside

  0·0

  727·0

  1·0

  534·0

  0·0

  849·0

  Sunderland

  0·0

  1,321·0

  0·0

  1,050·0

  0·0

  1,685·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  10·5

  0·0

  4·0

  0·0

  9·5

  Avon

  3·0

  3,763·5

  1·5

  2,877·5

  4·5

  5,017·5

  Bedfordshire

  42·5

  2,480·5

  416·0

  999·0

  695·0

  936·0

  Berkshire

  6·5

  3,102·0

  386·5

  510·5

  725·5

  107·0

  Buckinghamshire

  2·0

  2,666·0

  4·0

  1,395·5

  387·5

  541·0

  Cambridgeshire

  0·0

  2,840·0

  0·0

  2,251·5

  2·0

  3,631·5

  Cheshire

  0·0

  4,159·0

  0·0

  3,196·5

  6·5

  5,138·0

  Cleveland

  12·0

  2,702·0

  7·0

  2,085·0

  22·5

  3,478·0

  Cornwall

  1·0

  1,956·0

  2·0

  1,450·5

  117·5

  1,322·0

  Cumbria

  0·0

  1,947·5

  0·0

  1,501·0

  0·0

  2,478·5

  Derbyshire

  2·5

  3,841·5

  15·5

  3,090·5

  1,129·0

  1,688·0

  Devon

  0·0

  3,854·0

  4·5

  3,030·5

  434·5

  1,249·5

  Dorset

  0·0

  2,260·5

  0·0

  1,463·0

  7·5

  1,507·5

  Durham

  1·0

  2,554·5

  3·0

  1,941·0

  93·0

  2,808·5

  East Sussex

  1·0

  2,556·0

  1·0

  2,083·5

  58·0

  1,705·5

  Essex

  0·5

  6,178·0

  18·0

  5,067·0

  454·5

  1,542·5

  Gloucestershire

  0·0

  2,121·5

  0·0

  1,705·5

  0·0

  2,720·0

  Hampshire

  0·0

  6,538·0

  0·5

  5,356·0

  236·0

  1,444·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·0

  2,676·5

  0·0

  2,081·0

  363·5

  444·0

  Hertfordshire

  0·0

  4,066·5

  29·5

  3,362·0

  1,139·0

  1,377·0

  Humberside

  0·0

  4,068·0

  7·0

  3,081·0

  1,285·5

  2,347·5

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  474·0

  0·5

  357·0

  0·0

  598·0

  Kent

  0·5

  6,256·0

  1·0

  4,594·5

  46·0

  6,649·0

  Lancashire

  0·0

  6,245·0

  0·5

  4,835·0

  1·5

  7,884·0

  Leicestershire

  21·0

  3,923·5

  389·5

  2,432·0

  1,233·0

  1,463·0

  Lincolnshire

  0·0

  2,271·0

  0·0

  1,786·5

  31·0

  3,126·5

  Norfolk

  0·0

  2,776·5

  1·5

  2,134·0

  18·5

  2,460·5

  North Yorkshire

  11·0

  2,694·0

  20·0

  2,146·0

  285·0

  2,787·0

  Northamptonshire

  1·0

  2,615·0

  4·0

  2,015·5

  4·5

  3,435·5

  Northumberland

  0·0

  1,227·0

  1·5

  959·0

  15·0

  1,566·5

  Nottinghamshire

  3·0

  4,438·0

  687·5

  1,620·5

  1,831·0

  364·5

  Oxfordshire

  8·0

  2,235·0

  176·0

  559·5

  284·0

  169·0

  Shropshire

  0·0

  1,677·0

  2·0

  1,303·0

  313·5

  605·0

  Somerset

  0·0

  1,807·5

  0·0

  1,423·5

  5·5

  2,414·0

  Staffordshire

  2·0

  4,404·0

  0·0

  3,576·0

  65·5

  5,594·0

  Suffolk

  16·0

  2,546·5

  10·5

  2,010·5

  680·5

  615·5

  Surrey

  1·0

  3,503·5

  2·5

  2,749·0

  421·5

  1,087·5

  Warwickshire

  0·0

  1,972·0

  0·0

  1,536·0

  3·0

  2,541·0

  West Sussex

  0·0

  2,639·0

  1·0

  2,031·0

  42·5

  832·5

  Wiltshire

  0·0

  2,447·0

  0·0

  1,954·5

  96·0

  1,311·0

  Total

  301·0

  200,781·5

  3,417·0

  146,100·0

  25,027·0

  155,592·0

  1Part-time pupil=0·5.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance his Department has issued to head teachers or governors on computer pornography in schools; how his future plans for tackling it have been affected by the possible closure of the obscene publications branch at Scotland Yard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The National Council for Educational Technology is developing guidance for parents and schools on access to computers. This will include advice on computer pornography and will be available later this year. The review of the obscene publications branch is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but I understand that there are no plans to reduce police effort in this area.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultation there has been with teachers' unions on the future of the obscene publications branch at Scotland Yard.
  486
  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Professor Tim Brighouse
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much public money has been paid, or will be paid, to cover costs incurred by him as a result of Professor Tim Brighouse's successful High Court action against him.

  Mr. Patten
  None.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list each chairman of the Student Loans Company since its inception, the date of their appointment and who made it, the salary they received and the companies of which they were directors at the time they were also chairman of the Student Loans Company.

  Mr. Boswell
  The shareholders have appointed three chairmen to the Student Loans Company: Mr. John
  487
  Vereker was appointed, unpaid, on 21 December 1989 and was also a director of the Institute of Manpower Studies; Mr. Malcolm Hurlston was appointed on 6 September 1991 at a salary of £12,000 and was a director of Registry Trust Ltd. and ESOP Centre Ltd. and Mr. Kenneth Young was appointed on 28 July 1992 at a salary of £12,000 and has served as deputy chairman of the Post Office, chairman of Post Office Counters Ltd., Girobank plc and Subscription Services Ltd. and is a non-executive director of FBG Pensions Ltd. and FBG Pensions Investments Ltd.

  National Youth Agency
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the future of the National Youth Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  A policy review of the National Youth Agency is under way. Contributions to an assessment of the general effectiveness of the agency have been invited from interested bodies. My right hon. Friend plans to announce the outcome of the review in the autumn. Meanwhile, I will be placing in the Library today a copy of the letter of consultation to interested bodies which includes details of the terms of reference of the policy review.

  Educational Achievement
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will conduct research into the levels of educational achievement attained by different ethnic groups.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Research evidence is already available on the levels of educational achievement attained by different ethnic groups. The reasons why some groups achieve better than others were examined in detail by the former Swann committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups. Lord Swann concluded that there would be little to be gained in studying the causes further and that the focus should now be on efforts to counter underachievement. The Government have been doing this, through a variety of measures to raise the educational achievement of all pupils, whatever their ethnic background.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of statutory age pupils attended a special school in each local education authority; and what was the national average, for the latest year for which information is available.

  Mr. Forth
  The percentage of pupils aged five to 15 attending maintained special schools in England in January 1993 was 1.31 per cent.

  Information on attendance at maintained special schools in each local authority in England is given in the table.

  Percentage of pupils of compulsory school age attending maintained special schools in each Local Education Authority in England January 1993

  Local education authority

  Percentage of pupils attending special schools

  Corporation of London

  0·00

  Camden

  1·76

  Greenwich

  2·11

  488

  Local education authority

  Percentage of pupils attending special schools

  Hackney

  2·75

  Hammersmith

  2·55

  Islington

  1·60

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·78

  Lambeth

  3·21

  Lewisham

  1·68

  Southwark

  1·59

  Tower Hamlets

  1·72

  Wandsworth

  3·32

  Westminster

  1·14

  Barking

  0·69

  Barnet

  0·77

  Bexley

  0·89

  Brent

  1·14

  Bromley

  0·99

  Croydon

  1·26

  Ealing

  1·32

  Enfield

  1·06

  Haringey

  1·30

  Harrow

  0·79

  Havering

  0·61

  Hillingdon

  1·24

  Hounslow

  1·39

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·45

  Merton

  1·22

  Newham

  0·74

  Redbridge

  1·30

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·85

  Sutton

  1·13

  Waltham Forest

  2·37

  Birmingham

  1·72

  Coventry

  1·83

  Dudley

  1·36

  Sandwell

  1·87

  Solihull

  0·90

  Walsall

  1·21

  Wolverhampton

  1·36

  Knowsley

  2·45

  Liverpool

  2·16

  St. Helens

  1·73

  Sefton

  0·96

  Wirral

  1·57

  Bolton

  1·14

  Bury

  1·18

  Manchester

  2·33

  Oldham

  1·30

  Rochdale

  1·55

  Salford

  1·28

  Stockport

  0·99

  Tameside

  1·27

  Trafford

  1·28

  Wigan

  1·85

  Barnsley

  0·43

  Doncaster

  1·50

  Rotherham

  1·56

  Sheffield

  1·27

  Bradford

  0·89

  Calderdale

  0·48

  Kirklees

  1·14

  Leeds

  0·91

  Wakefield

  1·29

  Gateshead

  1·28

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1·96

  North Tyneside

  1·49

  South Tyneside

  1·40

  Sunderland

  1·39

  Isles of Scilly

  0·00

  Avon

  1·63

  Bedfordshire

  1·36

  Berkshire

  1·59

  Buckinghamshire

  1·66

  Cambridgeshire

  1·00

  Cheshire

  0·92

  Cleveland

  1·46

  Cornwall

  0·42

  Cumbria

  0·34

  489

  Local education authority

  Percentage of pupils attending special schools

  Derbyshire

  0·89

  Devon

  1·33

  Dorset

  1·37

  Durham

  1·24

  East Sussex

  1·65

  Essex

  1·18

  Gloucestershire

  1·74

  Hampshire

  1·63

  Hereford and Worcester

  1·21

  Hertfordshire

  1·40

  Humberside

  0·89

  Isle of Wight

  1·23

  Kent

  1·43

  Lancashire

  1·56

  Leicestershire

  0·80

  Lincolnshire

  1·35

  Norfolk

  0·89

  North Yorkshire

  1·04

  Northamptonshire

  1·18

  Northumberland

  1·12

  Nottinghamshire

  1·07

  Oxfordshire

  1·06

  Shropshire

  0·85

  Somerset

  1·02

  Staffordshire

  1·36

  Suffolk

  0·84

  Surrey

  1·58

  Warwickshire

  1·65

  West Sussex

  1·37

  Wiltshire

  0·99

  England

  1·31

ENVIRONMENT

  Habitats Directive
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be laying the draft regulations for the implementation of the EC habitats directive before the House.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the Government's detailed response to the EU habitats directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are firmly committed to the transportation of the directive into United Kingdom law. I expect to lay draft regulations under the affirmative procedure before the House shortly.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of local authority capital receipts from council house sales set aside as provision to meet credit liabilities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Returns from local authorities indicate that the total amounts set aside as provision to meet credit liabilities at 31 March 1993 was £6·2 billion. No figures are available within this total for the amounts set aside from capital receipts arising from the sale of council houses.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been(a) the total number of council house sales and (b) the number as a percentage of stocks in each district council area for the period since 1980.
  490
  Sir George Young
  A table showing the available information on the total number of council dwelling sales in each English local authority for every financial year since 1979–80 and a cumulative total to December 1993 is in the Library. The table also gives data on the cumulative total of sales expressed as a percentage of the estimated stock at 1 April 1979.

  Ponds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider carrying out a survey into the desirability of pond preservation orders, similar to tree preservation orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Results from a special analysis of the countryside survey 1990 on ponds are expected shortly. Environmental schemes, such as countryside stewardship, protect environmental features including ponds and encourage their creation. Against this background I have no plans to introduce specific statutory protection for ponds.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the relationship between the new index of local conditions and the Z score of deprivation as used by his Department to distribute resources to local government;

  (2) what plans he has to change the resource distribution methodologies to reflect the deprivation of Birmingham as measured by the index of local conditions.

  Mr. Baldry
  The index of local conditions and its predecessor based on Z scores are not used to determine resource distribution. The index is one of the factors which Government offices of the regions may take into account in assessing bids for funding through the single regeneration budget. There are no plans to include the index of local conditions in the standard spending assessment system used to distribute revenue support grant. As well as many other indicators reflecting higher spending need, the SSA system already includes economic and social indices.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of the local government review to local government.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no estimates for the expenditure incurred by local authorities on the local government review.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate Ordnance Survey has made of the costs of revising maps to show new local authority boundaries resulting from the current local government review.

  Mr. Baldry
  The provisional estimate is for a cost between £1·5 million and £3·5 million. Ordnance Survey will make a more precise estimate when results of the local government review are known.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the costs to date and estimated future costs of(a) the Local Government Commission, (b) the Staff Commission and (c) the Audit Commission in relation to the local government review.
  491
  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission incurred expenditure of £2·056 million in 1992–93 and received grant in aid of £5·124 million in 1993–94. We are making available £8·300 million to fund the Commission's activities in 1994–95, and have announced provision of £2·500 million and £1·500 million for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  The Local Government Staff Commission (England) incurred expenditure of £270,692 in 1993–94. We are making available £363,000 to the staff commission in 1994–95, and intend to make available £374,000 in 1995–96, and £386,000 in both 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Where the Local Government Commission invited the Audit Commission's views on proposals for reorganisation, its costs were reimbursed. The Audit Commission has also produced a consultation paper on local government reorganisation—"Time for Change"—at a cost of £46,603. Future work and associated costs will be determined by the response to that consultation paper.

  River Water Quality
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received regarding river water pollution from mining or former mining works in each region in England during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the past year, some 60 representations have been received expressing concern specifically about potential or actual mine water pollution in the National Rivers Authority's Northumbria and Yorkshire region; eight in the Severn-Trent region, two in the North West region and five in the South Western region. In addition there have been some 20 general representations.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes have taken place in each of the last 10 years in river water quality in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The relevant five-year river quality surveys for 1985 and 1990 are available in the House Library. The most recent report on river quality by the National Rivers Authority, published in May 1994, shows a significant improvement in the north-west, with the proportion of good quality rivers increasing from 42 per cent. to 53 per cent. between 1990 and 1992, and the proportion of poor or bad quality rivers declining from 27 per cent. to 19 per cent.

  Road Crossing Facilities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make additional financial resources available for the provision of road crossing facilities for(a) the visually disabled and (b) other disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Resources for revenue spending by local authorities on the provision of road crossing facilities for the disabled are included within their standard spending assessment for highway maintenance. Provisional decisions on the highway maintenance standard spending assessment for 1995–96 will be announced shortly after the Budget as part of the proposed local authority finance settlement.
  492
  Local authorities may also include the provision of such facilities within their annual transport policy programmes which receive funding from the Department of Transport.

  The provision of road crossing facilities for the disabled is at the discretion of individual local authorities, which are best placed to decide on the level of provision taking account of local circumstances and their own spending priorities.

  Wildlife
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 879–80, how many more nature conservation orders he has granted or refused under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England; how many are still in force; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 15 March, Official Report, column 576, how many further prosecutions have been taken under sections 28 or 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 31 December 1993, one new nature conservation order has been made and three orders have been revoked. There are now 16 orders in force.

  There have been no further prosecutions under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and one under section 29.

  Departmental Housing
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will publish the report of the empty homes task group.

  Sir George Young
  We intend to publish shortly the report of the task force on Government Departments' empty houses, along with a Government response to its recommendations.

  Medway Special Protection Area
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons Her Majesty's Government excluded Lappel bank from the Medway special protection area.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend's reasons for excluding Lappel bank from the Medway special protection area are set out in my officials' letter of 10 December 1993 to the chief executive, English Nature, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Water Meters
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has agreed that the Director General of Water Services should be able to make it a condition that water companies intending to expand their system should be required to extend also the installation of meters.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services, the NRA and water companies. When expanding their systems, water companies are expected to assess the relative merits of demand management measures, such as metering or leakage control as compared with resource development. I understand that all but five water companies have a policy of metering water supplies for new connections.

  Coal Extraction
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies he proposes to include in revised planning guidance for coal extraction in the light of responses to the public consultation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies he proposes to include in revised planning guidance for coal extraction in the light of responses to public consultation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The draft guidance that we published in December last year provides a stronger environmental framework than the guidance published in 1988. The Government believe that the planning framework for coal extraction should be based on the same general principles as for other mineral extraction. To avoid any misunderstanding, we have decided to delete the statement in the draft guidance that "it would be against the national interest to refuse permission for coal extraction". It is clear from the responses to consultation that the reference to "the national interest" in paragraph 15 of the draft guidance has been wrongly interpreted as giving an extra presumption in favour of coal mining development.

  The Government wish to see the development of the largest economically viable coal industry for the longer term within its broad objectives of encouraging competition, promoting economic growth and assisting the creation and maintenance of employment. This must, of course, be consistent with land use planning criteria, and the best way of striking the balance between the economic importance of this indigenous energy resource and the protection of the environment is through the careful consideration of individual applications within the framework of the development plan-led system.

  The Government's policy is that, where the development can be carried out in an environmentally acceptable way and consistent with the principles of sustainable development, there is no case, in land use planning terms, for placing more restrictions on coal extraction and colliery spoil disposal than are necessary to ensure full and proper protection of the environment.

  We hope to publish final guidance before the summer recess to provide a planning framework which will ensure that the industry can develop the mineral resource in a way that has proper regard to local concerns and is fully compatible with economic growth, the protection of the environment and the principles of sustainable development. I am confident that with careful planning and a sensitive approach to local concerns the industry will be able to come forward with proposals that contribute to economic growth and which provide an environmentally sound foundation for the future.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if education projects with particular reference to the teaching of English to children of New Commonwealth origin are eligible as bids under the single regeneration budget; for how many such bids he has made provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: The single regeneration budget encourages local partnerships to come
  494
  forward with bids that reflect the needs of their areas and which meet the SRB objectives. These objectives embrace proposals which "promote initiatives of benefit to ethnic minorities" and which "enhance the employment prospects, education and skills of local people, particularly the young and those at a disadvantage, and promote equality of opportunity". It is for local partnerships to decide what their local priorities are and to say how these fit within the strategic approach to regeneration which the SRB bidding guidance requires.

  On present estimates some £100 million will be available nationally in 1995–96 to support new local bids.

DEFENCE

  Al Yamamah Agreements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library tables showing the value of orders placed with British industry each year under(a) the Al Yamamah I intergovernmental agreement and (b) Al Yamamah II intergovernmental agreement valued in cash in US dollars and sterling with the exchange rate used for translation; and if he will estimate the value of sub-contracts on such orders placed outside Britain.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence export sales.

  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the terms of the pre-feasibility study contract on ballistic missile defence; how many bids he has received; from whom; and when he expects to announce the award of the contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom ballistic missile defence pre-feasibility study is the subject of a competitive tendering exercise. Tenders were received on 23 June 1994 from two consortia led by British Aerospace plc and Logica UK Ltd. The two tenders are being assessed against the invitation to tender. It is intended that the contract award will be announced in the autumn.

  Search and Rescue Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparison he has made of the cost of basing search and rescue at RAF Brawdy and RAF Chivenor following the decision to mothball Chivenor and base 14 Signals Regiment at Brawdy.

  Mr. Hanley
  All factors, particularly the operational case but also the financial arguments, were taken into account in reaching our decision to transfer the SAR flight from RAF Brawdy to RAF Chivenor. I have no plans to conduct any further financial appraisal of this matter following my recent decision to base 14 Signals Regiment at Brawdy; my Department is currently considering alternative defence uses for RAF Chivenor.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for independent expert advice to be given to the Ministry of Defence on the care of historic buildings which it owns or occupies.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence takes seriously the Government's commitment to aim for the highest standards of conservation for its historic buildings. To assist in achieving that aim, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has appointed a historic buildings advisory group.

  The terms of reference of the group are that—
  It will assist my Department to manage the historic buildings on its estate by providing a source of informed advice on the care and maintenance of buildings, adaptation for new uses and disposal.
  It will offer expert advice on idividual buildings or groups of buildings, and their setting, and on any associated archaeological aspects as appropriate. Members of the group will provide a link to outside experts and specialists as necessary.
  It will provide advice on the development of my Department's general policy and strategy with a view to establishing priorities in allocating limited resources, and to devising disposal strategies for large or difficult sites. It will thus contribute to the effective management within the available resources of the Department's historic estate, in line with the Government's aim to achieve the highest standards of conservation.

  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will chair this group whenever possible; otherwise the vice-chairman, Sir William Whitfield, CBE, will lead. Other outside members of the group are

  Mr. Alan Baxter

  Mr. Stuart Lipton

  Mr. Ian McIvor

  Mr. Les Sparks

  In addition, Mr. John Ledlie, a deputy under-secretary in my Department, is a member of the group.

  Army Technical Branches
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the organisation of the Army's technical branches and authorities.

  Mr. Hanley
  A review has been completed into the organisation and grouping of the Army's technical branches and authorities. The review reported its initial findings in August 1992.

  One of the recommendations of the review was that the spares divisions located at Chilwell and Donnington should be amalgamated into one division operating from a single site, with ensuing economies of scale. This recommendation has now been subjected to operational and financial appraisals. The most cost-effective solution which has emerged is that the two provisioning and procurement divisions, the vehicle spares division Chilwell and technical equipments division Donnington, should be collocated within a rented building in Telford, near Donnington, achieving savings of some £6,000,000 per annum. I have decided to accept this recommendation as the basis for consultation with the trades unions and other interested parties. Final decisions will only be taken in the light of representations made.

  I am placing a copy of the consultation document in the Library of the House.

  Small Arms Ammunition
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on future orders for small arms ammunition.

  Mr. Aitken
  A long-term contract was won by Royal Ordnance plc last October for the supply of various types of ammunition, including small arms ammunition, during the period 1993–94 to 1997–98. The contract included an option to extend all or part of the contract for a further two years. We have now reached an agreement with Royal Ordnance to extend the small arms element of the contract to cover the years 1998 to 1999 and 1999 to 2000. This increases the value of the contract to Royal Ordnance by some £40 million and should help maintain jobs at Royal Ordnance's Radway Green factory which employs nearly 600 people.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific assessments have been made by his Department, the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, or by the United States Defence Department with his knowledge, of the possibility that some of the Iraqi targets bombed during Operation Granby released chemical warfare agents into the environment that may have contaminated British service men and women.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, CBDE, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 24 June 1994:
  >1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what specific assessments have been made by his Department, the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, or by the United States Defense Department with his knowledge, of the possibility that some of the Iraqi targets bombed during Operation GRANBY released chemical warfare agents into the environment that may have contaminated British servicemen and women has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. During Operation GRANBY, the potential hazard to Service personnel resulting from the bombing of Iraqi targets at which chemical weapons were stored was recognised by the Ministry of Defence. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment made an assessment of the potential downwind hazard distances based on various assumptions for the quantity of agent that might be released as a result of a bombing attack and for the associated meteorological conditions.
  3. The result of the assessment indicated that even assuming simultaneous release of the majority of agent from several bunkers under meteorological conditions which favoured the downwind travel of the agent cloud and ignoring the fact that chemical agents are organic materials which are destroyed by combustion, the maximum distance at which there would be any hazard was of the order of a few tens of kilometres. In practice, simultaneous release is unlikely to occur, agent will be destroyed by combustion and meteorological conditions will be less favourable resulting in a significantly reduced downwind hazard distance.
  4. The conclusion was that there was no evidence that British Servicemen and women would be exposed to chemical warfare agent as a result of bombing attacks. Our appreciation is that the US Department of Defense carried out similar studies and reached similar conclusions.

SCOTLAND

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount charged to council tax payers for water and sewerage charges in each of the regional and island councils of Scotland in 1994–95.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Households receiving a public water supply pay council water charges levied along with their council tax. Sewerage is one of the services funded from within council tax. Details of council water charges and expenditure on sewerage are given in the leaflet recently issued to households in Scotland. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the proposed local government reorganisation will have on the amount of revenue and capital grant paid to the proposed water boards.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The present grant system applicable to local authorities will not apply to the new water and sewerage authorities. Their arrangements will be determined by a new financial control regime. Provision is made in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill for grants to be made to the new water and sewerage authorities under clause 83.

  Wildcats
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences have been issued for the killing or taking of wildcats in each of the past five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  One licence was issued for the taking of wildcats in 1989. In 1990 and 1991 no licences were issued, but in 1992 two were issued to take the species followed by a further such licence in 1993.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by county the amount of European Union arable subsidy received for the latest year for which figures are available; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 14 June,Official Report, columns 462–63. The arable area payments scheme was introduced in 1992 and the first payments were made in 1993. There are therefore no comparable figures for previous years.

  Gaelic-medium Education
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the future of funding arrangements for Gaelic-medium education;

  (2) if he will initiate a strategy aimed at ensuring the continuation of Gaelic-medium education into secondary schools;

  (3) how many responses he has received to Her Majesty's inspectors' report on Gaelic education; and if he will place a summary of the responses in the Library.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Education Department has received 123 responses to Her 498
  Majesty's inspectorate report "Provision for Gaelic Education in Scotland". These are currently being analysed and summarised, and a copy of the summary will be placed in the Library in due course.

  We intend to take account of the inspectorate report and the comments which have been received on it in formulating future policy for Gaelic education, on which I will make an announcement in due course.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children are now receiving Gaelic-medium education in primary schools, by local authority areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The 1993 school census showed that 1,144 primary school pupils were receiving Gaelic medium cross-curricular instruction. This figure is broken down by local authority areas as follows:-

  Local Authority Area

  Number of Pupils

  Highland

  414

  Strathclyde

  398

  Western Isles

  309

  Grampian

  17

  Tayside

  6

  Total

  1,144

  This figure excludes primary school pupils receiving bilingual Gaelic/English instruction or other Gaelic instruction.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to safeguard the place of Gaelic-medium education following the reorganisation of local government.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I see no risk to Gaelic education arising out of local government reorganisation, as the new authorities will have the same responsibilities as the old. The Scottish Office Education Department will issue guidance to education authorities after the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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, (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.

  Mr. Lang
  A full reply could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 21 February 1994 Official Report, columns 51–52, and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 16 March 1994, Official Report, columns 659–60 which contain much of the information sought.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if consultation on the future of the Forestry Commission will take place on the full range of options considered by the working group;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timetable for consultation on the future of the Forestry Commission and on the method of consultation.

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

  Tourism
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to launch additional initiatives to promote Scotland in the tourist market as the home of golf; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statutory agency with responsibility for the promotion of Scotland as a tourist destination is the Scottish tourist board. The board recognises that golf is an important attraction to potential visitors to Scotland and features it prominently in its promotional activities both within the United Kingdom and overseas. Promotional initiatives are an operational matter for the board and I have therefore arranged for its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Glenfeshie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what weight he has attached in his consideration of Glenfeshie to policies of planting set-aside areas with trees nearer to sawmills than the south Cairngorms.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Glenfeshie is a private estate, and thus tree planting on the estate is a matter for its owner.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the value of Glenfeshie and Mar Lodge as attractions for tourism in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  As the Glenfeshie and Mar Lodge estates are privately owned, my right hon. Friend has made no specific assessment of their value to tourism. However, the principal attraction of the Cairngorms area for tourists is the high quality of its landscape and natural heritage. These attractions are well represented in the Glenfeshie and Mar Lodge estates. In recognition of the national importance of the landscape and natural heritage which they contain, significant parts of these estates have been included in the Cairngorms national nature reserve, the Cairngorms national scenic area, and the proposed Cairngorms special protection area.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the conservation areas in Scotland which are subject to article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 directive by his Department.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  A comprehensive list is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  GPs (Night Visits)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, columns 605–6, what is his assessment of the reasons for the upward growth in the figures for night visits by general practitioners.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: The rising trend is likely to reflect a range of factors but the step increase in 1990–91 can probably be attributed largely to changes introduced by the 1990 GP contract to the basis on which GPs are remunerated for night visits, including a two-tier system of payment for night visits and a two-hour extension of the period within which visits gave rise to eligibility for a fee.

  Conveyancing and Executry Services Board
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made a decision about the future of the Conveyancing and Executry Services Board; and what consultations he undertook before reaching his conclusions.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 June 1994]: My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State announced on 21 June that the suspension of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board would continue for a further two years. After careful consideration, we had concluded that the housing market had not yet picked up sufficiently to provide worthwhile opportunities for qualified conveyancers. The decision will be reviewed in a year's time.

  No formal consultation exercise was undertaken in reaching this decision. We did, however, take into account the representations we had received over the period since the board was suspended.

  Public Information
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the names and addresses of those contracted to provide one-stop access to information on behalf of his Department under the taking stock exercise, (b) the estimated annual amount to each including expenses, (c) how many inquiries have been made up to and including 1 June at each office and (d) the pro rata cost of each inquiry; and if he will make a statement on what has been achieved by this project.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: Of the 25 public information points established since September 1993, 20 are in departmental offices around Scotland, three are in citizens advice bureaux in Dumbarton, Airdrie and Kirkcaldy, and two are in the offices of solicitors in Perth and Kirkcudbright—at June 1994. The total cost of establishing all 25 information points is approximately £27,000 covering racking, shelving, the provision of a telephone helpline, and printed material. No payments have been made to the firms in whose offices information points have been established. A record of the number of inquirers calling at the information points is not kept, and consequently it is not possible to calculate a cost per inquiry. Information points make an important contribution to the accessibility of the Scottish Office and allow members of the public to inquire, complain or make suggestions about the Department's services and policies.

  Johnstone Health Clinic
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the utilisation or disposal of the former Johnstone health clinic, which was closed when Argyll and Clyde health board opened the new Johnstone health centre.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 June 1994]: I understand that this property is currently being considered for use as a centre for day care for adults with learning disabilities. The project sponsors—Argyll and Clyde

  Area

  A+

  A

  B

  C

  Cost per area

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  10

  22

  410,282

  Ayrshire and Arian

  —

  —

  4

  23

  311,681

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  11

  112,584

  Common Services Agency

  1

  2

  4

  2

  222,565

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  4

  13

  209,332

  Fife

  —

  1

  6

  18

  340,973

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  4

  20

  281,907

  Grampian

  2

  12

  20

  54

  1,279,010

  Greater Glasgow

  12

  45

  81

  142

  4,566,621

  Highland

  —

  1

  10

  21

  442,372

  Lanarkshire

  —

  2

  4

  37

  524,275

  Lothian

  11

  27

  50

  97

  2,918,595

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10,235

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  State Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  2

  9

  23

  46

  1,088,476

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  1

  2

  40,935

  Total numbers per award type

  28

  99

  221

  509

  —

  Total cost

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12,759,843

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list for each of the last five years, the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to her Department; and if she will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The table gives the aggregate cost of contracts with each of the 11 named consultants for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94. Details for 1989–90 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The final item in the table gives the total cost of other consultants employed by the Department for the same years. Lists of those consultants for the years in question appear after the table. The figures are presented in this aggregated form because showing the figures for each year would reveal the cost of some individual contracts and so breach commercial confidentiality. The figures exclude contracts with MAFF agencies.

  Consultant

  1990–91 to 1993–94 £

  (a) KPMG Peat Marwick

  509,890

  (b) Touche Ross

  795,057

  (c) Price Waterhouse

  483,641

  502
  health board, Strathclyde regional council, and Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust—expect to make a decision during the summer.

  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number and total cost of merit awards currently made to consultants for each health authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 June 1994]: The information is shown in the table:

  Consultant

  1990–91 to 1993–94 £

  (d) Ernst and Young

  2,598,758

  (e) CSL

  0

  (f) Prime

  30,878

  (g) Basis

  0

  (h) Theodore Goddard

  10,126

  (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead

  0

  (j) Capita

  39,207

  (k) Shreeveport

  254,443

  Others (see lists below)

  21,809,271

  List of additional firms which have provided consultancy work 1990–91 to 1993–94

  AC Systems Ltd.

  ACT Business Systems

  ACT Logsys

  ACT Meisys Ltd.

  Admiral Management

  Agricultural Analysts

  Aims Systems Ltd.

  Aimtec Europe

  Amba Group

  Amdahl (UK) Ltd.

  AMP Systems

  Ampersand Systems

  Amtec Consulting System

  Analytical Information System

  Andrew Cheshire

  Anglia Business Systems

  Applied Systems

  Applied Information Systems

  Arc International Plc

  Ashbourne Biosciences

  Ask Group

  Aslib Consultancy

  503

  Asterisk

  BIS Applied Systems

  BMT Reliability Consultants Ltd.

  BNSS

  Brandt Computer

  Bristol University

  Brook Systems

  Building Energy Solution

  Butler Cox

  Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd.

  Cambridge Ergonomics

  CCTA

  Chisq Ltd.

  Civil Service College

  Clarke Whitehill

  Comer Capacity

  Consort Consultancy

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Corporate Computers

  CSS Trident

  Currie and Brown

  D. M. Shaw and Associates

  DA Consulting Systems

  Data Dictionary

  DEGW

  Digital

  DIS Industrial Consultants

  Disability Matters

  DPP International

  DR Hoodless

  Duhig Berry Ltd.

  E. G. Burnett

  Easams Ltd.

  Edinburgh University

  Electronic Facilities Design

  EM Consultants

  Energy Auditing Agency Ltd.

  EOSYS Ltd.

  Exclusive Software

  Ferriby Marine

  FI Group Plc

  Fletcher King

  Forvous Computer

  Forward Catering Consultancy

  Foxware

  Gateway

  George T. Dunn Partnership

  Good Technology

  Grafton Database

  Halcrow and Partners

  Harrowell

  Harwell Computer

  Hayes-Davies PA

  Hoskyns Group Plc

  Hunterskill

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  ICS (Sales) Ltd.

  Inference Europe

  Infologistix

  Ingres

  Insight Consulting

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  International Software

  Intersect

  ISM Consultants

  Johnstone and Wright Consultants

  Keith Butterfield Associates

  Kermon

  Korda and Co. Ltd.

  L. G. Mouchel and Partners

  LAB Systems

  Lawrence Hewitt Partnership

  LBMS

  Lloyd Davies Associates

  Logica

  Manpower Plc

  Mansell Associates

  Maynes Associates

  McNeel Robertson

  Megaware Consultants

  504

  Metron

  Midsummer Computing

  Mills McClure

  Miro Communication Ltd.

  MJN Faclities Management

  MMT Computing

  Mott Macdonald

  Mouncey and Partners

  MSB International

  MSG

  National Remote Sensing Centre

  Nifes Consulting Group

  Office Angels

  Ofice

  Opal

  Oracle Corporation

  P. E. International Plc.

  PA Consulting Group

  Pactum

  Pentana Ltd.

  Personnel Health and Safety Ltd.

  Peter Goodall

  Posford Duvivier

  PQ 1546

  PSA Monitoring and Targeting Service

  Quanta Learning Systems

  R T Grundy Associates

  Reed Personnel

  Ricardo Technical Co.

  Risks and Policy Analysis

  Robertson Gould

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Santa Cruz

  Sapphire International

  SEC Technograph

  Secure Information

  Siemens Nixdorf

  Sema Group Systems Ltd.

  Sequelogic

  Sequent Computer Systems

  Sherwood Computer Systems

  Sir Ronald McIntosh

  Softbridge

  Softlab Ltd.

  South West Health Authority

  Span Group

  Spicer and Oppenheim

  SRU Ltd.

  Stoy Hayward

  T M Energy Consultants

  Tech Op Ltd.

  Timberlake Clark

  Triad Special Systems Ltd.

  University of Hull

  University of Reading

  Vauntberry

  Worthy Associates

  Wye College

  YACC

  Zergo

  Arable Subsidy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list by county the amount of European Union arable subsidy received for the latest year for which figures are available; and what were the figures(a) 12 months, (b) 24 months, (c) 36 months and (d) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend on 20 June 1994,Official Report, column 34. The arable area payments scheme was introduced in 1992 and the first payments were made in 1993. There are therefore no comparable figures for previous years.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will set out her reasons for not renewing this year the invitation to the Transport and General Workers Union to nominate representatives to the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Transport and General Workers Union was not invited to re-nominate a representative to the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis this year because, following a review of membership, I decided that only those organisations with a clear and direct concern in the problem needed to be represented.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations are currently invited to nominate representatives to the consultative panel of badgers and bovine tuberculosis; and which organisations were invited to nominate representatives to the panel in the previous round of nominations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The organisations currently invited to nominate representatives to the consultative panel on badgers and bovine tuberculosis are:

  British Veterinary Association

  Country Landowners Association

  Fauna and Flora Preservation Society

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Mammal Society

  National Cattle Breeders Association

  National Farmers' Union

  National Federation of Badger Groups

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Royal Society For Nature Conservation

  Tenant Farmers' Association

  Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

  Males

  1I and II

  Mean intake per day

  Percentage of total population intake

  Intake as percentage of RNI

  Intake as percentage of LRNI

  Nutrient

  Energy (kcals)

  2,470·0

  101

  298

  n/a

  Fat (g)

  103·6

  101

  n/a

  n/a

  Total sugars (g)

  120·6

  105

  n/a

  n/a

  Calcium (mg)

  1,006·0

  107

  144

  252

  Iron (mg)

  15·0

  107

  172

  313

  Carotene (µg)

  2,731·0

  113

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin A (µg) (retinol equivalent).

  1,735·0

  103

  248

  578

  Vitamin C (mg)

  96·8

  130

  242

  968

  Vitamin D (µg)

  4·2

  111

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin E (mg)

  12·4

  106

  n/a

  n/a

  Potassium (mg)

  3,363·0

  106

  96

  168

  Magnesium (mg)

  342·0

  106

  114

  180

  1Social Class

  2estimated average requirement

  n/a not applicable

  Males

  1IV and V

  Mean intake per day

  percentage of total population intake

  intake as percentage of RNI

  Intake as percentage of LRNI

  Nutrient

  Energy (kcals)

  2,410·0

  98

  295

  n/a>

  Fat (g)

  100·1

  98

  n/a

  n/a

  Total sugars (g)

  111·1

  97

  n/a

  n/a

  Calcium (mg)

  868·0

  92

  124

  217

  Iron (mg)

  12·8

  91

  147

  267

  Carotene (µg)

  2,040·0

  85

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin A (µg) (retinol equivalent).

  1,557·0

  93

  222

  519

  506 Womens' Farming Union
  In addition, there is an independent chairman and three independent members.

  The organisation invited to nominate representatives to the panel in the previous round of nominations were:

  British Veterinary Association

  Country Landowners Association

  Fauna and Flora Preservation Society

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Mammal Society

  National Farmers' Union

  National Federation of Badger Groups

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Royal Society For Nature Conservation

  Transport and General Workers' Union

  Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

  In addition there was an independent chairman and four independent members.

  Nutrition
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the mean consumption of the nutrient intakes of(a) energy, (b) fat (c) total sugars, (d) calcium, (e) iron, (f) carotene, (g) vitamins A, C, D and E, (h) potassium, (i) magnesium and (j) iron for (i) men and (ii) women aged 16 to 64 years in (1) social classes I and II (combined) and (2) social classes IV and V (combined); and what these figures are as a percentage of (x) the mean for the population for the population as a whole, (y) the reference nutrition Intake and (z) the lower reference nutrient Intake, in accordance with figures 5.2, 5.4, 5.14, 5.20, 5.22, 5.24, 5.26, 5.28 and 5.30 of the 1994 Report of the 1986–87 dietary and nutritional survey of British adults.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is given in the table.
  507

  1IV and V

  Mean intake per day

  percentage of total population intake

  intake as percentage of RNI

  Intake as percentage of LRNI

  Vitamin C (mg)

  53·8

  72

  135

  538

  Vitamin D (µg)

  3·5

  93

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin E (mg)

  12·7

  109

  n/a

  n/a

  Potassium (mg)

  2,987·0

  94

  85

  149

  Magnesium (mg)

  299·0

  93

  100

  157

  1Social Class

  2estimated average requirement

  n/a not applicable

  Females

  1I and II

  Mean intake per day

  percentage of total population intake

  intake as percentage of RNI

  Intake as percentage of LRNI

  Nutrient

  Energy (kcals)

  1,740·0

  104

  290

  n/a

  Fat (g)

  75·8

  103

  n/a

  n/a

  Total sugars (g)

  91·2

  106

  n/a

  n/a

  Calcium (mg)

  790·0

  108

  113

  198

  Iron (mg)

  12·9

  105

  99

  179

  Carotene (µg)

  2,533·0

  119

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin A (µg) (retinol equivalent)

  1,722·0

  116

  287

  689

  Vitamin C (mg)

  96·2

  132

  241

  962

  Vitamin D (µg)

  3·3

  106

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin E (mg)

  8·7

  101

  n/a

  n/a

  Potassium (mg)

  2,633·0

  108

  75

  132

  Magnesium (mg)

  261·0

  110

  97

  174

  1Social Class

  2estimated average requirement

  n/a not applicable

  Females

  1IV and V

  Mean intake per day

  percentage of total population intake

  intake as percentage of RNI

  Intake as percentage of LRNI

  Nutrient

  Energy (kcals)

  1,580·0

  94

  282

  n/a

  Fat (g)

  69·5

  95

  n/a

  n/a

  Total sugars (g)

  78·0

  91

  n/a

  n/a

  Calcium (mg)

  660·0

  90

  94

  165

  Iron (mg)

  11·6

  94

  89

  161

  Carotene (µg)

  1,613·0

  76

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin A (µg) (retinol equivalent).

  1,217·0

  82

  203

  487

  Vitamin C (mg)

  55·6

  76

  140

  558

  Vitamin D (µg)

  2·9

  94

  n/a

  n/a

  Vitamin E (mg)

  8·2

  95

  n/a

  n/a

  Potassium (mg)

  2,219·0

  91

  64

  111

  Magnesium (mg)

  208·0

  87

  77

  139

  1Social Class

  2estimated average requirement

  n/a not applicable

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions her Department has taken in respect of TECs over the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement on her Department's involvement with TECs over the same period.

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for training and enterprise councils lies primarily with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  We attach importance to the provision of education and training for the land-based industries. MAFF takes a keen interest in ensuring that the agricultural and horticultural
  508
  industries have access to the best resources available to train their work forces. To that end, MAFF has been instrumental in providing resources to the industry training organisation for agriculture and commercial horticulture, ATB-Landbase Ltd., and in helping to ensure that those organisations, such as the TECs, which guide and provide training and education of direct interest to the land-based industries, are aware of the training needs of businesses in the rural economy.

  Over the last year, the Ministry has developed its contacts with several TECs on a regional basis. We have discussed how rural initiatives can be developed in partnership with businesses and training providers, and how the available resources can best be targeted to meet the training needs of the industry. Visits by Ministers to TECs

  509
  are a feature of their regional programmes. MAFF and the consortium of rural TECs are members of the national rural education and training strategy whose aim is to contribute to the development of the rural education and training infrastructure. NRETS is currently considering how existing training and education mechanisms are meeting the changing needs of the land-based industries and we look forward to its advice.

  Fish Marketing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will introduce a marketing development scheme for fisheries similar to those under the Agriculture Act 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  The establishment of a marketing development scheme for fishery products similar to that already adopted under the Agriculture Act 1993 would not be in accordance with the EU rules on state aids in the fisheries sector. These rules are currently under review in Brussels, but it remains to be seen whether the Union will decide to change them in this respect.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 169, which interested parties he intends to consult regarding the future of the state veterinary service.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend intends to consult very widely, and would welcome the views of any interested person or body.

  Integrated Administration and Control
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of the proportion of eligible farm holdings, which submitted admissible integrated administration and control scheme documentation by the closing date in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Jack
  At the time of distributing the IACS forms we could not predict how many forms would be returned in an admissible state.

  We were able to accept 155,977 applications as having been lodged with United Kingdom Agriculture Departments by the 15 May deadline; of these 81,863 were received in England, 20,329 in Wales, 25,416 in Scotland and 28,369 in Northern Ireland. An application may relate to more than one farm holding. Departments are still carrying out detailed checks to determine eligibility for payment of these applications.

WALES

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district council area in Wales and for Wales as a whole the number of neighbourhood watch schemes in operation as at 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not held in the form requested. It is collated at police force level, and the available information is as follows:
  510

  Police Force

  Total at 31 December 1993

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  1,257

  Gwent Police

  210

  North Wales Police

  2,989

  South Wales Police

  1,292

  TOTAL

  5,748

  Temporary Jobs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many temporary jobs were available in jobcentres in the week ended 28 May in each Welsh travel-to-work area and in total in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on vacancies for temporary jobs is available only on a quarterly basis. During the period 10 January 1994 to 8 April 1994 the number of vacancies for temporary jobs notified to jobcentres in Wales was 10,400. Information is not available for travel-to-work areas.

  Road Safety Education
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will issue guidelines to all initial teacher training colleges recommending that they include road safety education on all PGCE and B.Ed. courses;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to provide a specific allocation of financial resources for the training of teachers in road safety education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The Government set out the criteria which all courses of initial teacher training must meet, focusing on the subject knowledge and teaching skills new teachers require to be effective in the classroom. It is for the initial teacher training institutions to decide on the inclusion of cross-curricular elements such as road safety education in the courses they provide.

  The funding made available to initial teacher training providers by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and through tuition fees is intended to reflect the costs of all aspects of the training courses and it would be inappropriate to make special provision for road safety education which is an optional element of these courses.

  Separately, the Department provides funding to the British Institute of Traffic Education Research to provide the services of the Traffic Education Officer for Wales. Among other things, the duties of this officer involve advising on the handling of road user education in schools and organising seminars for student teachers.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to(a) place a general duty upon all schools to provide road safety education and (b) include child casualty reduction as a stated aim in their programmes of preventive health and safety education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are opportunities within the framework of the national curriculum for road safety education. It is for local education authorities and schools to determine the organisation of any such education and whether it should be delivered in the context of individual national curriculum subjects or as part of a cross-curricular programme.

  The Government's strategy for reducing road accidents involving children is set out in the document "Children and

  511
  Roads: A Safer Way", a copy of which is in the Library of the House and which includes a section on road safety education in schools. Road safety officers in individual authorities provide advice to schools and a range of teaching materials is available.

  The Welsh Office provides funding for the services of the traffic education officer for Wales who advises on the handling of road user education in schools and organises seminars for student teachers.

  Simplified scheme

  Main scheme

  County

  £

  Cereals £

  Oilseeds £

  Protein £

  Set-aside £

  Total £

  Clwyd

  410,500

  201,003

  92,365

  50,903

  87,646

  842,417

  Dyfed

  1,023,574

  386,878

  127,527

  68,800

  156,527

  763,306

  Gwent

  258,122

  275,784

  158,478

  37,083

  108,494

  837,961

  Gwynedd

  201,997

  86,392

  14,143

  12,367

  32,826

  347,725

  Mid Glamorgan

  35,322

  120,958

  55,760

  21,705

  47,289

  281,034

  Powys

  362,912

  267,031

  68,021

  21,568

  96,698

  816,230

  South Glamorgan

  97,319

  219,383

  39,986

  29,344

  78,977

  465,009

  West Glamorgan

  72,248

  12,258

  12,059

  —

  5,074

  101,909

  TOTAL

  2,461,994

  1,569,957

  568,339

  241,770

  613,531

  5,455,591

  Law Students
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students studying for a law degree in the University of Wales failed to secure legal traineeship in each year since(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1993–94.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

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

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the last 12 months my right hon. Friend has provided strategic and planning guidance to TECs; officials have negotiated contracts based on assessments of TECs' corporate and business plans and in the light of the resources available; and TEC performance has been monitored and reviewed. Throughout the year decisions were taken in the context of the TEC operating agreement and variations to business plans made as appropriate.

  Student Employment (Summer Vacation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial support he proposes to help Welsh students who fail to find employment during the summer vacation and whose parents are unable to support them; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Student support arrangements through the mandatory grant and loan make more resources available to students than through grant alone. The student loan is intended to cover the whole of the academic year

  Arable Subsidies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county the amount of European Union arable subsidy received for the latest year for which figures are available; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The arable area payments scheme was introduced in 1992 and the first payments were made in 1993. There are therefore no comparable figures for previous years. Payments made since 1993 to date are as follows:

  including the summer vacation period. In addition, further and higher education institutions in Wales receive access funds to provide discretionary help to students in particular financial need. Access funds totalling £1·262 million for the current academic year were distributed by the Welsh funding councils to FHE institutions in Wales.

  Tourism
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applicants for section 4 grants were made by tourism operators in Wales in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested on the number of section 4 applications is as follows:

  Total applications

  1990

  210

  1991

  316

  1992

  646

  1993

  467

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total value of section 4 grants made to tourism operators in Wales in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested on the value of section 4 grants is as follows:

  Total value approved (£)

  1990

  3,838,409

  1991

  3,159,654

  1992

  4,845,233

  1993

  5,138,717

  513
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many section 4 grants have been allocated to those involved in tourism services in(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested on the number of section 4 grants made is as follows:

  Total approved

  1990

  163

  1991

  169

  1992

  488

  1993

  426

  Pollution
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prosecutions have been brought against farmers for alleged pollution incidents in Wales in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) in the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally. Information on numbers of prosecutions brought by the National Rivers Authority in its Welsh region following farm water pollution incidents is contained in the authority's annual reports on "Water Pollution Incidents in England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many companies in Wales were taken to court for polluting the environment in 1993; how many of them were successfully prosecuted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution prosecuted three companies in 1993. All three prosecutions were successful.

  Information about prosecutions undertaken by the National Rivers Authority is included in its annual reports, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Details of prosecution actions by local authorities are not held centrally.

  Infertility, Gwent
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if Gwent health authority has sought from his Department advice as to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient means of providing for infertility investigation and treatment in its area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Advanced Technology Programme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the effects of cuts in the advanced technology programme in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The effects of cuts will be minimal in Wales.

  Transport Planning Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will issue a document on transport planning policy guidance.
  514
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is currently reviewing planning policy guidance note 13, "Highways Considerations in Development Control", and revised guidance will issue in due course.

  Warner Report
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of Dr. Morton Warner's report for the Welsh Health Planning Forum on the future supply and demand for hospital beds and other medical facilities in Wales, with particular reference to Powys and Neath.

  Mr. Redwood
  Copies of the Welsh Health Planning Forum document "Health and Social Care 2010" have been placed in the Library of the House. Policy for the NHS Wales is to provide the number of beds needed to fulfil the promises of the patients charter.

  NHS Trusts (Job Losses)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received from national health service trusts about their estimates for job losses(a) up to the end of the current financial year and (b) in the next financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no requirement for NHS trusts to inform the Welsh Office of any changes in the numbers of employees.

  Local Government (Wales) Bill
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the Minister of State's oral statement of 16 June,Official Report, column 773, giving the final date on which instructions were given to parliamentary counsel for drafting amendments to clause 44 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords], on what previous occasions his Department instructed parliamentary counsel in relation to the amendments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of such exchanges between Government Departments are not normally divulged.

  Social Services
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for developing the inspection of social services in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 June 1994, Official Report, c. 274–75]: I regret that an incomplete answer was given. A full reply is as follows:

  In June 1993, I published a consultation document "Inspecting Social Services in Wales". This set out proposals for applying three key principles of the citizens charter—that inspectors should be independent of the services they inspect, that lay people should be involved in inspections, and that inspection reports should be accessible to the public.

  I intend that during 1994 there should be clear and demonstrable progress, both nationally and locally, towards the wider implementation of the citizens charter principles.

  The social services inspectorate for Wales has already made considerable progress. For some years its inspection reports have been available to the public. A small group is

  515
  being established to advise on the social services inspectorate's inspection work; half its membership will represent service users, carers and wider lay interests, and half will be drawn from local authorities and providers of services in the independent sector. Since February 1994, inspection teams have begun to include lay assessors; inspection reports will take full account of their views and observations.

  I propose to issue shortly, for a brief consultation, draft guidance on how the same principles should be applied to the work of "arm's-length" inspection units in local authority social services departments.

  The new guidance will give local authority chief executives the important role of commissioning independent annual reports on the work of inspection units. These reports will focus on whether units apply the same standards to both local authority and independent provision, and on how effectively local authorities respond when improvements are shown to be needed.

  The guidance will call for a change in the composition of advisory committees for inspection units. By the end of 1994 the number of lay people unconnected with the authority should be increased so that they form a majority on advisory committees.

  I intend, too, that during 1994 we will begin to see lay people involved in social services inspections, and their views reflected in inspection reports. It will not be possible to include lay people in every inspection, but there must be substantial lay involvement on a regular and continuing basis.

  The consultation document restated the Government's commitment to open reporting. I have been greatly encouraged to see that most county councils in Wales are already making inspection reports publicly available. I intend that by the end of 1994 this should be normal practice for all authorities.

  This requirement for open reporting will cover joint inspections by local authorities and health authorities of premises dually registered as both residential care homes and nursing homes. I believe that progress towards joint working will be further helped if both sectors are working to the same citizens charter principles. I shall be consulting health authorities, nursing home associations and others about how this can best be done.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of total budget in each Welsh district health authority and trust was spent on(a) managerial, (b) administrative and (c) clerical costs in each year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The percentages of total expenditure by each district health authority and national health service trust in Wales accounted for by spending on managerial, administrative and clerical costs in 1991–92 and 1992–93 were as follows:

  Percentage

  Authority

  Managerial

  Administrative and Clerical

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  1·5

  6·1

  East Dyfed

  1·2

  6·6

  Gwent

  0·9

  6·3

  Gwynedd

  0·7

  6·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·3

  6·0

  516

  Authority

  Managerial

  Administrative and Clerical

  Pembrokeshire

  1·0

  6·3

  Powys

  1·5

  3·8

  South Glamorgan

  2·4

  8·2

  West Glamorgan

  1·2

  5·8

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  2·1

  5·6

  East Dyfed

  1·3

  6·7

  Gwent

  1·1

  6·8

  Gwynedd

  0·5

  6·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·6

  3·2

  Pembrokeshire

  0·2

  0·1

  Powys

  1·6

  4·2

  South Glamorgan

  2·3

  8·9

  West Glamorgan

  1·0

  5·7

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  2·0

  8·9

  Sources:

  Health Authorities Annual Accounts/Financial Returns

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust Annual Accounts/Financial Returns (1992–93 only).

  House Burglaries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many house burglaries were reported in Wales and for each county in Wales for the year 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows the number of domestic burglaries recorded in each police force in Wales in 1993. The information is not available centrally for counties and 1994 data are not yet available.

  Domestic burglaries recorded in Wales in 1993, by police force

  Force

  Number

  Dyfed Powys

  1,567

  Gwent

  3,315

  North Wales

  3,917

  South Wales

  14,478

  Wales

  23,277

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the response of the United Nations to Tanzania's proposed withdrawal from the peacekeeping operation in Liberia; and what reason was given by Tanzania for this withdrawal.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Tanzania has not made a definite decision to withdraw from the ECOMOG peacekeeping force in Liberia. The United Nations is in negotiation with the Tanzanians to solve problems which have arisen with logistic support for the Tanzanian battalion.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to strengthen mines protocol No. 11 to the 1981 inhumane weapons convention.
  517
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A review conference on the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention has been called for 1995, the main aim of which will be to consider strengthening protocol II on the use of land mines. We are already playing a full role in the preparations for that conference.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy and rationale with regard to the ratification of the 1980 inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom has signed the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention, and we are now working actively towards ratification. We hope to achieve this soon, certainly in time for the review conference in 1995.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is seeking to extend the 1980 inhumane weapons convention to cover internal conflicts.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The application of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention to non-international conflicts is one of the issues being considered by the expert groups preparing for the review conference on the convention in 1995. We are playing a full role in this process.

  South Lebanon
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances the Israeli Government have given him about their intentions for South Lebanon and on the time scale and diplomatic procedures for the fulfilment of those intentions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received assurances from Prime Minister Rabin that Israel recognises its international border with Lebanon and has no territorial claim on Lebanese territory.

  On 18 April, in a speech to the Knesset, Prime Minister Rabin proposed that, "In the first phase, the Lebanese army be deployed up to the Northern border of the security zone. For six months, it must prove its ability to maintain total calm and to disarm Hizbullah in Southern Lebanon If this is proven and total quiet reigns on the Northern border of the security zone, we will begin peace negotiations that I hope will last three months. We will be prepared to withdraw to the International border between Lebanon and Israel on three conditions: Full peace and normalisation; appropriate security arrangements; and, of course, our commitments to the Southern Lebanese Army and the residents of Southern Lebanon, the integration of the South Lebanese Army within the Lebanese army and a guarantee to residents of Southern Lebanon that they will not be harmed."

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Israel gave undertakings to withdraw from South Lebanon before he lifted the arms embargo on Israel.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Prime Minister Rabin has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs assurances that Israel recognises its international border with Lebanon and has no territorial claim on Lebanese territory.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's involvement with TECs.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My Department has in the past received help with our new entrant training programme for technical staff. A redundancy task force is now providing assistance in the design of a redundancy package; and the TECs have provided information and presentations on national vocational qualifications and Investors in People.

  Bosnia
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to funding the restoration of Bosnia-Herzegovina's historic monuments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have taken the lead in the international effort to restore Sarajevo library, and have made a substantial contribution to restocking books. We are considering together with the international community the broader general need for reconstruction once there is a lasting peace settlement.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when instructions for entitlement to free entry clearance were sent to all the relevant posts: and if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the instructions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The payment, or waiver, of consular fees, which include fees for entry clearances, is regulated by the Consular Fees Act 1980 and the Consular Fees Orders, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Their texts are included in "Diplomatic Service Procedure", which is issued to all missions overseas.

  Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the commitments the UN Security Council has made to peacekeeping operations in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994 to the latest date; what are the total estimated expenditure on each of these commitments; and what the estimated United Kingdom contribution is to each of them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following figures are taken from the UN status of contribution reports, as at 30 April 1994:

  Year and Peacekeeping Operation

  Total United Nations Costs ($)

  United Kingdom Assessment ($)

  1992

  UNEF/UNDOF (Golan Heights)

  35,202,425

  2,120,982

  UNIFIL (Lebanon)

  144,962,169

  8,792,954

  UNAVEM (Angola)

  56,604,651

  3,420,182

  ONUCA (Central America)

  12,120,754

  724,660

  UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait)

  60,869,647

  3,651,915

  ONUSAL (El Salvador)

  36,260,035

  2,175,387

  UNAMIC (Cambodia)

  33,294,358

  2,010,720

  UNTAC (Cambodia)

  801,823,206

  48,813,331

  UNPROFOR (Yugoslavia)

  250,455,801

  15,254,166

  UNOSOM (Somalia)

  108,441,298

  6,584,483

  Totals

  1,540,034,344

  93,548,780

  519

  Year and Peacekeeping Operation

  Total United Nations Costs ($)

  United Kingdom Assessment ($)

  1993

  UNEF/UNDOF (Golan Heights)

  34,876,514

  2,197,941

  UNIFIL (Lebanon)

  145,743,422

  9,222,081

  UNAVEM (Angola)

  39,455,995

  2,452,303

  UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait)

  47,724,255

  3,003,584

  ONUSAL (El Salvador)

  26,820,645

  1,645,125

  UNTAC (Cambodia)

  633,052,039

  39,817,868

  UNPROFOR (Yugoslavia)

  1,000,492,613

  63,180,260

  UNOSOM (Somalia)

  487,363,740

  30,982,123

  UNUMOZ (Mozambique)

  193,305,270

  12,186,193

  UNFICYP1 (Cyprus)

  8,547,112

  538,081

  Totals

  2,617,381,605

  165,225,559

  1994

  UNEF/UNDOF (Golan Heights)

  Nil at 30 April 1994

  As at end April 1994

  UNIFIL (Lebanon)

  22,551,241

  1,427,407

  UNAVEM (Angola)

  11,160,876

  699,901

  UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait)

  Nil at 30 April 1994

  ONUSAL (El Salvador)

  18,261,194

  1,126,194

  UNTAC (Cambodia)

  100,000,000

  6,372,790

  UNMLTC (Cambodia)

  734,462

  46,145

  UNPROFOR (Yugoslavia)

  721,870,851

  45,940,530

  UNOSOM (Somalia)

  581,887,289

  37,037,392

  ONUMOZ (Mozambique)

  138,891,762

  8,810,223

  UNFICYP (Cyprus)

  10,207,835

  641,833

  UNOMIG (Georgia)

  2,470,084

  155,453

  UNMIH (Haiti)

  1,509,915

  95,725

  UNOMIL (Liberia)

  39,801,097

  2,521,099

  UNAMIR (Rwanda)

  83,054,455

  5,265,229

  Totals

  1,732,401,061

  110,139,921

  1UNFICYP was only brought onto United Nations assessed contribution funding on 15 June 1993. It was previously funded through voluntary contributions.

  MINURSO (Western Sahara) was established in 1991. Costs for subsequent years have been met from the original resources.

  Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the documents submitted to the Foreign Affairs Council in Corfu on the European Union policy position on the Korean nuclear problem.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the European Council meeting in Corfu, Heads of Government expressed their deep concern at North Korea's continued failure to comply with its safeguards agreement, and their hope that exchanges currently being pursued would rapidly result in a satisfactory solution to the crisis. A copy of the presidency's conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Czech Republic
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relationship with the Czech Republic; what ministerial visits have taken place to the Czech Republic in the past 12 months; and what official Czech visits have been made to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom's relations with the Czech Republic are close and cordial.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Prague on 5 to 6 May. Four other British Ministers have
  520
  paid visits to the Czech Republic within the last 12 months. During the same period, President Havel, Prime Minister Klaus and eight Czech Ministers or deputy Ministers have visited the United Kingdom.

  Hong Kong
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government plan to take to facilitate the extension to Hong Kong of the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As extending the convention to Hong Kong involves assuming new international obligations in respect of Hong Kong, we will shortly be consulting the Chinese side in the joint liaison group, so that it can continue to apply to Hong Kong after 30 June 1997. In the meantime, the Hong Kong Government are preparing legislation to prohibit sex discrimination and to set up an equal opportunities commission to promote gender equality.

  Japan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Japanese counterpart following the statement by the Japanese Prime Minister to the Japanese Diet on 17 June that Japan has the capacity to make nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made no representations to, nor have we communicated with, the Japanese Prime Minister with regard to his comment of 17 June. As a non-nuclear weapon state party to the non-proliferation treaty, Japan has given a legally binding commitment not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. In accordance with the NPT, Japan has also concluded a fullscope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have no reason to doubt the commitment of the Japanese Government to the principles of the treaty.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to(a) raise with his Russian and American counterparts and (b) to instruct the British ambassador to the United Nations to raise with his counterparts as representing the other depositary states for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty the statement by the Japanese Prime Minister to the Japanese Diet on 17 June that Japan has the capacity to build nuclear weapons, in regard to Japan's commitments under the NPT.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As a non-nuclear weapon state party to the non-proliferation treaty, Japan has given a legally binding commitment not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. Japan has also concluded a fullscope safeguards agreement with the IAEA. We have no reason to doubt the commitment of the Japanese Government to the principles of the treaty.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the former Prime Minister of Sudan, Sadiq al-Mahdi, has been
  521
  detained in Sudan in recent years; on what grounds he has recently been detained; and what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan about this matter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sadiq Al-Mahdi was detained immediately after the 1989 coup and has subsequently been regularly held for questioning. He was most recently detained on 20 June. Although he has not yet been formally charged, allegations have been made in the officially controlled press of his involvement in a plot to assassinate senior members of the regime and conduct acts of sabotage. Our chargé in Khartoum raised his detention with the Sudanese authorities on 21 June. We shall continue to monitor developments closely.

  Corfu Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he plans to put to the European Union Heads of Government summit in Corfu on the control of nuclear proliferation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Council agreed on the adoption of a joint action on preparation for the 1995 non-proliferation treaty extension and review conference, the primary object of which would be to secure the treaty's indefinite and unconditional extension.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what difficulties are caused to British commercial interests by corruption in Kenya.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I am not aware of any specific difficulties caused to British commercial interests by corruption in Kenya. However, I am happy to make it clear that elimination of corruption is an important part of our good governance agenda in Kenya, as in other countries. We have made this clear to the Kenyan Government, and welcome their recent efforts to address the issue.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy stance the Western European Union has taken on the proposed French military initiative in Rwanda.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A number of WEU member states, including the United Kingdom, have indicated their readiness to assist and support the French initiative in Rwanda primarily through the provison of logistic resources, which might be co-ordinated through the WEU, and humanitarian assistance.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches he has had from the French Government for military support in Rwanda; and what reply he has given.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The French approached the United Kingdom, as well as other European allies, for logistic support for the intervention in Rwanda authorised under Security Council resolution 929. In the event, we understand that the French supported their operation nationally.
  522
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of when the UN Security Council's decision to deploy 5,500 troops in Rwanda will be enacted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Work on the deployment of additional troops authorised by Security Council resolution 918 is already under way. The UN expect that the force will begin to deploy in July.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the British Government are now taking through the United Nations to bring about an end to the genocide in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has supported all Security Council action aimed at bringing the attacks on civilians in Rwanda to an end. We have also offered logistic support to the expanded UNAMIR operation.

  The United Kingdom supported the resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 25 May which appointed a special rapporteur for human rights in Rwanda. The special rapporteur is gathering information for the United Nations Secretary General on acts which may constitute breaches of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity, including acts of genocide in Rwanda.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to provide logistical support for African countries supplying peacekeeping troops to Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom offered the United Nations 50 four-wheel drive trucks for use in the United assistance mission to Rwanda.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding the situation in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 June, column 615.

  Since then the United Nations Security Council has authorised a two-month humanitarian intervention by the French Government. We voted in favour and remain ready to assist with emergency aid for those displaced in Rwanda as access improves. We have urged that the UNAMIR force should deploy as quickly as possible and that the French operation should not cut across United Nations action to end the bloodshed.

  Arms Sales Embargo
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries on which the United Kingdom has imposed an arms sales embargo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We observe mandatory embargoes imposed by the United Nations on Iraq, the former republic of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Liberia, Haiti, Libya, Rwanda and UNITA in Angola. We observe the voluntary embargo imposed by the United Nations on Yemen.

  We also observe embargoes imposed by the European Union on Syria, China, Burma, Zaire and Sudan.
  523
  We observe a voluntary embargo agreed by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  In addition, as a matter of declared national policy we refuse to supply military equipment to Argentina and Iran.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations between Her Majesty's Government and Pakistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our relations with Pakistan are excellent.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Pakistan regarding the release of all detained democratically elected members of the National Assembly, in accordance with the United Nations human rights resolution of 1966.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware that any member of the Pakistan National Assembly is currently being detained.

  Nigeria
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist and encourage the Government of Nigeria to move towards the establishment of democracy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written reply I gave the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 31 January at column 485. Moves towards the establishment of democratic civilian rule would send a positive message to the European Union and other countries which have introduced measures against military rule, and to companies which do business with Nigeria. We are funding a number of practical initiatives in Nigeria in support of a democratic transition.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Welsh Affairs
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Lord President of the Council following the statement made by the Secretary of State for Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee on 8 March 1993 in Cardiff,Official Report, columns 1–13, which new initiatives he has proposed for the debate and scrutiny of Welsh affairs in the House.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  I review the need for meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee through the normal channels. The venue for these meetings is also discussed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures available for women claiming family credit while(a) in employment and (b) unemployed for (i) Burnley, (ii) Lancashire, (iii) the north-west and (iv) England.
  524
  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Statistics
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual disposable income at(a) actual and (b) April 1994 prices of (i) pensioner households, (ii) non-pensioner households without children (iii) non-pensioner households with children and (iv) all households, in (1) the two lowest decile groups and (2) the highest decile group, applying the appropriate equivalence scale used in his Department's recent reports on households below average income for (w) 1979, (x) 1988–89, (y) 1990–91 and (z) 1991–92, before and after housing costs; and what was the mean unequivalised disposable income of these groups of households in these equivalised categories.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available. This Department does not produce statistics on the distribution of annual equivalised incomes. The house-holds below average income series is based on incomes estimated generally over a much shorter period, which can be expected to produce different results.

  Deafness
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the time limit on claims for industrial deafness.

  Mr. Scott
  A claim for benefit in respect of occupational deafness must be made within five years of leaving a prescribed occupation.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the differences in treatment of industrial deafness claims and war deafness claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The qualifying conditions and benefit rates for the two schemes are as follows:
  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Industrial injuries benefits may be paid in respect of occupational deafness where the claimant:

  (a) is assessed as at least 20 per cent. disabled as a result of sensorineural hearing loss of at least 50 decibels in both ears, being due in the case of at least one ear to noise at work;

  (b) has worked in one or more of the nine occupations prescribed in relation to occupational deafness;

  (c) has done such work for an aggregate period of at least ten years; and

  (d) if no longer doing such work, claims benefit within five years of last doing so.

  Where these conditions are satisfied, deafness is presumed to be due to employment.

  War Pensions
  Under the War Pensions scheme, benefit may be paid for disablement due to hearing loss which is attributable to, or aggrevated by, service in the armed forces. For sensorineural hearing loss, the claimant must be assessed as 20 per cent. disabled as a result of hearing loss of at least 50 decibles in both ears. For conductive hearing loss, the claimant must be assessed as at least 1 per cent. disabled. Doctors determine which type of deafness applies in each case.
  There are no time limits for claiming under the War Pensions scheme, and no presumption of cause, but for claims arising within seven years of the termination of service, the onus is on my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the disablement is not due to a service factor. For claims arising more than seven years after the termination of service, the onus is on the claimant to show that disablement is due to service.
  525
  Benefit Rates
  Weekly benefit rates are higher under the War Pensions scheme than under the Industrial Injuries scheme. The benefit rates for 1994–95 are:

  Degree of disablement

  War pension (£)

  Industrial Injuries disablement benefit (£)

  100

  98·90

  93·20

  90

  89·01

  83·88

  80

  79·12

  74·56

  70

  69·23

  65·24

  60

  59·34

  55·92

  50

  49·45

  46·60

  40

  39·56

  37·28

  30

  29·67

  27·96

  20

  19·78

  18·64

  Under the War Pensions scheme, benefit in respect of disablement due to conductive hearing loss assessed at less than 20 per cent. is paid as a lump sum gratuity.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what industries workers or former workers are eligible for consideration for industrial deafness.

  Mr. Scott
  Occupational deafness is prescribed for disablement benefit purposes in relation to the following occupational activities:

  1. The use of powered (but not hand powered) grinding tools on cast metal (other than weld metal) or on billets or blooms in the metal producing industry, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of those tools whilst they are being so used;

  2. The use of pneumatic percussive tools on metal, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of those tools whilst they are being so used;

  3. The use of pneumatic percussive tools for drilling rock in quarries or underground or in mining coal, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of those tools whilst they are being so used;

  4. Work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of plant (excluding power press plant) engaged in the forging (including drop stamping) of metal by means of closed or open dies or drop hammers;

  5. Work in textile manufacturing where the work is undertaken wholly or mainly in rooms or sheds in which there are machines engaged in weaving man-made or natural (including mineral) fibres or in the high speed false twisting of fibres;

  6. The use of, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of, machines engaged in cutting, shaping or cleaning metal nails;

  7. The use of, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of, plasma spray guns engaged in the deposition of metal;

  8. The use of, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of, any of the following machines engaged in the working of wood or material composed partly of wood, that is to say; multi cutter moulding machines, planing machines, automatic or semi-automatic lathes, multiple cross-cut machines, automatic shaping machines, double-end tenoning machines, verticle spindle moulding machines (including high speed routing machines), edge banding machines, bandsawing machines with a blade width of not less than 75 millimetres and circular sawing machines in the operation of which the blade is moved towards the material being cut;

  9. The use of chain saws in forestry.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 24 February, Official Report, column 368, which sets out the further activities to be added to the list of prescribed occupations from October 1994.
  526
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on industrial deafness in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Scott
  In the last 12 months a total of 25 letters from members of the public and hon. Members have been received concerning various aspects of benefits in respect of industrial deafness.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's involvement with training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Burt
  This Department has no formal involvement with training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, nor with local enterprise companies, their Scottish equivalents.

  Family Credit Scheme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to introduce regulations regarding the £28 disregard under the family credit scheme in relation to child care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We expect the regulations to be laid in July before the recess. The legislation will come into effect from early October.

  Benefit Reductions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the extent of the benefit reduction imposed in respect of claimants penalised for failing to attend a restart interview.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no benefit reduction for failing to attend an initial restart interview. But if a person fails, without good cause, to attend a second interview, the only entitlement will be under income support hardship rules. This entails a reduction of 40 per cent. in the single personal allowance—20 per cent if the claimant or a member of the family is pregnant or seriously ill and there is little or no capital. The reduction lasts until the claimant attends a rearranged interview or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State withdraws the notice of the interview. The effect of these reductions on income support allowances is shown in the table.

  Age of claimant

  Personal allowance

  Allowance less 40 per cent.

  Allowance 20 per cent.

  Under 18

  27·50

  16·50

  22·00

  18–24

  36·15

  21·70

  28·90

  25 and over

  45·70

  27·40

  36·55

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he will consult on the proposals for member-nominated trustees in occupational pension schemes as set out in his White Paper "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions" published on 23 June.

  Mr. Hague
  A consultation paper is being issued today. The paper seeks views on the practical implications of our
  527
  proposals for the selection of member-nominated trustees and also on the arrangements for schemes to retain or adopt different arrangements where those arrangements have the support of a majority of members. It is being issued automatically to all those organisations that responded to the earlier DSS discussion papers and is available to others on request. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Widows' Pension
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the maximum weekly additional pension payable in each year since 1979–80 to a widow whose husband had died in the same year.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Year of death

  Notional1 maximum additional pension (£)

  1979–80

  1·54

  1980–81

  3·45

  1981–82

  5·86

  1982–83

  9·59

  1983–84

  12·40

  1984–85

  16·21

  1985–86

  20·87

  1986–87

  24·03

  1987–88

  29·11

  1988–89

  34·75

  1989–90

  41·34

  1990–91

  49·74

  1991–92

  57·10

  1992–93

  66·97

  1993–94

  76·04

  1994–95

  84·61

  1Based on the amount of additional pension payable where a contributor has paid contributions of 53 x the upper earnings limit in each relevant tax year since 1978·

  Household Income
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average household income of householders in(a) the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and (b) the London borough of Redbridge.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. Statistics on patterns of household disposable income are available only for the United Kingdom as a whole and are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979–1990–91" published in June 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  One-stop Initiative
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consultation there has been in the setting up of the one-stop initiative with(a) the Employment Service and (b) local authority housing benefit offices; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how the one-stop initiative will affect the running of both the Employment Service and local authority housing benefit offices (a) in dealing with the Benefits Agency on a day-to-day basis, (b) in the co-ordination of information, (c) in the possibilities of adopting the same or similar strategy and (d) estimated costs incurred; and if he will make a statement.
  528
  Mr. Burt
  The one-stop initiative 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. Peter Pike, dated 27 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the One Stop initiative.
  The decision to move towards a One Stop service followed overwhelmingly positive responses from customers, including local authorities and the Employment Service Agency (ESA), to a discussion paper published in September 1992.
  The Benefits Agency's (BA) One Stop initiative does not affect the running of the ESA and local authority housing benefit offices, but in continuing our commitment to customer service we work closely to ensure that our distinct responsibilities are performed in as co-ordinated a way as possible.
  Each local authority's circumstances are different. BA offices are encouraged to discuss local issues with the local authority concerned. Liaison arrangements have improved and each BA District now has a Service Level Agreement with the local authorities in its area. At a national level, the Local Authorities Association are regularly consulted on developments.
  The framework for improved liaison between the ESA and the BA, announced in March 1993, established a series of initiatives to encourage closer working between the two agencies. These included piloting of the co-location of BA staff in ESA outlets to provide general benefit advice and information, and joint workshops/conferences to discuss common service areas.
  We are constantly looking at ways of improving the transfer of information between our offices and the ESA and local authorities. For example, in June this year, the main computer systems supporting Income Support and Unemployment benefit were linked. This allows faster, automatic transmission of information and payment instructions between the agencies.
  The introduction of Jobseeker' s Allowance in April 1996 will see the BA, in partnership with the ESA, providing, wherever possible, a single point of contact for unemployed customers providing both jobseeking services and a gateway to the benefit and information services of the BA. This will be from a single location, wherever possible.
  One Place, which is the first phase of One Stop, has been implemented from within existing allocations and therefore at no extra cost.
  It is for each Agency and organisation to decide how best to meet their customers' needs when deciding their future strategies.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the adults who applied for national insurance numbers were refused by the Contributions Agency in each of the last five years; and of these how many were(a) women and (b) from an ethnic minority background.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the issue of national insurance numbers is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 27 June 1994:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I am responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I have been asked to reply to your question about what proportion of the adults who applied for National Insurance numbers (NINOs) were refused by the Contributions Agency in each of the last five years; and of these how many were (a) women and (b) from an ethnic minority background.

  529
  The Agency is unable to provide the details you have requested as no such records are kept. But over the last 5 years more than 1 million adults have applied for and have been given a NINO.
  In order to obtain a NINO an adult must usually attend a Social Security office in person and complete the appropriate application form. In addition suitable evidence of identity must be provided.
  NINOs are only needed by people who are paying NI contributions so that we can keep a record of their contributions, or by people who have claimed certain Social Security benefits. A NINO is likely to be refused when it is not needed for either of these purposes or when there are doubts about the validity of the application.
  I am sorry that the precise information you have requested is not available but I hope that my reply has proved helpful. If you think I could give you any more details on this topic, I would be happy to try and do so.

  Income Support
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the income support live load for the area directorates in England and Wales(a) for each quarter's date of count since May 1991 to the most recent date for which figures are available and (b) for each of the E, A and P cases; and what was the percentage change in each of the case types outlined in (b) between May 1991 and the most recent date for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the income support live level for the area directorates in Scotland (a) for each quarter's date of count since May 1991 to the most recent date for which figures are available and (b) for each of the E cases, A cases and P cases; what were the percentage changes in each of the case types outlined in (b) and for each area directorate (i) between May 1991 and the most recent date for which figures are available and (ii) between May 1993 and the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support 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. Henry McLeish, dated 27 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions requesting various statistical information concerning Income Support cases from the area directorates in England, Scotland and Wales from May 1991.
  I have enclosed the information you requested and a copy has been placed in the Library.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the most recently available income support live level for each of the local office and benefit agency districts in Scotland for each of the E, A and P cases;

  (2) what is the most recently available figure for the income support live level (a) in each of his Department's offices and (b) by each Benefits Agency district in Scotland.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support 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. Henry McLeish, dated 27 June 1994:
  530
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the Income Support live load in each Scottish Benefits Agency branch and district office.
  I have enclosed the information you requested and a copy has been placed in the Library.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of administering the scheme for industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 27 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the administrative cost of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
  There are two stages to the take on of claims for the new prescribed disease chronic bronchitis and emphysema (PD D12), for which Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit has been available since 13 September 1993 for people who have worked for at least 20 years underground in a coal mine.
  Our current estimate of the administrative cost for the two stage take-on of claims to PD D12 is £15·7 million. This is based on an estimated 80,000 claims and covers the three financial years 1993–94 to 1995–96.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Social Fund
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases in each Benefits Agency district in Scotland in the most recent period for which data are available an application for(a) community care grant, (b) budget loan and (c) crisis loan met the criteria but was refused because of budgetary constraints or insufficient priority; and what that was as a proportion of the total number of (i) applications and (ii) refusals in each of the Benefits Agency districts.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Henry McLeish, dated 27 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the operation of the Social Fund in Scotland.
  I have enclosed the information you requested, relating to 1993–94 and 1994–95 to date, and a copy has been placed in the Library.
  The Social Fund Computer System (SFCS), introduced to Scotland during the period March 1993—January 1994, collects statistical items differently from the previous system and they are not directly comparable with previous years. The old system recorded reasons for refusal per application, whereas the SFCS records reasons for refusal per item requested. In cases where a partial award is made, a reason for refusal will also be appropriate. Therefore, the sum of all the reasons for refusal will not equal the number of application refusals.
  Social Fund Officers (SFOs) ensure that the highest priority needs are met while adopting as consistent an approach as

  531
  possible. The Area SFO (District Office Manager) issues guidance on the order of priorities (high, medium or low) and the level of priority which can be sustained from the budget available to the District. Similarly, the District Office's budget, which must not be exceeded, has to be managed so that, as far as possible, similar levels of need can be met throughout the year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for help from the social fund for budgetary loans and crisis loans were refused on the grounds of inability to pay; and what that was as a proportion of the total number of(a) loan applications and (b) loan refusals for each of the Benefit Agency districts in Scotland for each year since 1990–91 for each local office.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Henry McLeish, dated 27 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the operation of the Social Fund in Scotland.
  I have enclosed the information you requested and a copy has been placed in the Library. The Social Fund Computer System, introduced to Scotland during the period March 1993—January 1994, collects statistical items differently from the previous system and they are not directly comparable with previous years.
  The actual level of refusals on the grounds of inability to repay is very low. Money advice may be given to people in these circumstances on ways to reduce expenditure in order to maximise disposable income.
  The guidance to Social Fund Officers advises that where a loan application is received, the possibility that a non-repayable Community Care Grant may be more appropriate should be considered first.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

HEALTH

  Children's Beds, East London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all current proposals for closures of children's wards and beds in east London; and if she will indicate on the basis of them being implemented(a) the number of children's beds remaining and (b) the number of children in the east London area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The provision of services for children in east London is for the national health service to decide locally, taking account of all the local circumstances and the needs of patients.

  Patient Participation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives her Department has taken to further the development of patient participation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is involved in many projects which develop patient participation. These include patient representatives' projects in Brighton and Bristol, involvement of patients in the development of information for patients and regular meetings with the Patients Forum. The Department also supports the work of community health councils which are appointed by Parliament to represent patients' views.
  532
  We are conducting research to find out patients' views about the development of the patients charter. We have also met patients' organisations to look at charter standards.

  In 1992 the National Health Service Executive issued guidance on "Local Voices" which sets out ways in which the public could be consulted about health services. In April 1994 the National Health Service Executive issued a leaflet "Including Local People" which included examples of good practice that showed how purchasers have involved local people. I wrote in January this year to all district health authorities to ensure that the arrangements were in place to seek and act upon the views of local people. The responses to that letter indicate that most health authorities have made significant progress.

  The chief executive of the National Health Service Executive has written to regional directors to ensure that the appropriate action is taken locally and will report to me later this year.

  The National Health Service Executive funded the College of Health's research into consumer audit. The College of Health has developed consumer audit as a means of obtaining qualitative feedback from patients about health care. The consumer audit guidelines were published in March 1994.

  Care Charges
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued on charging patients or their carers for(a) domiciliary care, (b) day care, or (c) respite care within the national health service.

  Mr. Bowis
  None. There are no charges for these services when delivered to national health service patients.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by her Department or 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, (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) any other services in 1980 to 1983, 1984 to 1987, 1988 to 1991 and 1992–1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hague) gave him on 24 June,Official Report, columns 342–44, for information prior to 1992–93, which includes information on health projects.

  Information for 1992–93 is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mortality Rate
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the figures for post-operative deaths by district health authority for each of the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Accurate information about post-operative deaths in each district health authority is not available. Information on deaths in hospitals in the national
  533
  health service in England was published in table 17 of the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin entitled "NHS Hospital Activity Statistics: England 1981 to 1991–92". Information is given on the percentage of cases in the acute sector discharged dead by regional health authority. A copy is available in the Library. Post-operative deaths which occur after patients have been discharged from hospital are not recorded.

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

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Gold Salts
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific guidelines and advice is available for the prescription of the salt of gold sodium aurothiomolate to treat severe conditions of active rheumatical arthritis and its possible side effects.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Decisions about the use of sodium aurothiomolate in the treatment of rheumatical arthritis are matters for the medical practitioners concerned.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will discuss with the north Staffordshire repetitive strain injury support group the setting up of a working party to develop an action programme to prevent repetitive strain injury and to respond to the needs of those suffering from it.

  Mr. Sackville
  Prevention of repetitive strain injury when caused by work is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments there were in London in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) 1993; and how many there are planned to be in the year 2000.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on 22 February,Official Report columns 210–11.

  It is the responsibility of local health authorities to assess and secure the health services, including accident and emergency, needed by their resident populations.

  Hospitals and Bed Provision
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) beds and (b) hospitals she plans to close in the next eight years.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change in the number of NHS hospital beds she expects by(a) 1996, (b) 1999 and (c)

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to make detailed predictions about the future disposition and numbers of 534
  hospitals or hospital beds. These are matters for local determination. Changes will occur with fluctuations in local need and the development of clinical practice.

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority's restriction on non-emergency treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the health authority's role to assess the health needs of its resident population and secure services to meet those needs.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place with the social work profession on the implications of the possible closure of the obscene publications branch at Scotland Yard for children who can become victims of pornography and organised child abuse.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications for her Department in terms of protecting children from the abuse associated with the production of child pornography of the proposed reduction in the resources of the obscene publications branch at Scotland Yard.

  Mr. Bowis
  The organisation of the obscene publications branch is a matter for the Metropolitan police. I refer my hon. Friend to the Adjournment debate on 22 June,Official Report, columns 332–40.

  Alternative Medicines
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Her Majesty's Government will ensure that any European directive harmonising rules relating to the sale, dispensing and prescribing of vitamin and mineral supplements shall not reduce the existing scope of legally available alternative medicines available in the United Kingdom nor the work of qualified practitioners of nutritional therapy and medical herbalists.

  Mr. Sackville
  In general, alternative medicines and vitamin and mineral supplements for which medicinal claims are made are subject to the provisions of the Medicines Act but herbal remedies prepared and prescribed by herbalists for individual patients are exempt from the licensing requirements. No proposals have been made for a directive to harmonise the status of vitamin and mineral supplements and we have no plans to change the existing arrangements governing the availability of alternative medicines.

  Welsh Health Planning Forum
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she received the report of the Welsh Health Planning Forum published on 23 June; and what is her assessment of its conclusions on the impact of bed closures and the potential for keyhole surgery and day case operations.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have not had the opportunity to study the report. The national health service has already
  535
  achieved a 160 per cent. increase in day cases between 1982 and 1992–93. We are determined to promote all practices that improve the quality of care for patients.

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people died from skin cancer in 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data from 1993 are not yet available. In 1992, in England, there were 1,065 deaths from malignant melanoma of skin (ICD1 172) and 457 deaths from other malignant neoplasm of skin (ICD1 173).
  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision.
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers have been reported in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland since 1990.

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

  Malignant melanoma of skin (ICD1 172)

  Other malignant neoplasm of skin (ICD1 173)2

  England3

  3,661

  30,250

  Wales3

  220

  1,748

  Scotland4

  477

  4,111

  Northern Ireland4

  46

  573

  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision.

  2Other malignant neoplasm of skin is under-registered.

  31988 data.

  41991 data.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated current cost per case of treating a patient with(a) malignant melanoma of the skin and (b) other malignant neoplasm of the skin.

  Mr. Sackville
  The costs of specific procedures or those associated with specific diagnoses are not available centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the mortality and incidence rates, per 100,000 population, for malignant melanoma of skin, ICD 172, and other malignant neoplasm of skin, ICD 173, for each year since 1991.

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

  Incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 population in England for malignant melanoma of skin (ICD1 172) and other malignant neoplasm of skin (ICD1 173)

  Incidence (1988)

  Mortality (1992)

  Malignant melanoma of skin

  7·7

  2·2

  Other malignant neoplasm of skin

  63·5

  0·9

  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision·

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data has been collected by her Department on the administrative costs of(a) fundholding and (b) non-fundholding arrangements in general practice.
  536
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The administrative costs of purchasing by general practitioner fundholders are about 2 per cent. of budgets set. Comparable information about the purchasing costs of district health authorities on behalf of non-fundholding general practitioners is not available.

  Necrotising Fasciitis
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the misclassification of necrotising fasciitis on(a) death certificates and (b) hospital finished consultant episodes and data of disease and treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  No studies have been done to ascertain what doctors record on the death certificates of patients who have had necrotising fasciitis. From 1990 to 1992, when necrotising fasciitis was given as the underlying cause of death, this was coded by Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys as "fasciitis unspecified" using the international classification of disease index.

  Hospital League Tables
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for publishing league tables for NHS hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I shall tomorrow publish the first National Health Service performance tables: copies will be placed in the Library at 11 am and available in the Vote Office.

  Special Hospitals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) where the two new special hospitals are to be built; and when they will become operational;

  (2) if she will make it her policy that special hospitals shall not be granted trust status;

  (3) when the Reed report on special hospitals will be published; and what has been the reason for the length of time between its completion and publication.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have not reached any firm conclusions on the future of high security services. There are no current plans to build new special hospitals or to change the status of existing special hospitals. The report of the working group on high security services raises important issues about service development which require careful consideration by this and other Government Departments. We hope to publish the report soon.

  Private Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance her Department has given to NHS trust hospitals about charging patients for use of private beds when no NHS beds are available;

  (2) what guidelines her Department issued about the use of empty private beds in trust hospitals when all NHS beds are full.

  Mr. Sackville
  All beds in national health service hospitals can be used by patients receiving NHS treatment.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reviews her Department has commissioned of the administrative cost of general practitioner fundholding; and when she intends to publish the results of those reviews.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. The National Health Service Executive will be reviewing the current system of management allowances for general practitioner fund-holders during the summer.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what reports she has received from the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens concerning Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and if she will place these in the Library;

  (2) what precautions have been introduced for laboratory staff who may be handling materials contaminated with the agents causing (a) Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and (b) bovine spongiform encephalopathy;

  (3) what guidance she has received from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies; when that guidance was received; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Specific guidance from the advisory committee on dangerous pathogens will be available shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in the past nine months in improving delivery of the youth training guarantee in England.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Excellent progress.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the Employment Service's results against the annual performance agreement set for the 1993–94 year; and when he expects the Employment Service to publish its annual report and accounts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce that the Employment Service has continued to build on the success of recent years and in 1993–94 achieved an excellent level of performance against its annual targets. The following table details the ES's performance results against the 1993–94 annual performance agreement. Overall, die ES placed 1.64 million unemployed people into jobs, of whom 462,200-28·2 per cent.—had been out of work for six months or more and 53,300-3·25 per cent.—were people with a disability; performance in each case exceeded target. In addition, the ES met or exceeded its targets for promptness of benefit payment, delivering advisory interviews and for claims withdrawn following fraud investigation, and ended a mere fraction—0·1 per cent.—short of its target for benefit accuracy.

  I am also pleased to announce that for the 1993–94 year and beyond the ES will be publishing fully audited
  538
  commercial style accounts in its annual report. The ES's annual report and accounts for 1993–94 will be laid before Parliament, as an Act Paper, after the summer recess. In previous years, the ES's annual report and accounts has not been formally laid, and has included only an unaudited cash based financial statement. I am confident that the fuller, commercial-style accounts will serve to emphasise the extent to which the ES delivers value for taxpayers' money.

  Target

  Performance

  (per cent.)

  1.47 million unemployed people to be placed into work

  1·64 million

  Of whom:

  27 per cent. to be long-term claimants

  462,200

  (28·2)

  3 per cent. to be people with disabilities

  53,300

  (3·25)

  35 per cent. to be people in inner cities

  580,600

  (35·4)

  65 per cent. of starters on Training for Work to be from Employment Service referrals

  74·0

  87 per cent. of clients due an advisory interview to receive one

  92·0

  30 per cent. of unemployed people due a 12 month advisory interview to start on a Jobplan Workshop

  45·0

  87 per cent. of first benefit payments to be despatched on the day that entitlement is established

  89·4

  96.5 per cent. by value, of Unemployment benefit payments to be paid correctly

  96·4

  9 per cent. of initial claims enquiries not to be pursued as new claims

  8·9

  63,000 claims to be withdrawn following investigation by Employment Service inspectors

  67,400

  Long-term Unemployment, Merseyside
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the long-term unemployed men and women on Merseyside.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Employment Service and the local training and enterprise councils already offer the widest-ever range of employment, enterprise and training opportunities for long-term unemployed people on Merseyside.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the transfer of undertakings directive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have had discussions with counterparts from a number of other EU countries concerning revision of the acquired rights directive.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has changed in each EU country since January 1993.
  539
  Mr. David Hunt
  Claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom is down by over 300,000 since January 1993, while registered unemployment in the rest of Europe rose by 1·5 million.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new full-time equivalent jobs have been created during the past 15 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not believe that full-time equivalence is a meaningful concept. However, the labour force survey shows that total hours worked rose by 0·6 per cent. over the year to winter 1993.

  Employees and self-employed: Great Britain (thousands)

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  June 1979

  —1

  —1

  14,762

  —1

  —1

  9,805

  September 1984

  12,716

  919

  13,635

  5,574

  4,205

  9,779

  March 1994

  11,602

  1,292

  12,895

  5,986

  5,165

  11,151

  Number of regions where employees have increased (September 1984 to March 1994)

  —1

  —1

  0

  10

  11

  10

  1Not available.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been unemployed for(a) more than one year and (b) more than two years in (i) Greater London and (ii) the Streatham parliamentary constituency; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the levels of claimant unemployment by duration is available from 1983, on the unadjusted basis only, for the months of January, April, July and October. It can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the unemployment figures are for Devon for May 1994; and what percentage change they represent on the figures for May 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Unadjusted claimant unemployment figures in the county of Devon stood at 44,405 in May 1994, a fall of 1·6 per cent. since May 1992. However, between May 1993 and May 1994, unemployment fell by over 11 per cent.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In May, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment stood at 2,661,000, a fall of 258,000 on a year ago.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the Basildon constituency; and what was the figure one year ago.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Between May 1993 and May 1994 unadjusted claimant unemployment in Basildon fell by 959 from 6,500 to 5,541.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the major European countries where unemployment is on a clear downward trend.
  540
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women, excluding those on training schemes, were in (i) full-time and (ii) part-time jobs in June 1979 and at the latest date for which figures are available; and in how many standard planning regions the number of jobs has increased for (1) men and (2) women, considering part-time and full-time separately.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Only the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom textile and paper and board industries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimates from the winter 1993–94 labour force survey are that there were 29,000 unemployed people—on the International Labour Organisation definition—who last worked in the textiles and textile produces industry and 17,000 unemployed people who last worked in the manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products industry.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the level of unemployment among younger men has changed during the past 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the United Kingdom between April 1993 to April 1994, unadjusted claimant unemployment among 18 to 24-year-old men fell by 73,435-13 per cent.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the progress of his new apprenticeship initiative in the east midlands.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Four training and enterprise councils in the east midlands are at the forefront of the development of modern apprenticeships.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's modern apprenticeship scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Employers have given an overwhelmingly positive response to the challenge set by modern apprenticeships, and prototypes are due to be in place by September.

  Public Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take in response to the decision of the European Court of Justice that the British Government are in breach of European law by failing to ensure adequate worker representation in the privatisation of public services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government are considering the judgment.

  OECD Report
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had on the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report with colleagues in the EU; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have discussed the OECD report with colleagues on several occasions, in particular at the ministerial meeting in Paris on 7 June. There has been strong support for its conclusions. The report makes it clear that flexible skills and working practices are a crucial factor in reducing unemployment; and that statutory minimum wages and excessive non-wage labour costs reduce employment prospects, particularly for young people.

  Women's Issues Working Group
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how regularly the women's issues working group meets; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The women's issues working group meets three times a year. It is a personal advisory group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which considers some of the obstacles encountered by women in their working lives, and advises on ways to overcome them. It currently has 14 members.

  Restart
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many claimants have(a) lost and (b) suffered a reduction in benefit because of (i) their failure to turn up to a Restart interview and (ii) their failure to adopt the course of action advocated at their interview, in each year since Restart began;

  (2) how many claimants have (a) lost unemployment benefit and (b) suffered a reduction in supplementary benefit or income support because of their failure to satisfy the availability for work rules for each year since 1974.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people are currently on the Restart programme;

  (2) if those people on Restart programmes are included in the official unemployment statistics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  542
  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 28 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the numbers of people currently on the Restart Programme and whether they are included in the official unemployment statistics. I am replying in the Chief Executive's absence.
  It may help if I explain that Restart is not a programme but a series of regular six monthly interviews with an adviser, for people who have been unemployed for six months or more. These interviews provide clients with the opportunity to discuss their situation, consider the options available and agree a course of action which, if taken, will offer the best prospects of finding a job. Advisers also make sure that clients understand and continue to meet the conditions for receipt of benefit. The number of Restart interviews that have taken place in 1993–94 is 2,800,000. The clients involved are included in the official unemployment statistics.
  For those people who are still unsure about which course of action to take, Restart Courses are available. These are designed to give participants a more in-depth opportunity to assess their strengths and skills and become aware of local opportunities available to them in planning steps back to work. The courses also provide guidance and help in job search.
  In the 12 months from April 1993 until March 1994 over 143,000 people started on a Restart Course. From April this year 22,000 have started on a course.
  Participants remain on the unemployment register and continue to receive normal unemployment benefits whilst attending the course. They are, therefore, included in the official unemployment statistics. Fares to and from the course are also paid.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the numbers attending Restart interviews for each year since 1986 and the outcome of these interviews for each year in question;

  (2) how many benefit reductions have been made each year since section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975 has come into force.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which TECs currently offer extended child care places to children aged five years and over outside normal school hours and during school holidays; and how many places each TEC has available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  From April 1994, all training and enterprise councils will be making grants available to help establish new after-school and holiday-care places under the Government's out-of-school child-care initiative. A total of 50,000 new places are expected to be created across Britain by March 1996.

  In 1993–94 a limited number of TECs ran the initiative. Latest available figures in the following table show the number of places notified by each TEC as created up to March 1994.

  Cumulative places created by March 1994

  Quarter 4

  England

  4,019

  Heart of England

  0

  Kent

  164

  Milton Keynes

  0

  Thames Valley

  248

  543

  Quarter 4

  AZTEC

  40

  London East

  24

  North London

  58

  South Thames

  133

  Bedfordshire

  168

  Hertfordshire

  555

  Norfolk and Waveney

  144

  Avon

  24

  Devon and Cornwall

  181

  Dorset

  0

  Gloucestershire

  64

  Somerset

  41

  Wiltshire

  62

  Central England

  126

  Coventry

  292

  Hawtec

  24

  Shropshire

  60

  Walsall

  52

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  0

  Leicester

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  North Nottinghamshire

  80

  Humberside

  96

  Sheffield

  222

  Rotherham

  92

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  55

  METROTEC

  90

  Rochdale

  140

  South and East Cheshire

  211

  CEWTEC

  4

  Cumbria

  136

  ELTEC

  16

  County Durham

  80

  Northumberland

  52

  Teeside

  40

  Tyneside

  245

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) black and (b) Asian people serve on each TEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the ethnic origin of training and enterprise council board members is provided voluntarily by the TECs. The following table shows that there are 38 TEC board members of ethnic origin on the board of 28 TECs. This information may not give the complete picture of the ethnic origin of TEC board members. TECs are private companies and are responsible for the composition of their own boards.

  Number of TEC board members of ethnic origin

  Training and Enterprise Council

  Number

  Avon

  1

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Birmingham

  3

  Bolton/Bury

  1

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  1

  CAMBSTEC (Central/South Cambridgeshire)

  1

  CILNTEC (City and Inner London North)

  1

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  1

  Greater Nottingham

  1

  Greater Peterborough

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Leeds

  1

  Leicestershire

  2

  London East

  1

  Manchester

  1

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  1

  North London

  3

  544

  Training and Enterprise Council

  Number

  North West London

  3

  Oldham

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  SOLOTEC

  2

  South Thames

  2

  Walsall

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  TOTAL

  38

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants in his Department took early retirement on being seconded to work for a training and enterprise council.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None. While on secondment working for a training and enterprise council, all departmental staff remained employees of the Department.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report column 505, what information was given to the chairman of the training and enterprise councils, concerning the rights of civil servants seconded to the TECs to be eligible for the voluntary early retirement scheme and pertaining to their permanent employment with those TECs after completion of their secondment period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils were told that the early retirement schemes were not meant for secondees who intended taking up TEC employment.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the out-of-school child care initiative; and what are his future plans for the initiative.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The out-of-school child care initiative was piloted in 40 training and enterprise council areas in 1993–94, leading to the creation of over 4,000 after school and holiday places. From April 1994 to March 1996, the initiative will be delivered by every TEC, and we hope to create up to 50,000 new places across Great Britain.

  European Employment Legislation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the implementation of EU employment legislation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Community's agenda must now be focused on creating jobs rather than destroying them through unnecessary employment regulations. The United Kingdom is playing a leading part in efforts to improve Europe's competitiveness in this and other ways.

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.
The Earl of Westmorland The Earl of Westmorland— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Privatised Industries: Regulators
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a commission to examine and report on the role of regulators in the privatised industries.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have no plans to establish such a commission.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the first appointment of a regulator was 10 years ago and since that time the regime of regulation has spread to gas, water, telecommunications and now railways? Is he aware that 20 per cent. of the total GDP of the United Kingdom is now under regulators? Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a statement by the chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee in another place that:
"Government by regulation has … become a substitute for policy making, with crucial decisions left in the hands of unaccountable and unelected regulators"?
Is it not time that we had a look at the working of this regime to consider its impact on British industry as well as on the economy of the country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord may well believe in government through regulation, but we on this side of the House believe in government through Parliament. That is what we have done. The regulators exist only as a result of Acts passed through both Houses of Parliament. Regulators are accountable. They can be called by Select Committees. Their decisions are liable to judicial review, and are also subject to public, media and other parliamentary scrutiny. The fact is that the whole privatisation process has been extremely successful, much to the embarrassment of noble Lords opposite.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in view of that reply, is the Minister telling us that he is going to withdraw the deregulation Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, that too is—at least at this stage—going relatively smoothly through Parliament.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while I agree with my noble friend on the need for regulation when there are monopolies, is he telling the House that life in the regulatory garden is beautiful? Does he recall Sir Bryan
648
Carsberg writing in an article in The Times about this time last year that regulators need clear concepts and that this,
"helps the regulatee to anticipate: the direction of future decisions and this creates confidence in the regulatory arrangements and an ability to plan more effectively for the future"?
Is not that what is needed on all sides of this particular argument?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree that regulators need to have clear concepts. I believe that they have discharged their duties extremely successfully to protect consumers' interests, including in relation to prices charged: for example, in the case of domestic gas prices, the real cost of British Telecom services and electricity prices.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe indicate that there is a danger of the number of regulators catching up with the number of quangos? That would be very hard to sustain. Will the noble Lord consider substituting for any form of inquiry a procedure of appeal against decisions? The Minister said only last week that the Government and Ofgas are producing proposals following a consultation exercise. If that is the case nobody will have the right to challenge those proposals. The people who carry out the service, who may be asked to do things which are detrimental to the consumers they are supposed to serve, should have a right of appeal which can be exercised quickly if they feel that wrong decisions have been made.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, regulators cannot change the terms of a licence without consulting the licensee. If the licensee disagrees the case can be referred to the MMC for its decision.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there exists within at least Ofgas an excessive regulatory zeal? The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the consultation document which refers to the possibility of requiring gas meter readers—I should have thought that that was a fairly harmless breed—to be individually approved by Ofgas. Will the Minister assure the House that such a proposal will not be allowed to come into force in the current deregulatory climate?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as my noble friend wisely recognises, it is a proposal in the consultation document. By definition it is open to consultation. I shall certainly pass on his words to my friends in the department.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is a case for more focused regulation? Is it not slightly absurd, for instance, that both the Office of Fair Trading and Ofgas referred British Gas to the MMC? Would not one of the reasons for a review be to see whether we could have industry-specific powers confined to the specialist regulators, with competition policy dealing with such issues as market dominance?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the powers of the sectoral regulators and the

649
Director-General of Fair Trading run concurrently on a number of those issues. However, we believe that the current system is the right one. We do not envisage a need for a general review or reform of utility regulation. The system is generally working satisfactorily.
Lord Peston: My Lords, has the noble Lord ever reflected on the powerful figures who have rights to interfere with private enterprise? When did it become Conservative doctrine that such people and such interference should be favoured? I should have thought that to almost everyone else it sounds like socialist doctrine, in particular if one considers some of the people involved and what they do. I must admit that I rather approve the doctrine, but I am amazed that the noble Lord is so supportive of those people.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord seems to be happy with the privatisation process of the past 15 years. Of course we have regulators. We have regulators when we believe that there is a monopoly situation and therefore a clear case for outside regulation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord misses the point. None of us is keen on privatisation. If we are to have privatisation, does the noble Lord realise that we favour strong regulatory interference? I should like to hear from the noble Lord, on perhaps another occasion —the subject is worth debating philosophically— whether he can demonstrate that there is anything within the history of the philosophy of his party which justifies those regulators?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the justification is plain for everyone to see. Where a monopoly has been created out of the public utilities it is absolutely right to set up a regulatory system where there is no competition. On the other hand, where there is clear competition—for instance, in the commercial markets for gas—the regulator has no powers.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, Sir Bryan Carsberg has been referred to already this afternoon. Is the noble Lord aware that his main endeavour is to ensure competition within the framework of the privatised industries? Therefore, it is not necessarily a socialist doctrine.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. Professor Carsberg has done his work extremely well. As Director-General of Oftel, and now as Director-General of Fair Trading, his main role is to increase competition.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe that the feeling of the House is that we ought to move on.

MV "Derbyshire": Investigation of Loss
2.47 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to re-open a public inquiry into the disappearance of the bulk carrier "Derbyshire" in September 1980.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is studying the video tape of wreckage and the results of the side scan sonar search which have been provided by the International Transport Workers' Federation. If, in the opinion of the chief inspector, they give rise to new and important evidence which warrants the re-opening of the formal investigation, he will advise the Secretary of State accordingly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that Answer is rather more positive than the one given by the Secretary of State, who appeared to reject the idea of a further public inquiry? Is the Minister prepared to assist the further inquiries that need to be undertaken in order to ensure that the valuable work carried out by the ITWF, at a cost to itself of £400,000, can be pursued? That seems to be an essential condition precedent to any further action that it undertakes.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it would not be sensible at this stage to consider whether government funds ought to be provided for a further search in the area. However, the position will be clearer when the material collected so far has been examined by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents has advised the Secretary of State as to the significance of the evidence brought to him.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the first debate in Parliament on the issue, initiated by me 13 years ago soon after the sudden and mysterious loss of this vessel in a typhoon, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the Minister responsible at the time, provided as much information as had by then been discovered? Should not every effort be made to recover or photograph any clues from the wreck now that it has been discovered?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's long interest in the issue. However, I do not think that there is any possibility of recovering anything from that depth. We are talking about 4.5 kilometres down, which is extremely deep. Undoubtedly, modern scanning techniques and under-water photography can give some clue as to what is happening down below, but it is not nearly as effective as being able to look at the pieces on the surface. We are examining the evidence, the experts are evaluating it and they will give us their advice we hope in the not-too-distant future.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation of the Minister's not unhelpful response to the proposal. Perhaps I may request him to extend that attitude towards developing within the maritime industry a more positive attitude towards safety at sea, possibly comparable with that in the aviation industry. The contrast between the safety culture in the aviation industry and the total absence of what the noble Lord, Lord Carver, called the safety culture in the maritime section is very apparent. May we hope for further movements in that direction after his initiative?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, obviously at this time we are examining the recommendations of the report of the group chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He draws our attention to various aspects of safety, including flag state control and port state control. We are actively considering the recommendations that he makes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as one who periodically asks Questions in the House, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there have been Questions in your Lordships' House and another place which have not received the definitive Answer which the Minister gave today? Is he also aware that if it were not for the expenditure of a considerable sum of money by the International Transport Workers Federation, nothing more would have been found out? Can the Minister give some form of undertaking that if substantial sums are required to indicate what caused this terrible tragedy and give comfort to the relatives of the 44 people who died on the ship, the Government will do their best as a matter of urgency?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand and appreciate the point made by the noble Lord about the feelings of the relatives. No doubt he and others know that the formal investigation in January 1989 reported that the "Derbyshire" had probably been overwhelmed by the forces of nature in typhoon "Orchid". The situation is that new material has appeared, but whether it casts any light on the reasons for the ship's sinking, other than the typhoon, remains something which the experts will have to examine. Having seen some of the material myself, I can assure noble Lords that one requires to be an expert in order to try to interpret the results of the scanning.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the families of the 44 who died have felt not only a great sense of loss but disquiet about the fact that a number of allegations seem to have been made by professionals of catastrophic structural failure in vessels of that character and class? Is he further aware that something like 20 bulk carriers a year are lost in unexplained circumstances? Will the Minister ensure that the further investigations that are being undertaken will be carried out with a great deal of urgency, not only for the sake of the families, though that is important, but also for other seafarers who sail at present in bulk carriers ?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are treating this very seriously indeed. The bulk carriers that have been lost in recent years have all been in the age group of 15 to 20 years, whereas the "Derbyshire" was only four years old when she was lost and had only done one year of service. Of the other five vessels in her class, one also foundered but that was as a result of dragging her anchor and going aground, I think, in Bantry Bay, or southern Ireland, and breaking up on the rocks. Therefore I do not think that the two in that class are comparable.

Camden and Islington: Health Service Provision
2.54 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the increase in requirements for community health service provision in Camden and Islington due to hospital bed closures can be funded when the budget of its community health service trust is being cut by 7 per cent. over the next two years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cuniberlege): My Lords, it is for the trust and the health authority to agree on the provision of services to the people of Camden and Islington. The health authority has requested the trust to reduce its costs over the next two years, but that does not necessarily mean a reduction in care, as the trust is not the only provider. In Camden and Islington total spending on primary and community health services has increased from £85 million last year to £91.8 million this year.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer which is as ingenious as I thought she might make it. However, it does not alter the fact that the community health service trust is having to make do with less money in the next two years. Does not the recently announced plan of the Secretary of State for fewer overnight stays in hospital, more day cases, keyhole and even virtual reality surgery mean that there will be a need for more nurses in the community rather than simply maintaining the numbers that exist now? Does the noble Baroness remember that the Tornlinson Report suggested that primary health care services should be greatly increased? Do they not depend entirely upon community health services''
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right in the second half of his question. The Tomlinson Report recommended that we should have better services in the community and better primary care services. I think that my Answer explained that we will. In fact an additional £6.8 million will be invested in services for local people in Camden and Islington. Who provides that service is a matter for the health authority. If the trust has very high management and administration costs, then the health authority must ensure that those costs are reduced and more money is spent on patient care.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us feel that she is much to be congratulated on having made the position absolutely clear? She refused any temptation to fudge it. Is she aware that she will have warm support in urging hospital authorities—whether or not they enjoy trust status—that they must watch their costs? In that, my noble friend is absolutely right.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. He is right that we have to reduce administration costs. We recognise that an organisation which spends £30 billion a year, employs 1 million people and is very complex needs good management. But it is up to health authorities to challenge trusts to keep their management costs to a minimum.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this problem applies not only to Camden and Islington but also to many other parts of the country? UNISON, the British Medical Association and the health visitors' association, are gravely concerned that more and more hospitals will be closed. Can the noble Baroness give the assurance that those organisations have misunderstood her policy, which is not to implement cuts or make reductions in hospitals, and that the Government will maintain the fundamental principles of our National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service should not be judged by the number of beds. It should be judged by the number of people who are treated and the care it gives as well as the health promotion work it does. We have seen an enormous increase in day case surgery, and people prefer it. When I go round hospitals, the question most frequently asked is: "When can I go home?" However good the care, people are anxious to get home and the new ways of working ensure that they do so as soon as possible.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that millions of people in this country agree totally with what she said? I speak as someone whose daughter has just been in Charing Cross Hospital where she was treated and sent home within 24 hours, totally well, having been beautifully looked after. I can only express gratitude to the National Health Service for the care which my daughter received.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all of us are agreed in commending the good work in the health service and in accepting that advances in medical technology will lead to greater day case surgery and so on? However, that does not meet the point that my noble friend raised in his Question. Will the Minister comment on the relative costs and finance for community care as opposed to hospital care? Is it not the case that after Tomlinson and the proposals, Making London Better, the Government said that they would give more money to community care in order to compensate for hospitals being closed? Are we not now
654
seeing an irresponsible position where hospitals are being closed without the compensating community care?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, year on year we put more and more money into the National Health Service and more and more money into primary and community care. We are talking about a specific area of London: Camden and Islington. I have explained to your Lordships' House that in the current year the people of Camden and Islington will receive an additional £6.8 million for primary and community care. That is a tremendous record.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer a specific question in regard to Camden and Islington and the provision of low-intensity nurse managed beds? A pioneer scheme has been proposed which would fit in with the recommendations that come from the Tomlinson Report for the provision of this type of bed, but the money is not forthcoming and I gather that this pioneer project will be turned down. Can the Minister give encouragement from the centre for the authority to finance the scheme?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are a great many new schemes that have been proposed by Camden and Islington Trust. We are supporting many of those schemes. I think that the particular one to which the noble Lord refers is the home nursing scheme, which costs £1 million per year and supports only 20 patients at home. It is that sort of value for money that has to be reviewed. I have spoken to the chairman of the trust today and she agrees that a review is necessary and indeed that the trust's estate of 150 buildings needs rationalisation. There is room for greater efficiency and we are determined that the trust will achieve it.

Parent's Charter for Scotland
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether copies of the Parent's Charter or any similar documents have been, or are to be, sent to households in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, no copies of the Parent's Charter for Scotland, nor any other similar document, have been sent to households in Scotland unless directly requested.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend, and I congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland upon saving the taxpayers this expense. Will the Government ensure that in future the Department for Education, which deals with England, takes special care in briefing the media on these occasions, because press reports stated that the charter was to be delivered to every household in the whole

655
country? That was misleading to people living in Scotland, who nonetheless now seem stoically to have accepted not receiving the document.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I must congratulate my noble friend on his unflagging campaign to ensure that Whitehall departments appreciate that there are different administrations in different parts of the country and we do not always enjoy being described as part of the English framework. It is particularly unfortunate at a time when the BBC is probably becoming more sensitive to the issue that there are Whitehall departments that have still not appreciated the difference.
However, I should say to my noble friend that, while a revised charter has been issued for England, the revised charter for Scotland, which was first launched in 1991, is not due until the autumn of this year.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this matter again. Although none of us likes wasted expenditure, it is rather important that parents should be more aware of the existence of the possibilities afforded by the Parent's Charter. What efforts have been made by the Government to make it known without the glossy magazines and folders? For instance, to give one example, in view of its importance to parents in Scotland, could something such as the power of parents to ask for seatbelts to be put in coaches, which, as the Minister knows, is highly topical there at the moment, be publicised in the Parent's Charter?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should say that the Secretary of State for Scotland shares the view of the Secretary of State for Education that it is important that everyone should know what education is available, whether they be parents, grandparents, children or prospective employers. We do indeed want those same people in Scotland to know as much about what is available in education as is the case this side of the Border. It would appear, and it is encouraging, that in Scotland there is a greater awareness of the various charters. We hope to make the revised charters more readily available in the autumn. But what we can look forward to with some anticipation is that some of the opposition that the Secretary of State for Education experienced in England with regard to the distribution is unlikely to be replicated in Scotland.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister able to say whether this important document is available in Wales as well as in England and later in Scotland? If it is, is it available in Welsh, and who pays for it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord noted how carefully I ensured when I made reference to the Parent's Charter issued by the Secretary of State for Education that it was only with regard to England. I cannot tell the noble Lord what the state of the charter is in Wales, but I have no doubt that parents and others in Wales will be equally keen to find out the detail of what is being proposed.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a consensus that parents should take a greater interest in their children's education? Is he also aware that a recent survey suggests that in England the native English are much less concerned than are the members of all but one of the immigrant groups? I do not know what the position is in Scotland, but perhaps we could have some Scots in England to set a good example of this interest.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Certainly, my Lords, whether or not it is a myth that is fairly perpetuated. I think it is the view that education in Scotland is generally accorded higher significance than is sometimes the case south of the Border. If there are other groups in England who feel that it is equally important, we should be very happy to explain to them just how important we believe it to be.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the Scots in England are usually managers of the best football teams? On the matter of the Parent's Charter, will the noble Lord agree that it would be wiser to wait until the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill has received assent before rewriting the Parent's Charter? Under the Bill that we are about to discuss, different parents will have different rights. The denominational sector of education in Scotland will have the right to choose a school in another local authority's area, whereas the non-denominational sector will not have that right; and therefore a standard parent's charter will not meet that particular problem.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with regard to football managers, while that may be the case in England I would have thought that just at the moment the English could make the same claim in Ireland. I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord that we are right to hold off a revision of the Parent's Charter until after the local government Bill has successfully completed its passage through this House—with any luck, by about 11 o'clock this evening. There are important rights and important information in such a charter. They should be updated from the position in 1991. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to wait until 1996.
Baroness White: My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday in Hansard there were at least three references to "Magna Charta", which I pointed out to Hansard is not the correct way of referring to it even today?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly thought that it was "Magna' Carta", but I am not aware of the references to which the noble Baroness draws our attention.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in connection with the interesting question that was raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff, of course the principal educational officer in England is a Scot, Professor Sutherland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I think that we have just lured him back to be principal of Edinburgh University.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Functions of Assembly for Scotland as a local government area.
.—(1) There shall be established on 1st April 1996 an elected council for Scotland to be known as the Scottish Assembly ('The Assembly").
(2) The Assembly shall perform such strategic functions, both financial and otherwise, as are relevant to the promotion and development of the local government of Scotland.
(3) The Assembly may do anything it considers necessary to—

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

(b) promote greater co-operation between the councils for each local government area in Scotland and public agencies and voluntary organisations in Scotland.

(4) The Assembly shall represent the interests and views of the councils for each local government area in Scotland collectively in the relevant institutions of the European Union.
(5) The Secretary of State shall consult the Assembly on all matters affecting local government and local and regional interests in Scotland.
(6) The Assembly shall have power to appoint such officers as it thinks necessary for the proper discharge of its functions, on such reasonable terms and conditions, including terms as to remuneration, as it thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and myself, I begin by using the Minister's own words which he uttered a few moments ago; namely, that the Government recognise that Scotland is a different administrative area than is the rest of the
658
United Kingdom. The new clause is designed precisely to enshrine in legislation the recognition that Scotland is indeed different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I want to make clear that the new clause, with its proposal to establish an elected Scottish Assembly, should not be seen as a substitute for the Scottish Parliament which not only the Labour Party but a number of other political parties in Scotland have demanded for some considerable time.
We were inspired to table the new clause primarily because of the way in which the Bill was drafted, first presented to another place and subsequently brought to this place. The clause, which seeks to establish an elected Scottish Assembly, is designed to ensure that never again are we faced with reorganisation of local government in Scotland handled in such a manner. I say to the Minister as gently as I possibly can that the Government have treated local government in Scotland almost as if it were in the ownership of the Conservative Party rather than the people of Scotland.
The well-publicised involvement of the Secretary of State's political adviser in drafting the Bill cannot be allowed to go unnoticed. The new clause seeks the establishment of an elected Scottish Assembly with powers to oversee the work of Scottish local government and to represent Scottish interests in the European Union. At this point I add that it is perfectly possible to take the Committee of the Regions into the Scottish Assembly that we propose. But first and foremost we are anxious to ensure that never again do we have the kind of reorganisation of local government in Scotland with which we are now faced.
The Minister knows in his heart of hearts that the Bill simply is not wanted by the people of Scotland. I said at Second Reading that it is unwanted legislation, imposed on an unwilling population by an unpopular government. That is not the best basis for the reform of local government in Scotland. The new clause proposes that the Scottish Assembly should be elected in April next year. As I said, it will oversee the work of local government and represent the interests of Scotland in the European Union, taking into account the work of the Committee of the Regions.
The Minister knows that for some considerable time there has been a demand from the people of Scotland for more say in their own affairs—I put it no higher than that. Just in case the Minister is tempted to say in reply that the Bill gives back local government to the people, let me advise him that he should not tread such a dangerous path. The people to whom the Secretary of State intends to give local government in Scotland are his appointees and not at all the elected representatives of the people.
Many of the functions in this local government Bill will be administered by quangos established and appointed by the Secretary of State. They will not be administered by elected representatives. So the inspiration for the new clause is born out of the damage done by the Bill, on the one hand to local government, which is important, and on the other hand—in my view, even more important—to democracy itself. The establishment of a Scottish Assembly for the purposes defined in the clause would go a long way to ensuring

659
that local government in Scotland (its shape and form) is given much more serious consideration—non-partisan consideration—than is evident in the preparation and presentation of the Bill.
It is not necessary to detain the Committee any longer. I have outlined the reasoning behind the new clause. I formally move that the new clause be adopted. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: We on these Benches are wholly in favour of putting the new clause to the Committee. Long before the noble Lord's party —bless it!—ever thought of a Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Party and now the Liberal Democrats were advocating it and putting forward good reasons for it. We were backed at various times by respectable Conservatives; there are some. At one time Sir Alec Douglas-Home investigated the issue and suggested a form of Scottish Parliament or Scottish Assembly.
The new clause does not give us what we want for Scotland. We have said, very simply, for many years that we want a Scottish Parliament for Scottish affairs within the United Kingdom. The new clause does not give us that. However, we cannot see—I agree wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing —that the reorganisation, although we have always felt that it would be necessary at some time to get unitary authorities, should depend, as proposed in the Bill, on reference after reference to the Secretary of State.
If there are to be unitary authorities, and a large number of them, in Scotland, they need some guidance in national affairs. We have suggested, as a halfway house, an elected assembly to oversee Scottish local government. That would be extremely useful. But it is not what we want at the end of the day.
The Government must feel a little guilty about the extent of the powers of the Secretary of State and the number of quangos they are appointing. We should like them to explain what they have against an elected assembly, which appears to us to be a necessary part of the reorganisation. The Government will no doubt produce the old argument that it will cost money. It may well cost money. However, the value of something does not reside in how much it costs but in what one gets for it. What one would get from a Scottish Assembly is a justification for unitary local government. We believe that to be important. Certainly, we should like to hear the Government justify themselves. I support the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I support the amendment. I have never been wildly enthusiastic about the idea of a Scottish Parliament. Sometimes its claims may be overstated and people's expectations may be disappoint-ed if it does not deliver everything that it promised. But I make this forecast seriously; that 90 per cent. of the voters in the Monklands by-election on Thursday will be supporting parties demanding and requiring a Scottish Parliament. It is extremely unwise of any government to ignore that overwhelming voice of the people of Scotland for their own Parliament; in fact, it is reckless. The Government will be endangering the
660
Union because more and more people will become disenchanted with Westminster government, and if 90 per cent. of the people are voting for Scottish self-government it is unwise for this Parliament to decide that they should not have it. The tensions will be great and increasing and the Government should take note of that.
The amendment is not in favour of a Scottish Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Ewing said. But it is a gesture towards giving people greater power in overseeing the local government administration within their own country. The debate on the Bill must seem to be fairly irrelevant to many English colleagues on all sides of the Chamber. I believe that it should be held in Scotland, within a Scottish Assembly. We should be discussing the shape of local government within our country in Scotland. It is that gesture that is demanded by the amendment before us. I hope that the Government will recognise the pressures and seek to protect the Union, as all of us on this side of the Chamber wish, by making some provision for bringing government closer to the people of Scotland, as is the intention of the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Will the noble Lord accept that some of us who are merely English would greatly welcome the saving of time that would come if Scots took their Scottish affairs across the Border and kept them there?
The Earl of Balfour: I firmly believe in the single-tier authority proposed in the Bill. What concerns me above anything else about Amendment No. 1 is that in the Union of the Parliaments of 1707 it was agreed that the taxes of both countries should be the same. Nothing in the amendment indicates to me how the Assembly should be financed. I have a feeling that it will be financed out of local council taxes, which would not be helpful to Scotland.
I have always felt that having a Scottish Secretary of State —a Cabinet Minister—gives Scotland the best representation it can have in Westminster. To do anything else would not be helpful. A Scottish Assembly could have the effect of creating two tiers in Scotland—perhaps a weakened position for the Secretary of State and a second body which would be too integrated in Scotland without looking to the best interests of the United Kingdom, which would not be of benefit to the country.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I must apologise for not speaking in the Second Reading debate on this particularly important Bill, having been out of the country at the time. However, I feel bound to express my views on Amendment No. 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that it must be irrelevant to English colleagues in the Chamber to listen to a debate on this issue. Frankly, that is contrary to the truth. All who live south of the Border should take great note of what is happening north of the Border because, indeed, we are a United Kingdom. However, I agree with the noble Lord when he says that

661
perhaps a directly elected legislative Scottish Assembly would produce greater expectations than would be the result.
I come back to the fundamental reason why the Government produced the plan for reorganisation of local government in Scotland prior to the last election; that is, that many people—not only councillors, but also ordinary folk throughout Scotland—were fed up with two tiers of local government. One only needs to visit Ayrshire or Argyll (as many of us do) and hear what they say about Strathclyde Regional Council and its organisation to realise that.
I have nothing against the powers and the way the councillors and executives of Strathclyde manage their affairs. But those people felt that they were far too distant from their seat of government. If that is the case, the amendment, for all its good intentions by those who believe firmly—and I respect their views—in moving down this road, will produce two-tier local government all over again. I do not believe that that is what the Bill sets out to do. I believe very firmly that many people in Scotland want to know that their one elected councillor for the area deals with everything to do with local government and its affairs and that the buck will stop with that one elected councillor.
Finally, if Amendment No. 1 is carried, it will be a short jump to a tax-raising legislative Scottish Assembly, which I know noble Lords opposite have wanted for a long time. However, it is a Killiecrankie leap that must be jumped and I for one am not prepared to jump it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wish to speak briefly on this matter, partly to remind the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that home rule for Scotland was part of the Labour Party programme from around 1905 onwards while the Liberals were greatly concerned with the Irish question. The noble Lord appears to want to correct me.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Labour Party inherited the programme in 1905. As soon as it got near to power it dropped it.
Lord Howie of Troon: I was about to say something not dissimilar. I was about to say that it slipped out of the bank of policies a little later on, perhaps due to unseemly English pressure.
I dissent a little from my noble friend Lord Taylor. I am less attached to the Union than he is and I would not be too abashed if we set up in the United Kingdom some system not unlike that which exists in Germany where local parliaments have real and proper powers. If that meant that the Union was, perhaps not dissolved but slackened off a bit, I would not worry too much. A great many people in Scotland and Scots people elsewhere agree with me in that respect.
The problem with the Bill and why I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ewing is that the Bill is similar to other aspects of government policy which we can see in the deregulation Bill discussed in the Chamber yesterday and to be discussed again in a few days' time; that is, a tendency to
662
concentrate powers, which may have been parliamen-tary powers, in the hands of Ministers. In the deregulation Bill it is expressed in the form of secondary legislation replacing primary legislation; here the problem is not quite that but a problem of concentrating powers in the Secretary of State for Scotland.
That is a constitutional matter which can be argued on constitutional lines. But it is particularly inappro-priate in the present Scottish scene where the Secretary of State represents only a minority of the voting population and political parties. Sometimes that happens even in the United Kingdom but seldom is the minority so small. As the noble Lord opposite said, having a Secretary of State for Scotland is of some value to us. We are at least better off than the Welsh because seldom is the Secretary of State for Wales a Welshman. He is often an Englishman. But it is not right that powers should be taken away from an assembly of some kind and put into the hands of the Secretary of State. To counterbalance that, what is required is an assembly of the kind described briefly but accurately by my noble friend Lord Ewing, whom I strongly support.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, has devoted a great deal of his time to the creation of a situation in which a Scottish parliament may be assembled. I respect his sincerity and admire his eloquence, but I am afraid that I cannot go along any of that route with him. I fear that the proposal is merely a step towards a Scottish parliament.
I take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who I believe shares my reservations about a Scottish parliament. He said that 90 per cent. of those who vote in the Monklands by-election would be voting for parties whose manifestos support a Scottish parliament. Of course that is correct. However, it does not mean that the 10 per cent. who vote for parties without that support in their manifestos are wrong. I am a unionist, and I believe in what we do here. I believe that at the end of the day we get very good results. I also believe that Scotland does extremely well out of the Union. I shudder to think what it might be like if we found ourselves in an independent Scotland.
Without being too political, perhaps I may suggest that in Scotland, where in recent years my party has not done particularly well, there are a number of reasons why people have not supported the Conservatives, but right at the bottom of the list will be the creation of a Scottish parliament. The people who vote in the 90 per cent. group do not vote for those parties—with the exception of the Scottish National Party—because they promote a Scottish parliament; they vote for them because they are attracted by their policies. As a Conservative, I have to admit that my party has not managed to attract the Scottish public to its way of thinking in sufficient numbers to give it more seats. We must work and work until we overcome that hurdle. In the Monksland by-election the test will be whether those who vote for a party that wants a Scottish Assembly will outnumber those who vote for a party that wants total independence and separation.

663
As far as the Conservatives are concerned, it is bad enough to lose a 16,000 majority in a by-election when in government, but, my goodness, it will be a frightful comedown if the Labour Party loses it in Opposition. I hope it does not. Much as I disagree with the policies of the Labour Party, I would rather see a Labour Member returned than a Scottish Nationalist. Ultimately, we can get rid of a Labour Government but an independent Scotland will be for keeps. Scotland cannot come running to the United Kingdom at the end of the day to ask to be taken back.
Therefore, while I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, seeks to do by this amendment, I am afraid that I cannot give it my support and I hope that the Minister will reject it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I hope that I misheard the noble Baroness who spoke from the Liberal Benches. As I heard her via the inadequate sound system in the Chamber I thought she suggested that we Scots should pack up our tents and take our legislative assembly north of the Border and give the English peace. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate are both nodding. Is everyone on the other side of the Chamber in agreement with that? I merely ask the question for information.
Baroness Seear: I said that we should be given time, not peace. As the debate goes on I am more and more convinced of it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I understood that the noble Baroness was treating Scots as some kind of summer irritant as reflected in the amendment that is presently before the Committee.
A very serious matter arises out of this alleged reform of local government; that is, the cost that it has brought to local authorities to date. On the basis of what I regard as reliable information I understand that at least one authority has expended about £750,000 in publicity against this legislation. As my noble friend Lord Ewing said at the outset of this debate, that is not wanted north of the Border, particularly if it is replicated throughout the country. In Fife there are boundary objections and throughout the Highlands there is an argument for a single tier or pan-Highland system, whatever that means. In fact I have never met any pan-Highlanders but I understand that they do exist. All of these problems are being debated throughout Scotland. I can assure the Committee that in dealing with this Bill my noble friends on the Front Bench and myself have been inundated with material from all well-meaning local authorities in Scotland who are trying to cope with this legislation.
I hope that the Minister is well aware of the rumblings within his own party that this is a piece of unnecessary legislation. Has not the time come for the people of Scotland, represented by the Government, the Front Benches on this side of the Chamber, and indeed throughout Parliament, to get round the table to ask where is the common ground on the need for change in local government in Scotland? We may not need this Scottish Assembly if we just act sensibly and stop
664
making political points. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, was almost crying in asking why the Conservatives do not get seats in Scotland. The answer is simple. Nobody likes them. I do not refer to the noble Lord personally because he and I have known each other for a long time; but nobody wants the Conservatives any more because they do not represent a political party that can take Scotland into the next century in a meaningful way. I say to the Government that we will not pack up our tents and we will not go from either your Lordships' House or any other House. We will fight for the independence of Scotland in the sense that we want time to legislate for our own affairs. I ask the Minister the question that I have raised before in your Lordships' House: how many reports of the Law Commission of Scotland lie on the shelves awaiting legislation ?
Lord Hailsham of Marylebone: About the same number as the Law Commission for England!
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: On the basis of proportionality, I take the point of the noble and learned Lord. We cannot legislate for Scotland here. The amendment proposed is a minute one. Let us give Scotland the freedom to legislate for itself on matters that do not affect the United Kingdom. What are the Government afraid of? The stronger we make the units of the United Kingdom, the stronger the United Kingdom becomes. The more people believe in the unity of the United Kingdom, the stronger it becomes. But if the Government continue to do what they are doing and alienate Scotland, and perhaps to some extent Northern Ireland, the weaker the United Kingdom will become. I speak for myself as a Back Bencher, not from the Front Bench, when I say that we are a unionist party. We believe in the United Kingdom, but we believe in the strength of the units within the United Kingdom to make it worth belonging to. Members of the Committee can quote me on that if they like. We are a unionist party and I am not ashamed of it.
With those observations, I ask the Government to please sit back and consider what they are doing with this legislation. We have four or five days of Committee time here and the Bill has to go back to another place. Goodness only knows how much public money—it is not the money of the authors of the document—will be spent on this exercise before it is finished one way or another, perhaps in October, November or December of this year. I ask the Government at least to consider dropping the Bill and starting again.
Lord Palmer: Surely, if the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is concerned about the number of seats that his party has in Scotland the best way of increasing the number of seats would be to abandon this Bill altogether.
Lord Fraser of CarmyHie: I begin by complimenting the noble Lord on his ingenuity in managing to secure the acceptance of this new clause for the Committee stage. He has skilfully woven together, and to some extent obscured, a number of different objectives. On one level it might be thought, as my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said, that the noble Lord, with a long commitment to the establishment of a

665
Scottish Assembly with extensive powers, might be intending in, as it were, embryo to provide for the establishment of such an assembly.
He will recall, probably too vividly, the many long hours that he spent in another place in 1978 debating the devolution Bill. I am sure he will appreciate that it would be wholly inappropriate to attempt to establish a fully-fledged Scottish Assembly, albeit in embryo, in this Bill. There was the famously unresolved West Lothian question, and others, which would not be sensible to try to address in this Bill. I am bound to observe, given the noble Lord's involvement in the convention in Scotland, that it must be a disappointment to those who are keen to see the establishment of an assembly in Scotland that those very real issues which were raised on the Government's Back Benches during the passage of the Bill have moved no closer to resolution with the passage of 15 years than was the case when the Bill received Royal Assent.
The second theme that seemed to come through the noble Lord's proposing of the new clause was that in some way it might be a useful device—in a sense a temporary commission—which might establish for Scotland a better model for local government than is provided for in the Bill. That is an argument but it is not what the clause establishes. It would establish permanently an assembly that was to,
"perform such strategic functions, both financial and otherwise, as are relevant to the promotion and development of the local government of Scotland".
Whatever may be the views on the reform of local government in Scotland it is abundantly clear that no one—but no one —wishes to establish yet a further tier in local government. This assembly would not address matters of wider national policy. It would allow for an assembly that dealt only with matters of local government. With all respect to the noble Lord, there is little support—indeed, probably none at all—for that.
The most important issue to address properly within the context of the Bill, which is about local government, is that while we are seeking the establishment of single tier local government we should ensure that local government gets ever closer to the people. If such an assembly were to be established in Edinburgh there would inevitably be a centralising force at work. Far from simply overseeing local government in Scotland it would provide that decisions had to be taken at a national level. That is not just a scare which I have dreamt up. In another place the Member of Parliament for East Lothian, John Home Robertson, and others, were clearly of the view that it was not desirable and that such an assembly should not shrink from the prospect of taking away from local government some of its present powers and having them administered at the centre. I really do not believe that there is any desire to see that brought about in Scotland any more than would be the case here in England.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, does not find our affairs in Scotland too tedious. As other noble Lords have said, we are proud to be part of a unionist Parliament and will continue to share that pride whether
666
it is in this House or in another place. Of course, from time to time the affairs of England are not always bright and stimulating.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said that with the establishment of such an assembly there might be an opportunity for those who were members of it to participate in some of the European Councils which take place now on a regular basis. He will appreciate that the Council of Ministers is composed of Ministers from national governments. It is the case that there are sometimes representatives from regional governments but where that occurs they do not speak simply on behalf of their own region—or Land in the case of Germany—but on the part of the whole of that nation state. Thus, if there were to be a Scottish Minister attending an education council, he or she would be speaking on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom, not simply on behalf of Scotland.
This has been a brief but interesting debate. We have a good many detailed amendments to consider beyond it with regard to boundaries. I hope that, having expressed his views very clearly and in his customary lucid fashion, the noble Lord will feel that his debate has been worth while and that he can now withdraw his new clause.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he deal with the point which I and other noble Lords raised? One of the reasons for the tabling of the new clause was that, with the greatly increased powers of the Secretary of State, he is becoming another tier. Will the noble and learned Lord refute that?
Lord Renton: Before my noble and learned friend replies, would he care to compare what is written in subsection (2) of the new clause with the responsibility of the Secretary of State in subsection (5)? Would there not be a real danger of a conflict of responsibility between the suggested assembly and the Secretary of State?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have not gone through the clause in any great detail but it appears to me that it contains a number of defects, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will appreciate. The conflict to which my noble friend Lord Renton has pointed would indeed be inevitable were the clause to be implemented.
We addressed the position of the Secretary of State generally at Second Reading and I shall return to it now. There is a significant part of the Bill which would change the arrangements whereby water and sewerage services were delivered in Scotland. That would indeed be performed under the aegis of boards and not under the various councils as is the case at present. But, apart from that, there is no significant extension of the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Bill. The only other area where it might be claimed that there is such an extension, although I think it is an illusory one, is in relation to reporters to the children's panel. If the noble Lord is not already aware he will be shortly that an overwhelming majority of those who work in the

667
reporters' system have welcomed the opportunity to carry out their work under an independent national reporter.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not wish to delay my noble friend's reply but I wish to comment on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that there might possibly be from time to time a conflict of view between the assembly and the Secretary of State. He must be well aware that this assembly in which we are all seated has very frequently differed from Secretaries of State, Ministers and governments without being in any way alarmed at that. There are means whereby that conflict is resolved. A similar conflict in the proposed assembly would be resolved as well without the dread consequences which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, seems to envisage.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I do not know whether the Minister wants to reply to my noble friend. If he does, I am sure that he will respond to my noble friend's most recent intervention. I am grateful for the constructive nature of the debate which has taken place, with the exception of the contribution of the noble Baroness Lady Seear. Perhaps I may gently remind her that not only is she out of line with Labour Party policy, but, probably of more importance to her, she is badly out of line with Liberal Democrat Party policy as well. That may not concern the noble Baroness. I think, however, that I should plant that thought in her head before she staggers into more serious trouble. When Paddy Ashdown reads the Official Report tomorrow, I have a feeling—
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has completely misunderstood. What I said was entirely in support of a Scottish Assembly, which has been our policy for far longer than it has been Labour Party policy.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My persuasive powers have drawn the noble Baroness further along the road so that we end up with a constructive contribution.
I say to the Minister that the weakest ground in his constructive answer concerns centralisation. If ever a Bill creates centralisation, it is the one before us. Not once but on 97 occasions in the Bill there is reference to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions. There can be nothing more centralising than to give him the very extensive powers which this Bill proposes.
I say as an aside to the Minister that I find it strange that on the first day of the Committee stage there is not a single government amendment to the Bill. I do not know what the Government's intentions are for the later stages As I said, if ever I have seen a centralising measure it is this one. So the Minister's centralisation argument is not valid.
The noble Lord referred to the unresolved question of West Lothian. As the noble Lord said, I lived with it night and day with Tarn Dalyell peering over my shoulder and saying that there was no answer to it. Why should I be able to vote for education in Blackburn, West Lothian, but not in Blackburn, Lancashire? For those Members who have forgotten, that was the West Lothian question. Perhaps I may share briefly a story with the Committee. On the day when the daughter of
668
the then Prime Minister of Malta demonstrated in the public gallery and threw horse manure over the gallery which landed in Tarn Dalyell's lap, quick as a flash John Smith said, "That is the answer to the West Lothian question." I believe that in some ways that is so.
The situation now is different. A Labour government intend to establish regional assemblies as well as a Scottish Parliament and a Parliament for Wales. So the West Lothian question will not arise. There is now an answer to the question which I freely admit did not exist in 1978. I wish that it had existed, but it did not.
I would like to have the ear of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. On behalf of all the people in Fife I congratulate him on his birthday today. If someone asks whether I have always grovelled, the answer is yes, but only on behalf of the people of Fife. It is nice to see the noble Lord celebrating his birthday in such a vigorous fashion. He really has to face up to—as I thought he was trying to do —the position of the Conservative Party in Scotland. That applies also to the "Second Reading speech" of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. It was kind of him to keep it for the beginning of the Committee stage. As I recollect, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, was appointed chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland to arrest the decline which had started under Michael Forsyth. We now have Sir Michael Hirst following the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. But the decline goes on.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am sure that even in the noble Lord's wildest dreams he did not believe that the results of the last election in Scotland would be as good as they were for the Conservative Party.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: It shows the depth to which the Conservative Party has sunk in popularity terms in Scotland that 11 seats are now counted to be a success. That is 11 seats out of 72. I can remember the time when the Conservative Party in Scotland had more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote. It will be lucky to get 5 per cent. on Thursday.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I had not wanted to intervene twice. It happens to be the only part of the country which wrested one particular seat from the Labour Party. That is not a bad record.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: "Arrest" is probably the correct word. However, we shall leave that matter where it is. I shall now deal briefly with the question of cost. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, raised it in particular. I have always answered the question of cost in this way: democracy is more expensive than dictatorship. Anyone who wants democracy has always to be prepared to pay for it. I have never shifted from that approach. When one looks at countries where a dictatorship is the order of the day rather than democracy, Members of the Committee can take it from me that the price is well worth paying for democracy.
We have had a good and constructive debate. I hope that I can return to the matter in the autumn when we deal with the Report stage and Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 1 [Local government areas in Scotland]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert:
("( ) The Treasury will undertake a review and publish a report on the likely costs involved in the reorganisation of local government, which shall be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 6th April 1995.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Treasury to undertake and publish a review of the likely cost of the reorganisation of local government. The Committee will be aware that the transitional and ongoing estimate of the cost provided by the Government has been questioned. Severe doubts have been expressed in several quarters as to its validity. The amendment proposes a total review to be undertaken by the Treasury of the likely cost of reorganisation with the result published by April 1995 before the elections take place for the new body.
In October 1992 the Secretary of State produced a consultation paper entitled The Structure of Local Government in Scotland: Shaping the New Councils. The paper contained four options for a unitary authority structure, consisting of 15, 24, 35 or 51 authorities. At the same time the Scottish Office published a report by the management consultants, Touche Ross, who had been commissioned to examine the likely cost implications of moving to the four structures identified in the consultation paper.
The Touche Ross report was severely criticised by many individual local authorities, by CoSLA, by professional bodies and by academics specialising in local government finance. That criticism has never been refuted by the Scottish Office; at least it has done nothing tangible which we can trace that systematically questions the complaints.
The Government published in 1993 their White Paper Shaping the Future: The New Councils which proposed a 28 unitary authority structure. It was estimated that this would produce ongoing annual savings of between £22 million and £66 million and would incur transitional costs of between £120 million and £196 million.
The White Paper assumed that there would be a reduction of between 700 and 2,200 staff compared to the current two-tier system. However, even as yet no published details have been provided to justify that assumption or any of the other assumptions on which the total estimates have been based. This may be an opportunity for the Minister to enlighten the Committee and the country, and Scotland in particular.
The Bill as originally presented to Parliament in December 1993 proposed the same 28 unitary authority structure as outlined in the White Paper. Since then the number has increased to 32, and the Government have estimated that the maximum ongoing annual savings have been reduced by £14 million to £52 milion with a marginal reduction in their maximum transitional costs to £190 million.
I turn now to CoSLA's estimates. The Committee should remember that it is the central body for all Scottish local authorities. In January 1994 it published
670
a critical evaluation of the reorganisational costs involved. The report examined the costings produced by Touche Ross and those in the July White Paper, having regard to the work previously done by Touche Ross on the proposals for Wales and that done on behalf of the Local Government Commission in England, as well as the experience of other reorganisations involving the abolition of the Greater London Council, the metropolitan counties and the Inner London Education Authority. So it is not as though there are no precedents for examination.
Based on the critiques already produced of the Touche Ross figures, there is no justification for predicting savings in ongoing costs by the creation of 28 councils; the most optimistic assumption is that costs will be at least as great as under the present system. This finding contradicts the Government's claim that there will be ongoing savings which will offset transitional costs. The increased number of councils to 32 further reduces the likely ongoing savings assumed as achievable by the Government.
While accepting that it is impossible to estimate transitional costs with any precision, CoSLA's report suggests a range of possibilities from £375 million to £720 million. However, if the draft English and Welsh redundancy regulations that were recently issued for consultation were to be adopted in Scotland, CoSLA believes that its estimate of total transitional costs would fall within the range of £325 million to £620 million. That is slightly less. The Government's estimates of property costs and the cost of the preparation for the changeover and the winding-up are just as realistic. The bulk of the transitional costs will have to be be met in the years 1995-96 and 1996-97. That can be done only by an increase in public expenditure or, as seems likely, at the expense of the existing limited provisions for local government.
I do not want to go into too much detail. We have a lot of material to cover in relation to the Bill and there is certainly a lot relating to the cost. Academics who are involved in local government and those on the financial side of local government do not believe that the Government have arrived at a figure by any genuine calculations that they can interpret and have privately audited.
If the Minister can give us a serious answer now to the strong doubts that have been raised in so many quarters, so much the better. If not, perhaps he can table some amendments for Report stage. I should like to emphasise what my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford said about government amendments to Bills such as this. This is a very important—and very long —Bill. I am sure that those who have a particular interest in legislation will have great difficulty in trying to think of any Bill of this nature which has come from the other place but which has not been subject to any amendment by the Government. The feeling in most places and certainly in Scotland—is that the Government are rushing through this legislation without proper consultation and without really listening to what was said in another place. We can only hope that the Government will start now by at least admitting that

671
their figures on the cost are doubtful and unlikely to stand scrutiny once the Bill is enacted—if it is ever passed. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has given a very full picture of what is going on and what may go on. I have received similar figures in briefs. Although I do not want to repeat them, the figure that shook me was Touche Ross's estimate, which varied between a saving of £192 million per year and an added cost of £58 million per year. To say the least, that seems a little tricky and it is not something on which to make estimates. The Government appear to have settled on a figure of about £190 million. Even that appears an enormous sum of money to be spending on a measure for which the Government have no mandate in Scotland at a time when we need money for many other things.
The best thing for the Minister to do—it would be easy for him to give us this information in his reply —would be to tell us how much above estimate the 1973 reorganisation cost. That should be illuminating. All my experience was that the variation in figures and the extra costs were enormous.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In responding to the amendment which requests that,
'The Treasury will undertake a review and publish a report on the likely costs",
perhaps I may advise the Committee categorically that the Treasury is completely aware of the calculations underlying the Scottish Office's cost analysis. Anyone who has had any significant experience of government will know that it would be impossible to take forward a proposal of this nature without first gaining full Treasury clearance. Much as we might wish it from time to time, it is impossible to take forward such a change without having the Treasury crawl all over it. The Treasury clearly understands and is well aware of the financial implications. There is therefore no question of the Treasury being dissatisfied with the work carried out by the Scottish Office.
A number of criticisms have been made of the Government's analysis, but I suggest that in reality they do not hold up. There can be no suggestion that the Government have avoided discussing their costings and have ignored the advice of the professionals in the field. As far back as spring 1992, the Scottish Office invited the respected and independent consultant firm Touche Ross to produce a report advising on the best means of evaluating the financial implications of moving to single-tier councils. The existence of the study and the remit given to the consultants were both made public and Touche Ross was encouraged to speak to such bodies as CoSLA and CIPFA.
This exercise was, as the Committee will no doubt appreciate, a very difficult one. There was little, if any, previous experience of evaluating a project of this nature and considerable scope for debate and disagreement.
The Government recognised this and so took the unusual step of inviting comments on the consultant's advice. We received a wide range of comments. Scottish Office officials also met with and discussed the report in
672
detail with CoSLA officials and local authority directors; of finance. In addition, a number of councils commissioned their own reports which were then submitted to the Scottish Office.
The department subsequently used all of this information to produce its own cost estimates, which were published in the White Paper issued in July 1993. That document also contained an annex which explained the thinking behind the Government's figures and, where necessary, explained why they rejected some of the claims put forward by certain commentators.
There was therefore never any question of the Government hiding their own thinking. Even at the time of publishing the White Paper the Government indicated a willingness to discuss the matter with CoSLA. The fact is, of course, that regrettably CoSLA refused the invitation and only when it was too late—when the Bill was already part way through its parliamentary passage and the financial memorandum had been completed— did CoSLA seek to re-open the debate.
Neither was there any question of the Government ignoring the advice of local authorities and bodies such as CIPFA. On the contrary, the White Paper acknowledges many of the views expressed by these organisations.
Members of the Committee will be aware that, as the Bill completed its passage through another place, several changes were made to the number of local authorities which are proposed to be established in Scotland. To some extent, that brought about a change in the figures. It may be helpful if I indicate that transitional costs are estimated to have reduced slightly to between £120 million and £191 million. Savings have similarly fallen but potentially remain as high as £53 million per annum. Thus under this revised structure savings over a 15-year period could amount to as much as £800 million.
I referred to the fact that a number of councils have taken their own analysis and have submitted their cost estimates to us. It is significant to note that those councils, far from indicating that there would be significant costs, indicated that they envisage cost-effective single-tier councils in their own areas.
Perhaps I may give the Committee a few individual examples rather than looking at the matter nationally, and look at the proposed new councils—the people who know what is happening in their own areas, what services are presently delivered and how they will be delivered. Angus, which is under Scottish Nationalist administration, has calculated that there will be a saving of £18.5 million. The Borders council has put forward a potential saving, taking into account the proposed changes, of some £22 million. Dundee, which is solidly Labour controlled, has put forward a saving of some £21 million. Highland council has suggested a saving of some £58 million, and that excellent council, Fife, just the other side of the Tay from Dundee, has put forward a saving of £68 million. The old borough of Falkirk, which is in the centre of Scotland, suggests a saving of some £16.5 million.
Those figures have not been plucked from the air. I understand that the councils went to the IPF, which is the commercial arm of CIPFA, to ask it to make the

673
calculations. If the Committee's mental arithmetic is up to what I have indicated it will be apparent that just those few councils will bring about a saving in excess of £200 million. Unless the calculations of all those authorities are wildly out, and if the figures show a net cost at the end of the day, some parts of Scotland are about to experience massive additional costs. I am unaware of any single area of Scotland which is putting forward such a suggestion.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is the Minister talking about a six-year period in which the savings will be made? Do the calculations take into account the transitional savings?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord wishes, I shall be happy to take up a lot of time explaining exactly the savings that they have indicated. The figures that I gave in relation to Dundee, for example, would be savings over 15 years. I also have figures for annual savings. Fife has given some detailed figures and I am sure that it will be more than pleased to let the noble Lord see them, as no doubt will Highland, Borders and many other councils. I was attempting to ensure that we were comparing like with like.
A very different picture emerges from the broad picture that has been suggested. The previous Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that the additional cost would be something like £700 million. If those authorities all point to prospective savings of the order of magnitude to which I have referred, it seems to me that the figures that are calculated on a national basis will not stand up.
I have acknowledged that a wide range of opinions might be offered, and estimates can never be absolutely accurate. There are decisions to be taken by local councils which potentially will affect the amount of savings that might be secured. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that our estimates represent a reasonable guide to the costs and savings which might be expected to arise from the move to single-tier councils in Scotland. The proposal that the Treasury should undertake the inquiry, in particular against the background of the assessments of those individual councils, is unnecessary. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: The Minister gave interesting figures relating to costs. It is obvious that part of the Government's thinking is that, if a change from one system of local government to another produces large savings of money, that in itself is a justification for going ahead. I shall Return to some of the figures to which the Minister referred when I move my amendment relating to Central Region. I shall be interested to hear his comments on what I have to say.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister's answer was interesting. I understood that one set of savings figures was over six years and that the savings for Dundee were over 15 years. The matter is not clear to me, but I shall read what was said and return to it at a
674
later stage. The Minister did not endeavour to reply to my question about the previous reorganisation, which was only 20 years ago. Surely he must have consulted on that and have the figures.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I apologise to the noble Lord for failing to answer his question. I asked the same question and was told that there was no set of figures that would be usefully comparable. I agree that it would have been helpful had such figures been available. I am not conscious of using a six-year figure. I shall check what I said and correct it if necessary, but I intended to show the savings over a 15-year period.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister has not explained the basis on which the figures have been derived. The district authorities, which are the lower-tier authorities, have come up with figures which give costings, as they determine them, for functions which are currently provided by the regional or higher-tier authorities. However, that is not necessarily the best way of arriving at a set of reasonable figures because two factors cannot be taken into account at local level. The first is the detail of the way in which the services are provided and administered. Those lower-tier authorities are not undertaking those jobs. The second factor, which cannot be known because of the political circumstances, are the requirements of the electorate at different levels and the provision of different levels of service.
In a situation where there are a number of different authorities at different levels producing cost estimates of areas of activity of which they cannot, almost by definition, be intimately aware, the value of the Treasury undertaking a review of those figures comes into its own. The Treasury is in a position to take an overview of the situation at local level. Perhaps the Minister will comment on those remarks.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: With respect to the noble Lord, he has not followed or understood what I said. I tried to set out as fully as possible the very elaborate exercise that was undertaken with the assistance of independent consultants. The results of that independent work have been open to comment. Indeed, there have been comments, and a number of proposals have been put forward which indicate that the savings which we concluded would be achieved would not be achieved.
It is interesting that, as far as I am aware, all the proposed new councils, without exception, conclude that if they are given single-tier status, over a 15-year period they can achieve substantial savings. Given the political complexion of many of those councils, which are not always or immediately on the Government's side, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to have some regard to those calculations.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I wonder why we were not given on Second Reading the figures provided to us by the Minister today. There are many variations even among the different consultants. The figures that I have been given show that savings in the Borders will be £1.7 million; in Central there will be an increase of £5.2 million; and Lothian and Strathclyde will have increases of £24.5 million and £37 million respectively.

675
We are all concerned about the costs, but people trying to make sense of the costs are worried that we do not know the assumptions on which, for example, the Touche Ross surveys are based. Perhaps the Minister will publish those assumptions before Report stage in the autumn.
In the meantime, I do not believe that we shall make much progress by throwing figures backwards and forwards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("1st April 1996") and insert ("such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to give the Government time to develop their work on the Bill.
The Bill is unlikely to receive Royal Assent until late October or early November of this year. Local authorities will be faced with a number of practical difficulties when trying to ensure that the proposed new local government structure is established and working effectively by 1st April 1996. Therefore, the new system must be set up in 17 months. At the same time, those officers charged with ensuring that the system is established must tackle also the implementation of other major policy developments such as the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to corporate and professional services, the development of care in the community and the introduction of devolved school management schemes to Scotland's schools. Given those and other tasks facing local authorities, I hope that the Committee will support the amendment, which suggests a delay in the commencement date of the new unitary authorities to allow sufficient time for the necessary preparations to take place.
Also, rather than imposing a set date for the commencement of the new authorities, my amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to make an order, approved by Parliament, setting the councils' vesting day. That will allow discussions to take place as to what is the most appropriate date. We are not trying to take away power from the Secretary of State. We are saying that he is the only one who can make a decision with regard to the actual date.
Your Lordships may be aware that a large number of the local authority professional associations have expressed concerns regarding the burdens being placed on elected members and officials in establishing the new councils, and several have made representations detailing their views. In particular, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), the Chartered Institute of Professional and Financial Accountants, the Society of Directors of Personnel Services and the Society of Directors of Administration in Scotland have expressed their anxieties from the point of view of their own professional expertise. Those are all professional bodies which have an extremely high standing and integrity. I believe this is significant as these four bodies collectively provide an overview of the management,
676
legal, financial and personnel issues that will have to be addressed by those chief officials responsible for the corporate affairs of local government in Scotland.
Although I accept that the period from the likely date of the Bill receiving Royal Assent to vesting day of the new councils is only slightly shorter than the previous reorganisation of local government, I believe that qualitatively it is much easier to bring together organisations than it is to split them up and form totally new groups. Also, there is no doubt that during the 1974–75 reorganisation a consensus existed that some sort of reorganisation was desirable which would be of benefit to Scottish local government. Also, that reorganisation was carried out after a thorough, almost classic, review of local government by the late Lord Wheatley.
In addition, a more complex task faces local authority officials in 1994 than in 1974 in the areas where major services will have to be disaggregated into smaller units, such as in Central, Grampian, Tayside, Lothian and particularly Strathclyde. Joint arrangements may need to be established and will certainly have to be considered for strategic services to ensure their effective continuation.
Finally, I would remind the Committee that local authorities today are heavily dependent on information technology to carry out their functions; that was not the case in the early 1970s and the problems associated with disentangling current IT systems and establishing new compatible and working systems should not be underestimated. Quite apart from the other problems which arose in relation to the poll tax legislation, one major difficulty was that insufficient time was given for the introduction of new technology to cope with it. Of course, the poll tax was an appalling idea, but it did not work because insufficient attention was paid to the necessary software and hardware.
Following representations to myself from local government professional associations I would like to highlight a number of key areas which I believe amply indicate the problems which local authorities face. Elections to the new authorities must be held on 6th April 1995. The electoral registers on which the elections will be fought will not come into force until 16th February 1996, and will be published in draft form only on 28th November 1994. However, the new electoral wards cannot be confirmed until the Bill receives Royal Assent in the autumn. Although we are sure that the Secretary of State has ways of perhaps hastening matters,—and, indeed, he has indicated his intention to use existing district ward boundaries as a basis for the new electoral ward—those boundaries are currently under review by the Local Government Boundary Commission. I believe that the prospect of completing the existing boundary review and providing the new electoral wards of the new councils after undertaking all the necessary consultation to enable the Secretary of State to make the relevant direction immediately after Royal Assent is really a little tight and perhaps rather ambitious.
I turn now to the internal and external structures. On their election on 6th April 1995, the new councils will immediately be faced with a number of decisions to be

677
taken in relation to their political and departmental structures. Given the time-scale involved in taking such decisions, they are unlikely to be in a position to consider policy matters in any great detail until late in 1995. Moreover, such decisions will be further complicated by the uncertainty caused by the consideration of the necessity, desirability and practicability of establishing a number of joint arrangements with other authorities in the provision of services such as strategic planning, transportation, trading standards, education and social work.
Then there are the orders, directions, guidance and regulations to consider, the power for which has been taken by the Secretary of State from local authorities. Members of the Committee will be aware that during the period from Royal Assent to 1st April 1996, the Secretary of State will need to issue numerous orders, directions or guidance on a whole range of matters. No doubt the Minister has a list of the latter, details of which I am sure he will be only too willing to give to the Committee.
There is also the difficult business of staff provision and what redundancies there are to be. That is one of the ways in which the Government must be hoping to reduce costs. However, there will be serious staffing difficulties; indeed, it is not an easy job to carry out, especially when there are service specialists in every local authority who will be essential to the new local authority. Decisions will have to be made as to which members of staff will go and which are to be retained. Moreover, the type of compensation the leavers receive will have to be considered.
I believe that the budgetary concerns have been dealt with quite fully. However, it has been stressed to me that local authority directors of finance are concerned that the mechanism to be employed by the Scottish Office to derive the grant and expenditure targets for each of the new authorities will produce very doubtful, if not actually flawed, results. It is felt that there will of necessity be extensive work in aggregating and disaggregating existing targets for local authorities and in establishing effective statistical data relevant to the new authorities. Inevitably such tasks will be rushed through and perhaps not as well completed as would otherwise have been the case. The whole local government sector will have many extra tasks placed upon it.
Finally, I should like to stress to the Committee that local authorities do not face the task of implementing reorganisation in isolation from other policy initiatives in which they must become involved. In addition, local authorities are implementing the Government's community care initiatives, devolved school management schemes and the extension of compulsory competitive tendering for legal services, finance, personnel, information technology and other corporate services.
I suggest to the Committee that the reorganisation has been pushed through at a rate which leaves little time to ensure that the services provided by local government will be protected and the present level of services maintained. While I continue to oppose the
678
reorganisation, if it is to go ahead realistically I should like to ensure that it does so smoothly. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
It remains to be seen whether the Government can make the proposed reorganisation happen. It is still hanging in the balance. However, it is certain that within the time-scale envisaged, the Government cannot make such a reorganisation work in any way smoothly. Moreover, to compare it with the way that the Wheatley proposals were carried out is quite irrelevant; indeed, it is quite wrong to compare the type of changes which will happen under the Bill to those which took place under Wheatley. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am very happy to support the amendment, even though it gives further powers to the Secretary of State. However, in this case I believe that that is sensible. I shall not repeat the admirable review put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, but what has been extraordinary about the Bill now before the Committee is the amount of briefing that we have received; the number of telephone calls that we have received; and, indeed, the number of people who have come to see us, often at their own expense, in order to put forward their points of view. Such is the interest in the matter that it seems to me that the present timetable will be subject to confusion and will almost certainly cause upset over the specified period.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, cited the notorious poll tax Bill. However, I believe that there was a much more serious piece of legislation in that respect. I refer to the community care Bill, which caused great distress to many mentally handicapped people who were released into the care of the community, while such communities were totally unprepared to deal with them.
The Bill now before us refers to many services, and I do not suggest that the results will be anything like as bad as those following the community care Bill. But my observations should persuade the Government to pause for thought. That is all that the amendment proposes. After all, even if the Secretary of State thought that things were ready, it could still be put through on the suggested date. It seems to me that the Government might well accept the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, I fear that it would have exactly the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, intended. I feel certain that it would create a most unfortunate uncertainty with the very loyal and often dedicated people in local government if they did not know when the date for implementation was to be fixed. I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed; I do not believe it would have the desired effect. As it is, it is rather a tragedy that some of the best local authority officials that we have are taking early retirement.
The Earl of Minto: The remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, at the conclusion of his speech was most important. It is essential in local government in Scotland that we should be given the opportunity to put the Bill into operation should it become enacted. I

679
do not wish to press the question of a date. However, if the date is to be left as it is at present, I feel that it is essential that adequate time is given for us to fulfil our task in local government.
In my Second Reading speech I made mention of CCT. I should like to refer to it again in purely practical terms for the benefit of the noble and learned Lord. There is no questioning the fact that CCT is the greatest single distraction to the reorganisation process. It is especially so within the central services. Whether we like it or not, staff at the centre will be required as of this moment to deal with CCT preparation and implementa-tion at the same time as being heavily involved in implementing the proposed reorganisation. Moreover, in some cases those concerned will, quite frankly, be worried about their own job retention.
The current proposal is that CCT for central and construction-related services will take place between October 1997 and April 1998. The tendering process would therefore have to begin at the latest in about October 1996. The work of drawing up the specification and the contract documentation would have to start much earlier. As a result, the information on which the financial level and specification will be based will, at the moment, be inadequate. Since the new authorities will have been operating only for six months the information will, in practice, be based on that of the old authorities. That has to be unsatisfactory.
Added complications arise from the implementation of decentralisation schemes and the applicability of TUPE to the acquired rights directive. The provision of professional services could be affected by the new authorities' approach to decentralisation. We have no idea what the new authorities' approach to decentralisation will be in individual cases. It is unlikely that the decentralisation schemes will be completed with the specifications and services subjected to CCT.
Ideally, the decentralisation issue should be dealt with first and should influence the provision of professional services, not vice versa, although I accept that a balance would have to be struck with the requirements of the forthcoming CCT legislation.
If there are reductions in staff numbers as a result of reorganisation—and I expect that there will be—they are most likely to arise in the services subjected to the next round of CCT. Arising from the continuing debate on the applicability of TUPE and its other components to reorganisation there is a possibility of a large number of industrial tribunal cases challenging redundancies. The outcome of those cases would have implications for the CCT process. It must therefore surely be unwise to proceed until those matters have been resolved.
The success of reorganisation will, as I said at Second Reading, depend on staff at all levels. A majority of staff will see CCT as a far greater threat to their future than reorganisation. As a consequence, they may wish to concentrate their efforts on preparing for CCT to the detriment of preparation for the reorganisation process.
It is generally accepted that an absolute minimum period of two years is required in the run-up to a CCT contract, provided resources can be concentrated on the process. While a postponement of a year until October 1998 would improve the situation it would still be far
680
from ideal. A delay of two years to October 1999 would ensure that the new authorities had been operating for a reasonable time and that the CCT process was dealt with against the background of meaningful information and a sensible preparatory period. The postponement of CCT would have a significant beneficial effect on the practical side of preparation for reorganisation and on staff morale, and would be a huge step towards ensuring the successful introduction of the new authorities in April 1996.
It is against that practical background that I commend to the noble and learned Lord the comments that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, associated with my comments on CCT. I ask the Minster to accept that we are requesting that those who serve with us on local authorities should be given the opportunity to implement the Bill when it becomes enacted in a way which is beneficial rather than the way in which it appears to be proceeding at present.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I have no difficulty in agreeing with everything that my noble friend Lord Carmichael said. Like him, I have been inundated with documents from professional advisers to local authorities. Without exception they say either that it will be impossible to do what is asked by the date provided or, if they do not go to the lengths of saying that it would be impossible, that it is most unlikely that it can be accomplished. It is not a question of one Member on this side of the Chamber agreeing with another. Both of us—together with many others—have been influenced by what has been said by professional advisers to local authorities. It is not councillors who will have to put the scheme into operation, it is the officials who are paid to do the job. If all of those officials are doubtful about their ability to do that, that should lead the Government to have some worries.
It was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that if the amendment were accepted it would create uncertainty and make matters more difficult. If the amendment were accepted the Secretary of State would not be prevented from adhering to the date in the Bill if he is persuaded—not now, but perhaps in February— that matters have progressed to such an extent that he can go ahead with that date. If he is not satisfied early in the year that it is safe to go ahead he would be a foolish Secretary of State if he did not take advantage of what is set out in the amendment.
I am reinforced in that opinion by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. He spoke from an unusually wide knowledge of the operation of his council. He has been a convenor of the council. It is obvious that he has involved himself in the minutiae of these matters to an extent that few of us could have claimed to have done when we were involved in local government. I think that I have said enough to indicate my views.
Turning to another matter, I question why on earth the date of April has been chosen for the first election when Clause 6 refers to the first Thursday in May. Is there some magic about 1st April and 6th April 1995 which escapes my comprehension? If one opts for April

681
one makes matters more difficult than if the first election were held in May. What is the reasoning behind that single departure from the first Thursday in May?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I make a very brief intervention on this matter. I am impressed by what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said about the whole question of CCT possibly complicating the very difficult task of changing the system of local government in Scotland. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will take away the matter and reconsider it to see whether the whole question of CCT could be reviewed in the light of what the noble Earl said.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I wish to intervene briefly on this issue and on the adjustment of the timing of the reorganisation of local government. I am heartened by what the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, said about one particular issue. I return to the issue to beg the Government to take time over what is happening in local government in Scotland.
There seems no logical reason for a fixed date of 1st April 1996. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell the Committee on what basis—whether it be factual, actuarial or whatever—that date was fixed. Alternatively, did someone simply pluck it out of the air and say, "The date of 1st April 1996 sounds a reasonable time. Therefore we shall go ahead"? I speak from a position of ignorance, but I suspect that the Bill is being activated by accountants. Once accountants become involved, they do not recognise the realities of life and human experience. For example, in the Highlands the question of rurality has arisen. That is a strange but accurate word. The accountants have said, "We do not accept the theory of rurality". That is all very well if one is considering a set of papers. But if one lives in a rural area, rurality means a way of life.
When we refer to transition in local government, it is transition from the present arrangements. For example, as regards handicapped children with special needs at school, will the curtain come down on 1st April 1996? Will authorities such as Strathclyde be told, "You can no longer provide a service to the rural area within Strathclyde because it is no longer within the boundaries"? What will happen to children who require those special needs services daily? What will happen to the social services within the areas when the curtain comes down?
The Government must inject an element of humanity into the Bill. They must stop dealing with the issue as though it were a mathematical exercise. Perhaps I may refer to fares. In the Lothian region—the noble Earl, Lord Minto, may be able to confirm this—one can travel from the centre of Edinburgh to Dunbar for a special fare of 20p. However, once the new boundaries come into effect, that will stop. Who will sort out that matter by 1st April 1996? If it is not sorted out, what will be the position? Will the Lothian region withdraw the special fares?
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, spoke of the people of the landward areas (if I may so call them) who do not wish to be governed by Strathclyde. If the noble Lord considers the matter, he will
682
understand that people outwith the new proposed area of Strathclyde will lose services which have been provided through economy of scale within large regions. No matter how politically unacceptable those authorities may be to the Government, they are providing services to distant areas relating to nursery education and roads which will be withdrawn on 1st April, 1996.
I wish to know this from the Government: if a town outwith the major area has a subsidy for nursery education withdrawn, who will subsidise nursery education? Will the new local authority have to raise the money? And if so, how?
We have so many questions we could detain the Committee for a long time. But eventually a new Secretary of State will say, "You people have not managed to agree about the services you are providing, therefore I will tell you what you are going to do". He then becomes the master of the administration. But who will be the paymaster? Who will pay for the services which the Secretary of State imposes on the new local authorities? Who will raise the finance?
I do not apologise to the Committee for making a persistent plea. I make it now and I shall do so again. Why do we not take this issue away and seek to gain a Scottish consensus? That would enable us to look like sensible people instead appearing to be a population of the landward areas—one-fifth of 5 million people—who cannot agree among ourselves on the best basis for local government which will give the people the best possible services. Surely we can sit down together and talk about the matter. It has been said that the railway strike cannot be settled. That is because people are at a distance from each other. We are prepared to talk to the Government. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, or anyone else on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure, however, that one could have a delegation from this side of the Committee to meet with the Government and Members of another place to consider the debates and to say, "It is nonsense to bring the curtain down on that specific date. Let us see what we can achieve. Give us six months to talk about it". If we do not achieve consensus, we are back at the starting point. But at least give us the opportunity to get together and talk.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am happy to respond to the debate for two reasons. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made some play on the issue at Second Reading. I sought to give him an answer then. However, given the circumscribed conditions of a winding up speech on Second Reading, it was possibly not as full as it might have been. I should like to take the opportunity now. Secondly, I hope that we might consider the timetable for the change in local government in Scotland in a less overtly party political way than has been the case in Scotland or indeed in another place.
However, perhaps I may begin by stating briefly the responsibilities which local government presently faces. There are indeed onerous duties imposed upon local authorities in taking forward the most important new responsibility of care in the community. I take the opportunity again to compliment those responsible for the quite significant advances they have made in the first

683
year of the implementation of that policy. I have no doubt that in the current year even further progress is being made. I see no reason why that should not continue to prove to be a successful policy followed both by central and local government in Scotland.
I am also much aware of the theme developed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, with regard to the CCT timetable. As he indicated, we have already announced an exemption from CCT for authorities from April 1995 until after reorganisation. We accept that a balance needs to be struck between allowing people to enjoy the benefits of that policy, as we see it, and the practicalities of implementing reform which the noble Earl outlined. We consider that our proposals achieve the right balance. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said. Both I and my colleagues in the Scottish Office will read carefully what he said about that aspect of the reform. We have not closed our minds to the matter. If we are presented with detailed arguments, we shall certainly consider them.
We are aware of the view that decentralisation is too important to be delayed until 1997. It is an important point which the Government considered carefully. We have decided that it would be better to take the time indicated.
What seems to cause difficulty is this. Until now in Scotland—I do not say this in an aggressive way but with regret—it has been the policy of CoSLA to continue a campaign of non-co-operation. The effect of that non-co-operation has been to reduce the timetable available to local government to prepare for reform. It is possibly not surprising that the permanent officers should now express some anxiety that they do not have enough time to prepare all that needs to be done. But I am bound to observe that a solution—it may not be a complete solution —would be for that campaign to be brought to an end. That is not to crow over a victory over the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or anything like that. It would make life simpler and more complete for the people whom we all seek to serve if we sought to change that attitude and to commence constructive dialogue to decide how the changes might be implemented on the timescale that we have envisaged.
Notwithstanding that campaign of non-cooperation, I am not convinced that the timetable for reform which envisages shadow elections on 6th April 1995, with the new authorities assuming full control from the existing ones on 1st April 1996, will somehow founder. As an aside, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, why we chose the April date for the first election. That date was chosen following pressure from local government that shadow authorities should be given as much time as possible to prepare for reforms. So there is nothing sinister in the matter, it is responding to what was requested of us.
5 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I never thought for one moment that there was anything sinister about it. I just thought that possibly it was foolish.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If it is foolish, it is an act of foolishness which the local authorities first suggested.
As I said at Second Reading and repeat now, the timetable which we have put forward reflects closely the one that was followed at the time of the last reorganisation. It is worth noting that at that time the structure was undergoing a much more substantial overhaul with a change from some 430 authorities in Scotland to 65. That is in sharp contrast to the proposed change to 32 single-tier authorities.
I acknowledge that the timetable is tight, but that is deliberately so. We took the view from the outset that it was in the best interests both of those who use local authority services and of staff alike to minimise any period of uncertainty or disruption. As my noble friend Lord Balfour suggested, the Government have already received some representations from bodies concerned with what has been termed "planning blight". In particular, there is concern that local authorities will stop planning for the future and that services will therefore suffer. While I hope that most councils would take steps to avoid the problem, it is clearly one that must be taken into account when we are setting the timescale for reorganisation.
In addition, it is important to remember the position of local authority staff in all this. It would be very unfair to them if local authority employees were left in a state of uncertainty for any longer than is necessary. Staff organisations have already expressed concern at the low morale and stress that can be caused by prolonged periods of uncertainty. Again, there is a balance to be struck and I hope that I have explained the position on it.
Moving to a different point contained in the amendment, perhaps I may reassure Members of the Committee that the elections to the new councils will go ahead, as envisaged, on 6th April 1996. Before then, it will be necessary to define the new electoral wards by direction of the Secretary of State.
We have already signalled our intention to use, so far as possible, the new district wards to emerge from the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's statutory review. This has the advantage of using boundaries which have recently been determined according to existing procedures and also, of course, it simplifies the procedures. It makes good sense to make maximum use of these up-to-date building blocks.
We will be consulting very soon with the existing councils over the electoral areas for each of the new councils. Again, this reflects the procedures followed prior to the 1975 reorganisation. Schedule 2 makes specific provision for that consultation to take place either before or after the passing of the Act. That will enable new directions to be prepared and ready for making immediately after Royal Assent. The draft electoral register, due to be published on 28th November, will reflect these new electoral areas. There is, therefore, no problem with the timetable for shadow elections.
We believe that the timetable proposed reflects a sensible balance. It is, however—and I stress this again —incumbent upon existing local authorities to make

685
good use of the time available to them. The move to new councils will take place on schedule and the Government believe that this will give councils adequate time to make plans. If authorities consider they have difficulties with the timetable, I urge them to begin work now rather than holding to a negative and ultimately damaging line of non-cooperation. Local authority customers and their employees can only gain from councils accepting that this reorganisation will take place and beginning to discuss with their neighbours the best way of bringing it about.
I make no apology for that rather extended explanation, but it is an important point and I hope that, with it, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Minto: Before replying, will the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, allow me to ask the noble and learned Lord one question? I wish to make it clear to the Committee that my local authority has never been a party to not speaking to the Government. It is an independent council which has adopted that attitude from the word go, as have other councils in Scotland. However, sadly, some of the principal ones have not.
That said, I was not quite certain whether the noble and learned Lord was asking me for further information before he was prepared to give some form of assurance that he would come back at another time. That was my understanding of the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, said. I feel that I have provided all the information and I should like to be given an assurance that the CCT matter will be responded to favourably in some measure. I genuinely believe that an authority which is doing its best will not be able to meet the target unless given some help by the Government.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My apologies to the noble Lord if he felt that I did not respond to what he said. I certainly intended to indicate to him that I would consider carefully with my colleagues in the Scottish Office what he said about the difficulties. I accept that he spelt them out fully and lucidly. I intended to convey a broader invitation that if there were others who felt the same as the noble Earl, that there are points to be made about the CCT matter, it would be helpful if they could put to us the detailed arguments in much the same way as the noble Earl did.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Committee will be pleased with the amount of time that the Minister has spent on the matter. However, he must be aware that the amendment has obviously caught a strand of thinking in this Committee. The whole question of the rush was partly the reason for the staff being uncertain and insecure and therefore their attitude to the Bill and helping the Government with reforms was not as enthusiastic as perhaps the Minister would have liked.
The important point is that we know that staff in local authorities are a bit of a joke with their sheer devotion to duty and their meticulous understanding of the rules that govern us in local affairs. Once legislation is passed, they are not the kind of people to hold things up. However, I feel that because of the unease in the
686
Committee we should give some indication to the country of just how seriously we feel about the matter and that we believe the Government are intransigent in not taking what we consider is a fairly simple amendment which is intended to be helpful. I therefore wish to test the feeling of the Committee on the amendment.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not- Contents, 145.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Bancroft, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kintore, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Minto, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nathan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Peston, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Healey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Warnock, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carnock, L.

Addison, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Aldington, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chesham, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Alport, L.

Courtown, E.

Annaly, L.

Cox, B.

Arran, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Astor, V.

Cranborne, V.

Balfour, E.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Birdwood, L.

Davidson, V.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blyth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Boardman, L.

Downshire, M.

Borthwick, L.

Dundee, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Cadman, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Elton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Erroll, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Ferrers, E.

687

Flather, B.

Mountevans, L.

Foley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Geddes, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Nelson, E.

Gisborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

Polwarth, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hacking, L.

Reay, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rees, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harrowby, E.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Romney, E.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holdemess, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Ingrow, L.

Sharpies, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kenyon, L.

Slim, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lawrence, L.

St.Davids, V.

Layton, L.

St.John of Fawsley, L.

Leigh, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lindsay, E.

Stockton, E.

Long, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Chancellor.]

[Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Manlon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L.

Tugendhat, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Middleton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wynford, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mottistone, L.

5.18 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Initial review of local government areas

.— 1) As soon as practicable, the Boundary Commission shall review such local government areas or parts thereof as the Secretary of State may direct, for the purpose of considering whether to make such proposals in relation to them as are authorised by Section 13 of the 1973 Act, and what proposals, if any, to make; and the Commission shall formulate any such proposals accordingly.

(2) The provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 of the 1973 Act shall apply to a review under sub-section (1) above.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing on the Marshalled List in the names of my noble friends Lord Carmichael and Lord Macaulay. The proposed new clause is in a sense important because it gives an opportunity to the Government to explain why an undertaking given by the Minister in another place, Allan Stewart, has not yet been honoured.
Sections 13 and 20, and Schedule 5, of the 1973 Local Government Act contain provisions that the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland shall
688
carry out a review of local government boundaries directed by the Secretary of State as soon as practicable after the new authorities have come into being. There is no such provision in this Bill.
It should be borne in mind that when the 1973 Local Government (Scotland) Act was passed the boundaries were by and large agreed. Even before the legislation was drafted there was a wide-ranging debate in Scotland against the background of the Wheatley Commission proposals. I have to hand it to the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Younger of Prestwick, who listened intently to what was being said during that debate; as a result of that listening process, boundaries were by and large agreed before the legislation came before another place.
That is not the case in the present Bill. Indeed, there has been great disagreement. That is why today the Marshalled List is littered—to put it no higher—with amendments dealing with boundaries. That was not the case in the 1973 Act. As I said, by and large, the boundaries were agreed before the Bill went to another place. There is great and widespread disagreement about the boundaries proposed in the present Bill. It seems to us to be sensible to incorporate in this piece of legislation the provision that was included in the 1973 Act. In the Standing Committee dealing with this Bill in another place, George Robertson raised the issue with the Minister, Mr. Allan Stewart. The Minister is on record as saying that he accepted the point being made and although the provision would still be in being—the provision for the Boundary Commission to carry out the reviews—that provision would still prevail. It was not proposed to include it in this legislation. Nevertheless, Allan Stewart is on record as saying that the Government would consider the whole matter and come forward with their proposals. It is now 28th June and we still have not heard the Government's proposals.
The purpose of the new clause is, first, to ensure that there is a local government Boundary Commission review as soon as practicable after the local authorities have come into being; and, secondly, to extract from the noble Lord the Minister, so far as possible, the Government's proposals as promised by the Minister in another place.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment and allowing for a further airing of views on this topic. As he indicated, Part II of the 1973 Act provides a permanent machinery for the review both of local government areas and of electoral arrangements.
While the commission is responsible for carrying out regular periodic reviews of areas, boundaries and electoral arrangements, provision is made in the Act for them to consider requests from a local authority or any person for a review of any area to which the local authority or person has an interest. In addition, the Secretary of State has powers to direct that a review be carried out of any local government area or all the areas together. Section 20 and Schedule 5 to the 1973 Act deal with the initial reviews of electoral arrangements and

689
with the possibility of reviewing local government areas, in the context that in 1975 the commission was being established for the first time.
The purpose of the provisions was to recognise that the removal of anomalies caused by the use of present boundaries to define the new electoral areas would be an important first task for the commission. What needs to be clearly understood on this occasion, however, is that the reference to existing boundaries is more up to date, since the last statutory review of administrative areas was completed in 1992 and the electoral arrangements will be finalised in the summer of this year.
The substitution of a new Schedule 5 to the 1973 Act by paragraph 95 of Schedule 13 to the Bill takes account of that and recognises and reflects the important linkage between the commission's review of electoral areas and the periodic general review of parliamentary constituen-cies by the parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland. There is a need to synchronise these and ensure that the review of local authority electoral arrangements is complete ahead of the next review of parliamentary constituencies.
As the Committee will be well aware, the current review of parliamentary constituencies is due to end on 31st December this year and, in accordance with the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, the next review of parliamentary constituencies will be held between December 2002 and December 2006. Accordingly, given that the local authority electoral wards are used as the building blocks by the parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland, it is extremely important that the first review of local authority electoral arrangements is completed by the end of the year 2000. Ideally, however, that task would be completed prior to the 1999 local authority elections.
To summarise the complex inter-relationship of commissions and responsibilities of the commission we consider it desirable to amend Schedule 5 to the 1973 Act so as to reflect the importance of the linkage between the future reviews of parliamentary constituen-cies and to enable the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland to focus on local authority electoral matters immediately in the aftermath of reform. In saying that, it does not mean that the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland cannot review any administrative boundaries after 1st April 1996. Nor does the Bill affect in any way the Secretary of State's powers to direct that commission to undertake ad hoc reviews in terms of the 1973 Act as necessary.
In terms of the amendments made by the Bill, the timescale between reviews has been reduced from 12 to 15 years to 8 to 12 years, significantly reducing the timescale within which the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland undertakes the review of administrative and electoral areas.
For those reasons, particularly the complicated inter-relationship and synchronisation of the review activities of the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland and the parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ewingof Kirkford: I am rather surprised with the reply. I had hoped that the Minister would indicate the present position in relation to the commitment that was given in another place. Responding to the debate in the other place, Mr. Allan Stewart said that the local government Boundary Commission for Scotland had a power and a duty under the 1973 Act to review boundaries, and he assured the committee that those powers would continue to exist. I have already accepted that. Mr. Stewart went on to say that he took the point about a possible initial review. He said that he would consider that point and present the Government's proposals later.
What is at issue here between the noble and learned Lord and myself is that there is no indication of the presentation of the Government's proposals much later —as is now the case. In kindness, I must say to the Minister that we are entitled to an explanation of where we are in relation to the commitment and the understanding given by the Minister in another place.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should like the noble Lord to consider what I said in my opening remarks on this amendment. I accept that the matter is complicated. I am also prepared to acknowledge, as did Mr. Allan Stewart at the Committee stage in another place, that an initial review of all the new administrative areas after 1st April 1996 might indeed be desirable. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he is concerned that that ought to be the first priority taken on by the Boundary Commission. I hoped that I had explained to him that from a practical point of view the approach that I outlined was more desirable because the anomalies ought to be tidied up before we got to the review that the parliamentary Boundary Commission may make.
I do not believe that there is anything extremely complicated here. In short, the first task of the Local Government Boundary Commission is to establish the building blocks that make up the parliamentary constituencies, as the noble Lord will recall from his own involvement in such matters. It is that which we consider to be the first task to be undertaken, not the broader review of the administrative areas. I hope I have explained that clearly, and I acknowledge, as did the Minister in another place, that we see the greater priority as clearing up the interrelationship between the two commissions.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkwood: I take it that, despite what the Minister said in another place, there are no proposals for carrying this matter forward. We will not get any further on that today. It is a complicated issue of whether we should put in place the building blocks of local government boundaries first in order that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission can go on to redraw the parliamentary boundaries. I sometimes feel that it is time the Parliamentary Boundary Commission left the parliamentary boundaries alone for a while. In my 21 years in another place my parliamentary constituency boundaries were redrawn three or four times. It is not good for an electorate and certainly not for a parliamentary representative to have a continual

691
redrawing of parliamentary boundaries. The Government should leave them alone for a considerable time.
All that being said, I shall withdraw the proposal on the basis that I give notice that we shall want to return to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [New local government areas]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 127, line 8, leave out ("Banff and Buchan District Council").
The noble Lord said: It is a particular pleasure for me to begin this group of amendments which refer to specific areas of Scottish local government. In doing that I am following a tradition established by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who ably introduced the Welsh local government Bill in this House. No doubt we shall be returning to him doing that on Thursday.
In a sense I am also representing my colleague in another place, the SNP leader Mr. Alex Salmond, who cohabited happily in a joint parliamentary group for many years. I am also glad to represent the interests of Scotland as well as the interests of Wales and any other interests in this House. But in particular I am speaking on an all-party basis on behalf of the people of Banff and Buchan and especially on behalf of those represen-tatives of the existing local authority district who have approached me on the issue. I know that a number of other Members of your Lordships' Chamber have been approached similarly by that local authority and others.
In effect, the amendments allow the Government to consider once again the whole question of whether Banff and Buchan should be a unitary authority; whether it should be a local government area in its own right. It is worth reflecting briefly on the principles set out by the Government which applied to the Scottish local government Bill when it was first introduced. Some of the arguments we shall be using this afternoon are not dissimilar to the arguments put forward during the various stages of the Welsh local government Bill both here and in another place.
The intention of the Government was to introduce a pattern of local government which would be more comprehensible to the electorate; a system which would reflect local loyalties and—that important term— communities of interest; and also a system that would be less remote from the electorate and would eliminate duplication. Most of us who were concerned about the structure of local government in medium to small-sized countries like Scotland and Wales would be in agreement with those objectives. However, in relation to the new authority of Aberdeenshire, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, I doubt that those objectives are being met.
The schedule sets out to create three districts—Banff and Buchan, Gordon, and Kincardine and Deeside—to produce a large and diverse local authority which has almost the same land area as another part of Scotland which I know quite well, Dumfries and Galloway. It would create an authority which would have no natural
692
centre of administration. It was referred to in another place both as the "polo mint" and the "doughnut" authority. We can choose our metaphors, but the point remains that when the new council is established it will not have a central administrative home. It will have to adopt what in the Welsh context would be known as the "mid-Glamorgan solution", whereby the authority has. no home within its own area, and that is to be regretted. It is appropriate that an authority for the area of Banff and Buchan should not be located within the city of Aberdeen but within its own authority where it is part of its natural community and creates direct employment.
On the second test that I set out on the principles put forward by the Government—that of commanding local loyalty—that can hardly be the case. Again I can refer to the debates we had about Mid Wales in the context of our earlier debates in this Chamber on local government. In the case of the Aberdeenshire option, only five expressions of support were suggested out of a total of 249 and those, as I am sure the Minister will confirm when he responds, are Scottish Office figures. There was a recent detailed survey of the population of Banff and Buchan showing 3 per cent. support. That was based on a survey of over 3,000 people. It is obviously much more than the regular opinion poll sample. On that basis the proposed authority hardly commands popular support.
It is not difficult to see why, because if Aberdeenshire is created it will be a geographically vast and diverse authority. Banff and Buchan in the north is a stable, traditional rural area with a strong economic base and primary industries which I have been able to visit over the years—fishing, farming and food processing. The Gordon authority and Kincardine and Deeside are of course partly commuter authorities more closely aligned to the city of Aberdeen than to the area of Banff and Buchan. Within that area 90 per cent. of the adults within Banff and Buchan live and work in the district. That is not the case for the other authorities.
We therefore have two different types of authority in that the population of Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside are close neighbours to the City of Aberdeen, which is the oil capital of northern Europe; Banff and Buchan is a different kind of community. On those arguments one can also say that it is not a happy linkage. The proposed Aberdeenshire authority neither reflects the needs of the people of Banff and Buchan nor their economic concerns.
Finally, does a large Aberdeenshire justify its place by being a cost-effective unitary authority? I studied carefully what was produced by Richard Blackburn, the very able chief executive of Banff and Buchan, and I know the Scottish Office Minister in another place studied it in detail. The study prepared by Mr. Blackburn showed clearly that the Aberdeenshire option, if it operated a decentralised authority as proposed in Clause 23 of the Bill, would have an additional running cost that would equate to £21 per annum on the council tax bill of every household in Banff and Buchan. That is because one would be creating a large authority; a unit without a natural centre. In effect it would be a two-tier system within the unitary structure and in that sense the Government's test

693
would be more expensive than the simple logical exercise of establishing a unitary authority for Banff and Buchan according to the wishes of the local people— wishes that reflect the geography, demography and economy of the area.
On that basis I want to propose the dividing of the Aberdeenshire proposal in the schedule into two natural communities, with Banff and Buchan to the north and Gordon and Kincardine to the south. There could then be established a system of local government which would be comprehensible to the local people; it would reflect the natural community interests and be a sensible unitary structure, bringing together district and regional functions.
It seems to me that in the debates in another place which I studied before standing up to speak this evening, there was a recognition on the part of the Minister that Banff and Buchan had put forward a strong case. Indeed, I suggest that what the Minister, Mr. Allan Stewart, said in another place appeared to be extremely sympathetic to the case. I hope that even at this late stage the Government in this House will be able to reconsider. If a unitary authority such as Moray is being established—an authority to the west of Banff and Buchan and its neighbour—which is a similar authority with similar rural area, with its own history and character, and with similar kinds of population (though it could be argued that Banff and Buchan has a higher GDP for the authority), what is the basis for establishing that independent Moray and not establishing an autonomous Banff or Buchan?
For all those reasons, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name so that we can have a more coherent map of local authorities in Scotland and enable the people of Banff and Buchan to establish local democracy on the basis of a unitary authority.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Your Lordships may well think it a little strange that this amendment is moved not by one of the 113 active Members of the Scottish Peers Association but by a Welshman and Welsh Nationalist resident in Wales who, to the best of my knowledge—if I am wrong I hope that the noble Lord will correct me—has never lived in Banff and Buchan, Aberdeenshire or even in Scotland.
Lord Elis-Thomas: If the noble Baroness will permit me, I lived very happily in St. Andrews for 10 weeks.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am delighted to hear it. I have lived near Fraserburgh in Banff and Buchan on and off (but more on than off) for 60 years, and continuously for the past 28 years, as my forebears have done before me. In addition, my family has property, and my husband a house, in Kincardine and Deeside District. This amendment would not give the Government time to think but would create another authority, Banff and Buchan, separate from Aberdeenshire. I am convinced that the Save the Banff and Buchan campaign and this amendment are party political and Scottish Nationalist-led.
694
Last December I received a letter from the Save Banff and Buchan Action Committee which asked me to speak for it when the Bill came before the House. The writer did not say that it was not connected with or writing on behalf of the local authority, but I was told that by him, or one of his colleagues, later in a telephone conversation. I said that I was not enthusiastic about retaining Banff and Buchan as a unitary authority, preferring that it should be part of the reconstituted Aberdeenshire as proposed in the Bill. However, I said that I would listen to the arguments before making a final decision.
In February I was asked by Mr. Alex Salmond, Scottish Nationalist Member for Banff and Buchan, to receive a deputation from the district council who were coming here to put their case to the Minister, Mr. Allan Stewart. The deputation consisted of the convenor, the chief executive, the Scottish National Party group leader and a member of the Save the Banff and Buchan Committee, escorted by Mr. Salmond. They outlined their case to me and later sent me further briefing. I understand that Mr. Stewart listened very carefully to what they had to say and asked for further information on certain points. Your Lordships may rest assured that I considered the case carefully before refusing to move the amendment which Mr. Salmond has persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to take on. It is an attractive case that they have made extremely well but I believe that it is flawed.
I deal now with the main points. They say that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the district support it. A survey was conducted in which 3,332 people were asked whether they would prefer a single-tier council consisting of Banff and Buchan only or a greater Aberdeenshire consisting of Banff and Buchan, Gordon and part of Kincardine and Deeside. Of course, most people plumped for the little local devil that they knew rather than the larger devil that they did not, for a very large number of them were no doubt too young to remember the old days of Aberdeenshire County Council and how well it worked.
I am afraid that I have very little faith in these surveys as a gauge of public opinion. You can get any answer you want depending on how you phrase the question. Incidentally, no one I know was questioned, and I wonder in what areas the survey was conducted. Curiously, I do not know anyone who wants to keep Banff and Buchan as a single-tier authority, and no one to whom I have spoken knows anyone who wants that, apart from, let us face it, those whose jobs are at stake, the Scottish National Party and the local press, who are vociferous on the subject.
Banff and Buchan's request to me to move this amendment and my opposition to it received front page coverage in the local press. If there had been the widespread support for the proposal that it said there was, I should have thought that I would have received a number of letters or telephone calls from local people urging me to think again and to save them from the big bad Aberdeenshire wolf. I never had one. When I shopped in Fraserburgh and passed the time of day with people I met, at no time was I stopped and asked to

695
reconsider. I do not believe that the majority of local people support it. I think that the majority are indifferent.
The campaign literature describes Banff and Buchan as a natural geographic area akin to Moray and Fife, both ancient earldoms. It is true that the ancient earldom of Buchan was, before 1975, a district of Aberdeenshire with a very distinct identity, but joined with part of Banffshire and with a slice off it on the south side, it is as amorphous in its small way as its proponents say that the new Aberdeenshire will be. I well remember 18 years ago the disgust with which its inhabitants viewed the new boundaries and how artificial we all thought them to be.
They now say that:
'The new Aberdeenshire, which must not be confused with Aberdeen County, from which it differs markedly, has no natural community of interest to hold it together. It is a vast area which stretches from the mountains and glens of the Cairngorms to the fishing communities of Buchan and of Coyd".
It does not differ markedly from the old Aberdeen county except that it has a piece of old Banffshire tacked on at one corner and Kincardineshire tacked on at the diagonally opposite corner. It has all the same community of interests to hold it together as the old Aberdeenshire, because the interests of that little piece of Banffshire and Kincardineshire, basically farming, are the same. The old Aberdeenshire stretched from the mountains and glens of the Cairngorms to the fishing communities of Buchan. The boundaries are exactly the same.
Another argument put forward by Banff and Buchan District Council, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is that the proposed Aberdeenshire will be what they call a "doughnut" authority with no centre, because the council offices will be at Woodhill House in Aberdeen in the neighbouring Aberdeen City authority. I cast my mind back to the days of Aberdeenshire County Council. Then the county council offices were in Aberdeen, which had its own city council. Will the situation be so different, and is it really something of earth shaking importance?
If one is to attend council meetings it is usually best to do so in the local big centre where it is possible to combine council business with other business, or even occasionally with pleasure. Roads to Aberdeen from all parts of the county are kept open, where humanly possible, however bad the weather in winter. Aberdeen is Aberdeenshire's natural capital and always has been.
I do not accept that Aberdeen, which is 42 miles from Fraserburgh, is remote from the majority of people in Banff and Buchan, as has been suggested. There will still be local offices in the towns in the district where people may go to find things out or to complain, and every ward will still have its own councillor to whom residents may take their problems. That can only be better, as there will be only one councillor for all purposes instead of two and no one knowing to whom to go for what.
The majority of households now have telephones, which was not the case 20 years ago. They are only a telephone call away from the council offices, wherever they may be. Banff, where the main district offices are and where the council offices will be if Banff and
696
Buchan become a single-tier authority, is 26 miles from Fraserburgh and often seems just as remote as Aberdeen, particularly as far as the planning committee is concerned. This is an area where local input is most important, but the answer must lie in local sub-committees.
There are fears that financially the outlying areas of Aberdeenshire will lose out, particularly as regards housing, roads and infrastructure, to the demands of the commuter belt within a radius of some 20 miles of Aberdeen. Whatever the size of a local authority, there is always the danger of the hinterland losing out to the urban and suburban areas. But I hope that the Government will keep this problem in mind when determining the amount of central government financial support and the number and distribution of councillors and make sure that the outlying districts can hold their own.
I shall not bore your Lordships with financial arguments because I think that they are rather speculative and that figures, like the results of surveys, can be very misleading. I shall only say that the council tax in Gordon and Kincardine and Deeside is lower than that in Banff and Buchan, and I think that there must be some very good management in those districts, from which we might benefit. At the end of the day, what we all want is the best possible services for the lowest possible council tax.
Whatever they say to the contrary, I believe that the larger authority will have advantages as regards economy of scale and avoiding duplication, of which, believe you me, there is plenty at the moment. I believe it will be far more satisfactory as far as social services and education are concerned. And most important of all, where joint committees with Aberdeen city are concerned, Aberdeenshire will be more than able to hold its own. In arguments with central government, they will have far more clout, though I do not know whether that argument will appeal to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. And the same applies in any dealings with the European Union.
I believe that the campaign to keep Banff and Buchan is Scottish Nationalist led and that, with the present make-up of Banff and Buchan district council being 10 independent, seven nationalist and one Liberal Democrat, the nationalists are hoping that if they can retain Banff and Buchan as an authority, they will gain control of it at the next election. I am a convinced unionist and in any case I do not believe in party politics in local government. The make-up of Aberdeenshire is likely to be mainly independent, and I think that that is as it should be and is most likely to produce good government. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I gather that the noble Lady who has just spoken is not much in favour of Banff and Buchan on purely non-political grounds—speaking as a unionist, she said. I do not know. I am not much in favour of the Scottish Nationalists. I disagree with much of what they say. However, I thought that the noble Lord from Wales did a good job. The name "Banff and Buchan" rings bells in my mind. My forebears came out

697
of there and many relations are still there. They tilled the soil and drank the whisky with great satisfaction for many hundreds of years.
Banff and Buchan is a good entity because there is all that high ground running up through Banffshire and the plain of Buchan is hardy country. Dr. Johnson, travelling through it, said that it was the most appalling wilderness he had ever seen. My forebears and many others took it in out of the heath and made it a fertile plain. They are very hardy people. Nearly 60 years ago I remember taking my brother-in-law with me up to see the shepherd who had a flock of sheep eating turnips in a district known as New Pitsligo. I had to collect the shepherd from his digs. It was snowing and a small boy from a nearby house fell in the snow and was covered in snow. His mother came out, picked him up, and to take the snow off she beat him against the door. People who are as tough as that have a certain cohesion. It is true that Banff and Buchan is an entity, or can be an entity, in itself.
However, I am afraid that I am rather on the fence because I also know the rather more fertile part of Formartine. They are much the same. The only difference is that Kincardine is even better land if you go down into the Mearns. If you go up to Deeside you find a lot of commuters who work in Aberdeen. The commuters have spread even into Buchan and they commute to Aberdeen. I think that probably the balance is in favour of the bigger authority with the clout, although I would dearly like to see Banff and Buchan under Liberal Democrat control.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The only matter on which I sharply part company with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, should not contribute to the debate and to the Bill. He is welcome and I certainly could not offer up any argument when I contemplate that it was my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate from Scotland who piloted through the House the local government Bill for Wales. The only greater authority he might have had for doing that is that he believes that Scotland and Wales should indeed remain part of our union rather than be separated from it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The last thing I wanted to do was to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, should not speak on the Bill. But I simply had to point out that the reason he was doing it was that no Scottish Peer was prepared to do it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lady made that point well and I have no doubt that it has been taken on board.
I am aware of the local support for a Banff and Buchan council to which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred and I also accept that with a population of around 85,000 the area has a potential to operate effectively as a single tier authority. I would also not in any sense try to talk down its achievements as an existing district council since its inception in 1975. The problem is, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, that while clearly we would have wished to
698
take into account as far as possible local wishes, it was necessary to have regard to a range of other factors and considerations. We have been obliged to adopt a wider perspective and our aim has been to devise a structure which would best suit the needs of Scotland as a whole as well as the areas within it.
In proposing the new Aberdeenshire council we have recreated, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, indicated, much of Aberdeenshire. With a population of around 220,000, I am confident that the new authority will be strong, effective and efficient. It will be well able to deliver the full range of local authority services and in that part of Scotland it will provide an effective counter-balance to its city neighbour.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to the rather unfair slur that it would be the "doughnut" authority with no centre. I am aware of that criticism but it seems to me to be unfair. Related to it is the point that it would not have a natural centre. I do not know whether Members of the Committee have received a copy of the letter dated 11th February from the chief executive of Gordon District Council to Mr. Tarn Dalyell. If they do not have that piece of paper, it is the only piece of paper relating to local government reform in Scotland that has not been circulated. In the letter the chief executive makes the very good point that Gordon House in Inverurie is a combined building for both the existing region and the Gordon district. While it is for the new authority to determine where its centre is, it would be wrong to advance the case for a Banff and Buchan authority, or a division of it, or to launch an attack on the proposed Aberdeenshire authority on the basis that the only possible solution for it in terms of headquarters is to locate those headquarters in Aberdeen. There are other opportunities which the authority might wish to explore.
This matter has been briefly debated. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, knows Aberdeenshire quite as well as he knows Angus. I noted in particular his observation that, while there may be a distinctive character to those who come from Banff and Buchan, when one looks to a community of interest it is not difficult to see that community of interest stretching down from Banff and Buchan to what is the existing border boundary with Angus. On that basis, while I am appreciative of the contribution of the noble Lord from Wales to this debate, it would seem correct to advise the Committee that we should remain with the Aberdeenshire proposal.
6 p.m.
Lord Hughes: Can the noble and learned Lord explain exactly the reasoning underlying some of the comments which he made? When he was describing Aberdeenshire he said that it had a population of a little over 200,000 and that at that rate it was able to carry out the full range of activities which could fall to a local authority. By that, did he imply that Banff and Buchan, with a population of approximately 80,000, was not in a position to carry out all of those functions?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No. Perhaps the noble Lord will cast his mind back to what I said in opening.

699
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that I accepted that, with a population of around 85,000, it had the potential to operate effectively as a single-tier authority. However, as I indicated, and as other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this brief debate said, there appears to be both a common identity and a community of interest which would make the re-establishment of what was Aberdeenshire the best solution for this part of Scotland.
Lord Hughes: To say that an authority is able to operate effectively as a single-tier authority is not the same as saying that it can carry out the whole range of activities. It is envisaged throughout this Bill that many of the authorities which are being set up as single-tier authorities will not be able to carry out all these functions and will have to make arrangements jointly with other authorities.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That is certainly the case. To advance the argument that Aberdeenshire with its population is likely to be in a position to deliver the full range of local authority services, was not to depart from a broader proposition which I made at Second Reading that in a number of respects and areas we would envisage that the local authority, instead of carrying on the existing pattern and traditions of Scotland in seeking to deliver all services at its own hand, should appreciate the advantages of being an enabling authority and in certain circumstances procure delivery of the services either from adjoining authorities or from the voluntary or private sector.
Lord Hughes: Would I be correct in saying that, when the Government decided on Aberdeenshire, they preferred an authority which could carry out the whole range of activities rather than have two or more authorities which would have to work with others?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No. I indicated that there were a number of factors to be taken into account. I thought it only fair to add them in. My own personal opinion is that if there is a stronger argument it is the common identity and community of interest which exists throughout Aberdeenshire.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am happy and glad that I moved these particular amendments because it has given us the opportunity to go to the heart of the matter as regards the reorganisation, whether in Scotland or Wales, and also to have drawn the comments from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, in particular with that wonderful story. We are dealing with a sense of community and the balance between efficiency of delivery of service and community identity. It is a matter of scale, size of the service and local association.
I deny that this campaign or my intervention is party politically motivated. I do not need to deny that because we have already heard suggestions that Banff and Buchan might be controlled by the SNP, independents and the Liberal Democrats. So I am quite happy that, with proportional representation, Banff and Buchan could be an authority entirely representative of the whole of Scotland.
700
The final point I wish to make is this: it is a matter of regret that, when decisions are taken by centrail government, whether by the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office, full account is not taken of the feelings of the local population when it comes to local government reorganisation. My strongly held view is that both for Scotland and Wales there will have to be further reorganisation. It will happen sooner rather than later through a Welsh assembly and a Scottish parliament. Until that time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 128, line 51, after ("Helensburgh,") insert ("except that part of the said electoral division 7 included in Dumbarton and Clydebank").
The noble Lord said: We now come to some of the nitty gritty amendments about which I know a little more than I do about the Banffshire area. This amendment seeks to put back into the Dumbarton area the area of Luss and Loudoun. That is one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland. When the Bill was first published it was considered that Luss and Loudoun would be part of the Dumbarton area, which it has been for several hundred years now.
Because of an amendment brought forward at the Committee stage, in another place, these two areas have been included in Argyll. I do not know the logic of that. I know the area reasonably well. In fact, last week I made a point of driving there to have a look at it once more. When one lives in the part of Glasgow that I live in, one takes one's visitors for a spin or a drink somewhere in that area to see Loch Lomond-side and particularly the lovely village of Luss, which, of course, is the setting for "Take the High Road". It has done very well out of that.
The idea of putting these two areas into Argyll strikes me and everyone I have spoken to as being quite horrendous. The town which Luss is most associated with now is Dumbarton and it always will be. Whatever one calls the area it will always be the county town for Luss. It is 16 miles from Luss. There is a reasonable bus service on what is now a very good road going down to Dumbarton. However, if there is a move into Argyll the county town will be Lochgilphead, which is 52 miles away. I am very certain that there will not be many people in Luss who will go over to Lochgilphead very often. It is over Rest and Be Thankful, right round and past the end of the Dunoon road. It is a long journey and the road is nothing like the road from Dumbarton to Luss.
There was no indication in the original White Paper that this area was to be transferred. Mr. Phil Gallie, the Ayr MP, who has very little local knowledge of the area, moved an amendment without informing or consulting the local people, including the MP for Dumbarton. The Government accepted it. The proposal will sever the links with Dumbarton, which go back a very long way.
There is another point about this amendment which is important. I believe that Loch Lomond belongs to all of us. It may be put into an area which has really no connection with Loch Lomond except that it is another beautiful area but in a different way. You go along Loch

701
Lomond to get to Argyll and that is about the only connection which people will have with Loch Lomond. As the Minister will know, a great many people going to Argyll sail there. So the involvement of another local authority in the management of Loch Lomond would seriously fragment planning responsibilities for Loch Lomond at a time when a comprehensive and committed approach is crucial.
I would like to make a plea to the Minister now that we should as a nation be doing something about Loch Lomond, maybe as a national park. I do not know enough about the responsibilities and powers of a national park. But we should certainly be doing something there. The biggest town in the area is Dumbarton, with Clydebank near at hand. If the two areas of Clydebank and Dumbarton were linked, as they were historically, with the south end of Loch Lomond, I think that that is a point on which we could begin to move.
My real plea to the Minister is that it makes no basic sense to put Luss and the other parts of the lochside into Argyll. I hope that the Minister will look at this carefully and let us know whether the original provisions can be reinserted into the Bill as it stood before going into Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Gray: I was surprised a little earlier this afternoon to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, congratulate me on my birthday. In fact, it is not until next Sunday. However, I then discovered that he was not referring to that momentous event, but to the birthday of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. I shall not surprise the noble Lord or his noble friend Lord Carmichael by supporting them in this amendment.
At Second Reading I welcomed the Government's proposals in general and in particular those for Argyll where I have my home and livelihood. Argyll and Bute District Council has long held the unanimous view that its area would be best served by a unitary authority. It is the view that I held when I opposed Argyll's inclusion in Strathclyde and which experience has convinced me was a correct one. Argyll and Bute District Council's advocacy of a unitary authority included no territorial ambitions whatsoever. In fact, it maintained, and still maintains, that its existing boundaries enclosed an area which could support a viable unitary authority.
Nevertheless, the district council was pleased and welcomed the addition of the adjoining communities which this Bill will bring within the new authority's boundaries. The communities in question are friends and neighbours of Argyll and Bute communities and have voted in referenda in favour of inclusion in the proposed Argyll and Bute council area. Surely the cardinal point is that democratic choice in response to the question, "Are you in favour of the transfer of your community to the new Argyll and Bute council?", has clearly endorsed the expansion of the existing district council's area to that set out in the Bill.
The communities to be transferred should surely be allowed to judge for themselves how best their interests can be served in the future. They are not taking a great leap into the unknown. Surely they can compare the
702
track records of Dumbarton District Council and Argyll and Bute District Council, which is an established authority well suited to resuming the unitary responsibilities that it formerly held.
Links between the affected communities and their neighbours in Argyll and Bute are long established and close. They are geographical, cultural and environmen-tal. For the most part, those communities have more in common with Argyll and Bute than Dumbarton and any noble Lord travelling along the West Highland line or visiting the area would recognise the similarities between the communities such as Rhu, Helensburgh and Kilkcreggan and those of the Cowal peninsula, Bute, Dunoon or Rothesay.
The case has been well made. The communities have endorsed it. The Committee should support them and Her Majesty's Government and not accept any amendment to what is in the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: It may surprise the Committee to know that I have spent much of my life between Loch Lomond and the Clyde. I was at school at Helensburgh for two years from August 1914 onwards, and I visited my father's eldest sister there many times between the wars. As far as Luss is concerned, I have been there about 30 times since the Second World War, staying with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law. I have had some of the happiest times of my life in that area of Scotland—and I am opposed to the amendment. I should add that I also know the Vale of Leven and Dumbarton and have even visited the town of Renton —with great interest and curiosity.
My noble friend Lord Gray has enabled me to shorten my speech a good deal, so I need not detain the Committee for too long. However, I shall try to answer one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. He rightly said that Luss and Helensburgh have been part of Dumfries-shire—
Noble Lords: Dunbartonshire.
Lord Renton: Yes, Dunbartonshire, for several hundred years. That is true, but since the Industrial Revolution the industrial development of much of Dunbartonshire has rather driven them apart. We have to face that. The noble Lord spoke about distances along roads, but that is not the only factor which should enable us to reach a decision on this matter. I agree that the distances are considerable between various parts of Argyll and not so great within Dumfries-shire—
Noble Lords: Dunbartonshire!
Lord Renton: I am sorry, within Dunbartonshire. I have got Dumfries-shire in my mind because I have spent so much of my time there in recent years. I have a property in the next county.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, rightly pointed out, the point is that road communications have improved enormously in recent years. Luss and Helensburgh have benefited, as he said, but that is not the only factor.
The main point is that made by my noble friend Lord Gray. There has been a referendum which shows that the

703
people of that part of Scotland want to be in Argyll and do not wish to remain in Dunbartonshire. I understand that there have been various consultations confirming the result of that referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that Loch Lomond belongs to all of us —and so it does. But there are now several local authorities—and there will be a number of local authorities—which enjoy the bonnie banks of Loch Lomond. It is not a question of one local authority or of deciding this matter in the light of which authority shall have most of the banks of Loch Lomond. With respect, that is quite irrelevant.
I think that the test of the matter is this. My noble friend Lord Stodart held his inquiry some years ago now, but what he said then is absolutely true. He recorded that in its evidence the district council of Argyll at the time put this before his inquiry:
'There is no doubt that the regional council's"—
that is, the Strathclyde regional council—and we have to consider this—
"prime consideration and major financial resources must be concentrated on the central conurbation and the steps to be taken by them to deal with the urban deprivation existing there".
Fair enough, but the evidence continues:
"Little emphasis however has been put at regional level on the problem of rural deprivation which can and does exist in certain parts of the remote areas of Scotland".
I am not saying that in the Helensburgh and Luss areas there is much rural deprivation—they are mainly fanning, residential and, to some extent, tourist-dominated—but the point is that they are different from the rest of Dunbartonshire. They want to go into Argyll and I do not think that we should stand in the way of their doing so.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I spent a lot of time last week at the Highland Show. I was approached by a gentleman who I thought was going to talk to me about how cattle and sheep were doing. Not a bit of it. He said, "You're going to London next week. I'm an Elder of the Kirk in Luss and I am a tenant farmer in the area. I hope you are going to ensure that we go with Argyll". That was good enough for me because I always listen to what farmers say. I try to do what they would like me to do and, if there is a Division, I shall vote for Luss to go with Argyll.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Perhaps before the noble Lord sits down he will tell the Committee the farmer's logic in wanting to move to Argyll. If he cannot do so, perhaps I may advise him that if farmers move from Dunbartonshire to Argyllshire they will attract larger grants from the common agricultural fund. Fanners' interests are always money-based.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: The noble Lord may be right: farmers always look for the best advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, appeared to suggest that with the abolition of Strathclyde, services will be reduced in Argyll and in other parts of that great area. He did not say much about the Western Isles Islands Council, the way in which those who have been in government have supported it and the way in which services are delivered there, which is very good indeed. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, I believe that

704
there is a commonality of interest between Luss and the county of Argyll, whatever he may believe to the contrary.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: One learns something new every day in your Lordships' House. I had not realised that both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I went to school in Helensburgh. Although the years may have separated us, I was forced there by the activities of a gentleman known as Adolf Hitler, who decided to bomb us out of Quarrybank. For the greater part of my secondary education I lived in Helensburgh. Perhaps the noble Lord and I can have a discussion about it one day.
While living in Helensburgh I did not feel any affinity with Argyllshire. We always looked on the Dunbartonshire area as being part of the Helensburgh area. Argyll seemed a distant place where the nobility lived—no doubt, the Duke of Argyll and others. It seemed remote. Helensburgh seemed an integral part of Dunbartonshire.
I speak from the Back Benches. I have no authority from the Front Bench. I believe that Helensburgh is an integral part of Dunbartonshire and should remain so.
Lord Burton: I support what was said by my noble friends Lord Gray, Lord Renton and Lord Sanderson. I recently received a document from Dumbarton District Council, which I found most convincing. I made some inquiries and discovered that the position was not what the district council had asked for. It was entirely in accord with what was outlined by my noble friends. The wishes of the people in that area are clear. I am delighted to hear that the Government are looking to the wishes of the people in one part of the country. I hope that they will do so later as regards those in other parts.
Lord Milverton: I support the proposal that Luss goes to Argyll rather than staying with Dunbartonshire. The Committee may wonder what knowledge I have of the area. I have a Scottish-Irish son-in-law in Helensburgh and I have come to know a little of how the politics work and of the feelings of the people. I too have received material proposing that Luss should not stay in Dunbartonshire but should go to Argyll and Bute. I have also read material which puts the other point of view.
As a result of what I have read and information I have received from my son-in-law and from other people who know the facts, I believe that the majority of people wish Luss to go to Argyll and Bute. There appears to have been some odd hocus-pocus in persuading certain people another way.
I hope that the people can have their wishes and that the noble Lord's amendment will not be agreed. I hope that the people's wishes, which are strong, are adhered to. As regards social services, education, medical services and so forth, the people are not inclined to Dunbartonshire. After primary school, the children go to Helensburgh. The clear wish of the majority of the people is to go to Argyll and Bute, and I hope that that is adhered to.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am pleased to hear that so many Members opposite have become converted to the

705
notion of the referendum. I believe in referenda; I have mentioned them in other contexts many times. I am delighted that those Members have joined me.
However, it is within my recollection, and it will be within that of other Members of the Committee, that only a few weeks ago we were discussing the reorganisation of the water industry in Scotland. A referendum was held by Strathclyde Regional Council. No less than 94 per cent. of those who voted—it was a large turn-out for a referendum—voted against the Government's proposals. At that time Members opposite told us how futile the referendum was and how difficult it was to pose the right question. They said that even if the question were right it would be misunderstood by the electorate.
Suddenly, after only a few weeks, all of that has changed. It means that the result of the referendum on the water industry did not suit the Government but the result of this referendum happens to suit perhaps not the Government but their supporters, and therefore they like it. That is not the way to handle referenda. One must believe in them continuously or not at all; not only when the answer happens to suit one.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I agree entirely that that is not the way to handle referenda. The difficulty about this referendum is that among the extensive briefing material that Members of the Committee received from every corner of Scotland was a 21-page briefing note from Dumbarton District Council. That document made no mention of the fact that the council had organised a referendum on the issue; indeed, if you like, they suppressed the information. I am not particularly keen on referenda but I draw some significance from the fact that Dumbarton District Council, having instructed it, decided that the matter should be kept from the Committee, having pulled out a result that it did not care for.
Indeed, it was only when councillors in Argyll discovered the case that it came to the Committee's attention. Most notably, it has come to the Committee's attention because George Macmillan, who has the great distinction of being the only Labour councillor on Argyll District Council, brought it to the attention of a number of Members. He stated:
"I would ask you, for the reasons I will outline, to support the boundaries as proposed in the Bill, and to disregard the submissions by Dumbarton District Council as they are ill-advised, misleading and inaccurate. It is also disappointing to see one local authority making a case by ill-founded criticism of another. That fact alone demonstrates how weak their submission is".
The amendment would have the effect of including Cardross, Luss and Arden in Dumbarton and Clydebank. I should make it clear that the amendment does not propose that Helensburgh should be returned to Dumbarton.
A number of contributions made to the debate are based on public views as to the desirability of the change. Indeed, the referendum, which had an extraordinarily high participation rate of some 68 per cent.,and 83 per cent. in some cases, found that in Cardross and Luss, the majority wished to become part of Argyll. It has been clearly spelt out why that is

706
desirable. The distance and communication links between Cardross and Lochgilphead are not as great as they once were in time terms. But once again I make the point that has been made previously. As we see it, it will be imperative for the local authority to establish a decentralisation management scheme in that large rural area. If that is put in place, there is no reason why those who live in those parts of the new Argyll should not be served fully in all respects in the same way that those who live in Oban or Campbelltown would expect to be served.
Given the views that have been expressed, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: This has been an extremely interesting debate. I wonder why the Government did not think of all those wonderful arguments before the first edition of the Bill was printed. I agree that I have received a great deal of material from Dumbarton. I travel regularly in that area and logic suggests to me that Helensburgh should be part of Dumbarton.
The Minister said that my case was based on ill-founded criticism. However, I would say that the whole Bill is based on ill-founded criticism of local authorities. Surprisingly, one or two of the noble and learned Lord's friends, although they would never say it publicly, now believe that Strathclyde is not such a bad local authority and that it has done a lot of very good work.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, spoke of a tenant farmer whom he had met. I, too, heard something about that tenant farmer. I think his name is Russell. I am not quite sure. That is a story which goes on and on.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, was right to say that referenda are apparently acceptable only when they go the way that the Government want them to go. I do not believe that the Minister received the same papers that I received with regard to the hullaballoo about the community council meeting in Luss and the way in which it was held. There was a great deal of annoyance there. I must make a point of visiting Luss and knocking on doors there before we reach Report stage of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, said that he had made extensive inquiries and was persuaded to change his mind. I should like to know from whom he made those inquiries. I received an extremely impressive letter from the factor of the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll. It is extremely odd to find the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll, and the Member for Ayr, Mr. Gallie, on the same side.
Matters as they stand are silly and illogical. One has only to look at the map to see that. I know that the roads are better now. The road from Luss to Dumbarton is extremely good; it is motorway standard. But the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will be aware that some roads in the other direction are not good and there can be some bad sections on the roads there.
I believe that we should return to this matter on Report. I shall try to find out more about it. I may even reply to the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 129, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert:

("Ayrshire

Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council; Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council; Cunninghame District Council; Kyle and Carrick District Council.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment has also received a great deal of public support. I hope the Minister will accept the fact that Ayrshire is very much an entity. Members of the Committee have been talking about their connections with different parts of Scotland. Glasgow and Ayrshire are extremely close-knit. I believe that that goes back to the days of enclosures and the repeal of the Corn Laws. Two of my grandparents were real Ayrshire people. The idea that Ayrshire should be split as proposed by the Government has caused a great deal of annoyance in the area.
I come back to the question of referenda. When are they honest? When are surveys honest? Local authorities represent the people and they are absolutely convinced that Ayrshire is one entity and it should remain undivided.
Ayrshire local authority measures up to the Government's own principles for the new structure. Perhaps I may highlight those criteria where a single unit for Ayrshire would score heavily compared with any division of the country. We should look at some of the facts.
Ayrshire would reflect local loyalties and allegiances. If there is one large, well-populated and well-developed part of Scotland which is an entity, despite its rural nature, I believe that it is Ayrshire. It is strong, effectively resourced and is capable of discharging all local authority statutory functions and other duties effectively, efficiently and economically. Before reorganisation in 1975, the former Ayrshire authority was at the forefront of Scotland and the United Kingdom in the provision of services such as education, the youth service, community development, police, social services, roads, water and public health. It was a viable authority. I hope that the folk of Ayrshire will be given an opportunity to show their unity and continue the excellent work that has been done, although for a period they have been part—and an enthusiastic part —of the greater Strathclyde region. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: Following the intervention of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who was worried about people's credentials for speaking in the debate, I should like to say that I was born and brought up in Ayrshire, as were both my parents, my grandparents and, as far as I know, the rest of them. My wife was not as lucky. Her family were all Ayrshire people but she was born in Glasgow. She came back to Ayrshire very very quickly. My four children were born in north west London which they regard as an outpost of Ayrshire. Therefore, my credentials are clear.
708
I base my argument on the comment made in an earlier debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. He spoke of Aberdeenshire and Buchan and Banffshire. He said how good it was to re-establish the old county of Aberdeenshire. He is looking at me rather quizzically, but I believe that that is what he said. I am merely asking that the Minister does exactly the same with Ayrshire; namely, that he reconstitutes the old historical county of Ayrshire which goes back into history. I do not want to labour the point, but it was in Turnberry, Ayrshire, that Robert the Bruce landed at the beginning of his successful campaign to oust certain intruders.
As Members of the Committee will recall, Ayrshire was an ancient county divided into three parts— Cunninghame, Kyle and Carrick. Funnily enough, the proposals now before the Committee do not. follow that division; indeed, there are four proposals, based, I imagine, on providing something to the towns of Ayr, Kilmarnock, Cumnock and perhaps Irvine to give them a kind of local, rural hinterland round the boroughs they would run.
All that is unnecessary. It has a kind of historical quaintness about it. When Ayrshire was—as, indeed, it was for many years—a county with a county council, it was not a unitary authority because there were small and other boroughs which had their own very valuable contributions to make. However, in parenthesis, and outside the sphere of the debate, I must say that I quite like the old idea of the small borough such as Troon which ran its own affairs. However, that is not what we are discussing today. We are discussing a unitary authority.
Ayrshire ran its education business and did so very well; indeed, it produced people like me. However, there are other Ayrshire men in the Chamber who were equally well educated. Ayrshire also ran its road system. All that made a great deal of sense. My noble friend Lord Carmichael drew attention to the fact that Ayrshire is quite near Glasgow. So it is. It is also strongly influenced by Glasgow. However, in temperament, it feels rather far away. We do not feel like Glasgow people in any way. In fact, we call them Glasgow "tea-leaves" and, when we say that, we mean to be friendly.
Ayrshire is different. It has its own aspect, its own character, its own history and its own literature which is most powerful. Perhaps I may put forward a rather banal example. The road network in Ayrshire is ran by Strathclyde Regional Council as part of its general, overall planning provision. When the situation is changed, it would make a great deal of sense for the road network in Ayrshire to be run by Ayrshire and not by ad hoc committees made up of various authorities within the county.
There is no way in which the four parts of Ayrshire will run their road systems—or, indeed, any other systems—separately. They do not wish to do so, and they will not do it. They will make the functions work by a variety of ad hoc committees. That means that they will not be unitary authorities; they will be unitary

709
authorities with a level of ad hoc committees carrying out the functions which should be undertaken on a county basis.
I do not believe that I need say more except to remind the Minister that what he thinks is good enough for Aberdeenshire must certainly, in any kind of logic, or even common sense, be good enough for Ayrshire. The latter is a county comparable in worth and merit to Aberdeen in every way.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It may be worth reminding Members of the Committee that when the Bill was introduced in another place, the proposal was that Ayrshire should be divided into two parts. I acknowledge immediately that there are genuinely conflicting views in Ayrshire as to what the new structure should be. Our two-way split, as we first introduced it, did not generally find favour. However, alternatives were mooted and one eventually emerged in another place, introduced by Mr. Phil Gallie— on that occasion, without the support of the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll, but supported by two Labour MPs from Ayrshire, Mr. Donohoe and Mr. Brian Wilson. The latter were keenly in favour of the proposal, as we now have it, that there should be a three-way split. It is to be observed and fairly stated that Mr. George Foulkes, another Member of Parliament in Ayrshire, was vehemently opposed to the proposal and argued forcefully the case put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Howie of Troon; namely, that we should retain Ayrshire as a single authority.
However, apart from those Members of Parliament to whom I referred, three of the local authorities were similarly keen that the three-way split should be established. In addition to both the local government support and that from Members of Parliament, there has also been considerable support from businesses, community councils and individuals in Ayrshire. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am much obliged. The Minister referred to a three-way split. However, is it not a four-way split?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No. There are four existing district councils within Ayrshire at present. I am indicating that the proposal that there should be three is supported by three of those authorities. When the matter was discussed in Committee in another place, I understand that it was supported by Mr. Tam Dalyell. Indeed, he was deemed to be a brave man to have entered into the Ayrshire controversy. Nevertheless, the amendment was carried.
I do not in any sense seek to retreat from an understanding that there are divisions of view on the matter. However, the balance of opinion seems to favour what we have indicated. The three councils would have, as we see it, something of a dual benefit in regaining the Ayrshire identity in terms of their council names which were lost when the present structure was introduced. Moreover, without imposition or any particular complication, we believe that it will be possible to

710
ensure that the three councils deliver services—or make arrangements to do so —of a more than adequate character for those they seek to serve.
There is certainly no evidence to suggest that, with the division into three, there would be any need for an excessive degree of joint working. I compliment the noble Lords, Lord Howie of Troon and Lord Carmichael, for entering into the Ayrshire spat. However, given the degree of differences in Ayrshire, I suggest to Members of the Committee that we would do just as well to leave the proposal as it left the Committee stage in another place.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon has a closer relationship with Ayrshire than I have. However, on one side of my family I have a connection in that respect. When I went for lunch on a Sunday with old family friends who were getting on in years, it always amused me to note that I could hardly understand them because they spoke almost solid Burns. It was, indeed, most interesting.
I was interested to note that while the Minister could not quite manage to get the support of the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll, he managed to get Tam Dalyell and Mr. Phil Gallie on his side. Therefore, we now find ourselves in a rarified atmosphere. However, it is always difficult when one has one's own party to consider. In fact, it reaches the point on occasion when it is almost impertinent to tell people how they should do things. But, of course, that is one of the jobs that we are here to do. In the meantime, I thank the Minister for the detail of his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 129, line 17, at end insert:

("Bearsden and Milngavie

—Bearsden and Milngavie District Council.")

The noble Lord said: I believe that the Minister will have heard a great deal from the other place about the amendment. It relates to the question of the Government's proposal to split Strathkelvin district between the two new authorities. The majority of Strathkelvin will join with Bearsden and Milngavie to form an East Dunbartonshire authority with a population of around 105,000. Three of Strathkelvin's southern wards will join with Motherwell, Monklands and Cumbemauld and Kilsyth to form a North Lanarkshire Authority with a population of around 334,000.
Many feel that the East Dunbartonshire option is too small effectively to provide the full range of council services and that the resulting plethora of joint arrangements will reduce democratic accountability. At the other extreme, a large North Lanarkshire authority will have to spread its resources over a large population and a wide geographical area characterised by the decline of primary and secondary industry.
A solution has been proposed to me by people in Strathkelvin which is generally termed the "Lennox" option. That option is outlined in the 35-unit structure

711
within the Secretary of State's own consultation document. That would result in the amalgamation of Strathkelvin in its entirety, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council and Bearsden and Milngavie District Council. That option is favoured by Strathkelvin District Council, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council, local MPs and local regional councillors. It has also received the support of the majority of the community councils.
This is an area which is almost on my doorstep. My sister and brother-in-law live in Milngavie, so I am familiar with the area. I also have a fair knowledge of Cumbernauld. New towns have a real struggle to achieve recognition. Probably more than other new towns, Cumbernauld, because it is not close to a large conurbation, has been one of the most successful in Britain, although East Kilbride, because of its size and attitude, has also been successful. I know rather less of Glenrothes. That area was devastated by the loss of the mining industry. I believe that new towns should be given every opportunity to become the focus for the area.
This is one amendment which appears to have the support of almost everyone in the area. I wonder why the Minister does not believe that the support is at least as good as in the referendums held in other parts of Scotland. I have great pleasure in moving the amendment. It is one about which I have no qualms at all. It is the right amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I should like to support the amendment. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
It is a fact that Cumbernauld and the new towns have an entity and ethos of their own. To throw them in together with Airdrie and Motherwell, which are very much of the older tradition of industrial Scotland, would be difficult. On the other hand, the other area might achieve a much better focus. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Again, I am not surprised that an amendment should have been tabled to deal with the North and East of Glasgow as we look at the local government map. Those areas have proved to be particularly difficult in terms of the new structure. A number of different proposals and alternative structures, often conflicting, have been advanced. The only discernible common theme appears to be a desire to avoid being associated with the existing Monklands District Council.
It has been particularly important, therefore, to take cognisance of all the different scenarios and their implications for neighbouring areas. The proposal now advanced by the noble Lord is in favour of a combined Strathkelvin and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth authority, with Bearsden and Milngavie going it alone. That has the knock-on effect of leaving only Motherwell with Monklands.
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there is also a strongly held view that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and the "southern corridor" of Strathkelvin should be included with Bearsden and Milngavie, and the remainder of Strathkelvin should be included within an

712
enlarged East Dunbartonshire. A further proposal has favoured a unitary Cumbernauld and Kilsyth authority based on the existing district, and possibly some of the neighbouring areas.
Looking to the south, Motherwell District Council has argued that it should combine with Clydesdale to give effect to a three-way split in Lanarkshire. Clydesdale's preference is for a stand-alone authority. I indicate, if Members of the Committee have not been inundated with representations, that many of those options have been supported by substantial petitions, postcards and letters.
I have taken the Committee through the various proposals in some detail because it seems to me to serve to illustrate the difficult decisions that have to be reached. Clearly, it is not possible to meet everyone's aspirations in this part of Scotland. Therefore, our objective has been to strike the best possible balance between the many competing views.
Our decision to establish a North Lanarkshire authority, as proposed in the Bill, was also influenced by a number of other factors. We were, for example, keen not to create very small authorities in the shadows of populous cities. A unitary Bearsden and Milngavie authority would clearly have fallen into that category.
We were also influenced by the fact that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth already fall within the Lanarkshire Health Board area. In addition, the inclusion of Cumbernauld in North Lanarkshire also has the effect of adding a new dimension to the area's economic base and creating a good industrial mix.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, made a fair point in saying that there might be some desirability from the point of view of Cumbernauld in being a stand-alone new town. But I would argue; in contradiction that there is also a clear desirability in drawing together a new town and, as the noble Lord pointed out, older industrial parts of Lanarkshire to achieve, as best one can, a good mix.
Those parts of Strathkelvin included in North Lanarkshire follow closely the county boundary, although we have taken the opportunity of including all of Lenzie within the one authority.
I am confident that the new authority will have the potential to become an important centre and will be in a position to deliver effectively and efficiently the full range of services. I have no doubt that the new authority will also develop a series of area offices and one-stop shops to overcome any of the difficulties that might exist in terms of travel from one part of the new authority's area to another.
I do not suggest that this is the single clear answer for North Lanarkshire, but I ask the Committee to accept that the structure we have proposed is a genuine compromise and, given all the competing and conflicting claims, is the best that might be achieved.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Obviously I am rather disappointed. I had hoped for more from the Minister. Again there is the contradiction that the Minister prays in aid the fact that some of the health

713
board areas will be used as a definition, yet he appeared to reject that for Ayrshire. He told us that that was not what he wanted.
I had a fair amount of material on the Clydesdale argument. The area is totally different. It is struggling to recover from industrial dereliction. We can only hope that it succeeds. In my view the new town, Kilsyth and the surrounding area could be linked in what has been described as the "Lennox" solution. I believe that we missed a great opportunity with regard to Bearsden and Milngavie. I do not refer to a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. We have to grasp the nettle at some point: areas such as Glasgow and Edinburgh will need to include their hinterland; otherwise we shall reach the stage of some American cities. When we get back into power—I do not commit my party; at this stage it is my own, perhaps cranky, notion—we shall require large metropolitan areas in order to provide the services that people want. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 129, leave out line 19 and insert:

("Central

Clackmannan, Falkirk and Stirling District Councils.")

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, perhaps I may say that Amendments Nos. 15 and 25 are consequential upon it.
I have been given such a wealth of material in support of the continuation of Central Region as a unitary authority, that to avoid speaking at inordinate length I must make selections from that material. I hope that I do not find that items which I have omitted were some of the best which should have been cited.
Central Region was created in 1975 from the former Stirlingshire and Clackmannanshire County Councils and 13 large and small boroughs. It also contains parts of the former Perthshire and West Lothian counties.
The Wheatley Commission described the region as,
"compact… it is in itself an area of potential growth of population and economic development".
Most settlements are clustered in the south east of the region and 90 per cent. of its population is within 12 miles of Stirling.
With a population of 270,000, Central Region is not a large council but it is a manageable size. However, it is large enough to make a difference to the communities it serves. Its population and resource base have enabled it to support major capital projects, attract inward investment and spread the cost of providing all local government services, including highly specialised services.
Central Regional Council has a growing reputation for innovation and change in the way it runs itself and provides services. In terms of its administration, since May 1990 the council has reduced its committee structure from over 40 committees and subcommittees to eight major committees.
In its submission to the Government's White Paper, the council was the only council to call for the statutory obligation to be placed on councils to produce a scheme of decentralisation. The council has translated that commitment into action through its own proposals to establish a network of area committees. Those area committees will actively involve local communities, with the council developing three key themes. On accountability, local managers and councillors will answer to the community for the services provided in the area. With regard to local decision making, in time a range of decisions on matters affecting the area will be delegated. Civic pride will act as a focus for local identity in the way that many former boroughs reflected the identity of their area. I live in the small town of Crieff, and the older inhabitants think of themselves still as members of the borough of Crieff and regret the loss of the borough council.
I cite examples of what can be done by a council which is carrying out all its responsibilities. The council currently provides 3,068 nursery places. It is committed to increasing that number so that all pre-school children will have a nursery place by the end of the century. It is interesting to compare that with the position before local government reorganisation. Clackmannanshire council could not afford to make any provision for nursery places. Now throughout Clackmannan district there are 760 places provided by the regional council.
In 1994–95 over £1 million will be spent on support for local companies. Those companies are helped through the use of training and wage grants, direct investment into companies, and assistance in develop-ing new products and increasing their export trade. The council has played a leading role in adding to the region's economic base by attracting major new companies such as the USA-based Exabyte, Tandem, Microbiological Associates and Scotia Pharmaceuticals, as well as Asda, into the area.
Nearly £3 million is spent each year to subsidise bus services that would otherwise not be run by bus companies, and on concessionary fares which relieve the burden of travel expense for the elderly and disabled.
At £47 per household per annum, the cost of water provision —I shall return to the subject at a much later stage of the Bill—in Central Region is the lowest in Scotland and lower than that in most of Europe.
Clackmannan has particularly benefited from capital spending in education to balance the lack of investment prior to 1975. As a result, the area has seen the following major school refurbishments and replacements which were unable to take place when Clackmannanshire ran its own education services. I refer to a major extension at Alloa Academy; a major extension at Alva Academy, new primary schools in Menstrie, Tullibody, Sauchie and Alloa; and refurbishment at Fishcross and Tillicoultry primary schools. It must be obvious that a small authority could never have attempted anything like those.
The Government have maintained in their White Paper, and during the progress of the Bill in another place, that the new councils must be able to act on behalf of their communities as well as run services effectively. However, neither a Stirling Council nor a Clackmannan

715
Council will have the population base to support the specialist services which the region now provides or the resources to invest significant sums of money into services.
I hope that I do not interfere with the Minister's conversations. I see that I do not. Perhaps he will just carry on.
Those specialist regional facilities have no long-term future under the control of smaller authorities. It will also be much more difficult for the smaller councils to develop innovative services which meet the specific needs of local communities. They will not have the specialist resources that the regional council is able to call on to develop services or the population base to justify them.
In a major earlier debate, the Minister laid stress—I believe properly—on the fact that the cost of running local government services was a major factor which must be taken into consideration. I agree with that entirely. Therefore, if value for money is an argument, the. case for Central Region can be made without difficulty. A single council covering the boundaries of Central Region is the cheapest option.
The figures are derived from an independent, and unchallenged, analysis by the planning and economic consultants, PIEDA. The analysis indicates that the Government's proposals are not only the most expensive option but will cost over £5 million per annum more than the present system of local government. A single council will have ongoing annual savings of £6.6 million. The figures compare the current situation with the proposed three-council structure. One council, as against three councils, will save £6.6 million a year. Three councils will cost £5.2 million more than the current situation. With one council the annual average council tax equivalent will cost £73 less, and with three councils £62 more. Transitional costs for one council will be £8.6 million; for three councils they will be £7.4 million. It is only with regard to that one factor that the balance is against the regional council. The number of employees changes and I do not put this comment forward with great pleasure. One council will employ 258 fewer employees, whereas—and I do not think that this will give the Government much pleasure —three councils will employ 210 more people.
In July 1993, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Allan Stewart, said that the Government believed that in some cases single tier authorities based on existing districts would be too small to deliver the full range of services without recourse to a proliferation of joint arrangements and that, in turn, would only serve to blur accountability, which is one of the reasons for reform in the first place. Yet under the Government's proposals for those three councils, 11 out of 19 services would require joint or contract arrangements, including key services such as social work and education. A council based on the existing boundaries of Central Region will be able to deliver all accountable services without any proliferation of those arrangements. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask one question. I am trying to

716
take my mind back to before 1973. For most of Clackmannan's functions it was linked with another county, but I cannot remember which. Can the noble Lord remember? Clackmannan was not on its own in the days before 1973.
Lord Hughes: According to what I said, it would have been the Clackmannan and Stirlingshire councils.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: After that remarkably well researched piece of advocacy, I shall be extremely brief. I am bound to say that I find this piece of reorganisation the most interesting of all and I might even go so far as to use the word "intriguing".
Recently I was looking through the minutes of various meetings of the committee with which several! people helped me about 10 years ago. In those minutes I noted that we made the observation that the Central Region, as established by Lord Wheatley, was the almost perfect example of a single tier authority outside the cities—compact and well populated. The noble Lord made those points.
The Central Region is based in Stirling. I looked at the map and overall it is about 60 miles long by about 20 or 25 miles wide. It has a population of 270,000 and is unquestionably viable. It can provide all the services. Within it is the district of Falkirk, with a population of 143,000, and only 10 miles from Stirling. I believe that I am right in saying that it is also viable with that size of population. It went on record to my committee as saying that a single tier set up would be much more effective than a twin tier.
Of course, Falkirk would get that if the Central Region were left on its own, but, although Falkirk did not say so to us, it now wants to be a single tier on its own. I found the observation which the council made in a letter to me ironic, to say the least. The letter states that if Central Region were to exist on its own such a council would be too remote from Falkirk—10 miles away. I can well imagine the hollow laughs coming from some of the areas about which we shall hear before long. Too remote at 10 miles!
Falkirk backs the establishment of three single tier councils within a radius of 15 or 20 miles of one another: itself; Stirling, with a population of 80,000; and Clackmannan, with a population of 48,000 and unquestionably not viable. There is no shadow of a doubt about that. The solution there will be a plethora of joint boards. No one in the local government world with whom I have discussed matters during the past three or four weeks has any enthusiasm for joint boards.
I believe that joint boards are inevitable for the police and fire services. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, will correct me if I am wrong, but even with those services there has been a certain amount of acrimony between the Lothians and the Borders on the subject of the police force and a joint board. The Borders thought that they were not getting their fair share of services and there was a considerable rumpus in the national newspapers. So I merely say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: "Put not your faith in joint boards".
The Earl of Minto: Perhaps I ought to respond instantly to the noble Lord's remark on joint boards for the fire and police services and the relationship between the Borders and the Lothian regions. It is true that in the past we had friction on police boards, but I am delighted to say that we were able to put that right three-and-a-half years ago. However, it is absolutely true that previously there was friction and we were grateful to the Secretary of State for his assistance on the matter.
There are times when rising to speak of being very conscious that one is the only elected regional councillor in your Lordships' House and also the only convenor. However, at the same time there are occasions when it is worth while because it makes one both proud, on the one hand, and perhaps sad, on the other. That is no harm to anyone. One is proud because of the record mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when moving the amendment—a record of which any council or local authority in the United Kingdom would be justifiably proud. In Scotland, Central Region is seen as an excellent provider of services at the right price and of a quality which is as good as any.
The sadness arises because the region is in danger of being destroyed. When I look back to 1974 and the promises that we had reason to believe would be kept, I think of the 52 local authorities responsible for social services being reduced to nine in Scotland, and what that meant in the provision of social services throughout Scotland. In my own region, the Borders, as counties the four districts would have had no chance whatever of providing the type of services the region was able to provide and has been able to provide over the past 18 years. That was because of the correct population and financial base upon which to build the service provision. There it is. It is a question of pride on the one hand and sadness on the other. But is it necessary?
As has been said, this really is the worst of all the suggestions that lie within this Bill at Schedule 1. I honestly cannot understand it. I remember when I first looked at the Bill and saw this provision. It was so obvious that certain local authorities were, in the terms of the consultation paper, absolutely clearly within the parameters that the Secretary of State gave as guidelines; and Central was one of them. Highland is another; Dumfries and Galloway is another; Borders is another; and Fife is another. Yet we are to have all the arguments that were put forward by the Secretary of State for the provision of excellent services totally destroyed in one fell swoop. It honestly makes me very, very distressed indeed. The proposal is quite unreasonable.
As a convenor I have a responsibility on behalf of my council to ensure that the provision of services is of a high order and that they are at the right cost. I have to assure those whom I have the privilege to represent that I am, and the council that I convene is, not wasting its money. I am very pleased to be able to say that my council, since 1975 and the executive authority falling its way, has never once transgressed a guideline from the Scottish Office. We look for excellence. When we see it being destroyed it is very upsetting indeed.
718
When the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was talking about what Central Region has done, in his briefing paper he did not refer to those things that would not be able to be done at any great length. I do not intend to delay the Committee longer than is necessary, but it is important that one should understand what will not be done.
A Clackmannan council will not be able to fund the rail service. The regional council's share of that is £2 million. A Clackmannan council will not be in a position to guarantee the provision. Will a Clackmannan or a Stirling council be able to maintain specialist service to the same extent as the regional councils provide at the moment and as was outlined to us by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes? The answer is no. The question then is: who will? Will some of the professional specialisms in special education and psychological services simply have to go because those councils will not have a large enough population base to provide them? The answer is, probably. Joint boards will not be in a position to provide that type of service at that type of level. I can say that from experience.
All regional council functions will need to be run by some form or other of joint board. Eleven of the principal ones will have to be run entirely by joint boards. I am sorry if I sound destructive. I am sorry to a certain extent if I even sound slightly angry. But this is not a reasonable division of a regional council in Scotland. It is not in the interests of the Scottish people, whom I have the privilege to represent. I hope that a second thought will be given to the matter.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The Committee will no doubt be aware that my home is in Clackmannan. First, I must correct the impression that was given to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that Clackmannan was merged with any other body. From 1822, Clackmannan stood on its own until the 1975 reorganisation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before the noble Earl proceeds, the position before 1973 was that Stirling and Clackmannan were joined for purposes of police and fire services. The old Stirling and Clackmannan joint boards dealt with police and fire. That was the position prior to 1973.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the noble Lord for that help. As I said, Clackmannanshire, founded in 1822, is a highly compact 55,000 acres with the Ochils to the north and the River Forth to the south. As has been said before, the population is 48,000. It is well known as the "we-est coonty wi' the langest name"— with apologies of course to the former county of Kircudbright. The proposal in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is that the distinct communities of Stirling, Falkirk and Clackmannan should be merged into one unitary authority to form a central authority—or, as I have heard it said, a "Heart of Scotland" council. There is a perceptual problem here. The existing Central Region has failed to win the hearts and minds of its residents.
In the first instance, the Government's proposal for the three authorities of Stirling, Falkirk and Clackmannan certainly has fired the imagination of the

719
people of those three communities. In Clackmannan, there has been unleashed a torrent of enthusiasm for unitary status. Those councils will be very high on community identity. Secondly, those councils will be very tangible and very local authorities.
Thirdly, on the subject of viability, in Clackmannan there is an increasing tax base due to a substantial programme of house building. Clackmannan District Council has managed to achieve very high leverage ratios for funding—typically 8:1 and sometimes up to 20:1. The Clackmannan council would organise itself along non-bureaucratic lines with streamlined council decision-making. Recent changes in Clackmannan District Council have shown that the cost of running a committee meeting has gone down from £900 to £150. There will be a staffing structure with the minimum of tiering, and a culture of achievement and identifiable responsibility, as currently practised by Clackmannan District Council.
Fourthly, there is the question of joint board activities. Here difficulties may arise. I acknowledge that. It depends on whether you have an optimistic or pessimistic outlook. Undoubtedly, smaller authorities are likely to co-operate with others for the provision of specialist services. Those joint board partners will be other local authorities, private and voluntary sector activists and tailor-made companies. All will call for consensus policies. There will be little room for extremist plans. The onus will be on every smaller authority to keep itself within the boundaries of co-operation. The risks of joint board activity are acknowledged. The reward of successful joint board activity is worth striving for. Clackmannan survived historically by successful co-operation. I see no reason why that co-operation should not continue. Clackmannan District Council sees that in any unitary authority there would be six joint boards. Those would be for strategic planning; rating and valuation; the children's panel and reporter; police; fire; and emergency planning.
In conclusion, logic dictates that all councils should be of uniform size and population and should operate in identical style. The reality is that Scotland was not laid out in that way. Geography and social development have conspired against the systematic solution. Each future unitary authority will have unique properties. Every one will be the exception that proves the rule.
I urge the Committee to support separate authorities for Stirling, Falkirk and Clackmannan in the interests of popular and local self-determination.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The good news is that Ireland is through to the next round of the World Cup. The bad news is that these proposals are contained in this Bill. I admire the noble Earl's confidence in the functioning of such a small and unviable authority. This is the first opportunity that I have had to place on record my views about the proposal in relation to Central Region. Let me say at once that for 21 years, as a Member of another place, I represented all the major towns in Central Region at one time or another. From
720
1971 until 1983 Stirling was part of my constituency; so was Falkirk and so was Grangemouth. From 1983 onwards Stirling was taken out and Bo'ness was added.
I mentioned the town of Bo'ness, and it is worth reminding the Committee that Central Region was not made up of two counties: Clackmannan and Stirling. Added to Stirling and Clackmannan was a fairly sizeable part of Perthshire out to Callander and indeed out to the Trossachs and part of West Lothian in the shape of the town of Bo'ness.
So I had extensive experience of local government in that area before Central Region was created and after it. Let me leave with the Committee some of the difficulties that prevailed in the old Stirling and Clackmannan authorities. I appreciate that the employment situation has changed and that more people are chasing fewer jobs. But because the career structure in the education service was so short, it was difficult, if not impossible, to attract honours graduates to teach in either Clackmannan schools or the Stirling county schools. The Committee will understand that that was because there were insufficient promoted posts to attract people who are entitled to a career.
One of the reactions to the Bill which I find strange is the way in which the teaching profession has sat on its hands and hardly expressed a view—apart from the Director of Education—about the damage that it will do to career structures among the profession. If ever I have seen an area—here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Minto—where local government will be damaged beyond repair, it is Central Region. There are to be joint boards. Let me say to the noble Earl that I can give him an absolute guarantee that not one of the headquarters of the six joint boards will be in Clackmannan. I give him an absolute guarantee now that not one of the: headquarters will be in Clackmannan. It is too small to have any influence. So not one of the headquarters of the six joint boards will be in Clackmannan.
What we are faced with is a large unitary authority in the shape of Falkirk and two very small unitary authorities in the shape of Stirling and Clackmannan. The original proposal contained in the Bill was to create an even larger unitary authority in the shape of Falkirk and Clackmannan and to leave Stirling on its own. If ever I saw an outrageous proposal, it was that one. There Stirling was to be a unitary authority with a very narrow tax-raising base, possibly turning out to be the poorest authority in Scotland, side by side with the wealthiest authority in Scotland in the shape of Falkirk, attracting all the revenue from the petrochemical industry.
During my early days in another place, when Grangemouth was a borough on its own, it enjoyed so much revenue from the petrochemical companies that it built artificial ski slopes. Imagine building an artificial ski slope in Grangemouth! In the last year of that authority's existence no one paid any rates. Everybody received a cheque for £60. That is an example of a wealthy authority side by side with a poor authority, because Clackmannan still depended heavily for employment purposes on the industries of Grangemouth. That will not change. It will continue So Clackmannan and the residents of Clackmannan live, by and large, on the backs of the industry in Grangemouth.

721
The reason Clackmannan was created has nothing to do with the romantic notions of the noble Earl. Clackmannan was only created in order to justify Stirling. The Government were having the most serious difficulties in justifying the creation of Stirling as an all-purpose unitary authority. As such, as the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, said, it cannot survive. It is not viable. Nor is Clackmannan viable.
That brings me to Falkirk. I have listened with some dismay to the public debate that has gone on in Central Region and the way in which insults have been exchanged—I shall not enter into name-calling—as if the function and purpose of local government were not more important than that. There is a feeling—I have gained a feeling from the local press and in particular the Stirling Observer and the Falkirk Herald, which I still read and receive weekly—that things will be all right so long as Falkirk is all right as an authority and that it will not matter much whether Clackmannan or Stirling survive. That is the attitude in one part of Central Region.
I do not need to tell the Minister what happened to the Conservative Party in Stirling at the recent regional council elections. There is the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that Stirling was created in order to give the Conservative Party at least the chance of winning one authority in Scotland. If that is the purpose, it will not work, based on the regional council election results. There were two Conservative councillors. One, Colonel Frank Saunders, who had given outstanding service to his electorate and the council of Central Region was deselected because he expressed the view that Central Region ought to be retained. In my view quite rightly he stood as an Independent and the Labour Party won the seat. Another Conservative councillor of not such long standing also decided that she too was in favour of the retention of Central Region. She too stood as an Independent, and the Labour Party won that seat as well. So there is no electoral evidence to support the Government's position on Central Region.
This is not a trivial issue. It is a very serious issue indeed. It is not about councillors either. Lest any Members of the Committee have the impression that somehow or other this debate is about councillors, I must tell them that it is not. It is about people and the services that those people receive. Local government in central Scotland and Central Region will be damaged beyond repair if these proposals remain in the Bill. I have been long enough in politics to know that I shall not be the most popular person in certain areas in Central Region for expressing these views. But my late father used to say to me, "It is much better to represent your honest views than to look for popularity". We are dealing here with the certain reality that local government and the people of Central Region will suffer badly because of the proposals contained in the Bill.
I do not know what the intention is of my noble friend Lord Hughes in relation to his amendment, but I hope that the Minister will say—in fact I plead with him to do so and am not ashamed to say it—that he will take the amendment away and enter into further discussion with all four local authorities (the three existing district
722
councils and Central Regional Council) in order to return with a proposal at Report stage in the autumn. In my view, if we are to have single tier authorities the only operable proposal is one to retain Central Region. I hope that the Minister will come back in the autumn with a much more sensible approach to the future of Central Region.
I leave the Minister with this final thought in relation to the question of joint boards. When the new sheriff court in Falkirk was built at Camelon I forecast that it would only be a matter of time before the police argued that they needed a new police station near the sheriff court because it was dangerous to transfer custody prisoners from a police station which is some distance away from the sheriff court. That is exactly what happened. The police force want a new police station and D Division headquarters will be relocated from its central Falkirk location out to Camelon, nearer the sheriff court.
The joint board will now say to Clackmannan, "You will need to help pay for this new police headquarters in Falkirk"; and it will say to Stirling, "You will need to help pay for the new police station in Falkirk". Clackmannan will say to Falkirk, "What benefit are we getting from a new police headquarters in Falkirk?" and Stirling will say the same. The whole thing is absolutely mad and whenever possible we should avoid like the plague the whole question of joint boards.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford; I am just about to conclude but if it is absolutely essential I will give way.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is only a small point. But if Clackmannan is part of a unitary authority as one of the three, it will still have to pay for a new police headquarters.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The problem with that kind of intervention is that we are talking about the Government. That is what the Government are going to do; they are going to equalise the resources between one unitary authority and another. Central Region has been doing that very effectively since 1974. The burden that is placed on Clackmannan for a new police headquarters in Falkirk will be much less, in my view, with Central Region being a unitary authority than it would otherwise be if Clackmannan, Stirling and Falkirk were three separate authorities. In any case, they will have different priorities so it is not a valid argument.
I therefore conclude my plea to the Minister by asking him to take the matter away and return in the autumn with a much more workable and sensible proposition.
7.45 p.m.
LordFraser of Carmyllie: I listened carefully to the arguments advanced principally for a unitary central authority. Although the argument was vigorously advanced there should be no doubt that within the existing Central Region opinion is sharply divided over

723
what the new structure should be. The evidence that we have received points firmly towards the district based structure that is currently set out in the Bill.
Support for a unitary Clackmannan authority was overwhelming. We received some 12,000 representa-tions in favour of the "wee county" being responsible for ensuring the delivering of local government services. That was the situation which obtained prior to 1975.
A great deal has been made of the necessity, as it was described, for joint boards. Clearly there will be a necessity for joint boards not only in this part but in other parts of Scotland. But I hope that we shall engage in constructive discussion, possibly at a later stage in the Bill, and appreciate that in terms of delivering services to local communities it is not always necessary to do so simply on the basis of delivering it oneself or through the formality of a joint board. There is a wide range of developing options, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech.
That is one of the reasons we felt it appropriate to address the matter of local government reform in Scotland. One of the reasons, when there was strong support: for a unitary Clackmannan authority, we were prepared to give it serious consideration is that that authority, small as it is in Scotland, appears to have grasped at least as well as, and probably very much better than, many others just how it will be possible, and it ought to be possible in the future, to deliver a wide range of services without necessarily relying on what in the past have been established bureaucratic structures in local government. Those structures may work very satisfactorily where one has a large authority, but it does not follow that services cannot be delivered without that structure and it certainly does not follow that it is always necessary to establish joint boards, as was suggested.
It is not necessary for me to heed the warning given to me by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston. I fully understand his concern that the whole of local government should not be entangled in a lattice of joint boards. But I hope he will appreciate that there are changes under way and there is no reason why a number of those services should not be delivered in a different fashion.
The district council in Stirling similarly presented a strong and convincing case based on the idea that it, too, should be an enabling authority. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, was honest about, but disparaging of, the campaign being mounted in Falkirk. He is entitled to his view.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I was not disparaging of the campaign mounted in Falkirk. I was expressing my sadness about the way in which the whole campaign had been conducted throughout Central Region. I did not single out Falkirk.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear to me. However, I am conscious—I am sure he will confirm this—that whatever his view may be, and courageous as he may be to maintain his favour for a Central Region, there is strong local support for an authority based in Falkirk
724
and it will be an authority which is bigger in population terms than the Borders. With a population of 140,000 it will be well able to provide a full range of services
We envisage that each of the new authorities will, fully explore all of the service delivery options including buying in of services from other bodies or councils and the sharing of expertise with neighbours. I do not see any reason why, for example, Clackmannan should be thole to the previous relationship it had exclusively with Central Region. As the noble Lord appreciates, it borders with Fife and I can imagine mat there may be circumstances where useful and constructive relationships may be followed through in that regard.
At one point the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, seemed to indicate that because of the differences in the resource base of the local authorities, Clackmannan and Stirling would do rather badly out of it. But as he subsequently indicated, we intend to provide a formula that will allow for equalisation in the distribution of central government grant which would, in large measure, eliminate the difficulties he suggested.
I was invited to take the matter away and reconsider it at a later stage. Of course, it is always open for arguments to be advanced in a different or extended form at a later stage. But this matter was very fully discussed in another place. As was revealed to the Committee, the original proposal was that Falkirk and Clackmannan should be together. That proposal did not meet with approval. It was in response to a local campaign that a change was made. The proposal made for the three authorities within the existing Central Region is one that meets local demand and responds to the strong representations made to us. In the rather unique case of Clackmannan, it allows an opportunity for development of a proper enabling role. They have the self-confidence to do it. They are not daft and have a clear understanding of what is to be undertaken. I believe that they should be given the opportunity to take it forward.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: The Minister continually misrepresents me. I did not say that Clackmannan was daft but that the Minister's proposals were daft, and 1 stick to that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I was not making a reference to the noble Lord. All I said was that those who lived in Clackmannan and supported it in such large measure—the councillors who supported it almost unanimously and the officials who operated in Clackmannan—had indicated that they believed that they could take this forward successfully. It is my view that none of those people is daft. I believe that they are serious-minded people who would not have sought to put forward this proposal if they believed it was not sustainable. Given that degree of local support and the way it has proved impossible to achieve unanimity of view as to how the division should be made in Central Region, if the noble Lord's proposal is that Central Region should be reconstituted, I can assure your Lordships that you would be inundated with a vast volume of representation objecting most vigorously to that.

725
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may wish to return to the matter at another stage, but it seems to us that the proposal we have made is a worthwhile one for consideration. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hughes: I thought that I had been unnecessarily rude to the noble and learned Lord when I suggested that I was perhaps interfering with his conversation. But I have come to the conclusion that I was not unnecessarily rude. He could not have been listening to what I said, because he did not make a single reference to anything that I said in moving the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I thought I had made the position abundantly clear to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord had had the courtesy to read what I said at Second Reading in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, he would have appreciated that I said that Central Region had not only been a good authority but had conducted itself efficiently. I have no doubt about that. That has never been the case that has been advanced. It did not seem to be necessary to take up the points when I had previously acknowledged that there was force in them.
Lord Hughes: I have never heard it advanced at Committee stage that the Minister's answer to what is raised should be referred back to what he said at Second Reading. I believe that to be a very poor defence. But I do not want to antagonise him any more than I apparently have done.
I had hoped that what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, had said would be accepted and that the Minister would be prepared to take the matter back for consideration. He has not done so. I shall withdraw the amendment and come back to it at a later stage in the hope that when the Minister's friends in another place read what has been said by all parts of this House about Central Region he will be given the authority to come back with something different. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at five to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
7.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments to one of the Lords amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments to one of the Lords amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Astor.)
COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 33 as first printed by the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert:
("(3A) In the case of a person who has been entitled to short-term incapacity benefit for 196 days or more in any period of incapacity for work and is terminally ill, or, if he is in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance, the weekly rate of short-term incapacity benefit payable, if greater than the rate otherwise payable to him under subsection (2) or (3) above, shall be equal to the rate at which long-term incapacity benefit under section 30A above would be payable to him if he were entitled to it.
For the purposes of this subsection a person is terminally ill if he suffers from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months.
(3B) References to short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate shall be construed as including short-term incapacity benefit payable to any person who has been entitled to that benefit for 196 days or more in a period of incapacity for work, notwithstanding that the rate of benefit is determined in accordance with subsection (3) or (3A) above.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments to it:
4A Line4, after 'and' insert '—(a)'.
4B Line 4, leave out from 'or' to 'rate' and insert '(b) he is entitled to the highest'.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4A and 4B to Lords Amendment No. 4 en bloc.
At Third Reading my noble friend Lord Swinfen persuaded your Lordships to accept an amendment the intention of which was to bring forward the payment of the long-term rate of incapacity benefit to the 29th week of incapacity in cases where the claimant was in receipt of the highest care component of the disability living allowance. This mirrored the arrangements brought forward by the Government in Committee in respect of the terminally ill. We believe that 52 weeks is an appropriate qualifying period for the highest rate of benefit.
Incapacity benefit is an income replacement benefit intended to provide a basic level of income which increases with the duration of the incapacity. This reflects the fact that other resources exhaust over time. It is not intended to compensate for the severity of the condition. To do so would duplicate provision, as there are other benefits designed to meet extra needs, most notably disability living allowance.
The Government recognise that those who have proposed the DLA element of Amendment No. 4—and they come from all sides of the House—have been motivated by the desire to give help to the most severely disabled. The Government have considerable sympathy with the desire to help the severely disabled. My right honourable friend announced at the Commons consideration of Lords amendments that the Government were prepared to accept the amendment.
The two Commons amendments before your Lordships today are minor technical amendments to Amendment No. 4. Their purpose is to clarify the intention behind my noble friend's amendment.

727
Amendment No. 4A removes redundant words from the text of the Bill. Amendment No. 4B replaces "higher" with "highest", the correct legal definition of the maximum rate of the DLA care component. The Government's acceptance of my noble friend's original amendment has been widely welcomed outside the House. I hope that the House will feel able to agree these two further technical amendments today.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen is here this evening. He did say that he would not be here, and I was about to say that he welcomed the amendment. As he is here, I shall leave him to say that.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4A and 4B to Lords Amendment No. 4.—(Viscount Astor).
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I do indeed welcome these technical amendments to my amendment. I misled my noble friend. I did not believe that I would be able to be here this evening, but I have managed to get here from sunny Norwich.
I thank the Government for improving the wording of this amendment; and perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank them for not turning down the other amendment that the House agreed to on a Division. I had an uncomfortable feeling, having been warned by my noble friend that if I got a second amendment through anything else that I got through would be thrown out. He must have been working extremely hard to persuade his right honourable friend the Secretary of State that it was not worth his while trying.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too should like to join in the thanks for the acceptance of both amendments, which is very welcome. I thank the Minister for the part which I imagine he has played in it.
I must admit that I thought his language about the significance of the amendments was just a little bit grudging. It reminds me, not for the first time when the Commons have accepted one of our amendments, of the story about Cecil Rhodes's former servant. He was asked whether his master drank. He replied, "Boss, what was left next morning in the second bottle of whisky was no more than I was allowed to drink". Similarly, I think that what is left in the amendment is no more than we are allowed to keep, but I am very glad to keep it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, briefly I welcome the amendments. I thank the Minister and Government and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for his persistence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously we on these Benches are delighted that the other place accepted the amendments so ably and persuasively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on behalf of what might perhaps be termed an alliance around the House. It must always be tempered with regret that many other groups of disabled people, in our view perhaps as meritorious, will not get the benefits that they should. But that may have to await another Bill.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The only point I would make to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that I hope that he will
728
not think the Government's acceptance of the amendment grudging. I must compliment my noble friend Lord Swinfen on the fact that by his persistence and persuasion he managed to get your Lordships' House to accept his amendments. Another place considered both his amendments and accepted them. The Commons amendments are technical amendments.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.1 to 8.55 p.m. ]

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 129, leave out line 39 and insert:

("East Fife

North East Fife District Council and Fife electoral divisions 9 (Buckhaven/East Wemyss), 10 (Denbeath/Methil), 11 (Kennoway/Windygates), 14(Markinch/Pitcoudia/Cadham), 15 (Auchmuty/ Dovecot/Woodside), 16 (Stenton/Pilteuchar/ Coaltown of Balgonie), 17 (South Parks/ Rimbleton/Caskieberran South), 18 (Glenwood) and 46 (Leslie/Collydean).

West Fife

Dunfermline District Council and Fife electoral divisions 1 (Burntisland/Kinghorn), 2 (Raith and Auchtertool), 3 (Duneam/Torbain), 4 (Dunnikier and Fair Isle), 5 (Valley/Bennochy), 6 (Hayfield and Patthead), 7 (Smeaton and Sinclairtown), 8 (Dysart and Thornton), and 19 (Kinglassie/ Cardenden).").

The noble Earl said: To date the Government plan within the Bill is to form a unitary authority for the whole of Fife. But the amendment I propose recommends two unitary authorities—an East Fife council and West Fife council.
We should first examine the reasons why the Government have suggested an all-Fife boundary and then look at the case for revising that proposition. Over the past 20 years two-tier local government has worked fairly well in Fife. However, as elsewhere in Scotland, the change to a single-tier structure will improve accountability and services provided that boundaries are fixed in a sensible way. The current proposal for Fife may not have been worked out very carefully. It sets out to replace four existing entities of local government (one region and three districts) with a single council serving a population of over 345,000. That area is far too large a constituency for a single council.
Why, then, has such a boundary been suggested? Partly, it has arisen through rather muddled thinking. That stems from the false premise that since Fife Regional Council has provided regional statutory services efficiently on a Fife-wide basis within the two-tier structure, it follows that a unitary all-Fife council will also prove the best mechanism for providing local government services, both regional and district. First, that is a faulty argument and disregards much previous wisdom on the need for certain services such as housing to be linked directly into local communities. It also disregards the Government's own

729
principles of accountability and responsiveness to local needs. Common sense tells us that a large single-tier Fife authority, far from benefiting from economies of scale, will suffer from over-centralisation and increased bureaucracy.
Secondly, the all-Fife boundary, as it appears in the Bill, reflects a parallel incorrectly drawn with the Fight for Fife campaign at the time of the last reorganisation. Lord Wheatley's recommendation had been to split Fife between Lothian and Tayside at a regional level of service. Everyone remembers the successful campaign which caused local government control to be retained within Fife.
This time the context is completely different. Nevertheless, the two situations have been mistakenly connected in such a way as to influence the current boundary decision. If the Government had already proposed more than one authority in Fife, as put forward in this amendment, that would not have threatened to remove responsibility for services outwith Fife. There are, after all, four councils in Fife at present. The existence of the four has not diluted a sense of identity as a Fifer, which is a further and related allegation. Nor would the existence of two councils. There is no real conflict between historic boundaries which stay permanently in the heart and mind and artificial ones which come and go for practical purposes. During the progress of the Bill this point has already been addressed in Ayrshire and elsewhere and sensible boundary changes have been conceded. Certainly, Fifers are far too canny in the first place to confuse a proud sense of identity with the kingdom of Fife with the changing necessities of local government, whatever those may entail.
Another reason why the Government have drawn the Fife boundary as it is results from a case put to them by Fife Region. It is a body that is keen to keep things at regional level as they are, not least the boundaries. That is a healthy response. Fife region's administration has been good and is much respected. Not surprisingly, I have in the past few weeks received many letters which confirm that verdict and express much appreciation for the work which Fife region has done.
Fife region has therefore argued that the boundaries should stay the same even though we move from two-tier to unitary authorities. The logic is faulty, as we have seen. Nevertheless, the region, together with other bodies whose present job and experience is to work within the large boundary of Fife, has put that case to the Government, who, in the absence of clear alternatives, have tended to accept it.
What then are the merits of the different boundary here recommended? The first is the size of the electorate. Two councils would give a population of 198,000 in West Fife and of 147,000 in East Fife. Those numbers are consistent with those now planned for unitary authorities elsewhere and, coming to two separate unitary authorities as proposed, Fife is then spared the huge constituency of 345,000 people, which would make it the largest non-urban electorate in Scotland.
Secondly, there is the role of councillors. With the all-Fife boundary which the Government advocate,
730
either there would be far too many councillors—about 92, I think —where each councillor could be given a manageable level of representation, or else a reasonable number of councillors—let us say 46—with far too many people for each councillor to represent. Two unitary authorities avoids that anomaly.
Then there is the question of the need to encourage quality of service provision and, within the boundary, to maintain the right balance between urban and rural communities. When we come to consider essential services, such as, for example, education and social work, why should it be believed that those would be catered for any better through two authorities rather than one? Certainly, Lord Wheatley's commission advised us to deal with this service provision through large authorities rather than small ones—not least when the commission proposed that those services be made the responsibility of regional rather than district councils.
That might therefore suggest that a single Fife council now would provide such essential services more efficiently and thus better ensure continuity and quality. In addition to that, we have the evidence that Fife region is doing just that at the moment. However, as is well known, at the time of the Wheatley Commission services were mainly provided directly by the councils themselves to the public. Now their role is more an enabling one, although they will still be responsible for policy making. Many social work services which were formerly provided directly by council staff will now be made available in partnership with other public sector and voluntary organisations. Responsibility for school management has already been devolved down to schools themselves. Smaller councils are just as well placed to guarantee high quality services to the public —indeed, that theme is central to this Bill—and smaller councils will be better at making policy as they will be closer to the communities they serve.
Regarding the task of looking after different needs over a wide area of countryside and towns, within the two-tier structure Fife region has performed admirably, and since it has done so again we might well infer that an all-Fife unitary authority would be able to do the same. Moreover, in order to protect local interests, provision has been made in the Bill for the decentralisation of services within the new authorities. However, it is important to realise that this measure provides for a decentralisation of services and not a decentralisation of power and decision-making. In the interest of cost control, it is not in the least likely that it would include the latter. If it did, there would have to be autonomous area committees with fully delegated powers for policy making within communities and with budgets giving the ability to spend.
Turning to the financial case and comparison between the options, it has been said that a single Fife council would prove better value for money owing to its size and that it would thus achieve a satisfactory level of economies of scale. It is also said that the administration costs of central services would be less with one council rather than two, and that having just one council avoids wasteful duplication of services. Yet it does not follow that simply because an organisation is large it is efficient and cheaper to run. On the contrary, large organisations

731
tend to become top-heavy bureaucracies. The ongoing savings predicted for an all-Fife council are only marginal. The figures are approximately £7.1 million to £6.6 million in favour of having one authority rather than two.
Another argument in support of larger councils and an all-Fife authority points out the avoidance of joint boards and committees that may be achieved by a single council. Conversely, two smaller and adjacent councils would need to co-operate over services such as roads and transport. The joint boards and committees duly formed across local government boundaries might appear to run the risk of diluting accountability and confusing the public. Certainly, transport and roads would give rise to joint plans, yet the two councils proposed have large enough populations and economic bases to support road maintenance without much trouble. There would be no difficulty in an East Fife and West Fife council co-operating on larger projects.
Another fear expressed has been that two Fife councils would not be as well placed as a single council to win funding for economic development projects and to co-operate fully as partners with enterprise companies. However, there is no reason to suppose that two councils in Fife would suffer compared with one council either in negotiating funding from the EC or in dealing with enterprise companies which, in any case, already have local offshoots. One reason for that is that we already have an east of Scotland consortium through which funds are negotiated from Europe. Thus it does not matter very much whether this east coast consortium acts on behalf of one authority or two authorities in Fife. Of course, a great many applications are individual projects anyway. Conversely, all over the country as a result It of local government changes arising from the Bill, the EC and other funding bodies will have to become used to different structures and local government bodies of varying size as applicants for and recipients of money. Indeed, local government units in France are already smaller than ours—and I do not think that any of us would suggest that the French cannot look after themselves in the EC. We would not suffer in similar circumstances, in spite of the fact that in the past day or so our relationship with the EC may have become temporarily complicated by a few little local difficulties.
Finally, we come to the nature of evidence, such as it is, in support of having either one council or two councils in Fife. In regard to the two-council option that is put forward in this amendment, it has been alleged that no consultation was carried out with the other councils in Fife before the submission of the proposal for a West Fife and an East Fife. It is accordingly assumed that the proposal does not have the support of people in Fife outside North East Fife, and that it is simply a last ditch attempt on the part of the Liberal Democrat administration to preserve its own interest in the east of Fife. However, I understand that both North East Fife District Council and Dunfermline District Council have thoroughly consulted their electorate on local government reform and have found strong cross-party resistance to the proposal for an all-Fife council.
On the other hand, no consultation was done by the: regional council; nor was any objective testing of public opinion carried out before putting its proposal for the all-Fife council to the Secretary of State. That is perfectly proper. The region's submission to the Scottish Office did not claim any measure of objective backing which it did not have; and, as the main council in Fife, the region's opinion at an early stage is obviously very useful. No less helpful is the substance of that opinion just because the background to it may appear contradictory. Indeed, the regional council's position, as is the position of Kirkcaldy District Council, is that there has been no case made for local government reorganisation and therefore it should not go ahead. Thus, to lobby actively for an all-Fife council might appear to be a contradiction of a stated formal position. On the other hand, it is a solution in which the region sincerely believes. It should therefore be put forward as it has been, in the same way as a number of your Lordships who did not feel able to approve the principle of the Bill on Second Reading are participating constructively in Committee in order to improve it.
On the subject of this amendment, and from the letters that I have recently received, two particular themes reflecting people's views should be mentioned in this debate. First, there is the solid level of support for the work which Fife Region has done within the two-tier system. This work is perceived by all those who have had dealings with Fife Region to have been carried out efficiently, with integrity and without prejudice of a party political kind or from any other biased standpoint.
The second theme that has emerged is one of deep concern that the constituency of 345,000 people in Fife is too big for any unitary authority to take on, however competent a predecessor body for that area may have shown itself to be.
The inference I believe we should draw from these two themes, and which I would ask my noble and learned friend to draw from them today, is that we need two authorities in Fife each of the calibre and integrity of the present Fife Region. That would satisfy people's concerns about size and about local democracy. It would be consistent with the Government's plans for local democracy; and with the sizes of East and West Fife of 147,000 and 198,000 respectively, each authority would be quite large enough to adopt the methods and practices of the present region.
Two authorities can give the balance which individual people and their communities deserve. Two authorities can bring about local government of quality and integrity closer to the people. They can better achieve decision-making at a local level and thus better fulfil the criteria of the central principles of this Bill for local government. For all these reasons, I urge my noble friend to re-assess the question of the boundary in Fife. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I wanted first to defer to my noble friend Lord Ewing because he has intimate knowledge of the Fife area. However, he is too subtle a politician to fall for that. I am invariably courteous to my noble friend and to the Front Bench speakers. This

733
is not a party issue nor is it whipped. The appearance of my name on the amendment together with those of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, indicates that this is a non-party issue.
I look at the reform of local government not only in Fife but in areas dealt with in other amendments on a strictly non-party basis. I apply the simple tests, which are: will it be efficient; will it provide good services; will it be responsive to the needs of the people; and will the people exercise influence on their elected representatives?
I have spent a little time considering this issue. I live in Fife and I am a relatively recent convert to the area, having come from the west of Scotland. I am able to compare the services which it provides with those provided by other areas of Scotland where I have been involved in local government.
I must say that I am full of admiration for Fife region and the services that it presently provides in its areas of responsibility. Similarly, I am equally impressed by the North East Fife District Council in the limited area of its responsibilities. I have reached the conclusion that the division of Fife into those separate areas of responsibility is sensible and it matches the tests that I have outlined.
The major issue that has been emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is the size of the new area. The new authority will be responsible for 345,000 people in that area and in addition it will inherit the new-town responsibilities of Glenrothes next year. That places a great burden of responsibility on the new authority.
What will be lost in the process? The intimate connections that have been established over the years with the North East Fife District Council will be lost. Therefore, I have had to conclude that it is wise to pursue this proposed option.
I took the opportunity to visit the Fife region at Glenrothes last Friday. I was well received. I told them that I was not convinced with regard to the case for one authority but in spite of that I was offered the usual hospitality and courtesy which we expect from the Fife Regional Council. What I am saying now is no criticism at all of the existing services that the council provides.
But size is an important factor. I think too that the areas over which the local authority presides must have a certain homogeneity. There is a vast difference between the Cowdenbeath/Lochgelly area of Fife and the delightful town of St. Andrews. They are miles apart. That is not a snobbish comment; it is a matter of fact. They are miles apart in industrial background, culture, history and so on. I do not believe that it would be wise for us to insist on having one unit containing those diverse elements.
I must say that North East Fife has not presented its case very professionally. Despite the fact that it has an MP who is steeped in the law, it was foolish enough to seek advice as to whether or not it was legal for the authority to lobby on this matter; and it was told that it was not legal to do so. As a result, its case has been presented perhaps inadequately compared with the extremely powerful public relations campaign that has
734
been waged by the Fife region. However, we have an opportunity in this Committee to consider the matter while excluding the PR material which we have all received. I hope that the Committee will accept the implied invitation given by the Secretary of State for Scotland when it was felt in the other place that the Highland area discussions had been curtailed. He said that in the House of Lords, Members would have an opportunity to discuss these matters at greater length and to table appropriate amendments. That is exactly what we are doing this evening in relation to Fife.
It is not a party issue. In addition to visiting Fife county council last Friday, I also visited Dunfermline, which is an important area in Fife. I am authorised to say that Dunfermline District Council is opposed to the one-Fife solution. The Labour leader of the council authorised me to report his views.
Therefore, it is not entirely a Labour and Liberal Democrat battle. It is a question of looking at the matter sensibly, quietly and asking whether the area is too big or whether it would benefit in democratic terms from a division such as that suggested in the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee.
Lord Hughes: After what I said about the Central Region, no one would expect me to take a different view on Fife just because the Government do not happen to be of that view. I do not mind agreeing with the Government when I can persuade myself that they are right. In this case, that gives me no difficulty. I have had connections one way or another with Fife over many years. For the greater part of my life I lived in Dundee. As a child, one of the great attractions was to cross the Tay into Fife for a picnic and go to what people in Dundee called Balmerino, which the locals pronounced "Bomarney", and which the father of the noble Earl always pronounced as "Bolmerrino". I have never been able to work out whether all three are right or whether only one of the three is correct. Whatever the pronunciation, it was a delightful place to visit.
Many years later, I had more direct connections with Fife. For nine years I served on the court of St. Andrews University. During that time—the time of the Fife County Council—relations between the university and the county council could not have been better. Then, some years later, I became chairman of the Glenrothes development corporation. I remained there for four years, but my stay was interrupted by Harold Wilson who asked me to be one of his Ministers. I then had to give up all the nice things that one enjoys outside of office.
When I was at Glenrothes, I could never have imagined that the day would come when someone would suggest that there was a community interest between East Fife and Glenrothes. It is a new town with its own fishing communities. I should also say that all the people on my wife's side of the family come from that area; namely, from Anstruther, Pittenweem and so on. They are totally different. I could understand if it was East Fife district council suggesting setting itself up as a separate community. I say that because that part of Fife is so totally different from the rest. However, the people accept the realities of the situation and the fact

735
that East Fife district council, as it was, really had only one thing in its favour to justify standing on its own. It happened to be a Liberal enclave in that part of Scotland. It was recognised that East Fife on its own was not sufficient. Therefore, we have the unlikely marriage of moving across Fife as far as Glenrothes.
It is only comparatively recently that the capital of Fife moved from Cupar to Glenrothes. Glenrothes is very like Kirkcaldy except that it is a new town and Kirkcaldy is an old one. The sort of work that is provided and the kind of people who live there means that there is much going and coming of work from Kirkcaldy to Glenrothes and vice versa. However, so far as I know, there is no coming and going of work from Glenrothes to Pittenweem or from Anstruther to St. Andrews except for those who may be teachers at the university and who find living in St. Andrews too expensive.
Another thing I learned while serving on the court of St. Andrews University was how different life was there. I was told on one occasion about something that was said at university court. One of the professors said to me, "You know, St. Andrews is a peculiar place. I could come out of my house at one end of South Street with socks of a different colour and by the time I got to the university people at the other end who did not even have a telephone knew that I had socks of different colours. That news could travel in the time that I walked along the street". That could not possibly happen in Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy or Glenrothes. The com-munities are totally different. However, it was interesting that when there was one authority that worked well.
I go back to the days when Fife County Council had the most extraordinary man as its clerk. His name was Mitchell. He was an autocrat of the first order. When the council discussed a subject, if the county clerk ventured an opinion that was what the county council decided. In those, days NALGO, as it then was, used to hold a summer conference in St. Andrews University. On one occasion the secretary of NALGO mentioned what he had learnt about what took place in Fife. He said that the county clerk had had a running battle with the Scottish Office, claiming that it was interfering with the way in which the county should be doing its job. He complained regularly on that basis. This rhyme was the result:
"Hark, hark, the county clerk Complains of central control. But the boroughs of Fife Have to fight like dear life To keep any powers at all".
Therefore, even in those days, long before regional government, one man in the county council had much more power than any of the provosts of the boroughs in Fife. The council worked very much as a unit.
At the time of Wheatley it was natural that the Fife County Council, by and large, should become the Fife Regional Council. Now the Government have decided that that is the best way to proceed. I hope that nothing that is said tonight makes them change their mind.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee for moving this much-needed
736
amendment. As the Long Title of the Bill is so long it is very difficult to escape from essentially giving a Second Reading speech today. At Second Reading I said that Wheatley believed that big was better, as for example with Strathclyde. It seems that in the event he has been proved wrong. At Second Reading I also welcomed the Bill as a much needed attempt to try to redress some of the manifest errors that were committed when the previous reorganisation of local government was attempted.
One has to admit that local government is a tricky subject. At this hour of the night I shall merely say that it is rather like the mating of elephants: the results, if any, take a long time to become apparent.
When it comes to the details of the Bill, there are enormous inconsistencies in the size of the proposed authorities. We heard earlier today about Clackmannan, which was an old county and is now, and is proposed to be, a district of 48,000 people. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal about Highland Region, which is almost the size of Belgium. It is larger than Wales, as I believe my noble kinsman will in due course explain to the Committee. It has a population of 202,000. For some strange reason the franchise for councillors there is to be on a regional basis, with a perfectly manageable number of 46 councillors. That is quite a good size for a council. However, they will each have to represent colossal areas because all the district councillors have been declared redundant. Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench that that looks to me like a grave mistake. I hope that farther and tetter thoughts will occur in due course.
Fife is now a region. In the last reorganisation a well-justified and well-fought campaign was mounted by the late Willie Hamilton, MP—a man with whom I generally had little in common but I agreed with him on that occasion most heartily and am glad to pay this tribute to his expertise in lobbying.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that, while I am sure that he wants to pay a compliment to Mr. Willie Hamilton for his expertise, I should point out that he is still on this planet.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I must have misheard an earlier remark, possibly from another Bench. I am glad that he is still living. He deserves whatever I say tonight, with the greatest gratitude of all of us in Fife.
Fife is now a region. It is the only region made from a single county. The original intention was to include part of Fife in part of Tayside. At that time there were certain mutterings about gerrymandering and that we would all have to pay whatever the toll was to join the other end of the region to which we would have teen attached. Similarly, in West Fife we would have had to go over the Forth Bridge to hold a party with the Lothians. Quite rightly, Mr. Hamilton, and Sir John Gilmour, the then Lord Lieutenant, said, "No, that is simply not a goer".
Fife county, the landward area which also included small boroughs, as has been referred to earlier, included

737
police boroughs. Until comparatively recently—about 40 years ago—Fife had three police forces. Within historic times, Fife has never been a unitary authority. There have always been the boroughs, with the council covering the landward area and the small boroughs. After Wheatley there was another arrangement. It is that arrangement that is now being altered.
The proposal in the Bill is that Fife becomes one large authority for the first time. As my noble friends have said, it is a very large authority, and probably an impossibly large one in relation to the diversity of interests and occupations within the area. If it remains as one authority, it will be the largest rural area (or non-urban area), and larger than the cities of Aberdeen and Dundee.
At Second Reading I stated that local government is all about power and people. Fife Region has done good jobs in the main; it has also done some not so good jobs. I fear that the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, gave me at Second Reading was not altogether correct, but perhaps we can talk about that on another occasion.
Yesterday I had valuable discussions over a considerable period with the convenor and others of Fife Regional Council. I had thought in one rash moment of describing it as a champagne-powered brainwash, but perhaps that is not appropriate. It was an enjoyable discussion, and I fought my corner. One of the points repeated frequently to me on that occasion was that Fife Regional Council is so good that no possible improvement could be imagined. I do not believe that.
There seems to be among many local authorities a great fear of joint boards. We have heard much of that today. There is still the aspect of DIY—which in local government circles does not refer to sticking up shelves in the kitchen. It means that every service provided by a council has to be produced, organised, paid for and in every sense created by the council. If you or I find a nasty leak in the plumbing, we send for a plumber. We pay him. We do not want to have a plumber ourselves just in case something leaks. I accept that many aspects are ongoing, but there is no need for many council functions to be in-house. That has to some extent been recognised. But consideration will have to go far wider in future, in particular as local authorities become smaller. In our private lives and in business we all have to buy specialist services. I can imagine no reason why smaller authorities should be unable to buy specialist services from their neighbours or from public companies, co-operatives or whatever, which are set up to organise such services. In that context, I stress the point about trading standards.
I talked to a member of the Fife police who is in a well-placed position. He says that the force is the ideal size and that that need not change with a joint board. Like many people who are involved in local government, he is concerned about joint boards. At Second Reading I emphasised the need for the joint boards to have two requirements. First, the clerk should not be drawn from any constituents of that board. The reason for that is that I fear many clerks of boards come from chief executives or assistant chief executives and
738
regard it as a handy perk for increasing their pay. We must get away from that. I am not criticising them, I am sorry for them. I would do the same myself if I were in that position.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referring to J.M. Mitchell, said that he was preceded by an even more formidable character, Matthew Fyffe. We want people of that character, but we must detach joint boards from active politics.
Lord Hughes: Perhaps I may intervene to say that I would believe the noble Lord if we could obtain people of that character. I must say that Mitchell was a one-off.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I am sure that the noble Lord is right, but flukes occur. I will cut matters short but I also mentioned at Second Reading the quality of councillors and the difficulty of filling the job. It must be made more attractive and accessible to a wider range of people. I am glad to see that at least tentative and possibly excellent steps are now being taken to ease that situation by the use of more sensible allowances for councillors.
Fife Region is like the curate's egg. We all know what that means: parts of it are good, others less good. There is no point in going into that in detail at this time of night.
I remain convinced that my noble friend's amendment, with the cross-party support it has gained in the Committee, is the right and best way to give all Fife the finest chance of sensible, non-dogmatic yet progressive local government. In conclusion, perhaps I may take what is sometimes thought to be a voice from the grave, going back long before the memory of anyone in this Chamber. I quote:
"Can it not be seen that the modern political problem is that people have too little control over the political and economic process which envelops them? It was, after all, Aristotle who declared, 'To the size of estate there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for none of these retain their natural facility when they are too large'".
The same will apply to Fife.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: This is an opportune moment for me to intervene in the debate and declare my position and that of my noble friends on the Front Bench. As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe said, he comes to this debate from a non-political standpoint.
I have noticed that in the debate so far it has been customary to present to the Committee one's credentials for speaking. Apart from my noble friend Lord Hughes, who does not live in Fife but has extensive Fife connections, all those who have contributed to the debate so far have their homes in Fife. I am no exception, I have lived all my life there. I contested the oldest Fife constituency after the late John Smith contested it and I have to say in all honesty that the people there were not particularly keen on me during that general election. That still has not put me off the people of St. Andrews and Cupar and the east coast towns. My late father was a member of the old Fife County Council in the days when the county council comprised elected members and delegates from the town councils. For 40 years my father was a member of the old Cowdenbeath Town Council.

739
My other claim for speaking in the debate is that during my courting days some years ago the ferry used to sail between North Queensferry and South Queensferry and between Granton and Burntisland. My wife and I—and I have had the same wife for 40 years now: a different dog and a different budgie but the same wife—used to take the bus down to North Queensferry and go across to South Queensferry. Strange as it may seem, we would get the tramcar from South Queensferry up to Edinburgh, then the tramcar down to Granton and the ferry at Granton in order to sail back to Burntisland. The famous saying as we got on the ferry at Granton was: "Cheerio, Scotland, I'm away to Fife now". That typifies the unity of Fife.
It is worth recording that during the whole history of local government in Scotland, Fife is the one area that has always had a Fife-wide authority, whether it was Fife County Council or the now Fife Region. I have to say—
Lord Cochrane of Cults: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord but Fife County Council dealt only with the landward area. As I understand it, it took certain responsibilities within the small boroughs and it had few, if any responsibilities within the two major boroughs, Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I do not want to become involved in a debate at this stage about the functions of Fife County Council. The large boroughs of Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy had delegates to Fife County Council in the same way as the town councils had delegates to Fife County Council; the landward area members were the elected members of Fife County Council. Together they dispensed the services for which Fife County Council, and indeed all county councils, were responsible. So I return to what I said, namely that Fife is the one area that has always had a Fife-wide authority. I do not see now any reason for change.
I am grateful for the fact that the noble Earl, in moving his amendment, was so temperate, so moderate, in his approach. Apart from the brief moments when the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, began to wander into criticism of Fife Region with just a little sting, all who spoke have been high in their praise of Fife Region. It seems strange therefore that Fife Region is such a good council that we want to get rid of it.
The argument is not whether Fife Region is a better council than North East Fife, or whether Fife Region is a better council than Kirkcaldy or Dunfermline. The argument is about the future of local government in Fife and what unit will be best equipped to deliver the services across Fife. As a regional council, Fife has a proud record. Some of the briefing material sent to us from Fife Regional Council amply illustrates the way in which the regional council has pulled together both parts, the industrial west Fife and the rural, agricultural and fishing areas of east Fife, in a unity which, I hasten to add, is unsurpassed throughout Scotland.
One of my favourite sayings when I was a Member of another place was, "My post-bag is full on this issue." I do not believe, in all honesty, that I have ever had more letters on a single issue than on this proposal to split Fife. With one exception, namely the letter from
740
the chairman of St. Andrews community council, who urged me to support the division of Fife, all the letters, from a wide range of people and organisations—Fife health board; the chambers of commerce; the fishermen's mutual association at Pittenweem, and a whole host of other bodies—said that it would be wrong to split Fife and that Fife is a very good local government unit.
I thought it significant—although my noble friend sought to urge us not to be too political in this debate —that on Sunday the Conservative group on North East Fife District Council, led by Councillor Andrew Gilmour, intimated to the press that it was withdrawing its support from this amendment. In Councillor Gilmour's words—not my words—he said that he had spoken to people in Glenrothes, Leslie, Markinch, Leven, Kennoway, Windygates, Buckhaven, Methil and East Wemyss and he could not find anybody who was in favour of the amendments. Those were his words not mine. That is a fairly devastating indictment of the proposal to split Fife. So there is no support in those areas. I accept that there is some support in North-East Fife. I do not say that there is no support in North-East Fife, but there certainly is no support in Glenrothes, Markinch, Leslie or the other towns that I have mentioned.
The Earl of Dundee: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to various areas of Fife and mentioned press releases that might have been issued. They can often be a little confusing. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to Dunfermline District Council. I believe that there Councillor John Simpson has come out very clearly. That backs the point that we were all making earlier about how this matter has cross-party support.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I was coming to the question of Dunfermline District Council and Councillor John Simpson, whom I know well. He is from my native Cowdenbeath; I know him well. I thought that my noble friend Lord Taylor chose his words very carefully. I have known him for a number of years and always listen carefully to the words he uses when he speaks. My noble friend said that he had been given the authority by Councillor Simpson and Dunfermline District Council to say that they are not in favour of a single Fife council. We know that. That is different from saying that my noble friend has been given the authority by Councillor Simpson and Dunfermline District Council to say that they are in favour of the amendment. That is not what they said at all.
They said that they are not in favour of a single Fife authority. We know that. Kirkcaldy district is not in favour of a single Fife authority, but neither is it in favour of this amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again but it might be helpful if I say a few words. I have received today, through the administration of Councillor John Simpson, a list of community councils in Dunfermline. The noble Lord correctly

741
makes the distinction that, although an authority might say that it did not want a single Fife authority, it did not necessarily follow that it was in favour of this particular amendment.
However, I have the authority of John Simpson and his council to say that in his area there are a number of community councils which are specifically in favour of this amendment. Let me read them out. They include: Cowdenbeath, Rosyth, Touch, Pittodrie, Oakley, Lumphinnans, Torryburn, Newmills and Culross.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I could equally read out a list of community councils which are against the amendment from Kinghorn, Burntisland and Leven. But that does not serve any useful purpose in our debate. The debate is about what is the best unit to deliver services in Fife. My view is strongly that Fife Regional Council, as it is now, should be preserved as a unit. That is a view shared by my noble friend Lord Hughes. I know that other noble Lords share that view too; namely, that Fife ought to be retained.
I should like to put two other matters on the record. One is the whole question of expenditure. I am glad that no noble Lord has sought to argue that Fife Region neglects North-East Fife. On examination of the facts that simply would not stand up. The development at Pittenweem harbour with the new breakwater, the new fish market, the new ice-making plant in the building and the development of the senior citizens' club are all found in one small village at Pittenweem. That is why the fishermen wrote so strongly against the amendment. If we go along the coast to Anstruther—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but is it not true to say that money spent on fishing activities at Pittenweem, the fish market and the harbour, was European money made available for that specific purpose to the Fife County Council? It did not come out of the normal budget; it was part of the funds allocated by the European Community.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: That is absolutely true. The request, the campaign and the case made out to attract that money was put together by Fife region, demonstrating its concern for the preservation of the fishing industry. Because the fishing fleet moved from Anstruther to Pittenweem, where it has 24-hour a day deep water, money was spent in Anstruther to enhance its appearance in order to allow it to concentrate on tourism. Even in St. Andrews, as we bypass my noble friend's house in Kingsbarns, substantial money has been spent on the road network with the intention of ensuring that the home of golf continues to be able to stage such major tournaments as the Open Golf Championship, the Dunhill Cup and all the other tournaments for which St. Andrews is famous.
We can go down to Cupar, to the Bell Baxter High School, where 25 per cent. of Fife region's education budget was spent on one school. I take exception to that. I live in an area where money needs to be spent on schools as well. But my strongest exception is that that is the school which the Government Minister, Mr. Allan Stewart, attended. If ever a school had a lot to answer for
742
it is the Bell Baxter High school, and for the life of me I cannot understand why all that money is spent on the one school. I jest in that regard but it is a serious point. The way in which Fife region has brought together the diverse interests of the region is something that cannot be seen throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
My final point is this, and again I am grateful for the moderate way in which the noble Earl moved the amendment. But in all honesty the proposals were put together not to create councils or communities of common interest. St. Andrews has nothing in common with Glenrothes, Buckhaven or Methil. The proposals were put together to produce councils of equal number and that is vastly different from saying that communities of common interest are being produced.
Fife's record on the care of the elderly is well known. No other region in the country has a free travel scheme to equal Fife's. The elderly people not only travel free within the region, but are allowed also to travel free to Perth, Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Those services could not otherwise be sustained. All I say in conclusion is that I hope the noble Earl, having discussed the matter —it is important that we discuss the issue and clear the air—will see fit to withdraw the amendment. If he chooses to test the will of the Committee, I urge Members to reject the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I listened with great interest to the arguments put forward. I have never lived in Fife. I was born in Aberdeenshire and lived for 50 years in Angus. But I like Fife and I like the Fifers. I like to hear the arguments put on both sides. However, I have heard a certain amount of prejudice.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is a man of great skill and considerable charm. He puts forward his arguments extraordinarily well. But to say that Fife has always been a single entity is perhaps not entirely true. Of course, it is an entity and people will still speak of the "Kingdom of Fife". But, as has been said before, in the days of the Fife County Council a local democracy existed among the borough councils, large and small, which has not been equalled under the present regime and probably will not be equalled under the next one. That is greatly different from having a single authority with no real local expression. To get a Kingdom of Fife Regional Council was a great victory, but it was on top of three district councils. They were the bodies closest to the people of Fife. It is all very well to say that the larger authorities will dispense the money better and more economically. That has not always been the case. There are plenty of examples of small authorities that dispense money extraordinarily well.
I hope that the Government will be logical. They support, rightly, a small community like Clackmannan, which has indicated strongly that it is prepared to put up with the inconvenience and joint boards in order to express its democratic right, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—another man of immense skill—has expressed it. There are great differences in Fife. There are differences between the north and the south. Both have great virtues, but differences there are. I was in Fife long ago at a by-election in which John Smith first stood. Our candidate there was a great disappointment and did not

743
do as well as we expected. However, I still have a high regard for Fife. A single authority in Fife would have a democratic deficit. (I wanted to get that phrase in!) It is absolutely true that it is too big and will result in a remoteness that is not desirable. In all logic, there is no question but that the splitting of Fife will leave Fife as a kingdom but will give the people proper democratic representation and will work well.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Lest the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, accuses me, as he did before the dinner hour, of neglecting to respond to his argument, perhaps I may say immediately that I am happy to adopt the force of much of what he has to say.
Lord Hughes: I told the Minister earlier that I would apologise for my rudeness. Whether or not he was talking to somebody else, I had no business to say what I said. I now say publicly that I was rude to him, and I hope that Central Region does not suffer because of it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord. But I believe that the more serious point about this is that it clearly demonstrates, as in the course of a long afternoon and evening we have gone through the map of Scotland, that there are differing views on the appropriate division into local government authority areas. In this particular case I understand to a considerable degree the force of what he has to say. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for both the eloquence and persuasiveness of the case that he has advanced. I do not believe that it could have been more fully stated.
I also share with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, his appreciation of the temperate way in which the argument has been addressed both by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I have listened with great interest to the arguments that have been presented in favour of the division of Fife into two for local government purposes. I confess that at the time when the last set of local government reforms went forward I was somewhat sceptical about the truly separate identity of Fife. However, considering subsequently that wonderful set of essays by the distinguished journalist Mr. Ian Jack, or Or. Ann Smith's great novel about growing up in Fife, I believe that anyone would be persuaded that within Scotland there is a clear sense of identity within the kingdom. I believe that in that sense one has to have a clear regard for it.
I have to say immediately that the Government are not minded to accept the case for a two-way split of the region. Perhaps I may leave to one side the technical flaws in the amendments, which omit the Leven, Methil and Mountfleurie areas. I have to say that we have serious reservations about the proposal. Here, as elsewhere, I recognise that there are genuinely conflicting views about the new structure. Other alternatives to a single Fife authority have been advanced. First, there has been the proposal to combine Kirkcaldy and North East Fife, with Dunfermline on its own. A second proposal has been to combine
744
Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy, leaving North East Fife on its own. This one is something of an amalgam of the two.
What concerns me about the proposal is that it threatens what can only be described as an artificial division of Fife as a whole and of Kirkcaldy district. It would create two halves with no particular sense of community identity. It is difficult here, as elsewhere in Scotland, always to be sure just exactly what is that particular sense of local identity, but it seems to serve no one's purpose if we set about a split which does not reflect local loyalties. At North Fife level, through to town, village or even street level, there is clearly a sense of identity.
Various surveys have been carried out which serve to illustrate, as elsewhere in Scotland, that mere are conflicting views. I acknowledge immediately that the results of such surveys must necessarily be treated with a degree of caution. The most recent expression of public opinion in Fife has come from a Systems 3 Scotland survey commissioned by Fife Regional Council which sought views on whether there should be one Fife council or two. The obvious interpretation of the results is that 60 per cent. expressed a clear preference for one council. Less than 30 per cent. favoured a two-way split. It is interesting to note that a majority in each of the three existing council areas favoured the one council solution.
I emphasise again, as I have done earlier in the course of this afternoon and this evening, that I would not wish at any time to make too much of any poll. However, what concerns me is that we should not achieve an artificiality of identity. One is confronted with that artificiality when looking at the Kirkcaldy district and finding that Kirkcaldy is to fall within one part of Fife and Glenrothes is to fall within another. I know Edinburgh, Angus and Dundee well, and I know Fife less well, but it surprises me that there is any serious belief that such a division will command popular support or a popular appreciation among people who commute and have contact between Glenrothes and Fife and Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy.
It is not a particularly helpful part of the discussion, as we go through the map of Scotland, to indicate approval for one local authority administration and its colour and its efficiency as opposed to another I am bound to say that of local authorities in Scotland I do not suppose that Fife Regional Council is one that I should by political instinct wish to applaud. Indeed, a few years ago I would have had some grave reservations about some of its approaches. However, I am bound to say now that I have more than a sneaking admiration for the way it has grasped the changing role of a local authority. Clackmannan may be an extremely small authority and Fife may be a larger one, but—and this is a point to which we shall return—both have grasped the importance of not simply being an authority that seeks to be effective and efficient but also understands a proper enabling role.
With the proposals we have in the Bill to set about extensive decentralising structures, our proposal to make the existing Fife Region a single-tier authority should be the better of the two alternatives that have

745
been advanced this evening. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on what has been said and consider all the arguments advanced. I am grateful to him for the temperate way in which he has advanced the arguments, but I hope that on that basis he can withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate which has touched on Aristotle and democratic deficits. I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part. One of the themes which has emerged is the need to judge the question of what is the best boundary for Fife by the principles of this Bill. If the Bill seeks to bring about local government which is closer to the people, then the respective sizes of the electorates which are not too numerous is an obvious consideration.
Another theme has been the good example which the present Fife Region within its two-tier structure gives. The correct inference here is surely not so much to keep the region as it is and to make it work twice as hard as it is doing. That is what happens if we have an all-Fife authority. Surely the right idea is to preserve instead the qualities of the region's administration, its efficiency and integrity, and to form two councils in that mould.
Where I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and I share common ground with the rest of the Members of the Committee is that we want the same type of local government in the important sense. We want it free from party political considerations and other forms of bias. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, would agree that the Fife Region is a good example of that. Where he and I differ is about the principle of this Bill which I strongly support, but I equally understand and respect his own position if he is not able to accept that principle.
My noble and learned friend is able to bring these two themes together through boundary planning in general and the Fife boundary plan in particular and to seek to establish local government which is efficient and unbiased yet which properly fits in with more local decision-making. I believe that my noble and learned friend referred to a survey which has recently been carried out and which claims to show support for the present proposal. My understanding is that that survey was conducted by asking questions of only about 550 people which I believe is not a number considered to be a scientific minimum. So perhaps we might not attach too much importance to that.
I believe that my noble and learned friend also indicated that this is a matter which we still need to hear more about. Perhaps we have not heard as much as we would like. As we go through this Bill, if Members of the Committee on all sides feel that the central theme is to bring local government much closer to people, then the whole question is one which we want to keep open and examine more thoroughly. If I am right in interpreting that my noble and learned friend will be happy to proceed along those lines, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I may return to it at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 129, leave out line 46 and insert:

("North Highland

Caithness and Sutherland, and Ross and Cromarty District Councils.

South Highland

Badenoch and Strathspey. Inverness, Lochaber, Nairn, and Skye and Lochalsh District Councils.")

The noble Viscount said: In rising to move this amendment, I shall follow the precedent set by others by giving my credentials. By an accident of birth, I was born in England. My father had just come down to take his seat in the other place and I had come down with him with my mother, whom I could not leave at that stage. I spent the greater part of my childhood in Caithness, and the whole of my adult life since leaving the Royal Air Force at the end of the war has been spent there. In 1949 I became a county councillor for the village of Halkirk and in 1961 I became a member of Thurso Town Council and was for a number of years a Thurso town councillor, holding the offices of both Junior and Senior Baillie, Dean of Guild and Police Judge.
I am particularly proud of my time on Thurso Town Council because it was a very small council with a very small base, producing the most excellent service for the people of Thurso. It handled sensitively and magnificently the trebling of the size of the town with the establishment of the Dounreay atomic power station. It won no fewer than three Civic Trust awards for the development of the town during that period. It did it all without a planning department—simply by the expedient of using a local architect's firm for local work and one of the most eminent planning consultants for main planning works, Sir Frank Mears and Partners from Edinburgh.
As a result, when local government reorganisation came along, Thurso was the cheapest in cost to the voters of all the councils in the North yet it was delivering as good a service as any other council in the whole of the north of Scotland. That shows that size is not necessarily a criterion and that excellence is a completely different thing.
Today we have heard an eloquent description of the sad insensitivity of the Government to local wishes given by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Against that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has told us that the Government have split up the Central Region because of local opinion. I wonder which is true. We must find out whether the noble and learned Lord will, as it were, put his money where his assertions are.
The fact is that a reputable poll that was run in the Highland area showed that over 80 per cent. of people were in favour of splitting the proposed Highland council into two. I have made an estimate of the number of district councillors within the area who support splitting the region into two, and I can tell your Lordships that at least 75 per cent. of all district

747
councillors favour that. They are elected represen-tatives. They are people who know that they will be elected only if they manage to please the electorate with their programmes and so forth.
The position of the regional councillors is not 100 per cent. in favour of leaving the council area as one—and nor for that matter is it strengthening. I believe that, taking the region and the district together, the mood in favour of splitting the Highlands in two—that is, North Highland and South Highland—is increasing. Among community councils the position may be stronger than that. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, should look carefully at the strength of opinion in the Highland area as to whether there should be one or two councils.
The noble Lords, Lord Gray and Lord Renton, praised the virtue of a referendum. But are reputable opinion polls lightly to be thrown aside? Is the total number of district councils in support of the two-Highland-council option lightly to be thrown aside? I hope not.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, spoke of the wide range of services which must be delivered. In defending the small council of Clackmannan, he also spoke of the wide range of options and the way in which they could be delivered. There is no doubt that among the people who will deliver the range of services there are those who could easily deliver all those services which are currently being delivered, and deliver a better quality that is nearer to the people and more in touch with them.
In choosing boundaries, we must be reasonably practical. At dinner tonight I was told a lovely story by a Member of the Committee who is not at present in his place. The story was that the southern boundary of the Highland Region was established when Atholl and Lochiel met to discuss where the boundary was to be and they both threw their swords into the loch. That is now the boundary of Highland Region. It is the southernmost point where all the council areas meet. That is a very capricious way of doing it, but I am not suggesting that we should go around chucking swords into the sea or into the loch.
I believe that we should look at the areas to see where there is a genuine community of interest. I can tell the Committee that there is a genuine community of interest in Caithness and Sutherland, and to a lesser extent perhaps in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross-shire. That is due in no small part to the effect of distance.
We were told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that it is not difficult to see community of interests stretched down from Banff and Buchan to Kincardine and Deeside. That is a distance of 40 miles. To stretch community of interest from Caithness to Inverness is to stretch it three times as far. Like a piece of elastic, there is a limit to the distance that one can stretch community of interest. When elastic snaps one gets a nasty slap on the fingers. If one were to try to stretch community of interest from Caithness right down to the southern edge of the North Highland area and into the South Highland area one would be covering a distance of approximately 220 miles. That really is too big. We were told that Central Region was big at 60
748
miles long. Sixty miles will take you from Thurso to Golspie. At that stage you would be only half way through Sutherland. You would have another 60 miles to go before you reached Inverness. It is a further 106 miles to the Southern border of the region. That is much too big an area to administer as one.
We are then told that in order to do that we must decentralise: we should have a wide range of options by means of which to do it—"decentralised management" was the term used. It is far easier to do that by building up than by breaking down. It is much easier to build up based upon existing district councils. Indeed at present, the district councils are delivering to the people of the North the services which they want delivered. The most personal services are delivered by district councils. Regional councils have no experience of delivering the kind of services which district councils deliver. Therefore, it is better to build up on the basis of district than of regional councils.
I mean no disrespect to the Highland Regional Council. It is made up of very nice people. In fact, the Chief Executive used to be the County Clerk of Caithness, so he cannot be too bad. The council has done a good job, so far as I can assess, in all the areas in which it has been asked to work. But it is not experienced in dealing with district council work.
I feel that it would be far better to rely upon two new Highland areas. In view of the size, the ability to deliver services and the fact that the majority of people in the Highlands area are in favour of the proposed division, I ask the Committee to accept the amendment so that the Highland Region is divided into North Highland and South Highland. I beg to move.
Baroness Strange: In supporting this amendment, I shall produce my rather meagre credentials later. But I should like first to point out that the creation of two Highland councils rather than one huge amorphous pan-Highland council with a land area bigger than the Principality of Wales is merely in line with the principles that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has all along considered in preparing this Bill —the wish to abolish a whole tier of government by making unitary authorities and to move local democracy back to the people on the ground by creating new councils of a manageable size. I am sure that my noble friends from Wales, who are not present at the moment, I believe, would not support the idea of a single local authority for the whole Principality with some of the Marches thrown in.
Among the eight existing district councils, there is an overwhelming majority in favour of two Highland councils. Caithness and Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness, Lochaber and Badenoch and Strathspey are all in favour. Only Skye and Lochalsh and more possibly Nairn are in favour of one.
The Association of Highland District Councils commissioned Scotland Market Research to run an independent survey in each of the eight districts. I know that my noble friend Lady Sakoun says that she has little confidence in surveys but I should still like to point out the results of this survey to the Committee.

749
In each sample 1,006 people were asked and the overall average for wanting more than one council was over 83 per cent. Badenoch and Strathspey, Caithness and Sutherland all had over 90 per cent. in favour of two, with 97.7 per cent. in Caithness. Interestingly, in the two districts where the district council was in favour of a single authority, 86.9 per cent. in Nairn were in favour of two and 78.5 per cent. in Skye. Moreover, 14.2 per cent. in Nairn were in favour of one council and 6.7 per cent. in Skye and Lochalsh. The other 15 per cent. did not know. Those figures seem to suggest that the two district councils which want only one authority are not in as close touch with their local electorate as are the other six.
So much for the people on the ground and what they want, which is, I think, clear and gives a green light for the amendment, as the whole ethos of this new Bill is to get local government back into the hands of the people. Government spokesmen have pointed out that the district councils are not united in their views. Unanimity has not been imposed as a requirement for the rest of Scotland. There is a clear majority in favour of two, both among the district councils and among the population.
I have had the good fortune to stay with my noble kinsman Lord Burton at Dochfour near Inverness, and also with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, at Dalnawillan in Caithness, so I have some conception of how huge an area we are considering. The whole area would be nearly as large as Belgium and many Members of the Committee will be aware of how much local government is devolved there.
My husband used to rent a fish netting station at Kinlochbervie, just below Cape Wrath. He kept a caravan up there to sleep in while he worked the nets during the week. It took him over six hours to drive up there from our home near Perth. Four of those hours were spent driving across what is now proposed to be one Highlands region. It is the vastness of the area which makes it so important to divide it administratively into two. One old fisherman told my husband that he was thinking of going south for his holiday. So my husband, thinking perhaps of the South of France or Spain, asked him how far south he was thinking of going. He replied, "Well, not as far south as Inverness".
There is also the question of population. With one authority there would be 203,000. Even split into two, with 105,000 in the South Highlands and 89,000 in the North Highlands, they would each have a bigger population than Clackmannan, Stirling, Moray or East Renfrew. The population of the South Highlands would also be greater than that of Argyll and Bute, Inverclyde, Angus, Dumbarton and Clydebank or the Borders. The question of population, when seen in comparison with other areas, demolishes entirely the argument that councils of fewer than 100,000 people would not be economically viable.
The other chief argument is that the Highlands area has a strong single identity which must be protected. About this there is some doubt. There has always been argument as to where the Highlands actually is—can you draw a line along Antonine's Wall between Forth and Clyde and say that everything north of that is
750
Highland? Alternatively, should the line be between the Tay and the Clyde, with Perth being the gateway of the Highlands; or should it be between the Moray Firth and the Firth of Lome? Should the Highlands comprise only those who are crofters, which would bring the area into parts of Perthshire as well as the Western Isles? Should it be for the chiefly Gaelic speakers, who are in the North and the West, whereas the native tongue of the East and the South has always been Scots or Lallans, with occasional French loan words like ashet or Scandinavian words like kirk?
Many of the clans in the North Highlands are descended from Norse or Scandinavian blood, including the Clans of Sinclair, Sutherland and Gunn. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is himself descended from the Norse goddess, Freya, while many of those in the South Highlands are a mixture of Scots and Norman—like the Baillies of Dochfour who descend from the Normans —whereas my noble and learned friend the Minister descends from a knightly family in Anjou called Frezel who also came over in the 11th century.
There may be some confusion on the part of Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott as to where their hearts actually are, where the Highlands begin or end, but I think there can be no uncertainty at all in our hearts that to create two authorities—Norm and South Highlands —is right, proper and a reasonable way forward.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Burton: I too should like to support the amendment. It is rather unreasonable that we should have to have the debate on one-third of the whole of the land area of Scotland at this hour of the night. That reflects the degree of interest that the Government showed in the other place, where this matter was hardly debated at all. I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will take up this matter with his colleagues in the Scottish Office to see whether that cannot be improved, at least at Report stage.
This is not a party political matter—at least I cannot see how any political party can gain political advantage from the fact that the northern Highlands has one or two authorities. However, it is vital to local democracy that there shall be more than one authority to administer this vast area covering one-third of the whole of Scotland.
I can cut down my speech tonight, which will please the Committee, not only because much of what I have to say has already been said, but because some of what I want to say will already be in Hansard, since my noble and learned friend, in replying to an amendment relating to Clackmannan, advanced nearly all the arguments which can be put forward in favour of two councils in the Highlands. These are: first, what the people want; secondly, a district rather than a regional base; thirdly, smaller councils can be viable because of equalisation grants; fourthly, if local districts want to be unitary authorities he wants them to be given the opportunity to try. I am afraid that after those points I ran out of steam and could not keep up writing down what my noble and learned friend said. However, no doubt Members of the Committee will be able to read his arguments in

751
Hansard tomorrow. What we want for the Highlands has already been advanced by the Government for Clackmannan.
I have no axe to grind because I have retired from local government. I could not find time to do the job properly, having many other commitments. However, I have witnessed amazing infighting over this matter. People are fighting for their jobs and looking to personal interest rather than the welfare of the North of Scotland. I do not like the fact that there has been much misleading propaganda and distortion of the facts. After the last local government elections any Highland regional councillor who was not in favour of a pan-Highland authority was put out of the chairmanship and usually put off most of the sub-committees on which he served. That is not the way to conduct local government. I sense a nasty smell of subterfuge. Why insist on one vast authority when two or more would so clearly be sensible? Who is getting what out of having only a single authority?
If one drives north from Edinburgh, one reaches after about 100 miles the proposed boundary of what has been called the pan-Highland authority. The proposed administrative centre, Inverness, is another 50 miles' drive. From there, it would take one as long to drive to many parts of the proposed authority as it had already taken to drive from Edinburgh. That is no way to administer that huge area. I cannot conceive why the Government insist on doing this.
With headquarters in Inverness, many of the few councillors for the vast area—who will grossly under-represent the people in the area—will have to spend two-and-a-half to three hours driving to council meetings. That would be the equivalent of councillors from Inverness driving to Dundee for their meetings. I cannot believe that that is right. How can the convenor or committee chairman, with constant business at headquarters, live in Caithness or Sutherland, or even Fort William or Skye?
We are told that delegation is the answer. But who will sit on these delegated committees? There are very few councillors to cover the area. Already there has been seen to be too few councillors available under the so-called delegation that Highland Region has sought to propagate. People have had to be drafted on to some of the committees. It would presumably mean setting up little quangos. But who would sit on those quangos? To whom would they be responsible?—certainly not the electorate.
If the Highland Region councillors really believe in decentralisation, why have they recently taken away the collection of community charges and rates from the district councils? That has caused chaos with those collections. I shall not trouble the Committee with the details tonight, but to try to make decentralisation work they have bribed away district council staff and it would be most interesting to know whether or not there has been any genuine saving. I very much doubt that there has. We really must get down to local government.
The proposal in the amendment is not only sensible but simple. The old counties, and now the districts of Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross and Cromarty, would largely form the northern half. The southern half would
752
be mainly the old Inverness county with Nairn added —in fact, the current districts of Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. Therefore, we already have the boundaries of not only the old county councils but the recent district councils largely forming the proposed two new authorities. That would leave a northern authority with a population of almost 100,000 and a southern authority with a population of 103,000. According to the provisions for the remainder of Scotland, that seems about right. There would be no grounds for complaint through changes of loyalties, boundaries or traditions.
The regional council's assertion that it would make no difference to distances as Inverness and Dingwall are only a few miles apart is a deliberate distortion. The northern counties feel that their headquarters could well be based in Dornoch where there are already the old Sutherland County Council chambers. Anyway, Stirling, Falkirk and Alloa—the three proposed new headquarters for the central belt regional councils—are all closer together than Dingwall and Inverness.
It is asserted that one unitary authority would have more chances of getting European "goodies" than two authorities. That is again wrong. Currently there is a partnership of 13 public authorities fighting for the Objective 1 status from Europe to gain moneys to help develop regions which require them. Those authorities cover Argyll, Western Isles, Orkney, Zetland, parts of Moray and the current Highland Region. On reorganisation, as at present proposed, the 13 authorities will be reduced to six or, as we hope, seven authorities. The only difference between a pan-Highland authority and two authorities would be that the one authority would be a massive body with four small authorities. The total amount of Euro-money would not be changed.
If the Highlands would be better under one authority, why have Argyll and the Isles been left out? They are as much part of the Highlands as anywhere in the north. Those areas have, quite rightly, been set up on their own. They form a reasonably sized authority, with a population and area of the right size. Yet it is proposed that the north should have only one authority to cover an area twice the size of Argyll and the Isles. Why were the Borders and East Lothian divided? I am told much work went into trying to persuade the Government to divide them, but they are now quite happy as two sensibly sized councils: the Borders with a population of 103,000 and East Lothian with 85,000. The pan-Highlands are scheduled for 203,000, covering a vastly greater land mass.
The Government's proposals are incomprehensible, so I strongly urge them to think again. There are other anomalies or disagreements with the existing proposals for Scotland, but none so nonsensical and objectionable as those proposed for the Highlands.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It is not often that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and agree with much of what he has said, having been a political adversary many years ago in the Inverness constituency.
The amendment on the Highlands is probably one of the most important in the Bill. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said in opening the debate

753
on the Highlands—that we are looking here at what I consider to be the great divide. There is either a great divide by splitting the Highlands into two or there is no divide at all and, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said, we are left with an area the size of Wales. It does not matter what we compare it with. It is a massive area for any administration to cope with on its own.
We are not looking at population as the test but at efficiency and what will bring the best service to the people of the Highlands. Until now that vast area has probably been ignored by successive governments and it is only just being brought into the reality of life in the Scottish community.
One of the arguments presented is: "Well, if you're going to have a divide, you will have one lot in Inverness and another in Dingwall, separated by not many miles". Or perhaps it may be in Dornoch and we will have to build a new city hall in Dornoch. I remind the Committee that if we come down to the centre of Scotland, Glasgow is separated from Falkirk by 22 miles, give or take a couple of miles; Falkirk is separated from Edinburgh by 22 miles; Edinburgh is separated from Glasgow by 44 miles. No one says: "Let's have one authority for Edinburgh, Glasgow and Falkirk". We have this written into the Bill. It is there for everyone to see, and the Government say: "This is what we want". It is based to some extent on population, not on service. What the people of the Highlands are looking for is service on a real community basis.
Although I am speaking from the Dispatch Box in this Committee, I am waiting to hear what the Government have to say about this before I make up my mind and the collective mind of the party on this side of the Committee. What is the Government's justification in asking for an area of that size to cope for itself throughout the year? Let us take a simple example of a council meeting in mid-December. The snow gates are closed. What happens? Do you cancel the meeting and send a chap back to where he came from? Does nothing happen? We have probably the worst weather conditions in the winter, short of Kent—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I ask the noble Lord to explain his argument a little. If he posits an argument on a division into two areas, could we at least understand, if the Government's proposal is not to be advanced, where he envisages councillors from all over the Highlands might go?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With respect, I am not positing any argument, and I made that clear. I want to know where the Government stand. It is not for this side of the Committee to justify the rearrangement of local government and it must be clear to the Minister that we were against it in the first place. It is for the Government to justify it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Is the noble Lord speaking as a Front Bench spokesman?
10.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Yes. We are in favour of a Scottish Parliament with a single-tier authority. That has always been Labour Party policy. If it is different from that, then no doubt someone behind me will tell me that I am wrong. We are presenting this argument within the context of amendments which we have argued outwith the context of a Scottish Parliament. We have made our position clear. The first amendment before the Committee today was to introduce a limited Scottish Assembly to deal with the question of local government. But, as I said when I spoke earlier, that was only a minute amendment. What we are looking for is a Scottish Parliament.
I am asking the Government: can you give the Committee a guarantee that there will be effective government in an area the size of Wales from a single-tier authority, or can you not? I am asking: is it not better to divide into two, as the amendment suggests, so that one gets a workable arrangement between two areas? We have already dealt with the geographical aspect.
There is one other argument that I have canvassed with people who are involved. I have said to them: if that happens and you divide the Highlands and Islands into two areas as envisaged by this amendment, you will theoretically have two directors of education, two directors of social work, two of this and two of that. The answer is that the two areas will have to work that matter out between them. I am anxious to hear from the Government that if their present proposals go ahead in the face of the amendment now presented to them they will guarantee to the Highland community the services which people presently enjoy and that they will provide a better service than they have at the moment.
I do not take the argument any further. I speak only in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lords and the noble Baroness whose names are attached to it. I await with interest what the Minister has to say in response to the forceful arguments presented against the Government's stance in relation to the Highlands.
Lord Gray of Contin: I wonder if we might think a little about the future instead of the past. There have been three very interesting speeches from those proposing the amendment. But I cannot say that much was said in those speeches with which I agree. If ever there was an example of people trying to turn the clock back, we have it here.
Like other Members of the Committee, I shall declare my credentials. I was bom in the Highlands; I ran businesses in the Highlands; I served in local government in the Highlands; I represented a Highlands seat in Parliament; and I still live in the Highlands. The area is very dear to my heart.
I agree that there is nothing political involved here. Even if there were it would not really matter because friendships in the Highlands are much more important than political allegiances. I have been briefed by people of all parties. I am happy to represent their view this evening. But I have to say that I have seldom listened to so much confused thinking as we have heard in the debate.

755
I received a letter from the chairman of the Skye and Lochalsh District Council, which is arguably the most remote district council in the Highland Region. The letter states:
"Skye and Lochalsh District Council supports the boundary proposals for the area as contained in the Bill and strongly opposes any plans to divide the Highlands into two".
Lord Burton: Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? Has he not seen the results of the census, and has he not listened to the speeches tonight? Has he not heard that Skye and Lochalsh and Nairn had as many supporters for two councils as any of the rest of the Highlands? Because one person in a constituency thinks he knows better than most of his constituents is not a reason for an argument in this Chamber.
Lord Gray of Contin: I listened very patiently to the noble Lord as he delivered his speech. I should be obliged if he would do me the same courtesy.
The Skye and Lochalsh District Council is the only council which is wholly unanimous in its view as to the future shape of local government. I shall finish what I intended to say before the noble Lord interrupted me. The chairman of that council went on to say:
"We believe that, whatever model might be appropriate for other parts of Scotland, a strong single Council for the existing Highland Region, with effective decentralisation to local areas, will provide the best solution for this area".
That is the view of someone who is vastly experienced and has the counsel of councillors who are also very experienced. It is outrageous for the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to try to tell those people how they should think simply because they do not agree with his view.
I oppose the amendment for a number of reasons. I believe that it is impractical, lacks credibility and is seriously flawed. It is likely to deprive those whom it seeks to advantage and it will duplicate rather than rationalise. It is the product of a process of elimination and arrives at the solution that is least wanted.
The original proposal of the district councils was for eight all-purpose authorities. That was soon argued out of court even by themselves. The number then changed to three or four. Finally it came down to two. The proposal seeks to dismantle the regional structure which presently exists and which has provided a viable and generally accepted form of local government that is responsible for 85 per cent. of all local government current net revenue expenditure. It will dilute the strong Highland voice and replace it with two less influential replacements.
Many comparisons have been made tonight. Comparisons have been made between the area of the Highland Region and Wales. There have been comparisons made of the distances between Glasgow and Edinburgh and Dingwall and Inverness. But it has not been pointed out to us that the population of the proposed Highland Region is 204,000, whereas the population of Wales is 2.9 million. We must compare like with like if we are to use comparisons.
So far as concerns the suggestion in the amendment for a Northern Region and a Southern Region and where the headquarters might be, Tain and Dornoch have been mentioned. However charming and delightful those two towns might be, we must appreciate that the movement
756
of people from there and from north of those points is invariably a southern movement. So the only realistic solution to a headquarters for the Northern Region or northern area as suggested in this amendment is Dingwall.
Dingwall is the only place which has ready-made facilities that could cope with the requirements of an all-purpose authority. And in my view, even Dingwall would require a certain amount of addition to its present facilities. It is cuckoo-land to suggest Domoch or anywhere else in the north without realising that it would involve massive capital expenditure. Dingwall is only 12 minutes from Inverness.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I am in a state of confusion. It is probably my own fault. He made a proposition that we should compare like with like. Can he explain which like he is comparing with like so that we can understand what he is talking about?
Lord Gray of Contin: Certainly. The places I heard mentioned as a possible headquarters in the northern half of the split were Dornoch, Tain and Dingwall. I am trying to highlight the difficulties which would arise in capital expenditure if the headquarters went to either of the first two as opposed to Dingwall, which has relatively new county buildings, council chamber and civil offices. But even those would probably need to be extended to cope with the requirements of an all-purpose authority.
It is impractical because it must surely be wrong to create two authorities side by side where one will be much more influential than the other. There is no doubt in my mind that, because of the growth of Inverness, Inverness will dominate the southern of the two. The northern of the two would unquestionably be dominated by the Black Isle and Easter Ross. Would it not be better, therefore, to do as the Bill suggests and have the one authority where the domination of the large Inverness area would be diluted?
I cannot see the argument for the two-authority way forward. At present, under the one-authority proposal, the relatively high tax base of Inverness compared with other parts of the Highland Region provides the opportunity to transfer resources to the more peripheral areas. The northern of the two councils would be excluded and therefore would not have that benefit. The two-council option would still need substantial decentralisation, but resources to achieve that would be much scarcer. Furthermore, Inverness, as the capital of the Highlands and regional centre, provides a range of facilities which are used by people from all over the North.
I understand that there has been discussion as to whether or not the whole concept of the two authorities would be acceptable to people locally. A number of surveys were conducted. Frankly, I do not attach a great deal of importance to the results of surveys, any more than I do to polls, for the simple reason that by carefully selecting the question asked, one can usually obtain the answer one requires.
Thurso is 111 miles from Inverness. I agree that it is a long drive. But if the regional centre of the northern

757
authority was to be in Dingwall, those travelling from Thurso, from Wick, from Kinlochbervie or from Durness would save themselves very little in travelling time, considering that Inverness and Dingwall are only 12 minutes apart. The existing Highland Region allows a reasonable representational balance between different areas. With two councils, Inverness will be the dominant factor in the southern part and Easter Ross in the northern part, and therefore decentralisation will be more important than ever.
The Highland Regional Council is fully aware of it. That is why it has produced a consultation document that is presently being considered by a great many bodies, including the two district councils who agree with Highland Region: Skye and Lochalsh District Council and Nairn District Council. But there are a great many other bodies apart from local government who are considering these documents at the same time.
I believe that the general public are much more concerned about the quality of the services that they get from local government than where the actual decisions are taken. I do not think that the man in the street really cares all that much where the decisions are taken provided the services are good.
More than 20 years ago when I represented Ross and Cromarty in another place I held a surgery in a small village on the west coast called Kinlochewe. A lady came to my surgery with an armful of papers, maps and sketches. She explained to me that she had a great planning problem. I should say that that took place before the last reorganisation. We discussed the problem. I realised that there was very little that I could do as a Member of Parliament. I asked why she did not take the matter to the planning office in Dingwall because I was sure that they would be able to help her. The lady replied, "Mr. Gray, what do you think they know about Kinlochewe in Dingwall?" I feel that that is fairly typical of the attitude of the public. The public are interested in local government when they have a problem. They want to know who their councillor is and how they can contact him. Whether or not he takes their complaint or grievance at a local surgery or on a phone-in telephone line 100 miles away makes very little difference, provided he is able to do something about it.
The hour is late. Like others, I could go on for a long time arguing the case for one major council for the Highlands. I can remember when there were many authorities in the Highlands and a great deal of time was spent by one trying to outwit the other. It was only when the Highland Regional Council was created after the last reorganisation that the Highlands was able to speak with one voice. I spent three years in the Scottish Office and knew that that Highland voice was listened to. I suggest to my noble friend that he certainly should not accept the amendment.
The Earl of Minto: I do not wish to comment on the specific local issues concerning the Highlands. Other noble Lords who are much better qualified have already done so. Others may wish to continue it later. However, I make no bones about the fact that I am concerned
758
about the suggestion to split the Highlands in two. As a convenor of a rural region in Scotland, I am accustomed to hearing comments about distance. It is a normal word to use. Sometimes I am asked by people, principally outwith local government, how somebody in, say, Alnmouth can reasonably make judgments on issues concerning Newcastleton or Peebles many miles away. Within the Borders there used to be people—and perhaps there are still a few—who said that nobody in Hawick could know what was going on in Galashiels because it was 18 miles away. That was a long time ago, and they and we have learned. What long experience tells me is that in rural areas distance is an inevitable feature of life. Strangely, it is one of the things that binds us together, just as do our common interests in our needs, our traditions, our sport, our tourism, our farming, our forestry and our industrial base. That is the situation in the Borders. I imagine that in the Highlands it is such matters as crofting, fishing, fish farming, Gaelic, forestry and tourism which contribute to giving the Highlands its common heritage and identity, north and south. Above all, experience teaches one that what people want to share in rural areas is a high quality of service provision, as other noble Lords have mentioned.
I was surprised when the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to the services provided by the district as opposed to the services provided by the region and to the importance attached to the district services rather than the regional services. I should have thought that while it is terribly important to have environmental health and housing, it is surely more important to have roads that one can pass along —and therefore a roads and transportation system—a winter maintenance system, social services, education and planning and development. Those services are rather more prominent than some of the district services that are provided.
People want high quality education, social work and road services wherever they are. Those and others are the very services which the rural regions of the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, and Highland have done so much to improve over the past 20 years. They have been able to do that only because of their numerical and therefore their financial base. It is that above all else which has made them viable. Therefore I am concerned by any suggestion which threatens the viability of rural councils to deliver the high quality services which the people rightly demand.
It is in rural areas that the challenges of delivering modern services are at their most extreme. Distances and sparsity of population require innovation; they require sufficient strength to develop and deliver those services. If Highland were to be split in two it would be necessary to re-create it the following day in order to deliver modern services. That would require the establishment of joint arrangements of various kinds. That in itself clearly indicates that the two new councils would not be viable. It would undermine local accountability and pride and it would lead to expensive local administration and not to local democracy.
In other local authorities in Scotland such a split would lead to the small having to purchase services from the larger neighbours. Such an option would not even exist in Highland since each authority would be

759
hopelessly remote from any large neighbour. Indeed, at present, I know that Highland offers many services in computing and specialist social work to the island councils of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. So any threat to the viability of Highland has the potential to affect Scotland's island dwellers.
I believe that the Government are right to retain the boundaries of Highland as the appropriate unit of government for this rural and remote area. The rural regions have brought efficiency and enormous benefits by way of improved and more professional and specialist services to Scotland's rural populations. They have done so at reasonable cost. From my experience it is right that the Government seek to maintain these units for the future. I believe that we should do nothing to impair the prospects of that most sparsely populated part of Scotland, which is greatly loved by all of us, by seeking to artificially divide the Highlands.
Lord Burton: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say how he thinks that Argyl and the Isles will be viable if two councils were not viable in the Highlands?
The Earl of Minto: I was speaking specifically of the Highlands. You only heard me speaking on Argyl today. I believe that the viability of the Highlands rests in a single council. I do not wish to be diverted on that.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I must declare an interest as a director of a company which may have advised some of the local authorities, but I hasten to add that the views which I am about to express are very definitely my own. I feel very strongly about the welfare of the Highlands. I take it amiss when I hear from the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, that successive governments have ignored the Highlands—I believe that those were his words—and I certainly do not believe that to be true.
Having had some experience of the Highlands as a mere Borderer, I believe that I can intrude on this particular debate. As Minister responsible for the Highlands for three-and-a-half years I came to know the area. I came to know its strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps I may put a slightly different slant on this debate than has happened until now. I believe that the Highlands is a very special area not only as far as Scotland is concerned but as regards the United Kingdom. After all, successive governments have no doubt tried to get the very best deal from the European Community for the Highlands and only recently has Objective 1 been achieved.
I believe that that has partly been achieved by the Labour Government's introduction of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the strength of that unit in promoting the Highlands. But also I believe it has been partly achieved by the strength of the Highland Regional Council, warts and all, because no local authority or government can be perfect. It is a huge area to deal with.
My experience was quite clearly that the most fragile part of the whole of Scotland was the north-west seaboard down the west coast to Lochaber. It needs special consideration. That is why I was very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said
760
about the Skye & Lochalsh District Council. I too received the briefing from that council and the letter from its chairman. I was particularly interested in one sentence in the briefing which says:
'The single Highland Council will provide an opportunity to retain decentralised decision making at a truly local level, while giving the economies of scale and the resources and power of a large organisation".
Before this Bill leaves this House my noble friend the Minister might like to tell us how we can put flesh on the bones of that particular statement. It is absolutely crucial that real power is decentralised from Inverness. It must not be a lot of councillors in one single authority paying lip service to devolving power. It has to be there, and seen to be there, otherwise this particular reorganisation will not work.
I come back to the point that I made at the beginning. When there are a lot of peat-based roads, with difficult bridges to be constructed and the whole area and infrastructure to be changed, with tremendous investment, we need to have a concerted approach to get all the assistance that we can for this fragile area, particularly for the west coast of this vast land mass. I believe that one council, for all its faults, is the answer. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said earlier, this is probably the most important part of the map to be settled.
There are points on both sides of the argument. Although I have come down in favour of one side and I respect very much the views of those who present contrary arguments, at the end of the day this is a very special area which may need a special solution. I believe that the Government have got it right.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Elphinstone: Having heard the arguments both inside and outside the Committee, I should like to support the amendment. Sheer geographical size is not the only difficulty. There is a very considerable dichotomy of general social characteristics and economic needs between the North and South Highland areas as they are proposed. I believe that those differing needs would be best served by two separate authorities.
To take up one matter raised by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, there seems to have been some scaremongering about the prospect of a large and possibly rival administrative headquarters based in Dingwall which is, as has been said, only 12 minutes from Inverness. As I understand it, those who hope to replace the present councillors in the northern area have a scheme to spread the higher paid jobs throughout the area and to avoid the need for one large administrative headquarters which would effectively rival that of Inverness.
Most of the other cogent points have been covered, so I simply urge my noble and learned friend to reconsider the matter on behalf of the Government.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I had not intended to intervene in the debate on this amendment, but while I have been listening something has occurred to me. We have heard a lot about the distances which councillors will have to travel to attend council meetings if the Highland Region remains as it is. We are always hearing

761
that in the future people will be able to work at home and participate in meetings and conferences by television and video links. Might not that very soon apply to local government?
Lord Hughes: I had intended to say that I was in favour of the two Highland areas structure that was put forward. I shall probably remain of that opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, does not need to worry unduly about the late hour at which this is being discussed. He can rest assured that next time round there will be an even longer discussion, whatever the hour. Incidentally, this is probably the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and I have been on the same side. One or other of us must be moderating our views. I do not suggest which one it is.
I do not want to make the arguments that I should otherwise have made in favour of the two councils because this matter will come up again. However, I should like to reflect on two speeches that were made the other way. I refer to the speeches made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden. Both put forward views that I should like to read tomorrow in Hansard and to reflect on in the intervening months. If I remain of the opinion that there should be two councils, it will be in spite of what they said, not because of it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I have listened with immense interest to what has been said, particularly to the CVs which have been laid before the Committee, so I had better start by saying that I, too, have a connection with the Highlands in that I fought the constituency of Caithness and Sutherland for nearly four years before winning it with help from my noble friend and, happily, many others. I was a little political in those days and after the 1964 election I somewhat rudely exulted that there were no Tories left between Muckle Flugga and Ballachulish. Some of them crept back but have since been removed.
Of course, to a degree the issue is political but the arguments have somewhat annoyed me. The question of distance has been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is an experienced man and somewhat prejudiced in favour of the area around Inverness. He said that one can only have Dingwall and Inverness and that they are close together. The argument is not about where the councillors have to go; the argument is about where the constituents can find their councillor. That is the argument that we should pursue.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, also said that we must compare like with like. I was going to interrupt him but after his treatment of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I was frightened. Never mind the population the size of Wales, which happens to be true, there is no other area of Great Britain like the Highlands. It is unique. The Borders are not the same at all. The Borders are much more favourably situated and there is not the atmosphere of despair that there has been in many parts of the Highlands. The area is completely unique and it has immense problems.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I had many experiences with far away places. During one election I
762
travelled to Cape Wrath to canvass the lighthouse keepers. I found that not a single one of them was a voter. That is a funny story—or it is meant to be funny —and it is typical of the enormous variety. In one constituency there were the Free Presbyterians in the west. In Inverness-shire there were the pre-Reformation Catholic communities. There is the Norse-based or influenced mixture in Caithness, and then there are Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty.
The fact is that throughout the Highlands the people harbour a suspicion about what goes on. One of the main problems that the Highland Board has had to overcome has been the fact that if one starts something the local people wait for it to fail. If it succeeds they are surprised. That is true in particular in the real Highland areas if not nearly so true in Caithness.
All that variety is enormously difficult to fit together. I believe that the large area makes it impossible. The argument is similar to that in Fife, only infinitely more so. There is an enormous area of very different types of people. In my view, one needs more councillors. I do not believe that the numbers on a single regional council would cover the area and be able to assess the feeling in all the disparate areas with their disparate people. That is why we need two unitary authorities.
I admire the competence of the regional authorities. My noble friend Lord Thurso gave examples of the competence of a small authority where one could have a genuine democracy. I could say a great deal more but the hour is late. I might illustrate the different views by saying that we have different views in the Liberal Democrat party. Sir Russell Johnston is of the regional authority. It is not often I hear the noble Lord, Lord Gray, saying that he agrees with Sir Russell but this is a natural regional tendency. Charles Kennedy and all the other Members from the North are in favour of the two authorities.
When one thinks of how well the Highland authorities have worked, I do not think that one can escape the conclusion that a genuine democracy—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who did a lot of good work as Minister responsible for food—allied to the efforts of the Government will result in the kind of improvement which these derelict areas need.
I am absolutely convinced that two unitary authorities are necessary. I hope and pray that the Government will consider this point and will not go by the principle that a large authority must be more efficient. We all know that that is not true.
Lord Macpherson of Drumochter: The last time that I addressed this Chamber was 25 years ago. I had not really intended to speak this evening. But the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has stung me into rising to support my noble friend Lord Burton. I thought that he was very rude to him and I do not like that.
I must declare my hand. I am fully in favour of two authorities. Noble Lords may not know, but the Lord Provost of Inverness has listened to the debates throughout the afternoon. Noble Lords should ask him what he thinks about it. Like all the other councillors in

763
the north, he is fully in favour of two authorities. I am sorry to delay the debate but I have been stung into standing up after all these years.
Lord Hughes: I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord but the head of the Inverness council is not a Lord Provost.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Whether or not I am stung into rising, I think it is time to respond on behalf of the Government. From the outset of the reform exercise the new structure for the Highlands has, as this debate has indicated, been a sharp focus for discussion. Prior to this debate we have had the benefit of a wide range of information in the form of consultation responses, surveys and opinion polls. I have no doubt that it has been useful to have the debate further informed by the contributions which we have had this evening.
We acknowledge that there are sharp divergences of view, but our analysis of the information that we have received has led us firmly to the conclusion that there should be a single Highland authority. The proposal before us is that there should be two Highland authorities—essentially a north/south divide.
I believe that the case is flawed in a number of ways. For example, as far as I can see, there is no north or south Highland identity. I am concerned that that division would be a purely artificial creation. All the evidence points rather to a strong sense of Highland identity.
It is certainly a very large area; no one would deny that. But Members of the Committee who have attended the debate throughout this long afternoon and evening will appreciate that we have not sought to adopt for Scotland any fixed or rigid template. We have sought to respond to the needs of the various areas according to a number of considerations; for example, viability and sense of local community. What came through in the recent debate on Fife is that we are exceedingly anxious to avoid the creation of what we would perceive to be artificial identities.
Underneath that broad Highland umbrella we have a wide range of other loyalties and identities. They manifest themselves very clearly at district or county level in some areas. Loyalties are also evident at town or even village level. That is only to be expected in an area which comprises a large number of small communities over a very large area.
Against that background, it is perhaps not surprising that the responses to our public consultation on the new structure favoured either a large number of very small authorities—which, I take it from the contributions that have been advanced this evening, is widely accepted as being neither feasible nor practical—or a single Highland authority. Support for a two-way split was not in evidence. Caithness District Council even comment-ed at the time of our consultation that a North Highland authority was no better than an all-Highland authority. The council also pointed to an absence of community of interest between Caithness and Ross and Cromarty.
My noble friend Lord Burton referred to a recent set of opinion polls and surveys which appeared to indicate support for the two-way split. Like my noble friend
764
Lord Gray, I take the view that those figures should be regarded with considerable caution. I say that because a comparable survey was carried out earlier by Ross and Cromarty. It took place during the last week in December and the first week in January of last year and involved 1,000 people. When people were asked whether they identified strongly with their district or with the Highlands, the results in favour of Ross and Cromarty were 76 per cent. and in favour of the Highlands the figure was 82 per cent.
When people were asked, "Which option do you think is best for this area—a single council covering the whole of the Highland region?" only 14 per cent. appeared to approve. They were then asked whether they would prefer, "Two councils in the Highland region, with Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland and Caithness forming one of those councils" and approval for such a solution rose massively to 15 per cent. On the other hand, if asked the question, "Would you like four councils in Highland Region with Ross and Cromarty forming one single-tier council on its own?", the view was 67 per cent.
The further question was put as to what would be best for their area (Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland) if it were to be between Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland or the Highland Region—that is, the Northern proposal at present—and there was less than 6 per cent. support for that option
There is a wide range of identity with smaller communities. That fact evidences itself once one starts asking the question in a more detailed way. I did not think that my noble friend Lord Gray was in any sense intending to be offensive to my noble friend Lord Burton. I should have thought that it is clear that the way in which we have arrived at a two-council solution is indeed by a process of elimination. Even today, there is no consensus among the eight district councils. Nairn and Skye and Lochalsh are both firmly behind a single Highland authority.
I commend the constructive discussions that are already under way between the regional council and Skye and Lochalsh district council with a view to considering what forms of decentralisation might be appropriate given the unique characteristics of the area. I would have hoped that the immediate and constructive approach being taken by those two local authorities would meet with the approval not only of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden, but I believe that my noble friend Lady Saltoun will also appreciate the value of such an approach, given the remoteness of a number of the communities. Of course, it will ultimately be for the new council itself to determine such matters. Sensible and constructive discussion now can only help through the process of change.
It is important for us to look to Skye and Lochalsh. I have advanced the argument that there appears to me to be a contrivance and an artificiality in the nature of the north-south split. It is worth remarking that in the case for two councils set out in the original document, Skye and Lochalsh was originally to form part of the North Highland proposal. Now, in the face of the fact that it liked neither, it has been sneaked into the South Highland area. The short answer is that it feels

765
comfortable with neither a North nor a South Highland identity but it certainly feels comfortable with a Highland identity.
One of the issues—and in this context it is not a purely technical issue—is that of the headquarters for the new council. There is no doubt that a single Highland council will be able to utilise the existing Highland Region headquarters in Inverness. If, however, there is a two-way split there is no obvious location for the main offices of a North Highland Council. That is why I asked the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to indicate to me, if he supported such a split, where he thought the headquarters might be. If the headquarters were located in Dingwall, as I would envisage would be most likely, if there is snow on the road from Wick those coming from the north will find it quite as difficult to get to Dingwall as they would to get to Inverness. As a number of Members of the Committee have observed, there is only a distance of 12 miles between the two, and little would be gained in terms of reducing any sense of remoteness which it is claimed an Inverness headquarters would cultivate among those in the more far-flung areas of the Highlands. It is worth observing that something like 85 per cent. of the services delivered in the Highlands at present are delivered by Highland Region.
To counter that argument, I understand that a variation has been introduced into the proposal. That is that a new headquarters might instead be based at Dornoch. I can think of a large number of reasons, including a golf course, why anybody would want to locate headquarters for a local authority there, but I am far from persuaded that that would help to resolve the remoteness argument. Indeed, if one looks at the roads of the Highlands, it would be more difficult for those councillors and members of the council from, say, Wester Ross, to travel to Dornoch than it presently is for them to travel to Inverness.
It would also be more than likely that new headquarters buildings would be necessary in Dornoch. I take the point that there is indeed a council chamber there, but more than a council chamber is now required to support a local authority. All of those arguments would apply equally to other suggested locations for a North Highland council headquarters, such as Wick or Golspie.
It is also clear that there is no natural boundary between Inverness and Ross and Cromarty, where it is proposed that the dividing line should be drawn. The Kessock Bridge has linked those areas irrevocably, and the link north has been further cemented by the bridges over the Cromarty and Dornoch Firths. If the Kessock Bridge were to be lost or removed I could understand more clearly the argument for the two-council proposal, but given its presence it seems to me that the links are so good that the argument is weakened.
In addition—and I believe this to be an extremely important argument for the well-being of the Highlands and I hope that my noble friend Lord Sanderson, given his previous experience as Minister for the Highlands, and my noble friend Lord Gray will agree with me—the Inner Moray Firth area now operates as a single
766
economic unit and is of crucial importance to the Highlands as a whole. There is strong opposition to any split through that area which provides the Highlands with much of its economic strength.
I understand the anxiety that has also been expressed that any reduction in the number of councillors in a single Highland authority would result in, as the noble Lord Mackie said earlier, a democratic deficit which would lead to a reduction in the quality of representation.
I do not believe that those arguments stand up to scrutiny. The burden on individual councillors will turn on a range of issues, such as the number of area committees, the extent of delegation they choose to exercise and the frequency of meetings. These are, of course, issues which would need to be addressed in the Highland area, regardless of whether there were one or two councils serving the Highlands.
Our firm view therefore is that all the key evidence points to a single Highland authority representing the best way forward for the area. It will be able to maximise economies of scale in its operations and will have the economic strength to target resources to meet the requirements of all sectors of the community regardless of their location.
Effective decentralisation will ensure that service delivery is organised and decisions taken at the lowest practical level. People throughout the Highlands will be able to reap the many benefits of one council and at the same time be served by an authority which has a known identity and which is responsive to their needs.
It has been indicated to me that we may return to the issue at a later stage. However, I trust that by spelling out in some detail what we consider to be the important considerations making up that argument it will be properly considered before we return to the issue, if we do, at a later stage. I hope on that basis the amendment will be withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for giving an exposition of what he had in mind in suggesting that we have the one council. However, perhaps I may reply to other noble Lords.
First, I was astounded by the dismissive and patronising description by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, of the Highlands north of Inverness. Only five days ago, I was in Castletown presenting a Queen's Award for export achievement to a factory which now produces thousands of freezers. It exports about 20,000 freezers per year to Iceland, Japan, Australia and all over the world. It has a contract for Coca-Cola freezers. That is what can be and is being achieved by local enterprises in the North. The description of a few fish farmers and crofters running a tourist industry is not the description I like to hear about the Highlands north of Inverness.
North of Inverness, one first passes the oil rigs being serviced in the deep water harbour at Invergordon. One then comes up through Sutherland, passing distilleries, and tweedmills which export all over the world. In Caithness one finds Caithness Glass, Stephens (Plastics) Ltd., and the remains of one of the world's most advanced research establishments at Dounreay, still

767
with about 1,000 people working for it. There is a large, thriving industrial base in the North Highland area. It should not be dismissed lightly.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: It should perhaps be noted that but for the strong support of the Highland Regional Council and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, there would not be a tweedmill in Brora now.
Viscount Thurso: A tweedmill which existed previously was saved. There is another tweedmill further along the road. To say simply that it was a good business rescued by the Highlands and Islands Development Board is not to answer the question.
Caithness Glass was started before the Highlands board existed. Norfrost was started without any help from the Highlands board. It was refused help in the first instance until it began to make some money. So it can be done.
The Earl of Minto: I had no intention of being rude about North Highlands. That was a most extraordinary remark to make. I was drawing a parallel between the region in which I live and that in which the noble Viscount lives. I drew the parallel on the basis that distance applied to both of us, although distance is relative.
Viscount Thurso: I thank the noble Earl for his modification of what I took to be what he said. I shall read Hansard with care, but I felt that the remark was slightly dismissive and I had to answer it.
We have been asked yet again to look at the beautiful blandishments of economies of scale. We were promised economies of scale in the last local government reorganisation. Let us take one example: education. In Wick, where Caithness education authority had its headquarters, the number of staff employed in Rhind House, looking after the schools and the education of Caithness was not reduced by the creation of the Highland Region. But six further people were employed in Inverness to supervise them. We fear that if that happens again we shall be offered the same kind of economies of scale, and they are illusory.
We have been told to be wary of boards, yet even the new single-tier pan-Highland authority is not big enough to cover the area already covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That board stretches to Shetland and the outer isles and other areas around that region. It will still operate over a wider scale and to threaten us with the thought that we might not get our Objective 1 status because we did not have a single-tier authority is nonsense. Yet that has been suggested.
We have been told to posit an argument about how regionalisation could take place in a two-Highland authority. Much has been made of the proximity of Dingwall to Inverness, but the Association of Highland District Councils has worked out quite a good and workable scheme which would use, shall we say, Dornoch as the main headquarters where there is not only a council chamber but other buildings which are surplus to requirements. They could be used for offices and one
768
would use other existing council buildings as well, such as those in Dingwall and Wick for part of the services which have to be delivered. One might have the headquarters for roads in Wick, or some other head-quarters in Dingwall. There is a scheme to do that, so the council would not be just in one place with one headquarters to which people would have to go to obtain the answer to everything. There would be different council officials and different councillors in different parts of the region.
We must get down to the quality of the services, the quality of the councillors and the quality of the democracy to be enjoyed by the voters and people who will be served by the councils. There is no doubt that we will get a better choice of councillors if we can bring the council nearer to the people than if you take it a very long way. Nowadays there is difficulty in finding enough good people to stand for the regional council because of the enormous burdens placed upon them in having to travel to and from meetings, having to be away from home for many nights, and so on. If we could bring things only a little closer it would make an enormous difference. In any journey, as I well know from travelling up and down to this House, it is not only the getting there but the getting back that takes time out of one's life. An enormous difference could be made by that.
A difference could also be made by moving council meetings around the area. That would be part of the solution that the Association of Highland District Councils would posit. If one could do that, one would get a great improvement in the number and quality of people who were willing to come forward and offer themselves for election. The quality of services resulting therefrom would improve. Certainly, the quality of democracy would improve. We have to make sure that we overcome the problems of the lady in Kinlochewe who said, "What do they know in Dingwall about my affairs?". We could overcome that difficulty if we moved the councillors round and got them to know about the region of the single-tier council which they would then serve.
The hour is late and we have talked long on this subject. I agree that, if not the most important, it. is probably among the most important of the matters that we have been able to discuss today. We have given it good value in our consideration in terms of time. But I fear that, as has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, there are a number of matters that need to be discussed, probably with the Scottish Office and certainly among ourselves, between now and the next time we come to consider the Bill in this Chamber. In order to allow that to happen, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and possibly to return to it at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes before midnight.

  AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK: PROJECT QUALITY REPORT
  AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK: PROJECT QUALITY REPORT
  KNOW HOW FUND
  KNOW HOW FUND
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 20TH TO 23RD JUNE
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 20TH TO 23RD JUNE
  COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY: REFORM
  COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY: REFORM
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS ADVISORY GROUP
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS ADVISORY GROUP
  LARKHILL: PUBLIC ACCESS TO MoD LAND
  LARKHILL: PUBLIC ACCESS TO MoD LAND
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AFFECTED BY CLAUSE 58
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AFFECTED BY CLAUSE 58
  HOUSE OF LORDS APPELLATE COMMITTEE JUDGMENTS: COST OF TRANSCRIPTS
  HOUSE OF LORDS APPELLATE COMMITTEE JUDGMENTS: COST OF TRANSCRIPTS